The Tool of Taxation

Old hammer during reconstruction of the building in Pleszew. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

In graduate school a professor of mine often referred to the “toolbox of government.”  The characterization must have resonated with me because I still use it in my own classes almost fifteen years later.  Of course he was referring to the variety of actions that governments at all levels have at their disposal to implement and otherwise enforce public policy.  For our purposes we can narrow the contents of the “toolbox” down to the bare minimum:

• The power of government to deprive a person of liberty (think incarceration and in the most extreme form, the death penalty)—the hammer.
• The power of government to deprive a person of property (think real property and money)—the hammer.

Confused?  Don’t be.  Chief Justice John Marshall (1801-1835) is credited with expressing the position that the power to tax is the power to destroy.  In this regard the power to tax is the power to punish those who violate the law, ignore regulations, or otherwise challenge the general welfare—the hammer.  The power to tax citizens and residents, businesses, corporations, is generally available to most governments—from Congress to your local water district.  Check your text books, one of the first concurrent or shared powers listed is the power to tax.  Moreover, taxes are ubiquitous—fees: taxes; assessments: taxes; dues: taxes; levies: taxes; taxes: taxes.  The power to tax is the power of government to deprive.

In the months following the Supreme Court’s decision on the Affordable Care Act (Obama-care) , much will be made of the taxation aspect of the now upheld health care reform package—especially the individual mandate, which requires people capable of paying for health insurance to do so or risk a penalty (tax).  What do you think, is it the most intrusive tax ever devised by government (in this case by democrats)?  Is it a new tax?  Is it a tax increase (even though it only applies to people who don’t buy their own health insurance—and wouldn’t we otherwise call these people free-riders or equate them to people who don’t buy car insurance and drive up all of our rates)?  With all the hammers we get hit with every day, is this the one we’re really going to object to?  Ouch!  I know how to fix it; where’s my hammer?!

–DENNIS FALCON

Get Ready for Several Weeks of Useless Analysis

This week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to render its ruling on the constitutionality of Obama Care. However, the media coverage of the ruling and the resulting political fallout will be the same. Regardless of the ruling, both republicans and democrats will try to spin the Supreme Court’s ruling in a way that benefits their side. Meanwhile, the news media will overflow with coverage concerning the political impact of the ruling, but will ultimately fail to explain the ruling divorced from the typical horse-race coverage.  Horse race refers to the news media’s focus on which candidate is up or down in the latest public opinion polls. My prediction is that the news media, regardless of the Supreme Court’s ruling on Obama Care, will bombard its audience with poll numbers for the next several days along with a bloviated analysis of said poll numbers with a pretentious and misguided sense of accomplishment for delivering what they consider to be the news. Get ready for several weeks of useless analysis and blatant political spin.

–TERRANCE MULLINS

Weekly Poll: Your Opinion On Supreme Court’s Wal-Mart Decision

Recently the Supreme Court dismissed the discrimination class action case brought against Wal-Mart by 1.5 million past and current women workers at Wal-Mart. Some believe the Court’s decision dealt a brutal blow to women workers in support of capitalist offensive against workers. What do you think?

Arizona Appealing SB 1070 to the U.S. Supreme Court

Arizona SB 1070 is a controversial immigration law passed by the Arizona state legislature and signed into law by Governor Jan Brewer back in April 23, 2010. The law was never fully carried out as a federal judge issued an injunction that blocked the law’s most controversial provisions concerning racial profiling.

Greta Van Susteren of Fox NEWS posted a blog explaining the legal arguments of both the federal and Arizona state governments. In short, SB 1070 possibly violates the U.S. Constitution since the federal government has sole authority to enforce immigration laws, whereas Arizona believes SB 1070 to be necessary as the federal government has not effectively enforced immigration at the border.

Even though polling data reveals nationwide popularity of Arizona’s immigration law, the constitutionality of a law is determined by the courts and not the majority will of the people. Judicial review is the power of the federal judiciary to determine the constitutionality of all laws and actions of the federal government as well as the states. Laws and actions declared unconstitutional by the courts are considered null and void. As such, it is clear; the U.S. Supreme Court must take up this case and settle the dispute definitively. Whether it will do so is a different story.

- TERRANCE MULLINS

Hate Speech Is Free Speech, But Should It Be Tax Exempt?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently reaffirmed its long standing position that hateful, vile, and contemptuous speech is protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Westborough Baptist Church has the right to offend; we the people do not have the right not to be offended.

As it stands, the First Amendment also protects the Westborough Baptist Church from taxation under the concept of separation of church and state. Separation of church and state refers to the segregated relationship between organized religion and the institution of government. The term is originally derived from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in which Jefferson states: “…I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

However, should a group that predominately exists to express a political message for seemingly political reasons, free speech notwithstanding, be considered a taxed exempt religious institution? Its 71 membership principally consists mostly of family members of its leader, Fred Phelps. The organization religious activities are primarily aimed at achieving media attention. Furthermore, the Westborough Baptist Church is not affiliated with any Baptist conventions or associations but is actually denounced by them. Slate published a blog exploring this issue, but the question remains, why exactly is the Westborough Baptist Church a federally recognized church? Should the Westborough Baptist Church be afforded tax exempt?

– TERRANCE MULLINS