May 24, 2002

There is no Plan B

Todd Adams has posted several photos of Wednesday's activity at the state capitol, when the Sundquist administration sent a platoon of heavily-armed police to intimidate people who had gathered to peacefully voice their opposition to an income tax. The third photo in the collection is priceless, and makes it plain that the administration has no Plan B. It is the income tax or nothing, even if it means threatening children with violence. But then, the income tax is "for the children," is it not?

TNTaxRevolt has published a series of photos of the May 15 and May 22 peacful protests. This one shows the troopers descending the capitol steps, waving nightsticks as they approached the people just as the vote on the income tax was under way.

Another photo in the collection shows troopers' helmets clearly marked "State Trooper," a helpful reminder that the notion that we the people control our government is an archaic, forgotten notion. Today, the government is the government and it increasingly has the power to control the people. Wednesday truly was "the people vs. the powerful." Those troopers don't work for us, they work for the State and were used Wednesday to intimidate the people who pay their salaries. If I were one of the troopers at the capitol Wednesday I'd resign out of disgust with myself for having participated.

This photo, by the way, reminds us whose future we are fighting for. We, truly, are the ones who are doing it for the children.

May 23, 2002

State Power

Photos like this and the photo on this page are pictorial evidence of the dictum that power corrupts. I thought about the photos of the riot cops attempting to intimidate and frighten the protestors all day, and sometimes I admit I looked at the troopers' pudgy bellies and thought, "Hey guys, lay off the donuts!" But mostly, I was sickened.

If you weren't sickened by the sight of armed riot cops blocking the entrance to the state Capitol as the people's alleged representatives sought to impose an unwanted an unconstitutional income tax, you need a refresher course in what it, supposedly, means to live in a free democratic republic.

Hint: it ISN'T armed riot cops threatening to bludgeon with wooden bats anyone who dares attempt to enter their state Capitol to protest the possible enactment of an unconstitutional new tax.

And trust me, had you attempted to pass these storm troopers of the Sundquist administration, you would have been stopped with violence force. Never forget that last year an anti-tax protestor was physically assaulted by a state trooper for being loud.

Of course, the administration claims riot cops were necessary because of last year's "riot" in which a window was broken by a protestor. Count me a skeptic. The administration has at various times described the "weapon" as a brick, a rock, and a stick. It allegedy landed at the foot of some lawmaker inside the governor's office. But where is the rock or brick or stick? Surely, if such a crime was committed, the witnesses would know if it was a rock or a stick or a brick, and the evidence would have been collected. The rock ... or brick ... or stick ... would be in investigators' hands. We would have seen a photo of it. But we haven't. Why? Until there is solid evidence otherwise, my guess is: because it doesn't exist.

The Sundquist administration claims it exists, however, and so the media has bought the story without really questioning it, just as they've bought the administration's multiple lies throughout the 3-year income tax debate. And so, an income tax that clearly lacks popular support among the people continues to survive while Jimmy Naifeh looks for a way to cram it down the people's throats while state troopers are sent to intimidate those who would dare protest.

That's state power. It feeds on ego and arrogance, but mostly on an ever-ready supply of taxpayers' money. Which is why the photos are such a powerful argument for NOT giving the state yet more of our tax dollars. Just like power, money corrupts. If it didn't, Jimmy Naifeh and Don Sundquist and Bob Rochelle would not be seeking to violate their oaths of office and the state constitution in order to take for themselves an extra $1 billion of your money to spend.

May 22, 2002

Broken Promises

The road to the brink of a state income tax started with Gov. Don Sundquist's broken promise. Yesterday, 45 state legislators - eight Republicans and 37 Democrats - cast a vote to violate your constitutional right to not have your income taxed. By doing so, they violated their own oath to uphold the state constitution, which nowhere authorizes the legislature to tax your income. Here is the list of those legislators who so badly want a billion more dollars to spend that they'll gladly break promises, eviscerate the state constitution, ignore seven decades of consistent and unanimous judicial precedent, and agree that earning a living in Tennessee is a state-granted privilege rather than a God-given right, in order to siphon money from your wallet with an income tax.

Not one of them should ever be elected to any position of public trust ever again. All of them should be targeted for defeat in this or the next election.

Republicans voting for the Income Tax
Ralph Cole, Elizabethton; Ronnie Davis, Newport; Stancil Ford, Talbott; Steve McDaniel, Parkers Crossroads; Bob Patton, Johnson City; Raymond Walker, Fairfield Glade; Keith Westmoreland, Kingsport; and Zane Whitson, Unicoi.

Democrats voting for the Income Tax
Joe Armstrong, Knoxville; Stratton Bone, Lebanon; Kathryn Bowers, Memphis; Rob Briley, Nashville; Henri Brooks, Memphis; Tommie Brown, Chattanooga; Gene Caldwell, Clinton; Carol Chumney, Memphis; Ronnie Cole, Dyersburg; Barbara Cooper, (Memphis; Charles Curtiss, Sparta; John DeBerry, Memphis; Lois DeBerry, Memphis; Craig Fitzhugh, Ripley; Joe Fowlkes, Cornersville; Ken Givens, Rogersville; Tommy Head, Clarksville; Ulysses Jones, Memphis; Mike Kernell, Memphis; Matt Kisber, Jackson; Edith Langster, Nashville; Butch Lewis, Manchester; Mark Maddox, Dresden; Kim McMillan, Clarksville; Larry Miller, Memphis; Paul Phelan, Trenton; Shelby Rhinehart, Spencer; Don Ridgeway, Paris; Randy Rinks, Savannah; Bobby Sands, Columbia; Johnny Shaw, Bolivar; Harry Tindell, Knoxville; Joe Towns, Memphis; Brenda Turner, Chattanooga; Larry Turner, Memphis; John White, Lawrenceburg, and Speaker Jimmy Naifeh, Covington.

There also were good guys (and ladies) in this fight. Those who voted against the income tax, thereby upholding your constitutional rights and their oath of office, are:

Republicans voting against the Income Tax
William Baird, Jacksboro; Mae Beavers, Mount Juliet; H.E. Bittle, Knoxville; Diane Black, Hendersonville; Jim Boyer, Corryton; Dewayne Bunch, Cleveland; Steven Buttry, Knoxville; Glen Casada, College Grove; Chris Clem, Chattanooga; David Davis, Johnson City; Bill Dunn, Knoxville; Steve Godsey, Blountville; Mark Goins, LaFollette; Jamie Hagood, Knoxville, Tre' Hargett, Bartlett; Beth Harwell, Nashville; Russell Johnson, Loudon; Joe Kent, Memphis; Joe McCord, Maryville; Bob McKee, Athens; Richard Montgomery, Seymour; Jason Mumpower, Bristol; Chris Newton, Cleveland; Doug Overbey, Maryville; Bubba Pleasant, Arlington; Dennis Roach, Rutledge; Donna Rowland, Murfreesboro; Charles Sargent, Franklin; Larry Scroggs, Germantown; Jack Sharp, East Ridge, and Paul Stanley, Memphis; Curry Todd, Collierville; Jim Vincent, Soddy Daisy, and Bobby Wood, Harrison.

Democrats voting against the Income Tax
John Arriola, Nashville; Gene Davidson, Adams; Dennis Ferguson, Kingston; Tim Garrett, Goodlettsville; Jere Hargrove, Cookeville; John Hood, Murfreesboro; Mike McDonald, Portland; Gary Odom, Nashville; Pete Phillips, Shelbyville; Phillip Pinion, Union City; David Shepard, Dickson; Mike Turner, Nashville; Ben West, Hermitage; John Mark Windle, Livingston; and Les Winningham, Huntsville.

Four Democats voted "present," which is the same as abstaining. All four initially voted no, but were pressured to change their vote in order to keep the bill alive. The cowards who caved were: Frank Buck, Dowelltown; George Fraley, Winchester; Mary Pruitt, Nashville; and John Tidwell, New Johnsonville.

Nashville Democrat Sherry Jones, who is opposed to the Income Tax, was absent for the historic vote because she is recovering from serious injuries sustained in a recent auto accident. Had she been there, the Income Tax would have received 50 NO votes and be dead for the year.

I got the above list from The Tennessean web site.

May 16, 2002

Debate Sought

Article 11, Section 9, of the state constitution says this:

The General Assembly shall not authorize any municipality to tax incomes, estates, or inheritances, or to impose any other tax not authorized by Sections 28 or 29 of Article 2 of this constitution.

It is my contention that this statement does in fact say that the General Assembly is not authorized to levy a general tax on incomes (except on income from stocks and bonds as specifically authorized by Sections 28 and 29 of Article 2), nor may it empower municipalities to tax incomes or other taxes not specifically mentioned in Article 2, Sections 28-29.

Attorney General Paul Summers, has issued an opinion that the income tax is constitutional, but only mentions Article 11, Section 9, in a single dismissive footnote in that document in which Summers says, "while the state currently taxes estates, inheritances, and incomes from stocks and bonds, cities and towns cannot be authorized to do so. It is unclear whether the courts would use this language to prevent municipalities from levying privilege taxes measured by income, should the legislature authorize them to do so."

Note that Summers cleverly focuses his footnote only on income from stocks and bonds, which the constitution explicity gives the legislature the authority to tax. Article 11, Section 9, refers not to incomes from stocks and bonds but incomes in general.

Summers' opinion claims there is no "distinct and positive expression forbidding an income tax in the text of the Tennessee Constitution." I believe Article 11, Section 9 in fact does distinctly forbid an income tax. Summers is hereby invited to explain fully why Article 11, Section 9, doesn't forbid a general tax on income at the state or local level. If he responds, I'll publish his response prominently on this web site.

Nashville attorney and 7th District Congressional candidate Forrest Shoaf has authored a good counter-argument to Summer's opinion on the constitutionality of the tax, which you can read here, courtesy of the web site of The Public Forum.

May 14, 2002

Buying the First Amendment

The First Amendment is under assault in Seattle. Paul Trummel, a former London journalist and college instructor, is semiretired now and lives in Seattle, where he self-publishes a newsletter and a web site. He considers himself a freelance writer and says he's a bona fide reporter. However, he isn't paid for his work. And he writes some stuff that's really offensive to some people. Lately, he posted some stuff on his website highly critical of the administration of a government-subsidized senior housing facility, where he lived.

King County Superior Court Judge James Doerty, who apparently is one of the stupidest judges in America, ordered Trummel to remove the material from the website - and ordered the old man jailed "indefinitely" until he complies with the order. Doerty says Trummel is not entitled to First Amendment protections of free speech because he isn't paid for his newsletter/online work.

Trummel argues that his writing is protected by the First Amendment just like the writings of any citizen, regardless of journalistic affiliation.

Being that I'm a journalist and my father-in-law is a Pulitzer-winning editor who now is chairman of the Freedom Forum, a leading First Amendment/free press foundation, you'd think I'd have a good grasp of the First Amendment. But apparently I missed the day in my Communications Law class where they discussed the little-known "Seattle Clause" hidden in the Bill of Rights that says the First Amendment's free press rights are only for people who got paid for their writings.

Naively, I thought the First Amendment was for everyone, even cantankerous Brits living in Seattle.

Apparently not.

Seattle Weekly reports that the Seattle case "bears some similarities to that of Vanessa Leggett, a Texas true-crime writer with virtually no reportorial credentials. She recently made headlines for being held a record 168 days in jail after refusing to turn over her notes to a judge in a murder case. The court said she had no standing as a reporter, thus no constitutional press protections.

Though now released, Leggett may appeal her case to the U.S. Supreme Court for a landmark resolution. Dallas attorney Bob Lathan, a First Amendment specialist, recently told the American Journalism Review that the amendment exists "not for the protection of a journalist but to protect and guarantee that the public has a free flow of information."

To put it terms, Is a musician who plays for free not still a musician? Of course he is. And a writer who writes for free is still entitled to his or her First Amendment protections.

Why do I care? Why should you? Because I self-publish this site, I write and post strong criticisms of various powerful elected officials, and I am not paid for it. And one day a judge could decide that Nashville, too, is exempt from broad First Amendment rights and that such rights are only for "paid" journalists.

There is a solution, however. In the long term, we must elect politicians and judges that actually respect both the state and federal constitutions. In the short term, you can drop a buck or three in the Amazon tip jar in the right-hand column, which will mean I am a "paid" journalist with full First Amendment rights. Even to a Seattle judge.

You can express your undying scorn of the stupid judge by sending him emails by clicking here. It's your First Amendment right, you know. I also suggest you cc your email to the Seattle Weekly.

For another take on the story, click here.

Thanks to InstaPundit for spotting the Seattle Weekly story.

May 9, 2002

The Revenue Liars

The State Funding Board has issued its "forecast" of revenue for the next fiscal year, and it is a dire forecast indeed. The Funding Board says revenue from the existing tax code will grow 1.8% to 2.3% in the fiscal year that starts July 1. Pro-income tax legislators, naturally, are saying this is one more reason we need a big tax increase in the form of "tax reform" that includes a state income tax. Pro-income tax newspapers like the Tennessean are playing along with headlines like "State revenue projections take nosedive."

Some facts you need to know about the State Funding Board:

1. It is an executive-branch board, of which the governor is a member.
2. The Funding Board only hears from three economists hand-picked by the administration, which routinely ignores other in-state academic economists at state universities who have equal or better qualifications but also oppose the income tax.
3. The Funding Board's projections are never right.
4. The Funding Board' projections were routinely well below actual revenues, right up until Gov. Sundquist started pushing for an income tax.
5. Low projections served the administration's purpose in the early years of the administration because every dollar of revenue above the projected revenue was a surplus - which the administration declared to be "unbudgeted dollars" and promptly spent without getting the Legislature to pass an appropriations law (in apparent violation of the state constitution, but that's another issue for another time.)
6. For the last two years, the Funding Board - whose agenda and meetings are controlled by Sundquist's finance commissioner, has issued high projections and revenue came in lower, producing an artificial "shortfall" that the administration was able to use to argue for a tax increaase, preferably in the form of an income tax.
7. The new ultra-low projections - which predict revenue growth much lower history indicates is likely in the first year after a recession - were issued just before the Legislature is to consider Speaker Jimmy Naifeh's income tax plan. A low projection now serves the administration's ongoing efforts to create the appearance of a crisis so dire that an income tax is the only answer.

Some of the spending the administration proposes includes a $112.9 million increase in the state's "rainy day" reserve fund, which makes no sense because the current tight budget is precisely the kind of situation for which the reserve fund should be spent, and a large pay raise for state employees.

The amount of the pay raise (in the first year) is roughly the same as two percentage points of revenue growth. Given that the State Funding Board's projection is most probably low by a significant margin, the smart course of policy would be to cancel the pay raise and instead include in the budget a provision that any growth above 2.3% to 4.3% - roughly $155 million in surplus revenue - will be dedicated to an end-of-the-year bonus for state employees.

But such ideas aren't on the table right now. An income tax is - and the State Funding Board, undeniably an arm of the pro-income tax administration, has issued what appears to be a politically-motivated forecast of very low revenue just in time for its announcement to have maximum political impact.