The Senate Nuclear option-so it begins

[Deleted]

Apr 7, 2017 12:07:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am actually in favor of a state income tax.  At this point, we are continually increasing both the sales tax and the property tax to pay for everything.  And yes, it is regressive.  I am a firm believer that everything should be taxed a little bit.  Doing so means that everybody pays something.  In addition, it would avoid the question each year of whether state sales taxes will be deductible on one's federal return or not.  An income tax makes a lot more sense and greatly reduces the likelihood that people will be taxed out of their homes.  Bring it on.     

And not one word about reducing programs to reduce taxes.  The pay more and more philosophy.  "Bring it on."  

[dondub]

 
And not one word about reducing programs to reduce taxes. The pay more and more philosophy. "Bring it on."    

 As covered in a previous posting, reorganization of where tax revenues come from is all that a state income tax would cause here in Washington. As we are one of the most regressive states in our tax policies,

even though we are considered a blue state, this would aid the poorest of our citizens. That's not something the Repos usually can get behind. And considering the McCleary decision here it's just business as

usual.

[tallguy]

Apr 7, 2017 13:07:29 GMT -5 @jma23 said:

Apr 7, 2017 12:07:54 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I am actually in favor of a state income tax.  At this point, we are continually increasing both the sales tax and the property tax to pay for everything.  And yes, it is regressive.  I am a firm believer that everything should be taxed a little bit.  Doing so means that everybody pays something.  In addition, it would avoid the question each year of whether state sales taxes will be deductible on one's federal return or not.  An income tax makes a lot more sense and greatly reduces the likelihood that people will be taxed out of their homes.  Bring it on.     

And not one word about reducing programs to reduce taxes.  The pay more and more philosophy.  "Bring it on."  

There are a number of things I would like to see reduced.  I am NOT a left-wing progressive and have voted against a number of tax increases.  Unfortunately, we cannot trust the GOP to reduce the right things.  Either way, a more sensible tax structure would be a benefit.

[dondub]

  In the meantime, congratulations to the Repos for stealing a SCOTUS seat from an opposition POTUS. You have now packed the court and the forces of 'dark money' have won. I'm

sure all of the Repos here are jumping for joy about this but if the shoe was on the other foot how would you feel. Really, how would YOU feel?

[Value Buy]

Apr 8, 2017 11:53:11 GMT -5 dondub said:

  In the meantime, congratulations to the Repos for stealing a SCOTUS seat from an opposition POTUS. You have now packed the court and the forces of 'dark money' have won. I'm

sure all of the Repos here are jumping for joy about this but if the shoe was on the other foot how would you feel. Really, how would YOU feel?

As James Brown would say..........
I feel good!

[tallguy]

Apr 7, 2017 11:44:53 GMT -5 alwaysbeoptimizing said:

Apr 7, 2017 11:34:16 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

The thing is, when the states do it, if it becomes utterly unbearable for you, you can move to another state. There are left-leaning states, there are right-leaning states, and there are middle-of-the-road states. I'm pretty sure one move would be enough to find something you could live with.

When the federal government makes it the law of all the land, not only does the law become far more intractable, it becomes inescapable as long as you reside inside the country.

for example, the major reason i live in the state I live in is lack of state income tax.  if our comrades in Olympia ever get their way and amend the state constitution to add it, it will be a MAJOR change in the value proposition to living in our state, and will cause a precipitous drop as wealth flees the state

Here is an article for you.  A local economist has been studying taxes for years, and came out with a report on the transparency of state taxes.  Washington ranked 49th out of 50 states on that measure.

“In economics in general, transparency is important. Everybody should know what they’re paying so they can figure out if it’s a good deal or not,” Conway said.

“That goes for our tax system, too. Are taxes too high or too low? Are you paying your fair share, or are you paying an unfair share?”

Washingtonians can’t answer those questions.

Meanwhile, we rely increasingly on low-transparency sales taxes. Just this past week, Seattle Mayor Ed Murray scrapped plans for a property tax to help the homeless, and instead will seek a countywide sales-tax increase.

“The poor helping the poor” is how Conway summed up that plan. Sales taxes, of course, are regressive: Since everyone pays the same rate, it takes a bigger chunk out of a poor person’s income.

Conway’s dream tax system for Washington would be a 10.5 percent personal income tax, and the elimination of all other taxes — no more property, sales or business taxes.

That would reverse our current system, which heavily burdens the poor and lets the wealthy off easy, he says. Plus, it would adequately fund state operations, something we currently fall short on.

And it would make Washington the most tax-transparent state in Conway’s system.

“If people don’t know what they’re paying — especially low-income people — they don’t know how badly they’re being screwed,” he said.

“We don’t even know how bad our current tax system is.”

I disagree with him on the bolded.  As said, I prefer a broad tax base to ensure that everybody pays something.  A lower income tax along with reduced other taxes would be preferable, but I do think an income tax should be the base for our tax structure.

Not to further take us away from the conversation....   

[Deleted]

Apr 9, 2017 11:22:43 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Apr 8, 2017 11:53:11 GMT -5 dondub said:

  In the meantime, congratulations to the Repos for stealing a SCOTUS seat from an opposition POTUS. You have now packed the court and the forces of 'dark money' have won. I'm

sure all of the Repos here are jumping for joy about this but if the shoe was on the other foot how would you feel. Really, how would YOU feel?

As James Brown would say..........
I feel good!

I feel good also.  Using Harry Reid's procedure was interesting.  Seems that the party of "no" has a different name these days.  All the cries of "obstruction" and "not doing their job" have turned into "stealing" when the job is done, to the conservatives liking.  I'm starting to see a few tinfoil hats out there. 

[Wisconsin Beth]

They should have held hearings for Garland. Didn't have to rubber stamp him but the Senate should have held hearings. And the Democrats screwed up by not making waves about it. So did the press.

[dondub]

"Stealing" is just what the Repos did. Obama as a sitting POTUS made his nomination with plenty of time for the process to play out. How long did it take for Gorsuch from start to finish?

 The Repos obstructed instead of doing their job and following through on the Garland nomination. It's how they treated Obama all along...stonewall whatever you can.

 If repos want to crow about this and think it's a good way for politics to play out what's next? Trump nominates someone in mid 2017 and the Demos do nothing for 18+ months waiting for a D POTUS

to enter office?

 I know there will be no Repos here that think this was a despicable gambit, but the truth is they stole an Obama nomination to the court.

 And tin foil hats! Your team elected a birther.

[Tennesseer]

A lighthearted, non-partisan, article about any new associate supreme court justice.


What does the junior Supreme Court justice do? Kagan tells Gorsuch it starts in the kitchen

No one could have known it at the time, but at the end of last summer, Justice Elena Kagan gave Neil M. Gorsuch a face-to-face tutorial on what it means to be the Supreme Court’s newest justice.

It starts in the kitchen.

“I’ve been on the cafeteria committee for six years. (Justice) Steve Breyer was on the cafeteria committee for 13 years,” Kagan said at a Colorado event where she was being interviewed by Gorsuch and Timothy M. Tymkovich, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit.

Gorsuch and Tymkovich both were on President Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees at the time, and it just so happened that they asked what it was like to be the most junior justice.

Kagan is a storyteller, and knows this is a topic that audiences usually eat up, so she played it for all it was worth.

The junior justice has three unique responsibilities, she said. But in recounting them, she always starts with the fact that the newest justice is assigned to cafeteria duty and keeps it until the next justice is confirmed.

“I think this is a way to kind of humble people,” she said during the “fireside chat” at the elegant Broadmoor resort in Colorado Springs. “You think you’re kind of hot stuff. You’re an important person. You’ve just been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court.

Complete article here: What does the junior Supreme Court justice do? Kagan tells Gorsuch it starts in the kitchen

[Deleted]

Apr 10, 2017 12:37:20 GMT -5 Wisconsin Beth said:

They should have held hearings for Garland. Didn't have to rubber stamp him but the Senate should have held hearings. And the Democrats screwed up by not making waves about it. So did the press.

Yup. Even if they denied him the seat... they should have had the hearings so Obama could make a new nomination, as was his right to do.

[Virgil Showlion]

One question that's been picking at the back of my mind for a while: Why did the Republicans procedurally obstruct the confirmation process rather than simply voting to shoot down the nomination?

Was Garland popular enough on the GOP side that he'd have been confirmed?

[tallguy]

From 1995 when Garland was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court:

The most pointed example of the partisan dimensions of the issue may be evident in a current fight over filling a vacancy on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a court often regarded as second in influence only to the Supreme Court.

President Clinton has nominated Merrick Garland, the principal Associate Attorney General, to fill the vacancy created when Chief Judge Abner J. Mikva resigned 14 months ago to become the White House counsel, a job he has since left.

Mr. Garland, widely described as astute and a moderate, has not been directly criticized by any Republicans. In fact, Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has lauded Mr. Garland. The Senator's aides have described Mr. Garland as fine a nominee as Republicans could hope to get from a Democratic President.

As a result, the nomination is expected to be approved by the Judiciary Committee when Mr. Garland appears before it on Thursday. But Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, has said the seat should remain unfilled, not because of Mr. Garland's qualifications but because the circuit court has too many judges.

"The issue is not Mr. Garland," Senator Grassley said today through a spokeswoman. "Clearly the evidence does not support filling the vacancy at a cost to taxpayers of $1 million a year," his estimate of the total cost of an extra judicial chamber.

link

He was rated unanimously well-qualified, the ABA's highest rating.  Senate Republicans initially refused to schedule a vote on his confirmation after having a hearing.  After Clinton was re-elected, he re-nominated Garland again.  Garland was then confirmed by the Senate by a vote of 76-23, with supposedly all of the no votes based on a preference not to fill the seat at all.  So, the guess would be that Garland would likely have been confirmed to the SCOTUS last year if the Senate had held a hearing and a vote.  To not do so after he effectively had no opposition on a personal basis in his previous confirmation hearing would have likely backfired.


  

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 11, 2017 3:51:05 GMT -5 tallguy said:

To not do so after he effectively had no opposition on a personal basis in his previous confirmation hearing would have likely backfired.

Backfired more than pulling the dirty stunt they ultimately opted for?

It would only take a few questions about key issues that have cropped up since 1995 (there have been one or two) for any senator to justify voting against him. I don't recall where he stood on the issues but I do remember there were quite a few where he was at odds with the party. At least a few of those must be based on rulings/writings not available in 1995.

I also find it hard to believe McConnell et al. didn't know how every Republican senator would vote, down to a man.

[tallguy]

Yes, because if they actually held a vote then each individual senator would have had to take a stand on the matter.  Not taking a vote based on the ridiculous pretext that it should wait for the next president shielded all of them.  And yes, I do think he would have been confirmed.  Call me optimistic (damn, there are some words you won't often hear) but I believe there would have been a few GOP senators who would have put honor and duty above dirty politics, even in this day and age.

[Deleted]

Apr 11, 2017 10:34:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Yes, because if they actually held a vote then each individual senator would have had to take a stand on the matter.  Not taking a vote based on the ridiculous pretext that it should wait for the next president shielded all of them.  And yes, I do think he would have been confirmed.  Call me optimistic (damn, there are some words you won't often hear) but I believe there would have been a few GOP senators who would have put honor and duty above dirty politics, even in this day and age.

Not bad for a bunch of conservatives clinging to guns and religion.  What will those dummies do next? 

[tallguy]

The depths of how low they can go have not yet been plumbed.  Scary thought there.

[Deleted]

Apr 11, 2017 11:19:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

The depths of how low they can go have not yet been plumbed.  Scary thought there.

Scarier thought ahead:

The depths of how low the other side can go have yet to be plumbed either.

So (and here's that scarier thought) it's almost like it's a race to see which side can go the lowest the fastest. Currently the Republicans are in the lead, but the Democrats get another turn in a few years.

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 11, 2017 10:34:51 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Yes, because if they actually held a vote then each individual senator would have had to take a stand on the matter.  Not taking a vote based on the ridiculous pretext that it should wait for the next president shielded all of them.  And yes, I do think he would have been confirmed.  Call me optimistic (damn, there are some words you won't often hear) but I believe there would have been a few GOP senators who would have put honor and duty above dirty politics, even in this day and age.

Hence your position is that if they hadn't obstructed, their only two courses of action would have been to confirm or face a backlash greater than the one they're currently facing?

In other words, from a purely strategic standpoint they made the right decision.

[tallguy]

It's today's version of the GOP.  Nobody expects those ideas to hold sway.    

[Virgil Showlion]

Apr 11, 2017 19:39:32 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Yes and no. "Strategic" if you discount morality, duty and ethics.

Naturally.

The ends justifying the means.

[Deleted]

Apr 11, 2017 20:15:39 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Apr 11, 2017 19:39:32 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Yes and no. "Strategic" if you discount morality, duty and ethics.

Naturally.

The ends justifying the means.

Sounds like what happened with the passage of Obamacare... The ends ("we got healthcare passed!") justifies the means ("we did it even though it's garbage, it will ruin the economy, no one wanted what we passed, and it's completely unsustainable... we rammed it through without a single GOP vote.")

Like I said, both sides in a race to the bottom (if there even is one), just with the Republicans (currently) in the lead.

[Deleted]

Apr 11, 2017 19:39:32 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Yes and no. "Strategic" if you discount morality, duty and ethics.

What do those three things have to do with politicians. They have no place in politics anymore.