Geesh.....I'm actually shocked! Sheldon made it through a whole column while making good, rational, actual common sense, and without resorting to attacking the conservative right. Good on Sheldon, and MJ is batting .1000 today! <Grin>!
On Fri, Apr 19, 2013 at 8:12 AM, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thursday, April 18, 2013 > *Demagogy on Manchin-Toomey > *Sheldon Richman > > The Manchin-Toomey expansion of background checks to private gun sales was > reasonable legislation, its advocates insist, because it would have forbade > the creation of a federal registry and exempted transfers of guns between > family members and between friends. > > Those features appear to be in the bill, but why should that matter? The > champions of Manchin-Toomey would have us believe that once the bill > passed, no more gun laws would ever be proposed again. That is, they’re > either naïve or dishonest. I don’t think they’re naïve. > > MSNBC host Joe Scarborough, a former member of the House and self-styled > Second Amendment man who supported Manchin-Toomey, is an egregious example > of this dishonesty. He spent weeks mocking opponents for not being > mollified by the bill’s compromises. Can he unfamiliar with the legislative > tactic of gradualism? Start a program small to minimize opposition, then > expand it in later years when people have become inured. > > It’s not as though this tactic has never been used. The income tax started > small in 1913 and applied only to the richest Americans. Those who > expressed concern that the tax would expand were ridiculed as paranoid. > Sen. William Borah, an Idaho Progressive Republican said, “No sane man > would take from industry its just reward or rob frugality of a fair and > honest return.” > > As I wrote in *Your Money or Your Life: Why We Must Abolish the Income Tax > *<http://www.amazon.com/Your-Money-Life-Abolish-ebook/dp/B00BW9FM1U/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366295646&sr=1-2&keywords=sheldon+richman>(1999): > > The 1913 income tax was put at 1 percent on net income after a personal > exemption of $3,000, some credits, and an additional $1,000 exemption for > married couples living together. There was also a graduated 2 percent to 7 > percent surcharge on incomes from $20,000 to $500,000…. In 1913, the > average personal income was $621. Only 2 percent of the population was > liable for the tax between 1913 and 1915. > > In other words, the tax was introduced as a tax on the rich exclusively. > > If the system were in place today, a single person making less than > about $45,000 (the bottom 75 percent of filers) would pay no tax. A couple > earning less than $60,000 would pay nothing. Incomes up to $300,000 would > be in the 1 percent bracket. Someone would have to make $7.5 million before > paying the top 7 percent rate. In 1994 dollars, the exemptions of 1913 > would be worth $44,776 for a single person and $59,701 for married couples. > > But it didn’t take long for the tax to become a tax on the masses. War, as > usual, fueled the expansion. The anti-tax prophets were right. > > The income tax is not the only example of gradualism. Social Security was > also introduced as a modest program with a low tax. Now it and Medicare > take about 15 percent of a worker’s income. For details see Charlotte > Twight’s Dependent on > D.C.<http://www.amazon.com/Dependent-D-C-Federal-Ordinary-Americans/dp/B00A17IK2M/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1366295585&sr=1-1&keywords=dependent+on+dc> > > The upshot is that you cannot judge a legislative bill in isolation. The > dynamics of politics must be taken into account, especially the > politicians’ ability to (in Twight’s words) “manipulate political > transaction costs.” This refers to the many methods that government > officials have to conceal what they’re doing and to make it costly for > people to resist if they find out. > > How might this idea apply to Manchin-Toomey? This isn’t rocket science. > The bill may promise universal background checks (except for family members > and friends), but it can’t keep that > promise<http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/the-absurdity-of-universal-background-checks/>. > Criminally minded people will always find ways to obtain guns outside the > system. Theft and the black market will make that a certainty. Gun-running > is as old as guns themselves, and nothing is more adaptive than the black > market. > > So what will happen after the next atrocity occurs with a firearm? The > advocates of universal background checks will surely say, “We tried this > modest approach, and it failed to keep guns out of the hands of bad people. > We must do more.” > > “More” could well include national registration. It’s a matter of logic. > If I own a gun, how can the government assure that I haven’t sold it > without running a background check on the buyer? One way the government > might find out is to establish a gun registry and periodically do spot > checks to see if people still possess the guns that are registered to them. > If people are serious about outlawing sales without backgrounds checks, > wouldn’t they be driven to such a proposal? As the ACLU has pointed out, > the civil-liberties implications are ominous. Registration makes > confiscation feasible. > > This is not paranoia. It’s a recognition of the dynamics of demagogic > politics. If, as polls purport to show, 90 percent of people favor > universal background checks and they prove futile in stopping gun > atrocities, what will they favor next? Which way are they likely to go: > toward full deregulation of gun ownership or toward more draconian > measures? > > I know where my money is. > > http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.com/2013/04/demagogy-on-manchin-toomey.html > > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
