Right Minded Online

I’ve long had the sick feeling that Mae Beavers was in her last term in the Tennessee General Assembly. That fear was confirmed last week when she announced that she would not seek re-election, and that she will instead run for Wilson County Mayor. At least we wouldn’t be losing her totally. But the State Senate will lose its most principled conservative.

Senator Beavers spent 8 years in the State House of Representatives, first winning election in 1994. She made a name for herself during the infamous years of Governor Don Sundquist’s second term. Beginning in 1999, the trinity of Governor Sundquist, then-Senator Bob Rochelle, and, later, then-Speaker of the House Jimmy Naifeh began a four-year full-court press trying to stick Tennesseans with an income tax.

Mae Beavers opposed the income tax from the outset, and, unlike many of her peers, stuck to her opposition. A frequent guest on Nashville talk shows hosted by conservatives Steve Gill and Phil Valentine, then-Representative Beavers became not only a critic of the income tax, but an outspoken one, and that’s how her name spread beyond District 57.

The odd thing about those years was that the Tennessee GOP was largely devoid of any male elected conservative leadership. The state’s most prominent Republican, Don Sundquist, was firmly in the tank for an income tax just weeks after his second inauguration, this coming after he campaigned against an income tax. Elected conservative leadership thus came from then-Senator Marsha Blackburn, and Representatives Mae Beavers, Donna Rowland, and Diane Black, while the male GOP caucus members were either cowering in their opposition or acquiescing to the income tax.

When the income tax ultimately failed to pass during the 2002 legislative session, conservatives claimed victory. Don Sundquist was on his way out, and, after Mae Beavers announced that she would challenge Bob Rochelle for the Senate in District 17, Rochelle bailed out, leaving Beavers to face off against an unknown Democrat challenger, Sherry Fisher, from Carthage. Mae Beavers won election to the Senate with 52% of the vote. What made her victory especially remarkable was that District 17 had heretofore been the Democrats’ turf. District 17 is Al Gore country, after all.

Mae Beavers won by simply being conservative: low taxes, limited government, pro-life, and pro-Second Amendment. That she had consistently voted conservative made her a credible conservative candidate. Not only did she articulate conservatism on the campaign trail, she voted that way in the General Assembly. (It’s what I call “principled conservatism.”)

Senator Beavers continued doing the things that had made her a conservative icon while in the House. She voted against budgets that exceeded the Copeland Cap, noting that it doesn’t make sense to vote against overriding the Copeland Cap, and then vote for a budget that overrides the Copeland Cap. She attempted to phase out the state’s sales tax on food, but couldn’t get her bill past the Democrats. She consistently made efforts to advance gun ownership rights. She defended the unborn.

Mae Beavers had illustrated that conservatives can win in yellow dog Democrat districts by winning them over as conservatives, and not by trying to out-Democrat the Democrats. This is how Ronald Reagan won landslides in 1980 and 1984. It really does work.

While serving her first term as a State Senator, Mae Beavers overcame a bout with cancer, and managed to still serve the voters of District 17 while taking chemotherapy. When 2006 rolled around, she was recovered and ready to run for re-election. That’s when Bob Rochelle announced that he would challenge Senator Beavers for his old Senate seat. By now, Senator Beavers was well-regarded for her principled conservatism. Voters knew that what Senator Beavers promised on the campaign trail, she would deliver in the Senate. And so she easily won re-election, this time getting 58% of the vote.

One of the frustrating things for conservatives is watching good conservatives go to Nashville, or go to Washington, D.C., get sucked into the political machine, and lose their conservatism. Don Sundquist is a prime example of an elected conservative gone bad.

Senator Beavers never went bad, never got corrupted by “the system.” She’s every bit as conservative now as the first day she set foot in the State Capitol in 1995. I wish she had run for governor, but I understand why she wants to spend her time here in Wilson County. Politics is often a cutthroat business that can easily corrupt elected leaders if they aren’t careful. By the time she leaves the Senate, Mae Beavers will have served the people of Wilson County (as well as the other counties in her district) for 16 years.

I’ll miss having her as my state senator, but should she become our next county mayor, the voters and taxpayers of Wilson County will be very well served by one of the most principle conservatives we’ll ever see in elected politics.

Democrats Pushing For State Income Tax Again : Tennessee Republican Party.

The Tennessean, which goes through great effort to declare the income tax dead before every election, has given the notoriously mis-named Tennesseans for Fair Taxation — an income tax advocacy group — front page coverage today. There’s so much fodder in this I don’t even know where to start.

To begin, Brian Miller of TFT gives the spin that “Tennesseans For Fair Taxation released an analysis on Friday that showed 95.5 percent of incumbents who supported the 2002 proposal for an income tax coupled with a lower sales tax were re-elected on Tuesday,” further noting that “Twenty-one of 22 incumbent lawmakers who voted for an income tax in 2002 won re-election this year.”

I can’t believe the Tennessean actually bought this. Back in 2002, there were forty-five state representatives who voted for the state income tax. Four years later, twenty-four of them — more than half — are no longer in the Tennessee General Assembly. Just 21 of the original 45 members who voted for the income tax four years ago are still around! And TFT cites this as evidence the voters wouldn’t mind an income tax.

Another item from today’s Tennessean contradicts a story it ran just last Wednesday: “Miller counters that part of the problem with the income tax is that it is too often discussed in a vacuum. He said MTSU’s polls in recent years have shown support trends toward 60 percent for an income tax as long as cuts to the sales tax, especially sales taxes on food, are part of the proposal.”

Here’s the Tennessean five days ago: “Rochelle was a principal backer of wildly unpopular state income tax legislation that ultimately cost him the District 17 seat in 2002.”

Back to today’s article: “[Brian Miller] said the talk from many candidates about cuts in the sales tax on food during this year’s legislative session and during the election cycle shows the public is ready for some of the key elements of a tax system change.”

How disingenuous. I can’t believe the Tennessean lets TFT get away with this without clarification. Really. This is shoddy even for the Tennessean. (Fortunately, we have bloggers to finish the job the Tennessean started.)

The Tennessee Republican Party, led by Senator Mae Beavers (who thumped income tax supporter Bob Rochelle by 16 points at the polls last week), is trying to phase out the state’s 6% sales tax on food items. The endeavor is a result of the enormous revenue surplus the state government has rolled up the last three years, and has nothing to do with wanting to implement “tax reform.” Again, this is strictly a GOP effort, and the lawmakers who are most opposed to a state income tax also tend to be the most ardent supporters of cutting or eliminating the food tax.

I’ve just run across a news story from the days of the REAL anti-income tax pledge — the one that actually had teeth — which illustrates Bob Rochelle’s hypocrisy on his newly-discovered income tax opposition. Of course, Bob Rochelle has issued his own anti-income tax “pledge,” which I covered yesterday. Not only is Bob Rochelle suddenly against the income tax, he’s also suddenly in favor of anti-income tax pledges. But he hasn’t always believed that pledges are a good thing.

From the Chattanooga Times Free Press on August 14, 2001, “Senator questions ethics of signing anti-tax pledge,” by John Commins (Nashville Bureau):

NASHVILLE — State Sen. Gene Elsea wants to know if colleagues who signed an anti-income tax pledge during last year’s election season violated Senate ethics rules.

Sen. Elsea, R-Spring City, has filed an inquiry with the five-member Senate Ethics Committee, asking for an opinion on whether the so-called Tennessee Taxpayer Protection Pledge runs afoul of Senate conflict of interest rules.

“I am deeply concerned by the dangerous precedent this type of pledge sets, and what poor leadership it expresses to the people of Tennessee,” Sen. Elsea, an income tax proponent, said in a statement Monday.

The code of ethics for the Senate that Sen. Elsea referred to states that it is unethical for any senator take a pledge or make a formal agreement that would restrict a senator’s vote.

Five Republican senators, including Sen. Jeff Miller, R-Cleveland, and five Democrats, including Lt. Gov. John Wilder, D-Somerville, signed the pledge. None of the five members of the Senate Ethics Committee signed the pledge.

In the House, 16 Republicans, including Reps. Jim Vincent, R-Soddy-Daisy, and Chris Newton, R-Cleveland, and seven Democrats, including House Finance Committee Chairman Matt Kisber, D-Jackson, signed the pledge.

Sen. Miller said signing the pledge was not an ethical lapse.

“It’s fine and appropriate to let your constituents know where you plan to be on certain issues before you are elected when asking for their vote,” Sen. Miller said. “If signing that pledge is illegal and against Senate rules, then so would every stump speech saying, ‘I am for this or against that.’”

The Tennessee Taxpayer Protection Task Force asked all incumbents and challengers for seats in the General Assembly last year to pledge to “vigorously oppose” and vote against a state income tax.

Steve Gill, a conservative radio talk show host in Nashville who organized the anti-tax pledge, said Sen. Elsea’s complaint has no merit.

“How is this different than a campaign advertisement where you make a promise on this or countless other issues?” Mr. Gill asked. “I would be shocked if the Ethics Committee of the Senate would find it unethical to keep your word to your constituents.”

Senate Ethics Committee Chairman Doug Henry, D-Nashville, said he has asked a legislative staff attorney to investigate Sen. Elsea’s inquiry to determine if it has merits. Under Senate rules, if the Ethics Committee agrees with the complaint, they could censure or even refuse to seat senators who signed the pledge.

Senate Speaker Pro Tem Bob Rochelle, D-Lebanon, a member of the Ethics Committee and a leading proponent of a state income tax, said the sticking point for him in the rules is the phrase “formal agreement.”

“People expect your positions to evolve,” he said. “If the Senate is to be the deliberative body that decides issues on the merits, that goal is not promoted by making up your mind and signing pledges before you even get there.”

Sen. Rochelle said if the Ethics Committee takes up Sen. Elsea’s complaint, the emphasis likely will be “not so much on what’s already been done” but on discouraging new pledges in future elections. “This clearly was not a rule that many people noted before. It had not come up in the 19 years that I’ve been there,” Sen. Rochelle said. “What’s more important is what impact this will have on the future.”

…

Code of Ethics for the Senate

“It shall be unethical for any member of the Senate, by loyalty pledge…or other formal agreement, to restrict himself or herself, or any other member of the Senate, from voting on any matters before the Senate or any of its committees except in accordance with the member’s personal convictions and with the member’s oath of office.”

My, how the times have changed.

Bob Rochelle, a.k.a. Mr. Income Tax, whose advocacy of a state income tax has been heavily documented here and elsewhere, has a new campaign advertisement out in which he touts his anti-income tax pledge.

Rochelle states:

The income tax is a dead issue. If it comes up again, I will use my expertise in the legislature to make sure it doesn’t pass without a vote of the people. I am signing this pledge because I will kill an income tax if it comes up in the legislature and is not submitted to a vote of the people.

Right. During his last term of office in the Senate, Bob Rochelle tried to pass an income tax that was attached to a vote by the people, only the vote would come AFTER the income tax was implemented. In his pledge, Bob Rochelle says nothing about the vote of the people coming BEFORE the income tax. Remember, Bob Rochelle is an attorney, so you have to parse every single word that comes out of his mouth. His “pledge” leaves him a loophole through which he could propose the same legislation he proposed before — an income tax that is linked to a vote of the people — although he cleverly avoids disclosing which would come first.

Bill Hobbs informs us that Governor Phil Bredesen, who tells us he opposes a state income tax, is going to campaign for Bob Rochelle, the former state senator from Lebanon whose name is synonymous with “state income tax.” Writes Hobbs:

Rochelle still favors the state income tax. He again endorsed the income tax as recently as two years ago while serving as a member of the Tennessee Tax Structure Study Committee. Bredesen’s desire to have Rochelle back in the state senate casts serious doubt on Bredesen’s claim to not support a state income tax. Every second-term governor since Ned Ray McWherter has pushed for an income tax in their second term and now Bredesen is campaigning to bring the architect of the income tax back to the Senate.

The only sure way to guarantee Bredesen won’t push for a state income tax in a second term is to deny him a second term.

Advocates of a state income tax in Tennessee more or less accuse income tax opponents such as me of paranoia over the tax reform issue because they say it is dead and Governor Bredesen has made it clear that he opposes an income tax in a second term. Here is a timeless quote that illustrates our skepticism:

“All an income tax does is raise the tax burden on Tennesseans and create a way to finance the easy and endless expansion of government. Tennessee does not need a state income tax.” — Governor Don Sundquist, February 8, 1999

Two months later, on April 12, 1999, Governor Sundquist announced that he would back an income tax to address a growing state fiscal crisis.

If we’re wrong about Bredesen, what’s the worst that happens? He wins a second term, remains true to his word, we don’t get an income tax, we come across as being paranoid.

But if we’re right in our paranoia, what’s the worst that happens? He wins a second term, pulls a Sundquist, and we spend the next four years down on Legislative Plaza fighting this thing all over again.

I’ll take the first option. I’d rather be paranoid and income tax free than naive and income taxed.

I’ve finally gotten around to reading the Nashville City Paper story from this morning on Bob Rochelle’s re-emergence as a candidate for the Senate. Here’s the quote that made me laugh out loud:

“Bob Rochelle does not equal an income tax.” — Speaker Jimmy Naifeh

Meanwhile, a companion story in the Knoxville News Sentinal plays out much the same way. Here, Speaker Naifeh acknowledges that “An income tax is not on the table.” If that’s really true, then why is there currently an income tax bill on file in the Tennessee General Assembly?

At any rate, what we’re hearing from income tax advocates is what we ALWAYS hear from income tax advocates BEFORE an election: denial. These are the same things Tennessee taxpayers heard back in 1998. As the song goes, we won’t get fooled again.

The Shelby County Attorney’s Office has issued an opinion stating that a payroll tax (a.k.a. “income tax”) is unconstitutional in Tennessee.

It’s been some time since I’ve taken on a Tennessean editorial, so yesterday morning’s recycled class-warfare diatribe, “Unconscionable tax on food,” is too ripe a target for me to take a pass on. Writes the Tennessean:

Political reality dictates that Tennessee won’t be removing the sales tax on food anytime soon, but it’s a goal the state should never abandon.

I agree. That’s why anti-income taxers like me have advocated for the past two years that the Tennessee General Assembly use our budget surpluses to lower (or eliminate) the sales tax on food. I did this most recently in my Lebanon Democrat editorial on October 12, 2005, “State refuses tax break for public.” For example, with last year’s budget surplus of $260.8 million, the state could have reduced the food tax from 6% to 2.5% with $15.8 million left over. But it didn’t. It spent every penny of that money on government. As far as I know, the Tennessean has never once editorialized in favor of using budget surpluses to reduce the food tax, and that’s where the paper’s hypocrisy runs deepest. Given the opportunity to advocate on behalf of the government or the poor (but not both), the Tennessean advocates on behalf of the government every single time. The only ones who seriously advocate using budget surpluses to reduce the food tax are the very ones income tax advocates accuse of being greedy.

Fortunately for the state’s poorest residents, groups like Tennesseans for Fair Taxation, the AARP and MANNA don’t stop talking about it. In this holiday season, many people consider the plight of the poor, but sales tax on food is an issue 365 days of the year to those who are already struggling to put food on the table.

And thank goodness for Tennessee Tax Revolt, talk radio, conservative blogs, and my car horn.

Tennessee should keep the issue on its table, too. To be sure, the discussion doesn’t look promising. Gov. Phil Bredesen won office pledging not to impose a state income tax, a likely avenue should the sales tax on food ever be dropped; he shows no signs of changing that position.

Won office pledging not to impose a state income tax? Perhaps that’s because the majority of Tennesseans don’t want a state income tax, which, by the way, is unconstitutional in Tennessee.

Yet, other states manage without taxing food; Tennessee shouldn’t be any different. At close to 10%, the state and local-option sales tax represents an additional burden to the poor every time they purchase something. With a neccesity like food, the burden is unconscionable.

Then why, on September 12, 2005, did the Tennessean editorialize in favor of a sales tax increase in Davidson County? Wrote the Tennessean, “An increase in the sales tax, which will also go toward tax relief for the elderly in this case, is a regressive way to raise money, because the sales tax hits hardest on those with lower income. But in this case, the greater good must prevail. That means increasing funding for schools, which have earned and deserve the city’s support.”

As Bob Krumm once wrote, “The pro-income tax people aren’t against a sales tax increase. They are in favor of ANY tax increase. They’ll take it from the rich if they can, after all they have more money. But if they can’t get it from the rich, they’ll take it from you! They don’t care about you. They just want more money.”

Unconscionable, indeed.

For every $100 of food, $10 is going to support state and local governments. For a middle or upper-class family, that’s a bearable burden. For a lower income family, it’s a couple of cartons of milk, some loaves of bread or cereal that isn’t getting to their tables.

Or a cup of Starbucks coffee?

At any rate, if given the option of the tax burden I bear as a middle class Tennessean versus the tax burden carried by low-income Tennesseans, as a percentage, I’d choose the latter.

Eventually, such disparity doesn’t help the state much, either. People near the borders can simply hop over the line to get a better deal on food or other purchases.

It should shame the state that Tennessee’s high sales tax drives its own citizens to other states.

It doesn’t have to be that way. We can lower the sales tax on groceries without a state income tax. It just means sacrificing a little government on behalf of the poor — a choice that income tax advocates cannot bear.

Lawmakers will have a lot on their plate this session, but they should never stop trying to get a fuller plate for those who need it most.

And with that, I take you over to Bill Hobbs, who shows that the latest fad on Capitol Hill is the “payroll tax,” which is one of those euphemisms income tax advocates use so they can say “income tax” without having to say “income tax.” After that, go back to my post from December 26 where I suggest that Loren L. Chumley is the Warren Neel of the Bredesen Administration.

I’m still playing catch-up after more than a week off from blogging, so this one is a little belated. Back on December 16, the Lebanon Democrat reported on a speech Department of Revenue Commissioner Loren L. Chumley gave to the Mt. Juliet Noon Rotary Club. Here’s the nuts-and-bolts:

“There is projection that in a three- to four-year time frame the sales tax is not going to experience as much growth as it is now,” Department of Revenue Commissioner Loren L. Chumley told the Mt. Juliet Noon Rotary Club on Monday. “But what they (some economists) are predicting is a greater growth in personal income tax, so what will end up happening at that point in time is that states that rely on personal income tax are going to find themselves in probably a stronger fiscal position than states that do not.”

Chumley, of course, is reading from the pro-income tax talking points, which is ironic given that Governor Bredesen has repeatedly asserted that he opposes a state income tax. So does Bredesen instead have Chumley making the rounds to set the table for a second-term Sundquist maneuver?

Three days before, the paper had also reported on the same Chumley speech, this time quoting the revenue commissioner asserting that:

Being sales tax reliant also makes Tennessee more susceptible to revenues lost by purchases made over the Internet that go untaxed, which is something enforcement of the “fair use tax” can help remedy, Chumley said.

“With that 24/7 availability of the Internet, we do find ourselves increasingly vulnerable to a loss of revenue,” the commissioner said. “What this (fair use) tax is trying to do is put our Tennessee merchants on a level playing field with those merchants who are outside the State of Tennessee.”

Of course, the “fair use tax” is unconstitutional, because it taxes interstate commerce. That’s explicitly forbidden by the U.S. Constitution. As I noted in my op/ed piece back on February 26, 2004, “State legislators search for more taxpayer funds,” “The use tax is actually nothing more than a clever end-run around Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution, which states, in part, ‘No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.’”

Back during the Sundquist days, Department of Finance and Administration Commissioner Warren Neel served as the administration’s grim reaper, the bearer of all bad news that related to the state’s financial picture. Is Chumley the new Warren Neel?

Ben Cunningham over at Tennessee Tax Revolt noted in a recent e-mail distribution that:

Despite a non binding payroll tax referendum last year that where Mempis city voters overwhelmingly said NO to a local payroll tax which is cleary unconstitutional, one county commissioner thinks it would be a great idea.

Again, elected officials totally miss the point. It’s time for them to stop forcing taxpayers to cut their family budgets by raising taxes. Its time for them to address the real problem, and that is runaway spending.

One Shelby County commissioner, John Willingham, is prepared to submit a “Comprehensive Tax Burden Relief plan” that would, among other things — and I love this — implement “a 2½% payroll tax that he says would generate $500 million a year.”

Yes, it’s a tax burden relief plan that will increase taxes by $500,000,000 per year. This guy should get some kind of award.

At any rate, Willingham’s payroll tax (that’s “income tax” in liberalspeak), is unconstitutional in Tennessee, as per Article XI, Section 9, which states “The General Assembly shall not authorize any municipality to tax incomes, estate, or inheritances, or to impose any other tax not authorized by Sections 28 or 29 of Article II of this Constitution.”

Folks, Shelby County already has the highest property tax rate in the state. An extra $500 million might satiate the politicians for a couple of years, but they’d sooner or later be back for more. They always come back for more.

Income tax shows no life

Gov. Phil Bredesen has been true to his word on an income tax in the past, so one must assume he will be true to his word again.

Bredesen said this week that he is not interested in an income tax in a second term, saying he doesn’t believe the state needs one and that he doesn’t intend to propose one. That’s essentially what Bredesen said when he campaigned successfully for governor in 2002. He held to that pledge. He wisely refused in 2002 to make the pledge through a second term, but his remarks on the subject this week make it sound like he is making that pledge now.

Bredesen may come to regret the pledge. So may members of the General Assembly who swear off any income tax proposal. The state’s heavy reliance on a regressive sales tax is not an equitable way to raise funds, and an income tax would be a fairer way of establishing a tax base. It would be good to see a meaningful debate about tax reform in the gubernatorial election in 2006. If Bredesen doesn’t raise the issue, someone should. It would be a sign of true leadership.

Wrong. It would be a sign of defeat at the polls. If the income tax were so great and so popular, candidates know they’d be able to run a statewide campaign advocating a state income tax and win. But Bredesen knows that if he runs that kind of campaign, he’ll be signing his own pink slip.

Nevertheless, those who are convinced there is a hidden agenda to enact a state income tax appear far off base. There is simply no hint of any proposal to introduce an income tax as a part of tax reform in Tennessee. Those who adamantly oppose tax reform seem to bring up the subject more than anyone else. As other observers have pointed out, it’s as though opponents of an income tax feel the need to resurrect it themselves in order to show the world they will stamp it out.

You could have said the same eight years ago and been on the money. In fact, there wasn’t even a whiff of a state income tax until just a few weeks after Governor Sundquist was inaugurated for his second term, and then he dropped the bomb. As I’ve said before on this topic, fool me once shame on you, but fool me twice, shame on me. It won’t happen again. Fighting a state income tax requires vigilance 24/7, because income tax advocates are sneaky, unscrupulous, and relentless. Trust me, as long as Jimmy “Boss” Naifeh and John Wilder are in power, with the good ol’ boy system in tow, state income tax legislation can be summoned almost at an instant.

The race for governor in 2006 should include an open dialogue about where the state is headed and how it plans to get there. Nothing is more fundamental to that debate than the way the state raises its revenue. It would be nice if open minds and clear thinking allowed for discussion of tax reform. But if anyone expects Bredesen to come out in 2006 advocating such steps, it appears they will be disappointed.

Please note that when the Tennessean mentions “open minds and clear thinking” while advocating a state income tax, it is referring only to income tax advocates. Even though the Tennessean editorial board has been consistently on the side of a state income tax since Don Sundquist and Bob Rochelle sprung it on us back in 1999, never giving the other side one shred of credibility, it considers itself open-minded.

Furthermore, if Bredesen advocates “such steps,” it won’t come until after the election, assuming he is re-elected. That’s because income tax advocates only show their true colors AFTER elections — never before.

And one more thing. Don’t forget the argument that almost always gets lost in this debate. A state income tax in Tennessee is unconstitutional.

Let me answer that question this way, Brittney: Given the option of the tax burden I bear as a middle class Tennessean versus the tax burden carried by low-income Tennesseans, as a percentage, I’d choose the latter. Here’s why:

With respect to federal income taxes, the bottom 50% of wage earners pay 3.97% of all federal income taxes. This means the bottom half of wage earners pay virtually no federal income taxes. Meanwhile, the top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%. (No, I’m not in the top 1%, either, but you get the point.)

Now, Tennessee’s sales taxes are among the highest in the nation. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 2002, when Speaker Jimmy Naifeh fell just short of passing an income tax in the House of Representatives, despite all the well-publicized hoopla over how our regressive sales tax was unfairly burdening the poor, when given the option of passing a budget based on existing revenue or raising the sales tax, the Tennessee General Assembly opted to raise the sales tax by 1% on non-grocery items, among several other tax increases.

Brief diversion: In 2003, after voters had approved removing the constitutional ban on gambling to allow a lottery, the Tennessee General Assembly acted accordingly by passing legislation that created the lottery. Fair enough. The majority won. But according to a well-documented overview from Focus on the Family:

The 32 Colorado counties with the highest per-capita lottery sales all have per-capita income levels below the state average.

In New York, a Newsday study showed that those living in the most impoverished areas of the state spent eight times more of their income on lottery tickets than did those living in the most affluent sections.

The three poorest counties in New Mexico all rank among the state’s top 10 counties in per-capita lottery sales. New Mexico’s wealthiest county accounts for the fewest lottery ticket purchases per resident.

An Associated Press survey of Wisconsin lottery purchases found that residents living in the poorest neighborhoods in the state spent, on average, four times as much of their income on lottery tickets as did those in wealthier neighborhoods.

A University of Louisville study showed that Kentuckians with annual incomes less than $15,000 spent $9.23 per week on lottery tickets, while those earning above $35,000 spent only $7.36.

A Texas A&M study found that the lowest-income group of Texans, who earn only 2% of the state’s total income, provide 10% of the lottery’s revenue. Studies show that lottery play is more common among blacks and Hispanics than white, among laborers and service workers than advanced professionals, and among those without a high school degree than college graduates.

Pardon the distraction, but here’s my point: Those who support a state income tax also tended to support the lottery more than those who oppose a state income tax. So the lottery preys on the poor far more than the sales tax. (Yes, I know the lottery is voluntary and technically does not qualify as a “tax,” but the money does go to the government.) I, therefore, cannot take income tax supporters seriously when they start shedding tears on behalf of the poor until they become more vocal about the predatory nature of the lottery on the same income class.

Here’s another venue. Each of the last two years, the state of Tennessee has run a revenue surplus. The Tennessee General Assembly COULD have used those surpluses to ELIMINATE the sales tax on groceries. Here’s an excerpt from a Lebanon Democrat column I wrote back on July 22, 2004:

While we’re at it, why not bring in the Department of Finance and Administration to help the TTSSC lose the phrase “antiquated tax structure” from its vocabulary. Through the first 11 months of the just-ended fiscal year, the state is showing a surplus of $380.9 million, and has collected $603.5 million more than during the same period last year. And we’ve done this WITHOUT an income tax.

You’d think the same crowd that brought us the slogan “fair tax, not food tax” would have aimed its resources on transforming that surplus into a food tax reduction. Since each penny of the sales tax on groceries yields the state approximately $70 million in revenue, the surplus could be used to slash the food tax from its current 6% to zero. But you don’t hear the “fair tax, not food tax” people knocking on that door. (Imagine living in a state with no income tax and no food tax. It’s enough to drive liberals insane.)

But the state has instead spent every penny of our surpluses on expanding government. The “fair tax, not food tax” lobby has dutifully acquiesced, never pointing out that the surpluses could be used to eliminate the food tax, which would, as a percentage, benefit the poorest among us. That idea has only been advanced by the same people who oppose a state income tax — talk about advocacy for the poor. No, we don’t need a state income tax. We need a Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or some other system to force fiscal restraint on our free-spending legislature.

As far as sales tax as a percentage of income, the best I can do is the IRS sales tax deduction tables. (If anyone has a better gage, please share.) For a quick comparison, a family of 4 with an income of $30,000 is allowed a deduction of $995, which is 3.3% of its income. A family of four with an income of $70,000 is allowed a deduction of $1,306, which is 1.9% of its income. Therefore, yes, low-income citizens pay a higher percentage of their income in sales taxes than higher income citizens.

Let’s run some more numbers. Assume that both families spend your typical $100 per week on groceries. Probably all of those goods wouldn’t be taxed as food items, but we’re just making approximations here. Now, the sales tax on food in Tennessee is 6%. By eliminating the state’s portion of the food tax, each family would save $312 per year. That would reduce Family A’s sales tax burden (again assuming the authenticity of those IRS tables) to $683 per year, or 2.2% of its income. Family B would see its sales tax burden drop to $994 per year, or 1.4% of its income, significantly closing that gap.

Since eliminating the food tax in Tennessee would most greatly benefit the poor, and since it could have been — and still can be — accomplished without an income tax by redirecting our budget surpluses (thanks to a roaring economy), why aren’t income tax advocates barking up that tree?

Answer: Income tax advocates don’t care one whit about the poor. They only want to sock the taxpayers of Tennessee with more taxes. They simply use the poor as a mascot.

Let’s do some more math. Using IRS Form 1040A, a family of 4 earning $37,529 a year — the median household income in Tennessee, assuming a standard deduction, would pay no federal income tax.

A family of four earning $30,000 a year would get back $1,144 due to the Earned Income Credit (EIC), even though that family pays no federal income tax. Now, going back to the sales tax table, that same family, if it were itemizing, would have been allowed to deduct $995 for the sales taxes it paid. In other words, the amount our hypothetical family of 4 earning $30,000 would have paid in sales tax would have been more than offset by the EIC. In fact, the amount left over by subtracting the sales tax from the EIC — $149 — would pay the state and county wheel taxes on two vehicles where I live (Wilson County), with $51 left over from that! That means our hypothetical family would be left paying its payroll taxes. Assuming the wage earner(s) aren’t self-employed, this family would pay 7.65% of its income in social security and Medicare taxes, which comes to $2,295. Applying that $51 still left over from the EIC leaves $2,244 as that family’s total local, state, and federal tax burden. (This does not account for property taxes. But I would wager that most families of four earning $30,000 in Tennessee are renters and not owners.) Remember, if the state of Tennessee were to eliminate the food tax, this family would save an additional $312, further reducing its overall tax burden to $1,932, which comes to 6.4% of its income. (This is why, if given the option of the tax burden I bear as a middle class Tennessean versus the tax burden carried by low-income Tennesseans, as a percentage, I’d choose the latter.)

That’s not a bad deal for the privilege of living in this great state and this great nation. If you are going to be part of our society, then you ought to pay some taxes, no matter how little you earn. As I wrote in my column back on January 14, 2003:

By increasing the pool of citizens who pay little or no taxes, we are shifting the burden of funding the government onto the shoulders of fewer and fewer people. And we are quickly approaching the day when the majority of workers will pay no appreciable taxes, and will therefore not care whether Congress passes a tax cut or a tax increase. This would produce the troubling scenario of politicians getting elected solely on promises of greater entitlements to those who pay no taxes — a group of Americans that would constitute a majority of the voting population, and yet would have no vested interest in how government gets funded.

I have a moral problem with this. I believe it is unjust for one group of Americans to have the power to vote money out of the paychecks of a separate group of Americans. Regardless of how much money one earns, if he is part of this society, uses our roads and sends his children to our schools, then he should contribute something, no matter how small a sum. Only then can we all fully appreciate the fruits of the taxes we pay. And we can all hold our politicians accountable for the amount of money that is taxed, and for the quality of their stewardship.

Now, there’s another bone of contention I’d like to pick with a couple of the bloggers whom Brittney quoted in her own post. Here’s one:

When Ben Cunningham stood in front of all that mainstream media at Capitol Hill on Tuesday, trotting out another no tax pledge and demanding a response, he also had a proverbial get-out-of-jail-free card in his back pocket, which remains reserved for TTR friends. The pledge is immaterial. It’s a diversion. Don’t let them fool you, else you’ll be reading somewhere next year that one or all of those Republican legislators standing with TTR on Tuesday actually voted for a tax increase. And it won’t matter that they did, because TTR takes care of its friends.

The TTR takes care of its friends? How so? The TTR doesn’t have the means to take care of its friends, if you’re implying what I think you’re implying. Unlike TTR’s counterpart, Tennesseans for Fair Taxation, which is a well-greased lobby group, TTR is a grass-roots organization with extremely limited funding. TTR is nothing more than a group of activist citizens who: a) oppose a state income tax, b) endeavor to have proposed city and county tax increases placed on ballots so the citizens who will be affected can have the final say, and c) advocate a Taxpayer Bill of Rights. These citizens don’t get paid by anyone, don’t “own” politicians, and don’t have lobbyists, other than ourselves.

There’s one reason, and one reason only, why leftists disdain TTR: The Tennessee Tax Revolt is a classic David-and-Goliath story. We took on the behemoth of state government, lobbyists, and mainstream press, and won. And we’re still winning.

A second blogger asks this regarding “no tax” pledges:

If a politician wanted to raise taxes to provide better national security or revive the economy or fix health care or even to ensure you can still used the interstate system, would you support the move?

First, raising taxes doesn’t revive an economy. Lowering taxes does that. Raising taxes hurts the economy. Second, during George W. Bush’s presidency, we have provided better national security in the form of the Department of Homeland Security. Health care benefits have increased under the prescription drug plan for seniors. And, yes, we can still use the interstate system. At the same time, federal income taxes have been CUT for every single person in this country who pays them. And guess what? The economy has been expanding without interruption since 2001.

Now that I have thoroughly answered Brittney’s question, I’d like to counter with one of my own to income tax advocates. This is something that rarely gets thrown into the state income tax debate, because income tax advocates don’t like to fool with it. First, here’s a little background from my April 8, 2003 column:

There are two references in the state Constitution which make the income tax illegal. The first, located in Article II, Section 28 reads, in part, “The Legislature shall have power to levy a tax upon incomes derived from stocks and bonds that are not taxed ad valorem.”

The Tennessee Constitution, like the Constitution of the United States, lists specific powers delegated to the various branches of state government — and no more. In short, if the Constitution doesn’t grant a specific power to our elected officials, then they don’t have that power. Here, the Legislature may tax incomes derived from stocks and bonds (i.e., the Hall income tax). That’s it.

If you still aren’t convinced, the clincher lies in Article XI, Section 9. “The General Assembly shall not authorize any municipality to tax incomes, estate, or inheritances, or to impose any other tax not authorized by Sections 28 or 29 of Article II of this Constitution.”

I’m not a scholar of constitutional law, but even I am able to read the above provision and conclude that if the Constitution doesn’t spell it out, then it’s not authorized. And an income tax is thereby not authorized in Tennessee — at any level of government.

If there are still lingering questions, then please consider the three previous unanimous rulings by the Tennessee Supreme Court which have reinforced the unconstitutionality of the income tax. In 1932, in Evans v. McCabe, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a tax on personal income enacted by the Legislature was unconstitutional. In 1960, in Jack Cole Co. v. MacFarland, and in 1964, in Gallagher v. Butler, in unanimous opinions by the five judges, the Supreme Court quoted with approval and followed the ruling of the Supreme Court in Evans v. McCabe.

So, here’s my question: Does anyone disagree that a state income tax would first require a constitutional amendment to make it legal?

The Senate yesterday voted on SJR 128, sponsored by Joe Haynes, to “commend and thank” each member of the Tennessee Tax Structure Study Commission. The resolution fell one vote short of the 17 needed for passage, but having failed to achieve a constitutional majority, can be brought back up at a later time.

The bill is filled with the typical pro-income tax garbage, which is why having a recorded vote on SJR 128 is nice to have on file for later use. The 16 members voting “yes” include 14 Democrats and 2 Republicans. Those “yes” votes were Senators Burchett, Burks, Chism, Cooper, Crutchfield, Ford, Fowler, Harper, Haynes, Henry, Herron, Kilby, Kurita, Kyle, McLeary, and Wilder.

The six “no” votes were handed down by Senators Beavers, Black, Bryson, Ketron, Miller, and Tracy.

There were eight members who pushed the “present not voting” button were Senators Crowe, Finney, Hagood, Jackson, McNally, Ramsey, Southerland, and Williams.

The three senators who didn’t vote at all were Cohen, Norris, and Person.

Thanks to Tennessee Tax Revolt for getting this out.