Democrats Seek To Raise Taxes On The Richest

 

My question to Republican legislators; do you accept the reality that infrastructure ages and falls into disrepair? Assuming you answer truthfully, who do you think will pay for replacement and repair? Surely not individual states. So where will the federal government get the money to fund this essential rebuilding?

Yes, the government can borrow, indeed, quite cheaply at today's rates. but most legislators (and voters) prefer that improvements be paid for from the government's revenue stream. That revenue stream derives from some form of taxation whether on income, consumption, estates and corporate profits, or some combination thereof.

Democrats say raise the income tax on the wealthy and large corporations. Republicans favor raising sales taxes and keeping the tax breaks for millionaires in place. Sales taxes, including taxes on fuel, are paid primarily and overwhelmingly by the average consumer and only minimally

 impact the wealthy.

So what is the fairest and most equitable means of financing the rebuilding of the nation's infrastructure? By putting the cost on the working stiffs, stagnating their economic progress, or by more heavily taxing the rich whose lifestyle will remain unchanged and large corporations who are most benefitted by a rebuilt and modern infrastructure? You decide.

Sharp Divisions on Police Violence Case

 A closely divided Supreme Court has held that a woman shot by pursuing police officers has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment even though she managed to escape.  A18, March 26. Thus, the woman will be permitted to maintain a lawsuit against the officers for use of excessive force. Three justices, through a dissent written by Justice Gorsuch, mocked the majority's ruling as contrary to common sense and as bending the law to appease public opinion.

The rather esoteric issue of whether a bullet striking a person constitutes a seizure while a missed shot would not, could be made irrelevant if the Court adopted a common sense approach which recognized the concept of an attempted unconstitutional seizure. The liability of  private citizens who attempt to commit a crime which they fail to accomplish is a well-recognized principle of law. Yet the Supreme Court has resisted treating an attempted unreasonable seizure as a constitutional violation. There is no good reason for the Court to draw such a distinction since attempted constitutional violations are just as abhorrent and may well inflict as much damage as  completed ones.

Just like a private citizen a police officer who unreasonably attempts but fails to seize someone should be held accountable for the harm caused by his unlawful conduct.

G.O.P. Officials Press Biden Over Restrictions in Stimulus Plan

 

The contention by twenty-one Republican attorneys general (3/17, A18), that a provision in the $1.9 trillion economic aid package unconstitutionally prohibits states from cutting taxes, is a patent sham. The revenue used by states to fund services, maintain and expand infrastructure and repay debt is fungible and represents a zero sum pot of money. If states take federal stimulus funds and, at the same time, reduce state taxes they are clearly using the federal money to lessen the state tax burden, a use made impermissible under the American Rescue Plan. 

The intent of the Plan is to enable states to combat the health and economic deficits wrought by the pandemic, not to substitute federal funds for state raised revenue, a claim hypocritically leveled against blue states by Republicans who opposed the stimulus.

The Constitution: Living or Dead?

  Originalists subscribe to the notion that the Constitution's language, and that of the Bill of Rights, was written by the fiery finger of a god possessed of incalculable and eternally enduring wisdom, or by men of similar stature and sagacity. So conceived, it is a sacred text, oracular in its foresight and susceptible of change only by the most challenging of means; the amendment process.

Originalists insist that what matters only is the text, the words used without regard to the intent of the draftsmen. And the meaning of those words must be understood in the context of the times in which they were written, not as that meaning may have changed over the centuries.

Simply put, when interpreting the Constitution the interpreter must look to how 18th century man used and understood the words in the text. To depart from that principle invites the interpreter to substitute personal preference and modern prejudice. The result, an ever-changing document used to justify rather than guide the decision maker.

Thomas Jefferson responded to such illogic as follows:

" Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence and deem them like the ark of the covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the preceding age a wisdom more than human... But I know also that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind." Jefferson's pronouncement was prophetic. To the extent that the Constitution serves as a blueprint for governance, it is unwise to worship words or concepts crafted in another time to deal with a very different world. Many of the Founders had perspectives about slavery, race, punishment, women's rights and social relationships that are radically out of step with modern thought and philosophy. Because they knew change was inevitable, and necessary, they bequeathed to their posterity a document that could live, adapt and evolve. To insist that today's legal and moral issues must be resolved only by reference to 18th century language as then understood, is shortsighted and unsustainable. Such an approach merely straitjackets our society, inhibits its continued growth and threatens the relevance of our revered charter.