YOU MAY RECALL our prior excoriation of the campaign ad being run in the Ohio First House District by Steve Driehaus – (D, Ohio — for now). (And we are glad to see his opponent, Steve Chabot firing back at last.) If you do, then you know I called bullshit on a good many of the claims that Driehaus makes. Now, I want to address one that might actually be true.
Driehaus says, “I voted for a tax cut for ninety-nine percent of Ohioans; my opponent voted against it.”
Leaving aside that the two of them have never been members of the same house of the same legislature at the same time, so they could NOT have take opposite stances on ANY bill up for a vote, it is possible that a concept floating around in many forms was posited by Democrats as a tax cut for 99% of Americans (and thus Ohioans), while non-zombie Republicans are very much aware that taxing the 1% of Americans who actually pay income taxes MORE will doubtless decapitate the entire economy: trickle-down being something that actually — as opposed to the virtual thing that Democrats do — (you know) works. Thus, the more-sensible Republicans would of course vote against such a measure as invidious and nonsensical.
But let’s get back to that 99% claim. I mean…
WHERE THE FUCK DO THEY GET OFF PLAYING FAVORITES!!???!!
Doesn’t the 14th Amendment — as everybody never tires of reminding us when it cuts against the grain — mandate equal treatment before the law? Where in that can being singled out as TOO GOOD, TOO SUCCESSFUL, TOO LITTLE LIKELY TO BE A DEPENDENT ON THE NANNY STATE … where is it written that this makes you a legitimate target?
Besides… (And you may or may not already know this.) The Constitution puts limits on taxes. It basically defines two kinds of taxes — direct taxes, which have to be apportioned among the States according to the Census (Article I, Section 2, and Amendment XIV), and INdirect taxes , which are — as the text of the Constitution puts it — “Duties, Imposts, and Excises [which] shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
When the 16th Amendment was passed, a Supreme Court ruling stated that, since the Amendment did not repeal the earlier provision, all the Amendment did, in effect, was define the income tax as an INdirect tax (although how said tax could be a duty, an impost, or an excise by any standard definition of those terms was clearly not discussed, as the claim would be risible on its face). AS an INdirect tax, it must be uniform throughout the United States.
Really? Uniform taxes. Equal treatment before the law. And by this the Income Tax is legal at all? And you want to “improve” it by making provisions of it attain to a special class of people whose only crime is … what? … to earn more than $250,000 a year?
Oh, yeah. Bills of attainder are forbidden by the Constitution, too. And, while that term holds very special meaning, having to do with a good deal more than just not being favored by the ruling class, the miasma of it nevertheless clings like an odor of ordure to the garments of liberalism.
Driehaus is in violation of his oath of office and should not only be voted out, he should be tried for high crimes against the people.
And this is a Democrat who is struggling to redefine himself as a conservative, running in a very red district, who only got elected because the Republican incumbent had been a member of leadership (albeit a reliable conservative) and thus partially responsible for the travesties of Congress since 1995. Even he can’t resist playing the divisive, class warfare game.
And, as Chabot’s ad points out, he voted with Pelosi 94% of the time. As the current crop of Republican incumbents have managed somehow to demonstrate as a group — for all their myriad and manifest failings as individuals — it is possible to mount an effective and principled opposition. But reliable Democrat votes are not what’s needed in Congress. And that’s what you’re going to get whenever you elect a Democrat, no matter how conservative or libertarian he pretends to be in The Home District.
Remember: friends don’t let friends vote Democrat.