Archive for the ‘Tax’ Category

The IRS’s Peculiar Pie Charts

Posted: April 7, 2014 by ShortTimer in Government, Leftists, Tax, taxes
Tags:

From page 39 of the 1040EZ instructions form:

pg 39 1040 ez 2013

With their pie charts laid down, the selection of what to put up front gives the illusion of greater proportions going to or coming from specific outlays and taxes.  National defense as an expense looks huge because it’s featured up front.  Personal income taxes taken from the individual are hidden in the back when it comes to taxation.

When you put the outlays together vertically, without laying the pie down for distortion effects, one suddenly sees that almost 2/3 of government expenditures go towards some form of handout, from Social Security to “Development Programs” to “Social Programs”.  What’s missing is that a lot of “foreign affairs” that’s lumped in with national defense are also international handouts.

outlays 1040ez graph 1

On the other pie chart for federal income, corporate taxes get thrown up front, along with excise taxes, because people don’t think of those taxes as hitting them (until they buy a car and have to pay gas guzzler tax on both ends).  If they take up more visual space, that’s good because it hides the personal income taxes; and if they still look small up front, that’s also good because corporations are evil and excise taxes are only for evil rich people.

Borrowing to cover deficit is up front, but is seen by the left as a thing that’s bad because it’s an incentive and need to “raise revenues” (read: tax hikes on the bourgeois and “rich” and any other target classes).  Thus it’s allowed to be emphasized.

income 1040ez chart 2013

Could be reading into it, but the IRS leans so heavily left that targeting political opponents of the left is something they do naturally and as a matter of course.  So it’s not really a stretch that they’d make a graph that subtly promotes a leftist worldview.

Looking at an overhead view of the charts rather than a laid-down perspective suddenly makes some taxation and expenditures jump out for what they are.  It’s not like a pie chart is hard to make, either.  Using the laid-down pie chart offers a minimal advantage in space or ink savings in on the 1040ez instructions, but it can be handy for massaging data.

So God Made a Farm Bill

Posted: February 10, 2014 by ShortTimer in Democrats, Government, Republican, Tax, taxes, Welfare state

Very sharp, from Kim Strassel at WSJ:

And on the eighth day, God looked down on his planned paradise and said, “I need a caretaker.” So God made a farmer.

God said, “I need somebody willing to get up before dawn, milk cows, work all day in the fields, milk cows again, and then go to Washington and claim that this particular type of hard work is somehow unique in America and ought to be underwritten by the rest of the nation. I need a willing audience for that plea—a group clever enough and self-serving enough to see the electoral profit of standing for Carhartts, wheat fields and John Deere tractors.” So God made a Congress.

He said, “I need somebody in that Congress savvy enough to realize that farming means food, and food means nutrition, and nutrition means good things to voters, so farming means food stamps. Somebody to call to make that assistance bigger and forever, tame howls over soaring deficits, and plant the seeds of perpetual votes. Somebody to threaten to label anybody pushing for reform as rich, cruel and downright hateful of happy, cornfed children playing in hay lofts—and mean it.” So God made a Democratic Party.

God said, “I need somebody willing to spend five long years complaining about overspending, big government and special-interest giveaways. And get up and vote for $1 trillion in overspending, bigger government and special-interest giveaways—in the name of farmers. Then—when reminded of his reform promises—dry his eyes and say, ‘Maybe next year.’ I need somebody to fret about drought, wax about food security, and muse (in private) that heedless government shutdowns really do have consequences. Including pressuring parties to prove they can accomplish something by voting for 949-page spending extravaganzas that nobody has bothered to read. Somebody willing to put in 40 hours spinning excuses for abandoning his principles and then, pained from the camera lights, put in 70 hours more.” So God made Republicans.

God had to have Democrats and Republicans willing to cast aside their differences in the name of handouts, and bale a legislative vehicle together with the strong bonds of self-interest. A vehicle that would combine food stamps and farm pork and thereby guarantee a coalition so powerful that it could mow over procedural ruts, race ahead of political rain and hogtie pesky opponents. A vehicle so unstoppable that its creators would laugh and then sigh, and then reply, with smiling eyes, when the reformers vowed change: “Good luck, suckers.” So God made a farm bill.

God said: “I need somebody mighty enough to divert money to those who need it least, yet sneaky enough to do it behind closed doors. I need somebody to wheedle, deal, logroll, beg, trade, and cajole subsidy checks for corporate agribusiness, sushi rice, catfish, Christmas-tree promotion boards, biorefineries and at least 15 sitting members of Congress. Somebody to make sure there are no caps on subsidies and no asset tests for food stamps. Somebody in a nice suit. Somebody who has never been on a farm.” So God made lobbyists.

He said, “I need somebody or something to help patriotic Americans forget that 80% of that ‘farm’ bill is going to welfare, and most of the rest to sugar barons and cotton kings who vacation in Mallorca. Somebody or something to ensure people don’t get to wondering why it is we have a ‘farm’ bill when we don’t have a ‘laptop’ bill, or a ‘vampire-novel’ bill or a ‘swing-set’ bill in this free-market economy that Americans supposedly prize. Somebody or something who will so inspire the public with homespun images of clapboard churches and cows, leathery men holding rope, sheepdogs, plaid shirts, cowboy hats, and American flags that folks will entirely fail to realize that the people pictured—the hardworking souls tilling the back 40—are these days the last to see a dime of farm-bill money.” So God made Ram pickup trucks and Super Bowl commercials.

Finally, God looked down on all he’d created and He said: “Now I need somebody who really will work hard. Somebody who’ll get up day in and day out to plow through traffic to work, come home to help the kids and make the dinner and do the laundry, and struggle with the bills, and get up to do it all over again.

“Somebody who will limit himself to dreaming about that Ram pickup truck he can’t afford—because the IRS bill is due, and because the government-inflated cost of groceries and gas sure do make things tight, and because his own small business, which he built with his own sweat, doesn’t qualify for any handouts. I need somebody to spend his life paying for this week’s farm extravaganza, somebody who Congress made sure had no damn choice in the matter.”

So God made a taxpayer.

Well, I wanted to post just a couple paragraphs and say “read it all here” (and with comments), but linking to it from WordPress sends you to WSJ’s paywall, when this one’s a free-view article meant to pull in subscribers, and is free-view when found from other locations.

It’s already circled around various places, but was written by Kim Strassel at WSJ, as noted here and above.

A lot has happened in a week, as Krauthammer saying “the president now is toxic” seems to be getting proved more and more true.  That’s because the Obama government is chosing winners and losers – the winners will be the recipient class of serfs and the big government autocrats, and the losers will be independent people who took care of their own lives.

And it keeps getting more and more notice.

Things like this gullible leftist couple getting hit with Obamacare bills is in no small part how (via HotAir):

San Francisco architect Lee Hammack says he and his wife, JoEllen Brothers, are “cradle Democrats.” They have donated to the liberal group Organizing for America and worked the phone banks a year ago for President Obama’s re-election.

This plan was ending, Kaiser’s letters told them, because it did not meet the requirements of the Affordable Care Act. “Everything is taken care of,” the letters said. “There’s nothing you need to do.”

The letters said the couple would be enrolled in new Kaiser plans that would cost nearly $1,300 a month for the two of them (more than $15,000 a year).

And for that higher amount, what would they get? A higher deductible ($4,500), a higher out-of-pocket maximum ($6,350), higher hospital costs (40 percent of the cost) and possibly higher costs for doctor visits and drugs.

So what is Hammack going to do? If his income were to fall below four times the federal poverty level, or about $62,000 for a family of two, he would qualify for subsidies that could lower his premium cost to as low as zero. If he makes even one dollar more, he gets nothing.

That’s what he’s leaning toward — lowering his salary or shifting more money toward a retirement account and applying for a subsidy.

“We’re not changing our views because of this situation, but it hurt to hear Obama saying, just the other day, that if our plan has been dropped it’s because it wasn’t any good, and our costs would go up only slightly,” he said. “We’re gratified that the press is on the case, but frustrated that the stewards of the ACA don’t seem to have heard.”

They had a really good plan, they lived well, and now they’re being penalized for it.  Their solution is to drop their income in order to get handouts from the government.  They are willingly becoming serfs.

The problem is that the healthy and those who live healthy are just “genetic lottery winners” who were paying an “artificially low price” because of “discrimination” against the sick.

Obamacare is reverse eugenics.  Live right, eat healthy, exercise, and you must be punished with taxes in order to pay for your unhealthy neighbor because it’s “discrimination” to recognize your success over their failure.  It’s “health justice”.

Some, like the Hammacks, believe in the idea that genetic winners and those who live healthy must be punished – even at their own expense.  Of course, they believe in it being a price levied against other people, and they’re personally going Galt.

do-not-criticize-obama

Previously.

Now, some more choice quotes.  From a Yahoo piece titled “Health Care Shoppers Aren’t as Dumb as Obama Thinks“:

Jim Stadler is one of the “5 percenters”—the 5% of Americans with health insurance policies they purchased on their own—who got notified recently that their carrier was canceling coverage because it didn’t meet the tougher new minimum requirements of the ACA. Stadler, a freelance writer who lives outside of Charlotte, N.C., was laid off from a full-time job at an ad agency in 2009, at which point he became a freelancer and bought individual health coverage for him and his two kids.

Under Stadler’s expiring policy, his premiums are $411 a month, for coverage that always seemed adequate to him. “It’s not a substandard policy,” he says. “I thought it was a great deal.” The premium for the new policy offered by his insurer will be $843 a month, with coverage that’s more or less the same as far as he’s concerned.

Since Stadler’s family’s income is too high to qualify for federal subsidies, he’s considering putting his kids on the policy his wife, a teacher, gets through her job. But that would be expensive, too. “The thing that gets me,” says Stadler, who voted for Obama in the 2012 presidential election, “is I thought Barack Obama was the only guy I could trust in Washington. He ended up lying to me because he said, if I like my insurance, I could keep it.”

Patterson, a 58-year-old unemployed insurance broker, pays $500 a month for insurance now, plus about $100 in co-pays for three brand-name medications used to treat chronic migraines. She might qualify for subsidies under the exchange that would help lower her premiums, but she worries that her out-of-pocket costs for drugs will skyrocket. “I had a really good plan,” she says. “My main problem now is uncertainty. It has me sick. I don’t know whether or not I’ll have health care and I don’t know what it will cost me.”

They canceled my insurance, then said, ‘Hey go get yourself some insurance, and if you don’t, we’re going to fine you,’”says Nate Quarry, a 41-year-old former mixed martial arts fighter who lives outside of Portland, Ore., and whose insurance will expire at year-end. Quarry was happy with the $650-a-month plan that covered him and his daughter. He doesn’t qualify for subsidies, so he’s been looking for a new individual policy similar to the one he’s losing.

And there’s this story from Breitbart, where some NJ college students are losing low-cost catastrophic insurance that isn’t “good” enough for Obama:

New Jersey built up a relatively extensive network of junior colleges in the 1970′s and 80′s. Now, ObamaCare is forcing them to drop cost effective insurance programs they had previously provided to students.

Many students have found themselves in health care limbo this semester. Community colleges in New Jersey used to offer cheap health insurance for hundreds of dollars a year but they had to drop the practice because Federal Law prohibits the sale of bare bones policies.

Via HotAir, from the Chicago Sun-Times a former Dem staffer who forced Obamacare on you, now has it forced on her:

I spent two years defending Obamacare. I had constituents scream at me, spit at me and call me names that I can’t put in print. The congressman was not re-elected in 2010 mainly because of the anti-Obamacare anger. When the congressman was not re-elected, I also (along with the rest of our staff) lost my job. I was upset that because of the health care issue, I didn’t have a job anymore but still defended Obamacare because it would make health care available to everyone at, what I assumed, would be an affordable price. I have now learned that I was wrong. Very wrong.

When Klinkhamer lost her congressional job, she had to buy an individual policy on the open market.

Three years ago, it was $225 a month with a $2,500 deductible. Each year it went up a little to, as of Sept. 1, $291 with a $3,500 deductible. Then, a few weeks ago, she got a letter.

“Blue Cross,” she said, “stated my current coverage would expire on Dec. 31, and here are my options: I can have a plan with similar benefits for $647.12 [or] I can have a plan with similar [but higher] pricing for $322.32 but with a $6,500 deductible.”

She went on, “Blue Cross also tells me that if I don’t pick one of the options, they will just assume I want the one for $647. … Someone please tell me why my premium in January will be $356 more than in December?

The sticker shock Klinkhamer is experiencing is something millions of individual policyholders are reeling from having gotten similar letters from their private insurers.

“I am a Democrat and I believe in health care for all,” she said.

And I was excited that previously uninsured people could now get insurance on the open market. But this is not affordable to me.

The Democrat party’s chickens are coming home to roost.

Wayne Allyn Root has this piece at FOX where he lays out the case:

The GOP needs to stop calling ObamaCare a “trainwreck.” That means it’s a mistake, or accident. That means it’s a gigantic flop, or failure. It’s NOT.

This is a brilliant, cynical, and purposeful attempt to damage the U.S. economy, kill jobs, and bring down capitalism.

It’s not a failure, it’s Obama’s grand success.

It’s not a “trainwreck,” ObamaCare is a suicide attack. He wants to hurt us, to bring us to our knees, to capitulate- so we agree under duress to accept big government.

Obama’s hero and mentor was Saul Alinsky — a radical Marxist intent on destroying capitalism. Alinksky’s stated advice was to call the other guy “a terrorist” to hide your own intentions.

To scream that the other guy is “ruining America,” while you are the one actually plotting the destruction of America. To claim again and again…in every sentence of every speech…that you are “saving the middle class,” while you are busy wiping out the middle class.

He lays out the whole case, but the quick summary is that Obamacare is a transformative piece of legislation.  It forces redistribution of wealth, from the productive members of society to the less productive (also regardless of what they did before – so rich older folks with low income but lots of savings get handouts, while poor young folks with higher income but no savings get taxed to pay for it).

Obamacare destroys the middle class by deciding who the winners and losers will be.  As with the last post here, a lot of middle-class liberals are even astonished that they’re being targeted to pay for Obamacare.  I guess they didn’t expect to be the ones being liquidated.

Obamacare destroys small businesses – Root suggests those are the supporters of the GOP, but they’re more the supporters of the Tea Party than anything.  It does destroy ideological opposition through economic warfare.

Obamacare does give the IRS power over 16% or so of the US economy, moreso than it already has, and as an enforcement arm that garnish your wages, it can ignore the Fourth Amendment by just taking your property and earnings from you without your knowledge.

Now today, from Forbes, a piece that notes what we’ve known all along:

More suspicious voices on the right warned that the Left would use a collapsing Obama Care as an excuse for a single payer medical care system. The “train wreck” of the Obama Care roll-out has underscored its incredible complexity, contradictions, and peccadilloes, and we are just beginning to scratch the surface. Who knows what horrors lie buried in the thousands of pages of regulations that no one has read?

The warning that the Republicans will be blamed for the crash of Obama Care is already coming true. As ueber-Liberal Robert Reich writes from his Ivory Tower of Berkeley (Don’t Blame Dems. We Wanted Single Payer):

“Had Democrats stuck to the original Democratic vision and built comprehensive health insurance on Social Security and Medicare, it would have been cheaper, simpler, and more widely accepted by the public.”

The Left is champing at the bit to go single payer, even before Obama Care has begun. The employer mandate has been delayed and thousands of exemptions have been granted. Of the major provisions, only the individual mandate and fines remain, and even they may be delayed. But the liberals say:  Let’s change the venue and the rules before the game even starts.

The objective was to create fundamental transformation.  Also, the Forbes piece brings up Paul Krugman, who as we all know, is an idiot – but more on that later.

It is successful because it destroys the health care economy and sets the stage for single payer government socialist health care.  It’s not good, it’s not successful, it’s not what we want, it’s not something that can even work, but it’s what they will force upon us.

A few choice quotes.  The first from the LA Times:

Thousands of Californians are discovering what Obamacare will cost them — and many don’t like what they see.

These middle-class consumers are staring at hefty increases on their insurance bills as the overhaul remakes the healthcare market. Their rates are rising in large part to help offset the higher costs of covering sicker, poorer people who have been shut out of the system for years.  …

Fullerton resident Jennifer Harris thought she had a great deal, paying $98 a month for an individual plan through Health Net Inc. She got a rude surprise this month when the company said it would cancel her policy at the end of this year. Her current plan does not conform with the new federal rules, which require more generous levels of coverage.

Now Harris, a self-employed lawyer, must shop for replacement insurance. The cheapest plan she has found will cost her $238 a month. She and her husband don’t qualify for federal premium subsidies because they earn too much money, about $80,000 a year combined.

It doesn’t seem right to make the middle class pay so much more in order to give health insurance to everybody else,” said Harris, who is three months pregnant. “This increase is simply not affordable.”

Pam Kehaly, president of Anthem Blue Cross in California, said she received a recent letter from a young woman complaining about a 50% rate hike related to the healthcare law.

She said, ‘I was all for Obamacare until I found out I was paying for it,’” Kehaly said.

…many are frustrated at being forced to give up the plans they have now. They frequently cite assurances given by Obama that Americans could hold on to their health insurance despite the massive overhaul.

All we’ve been hearing the last three years is if you like your policy you can keep it,” said Deborah Cavallaro, a real estate agent in Westchester. “I’m infuriated because I was lied to.

Cavallaro received her cancellation notice from Anthem Blue Cross this month. The company said a comparable Bronze plan would cost her 65% more, or $484 a month. She doubts she’ll qualify for much in premium subsidies, if any. Regardless, she resents losing the ability to pick and choose the benefits she wants to pay for.

I just won’t have health insurance because I can’t pay this increase,” she said.

And from the San Jose Mercury news:

Cindy Vinson and Tom Waschura are big believers in the Affordable Care Act. They vote independent and are proud to say they helped elect and re-elect President Barack Obama.

Yet, like many other Bay Area residents who pay for their own medical insurance, they were floored last week when they opened their bills: Their policies were being replaced with pricier plans that conform to all the requirements of the new health care law.

Vinson, of San Jose, will pay $1,800 more a year for an individual policy, while Waschura, of Portola Valley, will cough up almost $10,000 more for insurance for his family of four.

“I was laughing at Boehner — until the mail came today,” Waschura said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner, who is leading the Republican charge to defund Obamacare.

“I really don’t like the Republican tactics, but at least now I can understand why they are so pissed about this. When you take $10,000 out of my family’s pocket each year, that’s otherwise disposable income or retirement savings that will not be going into our local economy.”

Of course, I want people to have health care,” Vinson said. “I just didn’t realize I would be the one who was going to pay for it personally.”

The hardcore leftists who believe in collectivism and destroying the individual for the common good still say it’s a good thing, of course:

Peter Lee, executive director of Covered California, said the state and insurers agreed that clearing the decks by Jan. 1 was best for consumers in the long run despite the initial disruption. Lee has heard the complaints — even from his sister-in-law, who recently groused about her 50% rate increase.

People could have kept their cheaper, bad coverage, and those people wouldn’t have been part of the common risk pool,” Lee said. “We are better off all being in this together. We are transforming the individual market and making it better.”

Translation: “We are doing this to you.  We do not approve of your choices.  We will force you to change.  We will transform the market into what we want it to be.”

And when it doesn’t work, as it always doesn’t, they’ll start looking for people to blame and more people to squeeze money from, just like happens in every socialist/communist utopia.

“The rates aren’t going up because insurance companies are pocketing more money,” Lee said. “That is what it takes to pay the claims and deliver the healthcare.”

That would be bad if those people with the cheaper “bad” coverage wouldn’t be part of the collective.  So they are forced into the system in order to force them to pay for what liberals and leftists want to do with your money.

Gary McCoy / Cagle Cartoons

The same collectivist totalitarian logic would say that good cars are good, so everyone needs to drive a Cadillac.  Thus Kias will be made illegal, and anyone not buying a Cadillac will be taxed for a Cadillac until they buy a Cadillac.  Don’t need a Cadillac?  Well then you’re one of the stingy people with cheap, bad coverage who doesn’t know what’s best for yourself, and who’s a greedy selfish asshole who won’t pay for litte Billy’s Cadillac.  You must be punished because  you resist the collective.

“We believe the prices are higher than they should be,” said Jamie Court, president of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica advocacy group. “This is giving a bad name to the Affordable Care Act.”

Socialism gives socialism a bad name every time.  Communism gives communism a bad name every time.  That’s why socialists and communists always lie and say that socialism and communism work, that every time they were historically used “that wasn’t real socialism/communism”, and other such lies.

king george iii

Remember Obama’s 23 proposed executive orders/actions on guns?

Two just happened.  They’re listed in propaganda form at Whitehouse.gov.

The first one is that folks who are purchasing National Firearms Act (NFA) regulated items (shotguns or rifles with 14″ barrels, silencers, and $10,000 machineguns, etc.) now have to ask their local law enforcement for permission regardless of how they want to buy it.  Meaning that local law enforcement can simply say “no” to their purchases and deny them firearms that are already arbitrarily regulated.

John Lott gives a good summary of what was reported and what the facts are.

The short short summary is that this only applies to NFA trusts and corporations.  If an individual owns an NFA item (like a 14″ shotgun or 14″ rifle, or silencer, etc.), they have to ask their chiel local law enforcement officer for permission to bring it in to the new area.  If it belongs to an individual, the individual is left with some problems if they, as a registered owner, tries to move into a neighborhood where the CLEO won’t sign off on it.  Are they allowed to have the NFA item anymore?  Are they allowed to move there without violating new laws?  All kinds of problems can crop up.  Many people solve this by simply creating a trust or corporation to purchase their item, then they control the trust.  The paper trust/corporation owns the item, and was exempt from having to ask CLEO permission.

This is a very specific subset of firearms enthusiasts and gun owners, as machineguns are prohibitively expensive due to artificially limited supply, and short barreled items or silencers are usually only owned by serious enthusiasts (or folks who like to protect their hearing and not annoy their neighbors).  There are still NICS checks involved, there’s no “work-around”, and there’s still a pile of paperwork.  A criminal with access to a machine shop can crank out plenty more dangerous things much more easily and at lower cost.

-

The second is that all those horrible military weapons that we gave to our allies decades ago can no longer be imported.  All the M1 Garands and M1 Carbines that fed the Civilian Marksmanship Program for decades are what’s being targeted.

Sebastian at PAGunBlog elaborates:

But by law the State Department gets to have a say when it comes to weapons that have been exported by our government to foreign governments. If those governments wish to dispose of those firearms by selling them to private importers in the United States, they have to have sign-off from the State Department. That’s where this EO comes in. Basically, the Korean government still has a lot of M1 Carbines and M1 Garands sitting in warehouses that they’d like to sell to US collectors or to the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The Obama Administration has been unwilling to sign off of any of these re-importations to date. All this executive order does is make that official policy. In short, it doesn’t actually change much from the status quo. Without the requirement for State Department signoff, those M1s would be legal to import without any permission from the US government.

-

A little more backstory to explain what they are and what they mean.  In 1934 when the National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed, the fedgov decided to make things like short-barreled shotguns and rifles, silencers and machineguns illegal by taxing them.  The cost for the tax was set at $200, which at the time was so prohibitively expensive that only the super-wealthy in the Ruling Class could afford them.  Fast forward a few decades and inflation has made it so $200 is still steep, but not out-of-bounds for many folks who want to own such equipment.

Machineguns required registration, but the Hughes Amendment in 1986 cut short the supply of MGs, so now the only MGs available are those that were around and registered between 1934 and 1986. This has driven the price of even a crappy machinegun into the multiple thousands of dollars range.  Things like silencers, however, are still able to be manufactured and added, and have recently become a lot more popular in the US, especially as states legalize them for hunting.  If that seems odd, consider wearing hearing protection while you’re trying to stalk your quarry – either you can hear your prey or you can protect your hearing, not both without dropping money on expensive ear protection, and not for everyone in your group, and not for everyone else in the forest or across the prairie with you.  Short-barreled shotguns and rifles were ruled unprotected by Second Amendment by a 1930s-era SCOTUS case which ruled them unsuitable for sporting or militia use.  Except virtually every fedgov agency uses shotguns with 14″ barrels, which are apparently “unsuitable” for you to own for the same purposes… without the $200 stamp.  The fedgov’s own use of such weapons disproves the 1930s SCOTUS decision, but the fedgov isn’t about to say “yeah, I suppose those are useful for X purposes”… and the 2nd Amendment doesn’t require anything to suit any purposes, so it would only be supporting a definition inconsistent with the Constitution.  I’d say I digress, but this whole section here is digression.

There were two ways to buy such items – one was personally, the other through a trust or corporation.  If you buy them personally, you had to ask the chief local law enforcement officer’s permission to buy them, or permission to move into his neighborhood.  If he says no, you don’t get to exercise a regulated & taxed right.  Trusts and corporations were exempt.  Now they aren’t.

So for all the folk who have to deal with anti-gun politicians appointing anti-gun police chiefs, they just lost their right (that was already turned into a regulated privilege) to go shoot deer with a silencer and not disturb the entire forest with a shot, or to go to the range and not annoy the neighbors.

Worth noting is that in many European countries where firearm ownership is severely limited and restricted, silencers can be bought over the counter.  Why?  Because it’s impolite to irritate your neighbors with gunfire.  The US is the only place where silencers are considered to be some kind of Hollywood ninja assassin weapon, rather than what they are – mufflers:

oleg volk silencer

Starting with a former president/lawyer talking about guns, from Katie Pavlich writing at bearingarms.com:

During his speech at the 50th anniversary celebration of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s I Have a Dream speech in Washington D.C. Wednesday, former President Bill Clinton implied it was easier to buy an ‘assault weapon’ in the United States of America than it is to vote in elections.

“A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an assault weapon,” Clinton said.

Ms. Pavlich notes that yes, you do in fact have to show ID to buy a firearm and you don’t need to show ID to vote.  One is sovereign franchise over the execution of the nation’s government, the other is a piece of metal and plastic.  Yet you need to show ID for the metal and plastic, but you can vote multiple times with no ID to put someone in office who will be able to wield the power of the state against the populace.

Not letting citizens of MA, CA, DC, or NY vote at all probably isn’t what he means by that.

Although, on the other hand, a truly great democracy simply issues its citizens actual assault rifles to defend themselves.

swiss girls with guns

-

Lawyers in congress are going after guns by using the power to destroy – the power to tax (H/T Gateway Pundit):

There is a new anti-gun bill sitting on Capitol Hill, and it doesn’t deal with banning particular models of firearms or even universal background checks.

The Gun Violence Prevention and Safe Communities Act of 2013, was proposed by U.S. Reps. Danny K. Davis, D-Ill., and Bill Pascrell, D-N.J. The bill seeks to raise the tax rate on gun sales from 10% to 20%.

This stuff does get pushed in every year and usually dies somewhere along the way, but the end result if it passes is actually class warfare by the Democrats against the poor.  If you’re poor and want to defend yourself because you live in a crappy neighborhood, that cheap Hi-Point 9mm pistol you could’ve bought for $150 just went up to $180.  That’s money out of your pocket, money that you need.

It targets the poor, who are disproportionately minorities or rural whites, and targets them for disarmament and makes them the victims of crime.  Of course the statist Democrats want there to be no self-defense, but those few who still might understand the basics of natural law would see they’re hurting people they’re trying to help… because criminals will always be violent, and will always have weapons.  The law-abiding good people will be hurt in their pocketbooks, and will be driven away from self defense due to increased costs.

-

And finally, Democrat congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, representative from DC (and gun-hating tyrant) calling to leave a message on a lobbyist’s answering machine demanding a bribe, called out by self-described progressive liberals at The Young Turks, of all people:

Corruption at its finest.