STEWART VARNEY on SALT DEDUCTIONS

Good morning, Mr. Varney.  I adore you.  No, actually I am not gay.  I remember listening to you back near 2000 when I lived and worked in Spokane, Washington.  At that time I had not seen you but liked your strong pro-business messages.

I believe viewers are invited to submit comments on SALT (State And Local Taxes) deductions to you on FOX News for future airing.  I won't submit a video because I don't know how long you want them to be or what you might edit but as an armchair pundit with few viewers, I must declare I am soundly in your camp.

I am very Libertarian but, and she is right, my wife says I am out of touch with that philosophy  with my complete lack of empathy for the obscenely wealthy who flaunt their wealth. I have no empathy for the Bloombergs, Hollywood, et al who live in very expensive houses on Long Island and Manhattan and San Francisco and who Cuomo thinks should be given costly tax deductions in order to do so. Cuomo's interest, of course, is revenue. He does not care about me.  He cares about his big money donors and wants more tax money to spend on nonsense which he receives over time if the Feds don’t limit deductions. The concern with the SALT limitations is like the guy who buys the Hummer and then complains about the price of gas.  If you wish to have a $20 million dollar house in the Hamptons, while I do not respect your ostentatiousness but do not object to your owning it (Here I become a Libertarian once again because I would not pass a law that says you cannot have a house that expensive); just pay the taxes understanding there is a cap on how much you can deduct.  If the owner deducts them, as you said, Mr. Varney, (assuming government is zero sum which it is not) then Nebraska picks up the tab for the taxes the FEDS lose because the obscenely wealthy in New York deduct them in full.  What you did not say, Mr. Varney, and this is closer to home, is that we folks of less means who also live in New York have to pay increased taxes to the FEDS if the deductions cap is removed. In other words the obscenely wealthy in New York want us less wealthy to pay the taxes which they avoid.

Is it not odd that the same democrats who are angry with Trump for obtaining SALT limits are those in expensive, democraticat-controlled states (a redundancy).  Yet these are the same democrats who shriek, "tax the rich."  Hypocrisy abounds and I feel no guilt about the filthy rich on Long Island and Manhattan and San Francisco  having to pay higher taxes because of the deduction cap.  Don't like the taxes?  Pressure state and local government to reduce their costs, or keep quiet. It is obscenely expensive to live here in New York and you can either pay the taxes, scale down, move or become active doing something about them. You certainly have the money to spend on anti-tax campaigns, especially if you stop giving money to the politicians who work for increased taxes.

*&*&*&*&

Schumer/Gillebrand on Bailing Out Bankrupt states and municipalities

New York Senators Schumer and Gillebrand:

I do understand I am writing to disinterested eyes but at least my points will have been made.

Do NOT bail out states and political subdivisions as a part of COVID incentive packages.   Most of the states and cities were in bad shape before coronovirus, precisely because they refused to control their unions.  As much as you love unions, public employee unions are the personnel supply for a monopoly with taxing authority.  Because there is no competition for the work they do, the public entity, and its unions have a monopoly.  State and local governments can tax all they wish simply because they have the authority to do so.  If GM increases the price of its automobiles, they may lose business to Ford so raising prices must be well-reasoned.

However how about Illinois, Stockton, CA, Suffolk County, NY?  They can gouge at will. I am perfectly certain that had Obama had a democrat-controlled house he would have bailed out Detroit, et al.  The only reason these municipalities filed bankruptcy is because republican house members weren’t willing to tax...say...Nebraska, to help Michigan or Illinois.

Elected officials don’t want to tax because they might get unelected so the elected officials, with your help, try to pass the costs of dismal administration to the Feds because it is nearly impossible for an unhappy population to unelect a Federal official.  You are the textbook example of that cemented incumbency.

What the political subdivisions and states always had the right to do was write tough labor contracts, staff and pay prudently and tax only as necessary. States and political subdivisions are absolutely unwilling to do that and unwilling to open labor negotiations to the public eye for what certainly would be critical scrutiny.

Bottom line is the poverty-pleading government units now can either tax more or cut services or both  I have yet to hear of any public meeting that seeks public input on service levels.  It is only the unions that provide that input.  On its face it is nonsense to deem that what the firefighters’ union believes proper staffing and pay levels are going to be anywhere near reasonable...but that is the only source of input to most governments that employ firefighters.

To include a bail out of governments that were already in poor financial states is fraud.  COVID incentive is NOT to prop up awful governments but to keep SMALL business and its hard working employees employed...not to feed union coffers at public expense.  If you absolutely insist on wasting flyover state money (or mine in “blue” New York) at least stipulate, subject to audit, that the money may not be used for anything but proper staffing, not paying off loans or bonds that might be coming due.  It might be wise, as in the case of Detroit, to require an overseer who reports to the Feds for the public record. Receiving government units must also open labor negotiations to the public.

Sincerely,

John M. Tyson

Saint James, NY