Introducing the Taxachusetts fecal discharge tax!

Massachusetts may be one of the best examples we have of what it would be like to have to live in that hallowed liberal utopia the left keeps promising us. It's a corrupt, inefficient, poorly managed, tax and spend "paradise," where money is literally no object when it comes to the size and scope of government and where even tax cuts require more taxes to implement them. 

To that end, the Pay-State has embarked on another taxaholic bender.  They have donned the sweat-stained wife-beater, fists clenched, all five-o-clock shadow and smelling of whisky, and they are heading over to our house to teach her a lesson she wont soon forget.

boston.com is reporting that the State of Taxachusetts has asked the Supreme Judicial Court of same, to rule on its desire to require bricks and mortar retailers outside of Massachusetts (who I assume have retail outlets in Massachusetts) to tax Massachusetts residents who shop at their stores in other states--in this case New Hampshire. 

"He'll find you!  That's what he does!  That's all he does!"

No one is or should be surprised.  They tried to do the same thing to Circuit city (and others I suspect) with on-line purchases, so why stop there?  Heck, why not just give Massachusetts a percentage of everything sold everywhere, as if it's ever going to be enough? (You see the problem with the liberal government run utopia now?)

We need to take a long hard look at the fine example they have set before us, not just so we can see how thoroughly they have squandered the legacy of freedom left them by the founders, but to recognize that their system is a total failure and that Massachusetts refugees continue to emigrate northward carrying their plague rats with them.

Do we need to yell stop?  Can we warn them before its too late for us, and will they listen?  Is there a chance we can save New Hampshire from the same kind of long slow death spiral that requires a soverign state to pimp out its neighbors for a quick fix; one that will never be enough to ease the pain?

I of course have a few observations to get us started.

1) Funny how Mass residents would need to show ID for the privilege of being taxed in a state with no sales tax, but they can come up here and vote with just a smile--or no smile, you know, whatever.

a) The irony of that of course is that those who have chosen to vote democrat here while living there, and those who have moved here to get away from there--like the look of the Granite State life raft, but can't help punching it full of holes at every opportunity, and then stand mouth agape in wonder at where all the water could be coming from.

b) College students who study in NH could have to show ID to prove they were not from Massachusetts.  Again, more restrictive than our voting laws where you don't have to prove much of anything.

c) NH residents would have to show ID to prove they were not from Massachusetts, which makes it an inconvenience to shoppers but not to voters.   Shopping empowers government with tax dollars but voting--wow look how shiny that thing is over there!

2) I realize there is no way this "Fecal" tax would pass scrutiny because its supposed to be unconstitutional, but when did that ever stop a democrat from doing anything that didn't just strike their fancy?  Isn't that what the judicial branch is for? 

3) It will go well with Massachusetts putting tolls up on the highways in and out of Mass to all points less taxed.  They charge them to leave, they charge them here, they charge them to get back in.  Will people from Massachusetts still pay it? Uhhhhhh-yup!

4) We put up with the non-resident tax--which should somehow be illegal--so why complain about this if it somehow managed to become law. 

5) Would that mean we could charge taxes in other states but not our own?  Thats a plan, eh?

5) And finally--your comments please...

A New Hampshire Advantage?

Ive recently discovered that one of the things that a Keynesian stimulus should do specifically is use managed deficit spending to revive the natural revenue generating capacity of the market economy.  By supporting or expanding commercial infrastructure(roads, bridges, highways, airports, and now information infrastructure like broadband) you make it easier for business to succeed; business growth being the best way to create jobs and wealth for the public. (Reducing burdensome business regulation could also improve commerce and stabilize the job market--even if it was just temporary, so I'd include it in this part of the model)

The second thing it must do, is cut real taxes to support and sustain the ability of business to focus on labor and growth.  A business that pays less in taxes--and knows it will not be taxed at a higher rate in the future--can afford to retain or add employees to take advantage of any ongoing or improving commercial infrastructure funded by a stimulus.

This will certainly create a short term deficit commitment that must be tolerated while commerce resumes and presumably exceeds its previous state, pulling the economy out of its slump, and producing commercial tax revenue to offset the managed deficit spending.  History shows us that reducing business taxes always increases tax revenue to the state or federal government, but it also shows us why Keynesian programs usually fail.

Mr. Obama's stimulus is heavy on the wrong kind of spending, and ignores the need to keep government lean.  It also substitutes welfare checks for real tax cuts.  This combination, if not corrected, could doom us to a protracted recession and a stagnating economy which will only accumulate debt while failing to fuel the only revenue source capable of paying that debt off--business growth and the employment and wealth that creates.

Mr. Obama's plan will fail for the same reason all its predecessors failed; no real tax incentive to stimulate growth, and a bad spending model.  But can New Hampshire use this lesson to its advantage?

Can New Hampshire cut it's business taxes to stimulate job growth and to attract new business to the area?  If the stimulus funds (about 260-300 million at current estimates) provided by the feds are used effectively for some long term commerce friendly improvements, while we continue trimming back the fiscal burden of  excessive government and regulation, an improved business picture would more quickly offset job losses and stimulate recovery here.

So can it be done and what are the barriers?

Healing our global what?

Mr. Obama is off to a rocky start on the global image polishing.

His Kabuki theatre executive order to close Guantanamo sounds good on paper, but it's an empty gesture that pales in comparison to the trade restrictions unearthed in his economic stimulus bill.

The stimu-less, which is really just another House bill larded with hand-outs (none of which meet the "pay-as-you-go" standards rep Shea-Porter praised as a new requirement of the 111th congress) includes a provision that would restrict imports of steel from foreign suppliers. The restrictions would cut out all of our major trading partners, violate most of our current trade laws and agreements, and mirror something a recent Republican President did with steel in his first term.

Change? Not a lick of it.

But it gets better. While there is plenty of noise from the Senate about all the unnecessary spending in HR1, the Senate appropriations committee has already expanded the provision to include all manufactured goods.

Heal that! Global community.

Talk about starting an illegal war!  If Obama and Washington democrats think a global trade war and an 800 billon dollar omnibus spending bill will rescue our economy this is going to be an very interesting couple of years. (I include Obama in the Senate business because he has already made it a precedent to behave like John Lynch--let the legislature do your dirty work for you.)

The House democrats (including Hodes and Shea-Porter) pushed the original measure through, steel barriers and all. A measure which has brought down global condemnation upon our house.

Australia, Canada, Europe, and even the US Chamber of commerce have come out against the measure.

"The effect would be catastrophic," said Jean-Michel Laurin, a spokesperson for the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters [Link]

"On the face of it, it looks like it contravenes commitments made to the World Trade Organisation," Mr Crean said last night. "We are examining the decision very closely in the light of our own US-Australia free trade agreement." [Link]

"Some have slammed the U.S. Chamber for opposing "Buy American" provisions, calling our position economic treason,'" the group's president Thomas Donohue said in a statement.

"Try economic patriotism. Such provisions would cost American jobs, trigger retaliation from our trading partners, slow economic recovery by delaying shovel-ready infrastructure projects and cede our leadership role as a longstanding proponent of free and fair trade and global engagement." [Link]

 So if Hodes and Shea-Porter are still not demonstrating any free thinking in their second term, and Mr. Obama is running politics as usual, how exactly are we going to be more responsible and heal our global image? 

 Well, Obama has announced plans to cut the defense budget by over 10%--that will make some people around the world very happy.

Judd Gregg--Filibuster slayer?

A good tyrant kills off any pretenders to his throne to protect and secure his power. While that’s not exactly how it’s done these days, President Obama may be executing a strategy that accomplishes the same thing.

Roll Call is reporting that Senator Judd Gregg is aware of a potential nomination by Obama to be the next commerce secretary. Gregg, who has been warming to Obamanomics, and appears to be cozying up to the new administration, has never been considered long on republican principles by conservatives,and likely to have a fight on his hands in two years to seperate himslef form any Democrat rival. (Or any serious conservative primary cadndaites) So It’s not difficult to see him taking the job.

But is he willing to make that kind of mark on history?He could forever be known as the Republican whohelped giveMr. Obama and his massive liberal agenda with a filibuster-proof Senate.

And there-in lies the subterfuge (if genius isn’t the right word) of the Obama administration.

Picking any Republican Senator (but Gregg in particular)—whom any democrat led Senate committee would confirm for obvious reasons—allows Democrat Governor John Lynch to appoint his replacement until the 2010 election when Greggs term expires. It’s a pick destined to be a Democrat, most likely a congressional house member from New Hampshire like Paul Hodes.

Now there are those who claim that Lynch might exercise his “independent streak” and appoint a Republican, but that’s total nonsense. Lynch is as doe-eyed for Washington as Gregg is, and being the democrat who could have given Obama a filibuster-proof senate but decided not to because of some ‘independent streak,’ is not something he wants on his resume. Lynch would appoint a democrat given the chance and I suspect Obama knows this.

So if Judd Gregg is on the short list, and he gets a shot at being Commerce Secretary, he has a big decision to make. Will he kick his party to the curb and give the liberals their shot at a utopian collectivist agenda, or stand tall for the resistance?

Cross posted at Live Free or Die

Obama's WMD?

Rumor has it that the Obama administration is preparing to use its executive authority to encourage the EPA to declare a naturally occurring gas a pollutant.

That's right, the stuff you exhale every minute of your life, the same gas that plants love, is going to be tagged as a pollutant so it falls under the regulatory authority of the Environmental Protection agency.

What environment exactly are they protecting if the stuff plants breath is declared a pollutant? The moon? Can we send Al Gore there to do a meet and greet?

And now I'm wondering how this might affect the Swiss governments Bill of Rights for Plants. Seems to me we are risking some tin-foil hat policy overlap with this one.

Wait, I figured it out. If decreasing CO2 means fewer plants, that's more like little plant abortions, which as we all know is not the immoral killing of a life because if the plant is not actually breathing yet, it's just someone else making a choice.

Of course that still leaves us with the EPA regulating naturally occurring elements in the atmposphere to advance the Presidents political agenda. Better watch out Obama. If it turns out that CO2 is not a WMD(weapon of man-made destruction) --which all current indicators are saying its not--Lucy is going to have some esplaining too dooo.

Might I suggest staying away from banners that read "Mission Accomplished."