Posts tagged Republicans
If it’s a “states’ rights” issue, why are they asking permission from the federal government? (Internet Sales Tax)0
For many months now, “limited government, free market, reduced spending, Conservative Republicans™” Lamar Alexander, Bob Corker and Bill Haslam have been lobbying for and/or sponsoring the Marketplace Fairness Act, also known by a more appropriate title: the Internet Sales Tax. The tax-raising Republicans have been touting this as the states collecting taxes “that were already theirs”, or “making it fair for the brick-and-mortar businesses located in the state”, or “restoring state sovereignty” as if this is some sort of 10th Amendment takeback from the federal government – when in reality it is just a tax increase. Their appeal to the currently popular anti-federal sentiment in the country is not only unconvincing, it is without constitutional merit. Note that they are counting you as fools to fall for this “states’ rights” language.
If these leaders truly believed in “marketplace fairness” for brick-and-mortar stores, then Tennessee would not have cut the sweetheart deal with online retailer and corporate welfare queen Amazon to locate here and not collect any sales taxes – even for sales within the state. How’s that for an unfair advantage? Nobody argues that a sale made within the state isn’t subject to state sales taxes – except for our state government and Amazon, who enjoys an unfair advantage over all the other brick-and-mortar retailers in Tennessee thanks to Governor Haslam who now claims to be interested in “marketplace fairness”. Amazon also received a 10-year, 50% tax break on property taxes to locate in Loudon County. Apparently tax revenue (or is that “fairness”?) is for sale to the highest bidder. We don’t need a new federal law to correct that.
Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states in part:
“No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.”
The federal government cannot issue a federal tax on interstate sales. They are exports, whether to another state or another country. The federal government can however regulate interstate “commerce” or transportation of the goods between states. The states themselves do not have this power over one another. They cannot regulate interstate trade period – which is precisely why sales taxes for purchases you made in another state have not been collected. They are exports to your resident state. So the money-grubbers in the state created the “use” tax to take some of your money anyway – despite the fact that they provide zero services to the brick-and-mortar store in the other state you imported from and your “use” of the item you purchased doesn’t induce any burden on your neighbors that require additional tax revenue that isn’t covered somewhere else by another tax.
So why ask permission from the federal government? Because they have to. Article 1, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution states in part:
“No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.”
So guess what? The states are only entitled to collecting their new Internet Sales Tax and subtracting their expenses for executing inspections of these imports/exports. The rest of the revenue is required by the U.S. Constitution to go to the U.S. Treasury. At best, Tennessee could add more cigarette gestapo agents to the state Department of Revenue. The net revenue proceeds to the states legally should be ZERO, because see, the founders really did believe in some semblance of free trade and INDEPENDENT states.
There is no “state right” to this money. There never was.
A couple days ago, it was reported that Democrats in the Colorado legislature were driving gun manufacturers out of the state because of gun and ammo restrictions that they were considering. And when those companies leave, it will leave hundreds of Coloradoans out of a job, and the state’s economy would be weaker.
Well, now they’ve gone and done it. It’s not law yet, as the proposals still have to be considered by the state senate. But the Democrat-controlled Colorado House just passed 4 gun control measures on Monday that addressed ammunition, background checks and guns in universities:
“The proposed ammunition restrictions limit magazines to 15 rounds for firearms, and eight for shotguns. Three Democrats joined all Republicans voting no on the bill, but the proposal passed 34-31… The House also approved a bill requiring background checks on all gun purchases, including those between private sellers and firearms bought online. Other proposals would ban concealed firearms at colleges and stadiums, and another requires that gun purchasers pay for their own background checks. Democrats eked out the closest vote on the background check measure, which passed on a 33-32 vote.”
If these measures become law, then criminals will be able to add Colorado colleges and stadiums to their list of “gun-free zones.” It would outlaw magazines with more than a 15-round capacity, but the mass murderers will still have access to 30-round or 100-round magazines. Or, he could be more law-abiding and own multiple 15-round magazines and switch them out when he had to. That would just be a minor inconvenience. So, once again, the law won’t prevent mass murders, but will only give criminals bent on mass murder the advantage.
F2C2012: Aaron Swartz keynote – “How we stopped SOPA”
Published on May 22, 2012
Aaron Swartz keynote – “How we stopped SOPA” at F2C:Freedom to Connect 2012, Washington DC on May 21 2012.
Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) Joins CNBC’s Money in Motion to discuss the impending fiscal cliff.
Sen. Rand Paul on Your World with Neil Cavuto to talk more about the fiscal cliff.
Submitted by Katniss Everdeen
Here is the video from C-SPAN: http://www.c-spanvideo.or…
7:45am Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), Foreign Affairs Committee Member @RepRonPaul
Topic: Congressman Paul will discuss fiscal cliff negotiations in Congress as well as the latest developments in Libya. Rep. Paul is a member of the foreign affairs committee, which will hold a hearing on Benghazi Thursday, “Benghazi and Beyond: What Went Wrong on September 11, 2012 and How to Prevent it from Happening at other Frontline Posts.”
WHDT World News is available to 6 million viewers from South Beach to Sebastian, Florida and to 2 million viewers in Boston, Massachusetts via WHDN.
WHDT broadcasts on RF channel 44 (virtual channel 9) from Palm City and is carried on cable TV channels 44 (SD) and 1044 (HD) by AT&T, on cable channels 17 (SD) and 438 (HD) in West Palm Beach by Comcast, on satellite channel 44 (SD) in West Palm Beach by DIRECTV, and on WHDN-Boston which broadcasts on RF channel 38 (virtual channel 6) from the Government Center district in downtown Boston.
More about WHDT: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHDT
There is no democracy in the United States.
American political life is dominated by one party with two heads, often called the “Republicrats”.
Republicans and Democrats agree on core issues and only argue on technicalities. Obama, who was portrayed as a peaceful saviour in the last presidential elections, has demonstrated during his four years in office that he is not much different from his predecessor.
Nobel “Peace” Prize Laureate Barack Obama’s “war record” is worse than that of George W. Bush; the civil rights of Americans have shrunk further in the last four years and President Obama has shown that that is he is closer to Wall Street than to Main Street.
Mitt Romney and Barack Obama are more of the same on key issues as Glen Ford explains:
To any objective observer, the consensus that exists between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney on the fundamental issues of war and peace, Wall Street’s dominance of American life, and fiscal austerity, has been made crystal clear in the two “debates.” In the absence of effective popular resistance to the duopoly of money, the economic and social crisis fails to create a corresponding political crisis for the rulers. As a result, there is nothing important for them to debate. (Glen Ford, Obama-Romney: The Duopoly Debates Itself)
But how are Presidential debates regulated? The history of the Commission on Presidential Debates sheds light on how and why other parties are excluded from the political debate and kept away from the public’s eyes and ears:
The Commission on Presidential Debates is a private corporation headed by the former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties. The CPD is a duopoly which allows the major party candidates to draft secret agreements about debate arrangements including moderators, debate format and even participants. The result is a travesty riddled with sterile, non-contentious arguments which consistently exclude alternative voices that Americans want to hear. (VIDEO : SpartacusMoriarty, The Truth About the Commission on Presidential Debates)
In 2008, while the Republicrats agreed on bailing out Wall Street, ALL other presidential candidates were against this massive institutionalized fraud. Thanks to the Commission on Presidential Debates, Americans were led to believe that the bank bailout was not only inevitable but in the public interest. Americans were not prevented from hearing the dissenting political voices, who were opposed to this odious debt. The same goes for the Republicrats’ Imperial design fueled by “the war on terrorism and regime change, defended by both Romney and Obama as a legitimate “humanitarian” undertaking
By William Amos
From the Sacremento Bee:
The Assembly Friday passed and sent to Gov. Jerry Brown legislation that would prohibit law enforcement officers from detaining undocumented immigrants for federal authorities when they are released from criminal custody, unless they have a history of serious or violent crime.
He and other Democrats said it’s aimed at preventing otherwise non-threatening immigrants to go about with their lives without fear of deportation, while Republicans argued that the effect would be to give criminally inclined illegal immigrants a sanctuary.
The 44-23 vote to send the measure to Brown was strictly along party lines, although some members of both parties declined to vote.