Impeachment Folly

Rand Paul (R - KY) raised a point of order in the Senate: he stated that it was unconstitutional to have an impeachment trial against a private citizen.  The vote was 55 to 45 against him.  However, in order to convict, it is necessary to have two thirds (67) of the senators vote to convict.  It has just been demonstrated that acquittal (34) is a forgone conclusion.  Furthermore, Chief Justice Roberts has declined to preside.  With conviction impossible, this becomes a pointless waste of time.

Alan Dershowitz, who agrees that it is unconstitutional, says Trump should ignore the proceedings.  It is invalid and doesn't deserve any recognition.  But what if Trump attends?  The Democrats and the media, who have so effectively silenced him by banning him from social media, will be handing him a national stage.  Confident in acquittal, why not take the opportunity to rant about whatever he wants.

One thing an impeachment trial is certain not to be is unifying.  Trump and the Republicans did not pursue Hillary after the 2016 election despite the 'lock her up' chants.  The Democrats would be best served by ignoring Trump rather than bringing him back as a punching bag.  Right now, if he complains, it will look petty and sore loser.  If the Democrats drag him to a trial, the optics change.

Trump's Tax Proposal

These are the Trump rates, simplifying our current system of 7 brackets down to 4 brackets and doing away with many of the deductions, sort of a Reagan redux but less ambitious; Reagan's tax reform left us with 2 brackets.  Also, he plans to close loopholes and stick it to the hedge fund managers.  I like simplicity in the tax code.

 

As someone who would love nothing more than to abolish the IRS and repeal the 16th Amendment to the Constitution (the one that provides for an income tax), it will come as a surprise that I don't like the 0% bracket.  Everyone should pay some tax.  Of course, that is a political loser since so many people are already in the 0% bracket in the current tax system.  Yes, that is a bad thing.  If someone pays no income tax, he has no incentive to keep taxes from rising.  In fact, there is an incentive to have taxes on others rise in order that those not paying taxes can receive more generous government benefits.

 

Though my econ classes taught that an old tax is a good tax (because the market has already adapted to it), I disagree.  Income tax requires that the government know everyone's income.  What business is it of government how much a person makes?  What happened to that right to privacy?  It requires a massive and, as recent events have shown, corruptible bureaucracy.  This is why a national sales tax is preferable.  It taxes consumption, which will have the benefit of encouraging saving.  Much as state sales taxes exempt food items, a national sales tax could do the same.  The rich will pay much more because they will consume much more.  Better still, the government need not know how much anyone earns and no one need ever file a tax return.  Furthermore, Congress wouldn't be able to pit the rich against the poor against the middle class.  The very best of all would be the visibility of it on every transaction by every taxpayer; no more withholding that hides the cost of government; if it goes up a penny, everyone will know and want an explanation.  Yes, the tax accountants would hate it and I am sure they are even now lobbying against such a wicked idea.  Such a system would take too much power away from politicians so they will never willingly allow it to pass.

 

Trump's plan is better than what we have but not as good as Rand Paul's.  He would have a single tax rate of 14.5% with certain deductions.  This would be for everything.  Now that is simplicity.  The economy would love it though Congress would, as aforementioned, be apoplectic about the loss of power.  As stated in another blog, the tax code is a protection racket where the Congress provides special tax breaks to certain donors and lobbyists.  This is why the codes keeps getting convoluted and colossal.  So long as the 16th Amendment exists, that will forever be the case.

The New Nobility

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States

US Constitution, Article I, Section 9

 

Among those running for the Presidency are Hillary Clinton, the wife of former President Bill Clinton and Jeb Bush, son and sibling of two presidents (George Bush and George W. Bush).  There is also Rand Paul, the son of long-serving Congressman Ron Paul and Lincoln Chafee, the son of life-long politician John Chafee.  Lincoln actually inherited his father's Senate seat when the elder Chafee died.  Oh, sure, the governor of Rhode Island 'appointed' him but that's pretty blatant.  The United States should not have family dynasties in politics, especially at the national level.

 

To an extent, this is unavoidable.  For millennia, most men found themselves in the same profession as their father.  A farmer's son became a farmer, blacksmith's son a blacksmith, a cobbler's son a cobbler, and so forth.  Even today, it is natural that a parent would impart knowledge of their chosen profession to their children.  Many kids want to be like mom or dad.  In most cases, that is fine.  However, in politics, it is troublesome.  With all the sway that former politicians accumulate (witness how many become lobbyists of their former colleagues), it creates dynastic families that are not so much elected as anointed.  Would JEB Bush have done so well on fundraising if he wasn't related to two former presidents?  Would Hillary have been elected Senator in New York if she wasn't married to the sitting president?  Would either George W or Jeb have been elected governors of Texas and Florida if their father had not been president?  For that matter, would George Bush have won a seat in congress in 1967 if not for his father, Senator Prescott Bush.

Family dynasties are incompatible with representative republics.  When Jeb Bush announced his candidacy, he let it be known that he would seek the nomination without appealing to the Republican base.  The base opposes Amnesty and Common Core; Bush favors both.  If not for his family connections, he would already be toast.  What of Hillary?  Her campaign, such as it is, survives thanks to Bill's charm and popularity.  Without Bill, Hillary would have had no political career at all.

Sadly, there is no legal fix for this.  It would be inappropriate to deny people to run for public office because a parent, sibling, or spouse had done so.  The only solution is for the public to refuse to vote for them.  I have not yet voted for a Bush or a Clinton and have no plans to ever do so.  Please join me.

Filibuster

Senator Rand Paul (Kentucky) did an old fashioned filibuster the other day to protest the Obama Administration's non-answer on drone strikes within the United States.  How did that come to pass?  A few days earlier, Senator Ted Cruz (Texas) asked Attorney General Eric Holder if the government could use a drone strike on a US Citizen who was not an imminent threat within the US.  Holder ducked and dodged and said it wouldn't be "appropriate" to use a drone strike.  There's a lot of stuff that isn't appropriate that the government does anyway, so that provides little reassurance.  Thus we have the filibuster of the CIA Director nominee to highlight the issue.

 

Here is the amazing thing: a US Senator demands that the government confirm that it would be unconstitutional to kill an American within the United States who was not currently bearing arms against the US and only one Democrat sided with him.  So, are the Democrats saying that the President should be able to target US citizens within the country?

 

Senator Graham (South Carolina) responded after the fact that the filibuster was pointless since the President obviously wasn't going to have a drone strike on a US Citizen in Kentucky or Texas.  Normally, I'd agree but, as noted, Attorney General Holder dodged the question when it was put to him.  Rather than say, "Don't be an idiot, Senator.  Clearly, it would be unconstitutional for the government to kill a citizen who didn't pose an imminent threat to the country," he talked of appropriateness and hypotheticals.  The administration fumbled an easy question and Rand Paul picked it up and scored some political points.