The plaintiffs’ arguments in Moore v. United States have little basis in law — unless you think that a list of long-ago-discarded laissez-faire decisions from the early 20th century remain good law. And a decision favoring these plaintiffs could blow a huge hole in the federal budget. While no Warren-style wealth tax is on the books, the Moore plaintiffs do challenge an existing tax that is expected to raise $340 billion over the course of a decade.

But Republicans also hold six seats on the nation’s highest Court, so there is some risk that a majority of the justices will accept the plaintiffs’ dubious legal arguments. And if they do so, they could do considerable damage to the government’s ability to fund itself.

  • Sanctus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    That sounds like some shit a dude with the name Grover would say. Is he also the monster at the end of this book?

    • TrenchcoatFullOfBats@belfry.rip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      11 months ago

      If the book is titled “Imagine What America Would Look Like if a Single Shitbag Convinced Republicans to Vote Against Every Tax Increase for Thirty Years”, then yes, yes he is.

      • Sanctus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        11 months ago

        We are long overdue to cut out these middlemen in our representation. Not saying I know how, but it seems like even a small amount of power corrupts absolutely.

        • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Step 1. Reallocate our Netflix subscriptions to lobby congress for free Netflix.

          Step 2. With free Netflix and a new lobbying powers get other shit done.