Today's subject is the Biden campaign's refusal to admit they're going to raise taxes.
What they say is, "We're going to repeal the Trump tax cuts." So, you're going to raise taxes. "We're going to get rid of Trump's tax cuts." So taxes will go up. "No! Trump's tax cuts, which only benefit the rich, will be repealed."
You see, they pull this little mental trick on themselves. First, they assume that the tax rates prior to Trump's election were the "legitimate" (or maybe "correct" is better) tax rates. Second, they decide that the duly-enacted laws put through by Congress and signed by the President which lowered those rates are, somehow, illegitimate. Finally, they simply say they are restoring the legitimate and proper tax rates. It's not raising taxes, because the Obama-era tax rates are the right ones, and they're just rescinding something stupid done by someone who shouldn't have been President in the first place. It's merely restoring taxes to their correct level, is all, and thus it is not "raising taxes".
Yes it's 100% bullshit. Of course it is. These are the same people who call a reduction in the proposed rate of increase a "cut". "We were going to raise the XYZ budget by 10% this year, but we've decided to raise it only 5%. That's a cut of 5%!" NO, IT ISN'T. IT'S AN INCREASE OF 5%. Of course they never lay it out like that. No, instead they say, "Well, we cut XYZ by 5% this year," and it makes it sound as if they're exercising sound fiscal judgement and allocating resources as needed, when in fact the line item (and the whole federal budget) never gets any smaller.
That team at the CDC that the left loves to scream about Trump removing? It was simply rolled into another function. That team is still there and still does its job; it merely does it under another heading. But because this had the effect of reducing the CDC's budget increase....
Limbaugh opines that these folks assume that all money is theirs, and that they only let you have some to play with. He's not wrong.
It's the same thing with Pritzker's (un)Fair Tax scheme. Right now, no matter who you are, no matter how much you make, as long as you make above X dollars you pay 5.95% income tax on it, regardless of what kind of income it is.
With a tax like that, rich people can't really hide their income and pay a lower effective rate. The tax rate cannot be changed without changing it for everybody, so if you want to raise taxes, you're stuck with raising it across the board.
But if you have a "progressive" tax scheme, you can do what you want. You give the bottom 20% an effective zero rate. You give the top 5% ways to elude most of the taxes, so you and your cronies can continue to pay very little. That leaves the middle 75% wide open to crushing taxation.
You can fiddle and finagle the tax rates for each bracket; and what's more, you can impose whatever taxes you want on different kinds of income. "Wages in this bracket pay X. Interest income in this bracket pays Y. Capital gains, Z." And X < Y < Z, of course.
But retirement income is what they really want to get their hands on. People who did the right thing and saved all their lives and who have money stashed at three or four banks, and live off interest from those accounts as well as SS and pension--right now it can be structured so that the tax liability is minimal. But of course the Illinois government wants to change that.
* * *
I am in the "they are making a naked, last-ditch play" camp.
There have always been two and only two possible explanations for such in-your-face atrocities. One is the belief on the Left that "our time has come." And I am morally certain that a goodly number of the Left's strategists believe that. But the other is the fear that "It's now or never." And I am also morally certain that a goodly number of the Left's strategists believe that.You see, here is what the left thinks was supposed to happen:
1) Obama. He pushed everything left, got ObamaCare, and set the stage for phase two.
2) Hillary. She'd finalize ObamaCare (turning it into single-payer socialized medicine) and really put the squeeze on civil rights.
3) In 2020, antifa and burn-loot-murder and a host of other Sorostitutes make things so bad that Hillary sadly has to declare martial law and suspends elections "for the duration of the emergency". Which sets the stage for
4) the end of the republic and the beginning of the United Socialist Democratic States of America.
Trump's election threw a huge monkey wrench in the whole thing. The Democrats couldn't cheat their way to victory; no one had expected Trump actually to win the thing because he was a stupid TV star and his supporters were all inbred hicks and hayseeds from the hinterland.
If Trump had govered the way George W. Bush did, I expect that the whole "Russiagate" thing would have been quietly dropped. But Trump is a fighter. He hits back. He stands up and refuses to bend. He knows how to negotiate, and--most importantly--knows to walk away when it's obvious that the other side doesn't want to dicker. The Democrats' worst fear made manifest: a Republican who won't simply let them have their way.
The one thing that I don't quite understand, in all this, is how the Democrats intend to solve their little gun problem. Right now they have to pay attention to elections, and they have to have at least the appearance of legitimate elections, because there are something like 87,000 guns in this country for every competent adult. If just ten percent of the "well-regulated militia" stands up and says, "No, you can't do that," the Democrats' dreams of a totalitarianist socialism are done. (In the Constitution, "well-regulated" means "well-equipped." I know it's not 87,000 guns per person, but the per-capital measurement is considerably more than unity. That's "well-regulated" in my book.)
They need to get rid of the guns first--get them out of the hands of citizens--and no matter what scenario I consider, it all ends in a mass uprising of armed citizens who know where the cattle cars filled with people end up.
But the left certainly is telling itself, "It's now or never." They've pulled out all the stops. They've dropped the masks. They're not bothering to hide their contempt for the mudfoot hicks, nor are they stopping even to consider what their antics look like to about half the voters in the country. "Vote by mail" is an obvious, naked attempt to make it easy to stuff the ballot boxes. The press has dropped all pretense of equanimity. Nancy Pelosi got up in front of the House the other day and blatantly told them, "We need to be ready to remove the President from the Oval Office," because if Biden wins they know he's mentally unfit for the job.
Meanwhile, Kamala Harris clearly thinks she's going to be the next President, and doesn't understand that she is at best a figurehead. I expect she'd find out very quickly how little say she has in things; it would almost be worth it to see the moment the realization dawned on her that she was a cog in a machine, and not "the most powerful woman in the world".
So where are we? The Democrats nominated a dotard, and then picked someone so unlikable for his running mate that she dropped out of the nomination process before a single vote was held. The polls are emulating 2016's trajectory, and it's obvious to all and sundry that they're heavily pro-Democrat--just like last time--and (worse) the Democrats are acting as if they believe the polls. Just like last time.
Their grip on power has begun to slip and--sensing this--they're making a play.
* * *
Well, Saturday, lovely day, blah blah blah, etcetera. Probably the last really warm day we'll have this year; but we'll have seasonably cool weather for the rest of October at least.
But, Mrs. Fungus is still in bed and I have no idea why I'm not.