Sunday, April 17, 2016

So, can the fibbies (or James Grant) really garnish my $42,998.12?


I got a bill got $42,998.12 from Time magazine today, addressed to me personally.  That’s as if a Chavez-like president were going to garnish my bank account.  The best link seems to be here.  (paywall, but I get it in the mail, like a bill).

So goes bow-tied Jim Grant’s Time Magazine article on the National Debt, which seems to advocate a gold standard, flat tax, stopping social security for those who don’t need it, and maybe outright garnishment. On the other hand, he wants to get rid of payroll withholding, and garnish the debt all at once. (He forgets that today's seniors paid for their "entitlements" with FICA and Medicare taxes.) Oh, yes, he talks about the debt ceiling the way Michelle Bachmann did.

Slate (Jordan Weissman) called Grant’s work as one lifelong continuous anti-process piece to continuously gets “more bad” and could use a dose of “parlor timorcracy”.



Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times calls it an economic train wreck.

I remember the idea of garnishment being tossed around when New York City almost defaulted in the 1970s (“Ford to City: drop dead.”)

No comments: