May 14, 2008

Democrat long knives

Democrats don't even try anymore to hide their contempt of people who are successful.

House Democrats are proposing a tax surcharge on millionaires to pay for a big increase in education benefits for veterans of the war in Iraq, lawmakers said Tuesday. [...]

What we're talking about is a one-half percent income tax surcharge on incomes above $1 million," said Rep. Mike Ross, D-Ark., a leader of the Blue Dog group. "So someone who earns $2 million a year would pay $5,000. ... They're not going to miss it."

The $1 million income level would apply to couples. Individuals would pay the surcharge on income exceeding $500,000.

The idea earned support from House leaders at a late afternoon meeting of top Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California. [...]

... the development allows House Democrats to keep promises to adhere to pay-as-you-go budget rules that were a top campaign plank in 2006.


The usual justification that pops out of a shoplifter's piehole, "hey, it's not like the store is going to miss it. They're rich enough."

Mike Ross has the morals of a thug.

From each according to his ability ...

Posted by Darleen at 06:38 AM | Comments (0)

May 09, 2008

Will work for taxes

More Californication

As state leaders hunt for politically palatable solutions to the swelling budget shortfall, some Democrats are proposing unorthodox ways to generate cash. [...]

Assemblyman Charles Calderon (D-Montebello), chairman of the Revenue and Taxation Committee [... ] has proposed some of the Legislature's more unconventional measures, including taxes on digital downloads and adult entertainment. [...]

Calderon said he was moved to push for levies on downloads such as iTunes because state sales tax laws do not reflect the high volume of purchasing that Californians do online. Consumers can download music from the Internet through Apple's iTunes and other services tax-free, Calderon noted, while they pay sales tax for buying the same music on a compact disc at a store.

His proposal would empower state authorities to collect sales tax on the downloads, increasing the cost of a typical 99-cent song to roughly $1.07. Calderon projects that the bill (AB 1956), which could also apply to pornography downloads, cellphone ring-tones, online books and feature films distributed on the Internet, would raise about $500 million for the state budget. [...]

Calderon said the resistance to his bill did not surprise him. But he is perplexed that he hasn't been able to get more traction for another proposal: a 25% tax on sex toys, strip shows, pornographic magazines and videos and anything else sold in an "adult entertainment venue." [...]

Assemblyman Mike Davis (D-Los Angeles) is targeting a wider group of consumers. Almost every Californian would bear some of the brunt of his proposal to charge a 25-cent tax on every plastic carryout bag from stores. [...]

"A person is going to think carefully before spending a quarter to get a bag," Davis said. [...]

AB 2388 by Assemblyman Mike Feuer (D-Los Angeles) would place a surcharge on vehicles based on their weight and the amount of carbon dioxide they emit. Assemblyman Joe Coto (D-San Jose) wants to collect new fees from drivers of luxury vehicles that get less than 15 miles per gallon. His bill is AB 2638.


But Mike Davis is quick to prove California's socialists Democrats aren't just about tax levying. They are there to help out your poor, suffering grandparents, too.
Davis says he knows people are suffering financially and has proposed a property tax break for low-income seniors. There's a catch: The proposal (AB 2459) would require seniors to "work off" their taxes in county offices, doing such jobs as gardening, record filing or data entry.

So the next time you walk into a state office, court or the DMV and see grandma on the other side of the counter balancing a stack of files on her walker, remember Mike Davis and the true face of Democrat fairness.

Yeah, baby.

Posted by Darleen at 06:18 AM | Comments (0)

May 03, 2008

All your carz belong ...

"It's for your own good" is the sincere, if often times wrong-headed, excuse for creeping Nannystatism. A minor kerfuffle has kicked up with the use of Lindsay Lohan's mugshot in an American Beverage Association Institute ad in USA Today opposing the broadening use of ignition interlock devices ("breathalizers" in cars that drivers must use, and pass, before the car will turn on).

The full-page black-and-white ad appeared in USA Today on Friday and was paid for by the American Beverage Institute, a trade group that supports the interests of the alcohol industry. The ad reads "Ignition interlocks are a good idea for" above Lohan's mug shot from her July 24, 2007 arrest and "But a bad idea for us" above smaller photos of people drinking.

Ms. Lohan's spokeshole whined about USA Today's irresponsibility in running such an ad on May 2nd "suggesting that drinking and driving is some kind of American 'tradition' we should protect" yet the ad seems more of a response to USA Today's article on April 24, reporting on the push to mandate IID for all first-time DUI offenders and eventually as standard equipment on all cars
New York state legislators are considering requiring the devices on all cars and trucks by 2009. And automakers, already close to offering the devices as optional equipment on all Volvo and Saab models in Sweden, are considering whether to bring the technology here. [...]

The New York bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, who also sponsored the bill that became the first law banning the use of handheld cellphones while driving. To those who say neither the public nor the technology is ready for such a universal application, Ortiz says he heard similar complaints about the cellphone ban and hands-free technology. He compares the criticism to early complaints about mandatory safety belts.


"Slippery-slope" arguments from people concerned about encroaching Nannystatism are routinely dismissed, yet such authoritarians as Ortiz use passage of prior, ostensibly reasonable measures, as justification for dismissing current concerns and precedent for current advocacy.
For automakers, anything that keeps a car from starting sounds too much like the public relations nightmare that came out of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's 1973 decision to require devices that would prevent cars from starting if seat belts weren't buckled. After a huge public outcry and widespread disconnections, Congress passed a law the following year prohibiting NHTSA from requiring seat belt interlocks or warning buzzers lasting more than eight seconds.

Some critics say alcohol-related interlocks would be even more problematic than seat belt interlocks because about 40% of adults say they don't drink at all. MADD's Hurley says most people don't steal or have their cars stolen, but keys still have built-in anti-theft technology.

[Assemblyman Felix] Ortiz agrees: "This is a tool that will save lives. We have to stop putting parameters on it."


But does it "save lives?" How effective is the IID? Money quote:
The results of these studies have been mixed, although most of the results suggested that IIDs have reduced DUI reoccurrences in offenders. That’s only if the instrument remains in the car. However, once the IID is removed from the car, the chances of another DUI incident occurring goes back up. This suggests that IIDs are not going to actually change people’s behavior. It only prevents them from driving their own car when they’re drunk. They’re going to continue to drink whether or not the instrument is installed.

And there's the rub busybodies like Ortiz miss (or ignore).

Most first-time, low-level (.08-.1) DUI offenders are going to be mortified and they will change their behavior -- i.e. doubling down on making sure never to drive even if they have had one drink. The multiple offenders, or those that are caught with very high BAC are people who are alcoholics, people who already have a problem with alcohol that even an IID is not going to "fix" even as it protects others from them. Those are the people who are and should be the target of IID technology and have it made a permanent part of their driving privileges.

I dare say I've seen more DUI police reports than Mr. Ortiz and I opine that his (and other universal IID advocates) are less driven by "safety for all" than by a desire to demonize even social drinking.

I realized just how much even mild social drinking as been frowned upon in American culture when, on a trip to France, I found myself mildly scandalized seeing people having a glass of wine with lunch on a workday. There is no American business today whose HR department doesn't have a "zero-tolerance" policy to any alcohol consumption during work hours. Even public schools are into monitoring student behavior even when the student isn't on campus.

The more intrusive and controlling the law, then less commitment to personal responsibility.

Because we are teh victims!

**Please let me apologize for mis-identifying the sponsor of the ad in question

Posted by Darleen at 01:33 PM | Comments (5)