Anti-Tax Tennessee

The Tennessean reported that there is a move afoot by Republicans in the General Assembly to create an amendment to the state constitution that will ban state income and payroll taxes. For details, go to http://www.tennessean.com/article/20081212/NEWS0201/812120408/1009/NEWS01. In reading some of the posted responses to the article, some people are for this ban, and some are against it.

For those who are against the ban, or see no need for it, there is something you need to know. As someone who originally hails from a state with a very backward tax policy (Alabama), I know first-hand the hardships an onerous taxation policy can create. In Alabama, not only did you have your usual sales taxes and property taxes, they had income taxes, and some cities also had an occupational tax (Birmingham was sued over it's occupational tax). Ad valorem/sales taxes were the favorite vehicles for politicians seeking to raise money instead of reigning in budgets. The thing of it is, life-long residents of a state that holds such backward taxation policies often don't even realize how enslaved they are to the state plantation. Hard work is not rewarded- it is taxed, and often no good use of the taxes is ever realized by the hard working tax payer.

If a state ban on income and payroll taxes is passed, the residents of Tennessee will hopefully never know the burden such a tax would bring to their way of life. The Assembly will be accountable because they will have to raise taxes in a very visible manner, chiefly by one of two means: one, through a very visible sales tax, or two, through a higher property tax. For mortgage holders paying taxes through an escrow account, they will be rather angry with the Assemblymen raising their mortgage payments without permission. Mortgage escrow accounts are often set to rise when taxed amounts rise in order to pay the taxes. Often the monthly payment will rise by just a few dollars a month, but that isn't the point. Someone raised it without the mortgage holder's direct approval. If the house is paid for, then the yearly taxes paid go up by a single lump amount, to be paid in full by the tax payer. Either way, politicians do not care for public bitterness over such a course of action as raising property taxes. In a state with payroll taxes, often the tax is raised, and people chalk it up to higher taxes as usual, and politicians often get away with it. They expect a payroll tax, but they do not expect a higher property tax. Likewise, paying more for groceries will raise the ire of citizens, so pols can't go that route and expect easy relationships with their constituents.

So you see, banning income and payroll taxes does several things. It keeps politicians honest in regard to budgeting, it reigns in budgets (thus controlling spending), and it frees the money of the working citizen, spurring more spending or saving, which ever the worker chooses to do.

Bravo to the Tennessee Republicans seeking to preserve the rights of citizens to keep their hard-earned money!

Another Way to Save the State Some Money

Court Officers Not Expected to Work Full Day
(From http://www.newschannel5.com/global/story.asp?s=9408755)

Rather than closing the alleged family-business tax "loophole", why not look for wasteful spending, Mr. Bredesen? According to News 5, court officers don't have to work the full day they are paid for. At another point in the report, one court officer said he "worked for the Davidson County taxpayers".

Here is a nice quote from the report:

"Altogether, the price tag for the 22 court officers in General Sessions Court comes to $1.2 million -- yet no one keeps track of how much they work or how much they're off."

Whether these part-time workers with full time salaries work for the state or county, here is one area of waste that seriously needs to be evaluated.

The Danger of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child

Have you ever watched a common mole? You know, the kind that pushes up mounds and trails in your yard? Of course not- it is underground. You do not know the mole is nearby until after the damage is done. Well, there is a mole of a story lurking just out of plain sight that must be eradicated, and the media seems uninterested in giving this story more air time and print space. To be fair, there is so much news to cover it is impossible for all news affecting us to be aired/printed, and even harder for one person to absorb it all. One such story that should be uncovered and brought above ground is the story of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Michael Farris, an attorney, wrote a column for ChristianNewsWire in May of this year. He addresses the legal impact that U.S. ratification of this seemingly nice sounding convention could have on parents in raising their children. (Michael Farris, is not "just" an attorney, he is also president and Co-founder of the Home School Legal Defense Association, and is current Chancellor of Patrick Henry College.) He wrote this bit of information that would raise the hackles of any parent I know:

"For starters, Obama supports the ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, a treaty that would have disastrous consequences for the American family. This treaty would be, according to our Constitution, part of the Supreme law of the land. And in the U.S. international treaties override state law.

The Committee on the Rights of the Child is the official UN tribunal granted the authority to interpret and enforce the Children's Convention, which sets forth an exhaustive index of children's rights, many at odds with the rights of parents. The tribunal has held, for instance, that the United Kingdom violated children's rights in Wales by allowing parents to withdraw their children from public school programs without first considering the child's wishes.

What this means in plain English is that the UN has determined that the government will decide for all what is best for our children. The government has authority to intervene in decisions regarding a child's education. The government will choose whether the child's wishes or the parent's wishes are the best for children.

This is the ultimate dream of elitists: they get to decide for all of us what is best for our own children.

Obama has clearly demonstrated his elitist core values. He has recently stated that people who believe in the Bible and who exercise their Second Amendment rights are driven by bitterness. It is not their fault, he says in a paternal voice, that they hold such regressive attitudes; an unjust society has led them to this unfortunate set of views and practices.

This very brand of elitist, statist thinking lies at the heart of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. No parent can be trusted to make decisions for their children without the government having the power to intervene in every case.

from: http://christiannewswire.com/news/486236590.html, David Halbrook

This underground mole, however, is about to break ground, and when it does, it will be too late. If the Senate consents to this treaty (signed by Clinton in 1995), we could/will likely be tried for not considering our children's "wishes" in our decision making.

My children's wishes do matter to me. However, they are too young to fully formulate the opinions and decisions regarding their lives. Therefore, I have to make decisions that would be contrary to their wishes. For me to abdicate my responsibility as a parent to my own child would cause chaos in my home. Abdicating it to the government would be disastrous as well. Parental rights and authority would be undermined, and the ensuing anarchy that follows from such a law would destroy a fabric of society already weakened by moral relativism, pluralism, gay rights, gay "marriage", and the like.

I am not talking about abstract, academic implications here. It is feasible that a liberal application of this Convention would include the rights of the parents to "force" children to attend church with the family, the rights of parents to choose their children's education (public, private, or home school), and the means of disciplining their children. As a homeschool dad, I don't relish the thought of living in a country where the governemnt can tell me that homeschooling is not in the best interests of my children. Can't happen? Tell that to the German parents being harrassed, questioned, forced to undergo psychiatric evaluation, or are even in jail because they are fighting for their right to homeschool. Many homeschool families are fleeing the country because of the pressure of the government to keep their children in government run schools.

According to U.S. Law, treaties must be consented to by the Senate. Please write, email and call your Senators and Congressmen today and tell them to vote "no" should a consent vote to this treaty come up. Once in office, contact President-elect Obama and ask him to repeal the presidential signature (not likely, as he fully supports this convention, as you can see at http://debate.waldenu.edu/video/question-12/#content).