Glenn links to this:

Marco Rubio files amendment to punish IRS agents who leak taxpayer docs

- but that is just papering over the problem. The problem is the tax system itself- ridiculously complex and riddled with perks for those with the money or the power to game the system. Ordinary folks need not apply. We need a tax system that is evenly allocated and forces everyone to comply, no exceptions. A national sales tax would do that – a tax on consumption, not income – which would apply equally to a Michael Bloomberg or to me. No exemptions, no deductions, no VAT. No forms to file.

The infrastructure is already in place; it would be relatively painless to implement.

States should also be forbidden an income tax; they, too, would have to rely on a sales tax, and would be forced to be careful how high it was, risking driving business and citizens into lower-taxed states.

The price increases would look painful at first until you realized that nothing was being deducted from your paycheck. The cost savings from reduced overhead would be enormous.

And to me the greatest benefit of all would be the masses of government employees who would have to find jobs in the private sector they so despise. The actions of our government in my lifetime- Democrat, Republican, whatever- have convinced me that a wholesale housecleaning is long overdue. IRS, EPA, DOE, HUD, etc., etc., – I’m talking about you.

It will be wrenching. But if we don’t take back our country we are going to lose it- in our lifetimes. The signs are all there if you have the guts to see.

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

This is known as “bad luck.”

      — Robert Heinlein

 

0

0

  

Matt Drudge is a bad, bad man

Article here

0

0

  

The Dems are going to have to decide quickly what side they are on. As Wretchard says

It is in the long-term interest of the Democratic Party for their foreign policy in the Middle East to succeed, because even with the press on their side they cannot wholly escape the effects of failure.  By contrast candidates have shorter cost/benefit horizons. They only need to survive long enough to get theirs.  Once that is done their loyal serfs are left to make shift as best they can. Defending the leadership at the cost of courting a foreign policy disaster must mean that the Party will eventually hold the bag.

But anyone who thinks Hillary and Barack will reward them for their sacrifice should ask themselves how Chris Stevens fared when he pleaded for help. Can they expect better?

So the basic problem with defending Benghazi at all costs is that a political party has effectively painted itself into the corner of failure; maneuvered as it were by Darrel Issa into taking the wrong side, into reinforcing failure just to prove they can do it. They have to keep eating the broken glass if only to demonstrate that it is delicious.

Maybe they can do it. But a moment’s reflection will show it is a dumb thing to do. For there are two hearings on Benghazi; the first is taking place in Congress, which may or may not be successfully spun. But even if it could be, there’s a second hearing concurrently running in the halls of history which they have no prospect of winning. The demons that ate up Benghazi have joined  into a mighty river of chaos that is washing away national boundaries in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and in the Kurdish regions. The Son of Benghazi is spreading chaos and destruction everywhere.

Cornered rats, the lot of them. Of course, I have my own opinion…

0

0

  

A musical comment.

0

0

  

(click to embiggen)

pic courtesy Lileks

0

0