News

Canadian Supreme Court refuses to hear appeal on infanticide case

3 Comments

From Life Site News.

Excerpt:

The Supreme Court of Canada declined last Thursday to hear an appeal in the case of a mother who smothered two of her children. The decision means that a Canadian mother can continue to plead to the lesser charge of “infanticide” rather than “murder” when she ends the life of her newborn child.

The mother in the case, referred to as “L.B,” was 15 years old when in 1998 she smothered her 6-week-old son Alexander. She smothered another one of her children, 10-week-old son Cameron, in 2002.

[…]In a statement to the police, L.B. testified that 6-week-old Alexander’s crying made her “angry.” When he would not stop crying, she placed him in his crib, covered him entirely with blankets and a plastic cover, left the room, and began listening to music. She admitted that she was “very confused” but insisted that she “wanted to help Alexander feel better.”

L.B. also testified to police that on the day she killed her 10-week-old son Cameron, she was “very upset” and feared that she would do her child harm. Police heard how L.B. “wanted Cameron to die,” since she believed it was “the right thing to do.” As Cameron slowly suffocated, she told her son that he was “going to a better place.”

Here’s the prosecutor:

Jennifer Woollcombe, acting for the Crown, appealed Justice Herold’s 2008 decision, arguing that L.B’s “infanticide defence” was based on antiquated laws that were created to give juries an alternative to the death penalty for mentally unstable mothers who killed their children. The Crown argued that the “infanticide defence” constitutes an “unacceptable devaluation of the worth of a newborn child.”

“The trial judge found that these murders were planned and deliberate. There is no principled reason for acquitting her of murder. She made a choice to kill while her husband was at home, called an ex-boyfriend rather than 911 after killing him, maintained a facade that the babies died of SIDS, and accepted and sought out sympathy and attention.”

“The respondent intentionally killed two babies,” said the Crown brief during the mother’s trial, as reported in the Globe and Mail.

Recall the horrifying story about the recent slap-on-the-wrist handed down to the Edmonton woman who strangled her own baby. What is wrong with Canada on the life issue?

News

Is Herman Cain’s 9-9-9 plan revenue neutral? Does it tax the poor more?

21 Comments
Presidential candidate Herman Cain
Presidential candidate Herman Cain

Consider this article by rock-star economist Arthur Laffer.

Excerpt:

In the recent past, federal tax revenues from the personal and business income taxes, all payroll taxes, and the capital gains, gift and estate taxes have averaged $2.3 trillion, while gross domestic product has averaged about $14.5 trillion. The total revenue from these taxes as a share of gross domestic product averages around 16%. Sometimes it’s a good deal higher, as in the boom of the late 1990s, and sometimes its lower, as in today’s “Great Recession.” But a number in the 16%-19% range is as good as you’ll get under our current tax code.

By contrast, the three tax bases for Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan add up to about $33 trillion. But the plan exempts from any tax people below the poverty line. Using poverty tables, this exemption reduces each tax base by roughly $2.5 trillion. Thus, Mr. Cain’s 9-9-9 tax base for his business tax is $9.5 trillion, for his income tax $7.7 trillion, and for his sales tax $8.3 trillion. And there you have it! Three federal taxes at 9% that would raise roughly $2.3 trillion and replace the current income tax, corporate tax, payroll tax (employer and employee), capital gains tax and estate tax.

The whole purpose of a flat tax, à la 9-9-9, is to lower marginal tax rates and simplify the tax code. With lower marginal tax rates (and boy will marginal tax rates be lower with the 9-9-9 plan), both the demand for and the supply of labor and capital will increase. Output will soar, as will jobs. Tax revenues will also increase enormously—not because tax rates have increased, but because marginal tax rates have decreased.

By making the tax codes a lot simpler, we’d allow individuals and businesses to spend a lot less on maintaining tax records; filing taxes; hiring lawyers, accountants and tax-deferral experts; and lobbying Congress. As I wrote on this page earlier this year (“The 30-Cent Tax Premium,” April 18), for every dollar of business and personal income taxes paid, some 30 cents in out-of-pocket expenses also were paid to comply with the tax code. Under 9-9-9, these expenses would plummet without a penny being lost to the U.S. Treasury. It’s a win-win.

I have heard precious few conservative commentators reporting the facts on Herman Cain’s plan, so it’s nice to see Art Laffer looking at the details.

Here are three facts about Cain’s plan:

  • Fact #1: People below the poverty line are exempt from ALL the taxes.
  • Fact #2: It is a stupid objection to say that the tax rate can be raised. ALL taxes can be raised, and Cain has already said that his plan would require a 2/3rds majority to raise the tax rates.
  • Fact #3: This plan has nothing to do with state income taxes or state sales taxes or state corporate taxes – his plan only reforms federal taxes. State tax laws are outside of the jurisdiction of the President.

I was really disappointed to hear some of the people in Tuesday night’s debate disparaging Herman Cain’s plan, especially Michele Bachmann, who ought to know better because this is her strength. When people say that a tax is regressive, that means that it is not progressive. And a progressive tax is communist. It punishes success. What we want to have is a flat tax rate that doesn’t punish success and broadens the tax base so that everyone pays something. What Cain’s plan does is lower the punishment on job creators and workers, and raises the tax on consumers who spend money. And isn’t that a good thing? Aren’t we in this whole mess because we spend too much money? Maybe we should incentivize job creation and work instead of spending. Cain’s plan would be the greatest boon to job creation that this company has ever seen – it’s brilliant precisely because it eliminates the cost of having to comply with an onerous, complicated tax code. We are getting this wealth for free, and the only losers will be the IRS and the Washington lobbyists.

News

Why do conservatives accuse Obama of engaging in “class warfare”?

2 Comments

From the left-leaning Politico. (H/T Dennis Prager)

Excerpt:

Obama has characterized Republican votes against his jobs bill — which are predicated, at least in part, over concern that new, temporary spending financed by tax increases will not help the economy — as a rejection of the most wholesome of American workers.

“They said no to more jobs for teachers, no to more jobs for cops and firefighters,” Obama said during a speech Wednesday to the administration’s Forum on American Latino Heritage, “no to more jobs for construction workers and veterans, no to tax cuts for small-business owners and middle-class Americans.”

But in these same remarks, Obama also subtly suggested something far worse — that his opponents are racially biased.

“I ran for president for the same reason many people came to this country in the first place,” he explained. “Because I believe America should be a place where you can always make it if you try, a place where every child, no matter what they look like [or] where they come from should have a chance to succeed. I still believe in that America. I believe we can be that America again.”

The clear suggestion is that someone has made this country a place where what a child looks like can hinder them — and Obama is the one who can erase the discrimination that has been permitted to return.

First lady Michelle Obama made this point more explicitly at a Washington fundraiser the night before.

“Will we be a country where opportunity is limited to just the few at the top?” the first lady asked. “Or will we give every child — every child — a chance to succeed, no matter where she’s from, or what she looks like, or how much money her parents [have]? Who are we? That’s what’s at stake here.”

Her suggestion that “what’s at stake here” in the 2012 race is whether a child will be judged by color is an outrage, implying that a Republican victory would result in discrimination.

Obama’s rhetoric has become increasingly shrill. I find it very alarming that the President of the United States is somewhere to the left of celebrity blowhards like Michael Moore. How does he expect to negotiate with people in good faith when he is constantly impugning their motives and caricaturing their policies?

In other news, Herman Cain, who is black, leads by 8 points in the Iowa Caucuses. Wouldn’t it be funny to see Barack Obama, who is only half-black, take on Herman Cain in a debate, and accuse him of racism? The rich, pampered Ivy-league ACORN trainer against the businessman with a Masters in Computer science from Purdue, whose mother was a cleaning woman, and whose father worked three jobs.