Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

The response to a mass shooting in a liberal state or city: If only you had gun-friendly laws, a good guy with a gun would have stopped the carnage. There have been mass shootings in Montana and elsewhere where the restrictions on guns are few. Where was that “good guy” with a gun? And the mass shootings continue.

A highly placed source has confidentially informed me why so many ICE agents wear masks. They are concealing that they are aliens. No, not people from a foreign government, but beings from another planet. Apparently, ICE cannot find enough American humans to do the job.

A new friend insisted that I read Showdown at Gucci Culch: Lawmakers, Lobbyists, and the Unlikely Triumph of Tax Reform (1987) by Jeffrey H. Birnbaum & Alan S. Murray. The book chronicles the passage of the 1986 tax reform bill. The book contained more detail than I cared to read, but some details had an up-to-date relevance. For example, the authors point out that at the close of nineteenth century, federal revenue came from tariffs and excise taxes, which operated similarly to sales taxes as an exaction on consumers and placed a heavy burden on low-income Americans. An income tax was considered a fairer way to raise money to fund the government. The Revenue Act of 1913 simultaneously imposed a tax on large incomes and reduced tariff rates. We are now taking the opposite course by reducing taxes on large incomes and increasing tariff rates. The 1986 tax reform was led by President Ronald Reagan, and we are diverging from it. That 1986 package incorporated the largest corporate tax increase in history. Now, of course, we are reducing corporate taxes. We now also ignore what is known and obvious: Our taxes are uneven and unfair in part because some people simply don’t pay them. In 1986, there were estimates that every dollar of increased IRS enforcement led to the collection of ten dollars of previously uncollected tax revenue. We, of course, now reduce enforcement by the IRS.

As the night wears on, my curiosity increases. What will Dee Dee Gatton be wearing at The National News Desk?

Pesky pronouns. I call the Roomba “he.” The spouse calls the Roomba “she.” What is right? Neither of us thinks of Roomba as an “it.” Surely not “they.”

I was driving across Manhattan to get to the entrance of the FDR drive at 96th Street. The traffic slowed as I got to the traffic light. I could see a panhandler approaching. Most often I gently shake my head indicating not today, but this was one of those every so often days when I dug for my wallet. The spouse beat me and handed me a bill. The panhandler blessed me, smiled, and asked what I had not expected. “Are you a Yankee or Mets fan?” I replied, “How many Mets fans do you get here.” He did not answer but said that Aaron Judge had just driven through. The panhandler told me that Judge was on his way to Yankee stadium where the team was playing the Astros that night. Just before the traffic started moving again, he said, almost laughing, “He makes a gazillion dollars, and he did not give me a cent.” And then, “Have a good rest of the day.” I turned to the spouse, “I still love New York.”

Posted on by rjonakait · 1 Comment

We Stand on Guard for Thee

John F. Kennedy speaking to the Canadian Parliament in 1961:

Geography has made us neighbors. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together, let no man put asunder.

Born and raised in Wisconsin, I grew up closer to Canada than most Americans. As a result, I may have given Canada more thought than most U.S. citizens. And that means almost none. (Brief, simple quiz: How many Canadian provinces are there? Name them. How about the territories? Advanced placement: Name three of the governors, if that is the right term, of the provinces.) But our minority-vote-getting president-elect has elevated Canada in the national consciousness. Making Canada a U.S. state at first seemed a harmless bit of whimsy, but he keeps harping on it. Prominent Canadians have rejected the idea in colorful ways. But now that my attention has been directed to our northern neighbor, I am hoping that they will consider becoming part of the U.S. It is intriguing how they might change this country.

Canada’s population would entitle it to more than fifty seats in the House of Representatives. The size of the House has been capped at 435 since 1929. That number was temporarily increased to 437 in 1959 after Hawaii and Alaska became states, but it returned to 435 after the 1960 census. If that pattern were followed, the House size would temporarily increase and settle back to 435 after the next census.

Now. If Canada were to become a state and the House size remains the same, that would mean that fifty existing House seats would have to be eliminated. Perhaps Trump thinks Canada can become a state solely through presidential fiat, but in the past, it was clear that the Constitution required both houses of Congress and a presidential signature to create a new state. It is hard to picture the House voting for anything that would eliminate fifty existing House districts. That probably dooms Canadian statehood. But I assure you that if I could oversee which fifty would disappear, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of Canadian statehood.

The effect on the Senate would be less dramatic, but I say to Canada, Why not bargain, eh? Instead of joining the U.S. as one state, insist that each province come in as a separate state. (We can figure out what to do with the territories later.) That would be not two, but twenty additional members of the upper House. (Yes, there are ten Canadian provinces.)

And then there is the electoral college. Even if Canada joined the U.S. as a single state, it would still be the largest bloc of electoral votes, about a tenth of the total.

Canadians, if they used their power wisely, could control the House. If they could come in as ten states, they could probably control the Senate. And their influence in the electoral college would be immense. In other words, Canadians could control the North American continent from Key West to Hudson Bay (and perhaps Greenland, too.)

I see some benefits to that. Canada has stricter gun laws than the U.S. With Canadians as the power brokers, we could have them here. The government pays directly for much of Canadian healthcare. We could have that here. Canada has no criminal restrictions on abortion, and abortion is widely available throughout the country. We could have that here. And perhaps those snappy Royal Canadian Mountie uniforms could become standard in the U.S. The world, in my opinion, would be better with more Dudley Do-Rights.

There are a couple of things, however, that might be dealbreakers for Canadian statehood and a couple of other things I am not sure about. We would have to do something about Canada’s connections with British royalty. I know that there are many Americans who are inexplicably besotted with that royalty, but real Americans don’t want anything to do with a monarchy (even if some misguided Americans want Trump to be a monarch). While there might be some division on British royalty, there should be no debate on jettisoning the Canadian national anthem; it’s even worse than ours.

There is more to consider. Canadian statehood would probably increase the already large Canadian cultural influences on the rest of America. Do we really want more Canadian singers, comedians, and wrestlers than we have now? Can we have Canadian statehood without more Justin Biebers? On the other hand, I loved the Red Green show. Our economy as well as our culture will be affected. Certainly, Canadian companies will have a freer rein in the lower forty-eight than now. Would the wider availability of Tim Horton maple donuts and controversial Montreal bagels be a good thing, or would RFK ban those sugary treats and empty carbohydrates?

But even though there may be some undesirable consequences, better gun control, a different healthcare system, and abortion availability make Canada statehood worth it, and that is so even if I must hear “eh” more often. Please, Canada, don’t close the door to U.S. statehood. You have the potential to remake the United States into a better place. Please stand on guard for me.

Posted on by rjonakait

Snippets

The email from a group that sees itself as a defender of religious liberty stated: “Of all the threats to our constitutional freedoms today, the scheme to stage a Supreme Coup of America’s courts is arguably the most dire. If our judicial system is rigged to favor partisan agendas, religious freedom—and all our fundamental, God-given rights—could be stripped away by a tyrannical majority who holds political power. That’s why right now, Americans must make their voice heard and REJECT this brazen power-grab.”

I wondered about various aspects of this plea including what “our fundamental, God-given rights” are. A benevolent, all-powerful God should give all of humanity a right to a peaceful life; to adequate food and shelter; to free speech; to worhip as you see fit; to a fulfilling education; and to good healthcare. I doubted that such rights were being referred to, but I could not discern what rights were meant. If it meant certain provisions in the U.S. Constitution, it ignored that God did not write the constitution. It was not on tablets given to Moses, but instead came on inked paper from humans, or as we often proudly proclaim, from “We the People.”  What do you believe are God-given rights, and why do you believe that? (For a further discussion of “We the People,” see the posts of July 16, 18, and 20, 2018: Search Results for “”We, the People of the United States”” – AJ’s Dad (ajsdad.blog).

A tag on my oven mitt reads: “Cold water wash . . . Do not bleach . . . Tumble low dry . . . Warm iron . . . 100% cotton . . . Made in China.” What kind of person irons an oven mitt?

“A good man, maybe. But it’s best to shoot him.” Old Russian Proverb. Ben Mezrich, Once Upon a Time in Russia: The Rise of the Oligarchs—A True Story of Ambition, Wealth, Betrayal, and Murder.

Baseball playoffs are taking place. This makes me think of the brother’s recollection of our first television. He was in fifth grade, and the father surprised us in October by bringing home a tiny, black-and-white set. He talked about how much the family would enjoy it, but we thought that his desire to see the World Series was the motive behind the purchase. The brother told me that he tried to catch a cold, which he did, so he could stay home from school and watch October baseball, this when the Series had only day games. The mother told the father that my brother was sick and could not watch the game. The brother reports, “Well, she left for her afternoon work at the grocery store. Of course, dad let me.”

Is this joke now politically incorrect: Did you hear about the hillbilly who passed away and left his estate in trust for his bereaved widow? She can’t touch it until she’s fourteen.

My suggestion for an incremental improvement for gun safety: Make it a crime to carry a gun while intoxicated. Of course, carrying a gun is not the same as using it, but even carrying one while drunk should be prohibited because the decision whether to use a carried firearm should not be made when a person is intoxicated. The consequences should be similar to drunken driving, which, of course, is an offense even if there is no accident, Perhaps a first conviction for carrying a gun while intoxicated would only be a misdemeanor, but just as driving licenses are suspended, the ability to carry a gun should be prohibited for a time after the first conviction. A second conviction would be a felony, and the person could no longer possess guns. . . and might even go to jail.