“Conservatives” Angling for a NEW National Tax?

 

Right when we should be CUTTING spending (not just the rate of increase, but ACTUAL spending) and lowering taxes, certain elements of the RNC and “think tanks” are angling not just to keep existing spending and taxes going but ADD an entirely NEW federal tax for us to pay.

What the heck is going on, aren’t we in the midst of a teaparty?

=====
 
Is a European Style VAT Tax the GOP’s Answer to the Growing Federal Funding Crisis? 
 
With all the GOP candidates fussing over Mitt Romney and his track-record at Bain Capital, does it not strike anyone as odd that none of them are putting the screws to the Massachusetts Republican in debates over his unwillingness to rule out a European-style Value Added Tax (VAT)?
Mitt and VAT (Valued Added Tax)
While Romney says he doesn’t want to go down the path of European socialism, in a recent Wall Street Journal he did not rule it out and even suggested that it might be an option.
 
The lack of clarity on this subject is ominous given that a VAT is probably the only way to come close to funding the federal government at its current levels of outrageous spending. Since none of the other candidates are forcefully calling Romney out on the VAT issue, I suspect an eventual Republican betrayal on establishing a VAT tax is likely.
 
As a reminder, a VAT would tax goods at ALL layers of production, from their origin as raw material to manufacture to final product.
 
Rising levels of federal deficit spending create momentum toward the VAT “solution.” Debt-addicted central governments in Europe and the United States have no intention of dealing with the true causes of the financial crisis.
 
To get to a VAT from here, all the political class needs to do is wait around for a “responsible” Republican to come around and act as a tax collector for the welfare state. My point is the Big Government people have already established the new unsustainable spending baselines.   All they need now is a gullible Republican to come in and “do something.” Paralysis and dysfunction are their friends, because it will lead to a crisis that may well result in the imposition of the VAT tax.
 
=======
 
Interestingly, the imposition of a VAT by the federal government is currently illegal and unconstitutional.
 
So, how do they implement it?
 
 
So, what does “balanced budget” mean?  To you, me, the teaparty, and normal people it means to bring spending in line with revenues.  I.e. don’t spend more than you have.
 
But once you enter the twisted mind of a politician, “balanced budget” means RAISING REVENUE to match the amount of money you WANT TO SPEND.
 
Since
a) imposition of a VAT by the federal government is now illegal and unconstitutional,
b) congress and certainly our state legislature lacks any will or spine to CUT REAL spending (not just rates of increases), and
c) it requires a constitutional amendment to pass this new tax,
there is no other conlcusion to draw than this travesty certain state legislators want to desecrate our God-inspired constitution with will lead to anything other than a new federal tax to meet spending targets the government wants to achieve.
 
Frankly, any state legislator who believes otherwise is an idiot.  (Yes, I just called you that.  Embrace it.)  A real Republican would be withholding remittance of tax receipts to the federal government, not empowering the federal government to levy yet another tax from Arizonans.
 
The fact that Republicans are behind this one is disgusting and only proves that RINO hunting should be an active and ongoing endeavor by any real American patriot.
 
Our God-inspired constitution is just fine, thank you.    Leave it alone.
 
Teaparty, y’all!
 

Rep. Franks endorses McDaniel for Pima County Supervisor

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 18, 2012

CONTACT:
info@mcdanielforsupervisor.com

Congressman Trent Franks endorses McDaniel for Supervisor

Tucson, AZ: Conservative leader Congressman Trent Franks has endorsed Stuart McDaniel for Pima County Board of Supervisors. Rep. Franks stated, “Stuart has the private sector business experience necessary to grow the local economy and attract new jobs to the region. He also has the conservative values that will keep our nation strong and prosperous. I am honored to support him in his campaign.”

McDaniel is honored to have the support of Congressman Franks. Stuart responded, “Representative Trent Franks is a leader in the battle to reduce the size of government who champions the values that made America the greatest country on earth. I am honored to have his support.”

Stuart and his wife live in District 1 with their daughter, who attends middle school in Catalina Foothills School District. Stuart has been involved in local business organizations and Republican politics for many years. For more information, go to www.mcdanielforsupervisor.com.

###

Paid for by Stuart McDaniel for Supervisor

Do police officers pay for release time?

By Taylor Earl

The Goldwater Institute recently filed a lawsuit challenging Phoenix’s “release time” practice that sends six city police officers to work as full-time union managers, 35 to work as part-time union representatives, and one to work as a union lobbyist. Although these employees are released from city duties to perform union duties, taxpayers continue to pay the officers’ salaries and benefits.

The city and the union say this practice doesn’t waste taxpayer money because it’s police officers who pay for the release time by foregoing higher pay and benefits in exchange for release time.

But that isn’t true.

The city doesn’t consider release time a trade off for lower officer salaries – until recently the city council didn’t know release time existed. The city grants release time simply because it’s been buried in the city’s contracts with the unions since the 1970s.

And even if the city does grant release time in exchange for officers accepting lower pay, it doesn’t mean officers are funding release time. As long as the city signs the paychecks of officers doing union work, taxpayers are the ones who pay.

Officers would fare better if the city defunded release time and redirected the associated $950,000 per year to officer salaries. Then, individual officers could choose whether to keep their portion of the money or put it back into funding release time via union dues.

Of course, union bosses fear this idea — give officers direct control over the funding of release time, and they just might find that six full-time union managers and 15,000 hours of release time aren’t necessary after all.

Taylor Earl is a staff attorney at the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn more:

Goldwater Institute: Cheatham v. Gordon

Goldwater Institute: “Money for Nothing: Phoenix Taxpayers Foot the Bill for Union Work