 | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« TN 2006 Senate Race: Who Will Blog First? | Main | Another Podcasting Post » February 23, 2005Corked BatChattanooga Mayor Bob Corker, who is running for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee, is under fire for a comment he made recently at the Williamson County Republican Party's Presidents Day dinner. Corker said, "To be honest, I think the last thing the United State Senate needs is another lawyer," an obvious swipe at rival candidate Ed Bryant and likely rival candidate Van Hilleary, two lawyers and former congressmen. Knoxville News Sentinel blogger Michael Silence posted the full text of Bryant's press release in response. Excerpt: Chattanooga Mayor Bob Corker has attacked former Congressman Ed Bryant for being an attorney, despite the fact that records reveal the former state finance commissioner under Gov. Don Sundquist has taken at least $100,684 from lawyers to fund his U.S. Senate campaign. Corker leveled his attack at the Williamson County Republican Party's Presidents Day Dinner saying, "To be honest, I think the last thing the United State Senate needs is another lawyer."The rest of the press release details Bryant's legal resume, which is impressive in the extreme. A University of Mississippi law school graduate, Bryant was an Army JAG lawyer. During his six years in military service, he taught constitutional and military law to cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York. Personally, I think it would be advantageous at a time of war to have a former military attorney with expertise in constitutional and military law in the U.S. Senate. Corker thinks otherwise. And his staffers are being rude about it, according to one of my commenters in response to a previous post regarding the 2006 Senate race: Add rude campaign staff to the strikes against Bob Corker. I called, introduced myself, and asked about Corker's "the laast thing we need in the Senaate is anahther lawhlyer" cut at the other Republican candidates at the Williamson County President's Day dinner, and I was bombarded with inquiries of "Who are you? Where do you go to school? Who are you working for - Bryant?" etc etc.Corker was a wealthy real estate developer before trying to buy his way into the U.S. Senate in 1994 when he got the endorsement of every major Tennessee newspaper for the GOP nomination, but lost the primary to eventual general election winner Bill Frist. After he lost that race, Corker was appointed by then-Gov. Don Sundquist to serve as his Commissioner of Finance and Administration. According to Corker's bio, he "was widely acclaimed for his ability to bring together people from both sides of the aisle to solve problems." But what Corker really did was help Sundquist plant the seeds of the over-spending crisis that brought the Tennessee legislature to the brink of passing an unconstitutional and unpopular income tax. Posted in 2006 TN Senate Race
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
Well, if there ever were a post to also encourage a "moderate" like Corker to get a blog too, I suppose it would be this post - so I guess ultimately you're advocating the same thing I am, that everyone have a blog, including Corker, Ford, and Kurita. Posted by: Adam at February 23, 2005 03:47 PMYou can call Corker's campaign for explanations...hopefully they'll at least give you the time of day and be civil about it! Bob Corker for Senate at (423) 756-1994 And don't let them evade the issue!!! I am no fan of liberals, or moderates either for that matter, but I fail to see how taking money from lawyers constitutes hypocrisy for Corker's remark. Because he is not a lawyer, he should not accept money from lawyers? Or because he is not a lawyer, lawyers should not be contributing to his campaign? Or can criticism never be leveled at any profession because someone from that profession may have contributed to one's campaign? This is just silly; Bryant's criticism is completely meaningless and amounts to "gotcha" grandstanding. This is the kind of mindless game-playing that I hate. I, for one, agree that lawyers are part of the problem more often than not - and I dare say there are a few lawyers who would agree with that assessment. I'm glad you included the fact that Corker supported an income tax proposal. I was not following TN politics during Sundquist's term (having just moved back from AL a few years ago), and I was not aware of that. Of course, your claim that an income tax is unconstitutional is unfounded. You may be right that it is unpopular, but that may be because the word hasn't gotten around that four out of five Tennesseans will pay less under an income tax plan like the one proposed by the TN Tax Commission. I think that when people realize that the regressive tax structure currently employed in Tennessee leaves the working people footing more than their share in order to give a break to the wealthy elite, a more progressive plan will become more popular. Posted by: smijer at February 24, 2005 09:48 PMsmijer, you should have searched my site before you posted that - you would have known that the TFT article you linked to has already been exposed as a lie. Here's the link: http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/004950.html In that long, detailed and sourced post I explain patiently when TFT lied when it declared that "There is NO language in the Tennessee State Constitution that prohibits an income tax!!!" There is, in fact, very specific language that does exactly that. Here is part of what I wrote back on Dec. 15, smijer, which you could have found easily by searching this site for past references to TFT, or to the unconstitutionality of the income tax in Tennessee, or merely by clicking my "Tennessee Budget and Tax Policy" archive and scrolling down a bit. From the Dec. 15 post: TFT focuses solely on one section of the constitution - Article II, Sec. 28 - which says "The legislature shall have power to levy a tax upon income derived from stocks and bonds that are not taxed ad valorem," and says - correctly - that it does not specifically prohibit a state income tax. But TFT either hasn't read the whole constitution or has chosen to deliberately ignore Article 11, Section 9, of the state constitution, which 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.The implication is clear - if it is not on the list of things the legislature is authorized to tax, then the legislature "is "not authorized" to tax it. In other words, the legislature may not impose an income tax - nor pass legislation enabling municipalities to do so. TFT is lying by asserting there is no language in the Tennessee constitution that forbids an income tax. Article 11, Section 9 clearly does. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at February 25, 2005 05:53 AMLOL.... I hope you'll forgive me for not considering your blog the final authority on the TN Constitution, and therefore neglecting to search it before I referred you to the TFT article. Now, I understand the argument that the past SC decisions carry the force of law unless and until those decisions are overturned by later SC decisions. That's fine... I, personally, think that the SC will overturn the 1964 & 1932 decisions that declared an income tax unconstitutional. HOWEVER, what decision the SC makes has no impact on what language is actually to be found in the Constitution! TFT is right, and you are wrong (although I won't be a jerk and call you a "liar" for being wrong): there is not language prohibiting a state level income tax... the thing we are discussing. You rightly point out the language barring municiple government from instituting income taxes, but you wrongly apply it to the state government. Please read again Article XI Sec. 9: 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. That said, the people who are actually paying attention to what the constitution says about the state government and whos say that an income tax is unconstitutional are relying entirely on argument that what is not specifically permitted must therefore be forbidden. I agree with TFT, and the attornies general that they mention. If it is true as they suggest that the SC would rule an income tax constitutional at this point in time, then I agree with the 21st century SC on that matter, over the 1932 SC. And besides, I don't think that the poor and working classes should be made to foot the bill for the wealthy elite in any case. If the framers of the TN Constitution, intentionally or unintentionally, outlawed a fair system of taxation, then we need to get to work on rectifying that situation. If not, we owe it to ourselves to create a system for generating revenue that isn't as horribly inefficient and unfair as the sales-tax-only model. Posted by: smijer at February 25, 2005 06:42 AMIn my last paragraph, when I said we should rectify the situation, I meant that if the SC continues to rule an income tax unconstitutional, we should be all about amending the constitution. The constitution is supposed to be a document that permits good government and limits the power of government to overturn civil liberties. It shouldn't be used as a shield for the very few people who profit from a regressive, sales-based tax structure to avoid a more fair and efficient tax structure that might force them to occasionally by regular toilet paper instead of gold leaf.... Posted by: smijer at February 25, 2005 06:49 AMSmijer, just curious, but how do income tax proponents believe the rest of us would be better off? What methodology is used? You miss the most important issue, in my opinion. Trust. The citizens of this state do not trust the legislators or executive branch not to raise both the sales tax or your precious income tax when they spend themselves into another fiscal black hole. Posted by: Drake at February 25, 2005 09:02 AMDrake, the rest of us spend a much higher percentage of our income on necessary commodities that are taxable under the sales and usage tax system. Therefore, we pay a much higher percentage of our income in taxes under that system. That's where the money comes out of our front pocket. It also comes out of our back pocket when people go out of state to make purchases. Our cigar-shaped state givees us exposure on all sides to states that have much lower sales-taxes than we do. Therefore, people living near the state line take their business to those other states, costing our economy money, and also making it necessary to charge even higher (!) tax rates on sales and consumption in order to make up for the tax revenue lost to those other states. The current tax scheme is a lose-lose situation for Tennesseans. Smijer, you miss the point entirely about Article XI, Section 9, which says 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.The point is that the constitution says in that sentence that municipalities may not levy taxes that the General Assembly is not authorized - by Article 2, Sec. 28 and 29 - to levy. And what are the taxes that 2-28 and 2-29 do NOT authorize the GA to levy? 11-9 tells you that they are taxes on "incomes, estates, or inheritances..." The point is that 11-9 says that 2-28 and 2-29 are to be read as meaning that what is not specifically permitted is therefore prohibited. I'll summarize for you: Article 2, Sections 28-29 list the taxes that the GA can levy statewide. Article 11, Section 9 says that the GA may not allow municipalities to levy other taxes not listed in 2-28 and 2-29 BECAUSE THE GA ITSELF IS NOT PERMITTED TO LEVY THEM. Translation: Municipalities may not levy any kind of tax that the GA is not allowed to levy. And the constution spells out some examples of those taxes that NEITHER government body may levy. One of those examples is the INCOME TAX. I should add that I asked Attorney General Paul Summers about this over two years ago, and asked how an income tax could be constitutional given Article 11, Section 9. I asked him in person, during a break in the Teddy Bart's Roundtable radio show on which we both were guests that day. He had no answer. In fact, Summers seemed genuinely surprised that Article 11, Section 9 existed and said what it said. I offered to publish verbatim whatever explanation or response he could come up with. That was TWO years ago and he has come up with nothing yet. Neither has TFT. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at February 25, 2005 09:35 AMSmijer, what can be more fair than a tax everyone pays at the same rate? I can understand you and I probably differ on the definition of fair, but I don't much care for a bunch of malcontents wanting to change the established rules because they don't think life has treated them right. I am aware of how much border space we have, and how it drives (supposedly)folks across the border to make purchases. The reverse side is those 8 states we border at some point will send tourists through which will pay our sales tax. It's a two edged sword. And I still don't see the methodology used to see how I would pay less with a temporarily lowered sales tax. I make 40k a year...not rich. I would prefer to have more money in my check and then CHOOSE myself what I spend money on. For TFT or anyone else to say that 4 out of 5 would pay less is hubris and shoddy math based upon their assumptions. As far as the future and folks wanting to one day invest in all this government fluff, we obviously disagree... and it comes back to trust. Until that issue is settled, I doubt very seriously we will be willing to support another big program. Hence all the skepticism about this pre-school program. If I read your posts correctly, you mention you were in Alabama recently? I recall Alabama had a budget crisis in the last few years that also turned nasty. Alabama has an income tax does it not? The income tax will not solve problems when the folks spending it are addicted to OPM-other people's money. Posted by: Drake at February 25, 2005 10:27 AMHeya Drake.. just a couple of points: I, personally, make about what you make. That's enough that I can live fairly comfortably while still paying more than my fair share of taxes. And I hope to one day be among the wealthy elite... so long run I'm not really asking to straighten out the system on my own account. There are people with young kids who have to struggle, work extra jobs, skimp on the necessities, and live in constant fear that the slightest budgetary emergency will send them into financial ruin. They would be a whole lot better off if the money spent on a round of golf was taxed at (at least) the same rate as money spent on a gallon of milk. If you want to quibble over the math that TFT uses, then go read up on it and tell me which of their "assumptions" is wrong, and what the actual figures are. It remains a no-brainer that the majority of working class people are paying more under the regressive tax structure than they would be under a combination of income tax with lowered sales taxes that generated equal revenue - for the two obvious reasons... 1) most of us have to live on groceries, clothing, and gas; and 2) we send Tennessee income to Georgia's tax coffers instead of collecting those taxes in state. One could expect that a third reason exists as well - when Tennesseans (and crossovers from MS, GA, KY, AR, SC & NC) are keeping their business in Tennessee, our economy will grow as a result. A rising tide tends to float all boats. So, whether it's 4 out of 5 who will pay less under a fair and efficient system or its only 3 out of 5 who will pay less under that system, the point remains. Posted by: smijer at February 25, 2005 12:15 PMBill, let's do a little logic exercise... Think hard -- are you now forbidden to buy cashews with cash? No. You aren't specifically authorized to do so, and you are certainly forbidden from buying them with credit. But the instructions simply do not say whether you can buy cashews with cash. It isn't that hard. It's the same thing here. The municipalities are forbidden to tax those items which the state is merely not specifically authorized to tax. You can see from the language that the intent was to clearly forbid a class of taxation to the municipalities. There is no similar language with a clear intent to forbid a class of taxation to the state. You are reading your anti-income tax prejudice into it. I'm sorry that your AG friend didn't have a ready answer for you, and that he didn't feel it was necessary to give you a personal follow up. You know, I've had bad days myself... If you and I had this discussion yesterday, I might have been confused by the language you presented from the Constitution and not been able to give you an answer. And, even if I figured it out thirty minutes later, I wouldn't necessarily feel that it was worth me calling you up to give you what answers I did come up with. You can't just assume that is what I would do. Anyway - there is a larger point. A state constitution really should not be left unamended if it does, in fact, require the horrible system of revenue collection Tennesseans are faced with. There is no reason that people should have to struggle to pay taxes on milk and eggs, while money spent on golf lessons or luxuries purchased out of state is not taxed at all. That's indefensible. If our constitution really requires that, then there should be a referendum on the next ballot to change it. Posted by: smijer at February 25, 2005 12:29 PMForgive my "logic exercise" in the preceding comment. What I should have done was merely point out that you look for the rules about state taxes in the articles that refer to state taxes, and you look for the rules about municipal taxes in the rules for municipal taxes. A more fitting analogy: I give my son instructions on how he can play inside. Later on, I give him instructions on how he can play outside, and I use some of my inside rules as examples for part of his outside rules. He may try to find a loophole about his inside rules by throwing back in my face something I said tangentially about them when giving my outside rules. Tough - he's old enough to know that he cannot find exceptions to my inside rules by parsing my language from a discussion intended solely to convey his outside limits. Hope that is a better example... Posted by: smijer at February 25, 2005 12:57 PMNo, Smijer, your examples suck. Big time. The very clear language of Article 11-9 states that if the legislature is not allowed to levy a specific tax, neither are the municipalities - and then it spells out that Article 2, Sec. 28-29 affirmatively authorizes only a specific list of taxes, and any tax not listed in 2:28-29 is "not authorized" for the legislature or municipal governments to levy. Period. I can't make it any clearer, Smijer. You'll have to stop thinking through your pro-IT filter and be honest with the text. Summers not only didn't provide a response 2 years ago, he also refused to respond to a detail email stating the same facts and questions sent to him last year. Why? I suspect it's because he can't answer it other than to admit that 11:9 of the constution does mean an IT is prohibited. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at February 25, 2005 04:04 PMWell, let me clean up your paragraph and make it accurate, then we'll just leave the interpretation to the courts and others... The very clear language of Article 11-9 states that if the legislature is not specifically authorized by article 2-28&29 to levy a specific tax, then the municipalities are forbidden from doing it - and then it spells out that Article 2, Sec. 28-29 affirmatively authorizes only a specific list of taxes, and any tax not listed in 2:28-29 is "not authorized" for the municipal governments to levy. Now that we have an accurate summary of what the two articles say, and a bonus link to the document itself for skeptics, I will be content to let other readers employ their own faculties of reason about what it means. Insisting that you are wrong and I am right is just as fruitless as you doing the same with me. I'm happy enough to let my interpretation stand on its own merits and yours do the same. I still think it is quite inappropriate to call someone a liar for interpreting it my way. I also think that the far more important issue is to see that Tennessee stop screwing its citizens with a broken and unfair tax code. So, maybe, if the courts agree with your interpretation, then concerned citizens will raise a referendum to amend the TN Constitution and make it into a document that empowers people instead of robbing them. Posted by: smijer at February 25, 2005 06:38 PMThe integrity of the constitutional system is and must be paramount, even if the result is a regressive and unfair tax code. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at February 25, 2005 09:17 PMI assume you mean that, given the belief that an income tax is unconstitutional, income tax advocates should push for an amendment to the constitution? You aren't saying that a broken constitution shouldn't be fixed, are you? Posted by: smijer at February 25, 2005 09:47 PMCertainly, if an IT is unconstitutional (and it is! just look at the three unanimous supreme court decisions! just look at the text of the constitution!), those who advocate creation of an IT should do so via the amendment process. But the constitution is not "broken" because it bars a certain type of tax. The constitution represents the will of the people and their view of the rights, powers and LIMITATIONS of their government. If an IT amendment were proposed and on the ballot, and it was passed, that would be acceptable to me. I am a constitutionalist and if an IT is created through constitutional means, it is ok. If the IT amendment was put on the ballot and FAILED, it would NOT mean the constitution was, as you say, "broken." It would mean the people decided to keep the constitution the way it was, your views of the fairness or unfairness of the tax code notwithstanding. Fairness, at any rate, is a subjective matter. You think a progressive tax paid mostly by the wealthy is fair. I think a flat tax that everyone pays is fair - especially gven that even with a flat tax the rich will pay more (much more!) than the poor do in taxes. A sales tax with NO deductions for anything would be a fairer tax than a progressive income tax. Posted by: Bill Hobbs at February 25, 2005 09:57 PM(and it is! just look at the three unanimous supreme court decisions! just look at the text of the constitution!) At this point, I will resist the temptation to say "no it isn't!" and to repeat the same arguments I've already articulated... :-) But the constitution is not "broken" because it bars a certain type of tax. The constitution represents the will of the people and their view of the rights, powers and LIMITATIONS of their government. I feel like a Constitution should do all of these things in a way that allows good governance. I'm not sure that the Constitution is the right document to represent the "will of the people", per se. It should have protections for individuals that may actually be unpopular with a simple majority (thinking civil rights here). But that's a very difficult and complex discussion, and maybe this isn't the place to have it. Anyway, a Constitution that forces the state to run the most unfair and inefficient tax system imaginable is not providing government the tools or limitations to do its job right. Call that "broken" or not - people should come together to "fix" it. As to the actual fairness of a regressive tax, or one made to appear "flat", or one that is, in fact, "flat", I'll address that in a post at my home board, and just drop a link in the comments below, since the original discussion is kind of beyond debate now. Posted by: smijer at February 26, 2005 07:34 AMHere's the link. Why a *real* flat tax would beat what we are currently stuck with by miles, and why a progressive tax would be the fairest of all. Posted by: smijer at February 28, 2005 06:16 PMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||
