Wednesday, June 5, 2013
I'm Back. What has happened to our country?
I'm back. I see I've been a way for a long while. If anyone has actually looked at my blog, they probably wonder where I've been. Hey, I've just been living life. No I'm not some white guy living in his mother's basement posting blogs in his underwear. I'm an every working kind of guy with responsibilities that don't allow me to be here much anymore. Besides that, I decided to take a break and just pay attention to what is going on in the country.
Now I think it's time to update my blog on what has happened. I have to say I was greatly disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision to uphold ObamaCare as a tax. I read the law, and I commented about it here, that it is not a tax. The law did not define the penalty as a tax. It clearly said penalty. The SCOTUS decided that even though it said penalty, that because it is collected by the IRS through our tax returns that is essentially a tax and not a penalty. In my opinion the SCOTUS changed the law. I thought only Congress could change law. It seems the SCOTUS has now given itself that authority too.
When I last wrote on this blog, we still had Freedom in this country. The SCOTUS killed freedom with it's decision. Now the Federal Government can tell us that not only do we have to have health insurance, but also the minimum amount of insurance we have to have, and what that insurance will cover. And we get to send this information to the IRS. The government entity that now has to answer questions before Congress about it's attempted suppresion of conservative non-profit organizations. It is suppresion in my opinion, because when you purposely hold up the non-profit status of conservative groups that oppose the agenda of the President, then you are attempting to suppress them and keep them from getting their message out.
Add to that, the Justice Department has obtained the phone records of AP journalists, and Eric Holder signed off on a warrant request to get phone and email records of Fox News reporter James Rosen, going so far as to call him a "co-conspirator" with respect to espionage.
And the iciing on the cake today was hearing that President Obama is making Susan Rice the National Security Advisor. I feel safer already. (sarcasm) People have questions about what happened in Bhengazi. I can tell you what happened based on the news reports. A pre-planned terrorist attack was launched on the U.S. Embassy in Bhengazi. Calls for help reached the Secretary of State and in turn the President of the United States, and no help was sent. The Secretary of State and the President of the United States did nothing to save an Ambassador of the United States, and three others. I don't know what help could have been sent. I've heard and read comments from people who supposedly know, but I can't say they are right or wrong. At the very least a special forces team could have been dispatched to secure the Embassy. I think it would have been a better option than doing nothing. And now, the President is making the person they sent out to the Sunday shows and lied about what happened, the National Security Advisor. I think the Administration believes that we should accept as true anything they say. 1984 is upon us.
That all I have for now. I intend to return more often, and just give my thoughts as the moment grabs me. There is much to discuss, and I hope to give my own spin to it, if I can.
Extremus
P.S. - Restore Freedom, Repeal ObamaCare.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Republicans Take Control of the House of Representatives in an Historic Election
It’s been awhile since I’ve posted. I just haven’t seen anything in the last several months that made me feel like writing, but the win on November 2 by the Republicans has given me something to comment about. In an historic election Republicans took control of the House by gaining an astounding 60 seats. As a result, Republicans now control the agenda in Congress.
In January, Republicans must run hard at the issues and undo the destructive policies of the Democrats. Republicans must repeal Obamacare, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They must kill Cap and Tax, and must address the problems with the Finance Reform bill that was passed. They must address the size and scope of the Federal Government, and they must put an end to earmarks.
There must be no compromise in the first year. Republicans must draw the line on the issues and make the Senate and the White House take a stand. It is a concern of mine that some Republicans will be too eager to run to the compromise table. This is a mistake. By doing so we are surrendering our positions and ignoring the will of the American People. We must first fight hard and make everyone reveal where they stand on the issues, and only after can we even begin to think about compromise. But we must not give in on any of our positions until they give in on theirs, and maybe not even then.
Now in this election, it is the first time the House has flipped and the Senate has not. Don’t be concerned. There were fewer Democrat seats up than Republicans. There were only 16 Democrat seats to 18 Republicans, and the Republicans took 6 seats from the Democrats. In 2012 the Democrats will have 21 seats to the Republican’s 10. There are also two Independent seats. That is a lot of seats for the Democrats to defend in a Presidential election. The class in 2012 is the same class that gave the Democrats control of the Senate in 2006. Republicans could gain control of the Senate in 2012 and they should.
The Republicans over the next two years must hold to conservative principles of fiscal discipline, low taxes, and economic growth. I’ve had discussions with friends that the reason Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate in 2006 was because they strayed from conservative principles and lost their way. I explained that conservatives lost faith in Republicans because they were acting more like Democrats, compromising on principle and acting against the will of the American people. I’ve explained that when Republicans campaign on conservative principles and hold to traditional values, they win. Tuesday’s election is proof of that opinion. If Republican’s don’t hold to conservative principles and do as I’ve suggested above, then they will not hold onto the majority in 2012.
Extremus
In January, Republicans must run hard at the issues and undo the destructive policies of the Democrats. Republicans must repeal Obamacare, make the Bush tax cuts permanent, and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They must kill Cap and Tax, and must address the problems with the Finance Reform bill that was passed. They must address the size and scope of the Federal Government, and they must put an end to earmarks.
There must be no compromise in the first year. Republicans must draw the line on the issues and make the Senate and the White House take a stand. It is a concern of mine that some Republicans will be too eager to run to the compromise table. This is a mistake. By doing so we are surrendering our positions and ignoring the will of the American People. We must first fight hard and make everyone reveal where they stand on the issues, and only after can we even begin to think about compromise. But we must not give in on any of our positions until they give in on theirs, and maybe not even then.
Now in this election, it is the first time the House has flipped and the Senate has not. Don’t be concerned. There were fewer Democrat seats up than Republicans. There were only 16 Democrat seats to 18 Republicans, and the Republicans took 6 seats from the Democrats. In 2012 the Democrats will have 21 seats to the Republican’s 10. There are also two Independent seats. That is a lot of seats for the Democrats to defend in a Presidential election. The class in 2012 is the same class that gave the Democrats control of the Senate in 2006. Republicans could gain control of the Senate in 2012 and they should.
The Republicans over the next two years must hold to conservative principles of fiscal discipline, low taxes, and economic growth. I’ve had discussions with friends that the reason Republicans lost control of the House and the Senate in 2006 was because they strayed from conservative principles and lost their way. I explained that conservatives lost faith in Republicans because they were acting more like Democrats, compromising on principle and acting against the will of the American people. I’ve explained that when Republicans campaign on conservative principles and hold to traditional values, they win. Tuesday’s election is proof of that opinion. If Republican’s don’t hold to conservative principles and do as I’ve suggested above, then they will not hold onto the majority in 2012.
Extremus
Friday, July 23, 2010
Gun Right Laws Do Not Increase the Probability of Violence
Recently I had the opportunity to attend a corporate event. At the event I watched a presentation by a security expert about the issues facing corporate security. The individual referenced recent changes in gun laws, particularly in Arizona, which would increase the risk of workplace violence. The two laws passed by Arizona were one which eliminated the requirement to have a permit to carry concealed, and another which allows CCW holders to lock their firearm in their vehicle at work.
What the expert failed to mention however, is that it is illegal to carry a firearm concealed anywhere a firearm is prohibited, such as a school, post office, or voting place, and also any place that posts that concealed weapons are not allowed, such as a place of business or a bar or restaurant. Also, he failed to mention that it is illegal to have a firearm locked in your car at your place of business if the business specifically prohibits it. The simple fact is, the expert was wrong.
Just because Arizona changed their law does not increase the probability of violence. If the law were not changed, the pre-existing law would not be a deterrent to a person committed to causing harm. As it is, it is against the law to murder someone. But that does not always deter criminals from committing murder. Laws do not exist solely for the purpose of preventing crime, because no law can prevent crime if someone is committed to breaking it. Laws exist so that punishment can be metered out to those who break the law. The use of a firearm to commit a crime is a felony. So why do we need laws that deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry? We don’t. We all know that it is the criminal who breaks the law and the law-abiding citizen who obeys the law. So laws that take rights away from the law-abiding citizen only harm the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to the criminal.
Extremus
What the expert failed to mention however, is that it is illegal to carry a firearm concealed anywhere a firearm is prohibited, such as a school, post office, or voting place, and also any place that posts that concealed weapons are not allowed, such as a place of business or a bar or restaurant. Also, he failed to mention that it is illegal to have a firearm locked in your car at your place of business if the business specifically prohibits it. The simple fact is, the expert was wrong.
Just because Arizona changed their law does not increase the probability of violence. If the law were not changed, the pre-existing law would not be a deterrent to a person committed to causing harm. As it is, it is against the law to murder someone. But that does not always deter criminals from committing murder. Laws do not exist solely for the purpose of preventing crime, because no law can prevent crime if someone is committed to breaking it. Laws exist so that punishment can be metered out to those who break the law. The use of a firearm to commit a crime is a felony. So why do we need laws that deny law-abiding citizens the right to carry? We don’t. We all know that it is the criminal who breaks the law and the law-abiding citizen who obeys the law. So laws that take rights away from the law-abiding citizen only harm the law-abiding citizen and do nothing to the criminal.
Extremus
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Leftist Says The Conservative Movement Is All About White People.
I was driving home from work on Wednesday June 9, 2010, and I happened to switch to a liberal talk radio station. Of course they don’t call themselves a liberal station, they call themselves a progressive station. And the person who was on said something that shocked me, though I guess I should not have been shocked. He said that the conservative movement in this country was all about white people, that it was all about creating a culture just for white people. In other words, if you are a conservative, you are a racist. Racism is at the core of the conservative movement. He was equating the racist morons in Prescott Arizona who were upset that a Hispanic child was prominently displayed on a mural, to conservatives in general. Well, I’m going to say it, if that’s what that commentator believes, then he is the racist, because all he can see is race.
I should not have been surprised by this individual’s ignorant comments. This is a ploy that the left uses. If you are white, religious, socially and economically conservative, then you are a racist, bigot, homophobe, ignorant, whatever. The left will describe you in the worst way possible. They do this because they know that good people, who believe in right from wrong, don’t want to be identified in that way, so those good people avoid taking conservative positions. Who likes being called a bigot? No one does. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated into abandoning our values because they want to call us disgraceful names and denigrate us.
The conservative movement is not racist. The conservative movement is raceless. The conservative movement doesn’t care what race you are. The conservative movement believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of income, and it believes in equality of opportunity regardless of race. Yes, the conservative movement has people in it that are ignorant racists. But do we abandon the core principles of the movement because of a few nut jobs who think the quality of a person is defined by the color of their skin? Of course not. The liberal movement has people in it who are socialists. Does that mean the liberal movement is socialist, that all liberals are socialists. No. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. But the left will label all conservatives, and the whole conservative movement as racist.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Limited government knows no race. Lower taxes knows no race. Liberty knows no race. So where is the racism? If there are conservatives who espouse racist views, they are not espousing conservative views, because conservative views do not look at race. As a conservative I want economic opportunity, freedom, and liberty for all people, not just white people. I want the black community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want the Hispanic community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want all people to enjoy those things, and there is nothing racist about that. So the next time you hear a liberal radio host say the conservative movement is racist; know that they are just propagating a lie.
Extremus.
I should not have been surprised by this individual’s ignorant comments. This is a ploy that the left uses. If you are white, religious, socially and economically conservative, then you are a racist, bigot, homophobe, ignorant, whatever. The left will describe you in the worst way possible. They do this because they know that good people, who believe in right from wrong, don’t want to be identified in that way, so those good people avoid taking conservative positions. Who likes being called a bigot? No one does. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be intimidated into abandoning our values because they want to call us disgraceful names and denigrate us.
The conservative movement is not racist. The conservative movement is raceless. The conservative movement doesn’t care what race you are. The conservative movement believes in equality of opportunity, not equality of income, and it believes in equality of opportunity regardless of race. Yes, the conservative movement has people in it that are ignorant racists. But do we abandon the core principles of the movement because of a few nut jobs who think the quality of a person is defined by the color of their skin? Of course not. The liberal movement has people in it who are socialists. Does that mean the liberal movement is socialist, that all liberals are socialists. No. Are all Muslims terrorists? No. But the left will label all conservatives, and the whole conservative movement as racist.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Limited government knows no race. Lower taxes knows no race. Liberty knows no race. So where is the racism? If there are conservatives who espouse racist views, they are not espousing conservative views, because conservative views do not look at race. As a conservative I want economic opportunity, freedom, and liberty for all people, not just white people. I want the black community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want the Hispanic community to enjoy happiness and prosperity. I want all people to enjoy those things, and there is nothing racist about that. So the next time you hear a liberal radio host say the conservative movement is racist; know that they are just propagating a lie.
Extremus.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Radical Islamists are Our Enemy
According to White House counter terrorism adviser John Brennan we can no longer call our enemies Jihadists because it gives legitimacy to what they are doing. We cannot call them radical islamists either, because that describes them in religious terms. So, whom are we fighting, who is the enemy? Brennan said the enemy was members of Bin Laden’s network. Okay, but who are they and how do we identify them? Brennan says they are victims of "political, economic and social forces." So the murderous terrorists are victims.
It gets better. Brennan described jihad as “a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Well the Qu’ran says many things about jihad. Here are some of those sayings.
9:73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.”
25:52 “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an). “
2:218 “Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah,- they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
3:142 “Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast?”
4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-“
5:54 “O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.”
60:1 “O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.”
So based on the parts of the Qu’ran above, the radical Islamists who engage in terrorism believe that they are engaged in a holy struggle against the Unbelievers. Would it not make sense then to acknowledge that they are followers of Islam regardless of the radical view they take of it? They believe that they will have a greater reward in heaven because they have striven and fought in the cause of Allah.
I no longer believe that the President is acting in the best interests of the American people. He and his advisors like John Brennan have weakened the security of the United States by refusing to take a practical look at the enemy we are facing and identify them so that we can take steps to protect ourselves. If you do not identify our enemy and clearly define the things about him that make him want to harm us, then how can you possibly have any hope of stopping him. How do you know what to look for?
I know who our enemy is. Our enemy are the radical adherents of Islam who strictly follow the Qu’ran and have identified us and our allies as their enemies. Let’s find out who they are and deal with them.
Extremus
It gets better. Brennan described jihad as “a holy struggle, a legitimate tenet of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one's community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children.” Well the Qu’ran says many things about jihad. Here are some of those sayings.
9:73 “O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the Hypocrites, and be firm against them. Their abode is Hell,- an evil refuge indeed.”
25:52 “Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Qur'an). “
2:218 “Those who believed and those who suffered exile and fought (and strove and struggled) in the path of Allah,- they have the hope of the Mercy of Allah. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.”
3:142 “Did ye think that ye would enter Heaven without Allah testing those of you who fought hard (In His Cause) and remained steadfast?”
4:95 “Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-“
5:54 “O ye who believe! if any from among you turn back from his Faith, soon will Allah produce a people whom He will love as they will love Him,- lowly with the believers, mighty against the rejecters, fighting in the way of Allah, and never afraid of the reproaches of such as find fault. That is the grace of Allah, which He will bestow on whom He pleaseth. And Allah encompasseth all, and He knoweth all things.”
60:1 “O ye who believe! Take not my enemies and yours as friends (or protectors),- offering them (your) love, even though they have rejected the Truth that has come to you, and have (on the contrary) driven out the Prophet and yourselves (from your homes), (simply) because ye believe in Allah your Lord! If ye have come out to strive in My Way and to seek My Good Pleasure, (take them not as friends), holding secret converse of love (and friendship) with them: for I know full well all that ye conceal and all that ye reveal. And any of you that does this has strayed from the Straight Path.”
So based on the parts of the Qu’ran above, the radical Islamists who engage in terrorism believe that they are engaged in a holy struggle against the Unbelievers. Would it not make sense then to acknowledge that they are followers of Islam regardless of the radical view they take of it? They believe that they will have a greater reward in heaven because they have striven and fought in the cause of Allah.
I no longer believe that the President is acting in the best interests of the American people. He and his advisors like John Brennan have weakened the security of the United States by refusing to take a practical look at the enemy we are facing and identify them so that we can take steps to protect ourselves. If you do not identify our enemy and clearly define the things about him that make him want to harm us, then how can you possibly have any hope of stopping him. How do you know what to look for?
I know who our enemy is. Our enemy are the radical adherents of Islam who strictly follow the Qu’ran and have identified us and our allies as their enemies. Let’s find out who they are and deal with them.
Extremus
Monday, April 26, 2010
Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill is Right.
Arizona got it right with their illegal immigration bill, and as it typical of the left they are spreading lies and misinformation about how the law will be enforced, it’s constitutionality, and it’s affects on the people in the state. The law directs police to verify the immigration status of any person they have “reasonable suspicion” to be in the country and the state illegally. Individuals found to be in the country illegally will be arrested and turned over to I.C.E.
The left is yelling that this will result in racial profiling and that people will be questioned because of the color of their skin. No lie could be worse than that one. The law requires that a police officer have “reasonable suspicion.” That means they can’t question someone because of the color of their skin. Skin color is not justifiable as a “reasonable suspicion.” Any officer that does so will be committing racial profiling which is illegal under state law.
The other lie is that the law is unconstitutional. That idea is founded in the belief that it intrudes on the Federal Government’s authority to enforce immigration law. No it doesn’t. Federal law makes it illegal to sell or possess narcotics. State laws say the same thing. Are states intruding upon the Federal Government’s role to enforce drug trafficking laws? No. Likewise, by making illegal immigration in the state of Arizona a state crime, it does not interfere with the role of the Federal Government. This is why. Arizona is not deciding what makes an individual legal or illegal. The Federal Government decides what makes a person legal or illegal. State law is not exceeding Federal law in this instance. Also, Arizona is not going to deport people, I.C.E. will deport them. So Arizona will not be performing the deportation role of the Federal Government.
Lastly we see that violence is a creature of the left. Because of this issue we have seen leftists fighting with police and a swastika was smeared on the state capital building using refried beans. Guess I’ll have to stop eating refried beans now. For a year the left has accused the Tea Party of inciting violence, and the first real of act of violence is not committed by the Tea Party, but by the pro-illegal immigrant crowed on the left.
Arizona is stepping up where the Federal Government has failed to take a stand. My hope is other states impacted by illegal immigration like Arizona will do the same.
Extremus.
The left is yelling that this will result in racial profiling and that people will be questioned because of the color of their skin. No lie could be worse than that one. The law requires that a police officer have “reasonable suspicion.” That means they can’t question someone because of the color of their skin. Skin color is not justifiable as a “reasonable suspicion.” Any officer that does so will be committing racial profiling which is illegal under state law.
The other lie is that the law is unconstitutional. That idea is founded in the belief that it intrudes on the Federal Government’s authority to enforce immigration law. No it doesn’t. Federal law makes it illegal to sell or possess narcotics. State laws say the same thing. Are states intruding upon the Federal Government’s role to enforce drug trafficking laws? No. Likewise, by making illegal immigration in the state of Arizona a state crime, it does not interfere with the role of the Federal Government. This is why. Arizona is not deciding what makes an individual legal or illegal. The Federal Government decides what makes a person legal or illegal. State law is not exceeding Federal law in this instance. Also, Arizona is not going to deport people, I.C.E. will deport them. So Arizona will not be performing the deportation role of the Federal Government.
Lastly we see that violence is a creature of the left. Because of this issue we have seen leftists fighting with police and a swastika was smeared on the state capital building using refried beans. Guess I’ll have to stop eating refried beans now. For a year the left has accused the Tea Party of inciting violence, and the first real of act of violence is not committed by the Tea Party, but by the pro-illegal immigrant crowed on the left.
Arizona is stepping up where the Federal Government has failed to take a stand. My hope is other states impacted by illegal immigration like Arizona will do the same.
Extremus.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Arizona Sales Tax Increase Bad For The State
Facing billion dollar deficits and a drop in tax revenue, the state of Arizona is proposing a temporary 1% increase in their state sales tax, which would raise it to 6.6%. Of course, the usual arguments for supporting a tax increase are being made, it will prevent cuts to education, to hospitals, to police and fire, etc. You get the point. But I believe that an increase in the sales tax will have the same effect, and will not be temporary.
Back in 1991 the State of Rhode Island passed a similar 1% increase in their sales tax, increasing it from 6% to 7%. It too was supposed to be temporary. The reason for the increase was to pay back depositors who had placed money in Rhode Island state banks backed by RISDIC, Rhode Island Share and Depositors Insurance Corporation. RISDIC was going bankrupt, largely due to embezzlement by Joseph Mollicone. The citizens of the State, leery of any tax increase were assured that this increase was only going to be temporary. And the citizens of Rhode Island agreed to it. After all, this was about helping each other impacted by this event. And Rhode Island is a close nit state.
Well, as the saying goes it’s easier to raise taxes than to cut spending, so years later the temporary 7% sales tax was made permanent. The state saw all the revenue being pulled in, and decided they couldn’t lost that in the budget, so the sales tax was made permanent. The state really hasn’t recovered from the effects of that increase.
Massachusetts had a 5% sales tax which they increased to 6.25% in 2009, and Connecticut has a 6% sales tax. Since Rhode Island increased their sales tax Emerald Square Mall was built in North Attleboro, just over the Rhode Island border and twenty minutes away from the Lincoln Mall, and businesses along state route 6 in Seekonk have grown. A Super Walmart was built in Whitinsville MA. There is also the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley that went up, and Putnam, Connecticut has seen it’s share of growth as well. In comparison, Woonsocket’s retail business has declined and Providence has also suffered, though the construction of Providence Place Mall has reversed that decline somewhat. After Rhode Island increased it’s sales tax to a full 2% above Massachusetts it was like the state of Massachusetts put up a sign that said “Shop Here.”
Rhode Island is also known to have one of the highest tax burdens in the country and is routinely criticized for having the worst business climate in the country. The result is an unemployment rate right now of 12.6% and a state budge deficit of $220 million.
Arizona should be looking at Rhode Island right now as a lesson of what not to do. If the voters of Arizona increase that state sales tax, it’s my belief that when May 31, 2013 comes around, the government of Arizona will see the money they stand to lose by reducing the sales tax. They will be unwilling to make the cuts they would have to make by reducing the sales tax and will seek to either extend it another 3 years or make it permanent. After all, in 3 years I expect people will say that Arizona has grown accustomed to paying the higher tax and will try to keep it in place. People will say, “Look at what this money does for education, for hospitals, for police and fire. We can’t lose this money.” I think you get the argument that will be made.
Higher taxes are not the way to go. Responsible tax policy promotes economic growth by allowing people and businesses to keep more of what they earn which gets reinvested into the economy. I believe that when you increase economic activity you increase tax revenue. This has been shown to be the case, because economic activity means more people working and more businesses engaging in commerce which increases tax revenue. The more people who are working, the less are on government assistance, and the number of people on government assistance declines which decreases the cost to government. In that way the people who really need help can be helped and those who are able to work can find work. And those who want to start a business will have an easier time starting one.
Arizona needs to be smart. It needs to reject the increase in the sales tax and focus on tax policies and economic policies that will increase investment in the state and increase economic growth and employment. We’ll see if Arizona is smart enough to make the right decision on May 18.
Extremus
Back in 1991 the State of Rhode Island passed a similar 1% increase in their sales tax, increasing it from 6% to 7%. It too was supposed to be temporary. The reason for the increase was to pay back depositors who had placed money in Rhode Island state banks backed by RISDIC, Rhode Island Share and Depositors Insurance Corporation. RISDIC was going bankrupt, largely due to embezzlement by Joseph Mollicone. The citizens of the State, leery of any tax increase were assured that this increase was only going to be temporary. And the citizens of Rhode Island agreed to it. After all, this was about helping each other impacted by this event. And Rhode Island is a close nit state.
Well, as the saying goes it’s easier to raise taxes than to cut spending, so years later the temporary 7% sales tax was made permanent. The state saw all the revenue being pulled in, and decided they couldn’t lost that in the budget, so the sales tax was made permanent. The state really hasn’t recovered from the effects of that increase.
Massachusetts had a 5% sales tax which they increased to 6.25% in 2009, and Connecticut has a 6% sales tax. Since Rhode Island increased their sales tax Emerald Square Mall was built in North Attleboro, just over the Rhode Island border and twenty minutes away from the Lincoln Mall, and businesses along state route 6 in Seekonk have grown. A Super Walmart was built in Whitinsville MA. There is also the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley that went up, and Putnam, Connecticut has seen it’s share of growth as well. In comparison, Woonsocket’s retail business has declined and Providence has also suffered, though the construction of Providence Place Mall has reversed that decline somewhat. After Rhode Island increased it’s sales tax to a full 2% above Massachusetts it was like the state of Massachusetts put up a sign that said “Shop Here.”
Rhode Island is also known to have one of the highest tax burdens in the country and is routinely criticized for having the worst business climate in the country. The result is an unemployment rate right now of 12.6% and a state budge deficit of $220 million.
Arizona should be looking at Rhode Island right now as a lesson of what not to do. If the voters of Arizona increase that state sales tax, it’s my belief that when May 31, 2013 comes around, the government of Arizona will see the money they stand to lose by reducing the sales tax. They will be unwilling to make the cuts they would have to make by reducing the sales tax and will seek to either extend it another 3 years or make it permanent. After all, in 3 years I expect people will say that Arizona has grown accustomed to paying the higher tax and will try to keep it in place. People will say, “Look at what this money does for education, for hospitals, for police and fire. We can’t lose this money.” I think you get the argument that will be made.
Higher taxes are not the way to go. Responsible tax policy promotes economic growth by allowing people and businesses to keep more of what they earn which gets reinvested into the economy. I believe that when you increase economic activity you increase tax revenue. This has been shown to be the case, because economic activity means more people working and more businesses engaging in commerce which increases tax revenue. The more people who are working, the less are on government assistance, and the number of people on government assistance declines which decreases the cost to government. In that way the people who really need help can be helped and those who are able to work can find work. And those who want to start a business will have an easier time starting one.
Arizona needs to be smart. It needs to reject the increase in the sales tax and focus on tax policies and economic policies that will increase investment in the state and increase economic growth and employment. We’ll see if Arizona is smart enough to make the right decision on May 18.
Extremus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)