↓ Archives ↓

George Scott: Fake Candidate for Congress

George Scott is a candidate for the local US Congressional seat presently held by Scott Perry, covering a large swath of Central Pennsylvania.

Both Scott Perry and George Scott are military veterans, and both were senior military officers.

And that is where their shared anything diverges.

After watching George Scott gleefully burn a .22-caliber small game rifle in a small bonfire (see screen shot below, and another screen shot at the end showing that George Scott removed his own self-damning video, because he doesn’t want hunters to know he is hostile toward them), which he incorrectly calls a “weapon of war,” I could only conclude that this man is unfit for service in any capacity, and it is a good thing he is no longer wearing the uniform of our nation’s military. What a shameful embarrassment.

George Scott advocates for a mandatory registry of every single gun in America, from the dinky .22 caliber rifle he burned to your average sporting shotgun and deer rifle. This means he wants to put government bureaucrats in charge of our Constitutional rights. When people say they want “common sense gun control,” like George Scott says, what they really mean is they are against private gun ownership altogether. His policy positions demonstrate that he is hostile toward gun ownership, even for hunting.

George Scott also wants to outlaw basic semi-automatic rifles that are the firearm of choice for coyote hunters across America, and which share a basic appearance, but not a mechanical ability, with fully automatic rifles used by the military.

When a military officer equates a basic hunting gun with a “weapon of war,” then you know this is a guy who either doesn’t know anything at all about guns, especially the guns he supposedly oversaw in the armed services, or he is simply hostile to the idea of private firearms ownership….Contrary to American history to date, to what the Second Amendment plainly says, and to what the US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled it means.

When a military officer takes an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution, which George Scott did, and then he turns around, runs for elected office, and takes an official campaign position directly against that same Constitution, then the guy cannot be taken seriously. He is either clueless and unworthy of being in Congress, or he is a bald-faced liar, or a power freak and closet tyrant.

US military officers are supposed to trust and defend the American People, not use coercive government force to disarm them and then make them dependent upon government for their rights. That is no longer America, it is a dictatorship. Like many people, I remain leery of military men who do not think citizens should own guns. Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao come to mind, as does Venezuela’s current socialist strongman, Maduro.

Whatever issues you may have with Scott Perry, and I think both liberals and conservatives are grumpy with him, one thing I like about Scott Perry is that he is the complete opposite of George Scott. In the sense that he is a stable and normal person, who says what he means and means what he says.

On the other hand, based on his own actions and public statements, George Scott demonstrates that he is unfit to serve. He is a fake candidate and cannot be taken seriously.

 

A few local signs that the economy is smokin’ hot

Me: “Hi. I would like to have Cleon make me log arch, one that I can hook to my ATV, that is stronger than the Chinese junk being sold everywhere, and that is less expensive than the crazy-priced LogRite arches.”

Lynette: “Josh, what is your time frame?”

Me: “Well, I can use it in a week, but two or three weeks is no problem.”

Lynette: “Here’s the thing about timing. Back in June, we were about to lay off one of the welders, but we put out bids on ten jobs, any one or two of which would have carried us through the year. And between last week and this Monday we heard back that we won every single one of them. So we will not only be retaining that junior welder, but we are now looking for about five more to help us meet our commitments. We might not be able to get to your log arch for a while, but one of the men will call you back later today.”

And then one of the men did call me back, with terms and a price that more or less said “If we are going to make this for you, then you are going to pay big for taking us away from our real work.”

Another sign that our local and regional economy is smokin’ hot: The log trucks, the pallet trucks, the lumber trucks on the roads EVERYWHERE and at all times of day.

Never before have I seen so much activity in just one business sector, as I am seeing now in the timber industry, except maybe in 2008 when the Marcellus Shale boom was indeed booming across Pennsylvania.

Log trucks are especially visible. How can you miss a log truck? It dwarfs every other vehicle around it, and looks incredibly incongruous. Log trucks have these huge wide open bays or bunks to hold the logs, and a boom arm with a claw for lifting up 6,000 to 10,000-pound logs. A log truck has about 5,000 board feet or more of medium to high grade logs of all types on it, heading from someone’s private forest to someone else’s mill. From there the logs will be carefully analyzed for grade, and either sold-on or sawn up on site. Hardwood lumber is used in flooring, cabinetry, and furniture, all of which when active indicate a strong consumer and home building economy. Even tulip poplar, once sold for pennies per board foot, is now used for couch frames and cabinetry frames.

At every timber job there are expensive machines at work, with drivers who earn enough money to support a family. And the loggers, guys born with a chainsaw in one hand and a rifle in the other, they cut down a dangerous tree every ten minutes, then lop it and move on to the next before choking up the logs and skidding them to a landing.

Then there is the landowner, who gets good money for something they did absolutely nothing to create.

The sawmills, whether small Amish mills or huge international mills selling hundreds of thousands of board feet per week, are beehives of activity. Every person working there is earning money, and spending money, and contributing toward the larger economic activity around them.

Say nothing of the new homes and kitchen cabinets being built, or of the beautiful hardwood flooring and furniture being made for those new homes. All from someone’s private forest.

The point is, these are just two small examples of how the economy is exploding, and how after many years of stagnation we finally get to do more than scratch out a living, but actually do well and pay for our kids’ questionable college “education,” buy new cars, take nice vacations, and set something aside for our later years, when we are no longer able to work so hard.

It really is a new day in America, and boy does it feel good. One gets the impression that this good feeling is widespread across America, with the sad exception of places in North Carolina and Florida, recently hit hard by hurricanes, and our hearts go out to the victims there. The one thing they can rest assured about is that the materials needed to rebuild their lives are on their way as I write these words, and they are America-made, and America-grown.

Senator Bob Casey does not deserve the Casey family name

US Senator Bob Casey is up for re-election.

Senator is just one of a long list of public sector jobs that he has held as an undistinguished and lazy heir to a good name. Casey got where he is because of his family name, largely established by his father, Governor Casey.

Governor Casey was a person of wit, incisive intelligence, thoughtful reflectiveness, intellectual curiosity, and great character. These traits are what drew voters from both parties to vote for him, and these traits are all lacking from his son, Bob Casey, Jr.

When I see a Bob Casey for Senate sign in someone’s yard, the question enters my mind: Has that person done their research on this man? If they knew what a layabout he is, and how long he has sucked at the public teat to benefit himself, would they still yet support him?

I understand that for many voters, voting for or with a political party is sufficient, and whoever the party nominee is, that is who they will reflexively vote for. If that is your way of voting (it is not my way of voting), then read no more. You are beyond help, and you serve best as a modern beacon for George Washington’s historic admonition against political parties of any sort.

However, if you are curious about who you vote for, spend some time looking into Bob Casey’s career. What you will see is probably the least impressive track record of anyone in “public service” today. Casey is the poster child for nepotism, riding on Daddy’s coat tails, and the real cost of political dynasties to all of us taxpayers.

Casey has literally done nothing of note with his career, and his recent time in the US Senate is just as representative as the previous decades he spent in all the other government jobs he held, one after another after another. The guy simply occupies space. He has nothing to show for all his years in these government jobs. To me, he almost seems like a careerist Republican!

He does nothing because he coasts on his father’s name, and he does not have to actually do anything, because voters keep voting for the Casey name.

What bothers me the most, though, is how little he appears to think things through. On policy, Casey is being mindlessly dragged along by the most radical themes in his political party, to the point where he is constantly voting against the direct interests of the Pennsylvanians he is sworn to serve and represent. His voting record and his public statements would fit better in socialist San Francisco, California. They sure as heck do not reflect the values of the working people here in Pennsylvania.

Just take “sanctuary cities,” as one example. Casey supports them, the vast majority of Pennsylvanians do not, because those cities are illegal and they are costing taxpayers our hard-earned money to support lazy illegal aliens who use and abuse America.

Do you really, truly want your tax money spent this way? Neither do I.

Casey’s support for these radical actions fly in the face of the much more balanced and considerate person his father was.

One can justifiably say “Bob Casey, Jr., I knew your father Bob Casey, Sr., I voted for Bob Casey Sr., I donated to Bob Casey, Sr., I admired Bob Casey, Sr., and you are no Bob Casey, Sr.”

I was proud to support Casey’s dad, Governor Casey. I would be embarrassed to vote for his son, Bob Casey, Jr.

A rock from the basement of time

Norman McClean wrote his book “A River Runs Through It,” about his childhood in southwest Montana. Growing up hunting and fishing brought him into close contact with unusual examples of natural history in the field, including really neat geological samples.

Those rocks that he found were what his Presbyterian minister father called “rocks from the basement of time.” Meaning that they were very old, from the beginning of the world. McClean effectively connects his reader with the sense that while standing in a trout river in Montana, holding one of these ancient rocks, he was transported, and the reader along with him, into a kind of time machine and also a giant web of life and history.

This phrase “rocks from the basement of time” always stuck with me, as it is so illustrative of how such basic, simple, everyday things in our lives can yet be so important or significant. And inspiring.

Here below is one such rock from the basement of time, but from this northcentral Pennsylvania corner of the world’s basement.

This large, rounded river cobble was unearthed today in the dirt bank behind the cabin in Pine Creek Valley, about four hundred feet above the Pine Creek riverbed. This rounded river stone started out as a squared chunk of slate hundreds of millions of years ago, and was then gently rounded and sculpted by flowing water, and sediment and rocks being pushed downstream over who knows how long. Its most recent path in its long life had it deposited in the great flood that created Pine Creek as we know it today, 10,000 years ago, after the most recent ice age.

At the end of that last ice age, a huge ice dam in the Finger Lakes region melted and burst, pouring an entire inland sea down through the little creek bed that was then north-flowing Pine Creek. All that water flooding the river channel caused Pine Creek to reverse its flow, and in that process enormous amounts of both shattered rock and rounded riverbottom cobble churned its way south, settling out along the walls of the canyon, eventually far far above, almost impossibly above,  the new river channel and bed.

When I think about that raging torrent of mud and rock from a hundred miles upstream, filling up the valley’s river hundreds of feet higher than its usual height, and depositing ancient large river stones far above their natural resting place, I think “Wow.”

And here at my feet is all of that incredible story, told in one pretty much otherwise unremarkable rock from the dirt bank behind the cabin. Which I now look at and think of as being part of the basement of time. And suddenly I feel totally differently about my life and everything in it.

“By ANY means necessary”

Have you heard the revolutionary call to arms “by any means necessary”?

It is usually said by ‘black nationalists’ (black racists), white liberals, white radicals, Communists, community organizers, even local teacher’s union members (teachers; your kids’ teachers…), and others who believe that armed revolution and genocide against white conservative Christians not only is necessary to restore “social justice,” but that this violence is inevitable.

In other words, people are advocating for violent rejection of American government as founded and as run today. It is heard most in the big Democrat-run cities, but you can find it in small communities, too.

Would you like a prime example of how this “by any means necessary” gets implemented on the ground, say, in your own community?

Here is a recent example, from Jackson, Mississippi, of all places. Jackson, Mississippi, is the home of one “Chokwe Lumumba,” who is now the town’s mayor.

Mr. Lumumba openly vowed to make the town the “most radical town in America.”

Well, just a few days ago his radical town’s Forest Hills High School student band actually staged the imitation execution of police officers, on the football field, using imitation guns. The photo below is from cell phone footage taken of this “by any means necessary” event.

Jackson Mayor Chokwe Lumumba recently said of this event:

“While I do not believe that there was a malice intent on behalf of the students that participated in this halftime show, I understand that we are ultimately not defined by the things that we set out to do, but rather how we respond to the things that actually do take place. It is the responsibility of adults to offer guidance to youth. Our students should have been instructed that this was neither the time or place for that performance.”

Let’s take the mayor’s statement for what it means: There actually is a place and a time for students to engage in this activity, but it just wasn’t there, at the nearby town of Brookhaven, where the game took place and where the Jackson student band played on the field.

And why was it not the time and place for this insane behavior? Because in Brookhaven the week before, two town police officers had been murdered, and the small town was still mourning their deaths.

But we know that the Jackson students did this specifically because the two Brookhaven police officers were murdered, and the students were making their “by any means necessary” statement especially poignant. It was an in-your-eye thing.

No accident here. And no remorse here by the elected leader of Jackson, Mississippi, either.

And why would the mayor have remorse? He supports the students’s behavior, because he supports the murder of police officers. That is simply part and parcel of his goal of gaining “social justice” through any means necessary.

America, are you paying attention to this?

The Democrat War against Women

While it is a good feeling to see the crazed mob activity surrounding the Kavanaugh confirmation come to an end, the more one thinks about this entire debacle, the more one must come to an inevitable and uncomfortable conclusion.

That conclusion is based on the overwhelming evidence from the past ten years of behavior of most elected Democrats.

The fact is, the Democrat Party really hates women, and it has waged a vicious war on women that only in the past couple of weeks finally came to light.

Watching Blasey Ford lie (and is she ever a professional liar, having co-authored a psychological paper on how to hypnotize yourself so you can lie convincingly) under oath, she knowing that her credibility was already damned and that the damage she would inflict on many true victims of sexual harassment and abuse was enormous, many Americans surely saw the net result: American women must always be weak victims.

Ford’s creative little girl voice during testimony was so obviously designed to elicit an emotional response in her audience to suit helpless little girls. Nothing about her false testimony was forceful or honest. She was pretending to be oh, so vulnerable and helpless.

Lying about something so serious and sacred as rape and sexual molestation is sick. For attempted political gain it is evil.

It turns out that David Bolger is right: “In contemporary feminism, the ideal man is a grown woman. The ideal woman is a little baby.”

That is, the Democrat war on masculinity is matched by its war on heroic and strong women leaders.

Others have commented that the Democrats have maintained their own axe murdering serial rapists like US President Bill Clinton, and their own rape enablers like senator Ted Kennedy, Hollywood creature Harvey Weinstein, politician Hillary Clinton, and sexual predator Democrat leader Keith Ellison, all of whom remain untouchable heroes to most if not all Democrat voters. None of these bad people are held accountable by fellow Democrats for the evil damage they do to women across America.

So the resulting standard for actual adult Democrat behavior is really bad, really rapey.

The official Democrat Party standard for women is a woman really weak and unable to defend herself, completely at the mercy of everyone around her. And in fact, many Democrat Party women have been physically and emotionally damaged by Democrat Party men, who have not been held accountable because of official Democrat Party policy to protect Democrat Party Men at all costs. Witness the circling of Democrat Party wagons around grabby handsy Keith Ellison.

This behavior is a real and true war on women and womanhood. It is the worst sort of war, because it is devious and deceitful, not up front and honest.

Democrat Women are told that if they are raped, molested, harassed or abused by a Democrat Party man, then that is their lot in life and they must simply put up with it and shut up about it. Nothing is more sexist than telling women they must be weak, defenseless, compliant, and unable to stand up for themselves.

How any self-respecting woman can remain in the Democrat Party is a mystery. Well wait…one thing we have seen in the past few weeks is there are no self-respecting women left in the Democrat Party.

Zero.

Judging the “judges”

One of the reasons I vacated the Quaker faith was that group’s persistent identity as the self-appointed scolds of the world.

Wherever there was conflict, the Quakers and their policy arms (e.g. the Friends Service Committee) would descend uninvited from on high and proclaim loudly about who was the guilty party, who was the victim, and how to fix the problem. Quaker “fixes” almost always were unjust and created winners and losers just as much as the original conflict had squared things up.

Nine times out of ten, in my experience and witness, Quaker involvement made those conflicts worse, because they had this tendency to self-identify with who they thought of as the “underdog,” who then deserved their protection and advocacy, at the cost of reason, history, etc. This advocacy enabled the “underdog” to adopt more rigid positions, thereby prolonging and worsening the conflict.

But the sick irony that really drove me out was that the Quakers are the parasites of the Western world: They get to live happy and secure lives protected by Western militaries, that they in turn decry and directly undermine.

Being party to that un-earned mass judgmentalism and myopic self-indulgence was not something I wanted, and so I eldered out.

The idea that people can form a group and pass judgment on everyone else is not new, nor unique to the Quakers. That same exact thinking has, however, infused, enthused, inspired, and enabled a great number of other individuals and groups who have followed in the Quakers’ crooked footsteps.

Take the oddly named Southern Poverty Law Center, for example. Begun as a group to defend the legal rights of blacks in the South, a worthy cause indeed, SPLC has itself now become America’s biggest hate group. So bent on utterly destroying its enemies is SPLC, that the group now has zero boundaries in its unbridled, unfounded accusations against those who it uniquely judges to be bad or unworthy of living in America.

Concurrently growing longer every year is the SPLC’s list of lost defamation lawsuits, where SPLC is paying millions of dollars to people and groups it has wrongly defamed. Who are SPLC’s enemies, deserving of its worst ire? Oh, just Christians, reformed Muslims, non-jihadi Muslims, religious Jews, and regular Joe Americans who believe that the US Constitution means what it plainly says. That’s all…

Among those sharing the SPLC and Quaker-type thinking are the people who are now attacking Judge Kavanaugh. Blasey Ford and her creature-lawyer, Debra Katz, are exemplars of the lying, cheating, fake Fake FAKE accusers wreaking havoc from one end of America to the other. Blasey Ford is not only a proven liar, she has now been caught tampering with the witnesses she said were present at her so-so-sad (and very very fake) moment with Kavanugh. Her witnesses have stated that they do not agree with Ford’s recollection and that they were not present, as she says they were. She has been directly pressuring them to change their minds.

Debra Katz set out to destroy a boy’s athletic team at a top university. When proven wrong and a defamation award loomed over her head, Katz shrugged her shoulders and said “Well, it was important to bring attention to the possibility of gang rape,” even if it had not actually happened, and even though she had destroyed the names and reputations of a whole group of completely innocent young men in the process.

Why Blasey Ford is not being charged with perjury is a mystery.

Why Debra Katz has not been disbarred is a sign of how weak average Americans have become.

To allow these cancers to walk among us, to judge us, to pass judgment upon us, while lying, Lying, LYING the whole time is unconscionable. It is un-American. It is inhuman. It is simply wrong and it must end.

When We, The People in turn finally judge these self-appointed judges like SPLC, Blasey Ford, and Debra Katz, we find them to be unfair at least, and to be happily corrupt most of the time. We find that these self-appointed arbiters of truth and justice are unworthy of the role, and they should be held accountable.

Your home’s property taxes: “They are called special interests for a reason”

Guest commentary from grass roots activist Ron Boltz, and first published at www.papra.org:

They’re called “special interests” for a reason. Of course I’m referring to the scores of lobby groups in Harrisburg who often fight against good ideas or good legislation, or push for bad ideas and legislation, depending upon how it affects them personally or the relatively small group which they represent. The degree to which a proposal helps or hurts others or our State is often irrelevant to special interests. Following the money is almost always the path to an explanation that might otherwise not make much logical sense, and then the true motivations become clear. It’s the same as it ever was.

While this is nothing new, it’s nonetheless very frustrating when these lobby groups unashamedly flip their talking points when it benefits them to do so, completely contradicting statements they’ve made previously. Such is the case with the PA Chamber of Commerce and the Tax Foundation’s recent proposal to overhaul Pennsylvania’s tax structure.

When lobby groups oppose ideas that are popular with the public, they often conjure up phony “reasons” to justify their opposition rather than openly stating their real objections. We’ve seen this time and time again with The Chamber and their refusal to even consider school property tax elimination. Americans for Prosperity and The Commonwealth Foundation also joined them with disappointingly weak excuses of their own.

For example, The Chamber says things like “we can’t tax diapers!” and “we have to fix the cost drivers first”. AFP had their all-encompassing “we don’t support tax shifts”, and Matt Brouillette loved his dumbed down “left pocket-right pocket” analogy in an attempt to use bumper sticker politics to demonize elimination. For those who haven’t heard it, let me explain so you can understand what we’ve been dealing with.

Matt would say something similar to “it doesn’t matter if you take money out of your left pocket or your right pocket, you’re still paying and it’s still money coming out of the economy”. This was his attempt at bashing SB 76, which is being proposed as a revenue-neutral school property tax elimination plan that would shift the burden to the income tax and the sales tax. He was trying to imply that we would be no better off under such a plan, and everybody would be paying the same regardless. This type of talking point may resonate with some, but it’s easy to blow holes in his analogy.

His own example basically says that he doesn’t believe tax policy matters. According to Matt, if it’s the same amount of money collectively, then it’s irrelevant how the money is taken from us. Of course we do know that tax policy matters, especially when we’re talking about how many “pockets” we’re taking the money from. SB 76 expands the tax base, which is extremely important. It also matters how much money we’re taking out of each pocket.

If we take $1 out of the pocket of someone who has $10, we’ve taken 10% of his or her earnings. If we take the same $1 out of someone who has $100, we’ve only taken 1% of that person’s earnings. This is the nature of the property tax. It applies different rates to everybody, is not based on our income, and it’s also very regressive.

During my travels, I met a single mother in Monroe County who is forced to “contribute” 14% of her income toward her school property taxes. Last week I spoke to a woman in Lancaster County who, since the reassessment that took place there, is now paying a full 25% of her and her husband’s income in property taxes.

This scenario plays out everywhere across the state. The only way to solve this is to completely eliminate the school property tax and replace it with a broader-based method that applies the exact same tax rates to everybody, regardless of where you live. The property tax system cannot be fixed, and it can never be “fair”. Our opposition knows this to be true, but they avoid talking about these things in their defense of the status quo.

Putting all of this aside, if Mr. Brouillette truly believes it doesn’t matter which pocket the money comes from, then why is he fighting against it? If he really believes nobody would be better off, then he also has to be believe that we would also not be any worse off. Of course, my opinion is that Mr. Brouillette doesn’t believe his own talking point. He knows tax policy matters. For the record, I like Matt, and I find some of the data C.F. puts out to be very helpful. But they are wrong on this issue. Matt is no longer with C.F., but others in the organization also oppose school tax elimination.

We’ve always known that The Chamber really doesn’t care about taxing diapers, and we know their supposed opposition to expanding the sales tax base because “it hurts the lower income folks” is just playing politics. Their true opposition to property tax elimination would not earn them many accolades if publicly stated, so they join the PSEA and the PSBA in using emotional scare tactics. But now their new plan points out their own contradictions and makes it very clear that they are willing to make exactly the same opposing arguments if it means benefiting themselves.

As I give a few examples, I want to make it clear that the purpose is to highlight their contradictions and show that they really don’t mean what they say in regards to why they oppose school property tax elimination. I will not opine as to whether or not any of their proposals would be good or bad for Pennsylvania’s economy, and I’m not trying to invoke a class warfare argument. In order to have a productive debate, it’s necessary to talk about how different people will be affected, and it’s also necessary to talk about the relative fairness of our tax systems. That isn’t class warfare. It’s simply honest discussion, which is something in which our opposition has thus far refused to engage.

Included within the Chamber’s proposal is an array of options that include rate changes, tax eliminations, and the levy of new taxes. In other words…a myriad of tax shifts. There is no mention of any type of “cost controls” among their tax shifts plans, so I suppose that critique only applies to things they oppose, and not their own ideas. For the record, SB 76 does include spending controls, and I have long held that we will never get cost controls until we get spending controls. The reason we don’t have real pension reform or prevailing wage law elimination is because the state legislature, who mandates these things, gets to punt the responsibility for paying for them down to the school boards and the homeowners.

There is no accountability in the current system, and therefore no incentive to change it. How these lobby groups, who have been around politics for as long as they have been, cannot recognize this reality is beyond me. Perhaps spending so much time inside the Capitol courting politicians has clouded their vision. Perhaps they don’t know how politics really work after all this time, or maybe they really don’t want to see these problems resolved. I’ll let you ponder that on your own, but their “cost control” philosophy is akin to continuing to hand money to the irresponsible while asking them very nicely to curtail their bad habits, with no consequences when they refuse.

Our philosophy, on the other hand, is to stop asking a group of people who have shown no willingness to control themselves, to please control themselves, and instead just cut off the money in order to force the issue. The property tax makes all of this overspending possible and is how they escape accountability. Eliminate the scapegoat, restore accountability, and watch as these things magically begin to be addressed in a meaningful way. Until then, be prepared to continue to watch the pension problem get far worse, property taxes continue to skyrocket, and the finger-pointing to resume with nothing being done.

Getting back to the Chamber’s proposal – They call for a lowering of the Corporate Net Income Tax from 9.99% to 5.99% or 6.99% (depending on the option), and the elimination of the Gross Receipts Tax on businesses. To pay for this, the plan calls for an expansion of the sales tax base, a new local income tax, and the first ever tax on retirement income. It says that the new retirement tax revenue could be used to “buy down” the PIT (Personal Income Tax) rate to 2.5%, but says that it would be “better used as a pay-for to reduce less competitive tax rates elsewhere.”

In other words, the Chamber wants retired seniors to pay a new tax in order to lower business taxes. But don’t fret, seniors…they’re generous enough to entertain the possibility of using some of the new retirement tax to expand rent and property tax rebate programs for some seniors. But seniors won’t be the only losers in the Chamber’s tax shift. They also propose a local income tax on working families as a way to eliminate the Gross Receipts Tax.

Would these organizations please tell me again their views on redistribution of wealth, tax shifts, and the creation of new “winners and losers”? Pardon me for noticing some contradictions to what they claimed were their opposition to school tax elimination. Let’s examine a few of their talking points, and how they are seemingly no longer a concern when it comes to their own proposal(s).

The creation of winners and losers

They claim school tax elimination would just create new winners and losers. Our response is that the property tax system is responsible for creating winners and losers in the first place, for far too many reasons to list here. Everyone knows this to be true. Our proposal actually fixes this scenario by expanding the tax base from mostly just homeowners to everyone in the state who has an income, and to everyone who buys things (including tourists). In other words, everyone contributes. It also treats every taxpayer exactly the same by applying the same rate to their income, and the same sales tax rate to the same items and services. No more winners and losers paying different rates with enormous disparity an inequities.

While they love to use this talking point to criticize our school tax elimination proposal, they conveniently ignore the winners (businesses) and losers (senior citizens and working families) in their plan. Of course they will tell us that when businesses win, we all win, but I could say the same. When homeowners “win” with more disposable income, then businesses and the economy will also win. Businesses also win by making the entire state a KOZ (Keystone Opportunity zone) rather than the state picking the winners and losers. The Independent Fiscal Office report agrees.

The Stability of the tax

The Chamber, and virtually all of the public school lobby organizations, love to say that property tax revenue is “stable”, while other revenue from other sources is not. Therefore, they say, we cannot eliminate it. We always ask “stable for who?” For the tax collector? I suppose when you can constantly raise the rate, and with the threat of losing one’s home, the tax collector could view the property tax as stable. But what about the taxpayer? Is it stable for them? Absolutely not.

While the Chamber praises the property tax and touts it’s supposed stability, it has contradictory views of other taxes. In one section of their plan, they write about how governments tend to favor the Gross Receipts Tax because it produces large and stable amounts of revenue. It then goes on to say:

“…this revenue stability, however, does not outweigh the tax’s economic harm”.

Why then, does the Chamber love the property for providing the government with large and stable amounts of revenue, but then overlook the harm it does to the homeowner and the economy? Why does the same critique not apply to the property tax?

From the viewpoint of the taxpayer, the sales tax and the income tax are far more stable. Consider that the income tax in Pennsylvania has only been raised one time in the past 26 years. There was a 0.17 percentage point increase in 2004. The change previous to that was actually a lowering of the rate. That sounds pretty stable to this writer.

Even more stable is the sales tax, which has been 6% since 1968, but yet each of these taxes have continued to generate more revenue through natural growth, and they do so without the need for constant rate increases. I think we can all agree that Harrisburg has had no trouble spending more of our tax dollars in nearly every annual budget, and they do so mainly using these two funding sources. The Chamber’s report even touts the stability of the sales tax with this statement :

“Between 1999 and 2017, inflation-adjusted collections only diverged from the overall period’s average by more than 3 percent three times: once, when collections dropped in 2010, and again in 2016 and 2017, when collections comfortably exceeded the average”

While state revenues may decline temporarily during economic downturns, these periods are relatively short-lived, and the time spent in the black far outweighs the time spent in the red. In an Independent Fiscal Office report to Rep. Pashinski on August 16th of this year, there is a chart comparing the income tax growth rate to the property tax growth rate. This is a chart showing growth rate increases and decreases, so when the line goes down on the chart, it doesn’t represent a revenue loss until it goes below zero. Until then it’s still growth, and history shows the overwhelming majority of time is spent above zero. Legislators either don’t understand this, or they purposely try to spin this chart by saying it shows that the income tax is “too volatile” to be used to fund public education, but the opposite is true.

The IFO chart clearly shows that from 2004 to 20018, the property tax grew at a rate of 3.5%, while the income tax revenue (not the tax rate) grew at a rate of 3.4%, virtually the same. Again, this is with no rate increases on the income tax, but literally thousands of property tax millage rate increases during those years across our 500 school districts.

If the State can run their budget using the income and sales taxes as it’s main sources, and manage to grow spending year after year, then why can’t we fund public education this way? If taxpayers and homeowners are expected to manage their money during economic downturns, while they have fixed costs like property taxes and other bills to contend with, why don’t school superintendents and business managers, who are paid six-figure salaries, have the ability to do the same? If they cannot manage money the same way homeowners do, perhaps we should reconsider leaving them in charge of multi-million dollar budgets.

Taxes should be based on Income

One of the biggest problems with the property tax is that it is not based in any way on one’s income. Inaccurate assessments and unequal distribution of state money to our schools, combined with our homes not being a reflection of our wealth, leads to the enormous disparities in what each individual taxpayer must contribute toward the burden of funding public education. We have long condemned the property tax’s gross unfairness, inequities, and regressivity. Our State Constitution reads “All taxes shall be uniform, upon the same class of subjects, within the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax, and shall be levied and collected under general laws.” The property tax falls far short of meeting this mandate.

While the Chamber doesn’t care that the property tax isn’t based on income, their report laments the fact that the Occupational Assessment tax is inequitable and not based on actual income by saying the following:

“All of which is to say that the best measure of income is income, not a tax assessor’s best guess of what that income would be assuming that a given taxpayer hewed to the median for his or her profession.”

If that’s how they feel about the Occupational Assessment tax, then how can they praise the property tax, which is not only not based on income, but it’s not even based on an assessor’s best guest of our income. Rather, it’s based on an assessor’s best guess of the value of our home, and I don’t think I even need to opine about the inaccuracy of assessments, which their own report also acknowledges.

The Pyramid effect of taxation

The Chamber wants businesses to be free of sales taxes on business-to-business transactions, and they want to eliminate the Gross Receipts Tax because this results in multiple levels of taxation that will, in turn, increase the price of the product on the end consumer. This is a valid argument. The report gives an example showing the steps a bottle of beer goes through in order to reach a consumer at a restaurant. It shows the farm, the brewery, the distributor, the restaurant, and finally the customer. Using their own example, it’s obvious that the property tax also results in multiple levels of taxation, but this is not mentioned as a concern.

Not only does the farm, the brewery, the distributor, and the restaurant pay property taxes, but so do the manufacturers and the companies who make the parts to build the farm machinery and tractor trailers, not to mention the companies who build restaurant equipment. This too is passed on to the end consumer.

The Chamber claims that property taxes have a minimal effect on economic decision making

The report reads:

“Property taxes tend to be justified on both economic and practical grounds: economically, as a generally efficient form of taxation which raises revenue with a minimal effect on economic decision-making…”

Property taxes result in sheriff sales, foreclosures, and forced relocation when the burden can no longer bet met by the occupant. Proof of this abounds in page after page of newspaper tax sale listings. It is often said that 10,000 or more homes are sold at sheriff sales annually in Pennsylvania, a statistic that’s rarely challenged.

Escalating property taxes most certainly affect spending habits for both homeowners and businesses alike. As the PA Liberty Alliance goes door to door across the State, we’ve heard hundreds of stories of forced relocation, and how rising property taxes are doing serious damage to the finances of many families. I assure you that stories of senior citizens being forced to choose between medication and paying their property taxes are real. I’ve met these folks.

We also talk to small business owners who are struggling to compete, and who cannot expand due to the inability to pass on their skyrocketing property taxes to their customers the way a large business can. The Chamber claims to represent small businesses, but in our discussions we often hear these owners refer to the organization as “The Chamber of Big Business”. This seems to be a growing consensus in the small business community. A look at where the majority of The Chamber’s funding comes from might give clues as to why they so strongly oppose property tax elimination, and why many small business owners feel left behind.

The Chamber calls the property tax “efficient” and “practical”

In the previous section, I only included part of the quote. Here is the rest of the statement:

“Property taxes tend to be justified on both economic and practical grounds: economically, as a generally efficient form of taxation which raises revenue with a minimal effect on economic decision-making and consistent with widely accepted principles of taxation, and practically, as a well-established source of funding that is both familiar and not easily replaced.”

There is so much wrong with just this one sentence that it makes me wonder if we’re both talking about the same property tax. How anyone could call the property tax “efficient” is beyond comprehension for this writer.

Having to establish assessed values for every property in the entire state alone should make it obvious that this is the most INEFFICIENT tax we have. We need to hire appraisers, county assessors, and tax collectors to administer the tax. School districts must chase down delinquent taxes, and then go through the process of seizing the property when the homeowner doesn’t pay. Then we need to burden the county sheriff’s office with the duty of evicting the occupants, and then of course we need to go through the tax sale process.

Countywide reassessments cost taxpayers multiple millions of dollars each time, and always result in years of appeals that must be heard and dealt with. Maintaining the property tax system costs taxpayers enormous amounts of money. On the other hand, the sales tax is usually collected at the point of sale, and most people have their income taxes automatically deducted from their paychecks. I’m not suggesting there is no expense for businesses and taxpayers to comply with income and sales taxes policies, but modern technology has made it much easier and more efficient.

I don’t know what the Chamber considers to be “accepted principles of taxation”, and the report doesn’t elaborate, but it’s hard to imagine any standard in which complete inequity, inefficiency, unfairness, regressivity, and skyrocketing rates would be considered good principles. How can any tax that isn’t based on income, which the Chamber itself says is the best measure of taxation, be considered a tax with good principles?

The line about the property tax being “well established” and “familiar” sounds very reminiscent of the old “this is the way we’ve always done it, so it must be right” type of thinking. Are things that are “well established” and “familiar” always good? Of course not, but what the Chamber means by this is that businesses have adopted to the property tax and can pass on the cost, unlike a homeowner who cannot. Businesses have also mastered the appeals process and can have their assessments lowered if they become less profitable. Homeowners, on the other hand, cannot have their assessments lowered when their income goes down. They either have to pay up, sell their house, or don’t pay and the government takes their home, and usually most or all of their equity as well. This is devastating, unjust, and unthinkable in America where we are supposed to value property rights.

The Chamber’s Love/Hate relationship with the Income Tax

While The Chamber wants to shift the Gross Receipts tax to working families by instituting a new local income tax in its stead, the report also speaks of how the income tax “discourages investment and labor”. They claim that local income taxes encourage out-migration, particularly if it is not necessary to move far. They cite this as a reason that property taxes are better, suggesting the property tax doesn’t force anyone to move, or that it doesn’t play a role when deciding where to purchase a home or establish a business. I know plenty of people who moved due to large property taxes, but I don’t know a single person who told me they moved because of a local income tax. I also know some entrepreneurs who would have preferred to establish themselves in certain locations but the property taxes were prohibitive.

The report then says “…local income taxes are sustainable at modest rates, but create competitive disadvantages at higher rates, particularly those seen in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh” The local income tax in the overwhelming majority of the state is 1%, while the report says Philadelphia’s rate is 3.9%. So we can conclude that the Chamber considers a 3.9% local income tax to be a problem, but the 1% tax is sustainable. Let’s compare this to the property tax, which the Chamber props up and doesn’t believe to be a problem.

Most people pay far more than 1% of their income toward their school property tax, and as mentioned earlier, I’ve met one woman who pays 14% and another who pays 25%. Unless you have a money tree in your back yard, the property tax is still paid with our income, but it’s not actually based on our income. So if the Chamber sees a 3.9% local income tax as being a problem (as do I), then how can they possibly not see the property tax as being a much bigger problem? Does it no longer matter if we’re talking about homeowners rather than businesses?

Senate Bill 76 proposes a 1.88% income tax and an expanded sales tax, which the Chamber also calls for, in order to eliminate the school property tax. This would result in an overall tax cut for the majority of homeowners, backed up by multiple Independent Fiscal Office reports.

The question remains as to why the Chamber considers it good policy to institute a local income tax to pay for the elimination of business taxes, but it’s not O.K. to use an income tax to eliminate the school property tax? At the same time, how do they call a 3.9% local income tax a problem, but not a local property tax that levies a different rate on everyone, as high as 25% or more on some? These are rhetorical questions, as I believe the answer is apparent. They are a special interest group, and the well-being of the homeowner is not of their concern.

The Chamber opposes SUT expansion for property tax elimination, but call for it in their plan

After the property tax elimination effort got some traction in 2015, the opposition groups suddenly began to take the issue more seriously. The grassroots groups they previously laughed off were now making their voices heard. Since it’s very difficult to defend a tax that’s as despised by so many people as the property tax, they needed to come up with some new talking points.

This is when the refrain became “we can’t tax diapers!” Being led by The Chamber, lobby groups and politicians alike were singing off the same sheet of music. This was the new talking point that was designed to invoke emotion, while bypassing logic. Of course, we see this all the time in politics, and in this case, The Chamber now appointed itself as the champion of single mothers and their children. Imagine how heartless the property tax elimination crowd must be to propose a diaper tax!

Thankfully, the public didn’t buy it. At a town hall in Monroe County, a single mother who was struggling with her property taxes easily recognized that she would be far better off paying a relatively small sales tax on diapers than she would be paying property taxes, especially considering the property tax burden would be there for the rest of her life, or at least as long as she “owned” a home. We constantly hear about the supposed “regressivity” of the sales tax, but by definition the flat rate sales tax is not regressive. The property tax, on the other hand, actually is regressive when viewed as a percentage of income. In this case, the single mother didn’t even earn enough money to be a financial “loser” under the SB 76 proposal. She could have spent every dime she earned on the newly taxed items and still wouldn’t even come close to paying the same in sales taxes that she currently pays in property tax, even factoring in the PIT portion.

After all of their opposition to expanding the sales tax, I find it quite the contradiction to now propose exactly that. I can only assume that The Chamber doesn’t believe it’s own rhetoric as long as business taxes are reduced and eliminated rather than the school property tax. While they don’t suggest a sales tax on diapers, they do propose options that include taxing gasoline and motor fuels, even while acknowledging that we already pay the highest fuel taxes in the country. Imagine the impact of that tax alone on working families and commuters.

But they don’t stop there. Among many other items, they list clothing, shoes, prescription and nonprescription drugs, college and vocational school tuition, health and social assistance, veterinary services and food. SB 76 still exempts clothing under $50 per item, prescription drugs, heating oil, all food items that a W.I.C. check could purchase, medical procedures and other things. Missing from the Chamber’s list are services that only wealthy people would use, like airplane services. It seems to me that the Chamber’s proposal would be more harmful to the middle and lower class than would be the expansion under SB 76. But hey, at least they don’t tax diapers…

The Chamber claims school tax elimination would harm young, low income families and renters

The President of the PA Chamber has repeatedly said that SB 76 would be bad for his young son and his family, who he says shouldn’t be paying a higher income tax to eliminate school taxes for seniors. I’ve often wondered, but never asked, if his son owns a home, or ever plans to. While these same critics talk about the new “winners and losers” after SB 76 is passed, they never acknowledge that the current system is where the “winners and losers” are created, nor do they recognize the fact that their own defense of the status quo is nothing more than them trying to pick the winners and losers themselves.

The reality is, this legislation would help new families, the lower income, and the middle class homeowners. Most of these folks are paying far more than 1.88% of their income toward their property taxes, and even the additional sales taxes will not make them financial “losers”. This is backed up by an Independent Fiscal Office report issued to Rep. Frank Ryan on November 6, 2017.

According to the IFO, the median school property tax paid on a Homestead (which does not include commercial, vacation, or rental properties) is $1,972. The average is higher at $2,291. The report says that the median PIT impact of SB 76 would be $1,008, and the sales tax impact on the median income range would be $200-$400.

The report goes on to say that even the PIT impact is over-stated, as it’s calculated on the median household income of $53,599, which includes retirement and social security income that would not be subject to the income tax under SB 76. This figure also excludes Pennsylvania’s PIT Forgiveness programs for the low income, which completely excludes from taxation income up to $51,000/year for a family with four children, $41,500 for three children, $32,000 for two children, and lower incentives for one and no children.

With this data, the math is easy. Under SB 76, the worst case scenario for a PA family earning the median (not average) household income would be a new income tax impact of $1,008 and a sales tax impact of $400 for a total of $1,408. Since the median school property tax on a home is $1,972, this means that in a worst case scenario, which won’t even happen due to the overstated situation mentioned above, the savings for a family earning the median income and paying the median school property tax would be $564. The real world savings would likely be significantly higher.

Despite their best efforts to convince us otherwise, the special interest opposition is wrong. The wealthy are the most likely to end up paying more under SB 76, not the middle and low income homeowners. They wealthy are, after all, the people who may have a high enough salary, and who may spend enough money on the newly taxed items to result in a higher tax burden. I know quite a few wealthy people who contribute much less than 1.88% if their income toward school taxes. I don’t believe any of my middle or low income friends who own homes can say the same. Most are above 3%, many far higher, and as mentioned earlier, I now know someone who pays a 25% effective rate.

Renters also pay property taxes indirectly through their rent payments, as landlords must pass this cost on to their tenants at some point. We have U.S. Census bureau data that shows rents increasing at nearly the same rates as property taxes. This is not a coincidence. During our interactions with legislators, we often hear landlords being demonized as greedy and heartless, and we’re told that landlords would never lower their rents if SB 76 were passed. I find this to be yet another attempt at politics of emotion, and not logic. SB 76 would at a minimum stabilize rent costs. Some landlords would lower their rents on their own, and others would be forced to as the market adjusts and more people purchase their first home. Does the Chamber no longer believe in free market principles?

If these legislators are truly concerned about the impact to renters, the best thing to do for those folks would be to make homeownership easier for them to achieve. This bill certainly does that by removing a large part of the property tax burden. Part of the regressivity of the property tax is that millage rates tend to be the highest in our 3rd Class cities, where incomes are often lowest. In fact, in a study done by Joel Sears, a fellow Pennsylvania Property Rights Association consultant, he shows that a $30,000 home in Upper Darby has a monthly property tax payment over TWICE that of a normal mortgage payment in this price range. No wonder so many people are trapped into a lifetime of renting and being denied the pride of owning a home of their own, and becoming a lasting part of their community.

The problem with all of their arguments are that they are only based on a snapshot in time. It’s likely that immediately following the passage of SB 76, a family who rents may not benefit. It’s also true that seniors will likely benefit the most. But we don’t live in a snapshot in time. Young families and renters will buy homes of their own, go through the decades of their working lives, and hopefully make it to retirement in their senior years, meaning today’s renters will also benefit. The alternative is to do nothing and watch property taxes and rents continue to skyrocket, further damaging our economy and sending working families and businesses out of the state.

We always hear the talking point “if we want more of something, subsidize it, and if we want less of something, tax it”. Why then, does the Chamber support the current system that taxes homeownership every year, in an ever-increasing fashion, while we subsidize non-homeownership with rent rebate programs? The only logical answer is, once again, the Chamber doesn’t view homeownership as a benefit, or perhaps not even as a necessity, especially considering they seemingly have no issue with the government seizing homes as a result of this tax.

The Chamber’s plan for the property tax problem

While The Chamber praises the property tax, they do acknowledge it’s flaws in multiple pages of their report. They even cite a study by The Council on State Taxation which compares the uniformity and efficiency of property taxes in the 50 states. It gave Pennsylvania a grade of a D, and ranked us dead last.

So what is The Chamber’s solution? More frequent countywide reassessments. That’s their big “solution”. They also call for consolidated property tax bills, so we can pay one bill to the county, who can, in turn, distribute the money to the schools and local municipalities, rather than paying separate bills. There’s not even a new reduction scheme in their plan, which would only end up being a tax increase anyway so I’m really not complaining. Their answer is actually a tax increase, and as mentioned earlier, these reassessments are very expensive and time consuming.

Thanks to Joel Sears, we have data which shows that even countywide reassessments don’t fix all of the problems inherent in the property tax. He did a real life evaluation in Lancaster County which compared actual sales prices of homes that sold in the same timeframe as their recent reassessment, and compared them to the assessed values both before and after. He found that the same level of inequities exist even after these reassessments, and in some cases, they got even worse. That’s what taxpayers get for their multiple millions of dollars spent in an effort to make the current system more uniform.

Conclusion

Proof abounds that the property tax system is broken. It cannot be fixed. It cannot be made to be fair. Any reduction scheme will just be a tax increase as the property tax continues to skyrocket. Elimination is the only answer.

This absolutely can be achieved, and we can fund public education in a way that treats all taxpayers the same, eliminating the current winners and losers scheme. The Independent Fiscal Office confirms that homeowners would have more disposable income, home values would increase by an average of 10%, and the state would be more attractive to businesses. But apparently these benefits aren’t good enough for the Chamber, Americans for Prosperity, the PSEA (teachers’ union), or the PSBA (school board association).

These folks all view themselves as “winners” under the current system, and they don’t want to lose their stranglehold on the homeowner. They’re happy with us continuing to be the “losers”, and they spend millions lobbying in Harrisburg to keep it that way.

In addition to all of the contradictions listed in these pages, The Chamber also condemns the Corporate Net Income Tax because it doesn’t allow for cyclical profitability cycles, and they speak of how some businesses are hurt during periods of low profitability. At the same time, they praise the “stability” of the property tax for the tax collector, while ignoring that the tax always increases even if the home owners’ paycheck decreases, or goes away completely. Yet another double standard on their part.

Homeowners cannot pass their property taxes on to someone else, as businesses can. The buck stops with us. At the same time, our homes do not generate income, as commercial properties do. The current system is completely upside down and backwards, especially considering our homes have absolutely nothing to do with education. We haven’t always funded education this way, as the school property tax was only instituted in the mid 1960’s. Even our State Constitution lays the responsibility at the feet of the legislature, where it belongs, and not with homeowners.

No tax should ever have the power to leave one homeless, and our fundamental right to acquire and own property needs to be restored. If all of the other problems with the property tax aren’t reason enough to abolish it, these few reasons certainly are.

They’re called “special interests” for a reason.

Ron Boltz, President – PA Liberty Alliance

Consultant – Pennsylvania Property Rights Association

 

Christine Blasey Ford sets back Women’s Rights a Hundred Years

Forget her calculated, meek, timid, teeny tiny baby girl voice, clearly cultivated and trained for this one moment in front of the cameras. Oh, so vulnerable, the poor thing!

Forget that from 1983 until just a few years ago, Christine B. Ford could easily have intervened in any one of several big, public career moves by Judge Kavanaugh as he went from confirmation hearing to confirmation hearing. But she did not.

Forget that Ms. Ford did not say anything to anyone about Kavanaugh until he was about to be confirmed to the US Supreme Court, and then My! What amazing timing she has!

Forget that Ms. Ford cannot recall the day, the date, or even the YEAR, for God’s sake, that her supposed encounter with Kavanaugh happened, nor any of the people around, nor can any of the people who were around their high school at that time recall Kavanaugh being involved. But brother, is she sure certain it was him.

Forget that Ms. Ford is a hard core leftist political activist, as is her “counselor,” both of whom would probably lie about Kavanaugh just because they both dislike him and his damned conservative values. Yes, forget that Ms. Ford impeached her own credibility today in a blaze of partisan glory.

What is really momentous about today’s Christine Blasey Ford hearing is that she has blown up women’s rights for the next thousand years. By blatantly and so obviously lying about a supposed sexual encounter in her teenaged years, and trying to use this memory to sabotage the confirmation of someone innocent she politically opposes, Ford has created a huge cloud of mistrust and skepticism around any other similar claim or allegation.

Ford has now raised the bar for women who are truly and actually abused, not lowered it.

Ironically, Ford has raised peoples’ consciousness about how vulnerable good men are to being falsely accused by lying political activists, who see nothing wrong or immoral about lying to achieve political ends.

Ladies, as a man who has himself directly intervened in an attempted rape, and who lusted for bloody revenge against the perpetrator after he literally escaped my grasping fingers and dove into his truck and drove off (and the victim lay on the ground a complete mess), I can tell you that most men feel a sense of protection for women. We want you to be safe, secure, confident, and happy. But we feel equally repulsed by a woman like Ms. Ford, and we are angry at women who would use her or anyone else as a tool to attack men in general and impugn a good person like Kavanaugh.

Ms. Ford and her political supporters calculated badly here. They just may get the weak Republicans to back off of this nomination, only because the Republicans are mostly namby pamby silk stocking fancy princesses in love with their own careers more than they love America’s success.

But to the rest of us men, and to a lot of women who we are married to and who we work with, Ford and her crones have made a huge mistake. They have proven that nothing is sacred to them, and that they will exploit anything, and lie about anything, to get ahead politically.

This hard fact hurts all women, equally and badly.

Way to go, Ms. Ford, way to go. You fool.

Fragile cry-bullies

While visiting friends the other day, one of their 20-something-year-old kids gave me and the other adults an earful on the Kavanaugh hearings.

“I am insulted that you will not believe a woman who claims she was drugged and raped by Kavanaugh,” she said.

Her mother said “Well, now wait, I do not recall hearing anything about drugs and rape.”

And I said “Ford has zero credibility, and in fact she has done more damage to women’s rights with her obviously false and politically motivated accusation than all the supposedly sexist anti-female men out there could ever do. Ford has set back real future women victims, who will now be greeted with skepticism as a result of all this crying wolf business with Kavanaugh.”

To which the kind-of-young person responded “Well, I, I, I, I don’t like this conversation,” and upstairs she went.

Backtrack a few weeks and I was listening to NPR on one of my regular road trips. On this particular NPR propaganda show, the subject being interviewed was a professor at NYU. He is writing a book about how emotionally and intellectually “fragile” the younger generation has become. How they are unable to confront dissent and disagreement with logic and reason, and how if they cannot bully an opponent into submission, and if they cannot cry an opponent into submission, then they give up and go off and suck their thumb.

This is a bit of a shortened summation, but what I write here is pretty close to what the professor said.

And he said it as a proud and politically active liberal. He is not criticizing young crybully leftists because he disagrees with them. Rather, he is afraid that they cannot persuade people in arguments, and that if they cannot shame or force people to agree with them, then they have nothing left and they then cede the field to the opponent.

My own recent experience with my dear friends’ kid reinforced the professor’s observations.

And even more to the point, when a young crybully takes a willful and wild leap from two 17-year-olds fooling around in high school or college to one being drugged and raped (no one has said that about Kavanaugh), and how dare anyone question it, then much more is at stake than the ability to argue reasonably.

What is at stake is the ability to be truthful, to be honest, and to concede when one’s own ideas are proven wrong.

What is driving a great deal of the current Democrat warmongering against poor Mister Kavanaugh is that the Democrats cannot persuade people with ideas. So they must destroy people, instead.

This ain’t the democratic way, folks.

College professors teaching kids to be crybullies who shame and punch their way into winning arguments is not going to succeed.