You can run, but you can't hide

/

David Strom on the Democrats next great move:

The billionaire tax is not on income but on assets, especially on unrealized capital gains. That is to say, notional money that could evaporate if a big bet on a company goes bad. He knows it is a horrific idea, just as the $25/hour national minimum wage is, but he also knows that the mood of the Democratic Party is radical socialism and practically revolutionary, so "Eat the Rich" is a good pitch to the base. 

And Jonathan Turley, on the same topic:

Eat the Rich: Sanders and Khanna Introduce Federal Billionaires Tax

“Enough is enough.” With those words, Senator Bernie Sanders (I., Vt) launched a push to impose a 5% annual wealth tax on America’s billionaires. With Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Cal.), the legislation, “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” echoes the growing “eat-the-rich” mantra on the left — seeking to replicate a disastrous push in California that has led to an exodus from that state and an estimated loss of $2 trillion in taxable assets.

It is also flagrantly unconstitutional.

Under the plan, Congress would target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed as a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less – $12,000 for a family of four.

The timing of the move is telling. Not only is it calculated before the midterm elections, in which the Democrats hope to retake power, but it follows the push by California Democrats and unions to impose a similar wealth tax in that state.

Khanna, who represents Silicon Valley, has supported the state law, which includes a ruinous provision for startup entrepreneurs. The law would not only be retroactive to try to trap wealthy taxpayers who have fled the state, but also base wealth calculations on the voting shares of corporate executives. Often, with start-ups, entrepreneurs hold greater voting shares than actual ownership. However, just in case they need more incentive to leave the state, they will be taxed as if their voting shares represented actual wealth.

The practical problem is that the wealthy, like their wealth, are mobile. As a result, many are fleeing California. So now Khanna is joining with the nation’s leading Democratic Socialists to ensure there is nowhere to hide in the United States.  For billionaires in California, they could be double-tapped for ten percent of their wealth.

It has long been the dream of the far left. Years ago, Sen. Elizabeth Warren delighted Democratic voters in her run for the presidency by telling the rich she was coming after “your Rembrandts, your stock portfolio, your diamonds and your yachts.” In one debate, she dramatically rubbed her hands together after saying she would take some of the wealth of fellow candidate John Delaney, a self-made millionaire.

>>>

There is little reason to believe that a wealth tax targeting billionaires will not, if upheld, be later extended to lower tax brackets, starting with multimillionaires. That is the signature of economic factionalism, which feeds an insatiable appetite for greater wealth seizure.

The Sanders-Khanna plan is notable in its express commitment to direct wealth redistribution. It also explains why the left has made the packing of the Supreme Court a priority. As Harvard professor Michael Klarman explained years ago, the radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election” requires control of the Supreme Court to uphold such measures.

The problem is that the Constitution bars the implementation of such a federal wealth tax. When the 16th Amendment was ratified, it allowed for federal income taxes, and only income taxes: “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

The effort to expand federal taxation beyond income taxes will require either a constitutional amendment or an enabling, packed Court.

Nevertheless, these politicians will continue to dangle wealth distribution before voters. They will demonize figures like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk for their wealth while ignoring that these same figures are wealth and job creators, driving our economic growth. Instead, Sanders declared that “Billionaires cannot have it all.”

The irony of Rep. Khanna (who has been floating a run for President in 2028) turning on his own constituents in Silicon Valley underscores the appeal of wealth-redistribution campaigns. He is turning the very heart of his state’s economic growth as state deficits and out-of-state migration increase.

Related, and exactly the “mystery” I wonder at: how stupid are these people, who think that they’re not on the dinner menu?

Stephen Kruiser:

Hollywood Elites: Free Market Capitalism for Me, Socialism for Thee

Give me all of mine, but you can't have any of yours. 

Wealthy Americans who can afford to be socialism fetishists are a huge contributing factor to the rise of the progressive left and the decline of America it wants to bring about. It wasn't the poor and downtrodden who propelled Zohran "Commie" Mamdani into office in New York City. Generational-wealth Upper Eastsiders who have no appreciation for the real value of money voted for him, too. 

Some of the most full-throated Hollywood supporters of the Democrats are actors who became stars at a young age. They will all regale interviewers with stories about their "struggle years" and the regular jobs that they had to work. What they call struggle, most Americans call a typical workday. The reality is that most of them became millionaires in their twenties. Some had to wait until — Quelle horreur! — their early thirties before becoming what most of the population would consider rich. 

Socialist/Communist societies all have wealthy elites, of course. Maybe the Hollywood types are planning on being among them. However, if they'd read any history books not written by Howard Zinn, they'd know that it is the artists, writers, and entertainers who are the first to get the harsh gulag treatment. 

That's why there is still no thriving stand-up comedy scene in China. 

Lawyers have come a long way from John Adams, and that's not a complement

/

We have the product liability/class action mills, the political and “environmental” pestilence, but the ADA shysters are at the bottom of the dung heap.

There’s a number of these shysters in every large city, recruiting shills, filing thousands of lawsuits against small businesses for specious claims of ADA laws, extorting business owners every bit as efficiently as Mafia goons’ protection rackets, and pocketing huge sums for themselves and their paid crew of litigants.

LA Times: Seven People Filed 1,000 ADA Lawsuits in Southern California Last Year (and 9,000 in the past decade)

The LA Times published a story this week about a handful of people who've filed thousands of ADA lawsuits against local businesses in southern California over the past decade. The seven plaintiffs mention in the story filed 1,000 cases last year alone.

Anthony Bouyer has been on a suing spree around the San Fernando Valley.

On Sept. 24, the 55-year-old internet marketer confronted a counter at a hole-in-the-wall Mexican spot that was difficult to reach over in his wheelchair. He sued the business for violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. In L.A. County, it was at least his 231st case of the year.

At the convenience store next door, he found a produce scale out of arm’s length. He sued them too.

Over the past decade, the same people have filed 9,000 lawsuits. The Times reports there is a state law in California which allows for payouts for ADA violations, which helps explain this trend. All seven of the plaintiffs mentioned in the story have been represented by the same law firm.

Manning Law, based in Orange County, has become the go-to for serial ADA plaintiffs, including Bouyer...

The firm’s owner, Joseph Manning, recently had his license suspended by the State Bar for allegedly making false statements about billable hours involving dozens of ADA lawsuits. The firm denied all wrongdoing and said its billing practice has been “modified” to the bar’s satisfaction.

Businesses who haven been targeted by this firm often decide to settle the claims as a nuisance. For instance, Zuheir Nakkoud who manages a liquor store in Sylmar, was sued after Anthony Bouyer showed up an bought a bottle of water at his shop. The letter he received asked for $14,000, apparently over how accessible his aisles were to people in wheelchairs. Nakkoud said he'd seen people in wheelchairs from a nearby dialysis center navigate his aisles without a problem but he ultimately decided to pay the $14,000 because fighting it in court would cost him even more money. That particular lawsuit was just one of three that Bouyer filed that day.

>>>

Last year a Republican state senator put forward a bipartisan bill aimed at stopping this practice, or at least slowing it down, by giving businesses time to correct minor violations before they can be hit with penalties. But Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San José) opposes the bill and it never got a hearing in the Assembly.

With few other options, some businesses decide to fight in court. When that happens, they often wind up being represented by Ara Sahelian, "a defense attorney who estimates he has litigated more than 100 cases against Manning Law." Sahellan faced off with one of these plaintiffs earlier this month.

At his home office, Sahelian, 69, who contracted polio at 6 months old and was left unable to walk, keeps thick black binders devoted to each serial plaintiff. Bouyer gets three. So does Perla Mageno, a Manning Law plaintiff who has sued hundreds of businesses under the ADA over websites she claims don’t work with her screen-reading software...

[One plaintiff, 100+ -times litigant Perla Mageno] sued because a picture on the website of a Tustin burger shop had not told her “this is an amazing burger” and “this is a graphic of a cheeseburger that has lettuce, tomato sauce coming out of the side.”

You can read more about the odious Miss Perla here, but the one claim described above also describes her perfectly.

Smart agent - second price cut in 17 days

/

21 Amherst Road, NoPo, was reduced today to $1.699 million. Listed at $2.150 April 13, a broker open house was held and I’m guessing that the listing agent’s peers gave her their feedback (we do that; we’re a collegial bunch) because she immediately dropped it to $1.899. Still no action, so the price has been shaved again. In this market, that’s absolutely the right response — don’t wait around.

It was all over for her when a real communist showed up

/

Maine Gov. Janet Mills ends Senate campaign, clearing way for left-winger Graham Platner

She’s an unpopular, 78-year-old governor, so not an ideal candidate to begin with, but Platner and his “progressive” politics put paid to her campaign. Maine’s gone far, far left, and Mills’ endorsements from the old establishment Democrats like Chuck Schumer were meaningless. Hang onto your wallets.

Co-Op City woes

/

(Spoiler alert: monthly maintenance fees for a 1-bedroom apartment in this moderate-income “affordable housing” project will jump from $900 to $4,000)

Co-op City: What It Looks Like When Energy Reality Catches Up To You

Co-op City, located (like the Yankees) in the New York City borough known as The Bronx, is the largest co-op apartment community in the City, and indeed in the United States. Built in the 1960s and 70s, it has more than 15,000 residential units in some 35 high-rise buildings, plus a smaller number of townhouses.

…. [It] has now suddenly become ground zero in the clash between energy fantasy and reality that is starting to come into focus as the deadlines of the State’s and City’s 2019 climate statutes start to get closer. The New York Post reports on the reality side of the story in a large piece today with the headline “NY’s climate mandates may send fees in affordable Co-Op City complex soaring from $950 to $4K.”

Meanwhile, over on the reality side of the equation, at Co-op City, they are confronting the actual costs compliance with the impending and overlapping mandates of both the State’s and City’s climate statutes. Co-op City is an owner-occupied community, so the costs of compliance will fall on the owner-occupants. The racial demographics of the community, per NICHE.com, are: 64% African-American, 28% Hispanic, 4% white, and 4% other. [*] So this is not exactly your vision of the snooty Park Avenue Manhattan co-op. Co-op City currently has its own power plant — fueled by natural gas — that provides all the electricity for the complex, as well as heat, hot water, and air-conditioning. Monthly maintenance bills to the owners, which include the cost of energy, currently average about $950 for a one-bedroom unit.

Co-op City’s current fossil fuel power plant is apparently quite efficient, but not enough so to meet the impending deadlines of New York City’s Local Law 97 [and the state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019] Co-Op City will be forced to shut down its natural gas power plant and replace it with carbon-free clean energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower and battery storage. They have now done studies on the prospective cost of that, and the Post reports on the results in today’s piece. Excerpt:

A top Co-Op City official warned that residents could pay four times more in monthly maintenance charges if New York State’s controversial green-energy laws aren’t peeled back. Jeffrey Buss, Co-Op City’s general counsel, claimed monthly maintenance fees could skyrocket from $950 for a one-bedroom to more than $4,000 to pick up the tab for the edicts. . . . [T]he state’s Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act of 2019, coupled with a city green energy law [Local Law 97], would force Co-Op City to shut down its natural gas power plant and replace it with carbon-free clean energy sources such as wind, solar, hydropower and battery storage, [Buss] said.

So between the costs of the electric heat conversion, closing their own efficient power plant, and buying lots of additional electricity from Con Edison, they project that the residents’ monthly maintenance costs will multiply by about a factor of four, from under $1000 per month to about $4000. Apparently that’s what the PSC commenters think of as “affordable.”

Co-op City has looked into building “renewable” resources to replace its natural gas power plant, but has figured out that that is completely infeasible:

Buss said it is technologically impossible for Co-op City to completely replace its gas-fueled plant with cleaner energy sources. He said renewable, fossil-free energy sources such as solar, wind, or geo-thermal energy aren’t capable to meet the heating, cooling and electrical demands of Co-Op City. “Although our co-generation turbines can run on 30% hydrogen,” Buss said, “there is no hydrogen supply…I don’t know the solution.”

They do have a plan to install solar panels on top of the parking garages, but those will be capable of providing only a small percentage of their power needs:

Co-op City is diversifying by installing solar panels on top of its garages, which would result in the largest urban solar project in the US. But solar energy would only meet a fraction of Co-op City’s power needs, he said.

Buss’s conclusion: complying with the impending State and City energy mandates would be “foolish.”

*Interesting; when built, its demographics were 70% white (mostly Jewish), 30% other.