|
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
|
So the $294-per-dependent tax credit going to California families is now defined as a "loophole" that can be "closed" to help solve the budget mess?
From Arnold Schwarzenegger on down, everyone who uses this locution should be ashamed. Bill Clinton would be proud. Barack Hussein Obama would be proud. This isn't spinning. This is lying. A loophole is "an ambiguity (especially one in the text of a law or contract) that makes it possible to evade a difficulty or obligation." In what sense, in any sense, how is the dependent credit an ambiguity to evade an obligation? I know that most of the media and editorial pages in this state are clamoring for tax hikes, and pretending that public immaturity -- it wants the services but won't pay for them, blah blah blah -- is the root of the budget problem. (Yo, media establishment -- so you're saying the public wanted all the public employee union payoffs that we've seen the last nine years? Right, yeah, sure, right.) So they'll probably give Arnold a pass for his utter dishonesty. Just great. Too bad we don't cover government in California like the New York media cover sports. Arnold would be massacred, and deservedly. |