In response to a recent post, regular contributor "Lee" cited the oft-repeated, but seldom true, statement that "Any idiot can raise taxes."
If he’s right about that, then we have extraordinarily substandard idiots in the S.C. General Assembly. Most of them were not members in 1987, which was the last time this state had any kind of general tax increase. (It was a couple of pennies in the gas tax.)
The current members of the General Assembly act as though they are unaware of the concept of raising taxes. It’s something they’ve never done, and they don’t ever intend to do it. When some vital state need (say, keeping our overstuffed prisons guarded) is underfunded, their stock answer is, "We WISH we could fund it, but we just don’t have the money." They say this with a straight face. It simply doesn’t occur to them to either cut something else, or (God forbid!) raise a tax, to GET the money.
So apparently, they are much, much stupider than any idiot Lee knows.
The only way the cigarette tax increase was even under desultory consideration was that it was NOT a general tax increase. It would essentially be a user fee paid by a minority, and it would not have hurt anyone in the world. Even the people who paid it could only benefit, because more expensive cigarettes MIGHT encourage them to smoke less. Win-win-win.
If it had involved anybody having to give up anything of value — whether for a good reason or not — they would not even have considered it.
Related Posts
Brad Warthen uses the cognitive basis of all authoritarinism, the notion that value is something objective which enlightened despots can ascertain.
Value is, in fact, subjective. You may think a cigarette has no value. Someone else may enjoy it, or they may enjoy some medical benefit from moderate use of tobacco.
All the claims of others that they know the real value for all individuals is a self-deception, and an attempted deception of the public, which is part of a ruse to increase government revenue by marginalizing groups of people and imposing taxes on them, rather than a general tax increase applied to everyone.
At this point, when taxes are so high that very small increases in the overall tax burden produce economic stagnation, the only way to increase one tax is offset it with a reduction in other taxes. Those persons who are honest crusaders wanting to use taxes to control behavior will actually propose offsetting tax reductions. Dishonest politicians and their handmaidens in the media and academia will just clamor for these piecemeal tax increases.
Reforming inefficiency and poor management of government at all levels offers the greatest potential for new revenue to fund truly worthwhile projects.
Say WHAT?
Tell you what — let’s dump that prohibition on murder. I’ve got a long list of people whose lives aren’t worth a plugged nickel to me — in fact, their continued waste of perfectly good air is a huge inconvenience to me, and I would derive great satisfaction from their immediate departures — and I’m sick and tired of Judeo-Christian-Buddhist-Hindu authoritarian despots telling me I have to accept THEIR definition of the value of those worthless critters’ lives.
I will NEVER cease to marvel at the way the radical-libertarian brain works. As you can see above, I can duplicate their "logic," so there’s no mystery there, but I never cease to marvel at it. I just can’t see how they swallow such relativistic nonsense.
Where does this deep, reflexive horror of any authority outside themselves come from? Maybe somebody really pushed them around when they were little kids or something. I don’t know.
Why do you find it necessary to construct a straw man with a “deep reflexive horror of authority”, instead of discussing my very specific criticisms of what is wrong with a myriad of targeted taxes, imposed on the weakest political groups of the moment?
I prefer a comprehensive tax system broadly applied, to finance a small government providing services that serve everyone, not a lot of services for a lot of small groups. That is the American system.
Too many people seem to prefer a cobbled systems of taxes used to maximize the size of government and enforce their moralism on other people, and to transfer money from those who earned it into some program benefitting themselves.
If the subject of comprehensive tax reform is too complex for you, step aside and let those of use who are not intimidated or holding personal agendas design a solution.
There you go again, Lee. This newspaper is the voice that put "comprehensive tax reform" into semi-common usage in this state. I say "semi-common" because even though it is our single most consistently articulated position re taxing and spending (so many repetitions that if the world really worked as Aldous Huxley envisioned in Brave New World, no one who reads our paper would be capable of thinking of tax reform in any other terms), a majority of legislators still act as though they’ve never heard of the concept — just as most of them are incapable of getting their minds around the concept of "tax increase," or "major spending cut."
They still — unlike this newspaper, which you absurdly accuse of "clamoring" for "piecemeal tax increases," even after I have explained how and why the cigarette tax is the ONLY single state tax increase I have ever championed — approach the whole issue of taxing and spending by bits and pieces. They respond to THIS group of screaming taxpayers, or THAT group of people demanding a service, and NEVER look at the whole.
In other words, they NEVER do what we actually DO "clamor" for, which was stated succinctly on our page once more, as recently as yesterday:
These are the facts. These are the positions of the actual, real-life State newspaper.
And yet you say I construct straw men instead of addressing your "very specific criticisms?" I keep giving you facts, and you some up with rants about imaginary moralistic despotism!
Anybody else out there understand what I’m saying? Anyone? Anyone? (I feel a little like Ben Stein here.)
Mr. Warthen, whose comments were those–the ones describing the speaker’s fatal fantasies for others? I think I missed something.
Brad,
My Libertarian instinct is not based on a “deep, reflexive horror of any authority outside themselves.” It is based on a deep, reflexive horror when considering the greed and corruption that permeates our government combined with a sense of personal responsibility for my own actions and those of my children.
Our current form of government is rampant in its cronyism, patronage, and self-interest. Our current tax system is designed to redistribute wealth to people who either have no respect for what they are given or else have political connections to shield themselves from paying a fair share while collecting their larger share of the pot. This is the classic mix of liberal policies that give money away to people with no expectations of EARNING it combined with the typical conservative policies that allow the rich to get richer.
We have a property tax system that is completely unfair. I pay more than either of my neighbors simply because my house has one more bedroom. I get no additional services. I pay property taxes on three cars (all 4 years old or more) and yet it took EIGHT weeks to get the county to fix a pothole at the entrance of our subdivision.
Why? Because there is no accountability in our bloated government.
My ideal tax system would be comprised of three legs:
1) A flat rate income tax with the only
deductions allowed for mortgage interest,
charitable deductions, and healthcare
costs.
2) A sales tax on everything except non-prepared food and medical items.
Include taxes on services.
3) User fees/taxes on discretionary items like cigarettes, alcohol, pet registrations, car registrations,
libraries, etc.
Our current system is broken, broken,
broken. It is a result of the evolution
process that comes from allowing people to spend and tax other people’s money. The best solution would be to completely dismantle the current system and start from scratch.
The only fear I have is that I might someday wake up and find myself working for the DMV… that would definitely be a Colonel Kurtz moment.
Ah, I got it now. I’ll blame my four hours of sleep and what I feel is your flawed logic in argumentation as the main culprits of my misunderstanding.
Apologies.
> Now ask these questions:
>• What services do we agree that our
>government needs to provide?
>• How much will it cost to provide those
>services?
>• What taxes should we use to raise that
>money, and how heavily should we rely on each
>type of tax?
Here’s the problem with this approach –
you appear to leave these questions open to the people who have created the current system.
Why not come right out and tell us where the current system is bloated and where it is falling short (besides the unattainable standards The State pushes for education)?
Simple question:
Is the current size of the SC government too big, just right, or too small?
The US Constitution designed a system which I described above, of a very small government, only doing those things necessary to provide a lawful environment for free enterprise for everyone.
It is not open to debate for mob rule to decide, at the ballot box, the legislature, college classrooms, or editorial offices, that government is to provide all the goods and services which are so unwanted as to have no private customers willing to buy them.
People who want another high tax imposed on cigarettes arrive there because it is a lot easier for them than addressing the real problems of the handout system they desire, in the forms of socialist medical care, which cost too much to permit individual freedom to smoke, drink, eat, ski, ski dive, etc.
‘. . . a very small government, doing only those things necessary to provide a lawful environment for free enterprise for everyone.” Read the preamble to the Constitution and tell me which of those purposes have to do ONLY with providing a lawful environment for free enterprise. Silly me, I thought the Constitution was about how a free people wanted to govern themselves.
If the Constitution did not define the forms and limits of government, there would be no reason for having such a document. It is a shame that so many people today failed to receive a basic education in American citizenship, that they think this is a democracy where the mob votes themselves access to the public treasury, funded by the out-voted minority.
“they may enjoy some medical benefit from moderate use of tobacco.”
Good one,Lee!
I don’t want to divert the discussion from the mindless drive for tax increases, but I knew the reference to the medical benefits of tobacco (or alcohol, or exercise) would make some people think they had an excuse to avoid thinking about tax reform.
Actually, tobacco has been found in some studies to alleviate symptons of various diseases, such as colitis, though researchers do not know why. It does provide them a research avenue for the development of synthetic drugs.
Brad,
I completely agree with you on this one.I don’t think there is a way to understand the radical-libertarian mind.I remember another jounalist describing them as “Republicans on acid.”
journalist -2
What mindless drive for tax increases?????
Once again, there hasn’t been an increase in general state taxes since 1987!!!!!
Why can’t we discuss the real world we live in, rather than anti-tax fantasy world?
Taxes need to be raised due to failing sevices and erected structures in this state? Agreed.
Can’t we also agree that smokers are being unfairly targeted? If we allow that, won’t a group including you be targeted next and won’t there be a just-as-veiled “for the greater good” reason to back it?
Also, if we’re going to pick on people, why don’t we tax a group that is going to live longer? Seems more economically sound.
Somebody, anybody, agree? I don’t want to go to the prom with Lee.
The US Constitution designed a system which I described above, of a very small government, only doing those things necessary to provide a lawful environment for free enterprise for everyone.
I thought we were talking about state taxes.
I don’t want to go to the prom with Lee.
Sorry. Looks like it’s just you and him, baby.
Maybe Dave will show up and then y’all can fight over who has to take Lee home. 😉
Y’know, to the extent Capital A’s comments can be construed to disapprove of the gov’t’s counting on increased cig. taxes as being a reliable source of revenue, I do agree. Though I’m not sure Cap actually made that point.
Anyway, if cig. taxes go up, people are likely to smoke less, which would be good for. But if the gov’t is relying heavily on cig. tax revenue, then it’s going to have to start looking somewhere else.
So I wouldn’t oppose a cigarette tax hike, but I don’t think it would be wise for the government to count on it as a funding anything long term. They’re going to have raise taxes somewhere else eventually [cue Lee ranting about commies]
(Maybe Dave will show up and then y’all can fight over who has to take Lee home. 😉 )–kc
Only if you bring the Sunshine Band and do a little dance…
On second thought, let’s call the whole thing off.
(Y’know, to the extent Capital A’s comments can be construed to disapprove of the gov’t’s counting on increased cig. taxes as being a reliable source of revenue, I do agree. Though I’m not sure Cap actually made that point.)– kc
Actually, that was a part of my point, exactly. I just trust the reader’s skills to pick up on those facets rather than boringly, explicitly shine it all out as some of our fine purveyors on this blog choose to do.
To be very explicit, I’m surprised at some of my fellow posters who usually champion freedom, yet are willing to throw those same ideals in the ashcan where something as ugly or unpopular as the right to kill yourself is concerned. Smoke gets in your eyes…
A few thoughts about taxation:
A particular (long term) distribution of wealth has to develop in any economy that depends on investment and monetary exchanges. The same shaped distribution occurs in near total free market economies such as ours, as well as in Nordic social democracies. I have data back to the Middle Ages that shows the same distribution. The distribution of market capitalization follows the same distribution as does personal wealth. The distribution of wealth is same today as it was a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand years ago. The shaped of the distribution of wealth is always the same, however, the amount by which the distribution is skewed depends upon taxation.
Today in the US, the top ten percent owns about two-thirds of the wealth. I’ve constructed stochastic model economy programs that show that in a system with no taxes at all, the top ten percent would own about ninety percent of the wealth.
SC is a poor state, and most people here are shoved down on the lower part of the wealth distribution. Our wealthy people are poorer than their contemporaries in more affluent areas within the US, as are the other economic classes within the state.
Capitalism, by its nature, redistributes the wealth generated by producers and consumers to investors. People on the lower part of the distribution have a poor chance to become wealthy. Wealthy people have a relatively low chance of becoming poor. The greater the wealth inequality in the society, the less likely that poor will become wealthy, or vice versa.
Since capitalism is inherently unfair to begin with (I can prove this using statistically equal people within a model economy that always generates the previously mentioned distribution of wealth), it is only fair to compensate by using counter taxation. Also, the distribution can be flattened using re-distributive taxation aimed at benefiting the bottom eighty percent of the population rather than using re-distributive taxation to benefit an already super wealthy elite.
Although we can never eliminate the unfairness of capitalism, we can certainly mitigate its adverse effects. The same shaped wealth distribution has to develop, but the people occupying slots within the distribution doesn’t have to remain the same. For example, society may deem it necessary to give young people just starting out tax breaks in order to get established.
SC is at the bottom, so to me it makes sense to concentrate on getting every federal dollar possible. I’d like to see a federal flat tax on wealth that is in part distributed in equal measure across the population, and in part used to run the federal government, which in turn would grant subsidies to the states based on their populations. That way the denizens of poor states such as ours would have a much better chance to succeed, and America as a whole could offer decent housing, education, and healthcare for all.
I forgot to mention that in my tax system, all other taxes would be eliminated save for the wealth tax. No more property taxes-no more sales taxes.
Here, here!
Don’t you love it when he goes all Reed Richards/Adolph Heinrich Gotthelf Wagner?
I can hear the elephants (with Dr. Dave Doom and General Lee both mounted atop) stampeding from the distance to assault the walls of that wealth tax elimination, however.
“Can’t we also agree that smokers are being unfairly targeted?”
No.
I’m for Scandinavian/Canadian type socialism, anyway.
KC or Capital A – Lee and I will take both of you to the prom, but you two wear the pink tuxedoes. haaaaaaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Maybe you two have never done a prom with real men!!!!!!!!!!! Right wingers have more fun.
Lee is exactly right in mentioning the constitution in regard to taxes. The founders constructed the constitution to LIMIT government and its powers. They were very familiar with the all powerful rule of the king and the ruling Lords in England and that weighed heavily in their minds. Over time, via taxation powers, the federal, state, and local governments have grown more and more powerful and intrusive. Our governments across the board are broke because there isn’t a potential or perceived problem that we cannot find a way to funding. Brad is right in that SC has not raised taxes but as most people’s incomes have gone up, and property values have gone up, guess what, your taxes have also gone up. Our state income tax is really punitive and regressive. Cigarette taxes are one more nail in the coffin and sort of a tax fix band aid.
As further evidence of our broken system of government, see the recent groundbreaking legislation that was necessary to make breastfeeding in public LEGAL. Any way to find out who voted against this one?
Funny how our legislators can tackle this critical social issue but just can’t seem to get together on addressing the property tax issue.
Let’s see The State opposing taxes:
* opposing all new bond issues
* opposing sales tax increases
* opposing local option sales taxes
* opposing special taxes on tourists
* opposing increased fuel taxes
* opposing increased tobacco taxes
* opposing increased alcohol taxes
* calling for the repeal of all special earmarked taxes.
Brad.
Lee, Brad wore you out again.
Libertarians aren’t taken seriously by virtually anyone. That is why that can’t get elected and even be considered a legit 3rd party.
It is a waste of time to argue with people like Lee. They will make up stuff, and go back 200 years to make a point that hardly no one takes seriously. In short – a huge waste of time to argue with them – and a huge waste of time to consider their opinions seriously. That is why no one does (see the number of elected libertarians in South Carolina).
I don’t trust people like Lee to even run his own budget let along use his advice on anything to do with the state budget or taxes.
So, David, you are completely satisfied with the size and scope of our government? do you feel the taxes you pay are reasonable or would you like to see them go higher to support more government programs?
Personally, I feel like I pay too much in taxes for the benefits I receive. Between income tax, sales tax, and property taxes, I give approximately 12% of my income to the state each year. It’s an amount >$10K.
I see waste and inefficiency across all areas of government. This form of sucking on the government teat HAS been legal since day one.
If I bought a car that cost $10K a year and was as broken down as this government, I’d find a new dealer. Unfortunately, I don’t have that option. Our government relies on the apathy and ignorance of voters to keep the status quo. The reason there are no third party officeholders is because the machine in place needs to supress anyone who might put a lid on the trough.
“David” is not taken seriously because he engages in baseless personal attacks instead of trying to argue a point with facts. He doesn’t even challenge anything we say, but make vague claims about it being “made up”.
Without having a basic education in civics, and taking the time to formulate an educated wholistic understanding of how government is supposed to work, the average person just reacts to whatever piecemeal legislation is conjured up.
Brad, even worse than the libertarian rejection of authority is the notion that if one just lets human nature be, human nature will do the right thing. “Get government of the backs of the American people,” was Reagan’s slogan, and led us deep into debt. I agree with Mark at least in so far as capitalism needs some curbs; I’m also however skeptical of the ability of human beings to implement the socialism he advocates. That seems to be naive as well. The early Christians did it, and various other groups have as well, but it needs a common moral cause that it is almost impossible for humans to create on their own. It has been successful at times for short periods, but not sustainable over the long haul.
What I can’t figure out is, when my personal finances aren’t in order, I either have to decrease spending, or increase income, right? (Sure I can borrow, but that is basically just increasing spending). Sooooo — if we determine that the state needs to provide a certain amount of services, then is it not logical to say that we have to increase income — RAISE TAXES — to pay for them? Granted, we can argue about various aspects of the spending, and we should (such as, a driver for the Lt. Governor), but the bottom line is, nobody is going to get rid of our prisons or our local schools or our state bureaucracy, so suggesting it is about as helpful as my suggestion we unite with Canada.
Maybe I’m just dense, but I don’t see why income doesn’t have to be raised to match basic expenditure needs. Like fix the roads (if anyone wants to come up with a mass-transit system for SC, I’m for it, but I’m not holding my breath).
Blah, blah, blah. Everybody TALKS about the government, but NOBODY does anything about it.
WRITEIN-SC
I’ve written this before, but my mistrust in human nature also lies behind my personal opinion that we ought to think twice before removing a secular despot like Saddam from power. Human beings generally need harsh authority to keep them in line. That we enjoy so much freedom in the West is basically due to Judaeo-Christian values (tempered by secularism, as has been the case in the American experiment — theologians don’t generally make good politicians), but as those values disintegrate, we may need some harsher authority as well. Shudder the thought, but almost anything is better than anarchy.
Just what would you suggest we do, Spencer? Apart from voicing our opinions to our representatives, and voting, I’m not sure what you’re advocating.
Who is the WE that “determined” that the state needs more money?
How much more money?
How was this determined? Show me the logic and data.
Why is the surplus of tax revenue in this booming economy not enough?
Why don’t they recover the $1.00 /pack tax on cigarettes that they squandered?
Why should we believe they will spend THIS money on “the children”?
When your personal finances are out of order, you can’t just raise your own salary. If you are a business, you cannot just raise your own prices, unless they were already too low.
You have to spend less.
The government should do likewise, instead of taking the lowbrow road of increasing its prices just because it has the police to enforce collection.
Herb, what you’re advocating would be a return to some of the worst moments in human history. Harsher authority?! Pheh!
Good one! Bring on the good old days! Give us your Spanish Inquisitions, your Salem witch trials, your Japanese internment camps, your Trail of Tears, your Hanoi Hilton, your Andersonville, your East Berlin, your Stalingrad, your Jim Crow, your Patriot Act!
I sincerely hope I misread the intent of that statement and that it wasn’t code for what I think it is. Have faith in the masses of your fellow man to do the right thing, for God’s sake. Yes, we have much potential to commit evil acts (as the examples above show), but we also have just as much (if not more) of an acuity for greatness.
Now, if Scooter Libby’s testimony concerning BushBaby is largely ignored by the American people, I admit that my hope in humans will be dented (not as much as the OJ verdict did), but I would never advocate or insinuate that we need more authoritarian rule.
Such a reaction is one of fear. I would think fear would be one of the least prominent emotions swirling inside a self-admitted servant of faith.
And you’re supposed to be a shepherd? Baaaaad…
I guess there’s faith and then there’s Faith. But the Bible says I’m not allowed to pass judgment…
Sure you can Lee.
You either cut your spending, or you raise your income by taking another job or increasing your skills to get a raise.
Some people do both.
Brad has argued for comprehensive tax reform for years. There are too many fees, tax breaks, etc in South Carolina for almost anyone to keep up with – even most of the legislators don’t know about them.
Doug –
I feel that the taxes I pay are reasonable, I moved out of Richland County 3 years ago and I feel my property taxes are reasonable. I’d love to pay nothing but don’t expect that to happen.
I feel that the services I receive (or society at large) receives from the taxes I pay are reasonable. I’d pay even more (my wife works part time and stays at home with our children so I am far from well off) if those monies were used to improve our rotten roads,etc.
Doug,
Just repeating the phrase, “I favor comprehensive tax reform”, means nothing so long as the editors support piecemeal tax increases on minorities, such as smokers, while they fail to offer a comprehensive outline of spending priorities and a prioritized set of taxes.
Instead, they talk in vague terms about “the need for balance”, and “our three-legged stool” of taxes.
They would favor a six-legged stool if they could think of three more things to tax.
Just because you think a tax is reasonable does not make it a reasonable tax.
One test of a reasonable tax is that it needs to exceptions and exemptions for those who cannot afford to pay it. Any tax that needs a lot of exceptions is poorly designed, and too high.
Taking a second job or increasing your skills to change jobs is not the same as just going into work and telling the employer that you will be getting a wage rate increase.
That is what government does.
Government should try working harder, working longer, increase its skills and efficiency, as part of its first job.
Capital A – You need to wake up from your dreamworld fantasy where Bush is tried and convicted and sentenced to the gallows. Here is a take from Reuters on your big splash about Scooter Libby.
No Lawbreaking
But what Bush and Cheney authorized had nothing to do with Valerie Plame. Joshua Gerstein, who broke the story of Fitzgerald’s document in Thursday’s New York Sun, told Crier the information Bush approved for dissemination was unrelated to “the most sensitive information…[the identity of] Valerie Plame or her husband, Joseph Wilson.” Other media outlets also announce this fact.
Reuters: “The court documents did not say that Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Plame’s identity.” The Associated Press: “There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame’s CIA identity.” Even the breathless New York Times noted Fitzgerald “stopped short” of accusing Bush or Cheney or any wrongdoing. Nor have Bush and Cheney been accused of breaking any law. In his Sun article, Gerstein wrote:
The court papers from the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, do not suggest that Mr. Bush violated any law or rule…Mr. Bush’s alleged instruction to release the conclusions of the intelligence estimate appears to have been squarely within his authority and Mr. Fitzgerald makes no argument that it was illegal.
The Washington Post ran a sidebar indicating, “Legal experts say that President Bush had the unquestionable authority to approve the disclosure of secret CIA information to reporters.”
***************
On second thought, remain a dreamer and let the adults continue to run the country.
The growing nation-wide effort to impeach George W. Bush and Dick Cheney is emblematic of a larger issue: what kind of country is the United States to become.
Yesterday’s news brought out two explosive pieces of information:
* Lewis Libby, the indicted chief aide to Dick Cheney, has admitted under oath before a Federal Grand Jury that it was George W. Bush himself who authorized Libby to illegally “leak” classified information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in July, 2003 in an effort to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson who had publicly stated that “there is nothing to the story” that Saddam Hussein’s government was trying to buy uranium for a nuclear weapons program. Wilson is the husband of Valerie Plame, the undercover CIA operative whose identity was revealed to the media as retaliation for Wilson’s contention that Bush’s assertions about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction were false. The “classified information” that Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to plant in the New York Times turned out to be entirely false.
* Bush’s Attorney General admitted yesterday that Bush believes that he has the authority to personally authorize the secret wiretapping, without any court order, of any and all conversations and emails between Americans that occur exclusively within the borders of the United States. Earlier it was revealed that Bush set up a massive secret wiretapping operation monitoring a huge number of Americans, but he had asserted that it was only to listen in on conversations of people in the United States who were making international calls and emails.
The fact that Bush has not already had articles of impeachment filed in the House of Representatives is clear evidence that the people must act forcefully as the true guardians of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is exactly what the ImpeachBush.org movement is doing. When impeachment looked remote, there were still tens of thousands of individuals who tirelessly worked to collect petitions, hold rallies, wrote and called members of Congress and donated so that we could place newspaper ads all across the country.
Today, impeachment is not remote at all. It reflects the majority sentiment. Recent polls show that by 52% to 43% majority the American people favor impeachment if it is proved that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. A nearly similar majority support impeachment if the President broke Federal wiretapping laws by authorizing the secret wiretapping of Americans without a court order when there is no evidence or inquiry of criminal wrongdoing.
Yesterday’s revelations confirm again that this is a lawless administration. Impeachment is imperative. This is a challenge for every person in this country who has a commitment to the Constitution. The people must continue to act rather than wait for the politicians to lead.
Bill, did you run your impeachment ad in The State paper? I get 3 papers delivered and I somehow missed it. Nice try.
Take the George Bush – impeach talk to a local hotel guys – get a room or something. Stick to the topic.
Lee –
let me translate – I have no problem with what I pay in taxes.
I support tearing the system to the bones and building it back up – but that AIN’t on the radar screen and I doubt it will be for a long long time so I don’t wait for it. I have emailed, written and called my local legislators until I am blue on the subject (and others) and no movement at all is detected.
In the mean time, I’d love to see the cig tax increased. It will happen soon either way.
Now go work on nominating a Libertarian that has a chance in hell in winning something other than just complaining all the time.
Capital A., I really didn’t have Stalin in mind, at least not here. What I did have in mind was the tendency we have to alternate between the more “harsh” forms of government (which tend to favor the rich), and the more socialist (which tend to give too much access to the public cash box. In other words, we lurch from Republican to Democratic administrations, without a good middle ground. But it is true; if the street gangs ever take over, we will probably opt for a lot of control. Then the Patriot Act will seem like a Sunday School picnic. I really wonder how long we can keep building prisons and putting trouble-makers out of sight.
I realize this is off the subject, but just wanted to attempt an explanation, before you put me in the totalitarian corner. But I am probably in a corner, anyway.
And I’m not a shepherd, by the way, only an administrator. “Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach, administrate.” Amen.
Herb, you are right on track about the potential of lawlessness. Most liberals scoff at such a notion and are so disconnected from reality that they would disarm the innocent and decent people who cower in fear in the poverty stricken sections of urban areas. Anyone who does not know how to use a weapon (gun for Brad, haaaa) would be either very foolish or has the ability to hire protection when needed. What happened in New Orleans was but a small example of what could happen here. The Patriot Act addresses and is aimed at terrorist activity so I don’t see it having much impact on domestic crime. I am a passionate defender of the second amendment, aka the amendment that protects the first amendment. In general, we need more prisons and our prisons need to be places of extreme dread and horror for the inhabitants. The do gooders of our society have tried to turn prisons into social rehabilitation centers. Just like gangs are illegal in schools, they should be a crime that brings severe punishment in a prison. Outlaw the weight lifting rooms and the only TV they should have is EWTN and Nickelodeon, and maybe SCETV. Take the protein out of their food also and no smoking at all. Where is a cigarette Nazi when you need one? I have a lot more ideas about crime prevention.
Did you guys get a hotel room and start posting on the computer?
now back to the Cig tax.
David, No hotel rooms, after I see how much tax I paid in and then I still owe more, who can afford a hotel room? For those who like targeted taxes like the cig. tax, how about a special tax on bottled water. Look at the litter in our state parks caused by every environmentalist who cant go 10 feet without that trusty water bottle. They walk all around streams and waterfalls, just loaded with mountain fresh water, and then they insist on carrying that bottle of water that was probably filled in Pittsburgh with water from the Allegheny River, or even worse, Cleveland. So why can’t they pay a higher tax. Fair is fair.
Dave,
No one said any of this had to be fair. When did that happen? Fairness isn’t really the issue unless the General Assembly looks at the entire tax system and comes out with someone else. But that isn’t likely to happen. So we are left with the remainder.
The bottled water tax isn’t a good example and it doesn’t compare to the argument of the cig tax.
I hope the cig tax is raised to something more on an even level with the rest of the country. I don’t see a need for SC to have the lowest cig tax in the country. If we want to have the lowest property taxes in the country – great. But the lowest cig tax in the country isn’t a list I want to be on.
Raise that darn sucker at least enough to pay for the cancer costs of the uninsured in South Carolina that can be linked to smoking in any way possible.
If your argument is that we should also raise it on french fries, burgers, greasy chicken sandwiches – that is fine with me. But let’s do the cig tax first and then we can go for that next time around.
David –
You and Brad keep accusing libertarians of complaining all the time, when we are the only ones offering any ideas for comprehensive tax reform. Psycologists label your behavior as “projection” of your own behavior onto others.
If you are unfamiliar with libertarian (and other ) political philosophies, you will be unable to notice how much of those ideas have be stolen and implemented by the GOP since 1980, even if it is in the naive and shallow attempts of people like Lindsay Graham and the Heritage Foundation.
At least it is in a direction away from the socialism of the New Deal.
Herb, thanks for the clarification of your original post. I hope that your more moderate musing represents the “true” you. It is honestly depressing to see a man of expressed faith seemingly not expressing faith in his fellow man. That was my point.
For instance, I have faith that Knave will one day learn to quell his fear of civil liberties and learn to organize his thoughts into well-planned paragraphs. Of course, he’s the same guy who wants to deport those who “don’t respect OUR language.”
Ignorance and hatemongering are truly taxing.
Not sure about that one, Capital A. What I see coming, in talking to some inner-city school teachers and people in the know, is a blow-up at some point. The grandparents are raising a whole generation of kids. Who is going to do it when that generation is gone?
Do I have faith in my fellow-man to move in the right direction? So far, I don’t see evidence of church people recognizing the problem brewing (and I expect they would be at the front), and being willing to put down differences and take the steps forward in order to get next to these kids. There are some notable exceptions, right here in Columbia. But I fear; and if the others I hear on the subject are right, I have reason to fear.
And if the salt has lost its savor? Most positive initiatives in Western society had faith-based origins. Red Cross, Salvation Army, abolitionism . . . . We need more of those now. Working a bit on that angle, but I’m still not sure I have faith in man.
Don’t count us out, Herb. God has changed over the millenia, but mankind really hasn’t. We’re still capable of severe acts of cruelty (see: last post), but also great feats of courage and…humanity.
Thank you for your devotion and for the great works you have planned. Now, if I could just find a way to tax you for every mentioning of der Rhineland:)
Thanks, C.A., I really lined myself up for that one.
Herb, I was being sincere. It was an honest thanks.
No need to be on the defensive all the time. You’re no knave.
Capital A – Try to be more clear in your exhortations. You say God has changed over the millenia. You must have more insight than the rest of us. Can you clarify that remark?
Not really being defensive, C.A.; you just made me realize how ridiculous I sounded. Of course, just about every useful work ever done started small.
I also would be interested in your thoughts on how you see God evolving over the millenia.
I was being ironic concerning man’s “interpretations” about God.
God hasn’t changed, really. Man has just made Him in the image necessary to suit his needs or cause.
There obviously is a theologically sound way of saying the same thing Capital A says, which is that the revelation of God has developed over time. Gradually, our understanding of Him changes, and we pray that the WAY it changes is that it grows, toward greater understanding.
Christians believe that Abraham, Moses and the rest of the Old Testament prophets were not the last word in terms of the revelation of God; Jesus had to come along. Jews, I believe — unless they are more of the “Torah-only” variety (and if I’m off-base here, someone please correct me) — also believe that there has been more to say and learn about God since the Jewish books that Christians read.
Of course, Muslims believe that Muhammed had to come along; Baha’is believe the same about Baha’u’llah, and so forth…
We Catholics would be stagnant and off-course if not for the revolution of Vatican II.
Of course, Capital A means this in the standard cynical manner. It’s the old skeptic’s argument about man making God in his own image, yadda, yadda. And no doubt there’s plenty of that going on in the world, just as the world is loaded with other sins and errors. But that is not the main theme of the development of religious revelation.
There’s no doubt in God, as far as I am personally concerned. There IS a wariness for what man will do in the name of God and for the institutional systems man uses to tax and control his fellow man in the name of God. Despite what Wartime or any others of like mind may think, man does not need church to enter into Heaven.
And, yet, I still maintain faith in my fellow man to usually, ultimately, largely act in a humane manner towards his fellow man while many of you front-row-and-centers don’t seem to be willing to tithe to that idea as greatly (based on your bloggings and political affiliations/stances).
Ironic, don’t you think? Maybe even to the extent of Biblical proportions…
(I even ignore the rule that ‘biblical’ should be lower case. That’ll win me some votes with the masses!)
And another thing, Wartime, I guess I can go along with the fallacy that the cavemen, Babylonians, Ancient Greek and Romans were pardoned and living in limbo. Or what explanation have the Catholic Church or other religious sects devised now? Would man or God devise such nonsense?
The earth is only 5-8000 years old. That one cuts through and defames anyone challenging religious conventional timelines. God must surely weep at such logic.
Oh, wait, didn’t limbo go out of business and was shut down recently, or, unlike CBGB’s, did they amicably renew their lease with all parties satisfactorily?
Lee is the man.