Watching the Democrats - it's Fun and Macabre!

[IamSam]

Well, we could always grab all our guns, head for the hills, and demand the repeal of the Patriot Act.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by BigV

First of all, I've denied nothing about any connection between spending and the debt limit. When you can cite a contrary example, your petty name-calling will be justified. Until then, you just keep your mental defect badge.

Well, I don't hear it being mentioned - over a TRILLION dollars every year, and we're all worried about taxing the rich. Great - that will last the gov't about 3 weeks, max.

Big deal.

Adak, our country's fiscal and monetary policy is not run like a ten-year-old's. You know that. When you make such a comparison, you insult me and you embarrass yourself. Please stop it.

You do know that our credit rating has already been downgraded, and will be downgraded again, this year, if we don't QUIT OUR OVER-SPENDING!

It may be in the future, but over-spending is one of THE ways to initiate a monetary crisis - and we NEVER want one of those!

Ok, now to the obvious connection between our spending the debt ceiling. I notice now you use rational, neutral terms like "our" and "a country". I am glad for the change of tone, thanks. If you think we've far exceeded the reasonable limit to our borrowing, what is that limit? How much debt do you think we can reasonably bear?

It's usually measured in percent of the country's GDP. Ours is quite high, but I haven't seen the actual % in a while now. You can look it up easily enough. Over 90% is worrisome. Over 100% is very troubling. The thing is, you never know when the good faith of people in our ability to handle the debt, will suddenly evaporate. It happens with a rapid onset. Takes your breath away.

A more pressing question is how to deal with the debt limit now. We both listened to the President's press conference of the other day, I'll tell you now, I agree with his characterization of the debt ceiling and what to do about it and importantly, what not to do about it. Last first--dithering and arguing and fiddlefarting around while NOT immediately and decisively raising the debt ceiling is all by itself a very bad idea. Acting (Congressional acting) as though there might be any kind of suggestion whatsoever that the United States will not pay our debts is irresponsible and dangerous.

Oh, we'll pay the debt, and we have the money for it. But Obama WILL NOT even discuss current (actual) spending cuts. He will reluctantly discuss cuts in FUTURE over-spending growth! So we're talking about pennies, instead of $1,00 dollar bills here. It's peanuts, and does nothing to stop devaluation of our dollar.

The Republicans are going to be more and more desperate to bring Obama around to a compromise on the ACTUAL CURRENT SPENDING. How can they do that? They'll have to force it, at some point. Just a matter of when.

That is just the effect that trying to link debt ceiling increases, which must be done by Congress, with any other business. Anything besides "Yes, and here's the limit (which in my opinion should be high enough to make further such discussion moot for a year or more), generates more of that "uncertainty" that is anathema to the business community. It's a Bad. Idea.

What is your position?

I agree, it's a TERRIBLE idea to keep running around this fiscal cliff nonsense. But, it's the only thing the Republicans have left. Talking is no go with Obama. Spending cuts (real and immediate), have been off limits with Obama - always. His budgets are a complete disaster, according to his Secretary of the Treasury, in sworn testimony.

That's why they've never even been voted on. Even Democrats aren't THAT crazy! The spending is the big white elephant in the living room, and it's not going away. We are going to have to deal with it - one way or another.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by Adak

And it's MUCH better than yanking the rug out from underneath our second amendment rights. Once the gov't has knocked those down, we'll never get them back.

And not to be a doomsayer, but once they can knock one part of the Bill of Rights down, then clearly they can see about knocking down other parts, as well. All they need is some kind of an emergency (real or imagined), and they'll be all over it.

These are serious concerns. They're just in the wrong thread, that's all.
They should be in a thread with a title mentioning Bush, Cheney, Patriot Act, and the last 12 years.

Warrantless wire-tapping? Detention without trial? "Enhanced interrogation"?

If you seriously think your gun rights are effectively protecting all your other rights, you haven't been paying attention for the last 12 years.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by IamSam

Well, we could always grab all our guns, head for the hills, and demand the repeal of the Patriot Act.

I'm waiting for a case to go to the Supreme Court, on this Carnivore project in Utah. That's so invasive of our privacy, it's incredible.

The Patriot Act was just another "knee jerk, Washington needs to do something, and this is something, so we must do it", law. I doubt if it's legal - maybe during the wars in Iraq, etc., but after the troops come home from Afghanistan, the freedoms we gave up in that act, are going to seem like too much to give away, permanently.

I sure hope so.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

These are serious concerns. They're just in the wrong thread, that's all.
They should be in a thread with a title mentioning Bush, Cheney, Patriot Act, and the last 12 years.

Warrantless wire-tapping? Detention without trial? "Enhanced interrogation"?

If you seriously think your gun rights are effectively protecting all your other rights, you haven't been paying attention for the last 12 years.

I agree with you 100%! The Patriot Act was a disaster for our freedoms, and Carnivore is only going to make it worse!

But after the troops are all back, I believe they both will be challenged or maybe just have their spending cut out from under them.

[glatt]

The police are randomly searching regular people going about their daily commutes without probable cause or warrants on public transit systems in many major US cities including Washington DC. I've seen it with my own eyes in person.

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Bill of Rights is being violated by the government on a daily basis already.

[Pete Zicato]

Originally Posted by Adak

Brevik shot over 60 children, in a country that has a long history of gun control, (compared to say, Australia which has a very short history of it).

And when was the previous mass shooting in Norway - all the other mass shootings they must have had because of their gun control laws?

[Sundae]

/\ word /\

[Adak]

Originally Posted by Pete Zicato

And when was the previous mass shooting in Norway - all the other mass shootings they must have had because of their gun control laws?

I'm not saying that gun laws promote mass shootings, or that Norwegians are nearly as prone to gun violence as Americans are.

What I AM saying is, your gun control laws will not stop a gun massacre - or murders, etc. Criminals can get guns, and they don't give a hot damn about breaking gun control laws, to get them.

Chicago has the toughest gun control laws in the country, (New York city is described as the second toughest). But Chicago is the murder capital of the US - 513 murders in 2012, and currently at a slightly higher rate so far in 2013. A lot of it is being done by gangs, and they are mostly using -- you guessed it -- illegal guns!

If gun control laws worked, then having a discussion about tightening those laws, MIGHT make sense. But they don't, and the Obama administration is NOT enforcing the gun control laws we ALREADY have.

For example - lying on the form you fill out to get a gun, is a federal crime, but the Obama administration is not charging those who do it.
Why? Bush did it. Biden was asked about this by Jim Baker recently and said "we don't have the manpower...". That's odd, because you have MORE manpower than Bush ever had. WTF?

If you're not going to enforce the laws we have already, what good will having a bunch more laws to restrict the freedoms of the good citizens, do?

In America, when someone comes after you to do you harm, there's a good chance they'll have a gun, or some other weapon. When and if that happens, you will pray to God that you have a gun, to help even up the odds.

The idea that gun control laws will keep guns away from criminals, is so insane. I urge you to contact your local police dept. Ask them if it's difficult for criminals to buy an illegal gun in your city. Ask how long it would take to buy this illegal gun, in your city? **

Just ask, it's free!

** (maybe 10 minutes?)

[Adak]

Obama was sworn in as President, today - in the appropriately named "Blue" room, of the White House.

(He'll repeat it publicly tomorrow.)

You might reasonably believe that this would herald the end of his re-election campaign efforts -- but NO!

Now his re-election campaign has morphed into a 501c Corporation, that will run 24/7/365, to facilitate his agenda. That means his donors names can be hidden (and nobody likes hiding the facts, better than Obama -- ever).

Michelle Obama related how on their first date, Barrack talked about how he wanted to "transform the country".

I don't WANT a Socialist country, Mr. Obama! Kinda like the freedoms we had BEFORE the Patriot act.

Bundlers expected to bring in the $$$$, met for an hour and a half in the White House on Friday, so their strategy and tactics could be laid out with Obama and his staff.

I believe this is the very first time that such an organization has been formed, to run as a political fund raiser and lobby group, for a sitting President.

Somebody pass the Pepto over.

[xoxoxoBruce]

A you-can't-haz-tea party.

[Adak]

Originally Posted by glatt

The police are randomly searching regular people going about their daily commutes without probable cause or warrants on public transit systems in many major US cities including Washington DC. I've seen it with my own eyes in person.

Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The Bill of Rights is being violated by the government on a daily basis already.

Wait a minute - although I generally agree with you, especially on the Patriot Act and Carnivore, but I have to find exception with your conclusion here.

The Bill of Rights says we are free from "unreasonable searches and seizures". Note the "unreasonable" part of that.

I'm not familiar enough with the warrantless searches on people in cities back East, to know if it's unreasonable or not. Point is that ALL searches, according to the Bill of Rights, are NOT unreasonable - and therefore some are legal. Look at what the TSA is doing for air travelers, for crying out loud! THAT seems unreasonable to me.

BTW, the nude scanners are going to be removed from the airports, because the manufacturer (one of the major ones), says it can't diminish the resolution of the nude scan. (They tried to cheat in a demo showing they could do it, but got caught - shades of Lance Armstrong, eh? )

The other manufacturers of the nude scan equipment says that they can diminish the resolution, because they use slightly different technology in their scanners.

We shall see.

The cost is horrendous, but the gov't doesn't believe the nude scanner is legal, and has given the manufacturer plenty of time to find the fix for it - which it now says it can't find.

A less intrusive scanner will be put in place, of course.

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Adak

I'm not familiar enough with the warrantless searches on people in cities back East, to know if it's unreasonable or not. Point is that ALL searches, according to the Bill of Rights, are NOT unreasonable - and therefore some are legal. Look at what the TSA is doing for air travelers, for crying out loud! THAT seems unreasonable to me.

That's unconstitutional too, IMHO. The idea is that public transportation is optional, therefor, it's OK to search anyone who uses public transportation. I think this is wrong thinking. Public transportation (buses, subways, trains, planes) is a way to get from one place to another, just as a public road or a public sidewalk is a way to get from one place to another. The founding fathers were very clearly opposed to just stopping people going about their business and searching them. They didn't want people to be searched simply because they were traveling. And it really is a slippery slope. If you can search people who have entered the publicly owned transit system because they have chosen to enter a system, you can also search people who have entered the public highway and road system. Nobody is safe. Or I should say, the only reason people aren't being searched on roads yet is because it's too difficult and the outcry would be too great. But if you just shrug and don't care that people commuting to work on the bus or a subway are being searched without warrants or probably cause, then you deserve to be searched in your car.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by glatt

Or I should say, the only reason people aren't being searched on roads yet is because it's too difficult and the outcry would be too great.

Not too difficult and no real outcry.

Stop and Frisk

The stop-and-frisk program of New York City is a practice of the New York City Police Department by which a police officer who reasonably suspects a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a felony or a Penal Law misdemeanor, stops and questions that person, and, if the officer reasonably suspects he or she is in danger of physical injury, frisks the person stopped for weapons.

About 684,000 people were stopped in 2011.

"Terry Stop" Terry v. Ohio

The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).

So basically, if the cops want to frisk you just for the hell of it, they can. They can also detain you without charges.

People in middle class America do not see this. If the economy worsens and more of them move to lower income neighborhoods, this will change.

Note: Stop and frisk was recently challenged and overturned in some cases, but noone knows if this will stand.

[Adak]

Well Hooray! Obama appointments made without the approval of the Congress, (because Obama declared all by himself that Congress was NOT in session, when in fact, Congress WAS in session), has been overturned by the most important Appellate Court, in the country.

By unanimous agreement, the 3 judge court of Washington D.C., ruled that the President can't make appointments without the approval of Congress, even though it would be more efficient if he could do so.

"Where the language in the Constitution is clear, the President can not change it, to make things easier, or more efficient."

Obama made 4 appointments during that pro-forma session of Congress (where Congress is "in session", but not working on the floor, except to make the daily announcement that they are "in session").

Now those appointed, and everything they have done in the past year, is null and void.

Big slap in Obama's face, also.

Now a word about Tax Policy, from a brilliant CNN article today:

Editor's note: Edward J. McCaffery is Robert C. Packard Trustee Chair in law and a professor of law, economics and political science at the University of Southern California. He is the author of "Fair Not Flat: How to Make the Tax System Better and Simpler."

(CNN) -- Phil Mickelson, aka Lefty, is thinking of leaving California and perhaps America because, according to his own reckoning, he is facing tax rates of 62% or 63%. Mickelson, probably the second-most-famous professional golfer in the world after Tiger Woods, later backed off from his initial comments about making "drastic changes."

Reports suggest that Mickelson earned more than $60 million in 2012. In that sense, he appears to be doing better than the Romneys, and perhaps you are not all that sympathetic to him.

The Romneys (remember them?) paid so little tax. In 2011, Mitt and Ann Romney paid federal taxes of $2 million on reported income of $14 million, for an effective tax rate of 14%, all roughly. The Romneys even had to foreswear taking all of their available charitable deductions to make their tax rate seem so high for appearance's sake.
Edward J. McCaffery
Edward J. McCaffery

It does bear noting that Mickelson is doing something to earn his $60 million. Whoever is paying him that much believes that he is worth it. Who are we, really, to argue?

Mickelson's instinctive reactions to high tax rates, even if his math may be a bit muddled, are sound and sensible ones. Tiger Woods certainly agrees with him.

But that is not the problem in the story. Lefty faces such seemingly inescapably high tax rates that he might just pack up his golf bags and leave home. Mitt pays so little tax that he has to ignore the law to pay a higher rate for appearance's sake.
Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.



How can this be?

The Mitt-Lefty paradox has a simple explanation: In America, we tax work. And highly. We do not tax capital or wealth much at all. Indeed, if you have wealth already, taxes are essentially optional under what I call tax Planning 101, the simple advice to buy/borrow/die.

In step one, you buy assets that rise in value without producing cash, such as growth stocks or real estate. In step two, you borrow to finance your lifestyle. In step three, you die, and your heirs get your assets, tax free, and with a "stepped up" basis that eliminates all capital gains. That's it.

Romney, with a personal fortune estimated at $250 million (his five kids have another $100 million) has figured this out. When he pays taxes, at all, he does so at the low capital gains rate.

Not so with Lefty.

He is a wage-earner, albeit a very highly paid one, and he's going to pay over one-half of his income in taxes if he stays in California. We may not be shedding any tears for Lefty any more than we feel for Gerard Depardieu, who recently left France for Russia to escape taxes, or for the Rolling Stones, who many moons ago left England and recorded Exile on Main Street from France.

Yet one fact not making news is that it is still the case that the highest marginal tax rates in America do not fall on the highest incomes, like Lefty, but on certain of the working poor, many of them single parents, who are being taxed at rates approaching 90% as they lose benefits attempting to better themselves.

It's a "poverty trap" that works just like the severe marriage penalties for the lower-income classes. But the working poor do not have the options of going to Canada, Russia or France.

Lefty has a point -- high tax rates create disincentives. If the rates are high enough, people react by moving. This should not surprise us: American companies have been fleeing our shores for years, in droves. Ask Mitt.

But this should worry us, for two reasons.

One, the fact that the high incomers do flee jurisdictions, or flee from the productive activity of working, is a bad thing for the U.S.

Two, the very risk that the rich and famous might leave, aided by the appearance that some do, holds tax reform hostage. We have struggled to raise rates at all on the rich, blocked by the mostly mythical Joe the Plumber as much as by the realities of Mickelson or the Rolling Stones. When we do finally raise rates, as we did at the fiscal cliff, we do so on the wrong rich, in the wrong way. Lefty's taxes went up, Mitt's need not.

The problem -- and it is the same problem as with Mitt's taxes -- is that we are taxing the wrong thing, in the wrong way. In sum, we tax work, not wealth. This is backward.

We should be taxing the act of spending, not the socially beneficial ones of work and savings. Then we could raise tax rates without fear of ill effects.

Mitt's taxes would go up, for he is surely spending more than $14 million a year, as by running for president, and we wouldn't need any special capital gains preference under a consistent spending tax. Lefty's taxes would go down to the extent he saves some of his $60 million, helping us all by working and saving. When and if Mickelson or his kids spend, we could tax him or them then.

[... cutesy and stupid ending without merit, has been edited out. Wish they wouldn't add these endings to every article they publish.]