There are 72 comments.

1. Member
   Miffed White Male

   @MiffedWhiteMale

   

   10:50 AM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Miffed White Male:

   iWe: My local pizza shop needs regular sign offs by 37 different regulators. His customers would cheerfully sign waivers for regulatory relief in order to get cheaper pies. The proprietor is a good guy, and wants to feed people healthy food – so why should his customers pay double for food in order to pay for the regulators?

   There is (was?) a bar in Anchorage AK [the fly by night club] that features “excerpts from our latest health inspection” on the menu.

   One of the checkboxes next to “signs of infestation” was for turtles. This led to the headline on the menu – “Come eat in our certified turtle-free environment”.

   (Quotes from memory. It’s been a few years.)

   Amazing what you kind find in a few minutes on the internet.

   Closed in 2006.  Here’s the menu.  But I had the quote wrong – it’s “come in  and relax in our completely turtle-free environment as certified by the municipality of Anchorage.”

   http://www.flybynightclub.com/menu_bev.html

2. Member
   Miffed White Male

   @MiffedWhiteMale

   

   10:54 AM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Arizona Patriot: I would expect that selling off a substantial portion of federal lands would drive real estate prices down significantly. Which would wipe away a great deal of private wealth and lead to a rash of foreclosures, litigation, bankruptcies, and perhaps a financial crisis.

   Have you ever driven across Nevada?

   They ain’t going to be selling Yellowstone Park.  80% of federal lands are useless  desert scrub that they’ll have a hard time GIVING away.

3. Member
   Arizona Patriot

   @ArizonaPatriot

   10:54 AM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Some ideas:

   (1) Build a massive “wall” on the southern border.  I’d defer to experts re the best design.  For example, a 25-foot concrete wall might be less effective than a series of fences, with a patrolled no-entry zone between the fences.

   (2) Expand EVerify and devote significant resources to punishing employers who hire illegals.

   (3) Allow illegal immigrants who have been in the US for more than 5 years and who  have not been convicted of a crime to obtain permanent legal residence by: (a) paying a $10,000 fine and (b) paying any back taxes owed (federal, state, and local).  The permanent legal residence would be revocable upon conviction of a serious crime, and would not allow citizenship ever, except upon an honorable discharge from the military.

   (4) Amend the Clean Air Act to prohibit EPA regulation of CO2 emissions.

   (5) Amend the Clean Water Act to prohibit EPA abuse (e.g. putting clean fill dirt in wetlands).

   (6) Repeal fuel efficiency (CAFE) standards for autos.

   (7) Prohibit immigration from many Middle Eastern countries (including Syria, Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Pakistan), perhaps with an exception for persecuted non-Muslims.

4. Member
   Tom Meyer, Ed.

   @tommeyer

   11:05 AM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Mike Hubbard:Since Democrats have been anxious to raise taxes, we should do so with Obama providing some political cover—but in such a way that it slams their own base, rather than Republicans’. Thus, my proposal is to remove the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes. New Yorkers would see their tax bills rise, but Texans—with no state income tax—wouldn’t be affected.

   That’s evil. And brilliant.

5. Inactive
   Austin Murrey

   @AustinMurrey

   11:17 AM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Tom Meyer, Ed.:

   Mike Hubbard:Since Democrats have been anxious to raise taxes, we should do so with Obama providing some political cover—but in such a way that it slams their own base, rather than Republicans’. Thus, my proposal is to remove the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes. New Yorkers would see their tax bills rise, but Texans—with no state income tax—wouldn’t be affected.

   That’s evil. And brilliant.

   Mike, can I build a statue to you and place offerings of barbeque and beer below it?

6. Member
   Miffed White Male

   @MiffedWhiteMale

   

   11:23 AM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Tom Meyer, Ed.:

   Mike Hubbard:Since Democrats have been anxious to raise taxes, we should do so with Obama providing some political cover—but in such a way that it slams their own base, rather than Republicans’. Thus, my proposal is to remove the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes. New Yorkers would see their tax bills rise, but Texans—with no state income tax—wouldn’t be affected.

   That’s evil. And brilliant.

   They don’t have property taxes in Texas?

   Personally, I think all taxes paid at any level should be deductible – you shouldn’t have to pay taxes on money you don’t get to keep.   And I include Gas taxes, excise taxes itemized on my utility bills, sales, taxes, etc.

7. Inactive
   Frozen Chosen

   @FrozenChosen

   1:06 PM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Excellent suggestions, iWe.

   I would like the House to pass a law making it illegal to pass any laws singling out a specific company or industry for tax breaks or funding. That would put a stop to almost all of the shenanigans congressmen make to help a company or industry in their district or state.

   Never happen but I can dream…

8. Inactive
   Mike Hubbard

   @MikeHubbard

   1:41 PM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Austin Murrey:

   Tom Meyer, Ed.:

   Mike Hubbard:Since Democrats have been anxious to raise taxes, we should do so with Obama providing some political cover—but in such a way that it slams their own base, rather than Republicans’. Thus, my proposal is to remove the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes. New Yorkers would see their tax bills rise, but Texans—with no state income tax—wouldn’t be affected.

   That’s evil. And brilliant.

   Mike, can I build a statue to you and place offerings of barbeque and beer below it?

   Yes.

   Miffed White Male: They don’t have property taxes in Texas? Personally, I think all taxes paid at any level should be deductible – you shouldn’t have to pay taxes on money you don’t get to keep. And I include Gas taxes, excise taxes itemized on my utility bills, sales, taxes, etc.

   Here’s the relevant bit from the link:

   Economist Bruce Bartlett . . . [argued] that this deduction is a subsidy to high-tax states from low-tax states, and high-tax states tend to have higher per capita incomes. He also found that, in general, the deduction is associated with higher state and local taxes because the federal government is paying a portion of these taxes, with most estimates suggesting state and local taxes are about 13 to 14 percent higher.

9. Member
   Miffed White Male

   @MiffedWhiteMale

   

   1:52 PM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

   Mike Hubbard: Here’s the relevant bit from the link: Economist Bruce Bartlett . . . [argued] that this deduction is a subsidy to high-tax states from low-tax states, and high-tax states tend to have higher per capita incomes. He also found that, in general, the deduction is associated with higher state and local taxes because the federal government is paying a portion of these taxes, with most estimates suggesting state and local taxes are about 13 to 14 percent higher.

   I reject the premise that NOT taking somebody’s money is a subsidy.  It presumes that the money belongs to the government in the first place.

   Specific tax deductions may be economically inefficient and/or bad policy, but they are not “subsidies”.

   And I stand by my position that the government should not be able to tax you on  income that has been already taken in the form of other taxes.

10. Member
    aardo vozz

    @aardovozz

    3:55 PM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

    Austin Murrey:

    iWe: How does this keep Congress from doing what it already does: pass massive ugly Cromnibus Bills that it has never read?

    It doesn’t, but it does force every member to actually defend their vote – they can’t just blame the current Administration for altering the intent of the law.

    I have a partial solution that would make it even tougher for Congress to pass “Cromnibus Bills”, at least as far as regulations go. Here goes:

    1. All regulations must be treated as amendments and sent to the STATES for ratification.
    2. When discussing federal regulations,the STATES must deliberate on ONE REGULATION AT A TIME  and cannot discuss other regulations until the regulation under discussion has been voted on, up or down. (no “tabling”).
    3. The order of which regulations should be discussed is up to each individual state. (In this case,it is possible that not enough states would be discussing the same regulation at the same time to allow for ratification. This MIGHT slow down the number of regulations presented by the executive branch or the congress to the states. ).

    There’s probably something wrong with this,but presently,I don’t see it. As someone has already said, I can dream,can’t I?

11. Member
    Metalheaddoc

    @Metalheaddoc

    

    9:59 PM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

    iWe:

    Seawriter:I would favor a Constitutional amendment that no bill shall become law, until after being fully enacted and signed into law by the President (or passed over a Presidential veto) it is read aloud in its entirety on the steps of the Capitol building by a voting member of the legislature.

    And without interruption!

    And they have to have one of those sign language interpreters.

12. Member
    Metalheaddoc

    @Metalheaddoc

    

    10:03 PM EST ⋅ Jan 5, 2016

    Frozen Chosen:Excellent suggestions, iWe.

    I would like the House to pass a law making it illegal to pass any laws singling out a specific company or industry for tax breaks or funding. That would put a stop to almost all of the shenanigans congressmen make to help a company or industry in their district or state.

    Never happen but I can dream…

    Or, similarly, any tax advantages or breaks or whatever have to be equally extended to the entire industry. This way, the politicians can still do their lobbying crony kickback thing, but every competitor also benefits. It becomes an across the board tax break.