As soon as anything good starts happening there, it will be annexed by one of its neighbors and they’ll be involuntarily reeled back in.
 April 17, 2015 at 4:28pm
This isn’t dysfunction, this is precisely how our federal government was designed to work. They are a check on each other, so you can pull your head out, sir, or deal with the fact that they can grind everything to a halt (which is incidentally the best possible thing).
 April 17, 2015 at 4:25pm
They’re too stupid to realize that it isn’t free when they have to pay it back.
 April 17, 2015 at 4:20pm
Stolen? Surely there’s evidence somewhere showing a rich man with a gun to the head of the poor man taking his money if it’s happened on this kind of scale, right? The reality is that barring doing illegal things like that, the rich get rich by providing goods and services that other people VOLUNTARILY purchase. The humorous thing is that you are the one advocating for the use of force to take things from people. Typical liberal, projecting your own immoral tendencies on everyone else. You’re probably racist too.
 April 17, 2015 at 2:21pm
It’s pretty easy to force even an informed electorate to do the bidding of a dictator if that electorate can’t ultimately resort to force. And what’s more, is that despotic regimes that control this way also tend to use their dictatorial control to ensure that the electorate is uninformed. Nice try Lindsey, but even an informed electorate depends on the 2nd, and would be helpless even if it managed to exist without the 2nd.
 April 17, 2015 at 1:51pm
It gives me some hope that apparently not many people watched this.
Not many people? I'm ashamed that there were 400,000 people tuned in!
 April 17, 2015 at 1:37pm
Ah the illusion of choice in elections.
““We refuse to pass on the liability of our deteriorating roads and bridges to our children and grandchildren,” they said.”
Will you please refuse to pass a massive national debt down to them also, you know, since we’re feigning morality right now?
 April 15, 2015 at 6:28pm
To me, “environmental justice” means that we should take things back to a state of nature, which in turn means survival of the fittest, which means no more handouts or anything else. Everyone makes it in his or her own. And surely since the Constitution is a living document to these liberals, a lesser document like EJ2020 (sounds like a euphemism for male reproduction functions) surely must be living and subject to my selfish interpretation too, right?
 April 15, 2015 at 3:14pm
Her father’s gayness didn’t help her exist, lest we forget fundamental laws of nature. She exists because he did something heterosexual at least once.
 April 15, 2015 at 3:05pm
Any chance the Clinton machine fires up and starts firing back at the O? It could get really interesting considering how ruthless and evil they are, but this is probably just wishful thinking.
 April 15, 2015 at 2:49pm
“You can’t really go from a seven-rate system to a one-rate system without raising taxes on a lot of poor and middle class folks,”
You mean raising their taxes above the negative number it currently is? They currently get paid my taxes. I’d settle for bringing their tax bill up to zero, but ideally, they should have some skin in the game so they don’t get the bright idea to keep voting for expensive, stupid stuff we don’t need. Funny how much more frugal people will be when they have skin in the game.
I've got a solution and it could fit on one page:
All income will be taxed at 20%.
Wow, that was hard!
Quit making so much sense. it is giving liberals/trolls (I know that is redundant) a bad head ache..
My thoughts, too. Additionally, why do lower earners get to keep more of their income while higher earners keep less of their income? It does not make any sense.
Speaking of expensive, stupid stuff, Wikipedia has a list of all departments and agencies in the Federal government. I printed it out so I could digest it better and it's 26 pages long.
I knew we were redundant and had more agencies than you could shake a stick at, but talk about a real eye-opener.
"You mean raising their taxes above the negative number it currently is? "
Yes, that is what he means when they say 'raising taxes on a lot of poor and middle class folks'....This is well understood.
So anyone making $75,000 or more will be taxed at the highest rate? Are you freakin' kidding me? My gardener makes more than that! Listen, you wanna do real reform? How about this: ZERO taxes on anyone's income. That's right. Zero. That's exactly what's in the constitution. Zero. Because government has no right to anyone's income. Institute a universal sales tax instead, and put some teeth in it. You'll see more revenue pouring into the US treasury than ever before. Why? Because there are 40 million mooches who pay NO TAX at all currently! How are they contributing to the common good? But they gotta eat bread. They gotta put gas in the car. They gotta buy clothes. You tax sales, and bingo! Everybody pays.
I love senator Lee, he's my senator.
One thign that i've noticed in him is that he has become self aware that he has to be or sound somewhat moderate in order to get somthing done in Washington.
He was badly demonized in Utah during the government shut down.
Unlike the left fringe the righ fringe causes garnish less simpathy from the populace as they're not based on empathy..
I can't say for sure that Senator Lee has not sold his soul yet, but I still have confidence in him that he has an agenda to bring this country back to constitutionalism.. I pray his faith and priciples are still strong.
I do not know if i agree with Glenn about this. Yes, some people would pay more taxes. But part of the argument has been more people should be paying taxes... having nearly half of Americans soaking the other half is to coin BHO and EPA's phrasology UNJUST.
Frankly, if Congress halted the automatic withdrawal of tax money there would be an immediate and profound protest, but what workers do not see does not concern them.
a Flat tax is the only truly fair tax... sales tax are regressive. and you could establish a floor below which the poor do not pay taxes.
but you also have to redress the welfare system, as well, providing support to children without encouraging the poor to have MORE children just to live off of the funds the government provides per child.
and corporations cannot be protected any longer, either by subsidies or tax loop holes.
honestly, above a flat tax, i would support a surtax on any corporate employee not the corporate founder whose income is more than a set % above what the average employee at that corporation makes. Because we have seen that shareholders will not force boards to offer only reasonable contracts to the CEO's and CFO's.
No one spends someone else's money more carefully than he spends his own. This is our problem. Even Mike Lee is losing his balls.
I believe it would benefit you to take some time looking at his proposal as can be accessed here:
The more I look at the numbers and his proposal, the more I like it. We are in dire need of tax reform and immediately discarding any proposal that doesn't match your idea of the perfect system will get us the same system we have had for the last few decades. It doesn't take effort to discover that EVERY tax proposal will come with both benefits and drawbacks, even the proposal for having no income taxes.
The argument about it not being achievable is not always a bad one. I would love to eliminate all welfare, but eliminating it all in one bill is not achievable... not because of political reasons, but because it would be too big of a shock to the economy. Some changes work much better if they are done gradually and it has nothing to do with politics. Changing our tax system is in that category, although if you read S. 1616 you will see that it is not a small gradual change, but a huge gutting and replacement of most of our tax law to a simple system that is easy to understand by someone with Jr. High math.
I have news for Senator Lee. The only reason we don't get the tax code changed is too many Senators, Representatives and Presidents are too dunk on the power the current system provides them. If more of them were interested in actually serving the citizens of these United States, the law would already be changed. All forms of income (business and personal) and payroll taxes would be banned and the Fair Tax national inclusive sales tax would be in place, instead.
Just think. If the Senator Lee's attitude was in place in the 1960's, Neil Armstrong would never have set foot on the Moon. I say we need to borrow this famous ad line: Just Do It!
It's actually tax deductions not tax code that exempt most people from paying taxes. According to another articles on this site.
Tax deductions and loopholes cost the government(assuming all money belongs to government and any we're allowed to keep is cost) more than 1.3 trillion. So eliminating all deductions and applying the existing tax code would eliminate the deficit and leave over a half trillion to pay down debt. Eliminating deductions would be far easier to pass and implement than completely changing the tax code. Why not just do that?
I think the government has a spending problem but since everyone seems to think they just need more money, why not just eliminate tax deductions on the existing code? It's a lot more doable and do you really want the implementers of obamacare to implement an entirely new tax code.
The tax will increase ten fold before it's implemented due to "unforeseen costs".
Besides it's the people getting all these tax credits that are in the negative tax bracket. People on welfare don't have income, you can change tax code all you want they will still not have skin in the game. What is the difference between an eight thousand dollar tax return and the monthly welfare check. I don't think fast food workers deserve 15 bucks an hour but at least they have a job.
 April 15, 2015 at 2:40pm
I would have commented on how she talks about my kids as if she owns both my kids and me. Fundamental flaw of liberals and politicians – I’m not a tool to your ends.
“The Merit Systems Protection Board serves as the guardian of the federal government’s merit-based system of employment”
Let that one sink in for a minute. I know there are government employees who are good people, who work hard, and who remember who pays their salary, but let’s be honest, merit in government jobs? I’m pretty sure the few decent people who work in the federal government would be the first to agree that most of the people who work for the government do so precisely because they lack the merit they would need to function in the private sector. And since many of these positions are unionized, you know that seniority carries way more weight than merit.
 April 14, 2015 at 3:19pm
” I had spent so much time trying to move past the fear that I was not Latina enough, that I was not Jewish enough, that I was too Jewish, that I was too Latina, that I couldn’t be both Jewish and Latina, that my identities were in conflict. Did SOCC think my being Jewish compromised my ability to serve on the Senate?”
Sweetheart, you’ve already lost to the racists and bigots if they’ve got you thinking of your own identity this way. You’re trying to figure out how to cut yourself into pieces to fit in the bigots’ boxes, when you should be ignoring these irrelevant labels. I feel sorry for you, but this should have been expected when you went to a university in Californiastan.
“I found many parallels between the oppression of the Jews in Egypt and oppression of communities of color in the United States,” she wrote. “The extent of the oppression and inequality that still exists in the U.S. disturbs me, and I’m learning different non-violent strategies that exist in order to bring about change"
This sounds like a Lib playing both sides of fence to what ever is advantageous Latino/Jew and got burned for the first time by a Lib group.The sword does cut both ways when all that is seen/based is by one's perceived oppression.
Not counting the fact that being jewish and latina are in NO WAY equal.
One is an everlasting commitment to God the other is the amount of tan you have.
One will rot away one will not.
 April 14, 2015 at 3:09pm
Don’t worry about that, the border’s secure. Obama said so.
What did this administration think would happen if they left the border open ..... Terrorists setting up camp within spitting distance of the border was inevitable. ....bringing the terrorists in across the Rio Grande was inevitable.
The worst part is that this administration doesn't give a damned about this....a few terrorist attacks on the homeland from within is as all price to pay for getting all those illegal democrat voters across the border.
Americans have to start looking at the BIG picture. This is all part of the PLANNED destruction of US sovereignty, & both Democrats & Republicans are responsible.
As much as I want to blame the dog eating Kenyan Muslim in the WH, Republicans are equally responsible for the destruction of this nation.
NAFTA when it was passed, was supported by every living President, both Republican & Democrat, & now Obama & the rest of the globalists, are in the process of passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
"If adopted, this treaty will fundamentally change our laws regarding Internet freedom, healthcare, copyright & patent protection, food safety, environmental standards, civil liberties & much more... it would essentially ban all “Buy American” laws, it would give Wall Street banks much more freedom to trade risky derivatives and it would force even more domestic manufacturing offshore."
The North American Union is in the process of being formed.
Negotiations are in the final stages (from Time):
"That debate is now coming to a head because negotiations among a dozen Pacific Rim nations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)—an enormous multilateral trade deal involving a dozen Pacific rim countries—are entering the final stages. The talks now include the United States, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Chile, Peru, Australia, New Zealand, Vietnam, Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. This group represents 40 percent of world trade and 40 percent of global GDP. "
Maybe this is why this administration has chosen NOT to enforce any laws to deport and welcome the illegals into this country. They are fully aware of WHO is coming here
 April 14, 2015 at 3:08pm
I am unconvinced that Obama will follow this more than any other legal obligation. And you’re right, they already had the right to review it, and in fact, his agreement has no force of law until it is ratified by the Senate, so he can make whatever he wants, but the Senate should just send a letter to the Iranians explaining that Obama’s agreement constrains Obama, not the US, not Congress, not the next president.