QOTD: Equality of Law

From Mark Styne sitting in for Limbaugh yesterday (and I paraphrase):

With equality of the law, you don't need 2,000 page bills!  Equality of the law can be written in 2 pages!  Carving out favors and exemptions is what creates bad law that is longer than Atlas Shrugged.  [embellished for effect]

Even without my embellishment, the key point is 2,000 pages of words versus 2 pages of words to define a law.  Carving out exemptions, favors, and other classes of people is inequality of law by nature, and helps the state to turn law abiding citizens into un-law abiding citizens.  It's a tool that freedom haters have used for centuries, and the sad fact is, it continues to be affective.

No matter if the issue is health care or firearms, complex bills that take specialized lawyers to comprehend cost the citizens of this country not only in terms of economic output and productivity, but they deprive honest citizens of their literal freedom and the means for opportunity.  Too bad no one has proposed a "clarity in legislation" Constitutional Amendment, but then again, that would be too effective in keeping the Congresscritters in check.

Automatic Weapons Are the Problem!

The week after the Giffords attack, Maryland's 2nd Congressional District Congressman, Dutch Ruppersberger, joined the Norris & Davis Show to discuss the event and, obviously, guns.

You can catch the whole interview right here.

Of course, even though a semi-automatic pistol was the culprit of the crime (emphasis added), the Congressman wasted little effort to perpetuate the myth that it was fully automatic.  Of course, the Congressmen also wasted little effort on saying that automatic weapons should not be in the hands of law abiding citizens (well, paraphrased anyways).

I was shocked to hear that Ruppersberger supported concealed carry!  However, his name is absent from the cosponsor list on the House version of the Thune Amendment.  Shocker, a politician that speaks out of both sides of his mouth.  Nice try Dutch Wonder Boy, but ya ain't foolin' no one!

Debt Free America Act

As tweeted last night, this was making it's rounds around Facebook and other social networks.  H/T to my wife for reading it to me and her cousin (whom had posted it).

So, some quick Google Fu last night returned this bill summary:   

2/23/2010--Introduced.

Debt Free America Act - States as purposes of this Act the raising of sufficient revenue from a fee on transactions to eliminate the national debt within seven years and the phasing out of the individual income tax. Amends the Internal Revenue Code to impose a 1% fee, offset by a corresponding nonrefundable income tax credit, on transactions that use a payment instrument, including any check, cash, credit card, transfer of stock, bonds, or other financial instrument. Defines "transaction" to include retail and wholesale sales, purchases of intermediate goods, and financial and intangible transactions. Establishes in the legislative branch the Bipartisan Task Force for Responsible Fiscal Action to review the fiscal imbalance of the federal government and make recommendations to improve such imbalance. Provides for expedited consideration by Congress of Task Force recommendations. Repeals after 2017 the individual income tax, refundable and nonrefundable personal tax credits, and the alternative minimum tax (AMT) on individuals. Directs the Secretary of the Treasury to: (1) prioritize the repayment of the national debt to protect the fiscal stability of the United States; and (2) study and report to Congress on the implementation of this Act.

As the rumor on the social networks went, this bill was "scheduled" for a lame duck vote after the election in two weeks.  I haven't confirmed or denied that, but it doesn't look like it's forging ahead very quickly. 

The summary in and of itself isn't all that obnoxious except for the one clause; "repeals AFTER 2017, the individual income tax."  YAY! (not).  We've seen this before in the form of social security.  We pass something now, take the hit up front, and then we'll "amend" or "repeal" something later.  As soon as you get used to paying the 1% tax on bank transactions AND your income tax, you'll forget by 2017 that Congress' original intent was to repeal the income tax.  In substance, this is effectively a different way to implement a fair tax, though it is more VAT (value added tax) in nature.  Taxing without repeal of or near 100% gutting of the IRC will do nothing to solve our debt problem or our job problem.  Again, we have a spending problem.  Austerity, plus sensible tax reform, including the fair tax, will restore our country to the economic engine that the world has long aspired to become.  

QOTD: Marginal Rates

Today's QOTD comes from AKFan paraphrasing CNBC. 

CNBC reporting that when the Bush tax cuts expire, the top marginal rate will be 39% on all income over 250k.  In 1913 when the federal reserve act was passed, the top marginal rate was 7% on any income over 500k.  Adjusted for inflation, that same 500k would be 11 million today.

Thank you Marxists!  You have done an exceptional job over the last 97 years to fully implement Marx's dream for a progressive income tax upon corporations and the people.  If it is not obvious to anyone who has half a brain, it is these burdens that will suffocate the people further in an effort to rebuild our nation.  So nice that Congress adjourned to leave us to this mess until after the election.  I thought Nancy Pelosi was supposed to be the new Sheriff in town and didn't want to play politics? 

FLASH! Senate Judiciary Hearing on "Firearms in Commerce?"

FLASH:  It appears that the Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hold a hearing on "Firearms in Commerce: Assessing the Need for Reform in the Federal Regulatory Process" next week on Tuesday, September 14th.  (Drudge has the only link I can find at this point, and not even the good people at Free Republic have any links or details). 

What in the world could this be?  OpenCongress.org has no info on anything other than the HR 1074 which is the "Firearms Interstate Commerce Reform Act.  That bill, and it's companion senate bill S 556 (haha, how appropriate, I wonder if the anti's even figured that one out) are being sponsored by Steve Scalise and David Vitter, respectfully.  Both are from Louisiana and have extremely high ratings from the NRA on bills voted on and introduced, so it's not like these are the bills that the current Judiciary Committee will be willing to push to the floor of the Senate. 

So, that leaves the question of why this would come on the docket around election time.  What are the motives?  Does the Judiciary Committee vet potential treaties (along with the Foreign Relation's Committee) as well as Congressional legislation? 

The good news is, my Senator is on the committee so I will be calling his office today to get some answers (or lies, more appropriately).

Updates to come.