A few thoughts on a flat tax

If you institute a flat tax, you must eliminate "loopholes", shelters and incentives from the Code. Because such provisions inherently affect those with disposable income to take advantage of them, to include them in a flat tax would cause the actual tax paid by low-income individuals to be a significantly higher percentage of their income. I am inherently opposed to a regressive tax scheme such as this.

The government (rightly or wrongly) uses provisions of the Tax Code to incentivize certain behavior (e.g., saving for retirement). Eliminating such incentives, without replacing them in some way, would negatively impact those behaviors (e.g., people wouldn't save for retirement).

...The standard response to this is "tough luck. personal responsibility." Intellectually, I agree with this. However, 30 years down the line, when grandma starts starving (through her own poor planning), the government at that time will step in to save her. There's no political alternative, IMO.

...That means government money.

...That means more taxes...

...Aaaaaand we're right back where we started from.

Another frank and thorough discussion of female ejaculation

A frank and thorough discussion of female ejaculation

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

IT’S PEE!

First blog post

Everyone bloggy. Now you (me) bloggy too.

I have no idea what this blog will be about. Musings on politics, sports, books and life in general, I imagine.

Pretty broad, eh?

By the way, I am extremely proud of the URL for this blog. "Moebius Dick". What does it mean? Is it a literary reference? A topological reference? An anatomical one? You decide.

Random musing of the day: "Strict constructionist". A lot of people claim that they are "strict constructionists" with regard to the Constitution, meaning (among other things) that so-called non-ennumerated rights should not exist. Primarily this argument comes up in the anti-abortion debate.

Sidebar: This is not an abortion post. This is not an abortion post. Please do not make this an abortion post.

End sidebar. While the existence or advisability of particular non-ennumerated rights is certainly a valid debate, I don't see how anyone can take the position that no rights beyond those explicitly listed in the Constitution exist, and still call themselves a "strict constructionist". The Ninth Amendment seems to say that such rights must exist, if the language therein is strictly construed.

Similarly, many who identify themselves as strict constructionists deride justces for "legislating from the bench". I disagree with this accusation in many cases as well. Article III is very clear (IMO) that Federal judges under that Article have the final say with regard to the meaning of the Constitution and Federal law. If Congress doesn't like the application of a law, they are free to change it. If they don't like the application of a Constitutional provision, well, tough. The Constitution (and particularly the Bill of Rights) is meant to be a limitation on the power of the majority.

"Well", goes the standard response, "that's all well and good, but it doesn't mean they can go beyond the language of the Constitution". I agree, to a certain extent. However, the Constitution is intentionally broad in some areas (see, for the most blatant example, the Ninth Amendment above). To quote a friend of mine, "the Constitution kicks the can down the road". It does not attempt to be all inclusive, because, as drafted, there are individuals who can take care of specific applications.

Judges.

A judge shouldn't kick the can back.

Website of the day: Best Workouts Ever