by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, EDUCATION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, SCOTUS
There is nothing in our Constitution about the “separation of church and state.” This phrase is often wrongly used as shorthand for the Establishment clause found in the first amendment, which states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” What that plainly states is that the government will not prefer or establish one religion over another or restrict the practice of religion. Many people who use the phrase “separation of church and state” interpret it to mean the opposite, that the Constitution requires a separation of church and state. But that is simply untrue.
Thus, if the government gives money to a group, such as private schools, it cannot discriminate against a particular school just because it is religious. The recent SCOTUS decision in Espinoza v Montana case is a clear confirmation of that important understanding.
by | CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, LAW, QUICKLY NOTED
Everyone remembers ACORN, the community organizing group that engaged in voter fraud and operational irregularities (among other things). Their shadiness was brought to light in 2009 and became the subject of multiple investigations and civil lawsuits which inevitably bankrupted the organization. This was the right thing to happen.
Civil lawsuits may very well be the key to getting the looters and rioters under control in the absence of government leadership. Don’t focus on arresting the perpetrator; if someone’s property is damaged, police cars are destroyed, businesses are vandalized, these acts should result in lawsuits against the agitators. But here’s the key: if they are working for or encouraged by an organization (such as Black Lives Matter or Antifa, for example), you sue the organization as well. Of course the organization can say that they didn’t tell the rioters to do any damage, but then you have rioters who will not be held liable for their actions and being hung out to dry by their organizations, so they’ll make a deal. That’s how you put them out of business.
The agitators should be held criminally liable, but whether they are or aren’t, they should be sued. Any lawsuits, therefore, must be civil, not criminal. Maybe you can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case, but you’ll have plenty of evidence for a civil suit. Once people realize that if these do these egregious actions and will be held liable and financially responsible, maybe they’ll think twice about inflicting harm on another person or property.
by | BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, HEALTHCARE
Certificate of Need laws, otherwise known as CON laws, are laws required in many states and some federal jurisdictions before proposed acquisitions, expansions, or creations of healthcare facilities are allowed. They are also absolutely ridiculous and entirely based entirely on cronyism. CON laws are irresponsible, damaging to the economy, and a prime example of an assault on economic liberty. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and we are entitled to their protections by virtue of our Constitution. This economic right to earn a living –this pursuit of happiness–began to be eroded during the FDR era for reasons having to do with partisanship and policy; SCOTUS has subsequently not enforced it rationally. As economic liberty is no longer considered a primary liberty, we get laws such as CON laws that are ultimately unconstitutional. The original argument for CON laws was very specifically to make costs cheapers for the public by virtue of less competition. Instead, CON laws stifle competition by requiring regulatory permission for any new services and equipment within a given region. This is an egregious, suppressive scheme. These burdensome economic rules should be unconstitutional under federal (if not also state) constitutions.
The federal government isn’t supposed to restrict this pursuit of happiness. But once FDR began regulating economic rights, we have a situation where certain liberties are more equal than others . Now, 1st Amendment rights are subject to “strict scrutiny”; these are high, narrow standards used to evaluate the constitutionality of a law. In other words, there must be a damn good reason why such a law violates a 1st amendment right. But when it comes to economic rights, it’s not strict scrutiny, and so sometimes the states can get away impinging on your rights to earn a living by coming up with some ridiculous argument or restriction. For instance, say you are a florist and your state requires licensing in order to operate. Such a concept is ridiculous — what health and safety concerns supersede the right for a person to earn a living as a florist? And yet some court cases have ruled that this licensing is justifiable; one in particular argued successfully that someone could possibly be pricked by a thorn and therefore needs regulation and specialized training. And that’s the problem. You can come up with any conceivable basis for enacting some ridiculous regulation even if it’s unconstitutional.
CON laws are even more ridiculous than the aforementioned thorn-pricking argument, because they are entirely based on something that is economically incorrect — that by restricting competition (as CON laws do), you’ll make the competition cheaper. But that concept is fundamentally wrong.
Unfortunately getting these laws removed is difficult for several reasons. Most of the time, judges tend to defer to government agencies. But even more importantly, when we talk about healthcare as opposed to restaurants, many people believe (incorrectly) that healthcare is some special kind of market that operates differently than other markets do. However, this is simply untrue. Healthcare is just like any other market except that it operates within an extremely complicated incentive structure that was created by the government. Can you imagine a restaurant owner having to submit to a review panel any plans he had to build a restaurant or remodel an existing one? Then why do we tolerate such a thing within the healthcare sector?
Ultimately, CON laws are unconstitutional because of their inherent economic favoritism. There’s no reason why some liberties should be treated differently than economic liberty and the right to earn a living should not be considered as fundamental as other rights. CON laws and their cronyism should be eliminated.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, LAW, TAXES
New York Governor Cuomo leads a four-state lawsuit against the federal government over the tax reform law that passed last fall. Governor Cuomo declared it “a practical act of self-defense against an adversarial federal government” and suggested that the bill was aimed to target left-leaning states.
But everybody who has any knowledge of taxation and its constitutionality knows that Cuomo’s assertion is ludicrous. The SALT deduction – and ALL deductions – are at the complete discretion of Congress. And as long as deductions apply under the same rules to every taxpayer no matter where situated, constitutionality can never be an issue.
Cuomo’s sudden role as tax crusader is laughable at best, hypocritical at worst. Cuomo and his cronies would do well to focus on reducing their states’ tax burden for their citizens instead of over something that is patently constitutional.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, IRS, TAXES
The State Department, in tandem with the IRS, has stepped up enforcement of an Obama-era law that blocks Americans with ‘seriously delinquent’ tax debt from receiving new passports — and will, at some point — be allowed to rescind existing passports of people who fall into that category.”
The roots of this law began back in 2012, when a report issued by the GAO suggested the possibility of tying tax collection to passport issuance, in an effort to collect revenue. Soon thereafter, Senator Harry Reid introduced a bill in Congress that did just that, with a threshold of $50,000 in delinquency. The bill had been attempted several times in Congress over the last few years before finally being passed in late 2015; it was quietly tucked into a highway-funding bill (HR22).
Though there are exceptions to the rule (emergency and humanitarian travel, for instance), valid criticisms of the rule were raised. For instance the law isn’t limited to criminal tax cases or even situations where the government fears you are fleeing a tax debt; your passport can now get revoked merely because you owe more than $50,000 and the IRS has filed a notice of lien. Yet a $50,000 tax debt is easy to amass today and tax liens are pretty standard. The IRS files tax liens routinely when you owe taxes. It’s the IRS’ way of putting creditors on notice so the IRS eventually gets paid; the Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the new law would raise about $400 million over the next decade.
A serious problem, however, looms for millions of U.S. citizens living abroad. Passports, obviously, are essential for travel, residency permits, banking, school, and work visas; yet, the IRS has documented trouble with getting mail properly to expats.
Furthermore, National Taxpayer Advocate Nina Olson, say the notices to debtors often come at the same time the State Department is notified of the taxpayer’s debt, in some cases leaving not enough time to resolve tax issues before passport problems occur.
None of that seems to matter to the IRS, which has reported that 220 people have turned over $11.5 million to repay their full debts as of late June, while 1,400 others had set up payment plans to reduce their debts. Essentially, more than 350,000 Americans face passport denial when applying or renewing, with little to no recourse for an agency plagued with problems.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, SCOTUS, TAXES
This week, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of taxation for businesses that lack a physical nexus. Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch, writing for the majority opinion, believed that the emergence of the internet as a mainstream medium for interstate commerce caused the physical presence rule to become further removed from economic reality and resulted in significant revenue losses to states.
The revenue loss argument is nonsense; it is a back-door way for states to add additional levies on their citizens under the guise of leveling the playing field . For years now, we’ve been hearing the protestations that there is dearth of tax revenue from which states are suffering terribly.
But this is simply and patently untrue. State legislatures have always set their tax rates with the full understanding that they would not actually collect that supposed billions of internet “slippage”. It’s not like there is a line item in state budgets that lists “uncollected online tax” or “tax cheats” with a number attached. Sales tax is merely one of many levies whose revenues positively fund government spending. This online tax will now just be yet another tax (and therefore revenue) for the coffers. Higher marginal rates exists because state-government spending levels are higher — not because of some “absence of tax” nonsense that forces states to raise rates.
In our states’ budgets, current taxes rates (income + sales, if applicable) are set at levels appropriate to cover the calculations of state spending. 49 out of 50 states require a balanced budget. These states are fully aware that taxes are “avoided” (internet and out-of-state) and therefore don’t even count them in their budget calculations. So there is no concrete “absence of revenue”. Instead, by passing this new internet tax, states are now given free reign to add a tax without taking the political heat for it, under the guise of “fairness”.
Looked at it another way, it is unconscionable for this ruling to stand without Congressional action that requires states to lower their marginal rates so that the new tax makes everything revenue neutral. Higher marginal rates as they are already burden taxpayers. This internet tax doesn’t fix anything — because there is nothing in their budgets to be “fixed”. True tax reform (a true “fix”) always means broadening the base and thereby reducing the overall burden of taxes. Instead of that, what we have with ruling will be a revenue grab.
Another fallacy for supporters is that including the internet tax in transactions is simply a matter of adding a quick, little tax line where there was none before. But it is highly irrational for legislators to believe that compliance with multiple tax jurisdictions for vendors will be an easy and unburdensome process. The recordkeeping will be excruciating. From an accountant’s perspective, here’s how:
The effect of distressing our businesses to comply with this online tax collection will be a drag on the economy. Can you imagine vendors needing to figure such things as whether marshmallows are a taxable food/candy in some jurisdictions while it might be a non-taxable food in others? To think that software can seamlessly make this distinction is ludicrous (especially software run by the government.) When has the government ever actually streamlined anything?
Internet tax collection for 10,000 local tax jurisdictions or even just 50 states is too much. If such a tax is to be implemented, it should be either a tax in which every state accepts one set of rules OR a tax payable to the state-of-sale only — which would ultimately be better for tax competition overall. Without a fix, compliance will certainly be massive and burdensome — which will hurt this economy that is slowing but surely recovering from the last ten years.
Arthur Laffer observed that “the principle of levying the lowest possible tax rate on the broadest possible tax base is the way to improve the incentives to work, save and produce which are necessary to reinvigorate the American economy and cope with the nation’s fiscal problems”. But a hodge-podge “internet tax” doesn’t do that. Without a solid Congressional solution for correctly calculating and remitting sales tax in 10,000+ jurisdictions, we will have a nightmare for accountants and businesses — at the cost of grabbing another revenue stream for our bloated, overspending government.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, ECONOMY, EDUCATION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, HYPOCRISY, POTUS, TRUMP
It seems like spending reductions, smaller government, and eliminating waste are no longer Republican ideals. When Education Secretary Betsy DeVos presented a budget that did just that, Congress turned a deaf ear. What’s more, they made it difficult for her to even make some systemic changes to the Department of Education that (like most departments) desperately needs.
As part of the massive spending bill that was passed last week, Congress “awarded the department a $2.6 billion boost when Mrs. DeVos had requested a $9 billion cut. She had sought to dismantle her agency’s central budget office, a move she said would create a leaner structure, and to cut the number of field offices in the civil-rights division to four from 12. The spending package included specific measures preventing her from doing so.”
Apparently, trying to implement change caused some problems among more seasoned politicians that Congress just put a stop to by hamstringing her efforts at education and fiscal reform: “in the spending package, lawmakers forbade Mrs. DeVos from dismantling the budget office and increased the civil-rights division’s funding by $8.5 million, specifying that the additional money couldn’t be used to reduce staff, such as through buyouts. The civil-rights division is tasked with, among other things, enforcing Title IX.”
It’s a shame that politics over policy has gotten so pervasive even among Republicans. Such ridiculous behavior shows how broken our system has become — which is why it’s getting more and more likely that a huge Democrat sweep will happen at midterms.
by | ARTICLES, BUSINESS, CONSTITUTION, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, OBAMACARE, TAXES, TRUMP
While we’re on the subject of tax reform, one particular item that could be included in the package is the elimination of the individual mandate. Since SCOTUS classified the penalty as a tax, it is one that can be repealed as part of the reform, and would produce an estimated savings of $338 billion over 10 years, according to current CBO figures.
Eliminating the individual mandate would not affect Medicaid or pre-existing conditions; it would simply allow taxpayers to have the freedom to decide if he or she wants to forego insurance without being penalized (taxed) for their choice. According to the Wall Street Journal and IRS data, more than 90% of households who paid the “individual shared responsibility payment” (tax) earned less than $75,000. The tax is essentially a tax on the poor.
Republicans would be wise to repeal the mandate, ease the tax burden on taxpayers, and use the savings gained within the rest of the tax package to strengthen other parts of the reform proposals and provide meaningful relief for all taxpayers.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, POLITICS, TRUMP
Daniel Mitchell from CATO put together a round-up over of articles over the last few days from various sources chiming in their opinion of Session’s expansion of asset forfeiture. It was published on International Liberty. The list is below; you should also read the article its entirety.
Writing for USA Today, Professor Glenn Reynolds correctly castigates the Attorney General for his actions.
David French of National Review is similarly disgusted.
Erick Erickson adds his condemnation in the Resurgent.
In a column for Reason, Damon Root of Reason adds his two cents.
Last but not least, the editors of National Review make several important points.
One last point of note that Mitchell included is that “the first two administrators of the federal government’s asset forfeiture program now want it to be repealed.”
by | ARTICLES, CONSTITUTION, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT, OBAMA, POLITICS, TAXES
As we’ve been following this story regarding the IRS for years, here’s the latest update from the Washington Times:
Nearly seven years after it applied to the IRS for nonprofit status, the Albuquerque Tea Party has finally been given a decision: Denied.
The tax agency, under orders from a federal judge, is belatedly tackling the remaining tea party cases that it delayed for years, and so far the tea party isn’t doing well. Only one of the three groups in the case was approved, and the other two, including Albuquerque, got notices of proposed denials last week.
The applicants will have a chance to appeal, but the denials aren’t sitting well with the groups, whose attorney said it’s more evidence that the IRS continues to single out the tea party for abuse.
“It is clear that we still have an IRS that is corrupt and incapable of self-correction,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented a number of tea party groups in a case against the tax agency.
The one group that was approved was Unite in Action, a Michigan-based organization that first applied for tax-exempt status more than six years ago. The Albuquerque Tea Party and Tri Cities Tea Party from Washington state were notified of proposed denials.
“It is clear that we still have an IRS that is corrupt and incapable of self-correction,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, which represented a number of tea party groups in a case against the tax agency.
Still to come is a decision on Texas Patriots Tea Party, a group that is part of a separate class-action lawsuit out of Ohio. A judge in that case ruled late last month that the IRS was likely violating the group’s First Amendment rights by delaying its application and ordered the tax agency to process and decide on the application.
The IRS, which declined to comment on the new decisions, admitted in court that it did subject the tea party groups to intrusive scrutiny, singling them out because of their political viewpoints and forcing them to go through hurdles that other groups didn’t face.
IRS officials over the summer promised both the courts and Congress that the agency would begin to process all outstanding applications after years of delay that it blamed on a “litigation hold” policy.
Under that policy, the IRS said once a group sued, the agency stopped work on its application. Federal courts held that policy was both ill-advised and not a hard-and-fast rule and ordered the agency to get back to work.
In a notice filed last week, the IRS said it has now met its first deadline.
“As of November 8, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service has issued determinations with respect to each of the Plaintiffs whose applications for tax exempt status had been pending,” the agency said.
Mr. Sekulow said the groups never should have faced the delays, adding that they showed “continuing problems inside the IRS.”
In a court filing this weekend Mr. Sekulow asked a federal judge in the District of Columbia to officially declare that the IRS violated groups’ First Amendment rights.
The groups also said they are worried that the IRS decision-making in applications that were denied might have been skewed by the entire history of the targeting.
The Albuquerque Tea Party first applied on Dec. 29, 2009. Four months later, it got a two-page, 10-question reply from the IRS, beginning years of back and forth. It has faced a series of follow-up questions, the years long delay in court and an offer to be approved — if the group would agree to limit its political advocacy to 40 percent of its activities.
