Play for Real

There is some real pretense going on in Congress. First the judicial filibuster and delays on John Bolton:

Between PowerLine and Michelle Malkin we have a good retrospective on what the Left used to think about a filibuster. I remember Jimmy Stewart (Mr. SmithGoes to Washington) heroically holding off the bad guys by reading anything he could find. He even actually debated his points. The current "filibuster" is so much easier. All they have to do is say "I don't want to vote on that" and as long as 40 Senators hold that line (Democrat seats = 45), that is a "filibuster" in process.

Wouldn't it be nice to return to an actual instead of virtual debate? Senator Frist has proposed almost exactly that. In a letter to the minority leader and a speech on the Senate floor, he threw the gauntlet down. The Democrats said they wanted debate. He proposes giving it to them.

PowerLine also has some information about one of John Bolton's accusers: Frederick Vreeland. Little Green Footballs nails Melody Townsell.

Then there is the hoopla about Tom DeLay: Chck here for the Web of hypocrisy

Long Live the Pope

And now begins the liberal media attack on yet another institution. Columns in the paper today began with a bashing of the previous Pope for being too much in favor of what his church stood for over the centuries. The new Pope is a holdover, they say, of antiquated ideas. Why should tradition count for anything? Newer is better.
This isn't too much different than wanting judges who are free to think for themselves instead of upholding antiquated documents like the Constitution. The liberal letter writers have the gall to claim that the "right wing is distorting the judcial filibuster". It's all about the good judges that should be appointed. It is not about discrimination against the religious right. No matter that they have previously gone on record as saying that anyone with deeply held religious beliefs is unqualified for public office.
Stand by, shock and awe will follow.

About Those Taxes

Yesterday I read an editorial talking about taxes and why we should change the tax code to make it simpler. So far, so good. Then they proceeded to complain about a flat tax and a tax on consumption as being unfair to the poor. They almost echoed the "tax cuts for the rich" screed of the Democrats. They actually said that a flat tax would hit the poor more than the rich. And they said it with a straight face.

During the Presidential campaign, I kept waiting for the Republicans to interject a little sanity to the discussion, but it never happened. Rich and poor are generic terms, but they are descriptive of what people have. The only tax that is determined by what you own is a property tax. The discussion was about income tax, which taxes what you earn, not what you have. Moving from an income tax to a tax on consumption would be a dramatic shift in tax policy and, since it taxes what you spend, not what you have or what you earn, could hit poor people harder than rich people.

But let's look for a minute at the flat tax. It would have some level of income at which the tax kicks in (let's say $20,000 for a family) and some rate at which all income above the threshold would be taxed (let's say 15%). So, here is the low income family, scraping by on $20,000. Zero percent of the income goes to taxes. Or let's look at a family earning $50,000. They would pay $4,500 or 9% of their income on taxes. How about the really productive family earning $300,000? They would pay $42,000 or 14% of their income in taxes. Notice that for those three families, the one earning $300,000 pays in 90.32% of all taxes, the medium income family pays in 9.68% of all taxes, and the low income family pays no tax at all. Does anyone really think that this system favors the rich over the poor?

Obviously, this is a simple example. How do we establish the income below which you get a free ride? How about $10,000 per wage earner and $5,000 per non wage earner in a household?
what do you think?

Connect the Dots

Recently I learned the following:

• approximately 90-95% of the children on Ritalin are males
• Ritalin is a controlled substance and has the same effect as cocaine
• Most of the school shooters have been on psychiatric drugs
• Many school curricula attempt to feminize the boys

So, then, is it possible that the curriculum in most schools, being not "male friendly", leads boys to not pay attention or fidget. This fidgeting is then taken as a sign of ADHD which explains why more boys than girls are diagnosed with that. Then the boys are drugged. Could this be the pattern?
Just wondering.

Some of my favorite spots:
Town Hall Columnists
Scrappleface

Good Morning

This is a start to see what happens. Maybe later I will have some coherent thoughts about some cogent topic. For now, good morning.