PETA founder and President Ingrid E. Newkirk dispatched letters to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid urging them to extend vegetarians the tax break currently given to hybrid car owners for purchasing a vehicle with low carbon emissions.

As a vegetarian, I feel compelled to mention that this is a complete waste of brain power.

I can prove that I bought a Toyota Prius. How exactly do I prove that I'm a vegetarian? Do you want me to record everything that I eat?

What if I eat something non-vegetarian by accident? If it's not clearly labeled as non-vegetarian (like products containing Carmine or Red #4), does that invalidate my refund?

Do I get this refund every year, or is it a one-time thing? Purchasing a hybrid is a one-time thing, but I purchase a vegetarian diet every time I go to the store.

What level of vegetarian do I have to be to qualify? I'm ovo-lacto (I eat eggs and dairy). Does that count? My wife is a pescevegetarian (she still eats seafood). Does that count? Or do I have to be completely vegan? What if I have some leather clothing?

Not a very well-thought-out argument there.

-pb

I am ever fearless in the face of lunacy:

Paul,
Thanks for writing. You should be able to comment on Stan's Blog.
Here's my point with the 4 percent tax on food versus the 1.5 percent increase in the wage tax. I won't have a choice with the 1.5 percent. It will be taken out of my paycheck like clock work. I will, however, have a choice with the 4 percent tax on food. I can put back the bag of chips or the six pack of soda. If you subtract the 1.5 from the 4 we're talking about only a 2.5 percent increase in the food tax. There are a lot of different ways to slice up the numbers.
Stan

So cordial, Stan! Maybe he should just choose to not eat? I respond:

Stan,

You didn’t post this to your blog, so I couldn’t comment there.

As for your “choice”? Choose to spend less on food? My wife just came back from the store – shopping for the week – and spent $65. That’s for two people. That’s working under a single income (my wife is a Master’s student at Penn). That’s being extremely frugal. That’s shopping in bulk at BJs. That’s clipping coupons. Two people, $65, and let’s call that a baseline. But it doesn’t matter. Even if we spent $2 a week on food, your proposed tax increase still costs us two weeks more in food than we’re currently spending. How about this, Stan. How about you “chose” to simply make less money? Then you wouldn’t have to worry about your wage tax increase. Pretty simple, right?

-pb

As a follow-up to my last post, I decided to send yet another shot across Herr Huskey's bow, and fired him off this letter:

Hi Stan,

We’ve been down this road before, but since you’ve taken away commenting on your site, I’m left with simply emailing you and hoping beyond hope that my views are aired. Out of your latest missive concerning Act 1, I found a point that’s either an error in logic or an out-and-out diversion:

“If we put a 4-percent sales tax on food we could all but wipe out the property tax.

Now think about this for a minute. You’re in the grocery store and you’ve just bought $100 worth of food. Do you really think that $4 tax is going to prevent you, or anyone else, from eating a meal? It’s ludicrous if you do.”

Ludicrous, indeed? Four dollars doesn’t seem like much to you (or even most people), but it’s not just four dollars, is it? Let’s say someone spends $100/week to feed their family. My wife and I, without children, can come close to that. Even though we tend to be thrifty shoppers, we’ve both got dietary restrictions that tend to limit us to more expensive alternatives (one of these ‘restrictions’ is a simple desire to eat healthy, which is not cheap). Regardless, let’s go with the $100/week number because it’s nice and round and very accurately illustrates my point. As I was saying, it’s not just four dollars. Over the course of a month, it’s $16. Over the course of a year, that added 4% turns into over $200. So, under your plan, people wind up paying for two weeks more food every year than they actually bring home. Whatever numbers you plug into that equation, you get the same statistics: Your four percent increase costs people two weeks of food every year. Two weeks of meals, just so you can eliminate property taxes.

I’d rather shoulder a greater part of the burden myself than reducing the buying power of those who can least afford it, especially on necessities. But, I guess that’s what separates us.

-pb

Stan Huskey hates poor people. We've pretty much determined that. But, just for the record, here's his justification for proposing a 4% sales tax on food:

Now think about this for a minute. You’re in the grocery store and you’ve just bought $100 worth of food. Do you really think that $4 tax is going to prevent you, or anyone else, from eating a meal? It’s ludicrous if you do.

Ludicrous? Let's think about that.

Say you spend $100/week on food for your family. Add 4% to that. Ok, $104/week. How's that look for the year? $5,200 vs $5,408. Over the course of a year, you'd have spent your weekly budget on food 54 times instead of 52. Or, your money goes to feed your family two weeks less per year under Anti-Poor Stan's brilliant plan. Way to go, Stan. Advocating eliminating your property taxes in favor of starving the poor.

-pb

A few days ago, I posted about my response to more anti-taxation rhetoric from the editor of the local Time Herald. They actually approved the post! Check that out, something of mine slipped past their censors.

-pb

In an editorial penned by someone named "In Our View" that smacks of Stan Huskey's "my pocketbook comes before your starving kid" mentality, the Times Herald has reminded readers that Governor Ed Rendell isn't the tooth fairy:

We will remind our readers once again that we were all told by Gov. Rendell that if our state legislators would approve gambling in Pennsylvania, we would receive a $1 billion for property tax relief from the revenues. We're still waiting.

To which I responded:

14 Slots licenses were awarded last year. Since then, two casinos have opened, the first in January, the second in February. Did you expect nickels placed in the slots to magically drop right into state coffers? Maybe you were hoping for little gambling elves to advance the State Treasury the cash right away? Perhaps you were expecting all fourteen casinos to simply cough up the billion dollars before they opened?

Sounds more like a partisan jab at Governor Rendell to point out that his plan isn't working two months after it has officially begun. I guess he just misplaced his wand that turns slots licences into piles of gold coins while he was off working to raise the minimum wage and securing better health care for older Pennsylvanians.

But, the Times Herald screens all comments for views that tend to support their positions, so I doubt it will be posted to the site.

-pb

Hrm. Maybe I shouldn't have sent that last letter:

Pisces : We all get rattled now and then, whether or not for rational or justified reasons. It's your turn now, but don't worry: You're probably quite justified. Take a break from all parties concerned until they work it out peaceably.

Virgo : A dispute is showing signs of escalating into a very serious argument, and soon, too. Your best bet is to put some distance between yourself and all parties concerned, as quickly as possible for as long as possible.


Oh well, what's done is done.

( Stan Huskey: Tit )

----

( Me: Tat )

-pb

( More insinuations, more hatred of the poor. )

----

( More of me calling him on it, and even throwing in a subtle 'Why do you hate America?' )

This guy is my new favorite bugbear. I tried to be nice before, but now it's on...

-pb

( Wherein Stan Huskey, he-who-shall-not-be-naming-me, proposes raising the taxes on bread and milk and cutting property taxes altogether. )

( Wherein I call him out on his past transgression, and then point out that he hates poor people, just like is idol, George W. Bush. )

-pb

A bad quote hidden within a good idea:

Democrats consider grass-roots campaign, starting with eating at Applebee's to be more like the common man

And then there's this:

"The Democratic Party is at risk of being taken over by the far left,"
- Sen. Evan Bayh, D-IN

'at risk'? Senator Bayh, I don't think you understand. The Republicans have already been taken over by the Far Right. If you think that the Far Left is Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich, you've got your head on backwards. The "Far Left" is Stalin or Castro.

Granted, the left needs to stop whining about the right. Screw the right! Don't tell me about how Bush broke all his toys in Iraq. Don't continue to harp on the fact that the enconomy is a shit sandwich that we're all enjoying a hearty bite from. Give me solid answers!

Here are my ideas on how to talk to red-state voters:

To all the people who are pro-life : Tell them the FACTS. Abortion is going to happen. Deal with it. It's legal, and it's not going away. You can be pro-life until you're blue in the face, it's not going to change. If you want to vote for a candidate based on how they feel on a subject that's already been decided, then don't complain when you can't afford a new alternator for your 1983 Ford Ranger.

To all the people who are pro-War in Iraq : We need to rethink our strategy there. We need to get everyone in the world to a table and figure out the best way to fix this thing. Yes, we broke it. But we don't have the right kind of glue to fix it.

To all the people who are pro-gun : We've been trying for years to bring about gun control reform. Even when we had the right political atmosphere to do so, guess what? We managed to ban 18 SPECIFIC weapons. Know what that ban did? Nothing. Therefore, you can rest assured that there's not much of a chance you're going to be holding out with cold, dead hands.

To all the people who favor lower taxes : You want a tax cut, Florida? We gave it to you in the form of billions of dollars in relief aid that came from the taxes of people in New York. The people who scream the loudest about taxes are those that pay the least and benefit the most. We need to pay the bills, too. I don't know of any good American that doesn't want to help their country, and the help we need is to get the deficit down. Once we've got that down, once we're running a surplus, we'll hook you up. We've done it before, there's no reason to believe we won't do it again.

To all the people who favor smaller government : Which would you rather see? Janet Jackson's breasts, or smaller government? Because we'll try to cut as much red tape as possible, but if you want us completely out of your life, then be prepared for gratuitious sex on the six o'clock news.

To all the people who favor fiscal responsibility : We've got you covered already. You say 'tax-and-spend', we call it 'pay-as-you-go'. We'll spend money on programs that help you, but only once we've figured out where the money's coming from.

To all the people who favor a bigger military budget : We've got a big military budget. If it gets any bigger, we'll need to start a world war to justify it. There is no cold war. We don't have to worry about Russia invading us or starting a nuclear war. There's no need for that technology. We've put our efforts into fighting 21st century battles, because we've adapted to the times to better serve you.

There you go. A big list of talking points without attacking the 'Other Party'.

-pb