Did the House Rebellion Against Kevin McCarthy Have an Upside?

Plus: a lightning round recollection of comical political fabulists

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

Did the House Rebellion Against Kevin McCarthy Have an Upside?

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie look back on the House speaker battle and discuss President Joe Biden's trip to the southern border.

1:33: Kevin McCarthy is finally selected as speaker of the House.

26:44: Weekly Listener Question:

In the last episode, you all discussed the (at least at the time of this message) ongoing process for electing a new speaker of the House. You discussed the demand/request of the 19 or so Republicans who don't back McCarthy that he return to more normal House proceedings like the introduction of amendments, debate on the floor, etc. One of their demands, the introduction of the FairTax Bill, was unaddressed in the last podcast. What do the panel members think of the FairTax (both within the speaker vote context but also more broadly)? I'd be interested in a libertarian take on the FairTax. Assuming that abolishing taxation is unlikely, does the FairTax represent a much better alternative to our current system?

35:35: President Biden visits the southern border to Mexico.

45:57: George Santos and other political fabulists

57:44: This week's cultural recommendations

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Finally Approved as House Speaker, McCarthy Aims To Cut IRS Funding," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown

"Cameras Should Stay in Place After the House Picks a Speaker," by Joe Lancaster

"Fixing Congress' Broken Appropriations Process Is Worth This Mess," by Eric Boehm

"Ignoring the Anti-McCarthy Faction's Avowed Goals, The New York Times Sees Only 'Chaos and Confusion'," by Jacob Sullum

"Justin Amash: Kevin McCarthy Is a 'Compulsive Liar' Who 'Cares Only About Power'," by Matt Welch

"Biden's Immigration Plan Lays Out a Tougher Border, New Legal Pathway for Some Migrants," by Fiona Harrigan

"Real Man of Genius: Joe Biden," by Nick Gillespie, Dan Hayes, and Matt Welch

"The for Cameras in the Supreme Court" by Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg

"5 Other Fake Indians Besides Elizabeth Warren," by Nick Gillespie

Send your questions to [e-mail]. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsor:

• When you're at your best, you can do great things. But sometimes life gets you bogged down, and you may feel overwhelmed, or like you're not showing up in the way that you want to. Working with a therapist can help you get closer to the best version of you. Because when you feel empowered, you're more prepared to take on everything life throws at you. If you're thinking of giving therapy a try, BetterHelp is a great option. It's convenient, flexible, affordable, and entirely online. Just fill out a brief questionnaire to get matched with a licensed therapist, and switch therapists any time for no additional charge. If you want to live a more empowered life, therapy can get you there. Visit BetterHelp.com/roundtable today to get 10 percent off your first month.
• Self-reliance… planning ahead… using our heads. These are just a few of the things we believe in here at The Reason Roundtable. That's why we'd like to tell you about AirMedCare Network membership and how it can take a financial worry off your plate. AirMedCare Network is America's largest emergency air ambulance membership network. AirMedCare Network providers operate state-of-the-art helicopters. And their specially trained medical personnel provide the highest level of pre-hospital medical care in emergency situations. Even with insurance, these flights can be VERY expensive. But when you're an AirMedCare Network member, you won't see a bill for your flight when flown by one of their providers. This is a financial safety net you should have. Membership is amazingly affordable: only $99 per year and just $79 for seniors. And your entire household is covered. Right now, our listeners get up to an $80 Mastercard or Amazon electronic gift card when they join AMCN and use offer code: REASON. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason today.

Audio production by Ian Keyser

Assistant production by Hunt Beaty

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

What are we consuming this week?

Peter Suderman

• Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• You Must Remember This: A Novel by Kat Rosenfield

Nick Gillespie

• The Invisible Extinction

Matt Welch

• Mary Beard's Ultimate Rome: Empire Without Limit

---

Comments

[Mother's Lament]

"Did the House Rebellion Against Kevin McCarthy Have an Upside?"

Yes, a House rebellion against Kevin McCarthy.

[Overt]

Here is what drives me nuts about this whole affair. This is democracy in action. The ONLY thing that these "Rebels" had was the power of their votes as the final needed to cross the finish line. Just as the only power that Sinema and Manchin had was the power of their swing votes.

And yet, the fact that this power was being exercised was considered an EMBARRASSMENT. Why? For all of ENB's sneering, what was the alternative that she wanted? Did she want McCarthy locking up these votes with backroom deals, and no floor arguments?

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Hey, don't you know how to do collectivist political conformity? I hear it's the new, new libertarian thing.

[DesigNate]

“Why?”

Because ENB and other writers here are vehemently anti-Republican?

(I don’t think they’re all pro-Democrat.)

[KaraDiaz]

Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
https://WWW.RICHAPP2.com

[Syd Henderson]

It was embarrassing for McCarthy and establishment House Republicans, but that's pretty good, actually.

[epsilon given]

At this point, I think the true embarrassment is the Republican Party itself -- a Party that the rank-and-file Republicans are more and more ashamed of, because of their tendency to defer to Democrats, even over their own constituents, because Democrat-run media would say Bad Things about them otherwise!

The House Republicans that challenged McCarthy wouldn't have done so, had McCarthy been a little better at assuring Republicans he'd be a Republican -- and had McConnell not done the stupid thing, and allowed a vote of a big Democrat spending bill to get through in a lame-duck session with Republicans about to take the House!

[Quo Usque Tandem]

Yes

[Fats of Fury]

Upside his head.

[Don't look at me!]

Did the House Rebellion Against Kevin McCarthy Have an Upside?

Yes, a week with no new laws.

[EthelStaggs10]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————>>> http://Www.SmartCash1.Com

[Utkonos]

Well, that’s one week of the new year down. Now we’re in the area of 51 more weeks which, I fear, could prove both restricting and alienating.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Certainly had an effect on four editors and a blown-out picture caption.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Ah, they fixed it, covered up their editor tracks.

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Short answer: yes.

https://twitter.com/jessekellydc/status/1611772378572365826

1. A single congressperson, acting in a Jeffersonian Motion, can move to remove the Speaker if he/she goes back on policy or agenda.
2. A "Church" style committee to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other governmental agencies.
3. Term limits will be put up to a vote.
4. Bills will be presented to Congress as single items, not omnibuses, and will have a minimum of 72 hours to be fully read prior to voting.
5. The Texas Border Plan will be put before Congress.
6. Covid mandates and funding for said mandates will be terminated.
7. Budget bills to stop the endless increases in the debt ceiling.

This is a libertarian wet dream, guys. It's a good portion of what many of us, a number of "editors" excluded, have been asking for. It's also a return to House rules after the dictatorial leadership of Il Douche, aka Nancy Pelosi.

[Zeb]

Yeah, given all that, is there a downside? I'm not expecting all of that to actually happen, but damn that is a good start.

[JasonAZ]

Is there an upside? - So asks, Reason Editors.

Sigh. The real question is, will anything come of these items. Maybe, maybe not. Certainly, it's worthy of a discussion.

But asking if there is actually an upside, that seems like a very non-Libertarian perspective. Not really shocked.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

It is entertaining to hear mainstreamers react to these ideas as far right fascism.

[Sevo]

"...2. A “Church” style committee to look into the weaponization of the FBI and other governmental agencies..."

Perhaps some news organizations might cover the scandal in that case.
We had an arm of the federal government suppressing damaging information regarding a POTUS candidate immediately before an election; crikets!
Fake Trump/Russki collusion; months-long front-page coverage.

[Utkonos]

Also, tactically smart to keep drawing Church parallels. Back in its groovy 1970s day, that Commission was a lefty darling!

[Slickrick]

#4 and #7 should make a difference. I hope the House takes them seriously.

[Dillinger]

>FairTax

the Ghost of Neal Boortz rides again!

(is far better than an income tax. mho)

[sarcasmic]

His show was great.

[Dillinger]

yes

[Stephen]

His show may have been “great” but then the great blowhard decided to get a little richer by selling books on this topic which was WAY above his professional skill sets.

On this VERY technical subject he brought NOTHING to the table, other than his greatly overblown ego.

[sarcasmic]

He was a stickler for principles.

[Stephen]

Maybe so, but he was rank amateur in the very technical subject of taxation, and a crass opportunist who saw an opportunity to make money writing nonsensical books about the FAIRTAX.

At best, his ego was so overblown that he actually thought he knew something about taxes

I liked most all he said about Conservatism, but as a retired tax professional who spent hundreds of hours analyzing the lies of the FAIRTAX, I know that Boortz was full of hot air on this very technical topic.

[Overt]

I will take the FairTax any day.

What I love is that we have a totally insane tax system today that everyone admits creates all sorts of perverse incentives. And yet even the people like Libertarians think it is just LOONEY TOONS to consider an alternative. And usually one of the biggest strikes against the FairTax that they bring up is the switching costs as we do things like switch from the tax preferences of home ownership today to charging a 25% consumptive tax on the sale of a new house.

Half the reason these massive switching costs seem so big is that we have dug an enormous hole of absolute lunacy with our current tax system. That isn't the FairTax's fault. It is all at the feet of the current system.

[Stephen]

Reply this Overt;

You truly need to read all of the things that are so terribly wrong with the FAIRTax on my website.
http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge

At least read the 2-page summary.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Off the bat, income taxes are immoral by nature. The government doesn't need to know what I spend my day doing, with whom I'm doing it, and what's coming into my bank account.

Flat taxes don't solve any of the above issues. Sales tax is the only libertarian tax system (presuming you're going to have one) because they're entirely non-discriminatory. Everyone pays into it, including illegal immigrants.

[Stephen]

I agree with you that income taxes are immoral, but until we get the 16th Amendment repealed and made much harder to ever RE-enact, It is not practical to eliminate the income tax.

Just one of the many fatal flaws of the FAIRTax is that it’s 30% rate (which really needs to be 150%) is WAY too high and would destroy our retail-sales-sensitive economy, even if we eliminated all of the UN-Constitutional wealth redistribution.

The VERY flat income tax I describe is a practical federal tax solution.

[Overt]

Maybe you ought to actually link to this 2 page summary, and I might have the chance to read it. I surfed around on the site and couldn’t find a 2 page summary anywhere- and too many places trying to invoke the download of documents.

Let me guess- you have been thinking about this stuff very deeply for many years, and you cannot understand why people don’t take you seriously on your ideas? I will be up front, and say that you make it very difficult for a person to consume your ideas. Your site reads like a faulneresque stream of consciousness. Give me a link to your summary, and I’d be happy to comment on it. As a hint: I don't download random word docs off the internet, either (that is how you get viruses).

[Stephen]

Reply to Overt,

I am sorry that you find these very complex topics so difficult to grasp, but the complexity should give you pause not to jump to conclusions about the topic without a lot more research or consultation with those who understand it, like me.

I am having trouble getting to link the page right now, but please go back to the site and on the FAIRTax page, look for Summary LTE and Supporting Papers. Let me know if you are able to find it. If not, I will have to find another way. You don’t have to down load any document, you can read them on my site.
If you want to contact me via my site, I can explain it all.

[Overt]

"I am sorry that you find these very complex topics so difficult to grasp"

I don't find the concepts complex at all. I find your website to be disorganized and messy. It is like the closet of an eccentric who has crammed everything in there and doesn't understand why others cannot find his things. I cannot consume your ideas because you have not presented them in a way that can be consumed.

"I am having trouble getting to link the page right now, but please go back to the site and on the FAIRTax page, look for Summary LTE and Supporting Papers."

Maybe the fact that you cannot organize a simple website should give you pause not to jump to conclusions about more complex things like tax policy. Please, show me a link that isn't a random word document or powerpoint document, and I will be happy to review.

[Stephen]

Reply to Overt,

Your denigration of my website and your laughable attempt to undermine my lifetime of professional skills in tax/financial matters, expose your weak skills in debating and your likely lack of tax/financial skills as well as your likely being a FAIRTax zombie.

Especially telling is your refusal to accept my invitation for you to contact me via my site so that I can help walk you through the explanations on my site.

My site is rather well organized. You’re finding it otherwise exposes that you really don’t understand the subject.

That you denigrate my professional tax/financial skills by alluding to my poor technical internet skills exposes your deviousness because those topics require very different skill sets and do not reflect on each other.

An intellectually dishonest person (you) simply insults his opponent’s arguments or makes ad hominem attacks, because they cannot win an argument on the merits.

I repeat my invitation to contact me via my website.

[Stephen]

Additional Reply to Overt,

Have you found that Summary LTE page on my website, yet? I am expecting a call from WIX that will allow me to fix my site so I can copy the link and post it here.

I am perplexed as to why you call my writing “Faulkneresque.” I have tried to explain the FAIRTAX’s fatal flaws by necessarily delving into the complexities of the issues to expose its many deceptions.

[Overt]

I call it faulneresque because there is no organization of thoughts. It is a stream of consciousness mess, like you find in Benjy's narrative in "The Sound and the Fury".

Since that time, it appears that you have added (or fixed) a navigation bar at the top of your home page. Navigating about, I can only find links to word documents. As noted, I do not download random microsoft word docs off the internet from strangers. And you should not do so either.

A good use of your time would be to:
1) Convert the docs to pdf or, better,
2) convert them to web pages on the website, so that the reader can consume them from mobile devices or computers that do not have pdf viewers.

[Stephen]

Overt,

I hadn’t looked at my site for some time.
When I went to look at it (when this Reason conversation appeared) and found that the navigation bar disappeared. I contacted WIX and was able to get it restored.

I fail to see why you think it is disorganized.
I find it logically organized. I can only speculate that you find the entire subject overwhelming. I organized it by subjects relating to the false claims made by those marketing this scam and by addressing specific fatal flaws.

It is suspicious (IF you approaching this discussion with intellectual integrity) why you continue to fail to take me up on my offer for you to contact me via my website.

Have you ever read the FAIRTAX bill or merely read the advertising propaganda.
I think I asked you this before but you have not answered me. Why is that? And you appear to be unwilling to read what I wrote on my site. That exposes that you, like the FAIRTAX marketers, don’t want to learn the truth.

[Stephen]

Overt,

You wrote, “A good use of your time would be to: 1) Convert the docs to pdf or, better, 2) convert them to web pages on the website, so that the reader can consume them from mobile devices or computers that do not have pdf viewers.”

Thank you for your suggestions. When I update the site, I will review them with Wix. In my low-tech skills, I think that I have done your second item AND also uploaded pdf files to the Wix site, but I will check them both. As I said, I think you can read it all without downloading it (I offer that only as an added convenience to readers).

[Stephen]

Additional Reply to Overt,

The link is sceldridge.WIXsite.com/sceldridge/summary-lte-and supporting-papers.

I fixed the homepage and you can now get to this Summary page from there.

[Stephen]

Overt,

People have taken what I wrote sufficiently seriously to help in debunking the fraud that is this terrible FAIRtax idea.

This stinker of a bill was just reintroduced yet again for the 13th time (26 years), with the lowest number of original Co-Sponsors (11) I can ever recall (not that Co-Sponsorship means anything at all, they likely don't support it, they are just trading favors).

[Stephen]

No, the FaurTax would be an absolute DISASTER!
See my website, http://www.sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge

A VERY flat income would be a major improvement.
One tax rate, no personal Exemptions/Deductions, no Refundable Tax Credits. Everyone pays from their first dollar of income.

The FAIRTax is the ghost of Boortz because it is DEAD!
Even it’s meaningless number of “Co-Sponsors” has declined dramatically over the 24 years the FAIRTax bill has been rotting in Congress.

[SRG]

A VERY flat income [tax] would be a major improvement.

But it is nonetheless regressive, though one can reduce the regressive effect if one replaces "income" with "realised gain of wealth", thus preventing capital gains to be taxed less than other income.

[Sevo]

Make the world a better place, shitbag; fuck off and die.

[SRG]

Fuck off, you brown-tonguing Trumpist catamite.

[Stephen]

It would not be “regressive” and “regressive” is not a bad thing.

At its core, we must pay taxes to fund Constitutional expenditures of the fed gov.
Taxation is NOT supposed to be a tool of social justice, but a way to allocate the “maintenance costs” of our “national cooperative.”

Everyone needs to pay his “fair share” of that cost which, like any coop, should be based upon each person’s relative impact on that total cost. For practical purposes that is an equal dollar share, not one based on one’s irrelevant income.

With my Flat income tax, those with higher incomes will pay more (even though they should not have to). I would cap their total taxes. My Flat income tax is a practical alternative.

You voice the Socialists whining that we should all be more or less equal in life’s outcomes. Awaken, that silliness never works out in real life.

[Stephen]

SRG,

Thankfully, Congress had the sense than that and gave long-term investments a tax break so as to entice investors into making risky investments that produce businesses that create jobs and new products.

If you had long-term capital gains you would not be complaining.

[Overt]

I couldn't find an actual description of your Flat Tax on the website- just links that invoke the download of documents, which no one is going to open for fear of viruses. If you are really interested in getting your message across, I would spend a little time actually considering what the message is and making a website that conveys it.

Since I cannot see the specifics of YOUR flat tax, I will lead off with the general criticism of every flat tax: they typically aren't flat.

It is obviously very easy to calculate a flat percentage on income. The problem with every income tax is actually figuring out what your income is. If you get paid $10,000 is that income? What if you had to spend $9,000 on goods that you sold to get that $10,000? What if you had to go get specialist training, or buy a car? What about meals? What about travel.

The income tax is fucked up and convoluted not because of its Progressive nature, but because "income" is a loaded and complicated term, which still requires reams of paper to be rationalized. Unless your flat tax system somehow solves for that problem, it isn't measurably going to solve our problems.

[Stephen]

Overt,

I must run for now and will be able to reply this evening.

You can read the paper without downloading it. I offer download to those who want to download. You can read the full paper right there on the site.

Please contact me via my website and I can be if more help to you.

[Stephen]

Overt,

I can now address your comments about a Flat Income Tax.

Congress and lobbyists have been allowed to make the Income Tax (including the definition of "income'), extremely complicated, but the Socialist lunacy of making it progressive adds greatly to that. However, if you try hard enough, you can make it a whole lot simpler.

While not eliminating all questions, you can significantly simplify taxable income from any business activity (if you want more details, I can provide them, even though I did not lay out the many simplifications that I know are possible on my website).

Essentially, for individuals, I would have a single tax rate with no personal Itemized nor Standard deductions, No Refundable Tax Credits. I would simplify every component of taxable income. My goal would be that an HS graduate would be able to fill out his tax return in 1 hour on 1 page.

[Overt]

So your answer is to not allow individuals to deduct the costs they incur earning income, while giving businesses the ability to deduct the costs of earning income.

Do you understand how that will become problematic?

[Stephen]

Overt,

What I wrote here was brief.

No, you assumed incorrectly.

I would allow individuals who are not operating a “trade or business” to deduct direct costs of earning “gross” income, e.g., investment expenses, and others (somewhat like what we call ( from memory) Sec 162 & 212 deductions).

Which expenses were you concerned about?

[Stephen]

Overt,

I don't understand why you are having so much difficulty understanding the message I am conveying on my website.

Have you ever read the FAIRtax bill? Is your understanding limited to concepts contained in some of the FAIRtax marketing materials?

You would need to understand how the FAIRtax really works (i.e., not what the FAIRtax marketers tell you). Then, you need an understanding of the practicalities of how the Income Tax & sales taxes work and some finance & economics, It's not a simple problem.

I would be pleased to help you if you just contact me via my website.

[Overt]

I will admit that I have not read the Fair Tax analysis for about 10 years. At the time, I did read it deeply, and read many of the criticisms of it.

I will repeat that I have not read your criticisms, because you have not published them in a format I can consume. But rest assured that I have read many of the criticisms for many moons, and while I find some persuasive, I find them less persuasive than the justifications for meddling in peoples' incomes. Especially when your plan is to create a strident dichotomy between business expenses and individual expenses.

All that said, the biggest strike against the Fair Tax is the switching costs. This is not the fault of the Fair Tax. It is the fault of our current system of governance and taxation. That may well mean it is a bad idea to switch to the Fair Tax, but it is because of our status quo, not anything having to do with the fair tax itself.

[Stephen]

Overt,

Then you don’t yet understand the fatal flaws of the FAIRTAX yet.

I think you still misunderstood the mechanics if my website. You do not need to download anything. You can read it all right on my site.
The links on pages are to other pages on the site.

Once again, I invite you to contact me via my site and I offer to help you as much as possible. You seem extremely reluctant to learn of the FAIRTAX’s fatal flaws. Sticking your head in the sand won’t make you any more educated.

[Stephen]

Additional reply to Overt,

Your "logic" is defective. First, you inferred way too much about my brief description of my Flat Income Tax. But that is not your defect of logic. Even if you do not like my very flat income tax, that alone does not make the FAIRtax a good alternative to today's awful income tax.

Because you stubbornly refuse to read what I wrote (and you can do so without downloading anything) you still don't understand the FAIRtax's many fatal flaws ("conversion" is far from the major problem, it is a relatively lesser problem).

Your continued stubborn refusal to allow me to help you read and understand what I wrote exposes that you really don't want to understand the truth, which is typical of FAIRtax marketers. I again invite you to contact me via my site at any time.

ps: When the new Prebate (welfare) rates come out at the end of the month, I will update the site. I will go back and read your suggestions on document production and will also consult with Wix. As you can tell. this is far from my expertise, but it has no impact on my professional understanding of the underlying topics.
What is your professional background?

[Stephen]

Overt,

I just checked.

While a great deal of the material on my site can be read on the site without downloading, the 2-page Summary is not.

I will try to fix that, if not now, then in about 2-3 weeks when I update the site for the new 2023 Prebate (FAIRtax welfare). Maybe I can try to copy that summary in this thread. Stay tuned.

[Stephen]

Overt, I figured out a temporary fix.

I tried to paste it into this conversation, but it failed to post.

What I was able to do is copy and paste it right onto the webpage on my site, so you can go back and read it there without downloading it. The links therein are to other web pages so you needn't download those. There you go.

[Stephen]

Overt,

Here is the direct link to the webpage on my site, where I have posted the 2-page summary in full, so you don't have to download it.

https://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge/summary-lte-and-supporting-papers

So, now you have no excuse for not reading it.

[Mother's Lament]

Twenty minutes in and they're criticizing Republicans for not stopping the Democrat's spending, but not criticizing the Democrats for spending.

[Idaho Bob]

Funny how that works. Almost like they actually support leftists and play libertarians on the internet.

[JasonAZ]

To be fair, the GOP should receive criticism for their spending and support of Democratic spending. The 18 “Republican” Senators that supported the Omnibus should get roasted, regularly.

But the first point should be, “Yes, the Democrats spent insanely after taking over in 2020.” Not starting with this reality is intellectually dishonest.

[Social Justice is neither]

It is their standard "no enemies to the left" viewpoint. Leftist overreach is either ignored or cheered, everything on the right is attacked up to and including not stopping the things they cheer from the left.

[SRG]

Are you aware that this spending started under Trump and with GOP backing? Or that, in fact, GOP administrations are generally terrible for spending (cf Ronnie Raygun)?

Perhaps you should start in 2016. Though as every fule kno, GOP lurvs reducing spending or balancing the budget, when they're not in power, and excluding defence subsidies - for that is what most defence expenditure is.

[Mother's Lament]

Yeah Shrike, your old "the CARES Act was Trump's fault, not Pelosi and congresses" narrative, doesn't work regardless of which sockpuppet you use.

[SRG]

Fuck off Josef's Lament. I'm not Shrike.

Just look at the data btw,

[Sevo]

"Fuck off Josef’s Lament. I’m not Shrike."

Gonna accept the TDS-addled steaming pile of lefty shit's claim s/he is not turd.
SRG is just one more TDS-addled steaming pile of lefty shit who is not turd.
Fuck off and die, SRG; make the world a better place.

[SRG]

Hey Josevo, thorazine not kicked in yet?

[Mother's Lament]

Forty minutes in and of course they’re criticizing Republicans and the American people for the border crisis and saying it's not Biden's fault.

Again Suderman deliberately conflates legal and illegal immigration. Nobody corrects him.

The usual "Americans are lazy and don't want competition" trope is brought up. Again, no acknowledgement that taxes and regulations make it impossible for working class Americans to compete against illegals.

Suderman claims (and Nick backs up) that competition for jobs isn't a factor because there are lots of jobs available. Somehow it escapes their notice that jobs are still actually scarce for people in the income brackets most directly affected by illegal migrants.
"But there's plenty of engineering jobs out there, they should just get their parents to send them to college" doesn't really work for a middle-age, public-school-educated single mom looking to pick up some cleaning jobs.

[Nardz]

Supply and demand forces totes don't apply to labor...

[Jimmy Jazz]

An obviously unlibertarian question from the establishment libertarian magazine.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

Is "establishment libertarian" like processed cheese?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

More like sugar free jazz.

[sarcasmic]

Did the House Rebellion Against Kevin McCarthy Have an Upside?

I'd call the compromise more good than bad. See what happens in the future.

[Chumby]

McCarthy is no good and now he is speaker. Two years of just voting on this would have been strongly preferred.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

So I guess this is presented as the downsides are known, a fait acompli, well-established and acknowledged by all right-thinking people everywhere.

[Stephen]

The chore for this article is an inquiry by the authors as to whether the GOP likes the FAIRTax.

Over the 24 years the FAIRTAX bill has been rotting in Congress, it never had any “real” support. While it had a number of meaningless “Co-Sponsors” even that number has declined dramatically over the years.

The FAIRTAX has many fatal flaws. You can read at least a summary of these at http://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge

[Sevo]

Do you have a news-letter?

[Stephen]

No, I don't. Years ago I set up my website, https://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge to be able to post the volume of material necessary for readers to fully understand all of the fatal flaws of the very deceptive FAIRtax.

I kept adding to it as the then-raging debate was taking place. However, it has faded away (apparently one of the Reason Editors hasn't yet learned why it is such a terrible idea and brought it up here). So, I have not really had the need to add any updates, but will get back to it shortly when its annual welfare provision is updated at the end of January and update at least that one of its fatal flaws.

If you go to my website, you can find a great deal of material and contact me with any questions.

[Uomo Del Ghiaccio]

“Did the House Rebellion Against Kevin McCarthy Have an Upside?”

Yes, without any doubt. Unfortunately the other major party is completely controlled or brainwashed walking in lockstep. I don't give the Republicans much credit, but the Democrats are sinister lot.

Of course the media will portray the rules as egregious even though the majority are simply returning power to the house members that was stolen by the previous speaker of the house.

Pelosi, was basically the dictator of the house ruling with an iron fist. I don't like McCarthy because he is a typical snake, but Pelosi is an extraordinary example of a serpent that makes McCarthy honorable by comparison.

I advocate for a breakup of both major parties where it will be more difficult for the elitist in power to manipulate. Where individual issues are debated and different parties can collaborate on common goals and oppose each other otherwise.

Today we have official talking points where members are not allowed to digress. Currently the Republicans are showing more signs of independence and willingness to question the official narrative. The Democrats are a waste, where even AOC and Omar are firmly under the thumb of the party and stick to the official narrative.

So much for the anti-war left as they are all warmongers now. When the collective team of Biden and Harris were running, I feared exactly what we got from these two examples of human debris. Unfortunately, the Republicans didn't offer a good alternative with Trump who was not worthy of my vote either.

Even with the terrible candidates that were offered, in hindsight Trump was really terrible, but still less bad than the Biden Harris combination.

Unfortunately the Libertarian party has not been up to the task to offer a viable alternative. The previous leadership of the LNC treated the party as a social club, and the jury is still out on the new leadership of the LNC.

I'm sympathetic to making a change in the leadership and willing to give them a chance, but they must develop professionalism to gain support from the larger masses. I disagree with many who supported the status-quo and the previous leadership.

I hear the grumbling from these status-quo Libertarians, but as a outsider and being libertarian minded person, they failed to convince me to join for decades. This is largely because they are not believable as a viable political party.

The new leadership peaked my interest to take notice, but as I said the jury is out and I need to see change and gains. I need to see growth and energy that the previous leadership was completely devoid of.

There is a narrow line that the new LNC leadership needs to navigate. They need to attract enough attention without crossing the line that offends the people they are attempting to attract. There are some loose cannons out there that need to be toned down, however don't over compensate turning the messaging into the dull uninspired messaging of the previous LNC leadership.

[Nardz]

"Comical political fabulists" is a pretty good description of the Reason staff

[Slickrick]

I feel like it was the Democrats that should be embarrassed. They sat on their hands for 3 days and did nothing except passively vote for Jeffries. Why were no alternatives offered up? If they don't think McCarthy is the man for the job then why didn't they back a moderate Republican?
The upside is that a few of the conditions are useful and could prove to help the House improve their legislative effectiveness. The downside is Trump buttsniffers got a win.

[MaryBrady]

Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit..
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK.:)

HERE====)> http://WWW.PAYNET2.COM

[Stephen]

Overt,

I could not post the rest of the 2-page Summary here, but I fixed the problem that will now allow you to read it without downloading it, by posting it directly onto (making it) a webpage on my site;
https://sceldridge.wixsite.com/sceldridge/summary-lte-and-supporting-papers

So now you have no more excuses for not reading it.
I know you want to hold onto your prior views, but we must deal with reality.

[Stephen]

Overt,
And thanks to your comments about not wanting to download a document, in addition to posting the 2-page Summary directly onto that web page (so you don't need to download it), I also changed the link on that same page so that instead of it taking you to a doc you need to download, it now takes you to another webpage where that Summary appears (without needing to be downloaded). I will clean all this up when I update the site later this month. So you have pushed me to improve my site, thank you.

Now, have you read my Summary LTE, yet? If you don't read it now, you will expose yourself as being intellectually dishonest, which is typical of FAIRtax supporters.