News & Politics

Listen to “Left Exposing Its ‘Extreme’ Position on Abortion” on Spreaker.

Lawmakers in New York recently enacted legislation allowing abortion at any point in a pregnancy if the abortion provider determines a risk to the mother’s health.

Virginia Democrats pushed a very similar bill this week, even allowing abortion during labor or allowing parents to let a baby die if it is delivered alive following a failed abortion.  That bill was defeated in subcommittee by a Republican majority.

Similar abortion measures are advancing in California, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam set off a firestorm of condemnation Wednesday by stating a baby fully delivered after a failed abortion is not necessarily entitled to medical care.

“In this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.  The infant would be delivered.  The infant would be kept comfortable.  The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired.  And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother,” said Northam.

Northam insists he was referring to late-term pregnancies in which the babies are not considered viable or suffering from severe birth defects.

Catholic Association Senior Fellow Ashley McGuire says the late-term abortion bills advancing in multiple states prove something more sinister: that Democrats are out of touch with the public on abortion.

“What I think all of this shows is how extreme the left has gotten on abortion.  The overwhelming majority of Americans, by a nine-to-one ratio, oppose third trimester abortions.  In fact, most Americans, even those who self-identify as pro-choice, are only OK with it in the first trimester,” said McGuire.

But whether Northam was defending infanticide or not, McGuire says the debate shows how silly it is to consider a baby a human at one end of the birth canal and not the other.

“What is the difference, really, between an abortion right before a baby is born and killing a baby right after it’s born.  I think it’s showing that when you take their position to it’s logical extreme, it’s pretty appalling and barbaric,” said McGuire.

But McGuire is hopeful that the outrage to the legislation in New York and Virginia will wake people up.

“If there’s any sort of positive coming out of all of this is that it is shedding light for Americans on the grotesque extremism that’s gotten the Democratic Party in a choke hold when it comes to abortion,” said McGuire.

Not long ago, Democrats were publicly horrified at the story of Philadelphia abortion provider Dr. Kermit Gosnell, who was convicted of murdering babies who survived attempted abortions.  Listen to the full podcast to hear McGuire explain how the Democrats have taken steps in legislatures and in court to prevent states from preventing Gosnell-like horrors from happening again.

Listen to “Why Do We Still Pay Property Taxes?” on Spreaker.

Most Americans know that property taxes pay for the public schools, police and fire departments, and services like trash pickup and road repairs, but why are those things funded through what one economics expert considers a relic of the colonial era.

The issue arose in connection with Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s call for a wealth tax on assets above $50 million.  During an interview with Chris Hayes on MSNBC, Warren claimed her wealth tax was a brand new idea in America.

Hayes gently corrected her, noting that all homeowners already pay a wealth tax.

“It’s brand new, although I will note to people out there who own a home, you’re paying a wealth tax right now called property taxes.  So it does exist in America,” said Hayes.

But should it?  Longtime economic author and columnist John Steele Gordon says property taxes belong on the ash heap of history.

“It’s a very inefficient way of raising revenues for the government.  For one thing, how much is a given property worth?  Well, you really only know that when it is sold,” said Gordon.

He says property taxes made a lot more sense around the time of our nation’s founding because property value was closely linked to income.

“In colonial days, almost all properties were income-producing.  They were farms or they were stores.  Today, almost all properties are income absorbing.  They’re houses,” said Gordon.

Gordon’s biggest complaint is that property taxes are regressive and can wallop people making far less than their neighbors.

“Say you retire and your income goes down 40 percent.  Well, your property taxes don’t.  That seems hardly fair,” said Gordon.

So why do property taxes still exist?

“It’s sheer laziness.  It’s there.  It’s always been there.  The mechanism is in place.  Every town has its assessor and its grievance board.  Therefore, it’s just easier to let it go on rather than come up with a more efficient system,” said Gordon.

Listen to the full podcast to learn what Gordon thinks would be a much better and fairer alternative to property taxes and how former late night host David Letterman figures into his call to abolish property taxes.

Listen to “Why Warren’s Wealth Tax Won’t Work” on Spreaker.

Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is pushing a wealth tax as one of the early economic priorities of her 2020 Democratic presidential campaign, but the head of the nation’s largest grassroots taxpayer organization says the wealth tax would never have the economic impact that Warren promises.

The tax on accumulated assets would levy a two percent rate on all wealth above $50 million.  It would rise to three percent for assets past a billion dollars.  Warren promises the tax could bring in $3 trillion in ten years, but National Taxpayer’s Union President Pete Sepp says that’s naive.

“[Warren] assumes that there would be virtually no change , no response to attacks like this.  That’s where this nearly three trillion dollar revenue estimate comes from – that year after year, people with accumulations of wealth will just happily pay that tax and not move the money offshore or think of other ways to either spend it rather unproductively rather than invest it or simply give it away to charity,” said Sepp.

Furthermore, Sepp says socking it to the very wealthy is a bad way to approach the economy.

“We have to remember, the income tax is already heavily skewed toward hitting people with high incomes, who generally also tend to have high wealth accumulations.  There’s already a capital gains tax.  There is still a death tax in place,” said Sepp.

Listen to the full podcast as Sepp explains why there’s plenty of data to suggest a wealth tax will not accomplish what its supporters think it will, and he details what policies would raise the income and living standards of people at the lower end of the economic spectrum.