This is MJW's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following MJW's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
MJW. Is it the US Constitution, or Utah law which governs the removal of a senator? It's up to the US Constitution. The relevant SCOTUS case is U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton. The case concerned a much closer issue: Whether states could impose term limits for members of congress. In a 5-4 decision, the supreme court said they could not. The court held that states could not impose qualifications beyond those in the Constitution. Certainly if states can't impose additional qualifications on candidates for congress, they can't add a removal mechanism not in the Constitution. Though Thomas and three others dissented, they agreed that states could not recall Congressmen and Senators: As the majority stresses, some delegates to the Philadelphia Convention did argue that leaving congressional compensation up to the various States would give Members of Congress "an improper dependence" upon the States. Id., at 216 (remarks of James Madison); ante, at 30-31. These delegates presumably did not want state legislatures to be able to tell the members of Congress from their State, "Vote against Bill A or we will slash your salary"; such a power would approximate a power of recall, which the Framers denied to the States when they specified the terms of Members of Congress.
I wish Utah would recall him. Nice as it would be to have Romney recalled, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows it, so it can't be done.
Supposing those wise taxers decide not to "create jobs" by requiring art objects and such to be appraised each year, and so only readily-valued capital assets will be included in TM's lovely new tax, what effect on the economy will that have, when it's an advantage for the rich to hold non-readily-valued capital assets?
I've never seem TM address the question of what happens in a year with a market crash. Does the IRS send out checks to all the investors whose stocks dropped? That ought to be great for the US budget. Also, anyone who watches the "vintage" Antiques Roadshow episodes, \where they show episodes from past years, with updates on the prices, knows lots of antiques, craft, and art items have (to put it somewhat crudely) taken in the shorts. Will the IRS be mailing out checks?
Melinda: TM is not endorsing a wealth tax, just pointing out their rank hypocrisy and full on ignorance. Considering this is hardly the first time TM has pushed for a so-called mark-to-market capital gains tax, I think you're mistaken. Here's a comment from a previous time, which is a repost of a comment from a response to a previous thread. ================= Every time TM starts flogging this mark-to-market "income" tax idea, I'm reminded of Abraham Lincoln's riddle: If I call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have. Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. The 16th Amendment allows for taxing income; calling something "income" does not make it income Let me repeat what I said earlier about the matter: ============== TM: Mark-to-market accounting is already part of the tax code (eg, futures and index options, not to mention the charitable deduction for appreciated assets with a long term gain.) This idea side-steps the Constitutional puzzle of Warren's wealth tax. I'm not so sure the Constitutional puzzle is side stepped. Though it's nearly 100 years old, as far as I can tell, Eisner v. Macomber is still good law. In it, the court says regarding what is and isn't 16th-Amendment "income": For the present purpose we require only a clear definition of the term "income," as used in common speech, in order to determine its meaning in the Amendment; and, having formed also a correct judgment as to the nature of a stock dividend, we shall find it easy to decide the matter at issue. After examining dictionaries in common use (Bouv. L.D.; Standard Dict.; Webster's Internat. Dict.; Century Dict.), we find little to add to the succinct definition adopted in two cases arising under the Corporation Tax Act of 1909 (Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415; Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 185) — "Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets, to which it was applied in the Doyle Case (pp. 183, 185). The Government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word "gain," which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. "Derived — from — capital;" — "the gain — derived — from — capital," etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital, not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value proceeding from the property, severed from the capital however invested or employed, and coming in, being "derived," that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal; — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description. Unless there's some wrinkle I'm not aware of, the supposed exception for the taxing on charitable deductions of appreciated assets seems to me to have nothing to do with to mark-to-market taxes on held assets. Taxing depends on the fair market value of the asset at the point it's transferred to the charity. The claimed exception for futures contacts is somewhat closer. However the taxing is based on a specific and special aspect of future-contract accounting. Quoting a decision by the 9th Circuit court: Section 1256 [the tax section dealing with future contracts] is premised on the doctrine of constructive receipt because the taxpayer who trades futures contracts receives profits as matter of right daily. Id. at 157, 1981 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 256. Under this doctrine, "[i]ncome although not actually reduced to a taxpayer's possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is ... made available so that he may draw upon it at any time...." Treas.Reg. § 1.451-2(a) (as amended in 1979). . . . Because of the unique accounting method governing futures contracts, the gains inherent in them are properly treated as constructively received. The increase in a future contract's value is somewhat equivalent to dividends that are paid daily into the owner's account. They are immediately available for cash withdrawal. The gains (and losses) on future contracts are essentially realized daily.
... that a number of ...
Toggle Commented May 28, 2021 on Punt. at JustOneMinute
A short while ago, in a "debate" on NewsMax between some democrat consultant and former GOP congressman Peter King, the Democrat claimed -- with no push-back from King or the news guy -- than a number of police men and women had lost their lives defending the Capitol from the insurrectionists. (The scare quotes are because King stupidly agreed with the need for the commission and claimed it was the worst attack on DC since 1812, so there was no real debate.)
Toggle Commented May 28, 2021 on Punt. at JustOneMinute
Hillary Clinton @HillaryClinton · 2h An angry mob attacked our Capitol, our lawmakers, and our election. They killed a policeman. And Republican leaders would rather we all not know more about what happened. I wonder how many policemen TM thinks the crowd killed.
Toggle Commented May 28, 2021 on Punt. at JustOneMinute
Sure, blocking the 1/6 Commission will make the whole thing go away. TM is more to be pitied than censured. Or as Bugs Bunny put it, "What a maroon!"
Toggle Commented May 28, 2021 on Punt. at JustOneMinute
I no doubt have worn people out with my fuming about those book advances. Now to find out he is getting MORE money is simply ridiculous. I'm not worn out -- I agree completely. Those payoffs to liberal politicians disguised as book advances are disgusting.
Miss Marple will enjoy and concur with a series of tweets from Sean Davis: Sean Davis @seanmdav Cuomo’s publisher knew sales of his dumb book would never pay for a multi-million dollar advance. There’s no way the publisher spent $5 million from its own pocket for that trash. So who fronted the cash and laundered it through the publisher?
Sean Davis makes an interesting point about how it may be her only chance to keep her House seat: Liz Cheney is going out of her way to cuddle up to Biden and attack conservatives because getting Wyoming Democrats to support her in a crowded OPEN primary is her only chance of political survival. She’s a more warmongery version of Lisa Murkowski.
Toggle Commented May 3, 2021 on Have You Herd? at JustOneMinute
I can understand Collins and Murkowski because they are really stupid, but Liz Cheney's nonsense is inexplicable. Shipwreckedcrew offers this explanation, which seems to at least explain some of it: Explaining Liz Cheney: Donald Trump to a flamethrower to the GOP establishment during the 2016 election. He rolled over the top of a field of 15 establishment candidates, and he did so by attacking the Bush-Cheney-McCain foundation of the party. She's made it "him" or "us". Trump was very critical of Bush's and Cheney's foreign policy, and sometimes quite personally. People often find it easier to brush of criticism of themselves than criticism of their family members.
Toggle Commented May 3, 2021 on Have You Herd? at JustOneMinute
But daily vaccination rates are slipping, and there is widespread consensus among scientists and public health experts that the herd immunity threshold is not attainable — at least not in the foreseeable future, and perhaps not ever. You know, I might discount that if the previous predictions from scientists and public health experts hadn't been so amazingly accurate.
Toggle Commented May 3, 2021 on Have You Herd? at JustOneMinute
I am a former insurance person... Thanks for the info, Stephanie. This blog certainly has a wide range of expertise.
Toggle Commented Apr 30, 2021 on Oh, Yeah, A Speech at JustOneMinute
I always think you are an attorney. Do you work in the law? No, Jane, I don't work in the law. At some point I just got interested in legal issues, and started reading about it.
Toggle Commented Apr 30, 2021 on Oh, Yeah, A Speech at JustOneMinute
Throwing oneself off a building as a suicide usually negates life insurance policies. It's widely but falsely believed that life insurance doesn't cover suicide. In fact, generally the benefit is paid if the policy's suicide clause has expired, which is typically after two or three years. However, failure to disclose existing mental health issues in the application could invalidate the policy. (Disclaimer: I'm neither an insurance agent nor an attorney.)
Toggle Commented Apr 30, 2021 on Oh, Yeah, A Speech at JustOneMinute steps to challenge the subpoena warrant?
Toggle Commented Apr 30, 2021 on Oh, Yeah, A Speech at JustOneMinute
Many people are rightly listing various assaults on American democracy that easily surpass the actions of the January 6th mobs. One that I haven't heard mentioned, though, is the attack on Steve Scalise and the other Republicans. Though I suppose attempting to murder congressmen pales in comparison to sitting at Nancy Pelosi's desk.
Toggle Commented Apr 30, 2021 on Oh, Yeah, A Speech at JustOneMinute
Though Tucker usually does a good job (and his opening comments in the show are often spot on), he failed to ask what I think is a very important question to Giuliani: Is he planning to take any legal steps to challenge the subpoena?
Toggle Commented Apr 30, 2021 on Oh, Yeah, A Speech at JustOneMinute
I'll add that while Trump-hatred was the final straw, Obama-love set the stage. I mean, how could any warm-blooded liberal writer be expected to report objectively on that dreamy Obama? Tiger Beat held to higher journalistic standards.
Toggle Commented Apr 23, 2021 on On To The Next Crisis at JustOneMinute
Well, I could swear I remembered that cover from back in the 70’s, but since my spell and head knock, I will defer to your recollection. I also remember that story as being a very prominently featured, and probably a cover story; but at least the cover-story part doesn't appear to be the case. It is strange that with the many thousands of stories I've read in Time, that particular article was one that stuck in my mind. I believe there was a similar piece in Newsweek at about the same time, which may have played a part in my taking special note of it. From the time I was in high school, until a few years ago, I read Time almost every week. I quit reading it when it became so one-sided, that it no longer felt like a news magazine. Not that it wasn't left-of-center when I was reading it, but up until recently it hadn't gone completely over the edge. I think (as is so commonly the case) Trump-hatred is what did it.
Toggle Commented Apr 23, 2021 on On To The Next Crisis at JustOneMinute
Back in the 70’s or early 80’s there was a Time magazine cover and story about “The Coming Ice Age”. I believe it wasn't actually a cover story, and the supposed Coming-Ice-Age Time cover is a modern mock-up. The cover story for the April 4, 1977 issue was actually about James Schlesinger, according to a Wikipedia list of 1970s covers. However, I do remember reading that story when it came out (when I was a mere slip of a lad) and finding it worrisome.
Toggle Commented Apr 22, 2021 on On To The Next Crisis at JustOneMinute
shipwreckedcrew tweeted: "So there is no method by which anyone will ever be able to access the Capitol Police reports of the Babbitt shooting." I'm not sure if he intended that as an assertion of fact or sarcastically, but it seems to me that a wrongful death suit would force the information to be revealed. The obvious response to such a suit would be an attempt to have it dismissed due to qualified immunity. However, I don't see how such a motion could me made without a providing the details of what occurred.
Toggle Commented Apr 18, 2021 on Getting Ready For The Weekend at JustOneMinute
My local library's ...
Toggle Commented Apr 17, 2021 on Getting Ready For The Weekend at JustOneMinute