Banned Moms Part 2: Same Deal In Michigan
Sounds like in Michigan this is an unintended consequence of some badly written law, and that they’re trying to codify the exemption. Well, at least they’re not trying to defend it as “It’s for the children”.
It is, however, another example of something I’ve been telling anyone who will listen, for years: We already have too much law, and too much regulation. We’ve criminalized too much, and continue to do this.
Unintentional side effects are cropping up more and more now, and sometimes these effects are intentional.
Take for example the confirmation from Tom Barthold to Sen. John Ensign about what the penalty could be for someone who refuses to pay the $1,900 fee assessed for not buying health insurance, under Obama’s proposed healthcare reform: “… the taxpayer may be charged with a misdemeanor with a penalty of up to $25,000 and not more than a year in jail.”
Ensign receives handwritten confirmation
The handwritten note itself: Thomas A. BartholdI’m going to quote Ezra Levant here: Fire. Them. All.
Too much government attempting to justify even more government.
The first thing that needs to happen is that government workers lose their protection from prosecution and being sued when they abuse the public.
The second thing is that people working for the government need to be limited to a max of five years in a given job then required to return to the private sector for five years before returning to government.
The third thing is resore the constitution. We have rights, their governance is a privledge. Make them adhere to that standard.
Frankly, if we limited every representative to four years then required a two year stint in the private sector we would be better off. Also a five year ban on congress critters becoming lobbests. As for the senate, do not allow them to seek reelection ever. Mke them sit out for at least two years.Last, make them empty their war chests after every election, and forbid them from taking campaign contributions until nine months prior to the election. they either return it to their donors in shares or it gets handed over to the IRS. I opt for the IRS.
I opt for the IRS.
No the IRS should be the first to go - they talk all ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ as their basis for the ‘redistribution of wealth’ but real & true fairness and justice would be - a Flat Tax - one single percentage that every single person pays no matter how little nor how much they make. End all of the loopholes, deductions and of course the requisite several tax forms, tax ‘preparers’, tax codes, IRS, the time & taxpayer monies wasted every year to make up new loopholes and obstacles and requirements that put more and more people into jeopardy every year. How is any of that fair? To anyone? When those who are uber rich and can find shelters (and off shore) to hide their riches (or like Edwards a fund)and those of us who are actually working for a living pay for their evasions, by being held to a higher standard and don’t have the funds to fight back or hide ours.
Yes - how about we go back to the original concept where the Klownposse in DC met what was it - one or two times a year and then went back to regular jobs (gasp) which would remind them that they are indeed nothing more than Public Servants.
Of course repealing the 16th Amendment would absolutely get their attention immediately - that We The People Run America and no longer want the Klownposse in DC running amok.
Re the IRS: I don’t trust any agency that has its own courts and considers $50,000 the threshold for “small claims”.
How can this be a business if she receives no payment?
Posted by Nicole
09/28/2009 at 07:55 AM
Nicole: Government loves to assess things as “having worth”, or that there is a “value exchanging hands” if it means they can then move in and tax, regulate, license, or outright ban them. It’s all about them extending their power, and scope.
09/27/2009 at 08:05 AM
