Texas Court Okays Taxing Same Types of Businesses at Different Rates
What happened:
Imagine if you owned a mom and pop diner, and found out the government was going to start taxing you a dollar per meal you served. But what if this tax only applied to you, and other independent diners, and not chain restaurants?
Clearly this would hurt your business, and help the big chain eateries.
That is why small Texas cigarette makers sued over a 55 cent per pack tax that singled them out from their larger competitors. The cigarette companies claimed the tax violated due process and equal treatment guaranteed by the Constitution.
A Texas court dismissed the case based on the fact that big tobacco companies are forced to pay about $500 million per year to the state of Texas since a 1990’s lawsuit.
The tax for small companies is said to cover the costs to the healthcare system, which is proper according to the court, based on the fact that they weren’t involved in the earlier lawsuit about public health.
What this means:
This is clearly not a uniform tax, and is an obvious case of protectionism for the big tobacco companies. It is hard to understand how the court could reject the argument that this tax violates the Constitution when it says that all “Duties, Imposts, and Excises shall be uniform.”
It basically sets the precedent that it is okay to force small companies out of the market by using the government to make rules which apply to them, but not their big business counterparts, who probably influenced the legislation in the first place.
If you can’t pay for the best lobbyists or buy a politician, you might just go out of business.
EPA Can’t Use Fake Science to Issue Rules
What happened:
Fake news is a real issue, according to governments.
But what about fake science? The House has passed a bill that would require the Environmental Protection Agency to base all their actions and regulations on real, sound science.
If the bill passes the Senate, the EPA will be required to provide scientific information with reproducible results, which the public has time to assess before each regulation is passed.
The bill says the EPA must use the “best available science” and be specific about how it applies to their action.
What this means:
This should at least slow down the EPA and stop them from certain ridiculous rules that have no basis in science.
But really these things always come down to interpretation. Surely whatever the EPA puts forward will be what the agency considers the best available science.
The law should at least stop entirely arbitrary rules from flying under the radar, and give the public a glimpse into the rationale behind EPA action.
And it will be interesting to see what studies and science the EPA consults; it might be fun to watch them squirm.
“Hate” Crimes to the Front of the Line
What happened:
Only about 60% of murders get solved in the United States. It is even worse with aggravated assault which has only about a 50/ 50 chance of being cleared.
But none of this matters to the government, as long as the right kinds of crimes are solved–or at least reported. The government wants to make sure “hate” crimes receive enough attention.
Why are we using quotes? Because although true hate crimes — such as the senseless and brutal murder of Matthew Shepard — do exist, the word “hate” has been co-opted by the Left for political purposes.
This is especially true in the highly Leftist news media, where declaring non-Leftist ideas “hate” speech has become standard procedure. Promoting the idea that “hate” crimes are increasing further supports their divisive tactics.
Have you noticed the rapid increase in coverage of such crimes? The New York Times even curates “The Week in Hate.” This is not by accident.
By creating and controlling a hysteria-driven narrative around the word hate, the media — and the politicians those organizations support — eventually gain a false moral high-ground… a perch from which they can accuse others (i.e. their political enemies) of being _ist, _phobic, bigoted, misogynistic, and, of course, full of hate.
They also convince more and more groups of people that they are victims. Targets. And perpetual victims, as we know, tend to want to be taken care of and protected… generally by a Big Government entitlement state. The Left therefore cements its power.
Make no mistake, this is a power play, one fought through language. And Congress is along for the ride.
So instead of focusing on improving the investigation of all crimes, a Democrat from Virginia has proposed a bill that would provide funding to increase the reporting of “hate” crimes.
This would include hotlines to call in certain areas, as well additional “recourse for individuals who are targeted for violence based on actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.” (Meaning: if the perpetrator and the victim are different in any of those categories, hate will be assumed and declared as the motive.)
The bill also seeks to provide funding for better aggregation of data on “hate” crimes that will be funneled to the FBI.
What this means:
Maybe that money would be better spent actually solving the more than 50% of violent crimes which are never cleared by law enforcement, versus setting up hotlines specifically to report hate crimes.
There is actually already a pretty widely used hotline to report crimes: It’s called 911.
Shouldn’t the government be concerned for anyone who is a victim of crime, rather than elevating the victimhood status of certain groups of people over others? Should it really be in the business of creating new motives, assumptions and penalties that further increase the perception of victimhood among entire swaths of society?
This will be yet another data collection effort handed over to that angelic arbiter of social justice, — as opposed to actual justice — the FBI. Their notoriously skewed uniform crime reports will focus that much more on creating societal divisions, thanks to grant funding provided to large population centers.
The money will be used to train personnel to properly ID and report “hate” crimes, so that they aren’t accidentally classified as regular crimes. Certain victims will be regarded as more victimized than others… and again, huge sections of society will know that they are indeed constant targets and perpetual victims.
Real important stuff.
First Government Destroys Jobs, Then it Subsidizes Them
What happened:
The best thing about entry level jobs is that you get experience while making money. Often these jobs provide training that helps young or unskilled workers advance in wages and get better jobs.
The government claims to see the benefit for youth employment, which is why they want to create more jobs for young people during the summer.
A bill in Congress would subsidize summer youth work programs in order to cut down on crime and help youth get job experience and gain skills.
Congress wants to spend your money to make sure kids have jobs.
What this means:
It is ironic that the government claims it wants youths to be employed. It is ironic because the government implements policies like minimum wage and age restrictions, which are impossible hurdles for entry level employees to clear.
There are plenty of businesses that would hire young people if the government didn’t burden them with regulations, liability, and pay requirements.
But instead of fixing the original mistake government made in preventing youth labor (removing the hurdles altogether), they try to go back and stimulate employment with more government spending. Essentially, the government’s solution for youth to clear the employment hurdles is to provide a step stool, funded, of course, by taxpayers.
It is the worst of both worlds; fewer youth employed in meaningful jobs, and wasted tax dollars.
