Another fine demonstration of the law of unintended consequences.
City council passes an ordinance telling people they can't smoke in the bar anymore, and that they should take their filthy habit outside.
Now that they're outside with their filthy habit, we don't want them loitering in the parking lot or on the sidewalk.
Advice for downtown revelers:
The next time your posse needs to take a smoke break, wait for a nearby light to change and then stand in the middle of the intersection. At least that way when the cops show up, you'll be hassled for a real crime, and by real authorities.
Joe must be in the running for the Nanny Bloomberg prize this year.....
I hope they will all walk, hand in hand, for thirty minutes, due east.
Wow. Who knew that the IRS had so many fans?
Our tax code is so massive that it is not possible for a plurality of Americans to file their own tax returns. Is that what we want? Is that the best we can do?
Should anyone be surprised that an administration would use political power to leverage the regulatory power of the IRS against their political enemies? FDR and Nixon did it. So has Obama. Or maybe it's just a coincidence that after "the shellacking" of the 2010 midterms (the product of the Tea Party groundswell), certain organizations affiliated with the Tea Party were targeted for "special" treatment by the IRS.
Even if Obama had nothing to do with this, the thought that a government entity would single out certain individuals or organizations, just because they happen to oppose the current administrations' policies, should give everyone pause to think about whether that is "government of, by, and for the people" that we all champion.
Heads must roll over this. Getting the acting head of the IRS to retire two weeks early is not addressing the problem.
IF you still think that the IRS is a model of efficiency, check out form 1023, the one that the 30 people who make up the Laurens County Tea Party had to file in order to raise funds as a non profit 501c4.
Read the whole form. See you in an hour.
Then come back and tell me how the IRS cannot be improved upon.
It's time to scrap the current tax code and implement a flat tax. If 10% is enough for God, it should be enough for the government, too.
One more thing. MoveOn.org is a 501c4 organization with a PAC. Mr. Hamilton's assertion that the Tea Party is "primarily a political organization" is reason enough to deny it 501c4 status rings a bit hollow, in light of these statements from MoveOn's website:
"MoveOn is a community of more than 8 million Americans from all walks of life who are using the most innovative technology to lead, participate in, and win campaigns for progressive change........MoveOn members have been part of game-changing electoral victories, including the 2006 Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives, and the election and re-election of President Obama."
That sounds suspiciously like a group that might be "primarily a political organization". I wonder if future IRS commissioners should reexamine MoveOn's 501c4 status?
Sauce for the goose, eh, Mr. Hamilton?
Sanford did not beat Colbert-Busch.
He beat Nancy Pelosi and the entire DNC machine. He beat them despite being outspent. He beat them despite being cut off from the support of his own party. And he beat them all thoroughly. It wasn't even close.
A million dollar smear campaign made him toxic to even his own party, yet, a plurality of voters preferred the shame of being represented by the luv guv over the thought of empowering the Democrat party with control of the House.
Democrats wanted this campaign to be a referendum on Mark Sanford's personal shortcomings. Sanford made the campaign a referendum on the national Democrat party and its leadership.
Note to Democrats: This speaks volumes about your popularity.
Does he even read this stuff after he writes it?
Second to last paragraph:
"It may be true that there are outdated regulations......"
Sounds like he's on the fence about over regulation.
Followed by (in the same sentence):
"...the morass of regulatory legislation..."
Which (correctly) describes the current regulatory structure in the US.
Knee jerk liberals like to point to the successes of their regulatory culture, but often omit the fact that most businesses do a better job of regulating themselves than the government ever can. Food producers work hard to produce safe food, not because the government mandates it, but because killing your customers with tainted food is the quickest way to go out of business.
We are not Bangladesh. We have building codes and building inspectors. When the next big earthquake hits California, no amount of regulation will prop up buildings that were constructed before architects understood and implemented seismic design techniques. In Mat's fantasy utopia, we would tear down all those deficient structures and build new ones, putting "the people" back to work in the process. All of which can be paid for with golden goose eggs and treasury notes from the White House's money tree.
Regulation and compliance are an expense to business operation. All of which is ultimately passed on to consumers.
When a liberal says he wants more regulation, you should be hearing "I want to raise the cost of what you pay for things."
If you want a libertarian viewpoint on regulations, their effectiveness and costs, I suggest you check out John Stossel's reporting on the subject, available on the (gasp!) largely unregulated internet. Go there, if you dare.
I wonder if Mat thinks we need to better regulate the internet?
All Comments »
Powered by Foundation
© Copyright 2013,
Charleston City Paper