Read His Lips?

John McCain seems to be backtracking on his pledge of no new taxes. George H.W. Bush found out the hard way what happens when you do that.

One of the few issues that makes McCain slightly more palatable than Obama, when it comes to being president, is his previous stand on taxation. Now, with candidates from both of the major political parties appearing to be dyed-in-the-wool liberals who never met a tax they didn't like, it's starting to look better for a third party candidate to move in and fill the conservative void in the November election.

I know, the Libertarian party is full of nut cases, but what choice do conservatives have at this point? At least their presidential candidate, Bob Barr, seems to have his head on straight.

Taxation Tyranny

"The Primary requisite for any new tax law is for it to exempt enough voters to win the next election." - Anonymous

The (extra) one dollar a pack tax on cigarettes sold in Texas is now a year old and has, for fiscal '07, brought in $1.248 Billion in additional revenue to be used at the pleasure of our so-called representatives in Austin. Let's just hope more people take up the smoking habit so this cash cow can continue to fund pet projects.

Not to be greedy, but our benevolent legislators will now reap another tax windfall from yet another group of their hapless subjects: those who patronize strip clubs. This $5 per visit tax (expected to yield an annual $40 Million) will ostensibly fund sexual abuse programs.

Okay.....you don't smoke or visit strip clubs, so what do you care? Well, it's just a matter of time before our overlords decide to tax something that affects you, and if we let them get away with this type of tyranny, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

Here are some choice tax targets that, like smoking and strip clubs, won't have enough defenders to ward off the tax tyrants:

A greens fee tax for golfers ($5).....to help fund recreation facilities for those who don't have the time or money to enjoy golfing.

A tax on NASCAR race tickets ($5).....to help fund infrastructure improvements needed around the Texas Motor Speedway.

An additional tax on alcohol ($1/drink).....to help fund the police and EMS responses to alcohol-related traffic accidents.

A similar tax on tickets to professional sporting events.....because we don't really need a reason for taxing something, do we?

San Francisco's mayor is proposing a tax on soft drinks (to help fund tooth decay prevention programs?). He's another one of those we're-taxing-you-for-your-own-good liberals who care less about you than about filling the government's coffers. He's no different from our Governor, really.

Next thing you know, they'll want to tax tea......ring a bell?

At least now, votes in the Texas legislature will be recorded, so we'll know who supports oppressive laws. Tarring and feathering politicians and running them out of town on a rail is no longer an approved method of demonstrating the people's displeasure (darn it), so pay attention and vote wisely.

Do Texans have the will to defeat tax tyranny?..........do they even care?

I'm hoping for a big turnover in Austin soon. Otherwise, I might as well be living in the Peoples Republic of California.

Reducing Foreign Oil Dependence

Mort Kondracke, executive editor of Roll Call, is promoting the idea of a stiff increase in gasoline taxes to help solve our problem of dependence on foreign oil.

A hefty hike in gas taxes -- better yet, in taxes on all carbon-based fuels -- will accomplish far more than mandates and subsidies for what everyone claims to want: "energy independence" and "clean energy."

I usually agree with Mort on major issues, but he's dead wrong on this one. A big increase in federal taxes on gas, would be regressive and hurt the poorest people the most. His suggestion of rebates for poor people would be rediculously unworkable and seriously bloat an already bloated bureaucracy.

Also, it would increase the cost of just about everything we buy that requires energy to manufacture (or grow) and transport to the consumer. Maybe Mort is really a democrat. He sure sounds like one on this issue.

Would it not make more sense to aim any new taxes on those who squander gasoline rather than sticking it to the poor schmuck who has to commute to work for an hour in an older model (i.e., less fuel-efficient) vehicle? Perhaps a punitive tax on new vehicles that get less than 25 mpg (or some other arbitrary figure)?

If the politicians have to pretend to be doing something about a problem, better that they do something less damaging to the people and our society.

How about this idea.......send a message to OPEC. We'll pay $30 a barrel for your oil...take it or leave it. If you don't sell to us (your biggest customer) you can just use the oil to fill your swimming pools and find some way to survive without all that American cash.

Also, you can forget about all the foreign aid we've been giving you and all the other economic benefits of being a U.S. trading partner.

$moke 'em if ya got 'em

Ahh, whatever happened to the romance of smoking?

On January 1, 2007, many smokers will have a greater incentive to quit smoking. The Texas legislature and Gov. Perry decided that adding an extra dollar to the tax on a pack of cigarettes would be a great way to get more money for the things they want to spend it on.

Actuaries, no doubt, worked overtime to come up with a figure ($1/pack) that would, at least in the short term, earn the State the most revenue from everyone's favorite "whipping boy" (smokers) without causing so many of them to quit smoking that the State would pass the point of diminishing returns.

Aside from smokers, who seem to be in a minority nowadays, who would argue against the new tax?

Those who feel it is their duty to control other peoples' behavior (liberals) are almost giddy over the prospect of forcing even more smokers to finally quit as an economic necessity, if not for their own health.

Other non-smokers simply say: "To hell with smokers. That's what they get for smoking in the first place."

The politicians are not interested in the health of smokers, or the welfare of non-smokers. All they care about is the money.

I have an idea that would raise even more revenue and be a greater benefit to the welfare of my fellow Texans. Instead of taking out our anguish and greed on smokers (who have had it tough enough as it is), slap an extra $1 per drink tax on alcohol.

The non-smoking alcoholics that fill the State legislature probably wouldn't like that idea too much, though. But just think of the benefits!

How about it AA? How about it MADD? It would be a win-win situation for everyone but the alcoholics we despise (almost) as much as we despise smokers.

Next, we go after coffee drinkers.

Hmmm....aren't soft drinks bad for you? What about red meat?

"My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives." -Hedley Lamarr

$moker$

Starting January 1, 2007, smokers in Texas will have to pay an extra dollar per pack of cigarettes. The price of a carton of cigarettes will, therefore, increase $10.

The anticipated windfall in tax revenues will supposedly be used to help fund our schools. Just like some specialty license plates were supposed to fund state parks.

A large portion of the Texas state lottery (finally) is used to fund public schools, but school taxes are still high. The Texas legislature has reportedly been unable to come up with an adequate plan to fund

The new cash cow for Texas politicians comes in the form of people who refuse to quit smoking (how dare they keep lighting up!). The current taxes on tobacco products have not provided the politicians with the revenues they crave, possibly because the number of smokers keeps dropping.

You can bet that somewhere in the bowels of Texas state government, actuaries have been hard at work determining just how much more tax can be levied on smokers until the number of smokers is reduced to the point of diminishing returns.