If there has been one constant in the first year of the Trump presidency it is that there are quite a few GOP senators eager to announce to the world their independence from the hated Trump. Your McCains, your Flakes, your Corkers have all been a thorn in the side of the Trump agenda.
But now it looks like they are all voting for the Trump tax package. What gives?
I admit that the settled science on this is not very helpful. The book on this was written by James Buchanan and Gordon Turlock, an American and a Brit, in The Calculus of Consent. Their line was that, in any legislative initiative, the folks in favor of the proposal would expect a material benefit for their constituents, and those against would expect a material cost for their constituents.
So if the proponents lacked a majority of representatives for passage they would have to buy votes from the waverers, putting sweeteners in the proposal to get to 51 percent and passage.
So what is the game that the GOP waverers are playing on the tax bill? I will tell you.
There is an additional factor that is not covered in The Calculus of Consent. It is this. If you are a GOP senator you need to show to the world that you are a big enough and powerful enough that the president and the congressional leaders will need to give you your own special Christmas ornament on the bill's Christmas tree. For if you are not big enough to get your own special deal, what are you? Chopped liver?
So now, miraculously, all the guys that were causing trouble and saying that they would not support the tax bill are now all in favor. And it looks like the final tax bill will pass in the House and in the Senate if they can drag ailing senators like McCain (R-AZ) and Cochran (R-MS) into the Senate to vote for final passage.
So nothing has changed since the times of the good old barons of old, who would sulk in their castles until the king showed them some respect and ransomed home their captives, or not.
The signal finding of The Calculus of Consent was that the only just form of voting was unanimous consent. That way the proponents of a measure would have to pay the costs to be borne by the opponents of the measure. The example they used was a new county road. The proponents would believe that the road would benefit them; the opponents would be opposed to paying for something that would not benefit them. So unanimous consent would have to pay the opponents or give them a benefit in lieu.
Either way, you can see that the whole procedure is still robbery, the same as a gang of robbers -- with the addition of impunity, according to St. Augustine.
Look, it is tremendous fun to have stick it to people you don't like and make them pay for your stuff. That is the whole principle of the left. I can understand that, as per Conan the Barbarian, the best thing in life is "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!" Yay! And he got it from Genghis Khan.
But I think we are coming to a point in history when it is time to put away childish things, and say that nearly everything should be done, not by force, but by cooperation and consent.
But I don't see my liberal friends being within a country mile of understanding this, nor women in general. Yes, women are in favor of big government, per this. Which means that women are in favor of forcing other people to pay for their stuff.
And you thought women were all sweetness and light.
Like I say, government is force, and politics is division, and system is domination.
Oh, and there is no such thing as justice, only injustice.
And you have to give each GOP senator their own special goodie in order to get their vote for a tax bill.
But now it looks like they are all voting for the Trump tax package. What gives?
I admit that the settled science on this is not very helpful. The book on this was written by James Buchanan and Gordon Turlock, an American and a Brit, in The Calculus of Consent. Their line was that, in any legislative initiative, the folks in favor of the proposal would expect a material benefit for their constituents, and those against would expect a material cost for their constituents.
So if the proponents lacked a majority of representatives for passage they would have to buy votes from the waverers, putting sweeteners in the proposal to get to 51 percent and passage.
So what is the game that the GOP waverers are playing on the tax bill? I will tell you.
There is an additional factor that is not covered in The Calculus of Consent. It is this. If you are a GOP senator you need to show to the world that you are a big enough and powerful enough that the president and the congressional leaders will need to give you your own special Christmas ornament on the bill's Christmas tree. For if you are not big enough to get your own special deal, what are you? Chopped liver?
So now, miraculously, all the guys that were causing trouble and saying that they would not support the tax bill are now all in favor. And it looks like the final tax bill will pass in the House and in the Senate if they can drag ailing senators like McCain (R-AZ) and Cochran (R-MS) into the Senate to vote for final passage.
So nothing has changed since the times of the good old barons of old, who would sulk in their castles until the king showed them some respect and ransomed home their captives, or not.
The signal finding of The Calculus of Consent was that the only just form of voting was unanimous consent. That way the proponents of a measure would have to pay the costs to be borne by the opponents of the measure. The example they used was a new county road. The proponents would believe that the road would benefit them; the opponents would be opposed to paying for something that would not benefit them. So unanimous consent would have to pay the opponents or give them a benefit in lieu.
Either way, you can see that the whole procedure is still robbery, the same as a gang of robbers -- with the addition of impunity, according to St. Augustine.
Look, it is tremendous fun to have stick it to people you don't like and make them pay for your stuff. That is the whole principle of the left. I can understand that, as per Conan the Barbarian, the best thing in life is "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!" Yay! And he got it from Genghis Khan.
But I think we are coming to a point in history when it is time to put away childish things, and say that nearly everything should be done, not by force, but by cooperation and consent.
But I don't see my liberal friends being within a country mile of understanding this, nor women in general. Yes, women are in favor of big government, per this. Which means that women are in favor of forcing other people to pay for their stuff.
And you thought women were all sweetness and light.
Like I say, government is force, and politics is division, and system is domination.
Oh, and there is no such thing as justice, only injustice.
And you have to give each GOP senator their own special goodie in order to get their vote for a tax bill.
No comments:
Post a Comment