If constituents threaten to vote against their representative because of that representative's votes in the legislature, that's "terrorism" and shouldn't be allowed (or, if it's free speech, "it's extremely unfair").
Thus sayeth the Speaker of the California Assembly, Karen Bass. Wow, talk about your stereotype of a self-serving politician
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label taxes. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
Mona Charen on the AIG bonuses
Amen, Mona. I have a recurring fantasy that one of these guys who's called to testify before Congress and getting berated by a Congressman will stop the gentlemanly self-abasement and tell those Congressmen exactly what he thinks of their self-important grandstanding. I've got a particular script I'd like AIG's Liddy to read out to Barney Frank. It includes phrases like "corrupt little satrap" and "I'll be d***ed if I give you these names." For Frank to demand a list of names that he can publicize is outrageous, especially in light of the death threats against these officials and their children. And for Frank to say that he wouldn't be bound by any confidentiality agreement if Liddy did turn them over, death threats or not!
Schumer is my least-favorite senator, and I reckon Frank is fast becoming my least favorite congressman.
Schumer is my least-favorite senator, and I reckon Frank is fast becoming my least favorite congressman.
Evidence that Congress is run by would-be Soviet commissars
This is socialist, and I don't see how that can be explained away. Shame on the half of Republicans who voted for it. I actually wish they'd made it a 100% tax, just to have the lines even more clearly drawn.
A question: would a 100% tax violate any part of the Constitution? What about a 101% tax? I'm not saying it does; I'm just curious if there'd be anything legal to stop them. The more I think about it, the more I'm intrigued by the concept of a >100% tax on income...well, "intrigued" in the same sense that a biologist can be intrigued by ebola. Fascinatingly horrible.
A question: would a 100% tax violate any part of the Constitution? What about a 101% tax? I'm not saying it does; I'm just curious if there'd be anything legal to stop them. The more I think about it, the more I'm intrigued by the concept of a >100% tax on income...well, "intrigued" in the same sense that a biologist can be intrigued by ebola. Fascinatingly horrible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
