Kevin McCarthy’s fate on the line, House conservatives warn speaker’s election could take days

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Kevin McCarthy’s fate on the line, House conservatives warn speaker’s election could take days

"Rep. Scott Perry, a conservative Republican from Pennsylvania, outlined the demands Mr. McCarthy has so far rejected, including commitments to consider term limits for members of Congress, a balanced budget measure and legislation to replace income taxes with a national sales tax.

“Kevin McCarthy had an opportunity to be speaker of the House,” Rep. Mr. Perry said Tuesday. “He rejected it.”"

Okay, I'm not sure I've ever heard of Scott Perry before this, but now I know I absolutely despise him because performative crap isn't a valid reason to have chaos over the speakership.

The Supreme Court already has held that the Constitutional requirements to hold office are the only ones that can be imposed by states (U.S. v. Thorton), and that reasoning is just as applicable to Congress setting limits that go beyond the Constitution.  So voting on term limits is pointless.  There also is absolutely zero chance that you'd get Constitutional Amendments -- because that's what it would take -- on a balanced budget or national sales tax through the Senate, much less through 38 states.  So those other two demands are purely performative as well.

This isn't about actually changing anything.  It's basically just conservative virtue signaling, and Perry and his ilk know it.  They're just pandering to their base because they lack the courage to say "Sorry guys, I agree with you on these issues but they can't go anywhere and here is why"  I can't stand that kind of condescending crap regardless of whether it comes from the left or right.

[roamer_1]

This isn't about actually changing anything.  It's basically just conservative virtue signaling, and Perry and his ilk know it.  They're just pandering to their base because they lack the courage to say "Sorry guys, I agree with you on these issues but they can't go anywhere and here is why"  I can't stand that kind of condescending crap regardless of whether it comes from the left or right.

Riiiight. No hills to die on. Goes along gets along... That's how you fight. 

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Riiiight. No hills to die on. Goes along gets along... That's how you fight. 

Why not actually address the points I made?   Start with the first one:  What is the point of sabotaging the Speaker elections over term limits when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional??

Here's an idea -- why not have some demands that don't require Amendments to the Constitution that have absolutely zero chance of happening??  Cripe, conservatives complain that they elect people who just talk but don't actually accomplish anything, but now you're endorsing the exact same thing -- stupid votes that you know long before you start will accomplish absolutely nothing.

[roamer_1]

Why not actually address the points I made?   Start with the first one:  What is the point of sabotaging the Speaker elections over term limits when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional??

The way a philosophy is fleshed out has bumps along the way. I care more that they are carving something out to stand upon. Something real. Lines drawn in the sand.

That's a start. And by the way, I am not for term limits, and I am on record here saying as much.

But it does my heart good to hear 'balanced budgets' and 'flat tax' echoed through the halls of the powerful. That they have no chance in hell is precisely because they are not shouted out as a clarion call. I will stand fast with these guys.

[roamer_1]

Here's an idea -- why not have some demands that don't require Amendments to the Constitution that have absolutely zero chance of happening??  Cripe, conservatives complain that they elect people who just talk but don't actually accomplish anything, but now you're endorsing the exact same thing -- stupid votes that you know long before you start will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Incorrect. The status quo accomplishes nothing. Something other than the status quo is necessary. That requires philosophical change - or in this case, change-back.

A congress willing to battle for fiscal sanity - Albeit through things not yet achievable - is exactly the medicine we need. The battle toward seemingly impossible goals will swing the fight in that direction. They may never get to balanced budgets and a flat tax, but who knows how far they will get fighting in that direction?

Or is it better to ease along to fiscal destruction as is the current status quo?

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Incorrect. The status quo accomplishes nothing. Something other than the status quo is necessary. That requires philosophical change - or in this case, change-back.

A congress willing to battle for fiscal sanity - Albeit through things not yet achievable - is exactly the medicine we need. The battle toward seemingly impossible goals will swing the fight in that direction. They may never get to balanced budgets and a flat tax, but who knows how far they will get fighting in that direction?

Or is it better to ease along to fiscal destruction as is the current status quo?

You didn't answer the question again.  What good does it do to ask for a term limits bill when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional?  ETA:  Okay, I see that you don't support them, which is fine.  But this moron Perry does, which was the point of my initial post.  Either 1) he doesn't know they are unconstitutional, in which case he's an idiot who has no business in Congress, or 2)  He knows they're unconstitutional, but doesn't think you know that so he can earn political brownie points by promoting a meaningless piece of legislations.  It's pandering because he assumed you/we are stupid.   It's either 1) or 2), so as I said, I despise him.

Answer that question, and then I'll address your point about fiscal destruction, because there actually is a way to do that without requiring the passage of a Constitutional Amendment that will never, ever pass.

[Free Vulcan]

The way a philosophy is fleshed out has bumps along the way. I care more that they are carving something out to stand upon. Something real. Lines drawn in the sand.

Yes. Throw 'em in the mosh pit and let 'em scrum, see if they can gather the stones to come together and lead out with something substantial.

Tired of empty suit, easy peazy, business as usual.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

The way a philosophy is fleshed out has bumps along the way. I care more that they are carving something out to stand upon. Something real. Lines drawn in the sand.

But it's not real.  That's my point.  Passing a bill that you know, with 100% certainty, won't go anywhere doesn't accomplish anything real.  It's pointless political symbolism whose line is drawn in invisible ink.

But it does my heart good to hear 'balanced budgets' and 'flat tax' echoed through the halls of the powerful. That they have no chance in hell is precisely because they are not shouted out as a clarion call. I will stand fast with these guys.

Flat tax was not one of those three demands.  If it were, I'd have a different reaction because that would not require a Constitutional Amendment.  What they demanded was an end to the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and that would require a Constitutional Amendment.  Which is why it is an idiotic, performative proposal.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Yes. Throw 'em in the mosh pit and let 'em scrum, see if they can gather the stones to come together and lead out with something substantial.

Tired of empty suit, easy peazy, business as usual.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  I could care less about their "intentions" if they don't actually accomplish anything.  These guys are legislators, which means their job is to write laws that actually work.  So how about if we up our expectations a bit, and ask them to come up with some more creative ideas of accomplishing the same goals that actually have a chance??

[Bigun]

Flat tax was not one of those three demands.  If it were, I'd have a different reaction because that would not require a Constitutional Amendment.  What they demanded was an end to the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and that would require a Constitutional Amendment.  Which is why it is an idiotic, performative proposal.

Sorry @Maj. Bill Martin but you are just flat out wrong on this point. Abolishing the income tax and replacing it with a National Retail Sales Tax would not require a constitutional amendment as nowhere does the constitution require an income tax.

[roamer_1]

You didn't answer the question again.  What good does it do to ask for a term limits bill when the Supreme Court already has held that they are unconstitutional? 

I already did - here it is again: I don't care. That they are willing to fight for something (anything) is healthy. Where the fight goes is in the fighting - these points turn the battle toward the right. It will not produce term limits - but it may well awaken other means to end long terms - Like a return to enforcement. Most of the evil-doers have done plenty to get them kicked out for cause. Let the games begin.

Answer that question, and then I'll address your point about fiscal destruction, because there actually is a way to do that without requiring the passage of a Constitutional Amendment that will never, ever pass.

There are always ways and ways. These are lawyers. It's what they do. 

[Free Vulcan]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  I could care less about their "intentions" if they don't actually accomplish anything.  These guys are legislators, which means their job is to write laws that actually work.  So how about if we up our expectations a bit, and ask them to come up with some more creative ideas of accomplishing the same goals that actually have a chance??

They can get no legislation passed. What they can do is start off with a rules package that will stop the abuses of the previous House, and be very aggressive in investigations in exposing all the Rats malfeasance.

That is going to take leadership in and of itself, and I don't see that happening with McCarthy.

[roamer_1]

Yes. Throw 'em in the mosh pit and let 'em scrum, see if they can gather the stones to come together and lead out with something substantial.

Tired of empty suit, easy peazy, business as usual.

BRAVO! That's the ticket!

[roamer_1]

But it's not real.  That's my point.  Passing a bill that you know, with 100% certainty, won't go anywhere doesn't accomplish anything real.  It's pointless political symbolism whose line is drawn in invisible ink.

Oh but it is real! I don't expect they'll get to that bill - It will be found to be unconstitutional as you predict, and that probably in committee. But it leaves room for 'what can we do instead?' And that is a question that has not been on the table for a decade or two.

Flat tax was not one of those three demands.  If it were, I'd have a different reaction because that would not require a Constitutional Amendment.  What they demanded was an end to the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax, and that would require a Constitutional Amendment.  Which is why it is an idiotic, performative proposal.

The 'national sales tax' instead of income tax IS flat tax. And I do not believe it would require an amendment. However, that is not the point - As I said before, that they will stand upon something - ANYTHING - is music to my ears.

[roamer_1]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.  I could care less about their "intentions" if they don't actually accomplish anything.  These guys are legislators, which means their job is to write laws that actually work.  So how about if we up our expectations a bit, and ask them to come up with some more creative ideas of accomplishing the same goals that actually have a chance??

How they will accomplish nothing is by going along with the moderate wing in power - and the proof of that is on the record.

[Hoodat]

It is much easier to prove taxes paid on income than on taxes paid on goods.  I don't want some reve-noo-er spying on my property demanding proof of taxes paid for the shingles on my new roof.  The IRS is bad enough.  The BATF-and-everything-else-sold-under-the-son will be far worse.  Now when I buy a yard sale item advertised on a neighborhood app, I will now have to pay taxes under threat of jail time.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Ryan Nobles
@ryanobles
11m

I asked Rep. Mike Rogers if he threatened that members who voted against McCarthy would he tossed off committees.

“I didn’t threaten them, I promised them and that’s a difference.”

This is what happens when the opposition jumps to the microphones without a plan ---- they end up further behind.

The negotiations should have stayed as private as possible within the Caucus.  Here's a strategy that may have worked --- if the goal was truly to secure a strong conservative voice and not to strut and humiliate.

I would have worked for the these changes in exchange for a McCarthy Speakership and a united front:

-  The ability to remove the Speaker
-   Guaranteed number of conservatives on each committee
-   Guaranteed number of conservative seats at the agenda setting table
-.  Rules changes for guaranteed time to review and debate proposed legislation
-.  A conservative liaison with the Senate

[Bigun]

It is much easier to prove taxes paid on income than on taxes paid on goods.  I don't want some reve-noo-er spying on my property demanding proof of taxes paid for the shingles on my new roof.  The IRS is bad enough.  The BATF-and-everything-else-sold-under-the-son will be far worse.  Now when I buy a yard sale item advertised on a neighborhood app, I will now have to pay taxes under threat of jail time.

Does anything like that occur in the 45 states that have sales taxes @Hoodat?  What makes you think it would at the national level?

[roamer_1]

It is much easier to prove taxes paid on income than on taxes paid on goods.  I don't want some reve-noo-er spying on my property demanding proof of taxes paid for the shingles on my new roof.  The IRS is bad enough.  The BATF-and-everything-else-sold-under-the-son will be far worse.  Now when I buy a yard sale item advertised on a neighborhood app, I will now have to pay taxes under threat of jail time.

They will no longer have the right. It is a RETAIL tax, which is not anything to do with garage sales. They'd no longer have the ability or need to invade your privacy, because what you do with your money is no longer auditable. They can only take their pound of flesh from the cash register.

And more importantly, it ties their income through taxation to the economy. They make more money when the economy is rockin' - bare on it's face - wherein right now, they largely (think) their money is unaffected by economy.

[Hoodat]

This is what happens when the opposition jumps to the microphones without a plan ---- they end up further behind.

And this is what happens with your method:

[Bigun]

They will no longer have the right. It is a RETAIL tax, which is not anything to do with garage sales. They'd no longer have the ability or need to invade your privacy, because what you do with your money is no longer auditable. They can only take their pound of flesh from the cash register.

And more importantly, it ties their income through taxation to the economy. They make more money when the economy is rockin' - bare on it's face - wherein right now, they largely (think) their money is unaffected by economy.

Exactly right!  Along with the forth and fifth amendments being restored along with the ability to start or expand a business without having to spend even one second considering tax implications.

[Hoodat]

They will no longer have the right. It is a RETAIL tax, which is not anything to do with garage sales. They'd no longer have the ability or need to invade your privacy, because what you do with your money is no longer auditable. They can only take their pound of flesh from the cash register.

And more importantly, it ties their income through taxation to the economy. They make more money when the economy is rockin' - bare on it's face - wherein right now, they largely (think) their money is unaffected by economy.

I could possibly get on board with that.  But I vehemently disagree with @Bigun on one point.  This would absolutely positively require a Constitutional Amendment.  Not an amendment to allow the new tax, but an amendment to permanently block the old one.  There is no way in hell I am signing on to a national sales tax while our government still has the authority to tax our incomes.

And then there will be the creation of a new cottage industry for the super-wealthy that will specialize in the avoidance of hefty sales tax bills.  Yacht purchases and registrations will no longer occur in the US.  The same for private planes, etc.  Gulf Stream will have to move offshore in order to remain in business.

[Bigun]

I could possibly get on board with that.  But I vehemently disagree with @Bigun on one point.  This would absolutely positively require a Constitutional Amendment.  Not an amendment to allow the new tax, but an amendment to permanently block the old one.  There is no way in hell I am signing on to a national sales tax while our government still has the authority to tax our incomes.

And then there will be the creation of a new cottage industry for the super-wealthy that will specialize in the avoidance of hefty sales tax bills.  Yacht purchases and registrations will no longer occur in the US.  The same for private planes, etc.  Gulf Stream will have to move offshore in order to remain in business.

If you had ever taken the time to actually read the proposed legislation (HR25 in the last congress) you would know that is directly addressed in the legislation @Hoodat  Every bit of it.

[Hoodat]

Does anything like that occur in the 45 states that have sales taxes @Hoodat?  What makes you think it would at the national level?

The stakes are much much lower for those 45 states.  And it is State agents policing those things, not Federal agents.  We will end up with more tax agents than we have now.  Every current IRS agent will find a new job at BATF.  And that still won't be enough.

[roamer_1]

Exactly right!  Along with the forth and fifth amendments being restored along with the ability to start or expand a business without having to spend even one second considering tax implications.

 

That's right. I have always been a flat tax fan - Hands down! The only reservation I would have is in taxing groceries and medical/medicines... and maybe housing. Retail goods, no problem. But the ability to live... Taxing that is a bother. I know that sounds more like a luxury tax, but that is not what I mean to do...