What I’m Reading, April 7, 2014

Too stupid to insultScientifically Illiterate Congressmen Are Resigning the World to Ruin, Brian Merchant, Vice, April 3, 2014

That is the right word; buffoon. These men are not necessarily or wholly unintelligent. They can be charming, or funny, and are often good at writing speeches. They have no lack of talent. But each is, as Merriam-Webster’s instructs us, “a ludicrous figure.” They are “gross and usually ill-educated,” at least concerning the subject matter over which they govern, as per the definition. And these buffoons have their feet jammed in the doorway to the halls of power at what is perhaps the worst possible juncture in history.

Because they believe they know science better than scientists—ludicrous—they vote against any action to repair the damage being done to the carbon-saturated climate at all. They, along with scores of their fellow Republicans, have banded together to form what may be the most uniquely scientifically ignorant cliques in international governance. As Ronald Brownstein wrote in a 2010 piece for the National Journal, “It is difficult to identify another major political party in any democracy as thoroughly dismissive of climate science as is the GOP here.” They comprise the Congressional Science Committee that doesn’t get science, and they are determining our policies. Or blocking them.

Rep. Steve King Warns Patriotic DREAMers: ‘We Have A Bus For You To Tijuana’, karoli, Crooks and Liars, April 4, 2014

Rep. Steve King is letting all his hate hang out now, unabashedly and unapologetically. If you came to the US illegally with your parents when you were too young to know better but now want to volunteer for the military, King thinks you should go straight back to the country your parents left.

Rand Paul Would Reward Tax Evasion, Xenophon, Breitbart Unmasked, April 3, 2014

[F]or the rest of us who cannot use accounting tricks with Swiss subsidiaries, it is a great big middle finger. Taxes are for the little people, not big corporations or the friends of Republican senators. If you tell Rand Paul that the tax burden has shifted too much from corporations to individuals in the last 30 years, or that offshore tax shelters play an outsize role in the squeeze on the middle class, Rand Paul will tell you that it is just the way things are supposed to be, and that we should give awards to the companies that best represent his vision of a libertarian future.

Share

I’ll Take a Check, but You Could Just Set Up an Account in the Caymans for Me…

USMC-060115-M-7772K-062An official estimate of the cost of rebuilding Iraq, or whatever it is we did, was recently released by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR). Of the roughly $60 billion spent on reconstruction, it estimates that we wasted $8 billion. The Atlantic points out that this amounts to $1,500 of taxpayer money wasted per minute.

As we all know, quite a few people believe that their tax dollars should not go towards anything they personally morally oppose. This seems to only apply to women’s reproductive health in the minds of these particular people, but let’s expand the idea further, shall we?

  • The population of the United States, as of the Census Bureau’s estimate at 16:19 UTC on March 6, 2013, is 315,444,368.
  • Applying the formula devised by top Republican thinkers, the United States has 167,185,515 taxpayers.
  • I have paid federal income tax for numerous years, and I own my own business, so I know that I am part of Ayn Rand’s ruling class.
  • If we divide the total amount of money allegedly wasted in Iraq among all American taxpayers, it comes to $47.85 per taxpayer.
  • If we were to divide it among both taxpayers and everyone else, it comes to $25.36.

I have often made the argument that I want my money back from the Iraq war if we don’t have to fund government activities we morally oppose. To be honest, I thought the per-taxpayer number would be higher. While I set out to make a ridiculous demand for an untenable sum from the government when I started writing this post, ten minutes ago, I see that its purpose has, ahem, evolved. Any single government program is unlikely to affect any individual taxpayer’s bill very much. The numbers sound big, but there are also a lot of Americans.

That said, if the government were to send me a check for $47.85, or even just $25.36, I’d accept it.

This still does not address the concern about funding things that someone morally opposes. For that, I guess all I can say is that the government can’t make all of the people happy all of the time, and if your opposition is to other people having the realistic ability to control their own lives and bodies, I’m inclined to say suck it up.

Photo credit: Lance Cpl. Shane S. Keller [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Everybody pick on Eduardo Saverin!

'John, Magna Carta' By unknown, held by The Granger Collection, New York (Britannia.com) [Public domain], via Wikimedia CommonsAs we all know, sort-of Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who now owns a bit over $3 billion in Facebook stock, renounced his U.S. citizenship from his new digs in Singapore. Whether he did this to avoid paying U.S. taxes on his windfall is a matter of dispute. I suppose it is possible that the timing was coincidental.

Not everyone is buying it, though. Two senators have introduced a bill, cleverly (if awkwardly) titled the Ex-PATRIOT Act, that would build on existing immigration law that makes people who renounce their citizenship to avoid taxes inadmissible to re-enter the country. The bill would create a presumption of intent to avoid taxes if a person with a net worth above a certain amount renounces citizenship.

There may or may not be constitutional problems with that, and while I’m not thrilled with the bill itself, I’m far less thrilled with Saverin’s defenders. Americans generally enjoy the freedom to travel where they will (thank you, U.S. Supreme Court). The thing is, if you renounce your citizenship, you are no longer an American, by your own choice.

That’s what makes Bill Bonner’s piece at the Christian Science Monitor, in which he extols the basic human right to travel, so unintentionally hilarious. He thinks that we should leave Mr. Saverin alone, and he cites various important historical statements of rights to support the thesis that Mr. Saverin should be able to go where he likes. Regardless of the provisions of the Ex-PATRIOT Act, this is absurd.

He quotes the Magna Carta of 1215:

It shall be lawful to any person, for the future, to go out of our kingdom, and to return, safely and securely, by land or by water, saving his allegiance to us, unless it be in time of war, for some short space, for the common good of the kingdom: excepting prisoners and outlaws, according to the laws of the land

Emphasis added, for reasons that I will make clear soon if you can’t figure it out for yourself. Continue reading

Share