On June 18th, the Chicago Tribune reported that Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack "vetoed a measure that would have restricted government's ability to use eminent domain to boost economic development." But backers of such limits were not too happy.

Brian Walker of Essex, Iowa, was quoted as saying, "Under current [Iowa] eminent domain laws, cities can manipulate regulations to suit their purposes under the guise of public use and then take land and give it to other private entities."

"I worry that the expansion of eminent domain laws will have a negative effect on the economy," said Amy Zolotow an assistant intern researcher at Western Illinois University. "Expansion of these laws could pave the way for development projects that would trample the rights of property owners."

"This law would simply make those trying to confiscate private property prove that they need it," said Rick Tuttle of Peru, Iowa.

Care to re-think your actions governor?

Posted by John Skorburg at 04:06 PM | Permalink

Bill Frist has proposed a few budgetary reforms under a plan he's calling the "Stop-Over Spending Act." Included are three provisions: (1) Line-item veto, (2) A two-year budget cycle, and (3) statutory limits on discretionary spending.

My initial thoughts are as follows, in reverse order:

Continue reading "Speaking of Spending ..." »

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (18)

So we can sue the Fed ... like this guy suing the state of Texas.

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 08:49 AM | Permalink

AP reports that the GAO has found that a huge amount of the federal tax money spent for victims of last year's hurricanes was misspent, or as we normal people say, stolen:

Continue reading "Your Tax Dollars at Work" »

Posted by Sam Karnick at 03:10 PM | Permalink

Doing business in Philadelphia will get cheaper over the next three years, according to MSNBC, thanks to City Council's unanimous adoption of a budget proposal by Mayor John F. Street on May 25.
The mayor's plan accelerates cuts to the gross receipts portion of Philadelphia's business privilege tax, adopted along with the city's $3.7 billion budget for fiscal 2007, will lower the current 0.19 percent rate to 0.1415 percent in 2008.
Report co-author Donald Fuga said,"The city itself isn't killing people, but our state taxes, corporate net taxes, are very, very high."
The entire article can be found at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13269191/

Posted by John Skorburg at 04:01 PM | Permalink

The three-percent tax in long-distance service, a 107-year old relic of the Spanish-American War, is no more.

The Department of Treasury announced it would no longer collect the tax, meaning phone bills just got a little bit cheaper. One can hope this might have some impact on the rationale for state excise taxes (usually much higher) on service.

Large companies had been suing the IRS—and winning—on whether the tax could be applied to flat rate charges.

More info here.

Posted by Steven Titch at 04:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (23) | TrackBacks (0)

The LATimes is endorsing Proposition 81, a $600 million bond issue to fund 60 library projects across the state. Now forget for a minute that I'm not an expert. How many of you actually use the library the way you used to? Not that we should rid ourselves of public libraries per se, but we should certainly question their usefulness before expanding library systems. In my experience, only useful service the library provides these days is free internet for patrons. The growing availability of used books and the growing popularity of library exchange systems have steadily decreased the demand for large book holdings.

While I can't make a proper judgment on Prop. 81, I will say that bonding should be reserved for VITAL infrastructure, rather than DESIRED infrastructure. And I suspect there is a bit of a boondoggle in the works. Californians reading these pages should fee free to correct me.

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 01:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Politicians have long bragged about how much federal money they were bringing back home, and it worked because citizens of one's district or state knew that tax money sent to D.C. that did not come back in the form of direct services or greater national security would simply be spent on projects in states with representatives who were better at getting their way. That brought about a natural process known as pork-barreling, in which every successful representative tried to get the most federal money possible spent in his state, which led to an incredible amount of taxpayer money being spent on boondoggles such as roads to literally nowhere and federally financed hot dog museums. Politicians would brag about how much bacon they were bringing home, regardless of how unconstitutional and worthless the projects actually were.

Continue reading "Trimming the Pork: There Is Only One Way" »

Posted by Sam Karnick at 12:19 PM | Permalink

At the risk of having Pat Toomey, Dick Armey, and Stephen Moore show up at my door this evening clad in their finest Torquemada-like attire, I need to get something off my chest regarding supply-side dogma.

It isn't that I necessarily disagree with supply-side theory. Properly understood, supply-side economics is just another term for basic capitalist economics, of the variety that Adam Smith wrote so approvingly of in that great year, 1776. Supply-side theory is really nothing fancier than a restatement of one of the most basic and unchallengeable premises of economics: incentives matter.

No, my quibble with supply side is not with the theory itself. It's with the advocates and practitioners.

Continue reading "A touch of supply-side heresy" »

Posted by Sean Parnell at 04:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

A few weeks ago I co-wrote an op-ed titled something like "The Rhode Island Disease." The subject was a recent jury verdict against several manufacturers of lead-paint pigment. Without going into the dreadfully boring details, it was my opinion that the verdict would damage Rhode Island’s business climate, as the verdict seemed to have little relationship to common understanding of legal liability. I concluded that “...if Rhode Island continues abandon basic notions that support a stable and predictable legal system, it is quite likely that it's economy will suffer compared to other states as businesses look away from Rhode Island and towards more friendly legal climates.”

Well, that still holds true, in my opinion. But state legislators in Rhode Island, particularly Democrats, certainly seem to be working hard in other areas to make Rhode Island a better place to do business.

Continue reading "And the Adam Smith prize for good tax policy goes to - RI Dems?" »

Posted by Sean Parnell at 01:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Let's forget for a moment that the government is robbing me blind. Last year, I discovered how easy it was to file a tax extension and now I'm hooked. Sitting at my computer, contemplating how complex my taxes are going to be this year, it took me all of about three minutes to decide to go the extension route. There's got to be a drawback to this. If so, please warn me, otherwise Tax Day will forever be Tax Extension Day in my house. Comments are open.

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

According to the Windfield Press (March 23, 2005) "Winfield voters reject three referendum issues."

Pocketbooks spoke loud and clear as this western suburb of Chicago voted down a new library building, an increase in taxes for the fire protection district and an increase in taxes for local road funds -- by margins of 2 to 3 to 1.

I guess the local taxpayers are satisfied with what they have!

Posted by John Skorburg at 12:02 PM | Permalink

Texas Gov. Rick Perry told the Texas Association of Manufacturing on March 22nd that the upcoming special session of the legislature is an opportunity to give Texans a significant property tax cut that stands the test of time and to make lasting improvements to the state's tax structure so that it is more modern, broader and fairer.

He said the economic growth the state has experienced in recent years occurred because Texas has created an environment that welcomes job creation and rewards entrepreneurship like no other state. “My philosophy is simple: You can't tax, spend, regulate and litigate your way to prosperity,” Perry said.

For more details, chick here:

Posted by John Skorburg at 03:43 PM | Permalink

The Christian Science Monitor reports today that homeowners around the nation are increasingly angry about property tax increases. It is true that property taxes in many areas have been rising much more quickly than either the overall inflation rate or increasing values of homes, and not just for the wealthy but for everyone. These windfalls, moreover, are not being collected because the communities desperately need additional swimming pools in the local schools. (You should see the astonishing luxuries in most schools in decent neighborhoods.) No, the local governments are collecting these high taxes simply because they can: people living in highly preferred communities are at the mercy of their local taxing bodies, and the latter are increasingly taking advantage of local residents.

Citizens around the nation are utterly fed up with this legalized extortion and have begun to take action, the Monitor reports:

This year, legislative proposals, citizen initiatives, and lawsuits are on the agenda in at least 20 states. These new efforts reflect both residents' distrust of how their property tax dollars are being spent and concerns that rising assessments are driving working-class people out of popular towns and cities. . . .

Continue reading "Welcome Development: Property Tax Revolts" »

Posted by Sam Karnick at 08:13 PM | Permalink

[Disclaimer, I'm not a real economist but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night]

Following the release of a CBS/New York Times poll purporting show Americans would support a gas tax increase if it "cut down on energy consumption and reduce global warming" (59%), Thomas Friedman is suggesting that politicians should feel comfortable pushing for a gas tax incrase so long as they "frame it" correctly. Of course, Friedman is right that taxing gas will reduce consumption, but this effect doesn't occur in a vaccuum. Which leads us to question whether Friedman is "framing" the issue correctly.

Continue reading "Gassy Logic" »

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 08:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The great state of California has long been known as a land of opportunity—but also as the corner of the country to which all the sleaziness, greed, and stupidity of the nation eventually slide. Politically, it has been exactly that for about the past two decades.

As the Opinion Journal notes in an editorial in today's edition, California pols have done their level best to destroy the state's economy by abusing everyone who actually succeeds in fulfilling the economic promise laid down by the state in years past, in an endless stream of harassment done in the name of fairness, equality, economic justice, and other fine things. As the Journal editorial notes, the consequences of California's high and ever-increasing taxes and strangling regulatory apparatus are resulting in a turnaround of immigration patterns:

Continue reading "Taxing Californians Out" »

Posted by Sam Karnick at 08:45 AM | Permalink

State election officials in Maine ruled yesterday (Tuesday) that "supporters of an initiative to limit taxes and state and local government spending have submitted enough signatures to present the proposal to voters statewide" on November 7th.

Go get TABOR on the ballot 58,000 signatures were submitted and 51,611 were certified. This is over 10% of the votes cast for governor in the last Maine election.

To read more chlick here:

Posted by John Skorburg at 03:31 PM | Permalink

In case you thought Bush and the Republicans had a monopoly on the distortion of language for political ends, Rahm Emmanuel and Ron Weyden give us this little gem: The Fair-Flat Tax Act of 2005. As you might suspect, the new tax plan is neither flat nor fair. In fact, it appears to be nothing but a net tax increase disguised as "reform". Among other things it would:

Continue reading "Policy Newspeak: The Fair-Flat Tax" »

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 05:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Will you be accosted by the federal Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) in 2006? More and more taxpayers are starting to feel its pinch, and not just the rich.

To read more, click here: AMT Bites More in 2006

Posted by John Skorburg at 03:32 PM | Permalink

I think we could make a general rule, when the federal government is big enough to have an official milk policy, it's way too big. The Fed's regulation of milk (and other nonsense like swiss cheese) is so much a part of our culture we forget about it altogether. Thankfully, The Chicago Tribune ran an article yesterday reminding me to be angry about it.

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 01:56 PM | Permalink

No, Seriously!

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 08:59 AM | Permalink

According to a recent AP story, state tax burdens have jumped over 40% in 10 years.

“State taxpayer burdens increased by an average of 41 percent from 1994 to 2004, according to newly released data from the Census Bureau. Only one state, Alaska, saw the amount it collects per person decline,” writes STEPHEN OHLEMACHER.

And even when the numbers are adjusted for inflation, “The individual tax burdens increase in 43 states.”

Check out the entire article by clicking on the author’s name above.

Posted by John Skorburg at 02:56 PM | Permalink

How is it that we can be so outraged both by booming deficits and any attempt by Congress to reign in spending? We should either support spending or oppose spending, right? This is, in a nutshell, is Don Boudreaux's question. I think Don intends to point us toward our growing political dysfunctions. No matter how bad we hate government spending, no one can seem to stop it.

Continue reading "Budget Questions" »

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 10:31 AM | Permalink

“Resist increases in taxes; don't rely on shaky revenues,” is the call of (R, Davenport) Jamie Van Fossen -- chair of the Iowa House Ways and Means Committee.

On February 6, Van Fossen noted the following in the DesMoines Register:

As chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
I do not support tax increases on Iowans — ANY tax increases
on ANY Iowans. As such, I do not support raising state taxes
on cigarettes or tobacco products.

Van Fossen also explains why a tax on any special interest group is a tax on all of us.

You can read his words by clicking here:

Posted by John Skorburg at 11:44 AM | Permalink

Calls for a windfall profits tax have often been accompanied by claims that the U.S. is more forgiving in its taxation of corporations than other nations. “Just the opposite is true,” said Tax Foundation economist Jonathan Williams. “The combined federal-state tax rate on corporate profits is 39.3 percent in the U.S.. That’s the highest of all nations in the OECD.” (To see recent study click here:)

“Many who propose taxing energy companies more heavily than other firms, with a ‘windfall’ tax, believe that these firms somehow escape normal taxpaying requirements, leaving other industries to carry a heavier load,” said Scott Hodge, president of the Tax Foundation, “but fourth-quarter financial statements show this isn’t true.”

For the press release click here:

Posted by John Skorburg at 05:03 PM | Permalink

But will a baseball team come to town? Based on a February 1st report in the Marion Daily Republican, the answer is still a maybe.

“During the last six weeks of uncertainty, [businessman John] Simmons continued construction on the $16 million minor league stadium being built in the northwest section of Marion known as ‘The Hill.’ The stadium, northwest of the intersection of Illinois 13 and Interstate 57, is scheduled to be completed in time for the start of the 2007 season. Simmons, who was contacted Monday by e-mail, declined to comment,” wrote Tim Petrowich.

Continue reading "Marion (IL) Builds a State Subsidized Baseball Stadium" »

Posted by John Skorburg at 04:13 PM | Permalink

The Florida based Capital Bureau reported on January 31, that the proposed 2006 state budget for Governor Jeb Bush is “packed with tax cuts, breaks.”

“Gov. Jeb Bush unveiled the most ambitious tax-cutting agenda of his administration Tuesday [January 31, 2006], proposing $1.5 billion in tax breaks to homeowners, consumers, businesses and investors. The cuts would skyrocket the cumulative tax reductions during his stay in office to $20.3 billion. His proposal would scale back the state's school property tax rate enough to save the owner of a $300,000 home about $142.”
.
According to Capital Bureau reporter, Aaron Deslatte, “The tax breaks are affordable because Florida budget writers are awash in extra cash - in excess of $3 billion next year due to the housing market and hurricane-related construction.”

The original article can be found click here:

Posted by John Skorburg at 11:34 AM | Permalink

A Des Moines Register Political Columnist stated his case on January 11th for no increase in the state beer tax.

“Gov. Tom Vilsack proposed Tuesday [January 11, 2006] a 53 percent increase in the beer tax. The idea lacks fizz and gets in the way of more important things he's trying to do,” wrote David Yepsen.

”The Democratic governor asked lawmakers to increase the tax from 19 cents per gallon to 29 cents per gallon, raising an additional $7.4 million for the state treasury. While that's only about 6 cents a six-pack, the reaction from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers went down like a warm Lite beer.”

Yepsen continued, “Vilsack's idea is poor tax policy because it would help make Iowa's tax uncompetitive with other states.”

“A beer-tax increase raises only $7 million —- a pittance in the state's overall $5.3 billion general-fund budget — and is never going to be approved by this Legislature. It just isn't worth the political hangover.”

The entire article can be found at:

Continue reading "Iowa Beer Tax Goes Flat" »

Posted by John Skorburg at 08:52 PM | Permalink

According to The Record “if Gov. Pataki has his way, it will become very, very bad for your wallet” to purchase cigarettes in the state of New York.

“Among the many revenue raisers he [Pataki] addressed in his budget plan this month was a proposed $1 hike in the tax per package of cigarettes. That would raise the price to about $6 a pack, half of which would go to state taxes. It would also make New York number one in yet another taxation area…..we believe this proposed hike is unfair and, in the long run, could prove self-defeating and costly to the state down the road.”

The Editorial goes on to say, “Even more people will cross state borders to buy cigarettes, shop on Indian reservations, or even, despite its illegality, buy cigarettes on the Internet. That means no revenue for the state.”

To see the full Editorial click here.

Posted by John Skorburg at 02:28 PM | Permalink

The White House announced yesterday that the federal deficit will creep above $400 billion in 2006, despite the President's promises to reign in spending.

Posted by Michael Van Winkle at 09:13 AM | Permalink