Oh boy, does Sean Davis have their number.
Earth to MSM: when an argument is weak, it’s actually pretty vulnerable to attack.
But I know; I know—the MSM is aware that the people they are trying to indoctrinate with a certain idea don’t usually read someone like Sean Davis (or Red State, or this blog for that matter).
Well, not exactly, but perhaps ultimately, because this is where the Democrats stand at this point:
Every single Democrat in the House of Representatives — with the exception of 1 — has decided to do away with that old “We’re the party for women” jazz. In its place, they’ve chosen for women to never again have an equal opportunity (equal to that of men) to excel in school sports…
The Dems’ Equality provision — to be tacked on to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — would make it a federal crime for schools to refuse males who wish to compete in women’s sports.
There’s a hierarchy of preferred victims for the Democrats, and I guess women have just gotten bumped. You’ve come a long way, baby.
I looked at a document cited as supporting the idea that transgender women aren’t a problem in female sports, and this is how the issue is treated:
Opponents of equality in athletics for transgender athletes have argued that girls who are transgender have unfair physiological advantages over cisgender girls and as a result, will dominate women’s competitive sports. Some have also suggested that girls who are transgender pose a threat to their cisgender teammates both on the field and in shared locker rooms. None of these arguments are rooted in fact. Existing evidence shows that denying opportunities and access to students based on their gender identity causes actual harm to those students, while there is no data to suggest that girls who are transgender are dominating athletics or posing a harm to their cisgender counterparts.
Not exactly convincingly mounting the evidence; merely stating not to worry about it.
I doubt that “harm” in the classic sense (as in assaults, violence) has been dealt out by transgender female athletes to those born female. And of course transgender females don’t completely dominate female athletics. First of all, there probably aren’t enough such students to make a lot of difference at the moment in every field; just in some. Secondly, not everyone who is a transgender athlete is going to be a good athlete. But that said, a person born male and who has gone through even part of adolescence as a male (genetically and hormonally), and certainly those who have gone through all of adolescence as such, would have a distinct advantage all else being equal. That is why quite a few of the paltry number of transgender athletes in female sports have managed to—yes, to dominate their sports.
I have written before on the subject (please see this) and I’m not going to go into the physiology in depth here. But I will point out that no one seems to be making much of a stink about trangender males (that is, people born female who identify as men) entering men’s sports, for the simple reason that it obviously confers no advantage on them. That right there should tell you something.
… Jasper Fakkert is pleased to be of service. He lists six ways:
1. FISA Warrant: Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page was targeted with a FISA warrant by the FBI in October 2016. The warrant was subsequently renewed three times for 90-day periods. Other members of the Trump campaign might have had FISA warrants on them, as well.
2. Unmasking: Hundreds of so-called unmasking requests were made for the identities of members of the Trump campaign in intelligence reports…
3. Undercover Informant: The FBI used Stefan Halper, an undercover agent, to infiltrate the Trump campaign. He contacted Trump campaign associates Carter Page and George Papadopoulos. Halper has ties to the CIA, as well as MI6.
4. National Security Letters: The use of national security letters to target the Trump campaign was first revealed by officials to The New York Times in a May 16, 2018, article. National security letters allow the FBI to secretly subpoena customer records from banks, phone companies, internet service providers, and others.
5. Foreign Intelligence: British intelligence agency GCHQ provided officials within the CIA with information on the Trump campaign as early as late 2015…
6. Reverse Targeting: Brennan admitted in an Aug. 17, 2018, interview with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that the CIA had obtained the communications of Americans associated with the Trump campaign through what appears to have been the use of reverse targeting. “We call it incidental collection in terms of CIA’s foreign intelligence collection authorities,” Brennan said.
Fakkert adds that no evidence was ever found of the supposed crimes that supposedly warranted the spying. It’s not just that no evidence was found after a thorough investigation, but none appears to have been found prior to the investigation in order to justify it; the evidence had to be manufactured in various ways, either by attempts at entrapment or by sheer imaginative efforts.
Now, that does not mean that we know everything. It is certainly possible that at some point we’ll learn—from the fuller Mueller report, from some IG report, from a report that Barr will end up issuing—that there was not only some evidence, but enough evidence that it would have fully justified the enormous steps that were taken by the opposition to spy on a candidate for the presidency.
But so far, nada. And if it continues that way, it is more than disturbing. It is exceedingly, tremendously disturbing—an outrage.
I happen to agree with this:
My position is, if DOJ/FBI cannot manage to successfully prosecute Mr Craig on a primary crime, then they should leave him the hell alone. None of this “Obstruction” or “Lying to the FBI”—unless it’s an enhancer and specifically to the aforementioned primary crime that they are also prosecuting him on.
However, I also believe that if those on the right are prosecuted for mere process crimes, those on the left should be, too. At the moment, that’s the situation. However, I would advocate strongly that neither side be prosecuted for those things.
I also believe that the FBI should have to record its interviews. There’s no reason to rely on their word anymore, if in fact there ever was such a reason. In case anyone is unfamiliar with FBI procedure, familiarize yourself with the 302:
A FD-302 form is used by FBI agents to “report or summarize the interviews that they conduct” and contains information from the notes taken during the interview by the non-primary[further explanation needed] agent…
The use of the FD-302 has been criticized as a form of institutionalized perjury due to FBI guidelines that prohibit recordings of interviews. Prominent defense lawyers and former FBI agents have stated that they believe that the method of interviewing by the FBI is designed to expose interviewees to potential perjury or false statement criminal charges when the interviewee is deposed in a grand jury and has to contradict the official record presented by the FBI. They have also stated that perjury by FBI agents allows the FBI to use the leverage of a potential criminal charge to turn an innocent witness into an informant.
The potential for abuse is enormous.
…which I was, in my previous post today—
One of President Obama’s former counsels, Greg Craig, is expected to be indicted. This was reported in none other than the NY Times, and since it’s something that doesn’t sit kindly with them and they’re still reporting it, my guess is that it may in fact be true:
The New York Times reported last night that Gregory B. Craig, a counsel in Obama’s White House, is expecting to be indicted in the near future on work he did on behalf of the Russian-aligned Ukrainian president and that’s linked to disgraced Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort…
…the expected indictment…is reportedly based on the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) and whether Craig lied about needing to register under it for work he did in the Ukraine…
An Ivy League-educated lawyer who held prominent positions in the Clinton and Obama administrations, Mr. Craig would become the first person who made his name in Democratic Party politics to be charged in a case linked to the special counsel’s investigation…
The link between Manafort and Craig is related to a report Craig produced while a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom firm in 2012. Manafort at the time was a political consultant for the pro-Russia Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovych, and apparently commissioned a report from Skadden Arps for $5.2 million in 2012 and 2013 that would be used “to use to quell Western criticism of the prosecution and jailing by Mr. Yanukovych’s government of one of his rivals, the former prime minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko, and to train Ukrainian prosecutors handling matters related to the case.”
Craig then, as ironically as possible, was quoted in The New York Times discussing the report and his firm was subsequently contacted by the DOJ and questioned as to why they had not registered under FARA. The crux of the potential indictment has to do with Craig insisting that he nor his firm proactively reached out to reporters to distribute the report. In a letter he sent to the DOJ he said that he only gave news outlets the report “in response to requests from the media.”
It was always clear that the prosecution of Manafort was motivated at least in part by politics and the need to try to get him to turn against Trump, and it was always clear that other people (including Democrats, of course) had probably violated at least portions of the same laws he violated, although perhaps not as flagrantly.
My question is whether Tony Podesta is next, and I would guess that’s Podesta’s question, too. The following is from an article that appeared in Vox back in July of 2018:
Earlier this year, special counsel Robert Mueller referred a case regarding Trump’s former lawyer Michael Cohen to federal prosecutors in Manhattan. But it turns out, Cohen might not be the only one.
CNN’s Erica Orden reported Tuesday that, since the spring, Mueller made additional referrals to prosecutors in the Southern District of New York regarding whether US lobbyists failed to register their work supporting the Ukrainian government. Those referrals include Democratic lobbyist Tony Podesta and lobbyist and ex-Minnesota GOP Rep. Vin Weber. Sources told CNN that former Obama White House counsel Greg Craig was also referred by Mueller to federal prosecutors in New York.
No charges have been filed against any of the individuals. The Washington Post reports that the referrals were made months ago, and there hasn’t been much activity on their cases since.
As I said, that was back in July. Bill Barr assumed office on Valentine’s Day, 2019 (hmmmm—is the date another irony?). And now perhaps these things are being moved on.
Of course, it’s only a story in the NY Times, so even though it’s a development about which the Times can’t possibly be happy, we need to take it all with a grain of salt.
[NOTE: I’ve read a bunch of stories about Greg Craig and this possibly pending indictment, and in the little summaries of Craig’s career it keeps mentioning that he was Obama’s White House Counsel for a while. That’s certainly true, but his name rang another bell for me, a great big gong actually. I didn’t notice it mentioned in any of the stories I saw, but I recalled quite vividly that he was one of President Clinton’s lawyers to argue on behalf of Clinton in the Senate impeachment trial. Sure enough, that was the case (and note that Podesta was one of the people he worked closely with):
Craig worked in the White House during the Clinton administration from 1998 to 1999, holding the title of assistant to the President and special counsel. Craig’s old friend and law partner Kendall was Clinton’s personal attorney. Craig was brought on specifically to coordinate the White House’s defense of Clinton during impeachment proceedings against him. Termed the “quarterback” by Clinton, Craig worked from the West Wing and oversaw legal, political, congressional, and public relations aspects of the defense, reporting regularly to President Clinton and consulting with John Podesta, the White House chief of staff. However, Craig claimed in an interview with PBS Frontline in July 2000 that Podesta was the one who recruited him and that Podesta told him that the White House needed a “coordinator quarterback.” He also stated that he mainly coordinated with Podesta and that “I could name to John ten other lawyers in America that could do the job as well, if not better.”
These people have certainly been movers and shakers for a long, long time.
I want to add something with which I expect many of you to disagree. But first, a quote from Craig at the Clinton impeachment trial:
In the second day of the President’s defense in his Senate trial, Craig, a special White House counsel, appealed to the senators not to “throw our politics into the darkness of endless recrimination” and not to “inject a poison of bitter partisanship into the body politic which, like a virus, can move through our national bloodstream for years to come.”
He added: “If you convict and remove President Clinton on the basis of these allegations, no President of the United States will ever be safe from impeachment again.”
Most of you probably think Bill Clinton deserved to be impeached and perhaps even convicted. I’ve said many times that I do not. Most of the arguments around that on this blog have occurred in the comments section rather than in a separate post, and I’m not going to go into the details here. But I refer you to this, this, this, and this, and please be sure to follow all the links in all those links.
The reason I’m bringing the topic up again here is that I believe that Craig was correct in this particular quote, or at least partially correct. Now, would the same have happened if Clinton hadn’t been impeached? Perhaps. Maybe even probably. Maybe it had already happened at the time; I certainly don’t think that but for that impeachment action by the GOP, comity would have prevailed. Nor do I think that “the Republicans started it” (some will cite what happened to Nixon, some Bork, and plenty of other incidents). But the Clinton impeachment certainly added fuel to the fire, and all for nothing in the end, IMHO.
I’m well aware, as I already said, that a great many of you may differ strongly with me on that.
At any rate, it may be that Greg Craig will now see himself on the other end of a courtroom proceeding.]
[ADDENDUM: I’d like to add that I agree with this:
My position is, if DOJ/FBI cannot manage to successfully prosecute Mr Craig on a primary crime, then they should leave him the hell alone. None of this “Obstruction” or “Lying to the FBI”—unless it’s an enhancer and specifically to the aforementioned primary crime that they are also prosecuting him on.
However, I also believe that if those on the right are prosecuted for mere process crimes, those on the left should be, too. At the moment, that’s the situation. However, I would advocate strongly that neither side be prosecuted for those things.]
Democrats seem both angry and frightened, and their kneejerk and perhaps even somewhat panicked response right now is to try to destroy Barr.
You can feel the frisson of fear they emanate. They waited two years for the blow of the Mueller report to fall on Trump, and now other investigative blows may fall on them. The Mueller report combined with Barr’s appointment could end up being a sort of ironic boomerang (whether or not boomerangs can be ironic I leave to you to decide).
How could this have happened? they must be thinking. How could the worm have turned? But they are spinning in the usual manner, hoping that—as so often has happened in the past—their confederates in the press will work their magic to make all of it go away and boomerang back to Republicans instead.
But whatever comes of it all, if anything, Democrats cannot believe that at least right now their dreams have turned to dust and they taste, instead of the thrill of victory, the agony of defeat.
And so we get statements such as those portrayed in this medley (I have it cued up to show about two minutes of highlights):
In a handful of fossilized teeth and bones, scientists say they’ve found evidence of a previously unknown human species that lived in what is now the Philippines about 50,000 years ago. The discovery deepens the mystery of an era when the world was a melting pot of many different human kinds on the move.
Small-jawed with dainty teeth, able to walk upright but with feet still shaped to climb, these island creatures were a mix-and-match patchwork of primitive and advanced features in a unique variation of the human form, the scientists reported Wednesday in the journal Nature…
Using a technique called uranium-series testing, which measures the rate of radioactive decay in a sample, the scientists determined that the bones dated to a time between 50,000 and 67,000 years ago.
The creature’s teeth, toes and finger bones appear to mix aspects of the other human species in existence elsewhere at the time, including Homo sapiens, Denisovans, Neanderthals, Homo naledi and Homo floresiensis, nicknamed the hobbit species for its small stature and big feet.
So far, the scientists haven’t found evidence that these creatures used tools to hunt or to process their food, which might indicate how highly developed their brains might have been. The scientists also have been unable to isolate DNA from the bones and teeth that could be used to understand how closely they were related to other human species.
And this seems especially interesting:
The scientists also don’t know how these creatures reached the island, which was isolated from the mainland of Asia in that primordial era by deep ocean, just as today. Their more primitive ancestors may have been washed ashore on storm-driven debris or perhaps sailed on rafts, as much as 700,000 years ago, they said.
“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
– Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio
The big story was the affirmative answer [Barr] gave to a question about whether he was planning to investigate the provenance of the Russia probe itself. That would, of course, include the FISA court scandal and the Steele dossier, not to mention strange–let’s call them spooky– occurrences in the UK well before the election. Barr noted he also would look at the eight criminal referrals of DOJ personnel and others coming from Devin Nunes. He further noted we could expect the inspector general’s report on these matters in May or June. He was filled with such news, much of it spontaneously given…
In other words, Barr’s obviously been paying attention to the larger situation and that is bad news indeed for Democrats. This is particularly true because the Mueller probe did not come up with any crimes connected to Russia collusion, but even the beginnings of an investigation of what prompted the probe in the first place has already come up with several.
More are undoubtedly coming. Is it an accident Judicial Watch was finally able to uncover “422 pages of FBI documents showing evidence of ‘cover-up’ discussions related to the Clinton email system” just the other day? Or does it have something to do with the installation of Barr? Impossible to know at this juncture, but what is clear is we will be dealing with this a long time, all the way, it’s quite likely, to election 2020.
I certainly do think that getting responses to Judicial Watch’s requests has something to do with Barr being at the helm now, rather than Sessions. The entire operation was in a deer-in-the-headlights holding pattern when Sessions was in charge.
I spent some time puzzling over why Trump didn’t fire Sessions earlier. I don’t ordinarily trust The Atlantic’s take on the working of Trump’s mind, but I do think that this has the ring of truth:
Legal experts and political strategists who have either worked directly with the president or observed his behavior from afar attribute Trump’s reluctance to fire Sessions to two major considerations: Fears in the White House that the move would cost the president support among GOP voters and members of Congress, who generally like and support Sessions, and the risk of provoking further allegations of obstruction of justice—both of which could deepen the challenges already facing the administration.
Whatever the reason for Sessions’ relative longevity as AG, Barr’s in charge now and the change in atmosphere is clear:
Attorney General William Barr dropped a bombshell Wednesday, telling a group of senators that he believes spying against the Trump campaign did take place in 2016.
“I think spying on a political campaign is a big deal,” Barr said during an exchange with Democratic New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Shaheen asked in a follow-up whether Barr believed the FBI spied on the Trump team.
“You’re not suggesting, though, that spying occurred?” Shaheen asked.
“I think spying did occur. Yes, I think spying did occur. But the question is whether it was predicated, adequately predicated,” Barr said.
This promises to be very interesting, although I wouldn’t bet that any charges come from it.
Here’s how USA Today covers the Netanyahu election:
The outcome would also affirm Israel’s continued tilt to the political right and further cast doubt on hopes of a negotiated solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, partly because of Netanyahu’s close relationship with President Donald Trump.
Israel’s mostly been tilting right since 2000, and with good reason, although the authors of the piece don’t allude to the reason why, which was the utter failure of the peace plans and negotiations the left had championed (see this). The end of the Camp David talks in 2000, which featured Israel’s giving an enormous number of concessions to Arafat and Arafat walking away, made it clear that the whole thing had been a charade on the part of the Palestinians, and unless something changed very drastically there would be little to no hope of a negotiated solution—certainly not of the conventional sort—although the MSM and the left have been pretending otherwise.
So, how has Netanyahu’s close relationship with Trump cast further doubt on a negotiated solution? Did the fact that Obama hated Netanyahu and treated him like dirt lead to productive negotiations? Don’t think so.
More:
Trump’s decision to reverse decades of U.S. policy toward Israel, including moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem even though both the Palestinians and the Israelis claim that city as their capital, has embittered Palestinians.
Ah, so that’s what’s embittered them. Glad the authors can shed light on that. After all, the Palestinians were so unembittered before Trump did that.
And by the way, the Palestinians don’t just claim that Jerusalem is their capital, they want a right of return to Israel and to essentially stop Israel from being Israel. Good luck negotiating with that.
The article goes on to describe the reaction to Trump’s peace plan, the details of which no one knows:
It’s expected to be unveiled soon but critics have dismissed it even before its release because of Trump’s Israel actions. Foreign Policy magazine described it as a “disaster waiting to happen” and Shalom Lipner, who served seven consecutive Israeli prime ministers, wrote in a recent Politico analysis that it looked “dead on arrival.”
As I indicated earlier, if this plan is “dead on arrival” it’s only because all such plans are, not because of “Trump’s Israel actions.” It’s a convenient fiction for the left and Trump’s other opponents to pretend otherwise. So I tend to agree with these critics that it isn’t going to succeed, although I don’t know what the plan entails.
Danial Pipes says, on the other hand, that he’s got some of the details. I wonder. He also thinks it won’t work, but his opinion is that it’s too much like the old plans of previous administrations and gives too much away, although Pipes says one difference is that Trump’s plan will require the Arabs to make concessions first, unlike previous plans that required that of Israel or that called for simultaneity.
My guess is that Trump will attempt to do it somewhat differently and that he has a few extra tricks up his sleeve. But I am not the least bit optimistic about the results; I just think the situation is too stuck and the Palestinian leaders gain too much from keeping the wound festering. But it would be very nice to be pleasantly surprised.
One thing of which I’m fairly sure is that Trump and Netanyahu will have a good working relationship.
You can follow it here.
UPDATE 11:30 PM: Netanyahu projected to be the winner.
[Please also see the ADDENDUM at the end of the post for further details.]
Just when you think Democrats can’t get any worse, along comes an idea like that of Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon:
Under current policy, capital gains, such as increases in value for held stocks, are only taxable when they are “realized.” In other words, if you own stock that increases in value from $1,000 to $1,500, you’re only liable to pay taxes on the $500 increase in value if you sell the stock at $1,500 and “realize” the $500 gain.
Wyden’s idea, on the other hand, would replace this simpler system with one in which capital gains would be taxed annually whether or not they were realized. In other words, if a stock you held increased in value from $1,000 to $1,500, you would still be liable for that $500 gain even if you didn’t sell and the value only changed on paper.
Wyden would counter that this is an oversimplification, and to an extent he would be right. Long-term capital gains, or capital gains on assets held for more than a year, enjoy a substantial zero percent bracket. Yet short-term capital gains, or capital gains on assets held for less than one year, are taxed as ordinary income. Without changes to this structure, Wyden would be imposing a tax on every new asset a taxpayer acquires that gains any value at all during that year.
In addition to all its other flaws, this would be difficult to carry out because the values of many assets are hard to pinpoint until they are sold. And of course, values that rise can fall, and indeed they often do. You can bet your bottom dollar (apt expression) that if an asset’s value declines by the time a person sells it, the IRS isn’t going to refund all those tax dollars paid out over the years.
So this amounts to a tax on the imaginary or at least potential value of assets. Hey, why not? It’s all in the service of making the rich poorer. And Wyden is quick to assure us that this will only affect the rich, the really really really rich, not you and me, so what the hey?:
Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, announced on Tuesday that he is working on a mark-to-market system that would tax unrealized capital gains on assets owned by “millionaires and billionaires.”…
This levy, assessed annually, would kick in at the same rate as all other income, Wyden said. Currently, the top marginal rate on ordinary income is 37 percent.
In comparison, long-term capital gains are taxed at a top rate of 20 percent.
And capital gains are now taxed only when assets are sold and the gains are realized and not just on paper.
More:
“Everyone needs to pay their fair share and the best approach to achieving that goal is a mark-to-market system that would require the wealthy to pay taxes on their gains every year at the same rates all other income is taxed,” Wyden said in a statement.
Yeah, the wealthy aren’t paying their fair share, according to Wyden and the Democrats—even though the top 1% are actually paying 37.3% of all income taxes in the US. Unrealized gains are not income at all, they’re imaginary and/or potential. Just ask anyone who’s ever lost money in the stock market after seeing a stock’s value rise and then fall, or invested in some antique or collectible that later goes out of favor with the public:
Mark to market is attractive [sic] when the market is going up, but what happens to revenues when it reverses?
My guess is that the government would then say the equivalent of “Too bad, sucker.”
And of course, being a millionaire isn’t quite what it used to be. A million dollars in assets (not to mention unrealized assets) doesn’t go very far at all in places with a very high standard of living.
This particular idea may not be quite as awful as the Green New Deal, but it’s up there. It’s another attempt to spread the wealth around, but this one is especially stupid/pernicious. Here’s the rationale behind it, ostensibly:
Wyden’s proposal would tax assets as soon as the price goes up, rather than when the asset is sold. The logic behind this is simple — paper gains represent real wealth, since you could sell the asset and get cash any time you want. Waiting until the asset is sold in order to tax it allows the wealth to compound untaxed, which causes wealth inequality to accumulate.
At the risk of repeating myself), I will say that as far as “wealth” goes, paper gains represent potential wealth, wealth that is only made actual if and when the asset is sold. The thing itself has no stable value—the wealth it generates depends on what it actually does generate for the seller at the exact time it is sold. What’s more, an unrealized capital gains tax goes against what I understand to be the entire basis of our income tax laws, which is that they are a tax on income both earned (wages, etc.) and unearned (interest, dividends, etc.).
I’ve said many times that finance and economics are not my forte. But I don’t think a person needs to be an expert to understand (correct me if I’m wrong—I know you will!) that there are different kinds of taxes. Many of them involve the use or purchase of something, or the import of something. Some are local, such as sales taxes. Some are federal. There are many kinds, but as far as I know they all involve paying when there is some kind of actual transaction in the real world, except for property taxes, which are on unrealized gains when revaluation occurs but property is not sold (although California’s Proposition 13 modified that somewhat by limiting such increases; see this; also that’s one of the main objections to the “tax/penalty” on not buying into Obamacare).
But property taxes are local, and locally determined. The federal income tax is a different kettle of fish, and far more broad in its reach and scope. To change that from realized gains to unrealized ones is a big big deal, and a big big change rather than a small one.
Oh, and about those millionaires and billionaires, the only ones it will supposedly affect? That’s the sort of thing that was said in order to get the 16th Amendment passed to have a federal income tax in the first place—that it would only apply to the very very rich. Ha, ha! Who got the last laugh?
[NOTE: About the history of the federal income tax and how it was originally sold and perceived:
At first, few thought the income tax amendment had much of a chance surviving a vote in Congress. But the unpopularity of high tariffs eased the amendment through both the Senate and the House. In just a few days during the summer of 1909, the proposed 16th Amendment was approved by the Senate (77-0) and the House (318-14).
Thirty-six state legislatures had to ratify the 16th Amendment before it could go into effect. The public and most newspapers seemed to favor it. The main argument for ratification was that the amendment would force the wealthy to take on a fairer share of the federal tax burden that had in the past been largely carried by those earning relatively little. Only a few critics spoke out forcefully against the amendment. John D. Rockefeller, one of the country’s richest men, stated: “When a man has accumulated a sum of money within the law. . . the people no longer have any right to share in the earnings resulting from the accumulation.”
Ratification moved slowly but steadily through the state legislatures. Some of the states had already passed income tax laws of their own in seeking new ways to finance public schools and other social needs. Surprisingly, the income tax amendment drew widespread support in cities and in rural areas alike, from both Democrats and Republicans, and in all geographical regions. Even New York ratified the amendment despite the state’s reputation as the capital of “money power” with numerous millionaires among its residents (including John D. Rockefeller). By early 1913, 42 states (six more than needed) had ratified the income tax amendment. Only six states rejected it.
Rep. Cordell Hull introduced the first income tax law under the newly adopted Sixteenth Amendment. He proposed a graduated tax starting with a 1-percent rate for incomes between $4,000 and $20,000 increasing to a top rate of 3 percent for those earning $50,000 or more. The House Ways and Means Committee called upon citizens to “cheerfully support and sustain this, the fairest and cheapest of all taxes. . . .”
The first tax collection day under the new law took place on March 1, 1914. Since the average worker earned only about $800 a year, few people actually had to pay any federal income tax. Less than 4 percent of American families made an annual income of $3,000 or more. Deductions and exemptions further shrank the pool of taxpayers. Nevertheless, the federal government collected $71 million that first year. Millionaire John D. Rockefeller alone paid an estimated $2 million.
All in all, most Americans thought the new tax was a great idea. One taxpayer wrote to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, “I have purposely left out some deductions I could claim, in order to have the privilege and the pleasure of paying at least a small income tax. . . .”
We’ve come a long way, haven’t we?]
[NOTE II: The title of this post is a riff on this.]
[ADDENDUM: Just to clarify—I am pretty sure, although I don’t know the details, that a person still could claim a loss if he/she sells the asset at a lower price later on. But the amount of the deduction a person can take for such a loss is limited per year, and meanwhile the person has been paying taxes on gains that never benefited that person at all.
What’s more, an asset might go up for a while and then at some point start dropping, and yet I sort of doubt the IRS starts to pay back the tax by giving a deduction at that time, in a back-and-forth back-and-forth manner, getting money from the taxpayer in up years and giving money back to the taxpayer (in the form of deductions, I assume) in down years, all without any transaction occurring at all except between the IRS and the taxpayer. Although it’s certainly possible that the proposal contemplates just such a messed-up situation.
I’m pretty sure that at least the taxpayer wouldn’t have to pay additional capital gains taxes in the end if the asset is sold at a profit, except for the increase that occurs in that final year before the sale. I haven’t yet been able to find an article that explains these pesky little details in all their glory, but to me they are irrelevant because the principle of the thing is awful.
David L. Bahnsen calls it “extreme, silly, impractical, dangerous, and inane…inherently destabilizing, logistically farcical, and ethically unforgivable.” in National Review, and adds that “we do not tax theoretical income.” Indeed, we do not, except for property taxes (not a federal tax), as discussed earlier. Bahnsen adds about Wyden’s proposal:
…[T]he compliance costs would be the biggest boondoggle our nation’s financial system has ever seen. How in the world is illiquid real estate that has not sold supposed to be “valued” each and every year, let alone illiquid businesses, private debt, venture capital, and the wide array of capital assets that make up our nation’s economy but do not fit in the cozy box of “mutual funds”? What kind of drain to the economy would such an annual exercise in “mark-to-fantasy” represent, as professionals driven by an objective of tax efficiency are tasked with valuing an asset out of thin air?
But let’s ignore that deal-breaker of a problem for a moment. Let’s just assume we are talking about Microsoft stock, which has an easily definable market value and infinite trading liquidity: What should we do each year when the stock price has gone down?…The cluster-you-know-what that would be created in allowing people to take losses year-by-year on investments that have not been sold probably has the most sophisticated and tax-savvy investors salivating at the opportunity to game this mess of an idea to their own favor.
Much more at the link. Much much more.
By the way, let me add that Wyden is no wild-eyed youngster. He’s not only 69 years old, but he’s the top-ranking member of the Senate’s tax committee.
Ron Insana calls Wyden’s idea “beyond ‘breathtakingly terrible'”:
This is yet another full-employment act for accountants, tax attorneys and others who would then create a wide variety of tax avoidance schemes forged from whatever loopholes may arise from new legislation.
Further, unless one is a trader and not an investor (short term versus long term), this idea will add unnecessary volatility to the financial markets and cause pockets of weakness in them when it comes time to pay the piper each and every year…
The proceeds to pay taxes have to come from somewhere, and no investor will take out loans to pay taxes. They will sell stocks and bonds, thereby creating a season of tax harvesting that will depress prices as the bills come due.
Much more at that link, too. Whether Wyden is serious about this or not, it is a very dangerous development that he is talking about it at all, because it’s another sign of how far the Democrats have gone off the rails, making proposals that are obviously destructive to our entire economy.]
Victor Davis Hanson’s latest essay is a good read. Although it probably won’t tell you anything you don’t know, as a summary of the efforts to invalidate the results of the 2016 presidential election it’s a good reminder of the relentless drive of the self-proclaimed Resistance against Trump. It leaves out a lot of details, of course, but Hanson isn’t writing a book, he’s writing an article.
Excerpt:
When that did not work, celebrities and politicians hit social media and the airwaves to so demonize Trump that culturally it would become taboo even to voice prior support for the elected president. Their chief tool was a strange new sort of presidential assassination chic, as Madonna, David Crosby, Robert de Niro, Johnny Depp, Snoop Dogg, Peter Fonda, Kathy Griffin, and a host of others linguistically vied with one another in finding the most appropriately violent end of Trump—blowing him up, burning him up, beating him up, shooting him up, caging him up, or decapitating him. Apparently, the aim—aside from careerist chest-thumping among the entertainment elite—was to lower the bar of Trump disparagement and insidiously delegitimize his presidency.
When that did not work, during the president’s first year in office, the Democrats and the media at various times sought to invoke the 25th Amendment, claiming Trump was so mentally or physically impaired that he was not able to carry out the duties of president. At one point, congressional Democrats called Yale University psychiatrist Dr. Bandy X. Lee to testify that Trump was unfit to continue. In fact, to prove her credentials, Lee edited The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump that offered arguments from 27 psychiatrists and other mental health experts. In May 2017, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein met secretly in efforts to poll Trump cabinet members to discover whether they could find a majority to remove Trump from office—again on grounds that he was mentally unbalanced. According to McCabe, Rosenstein offered to wear a wire, in some sort of bizarre comic coup attempt to catch Trump off-guard in a confidential conversation.
When that did not work…
You can see the structure of the thing, the near-Biblical repetition of the introduction to each paragraph: “When that did not work…”
Hanson ends the piece with this:
The final irony? If the CIA, FBI, and DOJ have gone the banana republic way of Lois Lerner’s IRS and shredded the Constitution, they still failed to remove Donald Trump.
Trump still stands. In Nietzschean fashion what did not kill him apparently only made him stronger.
I understand what Hanson is trying to say, which I believe is that Trump seems stronger now in many ways than when he was elected. I’m not sure I agree, though. If he is stronger politically (which only the 2020 election will tell us), what’s the reason? Is it because these attacks have exposed the desperation and willingness to compromise American institutions on the part of the left? Or is it because of his accomplishments during his presidency so far?
And if Trump is stronger, another question is: stronger than what? Certainly stronger than the left (and some NeverTrumpers who used to be on the right) ever wanted him to be at this point. But I don’t think he’s stronger than he would have been without all this brouhaha, although of course I can’t know. If he’d just been left alone to be president without all the harassment, innuendos, and promises that any moment he’ll be revealed as a traitor, and the American public were allowed to merely evaluate him on the merits of what he’s accomplished, my guess is that he’d be stronger today politically than he actually is. So in that sense, the attacks haven’t made him stronger.
Or maybe they have. They may have done the almost impossible, made the president of the United States seem like an underdog.
[NOTE: When I was reading the comments to Hanson’s article, I noticed that someone had compared the repeated and failed efforts to take Trump down to the struggle to kill Rasputin. That’s an exaggeration, of course. But it struck me as apt nevertheless. The Resistance sees Trump as evil, and some of their imagery in one of the paragraphs I excerpted from Hanson is very violent and very much embodies their fantasy of killing Trump.
Rasputin was nothing like Trump, I hasten to make clear. He was the very opposite of a duly elected government office-holder and was not even born into the Russian nobility (au contraire). He was seen as illegitimately having usurped power (as the left sees Trump, or pretends to see him), and as crazy (as the left sees Trump, or pretends to see him), and a lot else:
The press, unshackled thanks to rights granted to them by Nicholas II in 1905, spread lurid tales about Rasputin both within Russia and abroad. Rumors about Rasputin’s influence over the Czarist regime spread throughout Europe. Petitioners, believing that Rasputin lived with the Imperial family, mailed their requests to “Rasputin, Czar’s palace, Saint Petersburg.”
Soldiers on World War I’s Eastern front spoke of Rasputin having an intimate affair with Alexandra, passing it off as common knowledge without evidence. As the war progressed, outlandish stories expanded to include Rasputin’s supposed treason with the German enemy, including a fantastical tale that he sought to undermine the war effort by starting a cholera epidemic in Saint Petersburg with “poisoned apples imported from Canada.” What the public thought they knew about Rasputin had a greater impact than his actual views and activities, fueling demands that he be removed from his position of influence by any means necessary…
The most well-known account of Rasputin’s murder was the one that Yussupov wrote in his memoirs, published in 1928. Yussupov claimed to have invited Rasputin to his palace to meet his wife Irina (who was in fact away at the time) and then served him a platter of cakes and numerous glasses of wine laced with potassium cyanide. To Yussupov’s astonishment, Rasputin appeared to be unaffected by the poison. A desperate Yussupov borrowed the revolver of the Grand Duke Dmitri, the czar’s cousin, and shot Rasputin multiple times, but was still unable to kill him. According to the memoir, “This devil who was dying of poison, who had a bullet in his heart, must have been raised from the dead by the powers of evil. There was something appalling and monstrous in his diabolical refusal to die.” There was reputedly water in his lungs when his remains were discovered, indicating that he had finally died by drowning.
Yussupov’s account of Rasputin’s murder entered popular culture…
…The autopsy reports do not mention poison or drowning but instead conclude that he was shot in the head at close range. Yussupov transformed the murder into an epic struggle of good versus evil to sell books and bolster his own reputation.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I certainly don’t pretend to know. But the legend lives on.
Oh, and the murder of Rasputin did not have effect the plotters intended:
To the dismay of Yussupov and his co-conspirators, Rasputin’s murder did not lead to a radical change in Nicholas and Alexandra’s polities. To the emergent Bolsheviks, Rasputin symbolized the corruption at the heart of the Imperial court, and his murder was seen…as an attempt by the nobility to hold onto power at the continued expense of the proletariat.
The rest, as they say, is history.]