January 29, 2003

The State of Your Wallet

The president spoke about the economy and taxes last night, too, and it was all good. Three things stand out...

First, his call to accelerate and make permanent the tax cuts Congress has already passed: "You, the Congress, have already passed all these reductions, and promised them for future years. If this tax relief is good for Americans three or five or seven years from now, it is even better for Americans today."

Hard to argue with that. If the medicine is good medicine - and it is - better to take it now than later.

Second, Bush confronted the specious class-warfare arguments the Democrats will try to make: "This tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes, and it will help our economy immediately. Ninety-two million Americans will keep this year an average of almost $1,100 more of their own money. A family of four with an income of $40,000 would see their federal income taxes fall from $1,178 to $45 per year."

Sounds very good to me.

Third: the president suggested goverment spending not grow faster than per capita income. "I will send you a budget that increases discretionary spending by 4 percent next year, about as much as the average family's income is expected to grow. And that is a good benchmark for us: Federal spending should not rise any faster than the paychecks of American families."

He's right. That's the philosophy behind the Taxpayers Bill of Rights concept: government spending shouldn't grow faster than the economy, whether you measure it by per capita income, or population plus inflation growth, or some other sensible measure.

I'm glad to hear the president believes that.

Club for Growth leader Stephen Moore says Bush is Ronald Reagan's third term. I'm hoping for a fourth.

January 24, 2003

TABOR: Safeguarding Democracy?

I though Aristotle said it, but then I Googled it and found the famed quote was actually written by Sir Alexander Tytler, a Scottish jurist and historian who lived from 1742-1813. What did he say?

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess of the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship…

I’ve long thought about Tytler's warning – that democracy is undermined by itself once voters see the political process as a way to feed at the public trough – as I've watched the American Left try to create a tax-and-spend system in which a minority, defined as "the rich," pays the taxes and a majority reaps the benefits in the form of various government welfare and spending programs. Tytler, I thought, just might be right.

But now I'm not so sure. I think democracy is evolving a way around the problem Tytler identified.

It's called the Taxpayers Bill of Rights and because of it I believe Tytler is dead wrong. Democracy’s demise is NOT inevitable. Constitutional provisions like Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights turn Tytler’s premise upside down.

Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights has five provisions. It limits the legislature to revenue growth based on a formula approximating economic growth. It requires surplus revenue be returned to taxpayers. It requires the legislature get approval from voters if it wants to spend surplus revenue, raise taxes or increase government debt. It applies to county and local governments. And local and county governments can hold referendums to ask voters permission to temporarily or permanently exempt the jurisdiction from the amendment.

Tytler envisioned a world where special interest groups would pressure lawmakers to craft legislation that would dole out money to them. Voters would “always vote for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury,” he said. But under the TABOR concept, there is no public treasury, at least as Tytler views it. For what Tytler called the “public treasury” was really the “government treasury,” as he viewed it. But that’s a false premise. There is no such thing as government money, and the Taxpayers Bill of Rights is built on that fact.

Under the TABOR concept, the government doesn’t have money; it merely is allowed to take a restricted portion of the people’s money, with the people having the final say over changing that limit.

The impact of this is that legislators must prioritize and economize, and they must engage the electorate in debates over taxes and spending. In Colorado, the legislature can not spend surplus dollars without approval by voters in a statewide referendum. This has had the effect of reducing the influence of special interests. Proposals to spend surpluses must be crafted to gain the approval of a majority of voters statewide, rather than cater to narrow interests.

When voters say "No" to proposals to spend surplus dollars – as they have done five out of six TABOR referenda since 1993 - are they acting as Tytler envisioned? No. Just the opposite. They are not voting for "largesse from the public treasury" and they are not voting for candidates who promise more “benefits” from the public treasury – they are voting for less money being in the government's hands in the first place. They are voting to reduce the power of the "public treasury" by leaving the money in the hands of the general public.

Voters may well vote their own selfish interest when faced with a ballot question involving what to do with surplus revenue under Colorado’s Taxpayers Bill of Rights. But because of the way that amendment is structured, the decision must be the majority opinion of the whole state. A vote to benefit one’s own wallet is a vote to benefit every other Coloradoan's wallet too. Likewise, a vote to approve the spending of surplus revenue will only happen if legislators propose a program or project that benefits the vast majority of Coloradoans, not just a special-interest few.

And because the people are more engaged in the fiscal discussion, democracy is strengthened rather than weakened.

For more on the Taxpayers Bill of Rights concept and how it has strengthened democracy and had a positive impact on the economy and state budget of Colorado, download my 17-page white paper. The paper also examines flaws in the Colorado Taxpayers Bill of Rights that open the door to the kind of special-interest mischief Tytler was warning about, and suggests ways to fix those flaws in a Tennessee Taxpayers Bill of Rights.

Just Some of the Facts

This Tennessean editorial notes some good news about the state's budget process, but alas the editorial is marred by the paper's continuing inability to really tell the whole truth regarding the state budget. The paper says that Bredesen "is considering opening budget meetings, where department heads map out their respective budget proposals," and rightly remakrs that "openness in the process would go a long way toward rebuilding trust."

Just remember: The Tennessean never found the previous governor's budget process to be untrustworthy - in fact, they swallowed the process and the lies hook, line and sinker for four years.

The editorial writers still can't tell the whole truth about the state budget. They write: "According to the governor, the state is looking at a $322 million shortfall, despite the record $933 million tax increase enacted last year. On top of that, the state shortfall for the next fiscal year could hit $500 million." Notice the subtle linkage between the shortfall and tax revenue. But the governor they praise for being trustworthy and competent recently said the cause of the shortfall this year is largely TennCare cost overruns, not a failure of the tax code to produce sufficient revenue. And, through December, the state is actually running a small surplus of revenue compared to the approved budgeted estimate.

The Tennessean, its longing for a state income tax unquenched and undimmed, wants readers to keep thinking the tax structure is to blame.

But this Memphis Commercial-Appeal editorial today is much more egregious. It just flat-out lies and blames the shortfall on the "failing tax structure."

Bredesen, has yet to find a magic wand he can wave over the budget problems created or exacerbated by the state's failing tax structure. ... The biggest tax increase in Tennessee history - a $933 million hike last year, primarily in the state sales tax - will not live up to expectations."

Lies piled on lies. The tax hike will bring in more than $1 billion in the next fiscal year, and even more as the economy inevitably improves. Combine that with Bredesen's willingness to make actual spending cuts now, and by the middle of his first term, Gov. Bredesen and the state of Tennessee will be enjoying a revenue surplus.

January 22, 2003

Frank Cagle Names Names Frank

Frank Cagle suggets checking the footwear on these legislators: reps. Michael Harrison of Treadway; Russell Johnson of Loudon; Joe Kent of Memphis, Steve McDaniel of Parkers Crossroad, Bob McKee of Athens; Chris Newton of Cleveland; Doug Overby of Maryville; Bob Patton of Johnson City; Bubba Pleasant of Arlington; Dennis Roach of Rutledge and Raymond Walker of Crossville. Find out why here.

January 20, 2003

How Refreshing

After eight years of fiscal madness accompanied by deceptive spin and a governor who woke up every morning trying to break a solemn promise, our new governor's comments on the budget, taxes and his intention to keep his campaing promise are quite refreshing. Here are some quotes from Gov. Phil Bredesen, as reported in a Q&A with The Tennessean:

I think we got ourselves in a difficult position by spending too much money over the last two or three years so that we're going to have to end up with some of the cutbacks and stuff that other states started doing a couple of years ago.

We just had the largest tax increase in our history. We know the revenue estimates are overly optimistic, and we're falling short. So it's hard to escape the conclusion that you have to pare our state government in some way and, when you talk about paring state government, it's hard to talk about that without at least saying that the issue of layoffs or cutbacks or furloughs or something like that would have to be on the table in some fashion.

I'm going to have to make the best estimate that I can of what those obligations are and do it on the pessimistic side. If that requires reducing budgets in other places to make it happen, that's what I'm going to have to do. I'm not going to bankrupt the state. I'm not going to lie to people about what the situation is. I'm not going to push the problem off into next year by grabbing some sort of fund balance somewhere. TennCare is something that ought to be competing with other needs for money in the state — whether you put your extra dollars in TennCare, in K-12 education, in higher education, in incentives for companies.

TennCare has gotten to be the dragon that eats everything. One of the things we're trying to accomplish was giving the state a little more in the way of some levers that they can use to decide how much money they were going to spend on TennCare. The dragon has got to be put in its cage and kept there with the other animals of the zoo.

(The Tennessean then asked about the "Independent" Tax Study Commission and what Bredesen will do with its recommendations. But Bredesen apparently isn't fooled by the paper's calling the commission "Independent" when it clearly is nothing of the sort.)

It was created by the legislature, but I will certainly read it carefully. I was asked by some people who were thinking about serving on it what my attitude was, and did I think they were wasting their time. I said if they're taking an objective look at the tax structure and how to correct taxes and not thinking how could we quickly raise another billion dollars of revenue, then it could be useful.

If what this thing is, just to bring the income tax again two years down the line, I just feel I ran for this office on a promise not to implement an income tax in my first term, so don't look at it as something which is going to box me into a corner. I will certainly listen to what they say with respect, and I think it will be a useful contribution for discussions.

The paper then asked how Bredesen would react of the commission recommends a revenue-neutral income tax.

I genuinely feel that I ran for this office and was elected on the premise that I was not going to propose an income tax during my term as governor and I have no intention of doing it. I guess if I were convinced that was far and away the best way to do something, I would want to give people a referendum chance and by making it clear that I intended to explore that alternative in a second term in governor and making it clear during the campaign.

UPDATE:
The Tennessean also interviews David Goetz, Bredesen's new Finance & Administration commissioner. Notice how the questions are biased in favor of higher taxes generally, and the income tax.

Goetz, who as a lobbyist for business argued against higher business taxes, is asked if in his new job he is now on the "other side of the fence." And when Goetz talks about economic development and the goal of increasing Tennesseans' personal income, the paper immediately asks "If you get the personal income to rise again, how do you take advantage of that increase without a personal income tax?"

Goetz should've slapped the reporter for asking such a stupid question. If people earn more they spend more, and sales tax revenue rises. Duh.

January 14, 2003

Paula's Postscript

Biased Memphis Commercial-Appeal legislative 'reporter' Paula Wade's latest column ends with a little postcript about the income tax:

As a postscript, it appears that everyone except the most stubborn reformist dreamers and the most paranoid anti-taxers acknowledge that a state income tax is a dead issue in Tennessee. Take it from someone who witnessed its tortured life and agonizing death - it's gone. Or don't take my word for it - do the math. Tax reform had 45 votes in the 99-member House last year. Fifteen of those supporters are gone now, by either voluntary or forced retirement. Thirty votes in the House, none in the governor's office, and about six in the Senate won't get you a cup of coffee in the legislative cafeteria.

Tennessee is the third most regressive state in the country, meaning we tax our poor a lot more heavily than the rich, and that's not likely to change. I guess we just like it that way.

January 10, 2003

Good News on State Tax

This just came in from the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration: five months into the fiscal year, and Tennessee does not have a revenue shortfall. And I PREDICTED IT A MONTH AGO!

Here is the text of the administration's revenue press release:

On an accrual basis December is the fifth month in the 2002-2003 fiscal year. Department of Revenue tax collections were $682.2 million. The collections include new revenue collected under the Tax Reform Act of 2002. December revenues were $33.8 million more than the budgeted estimates, Finance and Administration Commissioner C. Warren Neel announced today. The general fund had a $26.9 million overcollection and the four other funds overcollected by $6.9 million.

Sales tax collections were $7.8 million more than the estimate. Adjusted for the rate change and the single article cap, the growth in sales tax collections was 0.35% for the month. For August through December, the adjusted growth is 1.55%. Franchise and excise taxes combined were $98.4 million for the month. Collections were $23.6 million more than the budgeted estimate and included nearly $10.5 million from a settlement. Some firms may have made their January quarterly payment early. The December collections must be combined with January revenue to assess these taxes. For five months revenues are $2.8 million overcollected.

Gasoline taxes and motor vehicle registrations in December were $7 million more than the budgeted estimate of $76.4 million.

Year-to-date collections for five months are $6 million more than the budgeted estimate. The general fund has an undercollection of $15.2 million and the four other funds are overcollected by $21.2 million.

The budgeted revenue estimates are based upon the State Funding Board?s consensus recommendation adopted by the second session of the 102nd General Assembly in June of this year.

I predicted as much a month ago in this post, in which I said the following:

You read it here first - strong December holiday shopping, combined with the one-cent sales tax rate increase, will provide the state a huge revenue windfall that will erase most if not all of the revenue shortfall

Editor's note: the above was posted at 11:14 a.m., a mere 14 minutes after the press released reach my email in-box, beating the state's major newspapers - who, no doubt, are trying to figure out how to spin the above good news in the worst possible light. Perhaps they'll focus on the sales tax and complain that it isn't growing as fast as the administration had hoped. And maybe they'll whine about how the $963 million tax increase is going to bring in a little less than that. Ignore them. The state is not facing a significant budget shortfall. It merely faces a runaway TennCare program and a court order to equalize teacher pay.)

January 9, 2003

Bias Watch: Source Not ID'd as Liberal

It would have helped readers if the Nashville City Paper reporter Joe White had bothered to mention that the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy is a liberal think tank in this swallow-and-spew-the-spin story on the "fairness" of Tennessee's tax structure. The ITEP believes no tax system is fair unless it taxes dollars earned by certain groups of people at higher rates than dollars earned by other groups of people. However, an alternate view of fairness is that every dollar should be taxed at the same rate.

By failing to mention the ITEP's liberal viewpoint, White presents the study as a credible and unbiased or neutral report rather than what it really is - propaganda in favor of a graduated income tax. He compound the error by using as his only local source of comment the equally biased "Tennesseans for Fair Taxation," and describing the group - which favors a liberal economic agenda - as merely "advocates for the poor."

Well, I'm an advocate for the poor. I advocate NOT imposing a graduated income tax on them (or anyone else) because such a tax punishes those who work hard to earn more by taking an increasing percentage of the their money, and punishes the poor especially hard as cost-of-living wages shove them into higher tax brackets even though their purchasing power remains stagnant, resulting in them paying higher tax bills and having less money to put food on the table. It also harms the economy, which hurts all people including the poor.

ITEP, incidentally, is funded by some of the most liberal foundations and organizations in America, including the Ben and Jerry Foundation, the National Education Association, the Open Society Institute, the Schumann Foundation (an anti-capitalist organization led by PBS commentator Bill Moyers), the Streisand Foundation, and Working Assets Funding Services.

Reporter White could have found all of that within 10 minutes using Google. I did. Because I want readers to know the whole truth.

January 8, 2003

Bubba Likes Taxpayers Rights

South Knox Bubba says he didn't favor a state income tax, and has lots of nice things to say about my recent Memphis Commercial-Appeal column advocating a Taxpayers Bill of Rights be part of any Tennessee tax reform plan.

In the article, [Hobbs] also suggests that instituting a 4% flat income tax, eliminating the Hall Tax on "unearned income" (which actually taxes earned income in some cases, like mine), lowering franchise and excise tax, eliminating inheritance taxes, and lowering the sales tax would generate more state revenues and make Tennessee a business Mecca. Now, the idea of an income tax in any form is about the last thing I would expect from Bill Hobbs, nor would I have expected to find myself agreeing with such an idea. But this is a simple, straightforward proposal that would work, and the only fair way to impose an income tax. The only problem with this idea is that the extreme left liberals will want a graduated tax so the wealthy pay more and they pay less. Hey, any good tax plan has to have a little wealth redistribution, right?

And there would have to be a constitutional amendment to allow it. Bill's idea of attaching a Taxpayers Bill of Rights to any such income tax amendment would be an outstanding way to protect taxpayers of Tennessee from money drunk politicians. A Taxpayer Bill of Rights also addresses one of the problems at the core of the budget debates in Tennessee - mistrust of our elected officials due to their history of wasteful spending and misrepresentations about the budget. Getting back to Dave Goetz, it is interesting that this is one of the main points in his Tennessee Prosperity Project agenda on taxes. In fact, their agenda on taxes very closely resembles Bill's Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

So maybe it's time to push for what seems like a pretty good idea. We have a new Commissioner of Finance and Administration who seems to agree with the principles of a Taxpayers Bill of Rights, and a Governor who ran on exactly these types of promises to get himself elected.

UPDATE: Bubba says the Tennessee Prosperity Project's agenda on taxation including items similar to the Taxpayers Bill of Rights I've been pushing. So I checked the TPP's "Road Map to Prosperity," basically a political wish list, and sure enough, it has some provisions that are similar in basic concept to the Taxpayers Bill of Rights.

The TPP would like to see tax reform that would "cap spending growth in state funds at the growth in the state’s economy and not allow simple legislative override, but instead require either reserving or rebating funds above that rate, and also "require stability and consistency in tax policy, prohibiting retroactive taxation," and "measure the proportion of total citizens’ income that the state may collect, with a suggested maximum of 6 percent."

TABOR, as I've outlined it, would limit the state to annual revenue growth equal to inflation plus population growth, and mandate surplus revenue be rebated to taxpayers. Colorado allows for that rebate via rate cuts or direct payments. I would prefer an automatic across-the-board rate cut. Colorado's TABOR also controls the growth of spending by requiring the legislature to go to the people and ask permission in a referendum in order to spend surplus funds on a specific list of projects and programs, rather than rebate the surplus. And the legislature must get permission from voters in order to raise taxes. Colorado's TABOR does allow for a sensible state reserve fund.

What's worth noting here is that there is room for common ground on tax reform. I'm a Republican, Bubba's a Democrat, but we both agree that a TABOR-ized tax system would be better than the runaway tax-and-spend system we have now, in which there are no effective controls on the growth of either taxes or spending. And we will soon have a governor committed to better fiscal management, and an F&A commissioner who supports an agenda similar to TABOR.

January 6, 2003

Bias on the Tax Study Commission

A reader wrote to say that Gary Poe, the Eastman Chemical exec just appointed to Tennessee's new "Tax Study Commission," may be bringing a pro-income tax bias to that supposedly "independent" commission that is supposed to take a clean-sheet look at Tennessee's tax structure. The reader, whose name I'm not revealing because his email address indicates he works for Poe, says Poe "wrote an op-ed in the Kingsport Times-News about one year ago advocating an income tax."

I searched the Kingsport Times-News website for that op-ed, but couldn't find it. However, it isn't clear if the paper posts all of its guest commentaries online. The paper does not post all of its content in general on the site. I emailed Times-News reporter Hank Hayes, asking if he recalled such an op-ed. Here is Hayes' emailed response:

I just did an archive search of our web site and couldn't find anything. If you know of an exact date, I'll try again. Or you can try your own archive search of our web site. It wouldn't surprise me if Eastman, Mr. Poe's employer, was pro-income tax. The Kingsport chamber endorsed the income tax last year.

Incidentally, Hayes' story about Poe's appointment quotes Poe as critical of inaction in the past on implementing the recommendations of prior tax study commissions. Those commissions all recommended an income tax.

I think you can mark Poe down as a biased pro-income tax member of the commission but it would help to find a copy of that op-ed. If you live near Kingsport and can find a copy of it in a library, please contact me. I'd like to get a copy and scan it in and post it on the web so that Tennesseans know Poe's bias and can evaluate his work and the work of the commission accordingly. My email address is listed in the "about this site" section on the right-side column.

Other income tax supporters on the commission include former state education commissioner Nelson Andrews, who will chair the commission; former state Sen. Robert Rochelle, who sponsored an income tax bill in the last General Assembly; James Neeley, chairman of the state AFL-CIO, which supports the income tax; and Julius Johnson, president of the Tennessee Farm Bureau, another organization that endorsed the income tax.

As for Andrews, this story notes he was a supporter of Gov. Ned McWherter's push for an income tax. It also notes that Gov. Sundquist's spokeswoman says the governor picked commission members based on their agreement with his general political philosophy on tax reform. That is to say, they support an income tax. Thus the deck is stacked.

There is at least one glimmer of hope: Joe Huddleston, a former commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue, has testified in the past that Tennessee's current tax structure is not the state's primary problem when it comes to revenues. According to this 1999 report from the now-defunct Tennessee Institute for Public Policy:

Joe Huddleston, former Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Revenue, stated in testimony before the legislature earlier this year that the primary tax problem in Tennessee is not its tax structure, but the myriad of sales tax exemptions granted to politically powerful companies and industries. There are currently over 200 state sales tax exemptions that resulted in $3.345 billion in reduced state and local tax revenue ($2.575 billion/state; $770 million/local) during FY 1998, according to the Department of Finance and Administration.

It's not clear whether Huddleston also supports an income tax, but at least it appears he doesn't think passing one is the first priority.

January 4, 2003

New Income Tax Task Force Starts Badly

The new "Independent Tax Structure Study Commission" that is ostensibly supposed to be neutral as it "studies" Tennessee's tax xstructure and makes recommendations for "reform" is anything but neutral. It's very mission - tax reform - and the fact that 10 of its 15 members are appointed by outspoken supporters of the income tax indicate the results of its work are predetermined.

So it is good news that the committee is starting off under a cloud, under fire for failing to adequately represent women and minorities. In fact, of the first 14 appointees named, all 14 are white men. Gov. Don Sundquist appointed five white men, including Nelson Andrews, an income tax supporter, as chairman of the committee, and former state Sen. Robert Rochelle, the Senate's leading proponent of the state income. Rochelle resigned his 2002 senate campaign after polls showed him losing badly to an anti-income tax legislator, Mae Beavers, who eventually won the seat. Lt. Gov. John Wilder appointed five white men At least one of them, Tennessee AFL-CIO head Jim Neeley, is an income tax supporter.

If you have documented proof of the pro- or anti-income tax leanings of the remaining members of the tax panel appointed by Sunquist, Wilder or Naifeh, please send that information here. My email address is listed in the right-hand column. The more members "outed" as pro-income tax, the less credible the commission's final report will be to the general public.

I've posted more commentary on the tax study commission at PolState.com, including why I think the July 1, 2004, deadline for the commission to issue its report is good timing for opponents of the income tax.

January 3, 2003

North Korea Can't Win

North Korea Can't Win
Donald Sensing explains why North Korea can wreak devastation on South Korea but would ultimately lose a second Korean War. It has something to do with the Battle of Omdurman in Sudan, 1898.

The North can invade the South, but it cannot win. The ensuing war would be disastrous for the South in terms of human loss, also for the North unless the war ended with the South's suzerainty over the North. But even so, the North Korean people would suffer very greatly until then. The problem, though, is not that the North could win such a war. It is that its isolated, self-justifying oligarchy might think it can win. And with its impending development of atomic weapons, it may think that all the more.

January 2, 2003

This Story Is More Important Than You Might Think

A tiny nation you never heard of (unless you read this last October) has lost its one-boat navy. Nigeria appears to have swiped it.

Why is that important? Because the tiny two-island nation of Sao Tome and Principe, off the coast of Nigeria, sits atop massive oil reserves. And is pro-American. And Nigeria - increasingly falling under the sway of Islamofascists - covets that oil and increasingly seeks to intimidate Sao Tome.

Says today's WSJ:

Everything that happens in the former Portuguese colony has taken on a new weight since the world discovered that below Sao Tome's waters lie an estimated four billion barrels of crude oil. That's one reason the Bush administration suddenly views Sao Tome as a new strategic ally far from the turbulent Middle East. Sao Tome fears that by holding hostage its Coast Guard, Nigeria is trying to intimidate it to gain leverage over the potential wealth lying beneath their shared frontier in the Gulf of Guinea. At the moment, the two countries are supposed to jointly develop the oil in those waters, subject to a 2001 treaty.

For more on Sao Tome and why the Bush administration was reported to be considering helping the little nation out by establishing a friendly U.S. military presence there, click here.

Also, this BBC article from October reports that there are no U.S. plans for a full-scale military base on the tiny island, but that "the US was looking at providing Sao Tome with patrol boats to improve its maritime and customs controls, and would be expanding co-operation in other areas. Even if a military base is now discounted, there is no doubt that the US is increasingly interested in the 60 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in the Gulf of Guinea."

To put that in perspective, Saudi Arabia has about 250 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.

Given the role of Islam-The Religion of Peace? in both terrorism and many of the largest oil-producing nations, you may be wondering about the religious make-up of Sao Tome. Me too. So I looked it up. Turns out the little nation of 140,000 people is largely Roman Catholic. And Sao Tome's constitution provides for freedom of religion. Here's a link to some more information about that.

Oh, and Sao Tome is a democracy, and a stable one at that.

Here?s a quote from the Oct. 7, 2002, New Yorker magazine cover story ( a must-read, not available online), quoting an unnamed State Department official about Sao Tome's oil:"We import fifty per cent of our oil. Supplier number one is Canada, two is Saudi Arabia, three is Venezuela, four is Mexico, and five is Nigeria. Folks have finally figured out that we don't need to rely on the Middle East for oil. African oil is less sticky than the stuff you get in the Middle East, and much of it is in deep water far offshore, so the natives don't notice it being taken, whereas in the Middle East it's pumped out of the ground under the noses of Wahhabi fundamentalists. Then you have Sao Tome, which is basically the only stable democracy in West Africa. It's perfect.UPDATE (1/4/03): Here's more info on that tiny African island nation of Sao Tome and the possibility that the U.S. might establish a military presence in the pro-American, oil-rich country. It's from early December but, hey, I've been busy.

Sao Tome and Principe's President Fradique de Menezes, is quoted in a recent article in The East African, published in Kenya as saying his country has reached agreement with the US for the construction of a naval base that will be able to accommodate aircraft carriers. Washington has denied that it wants to build a Sao Tome base, though it is hinting at "coastal patrol issues". Signs are that in the short term the US administration may want to play down the role of west Africa as a source of oil that would replace Mideast producers.