VAT & Obama's Next Supreme Court Pick

VAT

Our President is floating the idea of a VAT or Value Added Tax. The idea being that we cannot fix our current deficit and maintain programmatical spending with the current level of revenue. With this type of tax, our government would be allowed to tax consumer goods at each level of production. This could drastically increase the cost of all consumer goods and depress retail sales. A VAT could change the landscape of consumer sales. Our consumer economy, as we have known it, may disappear. What will emerge from this morass of taxation is unknown.

A Value Added Tax starts with the raw materials. Let's use 1% (one percent) as our basis. How many outside manufacturers are there for a new American car? Well, in the VAT world, each manufacturer would have to charge a 1% value added tax for each part it sold to the manufacturer. So that is 1% on the stereo, 1% on the auto glass, 1% on the tires, 1% on the brakes, 1% on the raw materials. You get the idea, right? Oh, let's not forget that all the companies supplying these subcontractors charge a 1% VAT on their materials as well. The stereo manufacturer has to pay for chip sets, CD drives, speaker wire and speakers for their auto stereos. There is a 1% VAT on each of these items.

How much will this "Value Added" add to the price of a typical American automobile? Value is an interesting term. Generally, most American cars are currently considered to be a good "Value." If the costs of American manufactured autos goes up 10% due to increased taxation and inflation, will they still be a good value? If simple items are priced out of reach of the average consuming American family, is the VAT a fair and equitable tax?

Ask any European who lives here what they think of the VAT in their country. You may learn that escaping the unfair VAT is the reason they came to the U.S. The VAT will effect everyone. No one will be able to avoid paying it.

Supreme Court

There was an article today on Yahoo News asking "Why are there 9 justices?" The article gave an interesting history of how the court was shaped during the 19th century until the Judiciary Act of 1869 set the limit at 9 and it has not changed since.

The article failed to acknowledge the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937 also known as the "Court Packing Plan." In this particular case, the Supreme Court invalidated a large part of FDR's New Deal in 1935. FDR wasted no time in his attempt to pack the court with several new justices who saw things his way. The bill would have given the president the power to appoint a new justice for every justice over the age of 70 1/2 up to a maximum of 6. This would have given FDR the power to place up to six additional pro-New Deal justices on the court and change the course of the U.S. history.

This is a fine example of a politician trying to politicize the court to their own ends. According to FDR, prior to his presidency, the Republican Party controlled the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court. By enactment of the Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937, the President could count on better treatment for his administration's economic policies that may had previously been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Doesn't that seem like stacking the deck and cheating in some ways? "I don't get my way so I change the way the judiciary works." That seemed simple to FDR. He had just been reelected in 1936 with one of the largest electoral majorities ever seen in history at the time. It should have been a slam dunk for him to get this passed. However, there was an extreme backlash from the American public in regard to this bill. In the end, the idea was negatively viewed by the press. The public's view of the bill was generally running from 41% to 49% negative. People who viewed the bill favorably averaged only 39% at best. But the ensuing battle among democrats in the senate with the Republicans watching from the sidelines doomed the bill and any chance of passage died along with the Senate Majority leader at the time, Joseph T. Robinson.

I think what we discovered from FDR's failure to stack the court was that Americans prefer a level playing field.

Certainly, we know that our president will nominate someone who holds most of his same values to heart. Should we assume that our next justice will be cautious of allowing business to function without strong regulation? The new justice may be more inclined to allowing government bureaucracy to grow unfettered. The justice will support women's right to abortion and will not likely favor the 2nd Amendment to the constitution. I don't wish to use generalized labels like "left wing" or "liberal." As with the retiring Justice Stevens, you cannot judge a book by it's cover. A justice may be appointed by a Republican based upon conservative dogma at the time. That justice may have a paradigm change in their personal politics or judicial viewpoint after many years on the bench and find themselves siding with a different group of justices than they had previously.

With SCOTUS, anything can happen. No one expected Pres. GW Bush to have an extra pick after he nominated Justice Roberts. A very short time after Roberts' appointment, Rehnquist died. Roberts then became the Chief Justice and Justice Alito was later confirmed. Several current Justices are over 70 years old. It is early in Obama's administration. Obama could conceivably get one additional pick over the next couple of years.

Thoughts on Domestic Terrorism and Israel

Well, the FBI has put an end to the Hutaree in Michigan and not a day too soon. They wanted to start a Christian Right Revolution by killing cops. They were getting ready to roll when the FBI shut them down. Bravo FBI! There are loons on each end of the political spectrum. Let's hope the FBI is looking both to their right and to their left.

The Hutaree were caught as they could not maintain any secrecy or oeprational control over their program. They essentially blabbed to others and advertised themselves on the web. I thank goodness the FBI was on top of this. These Hutaree guys were a serious threat to innocent people; particularly to the police, the policemen's families, and and those who would be caught in their crossfire. The fine work of FBI criminologists, profilers, and others in the Federal service brought these fellows down. They are now in cells wondering where they went wrong.

Knowing what a fine job the FBI has done in relation to investigating and stopping domestic terrorism, why has the FBI been taken off the Ft. Hood Shooting Case against Maj. Hassan? Is not the FBI charged with investigating and fighting terrorism in this courntry? Why aren't their experts working the case? Why have they ceded the case to the Army's DCI? DCI has zero expertise in domestic terrorism and other terrorist acts on our soil. They are much more suited to investigating drunken officers and sexual harrassment.

Also, why doesn't our current administration call this (The Ft. Hood Killings) an act of terrorism? It is truly the largest taking of American lives on American soil by a terrorist since 9/11. Title VIII, Section 802 of the USA PATRIOT Act defines acts of terrorism and this, according to the Pat Act, is an act of terrorism.

Is our administration so enamored with Islam that we are afraid to call these acts by their true name, terrorism? We need to call a spade a spade. I think our current administration has gone over the top in their obsequiousness towards Moslems. The recent dust up with Israel is a fine example. It seems the Administration never says anything when the Palestinians do something untoward, but let Israel get out of line, they are all over that action.

I once thought that Israel was a fascist country holding the Palestinians down with a Steel Boot over their necks. I will admit that my “Israeli Fascist” thoughts came from a Palestinian girl I dated in the early 80’s. She was hot. Oh, the things we will do to get a piece! We broke up after a while, or more realistically she broke it off with me.

Let’s take a little larger view of the Palestinian/Israelis issue and consider some of their history. The following historical background is from a good friend who is well acquainted with the issues of Israel vs. Palestine: Until the late 70s, Israel was considered the little country that stood up to its big, bad neighbors who wanted to see it destroyed. The Arabs, around that time, realized that they couldn't really defeat Israel themselves militarily, especially when Egypt negotiated their separate peace. It was around this time that the Palestinians began their campaign to get their "homeland" back. The other Arab countries realized that they could use the Palestinians as a proxy to get at Israel. Many funded Palestinian terrorism. The Palestinians at that time were united under Yasir Arafat. As long as he could steal some of the money that Arab supporters gave the Palestinians, he was happy to keep up the fight with Israel. Keep in mind, no one wanted the Palestinians in their country. I believe the Egyptians and the Jordanians kicked them out. The Palestinians had Arab support long as they were sticking it to Israel and they didn't reside in any of their countries.

The whole reason Yasir Arafat stayed in power was because of the Palestinians antagonism toward Israel. He used Israel as a scapegoat to keep himself in power. When the Israeli prime minister during the Clinton administration, Ehud Barak, was willing to trade land for peace, President Clinton was able to get Arafat to sit down and negotiate. When it looked like they were about to have a deal Arafat realized he would lose his reason for holding power and access to the cash he was skimming. He found a way to weasel out of it and that was as close as the Israelis and Palestinians ever came to peace. End of Quote.

So, it has been agreements and frameworks rather than actual peace deals. I do find it interesting that there is very little economic aid from the Saudis, Jordanians, and the rest of the Arab League. The majority of economic aid to the Palestinians comes from the U.S. and the EU. The Arabs talk a good game and they all want to see a solution but are not willing to put up for it beyond weapons. Let’s keep in mind, weapons are cheap compared to economic aid. An AK-47 can be used over and over again and can be parted out when the barrels wear. RPG launchers and rocket launchers are reusable. Cheap! Cheap! Cheap! “C’mon down to Crazy Ahmed’s Gun Palace & Falafel Hut and get your Kalashnikov today. I’ll even throw in 500 rounds of 7.62x39mm ammo on the house! Can I get any crazier? Sign today, kill Israelis tomorrow! Bring in the kids and they can play at our Knesset Shooting Gallery while the parents shop for the latest in weapons and explosive gear. Are your Teens a little too old for the shooting gallery? They can hang out in Hakim Hezbollah’s Intifada Insanity where they can learn to make Molotov Cocktails while reciting the most brutal scriptures from the Koran. You want a peace deal? Peace deals, schmeace deals! Crazy Ahmed has the real deal for you! C’mon down to 4590 Gaza Strip, next to the collapsed hospital. I’m CRAAAZZZYYY!”

Palestinian bumper stickers: My kid is a crack shot at Muhammed Omar Mussof Middle School; My kid killed your honor student; My kid has killed more Israelis than your kid

I loved it when the Palestinians dug a tunnel to Egypt and the Egyptian army shut it down so fast their tiny Hamas heads spun underneath their turbans. ”Hey, I thought they liked us!”

Maybe the Iranians can let the Palestinians relocate to Iran....