Wut’s Da Cawst?

One of the (oh so many) bad things that came out of the Obama Years was that the word “trillion” (as in, “this will lead to a national debt of x trillion”) became normalized, in the way that after WWII, the word billion  became a substitute for million  in government-speak.  (I remember the rueful joke made in the early years of the Obama presidency, when the deficit and debt skyrocketed:  “What comes after a trillion?”  “Whatever it is, just don’t tell Obama.”)

So never mind the devaluation of the currency — an equal, and possibly worse devaluation occurred in political discourse.

Thus, when we learn that the fanciful dreams suggested policies of the radical Left will cost a hundred trillion dollars, we are somehow less alarmed because a “hundred” of something — anything — doesn’t sound like much.

And because Leftists (whether socialists, communists, Democrats, whatever) have a fairly cavalier attitude towards money (AOC:  “We’ll just create more!” — like that’s a simple exercise), this escalation of the quantity of money and the accompanying devaluation of the terminology just becomes another means whereby they can disguise the true effect (and intent) of whatever nonsense they dream up next.

This works especially well with two groups:

  • the extremely wealthy, who may be quite cognizant of the concept of vast sums of money being wasted, but who are sheltered from the consequences of political- and economic excesses by their own personal fortunes;  and
  • the very poor, for whom the purchase of a secondhand car or a modest house is about the limit of their concept of money, and who can therefore be fooled into accepting whatever large sums are bandied about both because they can’t comprehend it and because they won’t have to pay it.

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that both groups are core constituencies of the Socialist Party, here and elsewhere.

It is we poor bastards in the middle who are going to get shafted, viz.:

I don’t want you to think that I’m making a damn joke about this, because I’m not.  At some point, and soon, there’s going to be a financial and economic reckoning — and we of the middle class are going to lose everything:  houses, jobs, savings, retirement benefits, the lot.

And now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to the range.

Replacement

Here’s a little thought experiment for you.

Let’s assume that the Greenies get their wish, and all fossil fuel-burning cars were replaced with electric cars, by law.

Ignore all practical issues (because the Greens always do), and ponder this thought.

Right now, gasoline is taxed by the FedGov at 18.4 cents per gallon.  (Put those guns away, and concentrate on the issue at hand.)  How do you think the Gummint is going to replace that “lost” revenue (~$25 billion per annum)?

Ah, stop thinking about it, because the poxy BritGov already has.

Ministers have been told to consider a national system of road tolls to compensate for the huge loss in revenue from fuel duty when electric cars become mainstream on the back of new research.

[T]his revenue stream looks set to shrink significantly by 2040 when UK ministers plans to ban the sale of vehicles with combustion engines in a bid to persuade drivers to switch to electric cars.
A new study by Bloomberg News Energy Finance claims a road toll scheme charging up to 9p a mile should be introduced to compensate for the £14 billion lost in fuel duty revenue – a move that would cost motorists £710 a year.

(I should point out that said BritGov currently levies a fuel tax of just under 58p per liter — which is the equivalent of $2.91 (!!!!) per U.S. gallon.  It’s the Brits who should be reaching for the guns… oh wait, they don’t have any.  Sucks to be them.)

I haven’t even touched on how the states  will recover the lost revenue…

Remember Kim’s Iron Law of Taxation:  Never ever allow the government to create a new method of taxation / tax revenue stream because once created, it will never disappear.

Private vs. Public

Much has been made about the Socialist Party demanding to be able to scrutinize President Trump’s tax returns over the past fifty years or whatever, and how Senior Socialist Pelosi isn’t able to rein in the demands of the AOC Wing of the Party.  Whatever.

My take is simple:  a private citizen’s tax information is an intensely confidential business — between the individual (or his agent) and the IRS, and no other.

Once an individual starts working in government, i.e. in public service, then his tax returns should be published in the Congressional Record each year, for two reasons:

  1. a position in public service should require that the public be able to scrutinize how it is possible for, say, ex-Senator Harry Reid (or current Speaker Pelosi, for that matter) to become a multi-millionaire while earning only a Congressional salary, and
  2. the knowledge that their financial dealings while in public service are being made public would make all gummint workers and elected officials more circumspect in their behavior, and rein in their corruption tendencies.

In other words, before  someone starts working for the Gummint / is elected to office, those tax records are nunya.  Once you become  a public servant — and only then — those tax records should be subject to public scrutiny.

So if Trump tells Congress to FOAD when they demand to see his pre-presidential tax returns, I’ll support him to the hilt.  But should Red Nancy refuse to let us see her tax returns from all the years she’s been in Congress, she should be impeached herself.

Demonization

So let me make sure I’ve got this absolutely clear:  if the Gummint passes a patently un-Constitutional law and someone refuses to comply with it, that person would be a “homegrown terrorist”?

Got it.  I should also point out that it was Lenin who first equated refuseniks  with being terrorists.

Here’s a tip for this asshole:  you keep making shitty laws and stockpiling bodybags, and we’ll keep buying ammo.  We’ll see who runs out first.

Cutting Out The Middlemen

I think I can safely say that all who visit this here back porch are in agreement that centralization of the governmental kind is generally meant to create efficiencies, but seldom does.

The same is true of pretty much any organization which is dealing solely with collecting and disbursing other people’s money — and here I’m turning my baleful gaze onto the cockroaches known as “international aid societies”, who can skim money out of donations better than any dairy can skim the cream off milk.  And I have some support in this viewpoint, from the BritGov of all places:

Aid minister Penny Mordaunt has drawn up plans for the UK to take more control of how we help countries around the world.
The International Development Secretary has demanded a major overhaul so less of the UK’s £14.1billion aid budget is handed out through staff at international agencies.
She wants to use the cash to fund specific projects chosen by Britain with more oversight to make sure money is not wasted.
The proposal is part of this year’s comprehensive spending review, which will set the course of Government budgets for the next few years. Around a third (37 per cent) of the aid budget is currently spent as contributions to multilateral organisations, such as the International Monetary Fund, World Bank and European Commission.

Leaving aside the need for a minister for aid (the Brits love this Yes, Minister crap), what Mordaunt says is absolutely correct.  For those who know not who she is, by the way, allow me to enlighten with a  couple pics:

The Right Honorable Member from Portsmouth North sure makes a change from the dreary Socialist trolls who infest our body politic, doesn’t she?  And she makes sense — an even bigger change.