Random Nuclear Strikes

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result – Albert Einstein

It is so true that I am classifying the Washington State Legislative Democrats (and their sycophants) as Officially Insane.

Senate Democrats are toying with putting an income tax on the ballot, knowing such a levy likely would end up in the state Supreme Court if voters approved the measure.

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane, said no decision has been made, but she’s looking at “an income tax on very high-income individuals: millionaires or half-millionaires. And that would mean that 19 out of 20 people in Washington state would not be affected at all.”

The move would be politically risky for Democrats, who control both the state House and Senate. Voters have rejected income-tax proposals several times, most recently in 1973. That proposal failed by a 3-to-1 ratio.

Talk of an income tax has emerged as the Legislature looks for ways to cut nearly $4 billion in spending to balance the state’s next two-year budget. Both the state House and Senate have proposed deep spending reductions, but Democrats also are considering putting a tax increase on the ballot to mitigate some of the cuts.

The local leftosphere spent last week writing a post every time some sane person spoke out against the idea (read: several times a day).

They’d speak of vague idiocies like “fairness” and “their fair share” and “like they’re going to miss it.”

They’d write multiple paragraphs about how dumb the 1933 Washington State Supreme Court decision was with its ideas of an income tax being leveled upon all and not just “the wealthy”, as well as write on their hyper-confidence of the current crop of justices overturning that decision.

One thing that was not mentioned was the idea that this tax wouldn’t really actually do anything to relieve the current, Democratic party created, budget deficit. Thankfully, the Seattle Times was wise enough to ask the question.

Brown said she didn’t expect an income tax on the wealthy to help with current budget problems, but it would provide a new revenue stream in the future.

Ahh, so they’re not letting this crisis go to waste, I see. Rahm Emmanuel tactics localized.

The other idea that I hope the state’s fiscal conservatives (I don’t dare say “Republicans” just yet) use as a battering ram against the bill is the idea of the Camel’s nose getting under the tent with this bill.

What is to stop the government from lowering the income threshold? If it is 1% on people who make $500,000, what is to stop in the future them from making it 2% on those folks and 1% on peopl emaking $250,000?

Absolutely nothing.

Once they get their initial vote and a win in the courts, it’ll be like kids in a candy shop (or whiskey and car keys to teenage boys).

One more reason not to give power to bureaucrats

“The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, responsible for ensuring that the nation’s workers are treated fairly, has itself willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act on a nationwide basis with its own employees, an arbitrator has ruled.”

The EEOC has a much worse record of labor and civil-rights violations than most corporations and agencies with a similar-size workforce.

The EEOC was found guilty of systematic, illegal, reverse discrimination (discrimination against white males) in Jurgens v. Thomas, 29 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1561, 1982 WL 409 (N.D.Tex.1982). When he was head of the EEOC, Clarence Thomas tried but apparently failed to end the reverse discrimination that went on in the agency.

The EEOC also has had a lot of sexual harassment lawsuits against it (and I am talking about real sexual harassment, not weak claims based on a couple of off-color jokes, the sort of trivial thing the EEOC itself might unsuccessfully sue a private employer over).See, e.g., Spain v. Gallegos, 26 F.3d 439 (3rd Cir.1994).

In short, the EEOC is like “the fox guarding the henhouse.” See John Berlau, “Discrimination at the Opportunity Commission,” Insight, May 19, 1997.

The EEOC continued to discriminate against white male employees, including those white males, like attorney Joseph Ray Terry, that it sent to defend affirmative action in court. See, e.g., Terry v. Gallegos, 926 F.Supp. 679 (W.D. Tenn. 1996) (court ruled that agency discriminated against attorney Joseph Ray Terry, who has long argued in court on behalf of affirmative action).

Sounds just like the BATFE. Giving the power to regulate firearms to people who hate firearms and distrust the owners of firearms.

Government IS Bizarro World.