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.

So Much For Background Checks

Like everyone here I was saddened to read of the mass shooting that happened in Illinois last week.  Dude got laid off, pulled a gun and started shooting, killing six and wounding several more, including cops.  I was expecting to have ILGov Fatboi Pritzker immediately start calling for more stringent gun control laws etc., and was wondering what was taking him so long.  Here’s probably why the delay:

The chief also released new details about Martin’s criminal background and the weapon in the shooting.
Martin should have been legally barred from purchasing a gun due to his felony record. He had a 1995 conviction for aggravated assault for stabbing a woman in Marshall County, Mississippi.
However, in January 2014, Martin applied for and was issued an Illinois Firearm Owners Identification (FOI) card, which is required to own or purchase a gun in Illinois.
On March 6 2014, Martin applied to purchase a handgun at a licensed dealer in Aurora. Five days later, he took possession of a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber revolver, the same type of gun described as the weapon in Sunday’s shooting.
On March 16 2014, Martin applied for a Concealed Carry permit in an unknown location. He was fingerprinted during the background check, and his prior felony conviction came to light during the background check.
At the discovery, Martin’s CCW application was rejected, and his FOI card was revoked. He apparently retained possession of the handgun, however.
Ziman was unable to explain why the felony conviction did not prevent Martin from obtaining a FOI card in the first place, merely saying it was possible that it would not have been discovered until the more rigorous CCW check.

So much for the much-vaunted background checks we’re always hearing about.  Illinois screwed up, and six people died because of it.  I would hope that the murdered people’s families initiate a class-action lawsuit for negligence against the state, because a law unenforced isn’t a law.  Of course, Illinois is bankrupt because they’re paying off (or not even paying) excessively-high entitlements to former government workers, so the lawsuit might be a waste of time.  And needless to say, the gnomes at the IL State Police (representing “police power”, see below) won’t be fired for negligence because unions.

One last thing about the choirboy’s gun:  S&W doesn’t make a revolver chambered in .40 S&W, so it must have been a semi-automatic pistol  (Clueless Journalism 101).


State of Illinois constitution, Article I, Section 22:
“Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”