GOP tax code reform; The reality of capitalism sinks in with some after it bites

GOP style tax code reform: The Hill writes about a proposed House Republican reform proposal that favors the rich and lower income households, while shafting the middle class. Replace the entire tax code with a single 30% on everything tax, but with a tweak, and mostly get rid of the IRS by shifting tax collection responsibility to the states. The Hill writes:

The advantage to higher earners is so pronounced that the legislation includes a “prebate,” a cash transfer program in which taxpayers get regular checks equal to the amount that people at the poverty level would owe in taxes.

The result is a smaller tax burden for the highest and lowest earners and a bigger one for people in the middle.

A 2006 study by the House Small Business Committee on a similar proposal found that the tax burden for people making more than $200,000 and less than $15,000 a year would go down, while the burden for people making something in between would go up.

Republicans say that tax simplification is needed, which is true. Republicans have favored tax code complexity for decades because of loopholes for the rich that are routinely built in. Apparently, this proposal would reduce the burden on the rich even more than the existing code allows. 

Tax liability for the top 20% of earners would fall from 84.2% to 65.1%. People in the middle would go from 3.8% to 10.5%. Apparently, Republicans like the idea of states controlling tax revenues because it is easier for rich people and big corporate interests to subvert and corrupt a state tax agency compared to the federal IRS, which is already significantly subverted and corrupted by the rich and powerful. One can imagine how rotted state tax agencies will be once the state GOP has had time to sink its Christian nationalist-capitalist claws in states that Republicans control. 

Republicans really do want to starve the federal beast to its death, and then us to our deaths.

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

Capitalism can be callous: Some of the people being laid off from jobs at tech giants are discovering that they are expendable at will. Business Insider writes:

A Google engineer laid off after over 16½ years at the firm said in a LinkedIn post that the tech giant viewed staff as "100% disposable."

Justin Moore, an engineering manager at Google, was one of the 12,000 people affected by Google's layoffs last week. Moore wrote that he found out he had been laid off via an automated account deactivation at 3:00 a.m.

"This also just drives home that work is not your life, and employers — especially big, faceless ones like Google — see you as 100% disposable," Moore said.

"Live life, not work," he added.

MAGA!! to that. Fire those suckers and losers!

-----------------------------

-----------------------------

A warning about personal data safety on the internet: ProPublica reports that some websites that sell abortion pills give sensitive personal data to Google. Law enforcement can potentially use this data to prosecute people who end their pregnancies with medication. ProPublica writes:

Online pharmacies that sell abortion pills are sharing sensitive data with Google and other third parties, which may allow law enforcement to prosecute those who use the medications to end their pregnancies, a ProPublica analysis has found.

Using a tool created by the Markup, a nonprofit tech-journalism newsroom, ProPublica ran checks on 11 online pharmacies that sell abortion medication to reveal the web tracking technology they use. Late last year and in early January, ProPublica found web trackers on the sites of at least nine online pharmacies that provide pills by mail: Abortion Ease, BestAbortionPill.com, PrivacyPillRX, PillsOnlineRX, Secure Abortion Pills, AbortionRx, Generic Abortion Pills, Abortion Privacy and Online Abortion Pill Rx.

The time is coming when forced birthers are going to get laws passed that criminalize the pregnant woman. The current restraining belief is that the woman is not guilty of anything, but anyone who aids in an abortion is criminally liable. Once the urge for God's righteous vengeance punches through this already weakening mental restraint, pregnant women themselves will be zealously hunted down and punished harshly. 

That is Christian theocracy serving us lovingly but righteously, so to speak. /s

Abortion information and disinformation; COVID update

 Combatting abortion disinformation: In a brilliant piece of journalism, a NYT article strikes into the heart of a vicious, decades-long disinformation campaign by forced birthers. They have successfully used emotion-provoking disinformation to dissuade many pregnant women from getting an abortion. This is the kind of fetus-oriented imagery that forced birthers routinely use to deceive and dissuade:

About 80% of abortions are done by week nine of a pregnancy. What the fetal tissue actually looks like at week 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 is shown below, left to right, top center to bottom right. There is no discernable, innocent little body to be seen because no such thing had developed by week nine. The top left image is uterine tissue, not fetus. This is what ~80% of abortions look like. This is not the kind of inconvenient information that forced birthers would ever show to a pregnant woman.

Now, compare the week 8 fetal tissue (center of lower row) with the image below of what forced birthers show the fetus allegedly looks like at week 8:

See the difference? This exemplifies the vicious, morally rotted tactics that forced birthers routinely rely on to deceive and dissuade. With infallible God is on the forced birther side, lies, deceit and guilt built on lies and deceit are good and proper. What a bunch of shameless, morally bankrupt liars. 

What was the reaction to the publication of the real photos? Lots of people, including some pro-abortion advocates thought they were faked. The NYT commented:

The Guardian published our first photos on Oct. 19; they went viral, appearing in media outlets and getting shared widely on social media.

Many people, even those who support abortion rights, did not believe the photos were accurate. Some insisted we had deliberately removed the embryos before taking the photos. The images weren’t consistent with those often seen in embryological textbooks, magnified on ultrasounds or used in anti-abortion propaganda; these enlarged images are not what you see with the naked eye after an abortion. A Stanford gynecologic pathologist has validated our photos, but many people could not believe the pictures were presented unaltered.  

We weren’t surprised by the vitriol. We knew we’d face pushback. While we have long felt comfortable showing our patients the pregnancy tissue after an abortion, we went through serious consideration before making the images public on our website. We did not want our message to undermine our unequivocal support for patients who make this decision at later stages when there is a visible embryo or fetus.

This shows, once again, just how powerful and effective a sustained, well-funded dark free speech campaign really can be. Actual medical professionals put out accurate information, but sustained propaganda has undermined trust in doctors and even convenient truth. Even people who just want the truth are blindsided and derailed by forced birther deceit and emotional manipulation. 

-----------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------

A flash of common sense about COVID: The WaPo reports that the FDA experienced a flash of common sense:

FDA proposes switching to annual coronavirus vaccine, mimicking flu model

 

The Food and Drug Administration is proposing a crucial change in the way the coronavirus vaccine is handled: Switching to a once-a-year shot that targets the strain expected to pose the greatest threat during the following winter — a system akin to what is used for the influenza vaccine.

It was obvious to me over a year ago that this is exactly what needs to be done to deal with COVID for the long term. That it took this long for experts to see something this blatantly obvious is troubling to say the least.  

Biden world giddy at MTG, Gosar, and Boebert being placed on Oversight

 Is this for real? 😮

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/18/biden-world-celebrates-gop-oversight-picks-00078447

Consider:

House Republicans’ installation of some of their most incendiary conservatives on the Oversight Committee is sparking an unexpected feeling inside the White House: unbridled glee.

The panel tasked with probing Biden policies and actions, as well as the president’s own family, will be stocked with some of the chamber’s biggest firebrands and die-hard Trumpists — including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) and Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.) — ideal figureheads for a White House eager to deride the opposition party as unhinged.

“[W]ith these members joining the Oversight Committee,” White House oversight spokesperson Ian Sams said in a statement, “it appears that House Republicans may be setting the stage for divorced-from-reality political stunts, instead of engaging in bipartisan work on behalf of the American people.”

Democrats haven’t yet named their members to the top House investigative committees, but they’re already confident the Republican-led panels will self-destruct.

“The more unserious people performing congressional oversight the easier this is going to be for the [Biden] administration. And in that regard I think the White House hit the jackpot. This is a crowd that will make [former House Oversight chair] Darrell Issa look intellectual.”

OK OK, not everyone is that excited, as noted:

 The jubilation was tempered, somewhat, by Democrats on the Hill who expressed more apprehension about the posting.

Predictions? Will these investigations actually help Biden? Or will they hurt? Are Republicans overplaying their hand? Or hitting all the right notes? 

Decisions, decisions…

Are you a “one-issue above all” voter?  Many people are. For example:

• The religious often vote strictly on the abortion issue.
• Gun advocates often vote strictly on more lax gun laws. 
• Health professionals often vote strictly on medical issues (prescription costs, universal healthcare, etc.). 
• Gay people often vote strictly on more sexual equality rights.
• PeTA members often vote strictly for the candidate who promotes animal rights.
• Etc.

So…

1. What are your political issues? 
2. Does one issue trump all others? 
3. How do you reconcile your vote if your potential candidate has some views that match yours, and others that do not?  What factor is the “clincher/decider” for you to give them your vote?

Thanks for favoriting and posting.