Politics Thoughts, Theories and Ponderables
Moderator: Priests of Syrinx
-
Sir Myghin
- Posts: 9148
- Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2003 10:12 pm
- Location: Ontario, Canada
-
Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
Obama Soaks the Rich:
Churches, Day Care, Homeless Shelters &
Soup Kitchens
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
www.townhall.com
President Obama's glib assertion that his reduction in tax deductions will
not reduce donations is absurd. His pathetic defense at his press
conference -- that he would still give a $100 dollar check even if he got
$11 less of tax deduction from it was both disingenuous and beside the
point.
And his comment that his reduced deduction would only affect 1 percent
or 2 percent of the nation misses the point that it is these folks who are
doing almost half of the donating.
In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, 4 million
taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They
comprised 3 percent of the tax returns, made 31 percent of the income,
but donated 44 percent of all charitable contributions. Together, they
provided charity with $81 billion in that year.
Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they
allocated to charitable donations. How can the president be so glibly
certain that they will not curtail their charitable contributions by a like
amount or even more?
Imagine all the harm Obama's program will cause. Churches will be hit
most hard. They account for the largest share of charitable donations,
but universities, disease research, hospitals, soup kitchens and cultural
institutions will also be hard hit. So will international relief efforts that
funnel aid abroad through churches or directly.
It is totally dishonest for Obama to pretend that his curtailment of these
deductions won't hurt the poor. It will most directly impact them since
most of the charities Obama is hurting focus on helping the impoverished.
This proposal is not about saving money. It is about controlling it -- by, in
effect, transferring at least $11 billion a year from private philanthropy to
government spending, Obama empowers the public sector at the
expense of the voluntary one.
President Obama's recommended reduction in the tax deduction for
charitable giving reflects his fundamental belief that only the government
can or should help the poor. He wants to keep the impoverished directly
dependent on the government -- and the Democratic Party -- for their
daily bread.
The voluntary sector has always been the backbone of compassion in the
United States. Our charitable donations dwarf those of any other country.
And our system of tax deductions for giving permits us to decide what
charities are worthy of our generosity -- a decision Obama will transfer to
the politicians under his program.
Churches, Day Care, Homeless Shelters &
Soup Kitchens
by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
www.townhall.com
President Obama's glib assertion that his reduction in tax deductions will
not reduce donations is absurd. His pathetic defense at his press
conference -- that he would still give a $100 dollar check even if he got
$11 less of tax deduction from it was both disingenuous and beside the
point.
And his comment that his reduced deduction would only affect 1 percent
or 2 percent of the nation misses the point that it is these folks who are
doing almost half of the donating.
In 2006, the most recent year for which data is available, 4 million
taxpayers had adjusted gross incomes of $200,000 or more. They
comprised 3 percent of the tax returns, made 31 percent of the income,
but donated 44 percent of all charitable contributions. Together, they
provided charity with $81 billion in that year.
Obama's plan will cost them $10 billion in extra taxes on the income they
allocated to charitable donations. How can the president be so glibly
certain that they will not curtail their charitable contributions by a like
amount or even more?
Imagine all the harm Obama's program will cause. Churches will be hit
most hard. They account for the largest share of charitable donations,
but universities, disease research, hospitals, soup kitchens and cultural
institutions will also be hard hit. So will international relief efforts that
funnel aid abroad through churches or directly.
It is totally dishonest for Obama to pretend that his curtailment of these
deductions won't hurt the poor. It will most directly impact them since
most of the charities Obama is hurting focus on helping the impoverished.
This proposal is not about saving money. It is about controlling it -- by, in
effect, transferring at least $11 billion a year from private philanthropy to
government spending, Obama empowers the public sector at the
expense of the voluntary one.
President Obama's recommended reduction in the tax deduction for
charitable giving reflects his fundamental belief that only the government
can or should help the poor. He wants to keep the impoverished directly
dependent on the government -- and the Democratic Party -- for their
daily bread.
The voluntary sector has always been the backbone of compassion in the
United States. Our charitable donations dwarf those of any other country.
And our system of tax deductions for giving permits us to decide what
charities are worthy of our generosity -- a decision Obama will transfer to
the politicians under his program.
Don't start none...won't be none.
I want to agree, but he gets that deer-in-the-headlights look when thezepboy wrote:Obama is a very smart man, don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
teleprompter goes down...
(And the lefties ridiculed Dubya, for cryin' out loud)
The double-standard abounds.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Got those guns secured in the bunker yet?
They're comin' for 'em, ya know.
One piece of moonbat legislation at a time.
Don't start none...won't be none.
-
Walkinghairball
- Posts: 25037
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.
-
Walkinghairball
- Posts: 25037
- Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:42 pm
- Location: In a rock an roll venue near you....as long as you are in the Pacific Northwest.
Oh I know the price is getting stupid, bring on supply and demand of the freaking out of America.
I understand the extreme and the no so extreme of this debacle, it's silly.
My father in law is picking me up some 40 the next time he goes to get ammo. He asked me, "How much you want, 3, 4, 10 boxes?"
I laughed.
I understand the extreme and the no so extreme of this debacle, it's silly.
My father in law is picking me up some 40 the next time he goes to get ammo. He asked me, "How much you want, 3, 4, 10 boxes?"
I laughed.
This space for rent
CygnusX1 wrote:First off, there are Democrats - then there are far left moonbats.Walkinghairball wrote:Funny thing is, my father in law is a dem, and he says it ain't so. He has a hard time finding ammo cuz all the people are freaking out thinking that very thing........it pisses him off. Same for my step father in law..............and he's a rep.
So now what????
There is a distinct difference, just like the fact that there are republicans,
and there are far-right nutjobs as well.
I think the reason that ammo is scarce is threefold:
One reason is the war effort. Cartridge metals are at a premium.
Another reason is hoarding - caused by political moves of the new regime.
Higher ammo taxes also contribute. Credit the latter for that as well.
Have you priced a box of shotgun shells lately?
Hold on to your hat.
Remember? One piece of legislation at a time?
Don't start none...won't be none.
-
Big Blue Owl
- Posts: 7457
- Joined: Thu Aug 17, 2006 7:31 am
- Location: Somewhere between the darkness and the light
Bailout Boundary Dispute
by George Will
WASHINGTON -- It is high time Americans heard an argument that might
turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something
going very wrong.
The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
(EESA) is unconstitutional.
By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law.
Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said
to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will
use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do
anything else with the money -- even, say, subsidize automobile
companies -- well, whatever."
FreedomWorks, a Washington-based libertarian advocacy organization,
argues that EESA violates "the nondelegation doctrine." Although the text
does not spell it out, the Constitution's logic and structure -- particularly
the separation of powers -- imply limits on the size and kind of discretion
that Congress may confer on the executive branch.
The Vesting Clause of Article I says, "All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in" Congress. All. Therefore, none shall be vested
elsewhere.
Gary Lawson of Boston University's School of Law suggests a thought
experiment:
Suppose Congress passes the "Goodness and Niceness Act."
Section 1 outlaws all transactions involving, no matter how tangentially,
interstate commerce that do not promote goodness and niceness.
Section 2 says the president shall define the statute's meaning with
regulations that define and promote goodness and niceness and specify
penalties for violations.
Surely this would be incompatible with the Vesting Clause. Where would
the Goodness and Niceness Act really be written? In Congress?
No, in the executive branch.
Lawson says that nothing in the Constitution's enumeration of powers
authorizes Congress to enact such a statute. The only power conferred
on Congress by the Commerce Clause is to regulate. The Goodness and
Niceness Act does not itself regulate, it just identifies a regulator.
The Constitution empowers Congress to make laws "necessary and
proper" for carrying into execution federal purposes. But if gargantuan
grants of discretion are necessary, are the purposes proper?
Indeed, such designs should be considered presumptively improper.
What, then, about the Goodness and Niceness Act, which, as Lawson says,
delegates all practical decision-making power to the president? What
about EESA?
Writing in The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington
University Law School makes a prudential point:
"The military-spending scandals during World War II, exposed by the
Truman Committee, showed the risks for corruption and fraud when the
executive branch is given a free hand to spend vast amounts of money."
But even in the unlikely event that the executive branch exercises its
excessive EESA discretion efficiently, the mere exercise would
nevertheless subvert the principle of separation of powers which, as
Justice Louis Brandeis said, was adopted "not to promote efficiency but to
preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."
As government grows, legislative power, and with it accountability, must
shrink.
The nation has had 535 national legislators for almost half a century.
During that time the federal government's business -- or, more precisely,
its busy-ness -- has probably grown at least twenty-fold. Vast grants of
discretion to the executive branch by Congress, such as EESA, may be
necessary -- if America is going to have constant governmental
hyperkinesis.
If Washington is going to do the sort of things that EESA enables --
erasing the distinction between public and private sectors; licensing
uncircumscribed executive branch conscription of, and experimentation
with, the nation's resources.
Since the New Deal era, few laws have been invalidated on the ground
that they improperly delegated legislative powers. And Chief Justice John
Marshall did say that the "precise boundary" of the power to "make" or
the power to "execute" the law "is a subject of delicate and difficult
inquiry." Still, surely sometimes the judiciary must adjudicate such
boundary disputes.
The Supreme Court has said: "That Congress cannot delegate legislative
power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the
integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the
Constitution." And the court has said that properly delegated discretion
must come with "an intelligible principle" and must "clearly delineate" a
policy that limits the discretion. EESA flunks that test.
With EESA, Congress forces the country to ponder the paradox of
sovereignty: If sovereign people freely choose to surrender their
sovereignty, is this willed subordination really subordination?
It is. Congress has done that.
A court should hear the argument that Congress cannot so divest itself of
powers vested in it.
by George Will
WASHINGTON -- It is high time Americans heard an argument that might
turn a vague national uneasiness into a vivid awareness of something
going very wrong.
The argument is that the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008
(EESA) is unconstitutional.
By enacting it, Congress did not in any meaningful sense make a law.
Rather, it made executive branch officials into legislators. Congress said
to the executive branch, in effect: "Here is $700 billion. You say you will
use some of it to buy up banks' 'troubled assets.' But if you prefer to do
anything else with the money -- even, say, subsidize automobile
companies -- well, whatever."
FreedomWorks, a Washington-based libertarian advocacy organization,
argues that EESA violates "the nondelegation doctrine." Although the text
does not spell it out, the Constitution's logic and structure -- particularly
the separation of powers -- imply limits on the size and kind of discretion
that Congress may confer on the executive branch.
The Vesting Clause of Article I says, "All legislative powers herein granted
shall be vested in" Congress. All. Therefore, none shall be vested
elsewhere.
Gary Lawson of Boston University's School of Law suggests a thought
experiment:
Suppose Congress passes the "Goodness and Niceness Act."
Section 1 outlaws all transactions involving, no matter how tangentially,
interstate commerce that do not promote goodness and niceness.
Section 2 says the president shall define the statute's meaning with
regulations that define and promote goodness and niceness and specify
penalties for violations.
Surely this would be incompatible with the Vesting Clause. Where would
the Goodness and Niceness Act really be written? In Congress?
No, in the executive branch.
Lawson says that nothing in the Constitution's enumeration of powers
authorizes Congress to enact such a statute. The only power conferred
on Congress by the Commerce Clause is to regulate. The Goodness and
Niceness Act does not itself regulate, it just identifies a regulator.
The Constitution empowers Congress to make laws "necessary and
proper" for carrying into execution federal purposes. But if gargantuan
grants of discretion are necessary, are the purposes proper?
Indeed, such designs should be considered presumptively improper.
What, then, about the Goodness and Niceness Act, which, as Lawson says,
delegates all practical decision-making power to the president? What
about EESA?
Writing in The New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington
University Law School makes a prudential point:
"The military-spending scandals during World War II, exposed by the
Truman Committee, showed the risks for corruption and fraud when the
executive branch is given a free hand to spend vast amounts of money."
But even in the unlikely event that the executive branch exercises its
excessive EESA discretion efficiently, the mere exercise would
nevertheless subvert the principle of separation of powers which, as
Justice Louis Brandeis said, was adopted "not to promote efficiency but to
preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."
As government grows, legislative power, and with it accountability, must
shrink.
The nation has had 535 national legislators for almost half a century.
During that time the federal government's business -- or, more precisely,
its busy-ness -- has probably grown at least twenty-fold. Vast grants of
discretion to the executive branch by Congress, such as EESA, may be
necessary -- if America is going to have constant governmental
hyperkinesis.
If Washington is going to do the sort of things that EESA enables --
erasing the distinction between public and private sectors; licensing
uncircumscribed executive branch conscription of, and experimentation
with, the nation's resources.
Since the New Deal era, few laws have been invalidated on the ground
that they improperly delegated legislative powers. And Chief Justice John
Marshall did say that the "precise boundary" of the power to "make" or
the power to "execute" the law "is a subject of delicate and difficult
inquiry." Still, surely sometimes the judiciary must adjudicate such
boundary disputes.
The Supreme Court has said: "That Congress cannot delegate legislative
power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the
integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the
Constitution." And the court has said that properly delegated discretion
must come with "an intelligible principle" and must "clearly delineate" a
policy that limits the discretion. EESA flunks that test.
With EESA, Congress forces the country to ponder the paradox of
sovereignty: If sovereign people freely choose to surrender their
sovereignty, is this willed subordination really subordination?
It is. Congress has done that.
A court should hear the argument that Congress cannot so divest itself of
powers vested in it.
Don't start none...won't be none.
