When Taxation Directly Costs People Jobs

The law of unintended consequences means that the consequences of your actions, always have the adverse affect to that which is desired.

In other words, when Baltimore city attempted to raise revenues by instituting a $.04 per bottle tax on certain beverages that included soda and beer, the citizens said "nuh uh!"  The tax scheme was dropped for a short time but like any good tax legislation, it zombie'd its way through the City Council at half its original proposal, $.02 per bottle tax.  Needless to say, the citizenry and business was ignored, and politicians did what they pleased, budget and sanity be damned.  

Flash forward to this week:  Pepsi is a manufacture in Baltimore as it produces soft drinks and distributes products from its facility in the city.  Well, used to manufacture would be a better term now, since the 70 odd jobs associated with production will go by the wayside.  The tax was obviously necessary to plug the $121 million revenue hole in a $1.2 billion budget, but I'm sure the good people that just lost their jobs as a direct result of this new law will understand.  After all, it's not like PepsiCo made the decision based in part on the passage of this regressive tax.  NOooooooo, big business doesn't make decisions that benefit their shareholders (owners).  

Seventy plus jobs were an insignificant trade off for the tax that is destine for failure.  When the jurisdictions around the city don't have the same tax, it is unlikely that the city's residents will participate 100% in the tax.  As the saying in Argentina goes, "avoiding taxes is a national pastime."  Meaning, city residents who wish not to be complicit in the city's tax schemes can simply walk, ride their bike, take the bus, or drive their car into the counties to purchase their Colt 45s and Mountain Dews.  (I dew too, just for the record).

As always, when it moves, tax it, if it keeps moving, regulate it, and when it up and leaves you, subsidize it!  Guess we'll need to increase that $.02 per bottle tax back to $.04 to subsidize PepsiCo's enticement to bring back the lost jobs in the next city budget cycle, right?

QOTD: Congressmen Aren't a Civil Right

Obviously there has been a lot of talk about the proposed 1000' law and just how stupid an idea that this law would be.

I'd like to propose we turn that around since owning a gun is a civil and fundamental right, where as being a Congressman isn't a fundamental right.  I propose we ban Congressmen from being within 1000 feet of any gun or anyone carrying a gun.

Ahhhh, the wisdom of AKFan.  Always good for a noble idea!

I am certain that some anti would read this and say that this quote is ass backwards in thinking.  In reality, it is brilliant!  Yes, government is a necessary evil and is chartered in our Constitution, but an individual is not Constitutionally guaranteed the right to be a member of congress, SCOTUS, or TOTUS POTUS.  Certainly, those positions are enumerated in the Constitution and certain requirements are imposed to safeguard the honor and integrity of the various institutions, but no rights (natural or enumerated, civil or otherwise) are conferred upon the people who hold those offices.  Rights are enumerated (not conferred) to ALL Americans.  

After all, our elected representatives are suppose to be our government "For, by and of the people."  We in this country do not magically bestow additional rights upon the mortals that govern our country (though they would like to think that they have more rights than those whom they govern).  Thus, the transitive property of rights fails its test in the "equal for all" application.

Then again, this is purely a lesson in theory since equality in government and modern society is completely lost by most politicians.

Is a Modern Day V Emerging?

On Saturday, the disgusting media attack hounds unleashed hell's fury before the bodies were even cold (El Douche extraordinaire Krugman not even 3 hours after the attack).  The blame game flood gates opened up and a relentless torrent of rhetoric and vitriol spewed from noted leftists (named and not named here).  As the saying goes, never let a good crisis go to waste, huh?

However, while the disgusting acts have been covered ad nauseum from a political fall out perspective, little coverage has been given by both pundit and factual media from both sides here in the US.   I've had to resort to the actual reporting that we get across the pound to find out that Loughner may not be able to plead insanity, or that he was urged to seek help numerous times.  Instead, the standard of double standard has reared it's ugly head.  Vitriol spewed from the left before any amount of shock could even be determined.  Those actions in and of themselves are inhuman in nature, showing that batnuts of control will stop at nothing to progress on their way towards completely power.

I linked this article yesterday in the QOTD but did not discuss it.  Hopefully some of you clicked through and read it, but if not, please take the time to do so.  The movie V for Vendetta is quite a righteous movie.  As Jim Quinn of the Burning Platform penned, the movie is appropriate because of the plot line.  A tyrannical government was created at the behest of the populace because a time of fear and uncertainty had surrounded the citizenry of England, and one person promised order, but an order without liberty.  Censure of discourse is a repeating theme throughout the movie.  So too is abuse of power by public officials.  Obviously, what occurs is one heroic, or lunatic depending upon your viewpoint, decides to stand up to the corrupt tyrants and blow up buildings in hopes of inciting a revolution.  Of course, management doesn't appreciate such defiance and brutally attempts to maintain "civil order."

While the debate over "blood liable" continues, what does it mean for us average citizens?  Giordano Bruno of Neithercorp Press says, "nothing changes."  Like myself, and many other average Joe bloggers, Giordano thinks that the liberty movement sees the corruption in the system much like the Character V from the movie.  While the scare tactics of the left may have well worked a decade ago, people are more attuned to their government, the news, and the interaction with their daily lives.  Are we to the point where the leftist hate will disappear or diminish?  Not in the slightest.  A cornered dog will bite back twice as hard, and their organization is always far better than those of us in the grassroots' arena (after all, that is their collectivist, bureaucratic nature). 

While I, and the above authors, do not advocate for violence in anyway, there seems to be a breaking point dynamic developing in the United States.  Many people realize there is something wrong, that they have been lied to, repeatedly, and feel as though something needs to be done.  Many of us rightly believe the political process does work, but unfortunately isolated and singular instances of violence will never, ever be completely stopped, and in fact worse if under a totalitarian system.  Myself and others know that we will never give in, and hence why quite the lot of us have been hitting back (and hard) against the disgusting thuggish actions that commenced Saturday.

So where does this leave us and where are we going?  Opinion polling shows the good guys hold the lead, for now.  While we need to maintain the lead, we can't rest on our laurels.  Our ideas ALWAYS win, when a person looks at them with an open mind and heart.  After all, our founders believed in natural rights and the individual.  They lost friends and family to make those beliefs a reality.  In short, we shall  keep fighting the establishment of big media and perverted politics in an effort to secure as much personal freedom and responsibility as possible.  After all, that is truly the American "Shining Beacon Upon the Hill."