Who are the NERD fund donors Mr Snyder?
A Warning We Shouldn't Have To Issue
By Kevin Rex Heine, Section News
As a general rule, I really don't give so much as one airborne rodent derriere what my critics think of me. This is especially so given that, to paraphrase Pierre S. du Pont IV, critics aren't required to be consistent (assuming that they're even required to know what they're talking about in the first place). And since the specific critic in question can't seem to move past his standard M.O. of schoolyard-style insults and misleading vividness fallacies, where he doesn't engage in outright argumentum ad hominem, I'm even less inclined to personally give a damn what he thinks.
That having been said, with regard to a couple of bills that were reported out of the House Tax Policy Committee back on Wednesday (2013 House Bill 4202 and 2013 House Bill 4203), the critic has at least one valid point that, as a matter of professional integrity, I really ought to address.
Internet Sales Tax Legislation (colloquially referred to as imposing an "Amazon tax" on internet purchases) is being pitched by its proponents as closing a tax loophole that favors large Internet retailers over "main street" brick-and-mortar stores. The problem, as a Mackinac Center analysis shows, is that what we're being sold here is a very different "bill of goods" that is actually serving, as Jason is fond of saying, as "rent seeking" by the Internet retail giants (such as Amazon and Overstock) designed to screw over the mom-and-pop stores the legislation purports to benefit.
Whatever fiscal bind Michigan may still be in (an entirely different debate), adding taxation to value-producing citizens who are already footing too much of the government bill is not how this is solved. Or do we already forget this little video message?
A little bit of budget analysis from publicly-available records shows about $1.5 BILLION that could be freed up for various necessities, simply by having the sense and the stones to actually cut actual waste out of the state's spending. As the Don't Raise MI Taxes Tour back in the spring made clear, we the people are beyond tired of being used as our government's ATM. This is especially true when the tax
Evidently, we shouldn't underestimate the predisposition of politicians (regardless of party affiliation) to go back to business as usual the second that they think the heat's off. Which brings me around to my main point, which is that some high-speed boot polishing is apparently in order.
State Representative Kevin Cotter (R, District 99, Mt. Pleasant), who was iCaucus Michigan endorsed in 2010, according to 2013 House Journal Number 72, voted to report both House Bill 4202 (2013) and House Bill 4203 (2013) out of committee with the recommendation that the substitutes (H-3 in both cases) be adopted and that the bills then pass. An additional embarrassment for iCaucus Michigan is that State Representative Rob VerHeulen (R, District 74, Walker), who was iCaucus Michigan endorsed in 2012, is the primary sponsor on 2013-HB-4203 and a co-sponsor on 2013-HB-4202.
To directly rebuke the critic, Rep. VerHeulen was publicly reprimanded by iCaucus Michigan for his vote (2013 House Roll Call 11) to approve 2013 House Bill 4111, to fund the state role in a federal "ObamaCare partnership exchange" (the reprimand letter can be downloaded from this link). Evidently, some additional "politician paper training" is in order.
I'm going to be talking with Rep. VerHeulen this weekend, as well as the rest of the iCaucus Michigan executive staff (and the iCaucus National executive staff) regarding this matter, and specifically how we deal with both Cotter and VerHeulen. In the meantime, let me point something out to Mr. VerHeulen, who's already on probation as far as iCaucus is concerned:
Sir, your overall record in the state house has been good. But your vote to approve the ObamaCare exchanges, and now your sponsorship of a tax increase package, isn't going to do you any favors next summer.
Speaker Bolger absolutely has it right; Internet Sales Tax Legislation is by definition an interstate commerce issue, and therefore constitutionally squarely within the purview of Congress (and the U. S. Commerce Department). The state has no business legislating in the matter (and, according to Article 1 § 10 of the U. S. Constitution, has no authority to legislate in the matter).
Now, where'd I leave that rolled-up newspaper?
A Warning We Shouldn't Have To Issue | 0 comments ( topical, 0 hidden)
Related Links+ Pierre S. du Pont IV
+ 2013 House Bill 4202
+ 2013 House Bill 4203
+ as a Mackinac Center analysis shows
+ this little video message
+ budget analysis from publicly-available records
+ Don't Raise MI Taxes Tour
+ according to a House Fiscal Agency analysis
+ regardless of party affiliation
+ according to 2013 House Journal Number 72
+ House Bill 4202 (2013)
+ House Bill 4203 (2013)
+ was publicly reprimanded by iCaucus Michigan
+ 2013 House Roll Call 11
+ 2013 House Bill 4111
+ the reprimand letter can be downloaded from this link
+ including an interview I gave MIRS last week
+ absolutely has it right
+ Article 1 § 10 of the U. S. Constitution
+ Also by Kevin Rex Heine