The Press-Dispatch
Issue link: https://www.ifoldsflip.com/i/1475797
D-4 Wednesday, August 10, 2022 The Press-Dispatch OPINION Submit Letters to the Editor: Letters must be signed and received by noon on Mondays. Email: editor@pressdispatch.net or bring in a hard copy: 820 E. Poplar Street, Petersburg Race for the Cure By Star Parker Give Me a Break John Stossel See INFLATION on page 5 See SECOND on page 5 Honesty is such a lonely word in D.C. A favorite game of politicians, when reality does not conform to the facts they want, is to simply redefine reality. Democrats want big govern- ment, a lot of spending and taxation, the former of which we are now pay- ing for in inflation, so the new strate- gy of Democrats is to now claim that spending and taxes reduce inflation. We now have the Senate moving legislation with a price tag of $433 billion in new spending and $327 bil- lion in new taxes, and it's called the Inflation Reduction Act. It's like McDonald's ser ving up a new Big Mac with more beef, more cheese and more sauce, and calling it the Weight Watchers Special. Our president and Congress are implod- ing in the polls, and what we get from them are word games. A commonly accepted definition of recession is two consecutive quar- ters of economic contraction. The Commerce Department just report- ed that the U.S. economy contracted 0.9% in the second quarter. This fol- lows a contraction of 1.6% in the first quarter. Recession? Our president says no way. Our Treasur y Secretar y, Janet Yellen, who apologized recently for being wrong last year, denying that infla- tion was on its way, held what the press called a "rare stand-alone news conference" at the Treasur y Depart- ment, to assure us we are not in a recession. It's reminiscent of comedian Groucho Mar x, who quipped, "Who are you going to believe -- me or your own eyes?" On a similar note, the House has passed the Respect for Marriage Act, which now will be considered in the Senate. The Respect for Marriage Act would codify into federal law the le- gality of same-sex marriage. This is in reaction to a note by Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas in his concurrent opinion in the recent Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade, suggest- ing that the Obergefell decision, in which the court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, should be read- dressed. Why is this called the Respect for Marriage Act and not called the Re- define Marriage Act? It's simply more of the Washington word-game culture, which we now see in government spending and tax- ing suddenly being about reducing inflation, and consecutive quarters of economic contraction not necessari- ly being about recession. To call this legislation the Rede- fine Marriage Act would be honest, something simply unheard of in Washington. It is important for same-sex mar- riage advocates to call this the Re- spect for Marriage Act, because this suggests that, for those few thousand years in which no one questioned that marriage is between a man and woman, we disrespected marriage. Now, in our new enlightened age, we understand the truth that marriage includes vows between individuals of the same sex, and thus we now re- spect this sacred institution. A recent New York Times poll indicated just 13% of Americans are happy with how things are going in our countr y. It's not such a great sur- prise. Why are Americans so dissat- isfied? Billy Joel had a hit song years ago called "Honesty." "Honesty is such a lonely word / Ever yone is so untrue / Honesty is hardly ever heard / And mostly what I need from you." As we move into elections during these chaotic times, we might re- call the words of one of the nation's founders, Thomas Paine, who ob- ser ved, "We have it within our power to begin the world over again." Those who aspire for political of- fice and power might consider that many among the 87% who are not happy with our countr y today and where they see it headed, know that truths exist -- truths upon which a great nation was built -- and despair how they have disappeared in our public life. Leaders who have the courage to be honest, despite how challenging this can be now, will wake up a lot of souls in our nation who recall and long for better days. Tax freedom in Puerto Rico Want to pay no federal income tax? Move to Puerto Rico. Really. If you move to the island, you can legally pay none. There's also no capital gains tax. You just have to give 4% of your income to Puerto Rico. The tax break was started by a Puerto Rican politician who'd watched years of high taxes fail to improve life on the island. He decid - ed to tr y something different. Obviously, it's a popular idea, when people learn about it. Tens of thousands have applied for the exemption, and applications tripled last year. YouTube star Logan Paul moved his show from California to Puerto Rico to take advantage of the tax deal. Investor Peter Schiff says, "I did it for the obvious benefit of being able to keep most of what I own... It's too bad that Puerto Rico didn't do this decades ago. They wouldn't be in the economic trouble they are today." "A lot of people are moving down here," says social worker Melissa DaSilva in my newest video. Two years ago, she ran a therapy busi - ness in Rhode Island. Now she runs it remotely from Puerto Rico. "I'm saving 25% of my income." She loves her new life. "I wake up, and I have the ocean in front of me. I go out my back door, the rainforest is off in the distance. It's just a magical place to live." Given that this tax break is so big, it's surprising that most Americans haven't heard about it. "People just don't really talk about it much," says DaSilva. "There's this fear that people from the state side are going to come down and take over ever ything." Given Puerto Rico's histor y, she says, that fear is justified. "The Span - iards came and decided it's going to be their island and decimated all the native people. Then the United States comes down, and they decide it's going to be their island." But these new Puerto Ricans ar - en't exactly conquerors. They're a mix of entrepreneurs, tax haters, cr ypto millionaires and ordinar y people who just want to keep more of their money. By bring- ing wealth and skills to Puerto Rico, they create opportunity for Puerto Ricans. One report says they have already created 40,000 new jobs. "If you don't pay taxes, aren't you hurting Puerto Rico?" I ask DaSilva. "I do pay taxes," DaSilva replies. "I provide other things as well." She sells digital art and donates part of her sales to local nonprofits. Billionaire Brock Pierce moved to Puerto Rico and now helps run the charity Toys for Tots. He also is ren - ovating a hotel that was abandoned after Hurricane Maria. That's ex- pected to create 300 jobs. Others are building hurricane-resistant farms, tech companies and schools. But some people always see such investment as a problem. Rep. Alex- andria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., calls the tax incentive "horrifying." "It's an example of the continued colonization of the people of Puerto Rico," she complains. "We are es- sentially importing a ruling class." She seems to think that if some- one makes money, others must lose, as if there are only winners or los- ers. This is zero-sum thinking. It's true in politics. But it's not true in most of life. Wherever mar- kets are free, new wealth gets creat- ed. Then almost ever yone wins. DaSilva has an answer to Oca- sio-Cortez's zero-sum thinking: "All ships rise with a tide," she says. "Let's all grow with this." Puerto Rico has tried big govern- ment, strict regulations, high taxes on businesses, handouts to favored groups, heavy borrowing and de- claring bankruptcy. I bet tax breaks work better. John Stossel is creator of Stossel TV and author of "Give Me a Break: How I Exposed Hucksters, Cheats, and Scam Artists and Became the Scourge of the Liberal Media. The Supreme Court recently is- sued its first significant opinion in a Second Amendment case in well over a decade, striking down a New York state law that effectively denied ordinar y residents the right to carr y a firearm in public for self-defense. This decision, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, is a major victor y for the sanctity of the Constitution, the integrity of the Supreme Court, and the personal safety of all Americans who choose to protect themselves with firearms. In an opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, a majority of six justices affirmed that the Second Amendment means what it says— "the people" have a right not just to keep but to bear arms, including in public places for self-defense. As a result, New York and other states with similar laws cannot con- tinue treating this fundamental con- stitutional right as a unique privilege for the select few who government officials believe are sufficiently jus- tified by a special "need" to protect themselves. New York is one of only six states that have "may issue" licensing frameworks for the carr ying of fire- arms in public, meaning that govern- ment officials have broad discretion to deny public carr y permits for law-abiding applicants. These six states also generally re- quire—as New York does—that ap- plicants demonstrate that they have "good cause" or "proper cause" for wanting to carr y a firearm in public, which is often a demanding standard that ordinar y residents rarely meet. New York City's police department, for example, requires that applicants prove they are in "extraordinar y per- sonal danger, documented by proof of recurrent threats to life or safety." The petitioners in this case were two law-abiding New York residents who applied for unrestricted licenses to carr y firearms in public, citing a general desire to defend themselves should they be violently victimized. Both had their applications denied because they did not "face any special or unique danger to [their] life." In other words, the government told the two residents they had no real reason to fear for their safety in pub- lic places, so the right to "bear arms" didn't apply to them. They challenged the "good cause" requirement in federal court, claiming that it violated their Second Amend- ment rights. The lower courts dismissed the complaint and cited two previous 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals cases that upheld the New York law as "substantially related to the achieve- ment of an important governmental interest." The Supreme Court last fall grant- ed certiorari—that is, agreed to re- view the case—after nearly 12 years of silence on Second Amendment issues, during which time lower courts routinely ran amok over the high court's precedent in cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chi- cago (2010). The majority of justices held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carr y a handgun for self-defense outside the home, and that "good cause" requirements such as the one implemented by New York are unconstitutional be- cause they "prevent law-abiding citizens with ordinar y self-defense needs from exercising" this right in public. In doing so, the high court ex- plicitly rejected the interest-balanc- ing approach relied upon by many lower courts when analyzing Sec- ond Amendment cases, which often results in gun control laws being upheld under a standard known as intermediate scrutiny. Instead, the court spelled out an analyt- ical framework that considers whether a challenged regulation is "inconsistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." Under this frame- work, the court deter- mined that New York simply could not meet its burden of demon- strating an American tradition of "broadly prohibit[ing] the public carr y of commonly used firearms for personal defense or generally requir[ing] law-abiding re- sponsible citizens to 'demonstrate a special need for self-protection … ' to carr y arms in public." So what does the Supreme Court's decision in this case mean for gun owners, other gun laws, and the fu- ture of the Second Amendment? First, it's important to remember that only six states have laws like the one challenged in New York. The court clearly explained that the ruling "should not be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality" of laws in other states where "a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit]." Although the justices didn't "rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes" that are "put to- ward abusive ends," the immediate impact is only for gun owners in the few states with "may issue" laws. That still means, though, that for tens of millions of Americans re- siding in those states, the Second Amendment's protections finally will become a practical reality. New York and other "may issue" states will have to reconfigure their laws to ensure that ordinar y citizens are allowed some method of carr ying The first thing to remember about the reconciliation bill Sens. Joe Man- chin and Chuck Schumer agreed to Wednesday is that, despite its utterly preposterous name, it has absolutely zero to do with inflation. The Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 is crammed with the ver y same spending, corporate welfare, price fixing and tax hikes that were part of Build Back Better -- long-desired progressive wish-list agenda items. Pumping hundreds of billions into the economy will do nothing to alle- viate inflation. The opposite. Let's also remember the Dem- ocrats' deflection on inflation last year -- claiming it was "transitor y" and "no serious economist" is "sug- gesting there's unchecked inflation on the way," and so on -- was all part of a concerted political effort to ig- nore the problem long enough to cram through a $5.5 trillion iteration of their agenda. And when inflation suddenly became non-transitor y, and politically problematic, the Biden administration argued that more spending would relieve inflation. They don't care about the econo- my, as long as dependency is being expanded. The bill is far more likely to spike consumer prices than not. You can hate corporations with the heat of a thousand suns and grouse about the lack of fairness in the world, but it won't change the fact that businesses don't pay taxes, they collect them. The Dems' bill claims it raises $313 billion with a minimum 15% corporate tax rate. Democrats seem to be under the im- pression that corpo- rations that pay less than 15% are evading taxes rather than us- ing completely legal tools like accelerated depreciation or taking advantage of tax cred- its. Whatever the case, raising corporate taxes means fewer jobs or higher prices. Maybe both. What it won't do is lower inflation. The same establishment media that is suddenly unsure how to de- fine a recession is going to falsely claim that the bill has a "deficit re- duction package," even though any- one who's spent five minutes in D.C. knows that the bill features a bunch of accounting gimmicks that will al- low Manchin to go back to West Vir- ginia and claim his concerns about spending are allayed. The deficit reduction number -- which relies not only upon raising taxes on consum- ers but creating a more powerful IRS (and IRS public-sector union) -- is plucked from the ether. We have no clue how much new taxes and audits will raise. What we do know is that any new spending program institut- ed today will exist in perpetuity. The bill also dumps another $369 billion into green boondog- gles, which also acts as a slush fund for Democrats. Now, even if you've convinced yourself that slight variations in tempera- ture are an existential threat to humanity, there has never been an instance of energy becoming more af- fordable due to pumping money into green economies. A bill with "investments" that will "encourage" a "transition," as polit- ical journalists would say, is really just force-feeding inefficient and ex- pensive alternatives that elbow out reliable, affordable gas and oil, and push prices higher. Manchin claims that the bill spe- cifically brings down energy prices. Yet, unless West Virginians are clam- oring to buy already heavily sub- sidized electric cars, the bill gives them nothing. It takes. The only aspect of the bill that even feigns at being about prices al- lows Medicare to "negotiate" (some) prescription drug prices. This is called price fixing, as the govern- Heritage Viewpoint By Amy Swearer Second amendment means what it says The Federalist By David Harsanyi Dems' new proposal doesn't lower inflation