Exist Strategy

Before being shown the door, this democrat-controlled congress sunk to new lows in hypocrisy and cynicism. Why release Trump’s tax returns to the public a scant four days before losing their majority?  Yes, in an unprecedented move, the House Ways and Means Committee released six years of now-private citizen Donald Trump’s tax returns for public scrutiny. The findings?  Nothing of note. He did what most wealthy taxpayers do; he hired a veritable hoard of tax attorneys to take advantage of every single tax loophole possible, a move that every American would do if they had the opportunity. Who exactly pays more taxes than necessary? This is how the 1% dances around the tax code. If you don’t like it, then change the damn code. Recall Warren Buffet not too long ago, conveniently sounding like a liberal, complaining that he was paying fewer taxes than his secretary. And isn’t it interesting that Hollywood is unscathed in this conversation? I wonder how much write-off Tom Cruise will claim on his taxes when his vintage $2 million dollar P-51 Mustang appeared in his latest installment of the Top Gun franchise? And the Kardashians have managed to meld their private lives with their businesses, promoting societal decay and moral turpitude. Wouldn’t it be interesting to examine the contortions their tax attorneys have engaged in? But no, that will never happen. And we know why. Either through well-placed donations or simply that rarified air of wealth making them untouchable or at the least inconvenient targets, it is unlikely that any democrat-affiliated taxpayer will feel the weight of government scrutiny to the extent that Mr. Trump has endured. But hypocrisy aside, with the government exposing your tax records and the compliant media digging into your past, who will be willing to subject themselves to this level of public scrutiny? The Republicans were widely criticized for proffering flawed candidates in the midterm elections, but again, a double standard exists. Why would a successful Republican businessman, or woman, subject themselves to being laid bare to public scrutiny, knowing their equally and perhaps more flawed democrat opponents get a pass? The point is the process will result in more public officials who don’t represent success in the private sector, who don’t represent their constituents, rather we will see more professional politicians, groomed for public office from day one, with no wealth to scrutinize and no footprint on the ladder to success. Whether it’s the mounting evidence that Joe Biden has engaged in pay-to-play schemes for his entire career, the media ignoring Fetterman’s privileged upbringing, instead promoting his man-of-the-people hoody masquerade, buying into the Ocasio-Cortez bartender narrative while she burnishes her brand to feather her nest, Eric Swalwell’s dalliance with a known Chinese spy, we can then contrast all that to the level of scrutiny Republican candidates and appointees receive, the gauntlet they have to run to successfully win a seat. Can anyone recall scrutiny and government intrusion into the lives of democrats that even remotely compares to what Trump, his appointees, his supporters, and his associates have had to endure?  Ask Trump himself, or Giuliani, Kavanaugh, Oz, Coney-Barrett, Herschel Walker, or anyone who even attended the January 6 rally.  They may soon find out. What we seek are quality candidates, representatives of the people who are noteworthy for their achievements as citizens, not for their desire to gain power and wealth through positions in government. Term limits would be a simple solution, one reflecting the Founders’ desire to make government reflective of we, the people. Recall the adage: which would you rather have in office, a candidate who made his fortune and chose to serve or the candidate who chose to serve to make his fortune?