New Ruling Takes Sledge Hammer to Ulster County's Economy

Vacation home construction drives the economy in my home town of Olive, New York. The reason is that the Democratic Party-dominated government, led by  Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, Assemblyman Sheldon Silver and Governor Andrew Cuomo, have regulated and taxed away productive economic enterprise.  Population in Ulster County, New York has grown at one third the national rate as children have fled (often contrary to Democratic-voting parents' wishes) to Republican states like Colorado and Texas.  Not satisfied with the scope and extent of their economic devastation, the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance has recently won a case that is likely to accelerate it (h/t Glenda McGee).

The widely discussed case concerns a Connecticut couple who own a vacation home in the Hamptons.  They do not frequent the home.  They pay income tax to the state of Connecticut.  The New York tax code says that a cottage is not a permanent residence.  It also says that if you spend 183 days in the state then you are a permanent resident.  For the first time, the courts have held that you are a permanent resident even if you never spend time at a permanent vacation home.

The ruling, recently affirmed in the New York State tax appeals tribunal, will reduce property values throughout the state.  In New York City, the state can now claim that wealthy business executives from Europe and Texas must pay income tax to the City.  Many will sell their apartments instead.  On Long Island, many wealthy people own houses in the Hamptons but live as far away as Texas and Hollywood. These too are going to face pressure to sell rather than pay ten percent of their incomes to New York State.

The same is true in Ulster County.  Here, numerous New Yorkers own vacation homes in the Town of Woodstock, whose median income is the county's highest.  But a sizable percentage, perhaps ten percent, come from other states, especially New Jersey.  The effect will be downward pressure on property values.  There is also the question of people who live full time in Ulster County but own second homes in New York City.  Will they have to pay New York City income tax even though they do not live there?  This also could contribute to downward pressure on property values as they sell the second property in New York City.

Taxation interferes with property rights.  Since economic progress depends on property ownership, more aggressive tax systems such as are evolving in New York will be accompanied by fewer rights concentrated at higher levels.  New York's socialists imagine themselves to be egalitarian, but they are friends of plutocracy.  As aggressive taxes hamstring middle income Americans, the super-rich, who can afford to pay multiple income taxes, are able to purchase property at lower values.  George Soros reaps significant benefits from his contributions to the Democratic Party as the rest of the country becomes poorer and, thanks to the Democratic Party and the Rockefeller Republicans, income inequality is increased.

Toward Centillion Dollar Deficits: How Big Can They Get?

I never knew the number after one trillion.  Until the Bush and Obama administrations there was little need for the trillion number.  I suspect only mathematicians, physicists and astronomers needed to know their names.   Now, trillion dollar deficits are routine, and the federal government is gearing up its printing press to go even further.  Soon, we will see quadrillion dollar deficits.  But what comes after quadrillion?

I looked up the names of numbers on Wikipedia. It won't be too long before we see centillion dollar deficits (10 to the 303rd power; in contrast one trillion is 10 to the 12th power).

From Wikipedia:

Name	Short scale (U.S. and modern British)	Long scale (continental Europe, archaic British, and India)	Authorities
			AHD4[1]	COD[2]	OED2[3]	OEDnew[4]	RHD2[5]	SOED3[6]	W3[7]	UM[8]
Million	106	106	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Milliard		109	✓		✓		✓			✓
Billion	109	1012	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Billiard		1015	✓		✓		✓			✓
Trillion	1012	1018	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Quadrillion	1015	1024	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Quintillion	1018	1030	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Sextillion	1021	1036	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Septillion	1024	1042	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Octillion	1027	1048	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Nonillion	1030	1054	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Decillion	1033	1060	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Undecillion	1036	1066	✓				✓		✓	✓
Duodecillion	1039	1072	✓				✓		✓	✓
Tredecillion	1042	1078	✓				✓		✓	✓
Quattuordecillion	1045	1084	✓				✓		✓	✓
Quindecillion (Quinquadecillion)	1048	1090	✓				✓		✓	✓
Sexdecillion (Sedecillion)	1051	1096	✓				✓		✓	✓
Septendecillion	1054	10102	✓				✓		✓	✓
Octodecillion	1057	10108	✓				✓		✓	✓
Novemdecillion (Novendecillion)	1060	10114	✓				✓		✓	✓
Vigintillion	1063	10120	✓		✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓
Centillion	10303	10600	✓		✓	✓				✓

Of Penumbras and Führerprinzip, or How William O. Douglas Established American Nazism

The concept of a "living Constitution" is dictatorial. That it has gained currency in the US Supreme Court is evidence that the Court's authority needs to be truncated.  The Constitution does not give the Court the right to decide on the constitutionality of laws.  This is what the Constitutions says in Article III, section 2 about the Supreme Court's powers:

>The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

This does not say that the Supreme Court has the power to declare a law unconstitutional.  Rather, it says that the Court has the power to adjudicate cases UNDER the Constitution AND the laws.  In the Federalist No. 78 Hamilton argued that courts had the right to INTERPRET and LIMIT statutory authority:

"It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts."

The Constitution does NOT give the Court this power, but Chief Justice John Marshall arrogated it anyway in Marbury v. Madison.   But judicial interpretation, even if granted, does NOT give the Court any authority to invent new interpretations in constitutional "penumbras" or "emanations" as Justice William O. Douglas put it in Griswold v. Connecticut.  The decision to regulate contraceptives is a state level one, not a federal level one.  The distinction is critical because the Court has used this case to arrogate ever more extreme degrees of power to itself.  In this, it has gradually become a dictatorial power.

The Constitution is clear that legislation is the province of Congress. It is also clear that there is a method to change the Constitution via amendment.  Therefore, there is no need for the Supreme Court to do more than INTERPRET existing law. 

During his National Socialist rule Hitler declared that he was the ultimate source of legitimacy in Germany, which he called the leader principle or Führerprinzip.  Under the leader principle all legal, social and economic decision making ultimately rested with him.  In a similar manner, the Supreme Court claims a Führerprinzip to legislate new laws and decide on old ones, which it calls "legal emanations" or the "living Constitution."  This is an outrageous and illegal arrogation of power, and it needs to be stopped. The Constitution is specific. The Court can adjudicate cases, nothing more.  It is believable that it is necessary for the Court to have the power to interpret constitutionality and to limit legislative authority. But that is all.  The living constitution evolves through amendment, not through William O. Douglas's Führerprinzip.

If the justices are self-serving pigs who cannot stop themselves from arrogating power, the American legal system has failed and it is time to reinvent it, perhaps basing a new statutory system on traditional common law.

Who Is John Galt?

 I heard at the Ulster County Republican dinner on Friday night that the film version of Atlas Shrugged, rumored for more than 50 years, was unveiled at the CPAC meeting. The film's website is here.  This is the trailer: