President Trump has come out with his proposal regarding corporate taxes. He wants to lower it to 15% while closing all the loopholes. There will be a lot of discussion on both sides on the effectivity of this act. One side will say that it will generate new business and the other will say there is no use to it and it is a payoff to the rich. Neither side will discuss the morality of the act.
Lowering corporate taxes is the only moral choice in this scenario. As it stands right now our corporate taxes are 35-39%. It varies slightly depending on the actual state you are in. The amazing thing about this rate is that when you ask any politician whether they are from the right like Ted Cruz or from the left like Bernie Sanders they will all say the same thing. Corporations do not pay this as it is. They pay an average of 15% to 20%. Some corporations pay lower and some higher depending on how aggressively they are willing to exploit loopholes and the talent of their lawyers and accountants. There is a consensus that if corporation were to actually pay this tax rate which is the highest in the world they would leave or go under. We are in effect operating under laws we expect no one to follow.
Since I am discussing morality it will be useful to first discuss what a law is. A politician will give you one answer, a law student will give you another, and a layman will give you a third. The best description I have found comes from a thinker in the Qin dynasty. A law is a wish. It is the physical incarnation of the ideal society of the lawmaker. In simple terms if you make laws penalizing rape and murder it is because you do not want rape and murder in your society. If you make laws protecting dolphins it is because you want the environment and that animal protected. If you make laws attracting business it is because you want your people employed. The laws you make define the type of society to live in. If you make laws that you expect people to break then you get a society of lawbreakers.
Should be Followed
Ayn Rand got a lot of things wrong in her philosophy but one of the things she got absolutely correct is that the most evil thing you can do is to design laws so people have no choice but to break them. Once you do that you have turned your entire society into criminals and have control over them. Take the tax rate for example. If you have a group of moral companies who paid the 39% as mandated by law and another group of companies who cheated and paid only 15% the companies who made the moral choice would cease to exist. What is worse the officials tasked with enforcing the law would not care as no one expected the law to be followed anyway.
Once you have created your society of lawbreakers then all the power rests in the hands of those who enforce and make the laws as opposed to the citizens. Your success or failure does not depend on the skill of labor or management but on the grace of the officials who choose which laws they would like to enforce. After all the easiest way to actually kill your company would be to enforce the laws that are already there. You have basically institutionalized corruption.
The Moral Choice
Laws should be made with the expectation that they be followed. If you want companies to pay 40% tax then make then declare that they will pay 40% tax. If you want them to pay 100% tax then make a law that compels them to do it. If your system does anything else then it must be changed.
La belle France faces a choice next week. Continue the failed policies of Hollande thru his successor Macron or forge a new path with Le Pen. With an approval rating of only 4% it is hard to imagine how France can choose to continue the legacy of Hollande. It has gotten so bad that his chosen successor, Macron, had to leave the Socialist party as there was no way someone from there was going to be elected. By all standards Hollande has had a failed presidency and I urge our French cousins not to be fooled by the charade. Switching the names of the party does not mean you will do anything different than your predecessor. Macron is Hollande and Hollande is Macron.
The people who actually live in France should be able to explain this better than I. Hollande and Macron has been an unqualified disaster on terrorism. Every couple of months France is in the news with yet another bombing, knifing, killing spree, out of control truck, or whatever the terrorists have done for that day. We have another moment of silence, Facebook photo, twitter hashtag, and then nothing. Nothing happens and it happens again and we repeat the process yet again. It is very difficult to imagine living under such circumstances. It is similar to a situation in a war zone where enemy combatants can kill you at any time. Yet Macron and Hollande have done nothing and are asking for the people to trust them with another term.
Even on economics Macron and Hollande have been colossal failures. Macron’s law is one of the most unpopular pieces of legislation that Hollande has passed. GDP growth is slower than most of the other European countries, Long term unemployment is very high, more than 8 in 10 new jobs are temporary, and of course wages have not increased as well.
It is very difficult to find a metric that Macron and Hollande have not failed in when it comes to the economy. The 4% approval rating means even his most ardent supporters do not approve of the performance of Hollande and his economic minister Macron.
Albert Einstein once said that the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over again and hoping for a different result. I hope our French cousins are not insane.
Choisir la Raison. Choissisez Le Pen. Choissisez la France.
The first round is over and the results are in. It will be a contest between Macron and Marine Le Pen and I would like to say that #imwithher. If you have any liberal friends here or in France feel free to say that they are a racist sexist bigot if they are voting for the straight white male Macron. After all we want to break the glass ceiling for all women.
Marine Le Pen
Let us be clear about one thing Le Pen represents change in this election. From economics, to social policy, and even culture itself. Ultimately the election is about changing the course of the country. Le Pen represents a shift in the direction of the ship. From east to west or north to south while Macron at best represents a change of 1 or 2 degrees either way. If you are happy with Hollande and the work he has done you should definitely vote for Macron. If you are not happy with his work then I encourage you to vote for Le Pen.
Macron and the opponents of Le Pen do not want you to think about that. They cannot engage Le Pen on ideas as it will be obvious they stand for nothing more than the status quo so they engage in the old tactic of calling her a Nazi. At this point I would like to issue a challenge to all my readers. Look up articles from the elections or Reagan, Bush daddy, Dole, Bush 2, Mccain, Romney, and Trump. Every single one of them has been called a nazi during their election. Of course after they were no longer politically relevant they were no longer nazis and the left was fine with them.
Chances are you voted for someone else in the first round after all most people voted for someone other than Macron or Le pen, after all most people did. Think about why you made that vote. Did you do it because you were happy at the way things are? Or did you do so because you were not happy with the situation in the country and wanted to change it? Take a look a chance with Le Pen. If it does not work out you can always go back to status quo later.
Due to the control of the media by the elites who favor Macron he has somehow been able to market himself as the agent of change in this election. Nothing could be further from the truth. He was a socialist for the longest time, the same party as Hollande. He was in the Hollande administration himself before he resigned to take part in the election.
The only reason that Macron left the socialist party is that he was not going to get the nod to be the candidate for the next election and it was becoming impossible to win as the socialist candidate. I recall Hollande receiving a 4% approval rating at one point in time. It is like a hand off between Obama and Clinton. They may differ on some minor points but they will largely continue each others policies.
Hollande is Macron and Macron is Hollande. Why continue policies that will got you 4% approval? Why continue something that already failed France? There is only one answer.
Vive Le Pen Vive Le Resistance Vive Le France
I have been getting some feedback from our more liberal readers regarding my earlier article regarding the 2nd amendment. Most of it centers around practical arguments such as gun violence, deaths, and other things of that nature. This misses the point of why the second amendment is important so I felt it necessary to make a follow-up article explaining why.
The Second Amendment
When conservatives defend the second amendment they say that it is the right that protects the others. They are correct but not in the way that they mean. The second amendment is unique. Off hand I think only Mexico and some other South and Central American countries grant gun rights to their citizens in the constitution and to my knowledge only the US constitution guarantees unrestricted rights. Since it is unique it is also polarizing. A portion of the populace, the liberals, hate it and want it taken away the conservatives love it.
The second amendment acts like a shield for the rest. If an unpopular right is given to all American citizens solely because it is in the bill of rights then what more of the others? They would get even more deference. One of the things I loved about Scalia was he had a stamp that said “constitutional but stupid”. It does not have to be smart or even morally right in all cases as long as its guaranteed by the constitution it must be followed.
Liberals may have a point regarding their practical arguments. I generally don’t care about gun rights enough to look at it too closely. The only gun I really want to own is a bolter and I don’t think that is happening anytime soon. I generally only support gun rights because the other factions of the Trump coalition do. Given that liberals may have an argument they also have a recourse. If they feel the 2nd amendment is no longer necessary they should repeal it. If their arguments are valid then they would be able to convince others of them.
The Judicial Path
Liberals are impatient however and are doing the worst thing they possibly can. Under no circumstances can the judiciary be allowed to interpret away the second amendment. Thankfully most Justices are sane and know this as well so the 2nd amendment has held up in court.
Since the second amendment is unpopular with half the population it becomes an easy target for judicial overreach. It even becomes a tempting one as it may improve the standing of the court with some people. The problem with this is the 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights. That is supposed to be the strongest guarantees you can have as an American Citizen. Once the court is allowed to interpret away your rights then all your guarantees are built on sand. At one point or another all amendments will enter a period where they will become unpopular. You could have a murderous religion emerge and put the first amendment in jeopardy. You could have a person who the public believed did not deserve a fair trial due to his crimes. Like Bill Clinton and his rapes for example and the right to a fair and speedy trial would be in question. If the court is allowed to interpret away one amendment then they have precedent to do away with the others as well. It is just a matter of time. That must not be allowed to happen.
Rights are hard to come by. We should not be so quick to sign away.
We now have more information as to how the FISA warrant was obtained, enabling the Obama administration to spy on the Trump campaign, allowing us to create a step by step guide on how to use the intelligence community to further the interests of your political party.
Step 1: Prepare a Dossier
In this step you are looking to provide justification for your underlings in the intelligence community to spy on your political rivals. Hire some random person and have them prepare a dossier of information to be used in the campaign. The dossier itself does not need to be accurate. It can have names with incorrect spelling, people rising from the grave to take meetings, and you can even say that Trump officials are meeting the Russians in Europe when their passport and multiple eye witnesses place them in the United States at the same time. They can even be on video in the US and it would not matter.
The content of the dossier does not matter. Only your political allies will be able to see it anyway. By the time you release the dossier to your friendly media organizations its job would already have been done.
Step 2: Get a FISA Warrant
In this step we get authorization from the secret court to use our allies in the FBI to spy on our political opponents. Thankfully the secret court does not look too hard at the evidence presented as they have only rejected 11 requests out of 35000. This is a blessing as the only thing we have to go on is the dossier we have paid our agent to make.
Even when dealing with a court that is effectively a rubber stamp we still have to be careful. What we are doing is so criminal that some of our judges may balk at it. It would look bad if we were responsible for 20% of all the rejections handed out by the court since it started. We have to carefully select the judge that rules on the case, refiling as necessary till we get a friendly judge. After all we can change the name of the actual target to refile. It doesn’t matter who we tap as long as he is in the campaign.
Step 3: ?????
This step is particularly easy. We have Susan Rice unmask the people involved in the leaks. Distribute the information to our allies in the media and have various people we appointed act as “unnamed sources”. Our subordinates can also spread the information around various political circles to make sure that the information gets to the Clinton campaign.
Step 4: Profit!
There we go. We now have a 4 step program to use the intelligence services to spy on our political opponents. We don’t even need any outside evidence as we manufacture the dossier ourselves! Nixon was an amateur to use criminals.
When people defend illegal immigration they do so by saying it is beneficial to the economy. They point out that the illegal immigrants contribute more to the society than they take out. First because they pay sales taxes on the things they buy and second because the products they buy with their salary create demand for products and services which then creates more jobs. They also argue if the jobs were given to the citizens it would raise the prices of goods as they get paid more. If you don’t think about it too hard it does sound plausible. As always when the left makes an argument it only looks good on the surface.
The first flaw in the argument comes with the jobs the illegals take. These jobs exist independent of the illegals. In fact the reason why the illegals come here is that these jobs exist in the first place. Whether the illegals are here or not these jobs still need to be done. Fruit still need to be picked, tables need to be waited on, and buildings still need to be constructed. All that would happen is you have American citizens employed in these jobs instead most likely earning higher wages. At the end of the day the defining characteristic of the illegal is that he is willing to work less than the citizen. In most cases there is no special skill set that he alone possesses.
Now that we have established that the jobs would be there whether illegals are here or not we move on to the next point. The money will get spend on the economy whether a citizen or an illegal earns it. In fact the results are worse when an illegal spends the money. The illegal alien would have family in Guatemala, Malaysia, or whatever his home country is which he would have to send money to. This usually results in around 50% of his salary getting sent abroad. The citizen would most likely spend most of his money in the country. True they would not spend their entire salary in the economy as they may buy products from other countries from time to time but that is true for both illegal and citizen. The citizen would also earn more than the illegal which means he has more money to spend than the illegal. Giving the money to the citizen means that there is more of it to spend and that a greater percentage makes it into the economy.
More money spent in the economy means more jobs created as demand rises. The citizen getting the job boosts the economy by a greater amount.
When confronted by this argument the first thing you should do is take a deep breath and smell the hypocrisy. The very people who argue for minimum wage increases and say that it will somehow all work out are saying that raising the wages of some workers will cause economic Armageddon. Let us think about this first. The common argument is that businesses can pass on whatever costs they want to the consumers. Is that assumption true? If Pepsi were to suddenly charge you 100$ per bottle would you still drink Pepsi? Or would drink Coke instead? What if both Pepsi and Coke raised their price would you still buy? Or would you buy Juice instead?
The reality is there are numerous reasons why a company cannot just raise prices. Competition, similar products, marketing strategies for market share, and more. Sometimes companies do have to eat the cost. For example some credit cards don’t charge foreign transaction fees. That is not because the bank does not have to pay those fees it is because they choose to eat those fees to be able to offer something that other credit cards don’t. This all means that it is not true that prices are going to skyrocket if you pay people more. The increased demand caused by the higher wages may even allow some companies to lower prices and make up the profit in volume sold.
Once you begin to look at things objectively you find there is no rational economic justification for illegal immigrants.
The second amendment is always a hot topic yet one of the most misunderstood. I have seen plenty of liberals and conservatives who do not fully understand the legal arguments surrounding the issue. For today I thought I would take a break from current events and give a brief explanation of them.
When conservative commentators say that liberals are trying to take away your guns people say they are hysterical but they are accurate. The second amendment reads ” A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The conservatives say that since a well regulated militia is necessary people should be allowed to bear arms. Whereas liberals say that you do not have the right to bear arms unless you are part of a well regulated militia. There is no middle ground. You either have the right or it is granted to you by the government and can be taken away at their pleasure.
In this particular argument the conservatives are correct.
Rights and Privileges
Every single item on the Bill of Rights is something granted to you because you are an American citizen. There is an argument as to whether those rights are granted to anyone on American soil but that is a separate issue which I will not touch on today. Suffice it to say that you do not need to do anything to earn these rights. If the second amendment were to be interpreted the way liberals wanted it to be, then you would have to join a well regulated militia to have the right to keep and bear arms.
What do you call a right that you have to do something to attain? That is correct. It ceases to be a right and becomes a privilege instead. The ability to bear arms is now contingent on your decision to join a militia. If there is no militia at the time then you cannot bear arms. If you have a child it is similar to giving him an allowance. He does not have a right to it but may earn it by doing chores or by some other method.
It is called the Bill of Rights no Bill of Rights and Privileges.
Protection and Deregulation
As Senator Cruz said in his debate against Senator Sanders in healthcare the bill of rights enumerates your protections from the government. The government cannot infringe on your freedom of speech, they cannot require excessive bail, they cannot quarter soldiers in your house. If interpreted the way liberals insist on then this would be the only amendment that would impose regulations or things the government can do to you. Alternatively if this was read to be protections given to the members of the militia then this would be unique as this would be the only amendment in the bill of rights to give its protections to a very small subset of people as opposed to the entire population.
We should all keep in mind that the bill of rights were made right after the Revolutionary War. The fact that a majority of Americans at that time were armed helped greatly. The army could draft people that were already armed relieving them of some need to supply them and they could draft people who already had some idea of what to do with firearms. It was similar to the British in the past forcing all the peasants to practice with the longbow for one hour every Sunday. This directly contributed to great victories such as Agincourt. At that point in time America was not yet secure in its independence and another invasion by England was not out of the question.
Liberals are wrong on their interpretation of the second amendment but they are not without remedy. If they truly believe that the amendment is no longer relevant then they can work to repeal it instead of using a shortcut and having the Supreme Court rule it out of existence.