The nomination of Janice Brown, a female black California Supreme Court Justice, is analyzed here by Clint Bolick in Reason Online

Richard Rahn: A think tank oxymoron? - Commentary

Interesting and insightful analysis from the former chief economist at the national Chamber of Commerce. Richard wears an eye-patch to gives his views a specific product differentation -- at least that is what I used to tell him.

Patrick J. Buchanan: The end of the imperial project

Dissection of an expensive episode in "nation-building.

Bush & Co. Use the Orwell Sales Strategy
Column by James Pinkerton, former speech-writer for Ronald Reagan and an old acquaintance of mine.

Jack Kemp: A Wirtschaftswunder for California
Hey Governor Riley, this would work in Alabama as well!

James Jackson Kilpatrick -- Ex-Drunks and the Current Law

Here is the 9th Circuit in high form.

The Bruce Ramsey in the Seattle Times: Opinion: Let the neo-cons bellow, just bring the troops home

THE BIG LIE

John Pilger has the goods on the WMD pretext for a very expensive and foolish war.

That Alabama Tax Vote

This from Christopher Westley' who teaches economics at Jacksonville State University:

Last Week, voters in Alabama resoundingly rejected Gov. Bob Riley's tax plan by a margin of more than 2 to 1. The plan would have resulted in the largest tax increase in state history. "[The referendum's results were] pretty resounding. There's no mistaking the voters' message," David Lanoue, chairman of the political science departChristopher Westley, Ph.D., teaches economics at Jacksonville State Universityment at the University of Alabama, told the Birmingham News. "I think the top reason is voters simply don't trust their politicians in Alabama."

And voters elsewhere owe voters in the Heart of Dixie a debt of gratitude. Said Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform: "[E]very Republican governor who thinks of raising taxes next year will walk past Traitor's Gate and see Bob Riley's head on a pike. The voters in Alabama have saved taxpayers from California to Maine billions of dollars."

So you have to hand it to Alabama's electorate. When given the chance, it makes its opinion known loud and clear, even in the face of a massive and global campaign by elite opinion. On the question of new taxes, Alabama voters respond no differently than voters anywhere else in the world when given the chance. Their answer is now (and has always been): No. This is why political elites try to keep tax increases off ballots.

The results of the vote should not have surprised anyone. In fact, In fact, they reflect a growing anti-tax movement that public officials and the mainstream press are trying hard to ignore. Last November, voters in Massachusetts almost passed a referendum that would have eliminated that state's income tax. In 2001, anti-tax protests at the state capitol in Tennessee grew violent, causing shaken state legislators to reconsider new tax proposals. Given these sentiments, even the most Herculean efforts to increase the government's claim on private wealth were doomed to fail.

As a result, Riley sacrificed much political capital. Alabama voters are simply not going to support such an expansion of state taxing authority during a recession, not when the Feds are already taking 30 percent of their income. Not with the legislature's Mike Tyson-like reputation for fiscal responsibility. And certainly not on the basis of the University of Alabama law professor Susan Pace Hamill's agenda-tinged scholarship supporting the belief that low taxes are sinful.

Not now. And in the Heart of Dixie, probably not ever.

Charley Reese--Comment on Bush's Extreme Folly

Don't Even Think About Raising Taxes (washingtonpost.com)

My friend, Grover Norquist, writes in the Washington Post on the national political implications of Billion Dollar Bob's foray into the tax increase tar baby.

Does Rep. Ford have a better idea?

Probably not. But Novak writes that Ford just might be a player in the Social Security "reform" debate. Worth a flyer and look-see.

LATEST SCAM COMING OUT OF WASHINGTON:


REQUIRED URJENT ASSISTANCE


DEAR SIR / MADAM,

I AM GEORGE WALKER BUSH, SON OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH, AND CURRENTLY SERVING AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS LETTER MIGHT SURPRISE YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT MET NEITHER IN PERSON NOR BY CORRESPONDENCE. I CAME TO KNOW OF YOU IN MY SEARCH FOR A RELIABLE AND REPUTABLE PERSON TO HANDLE A VERY CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION, WHICH INVOLVES THE TRANSFER OF A HUGE SUM OF MONEY TO AN ACCOUNT REQUIRING MAXIMUM CONFIDENCE.


I AM WRITING YOU IN ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE PRIMARILY TO SEEK YOUR ASSISTANCE IN ACQUIRING OIL FUNDS THAT ARE PRESENTLY TRAPPED IN THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ. MY PARTNERS AND I SOLICIT YOUR ASSISTANCE IN COMPLETING A TRANSACTION BEGUN BY MY FATHER, WHO HAS LONG BEEN ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN THE EXTRACTION OF PETROLEUM IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,AND BRAVELY SERVED HIS COUNTRY AS DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY.IN THE DECADE OF THE NINETEEN-EIGHTIES, MY FATHER, THEN VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, SOUGHT TO WORK WITH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ TO REGAIN LOST OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN. THIS UNSUCCESSFUL VENTURE WAS SOON FOLLOWED BY A FALLING-OUT WITH HIS IRAQI PARTNER, WHO SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE ADDITIONAL OIL REVENUE SOURCES IN THE NEIGHBORING EMIRATE OF KUWAIT, A WHOLLY-OWNED U.S.-BRITISH SUBSIDIARY.

MY FATHER RE-SECURED THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF KUWAIT IN 1991 AT A COST OF SIXTY-ONE BILLION U.S. DOLLARS ($61,000,000,000). OUT OF THAT COST,THIRTY-SIX BILLION DOLLARS ($36,000,000,000) WERE SUPPLIED BY HIS PARTNERS IN THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA AND OTHER PERSIAN GULF MONARCHIES, AND SIXTEEN BILLION DOLLARS ($16,000,000,000) BY GERMAN AND JAPANESE PARTNERS. BUT MY FATHER'S FORMER IRAQI BUSINESS PARTNER REMAINED IN CONTROL OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ITS PETROLEUM RESERVES.

MY FAMILY IS CALLING FOR YOUR URGENT ASSISTANCE IN FUNDING THE REMOVAL OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF IRAQ AND ACQUIRING THE PETROLEUM ASSETS OF HIS COUNTRY, AS COMPENSATION FOR THE COSTS OF REMOVING HIM FROM POWER. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR PARTNERS FROM 1991 ARE NOT WILLING TO SHOULDER THE BURDEN OF THIS CURRENT VENTURE, WHICH IN ITS UPCOMING PHASE MAY COST THE SUM OF 87 BILLION DOLLARS ($87,000,000,000, BOTH IN THE INITIAL ACQUISITION AND IN LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT. WITHOUT THE FUNDS FROM OUR 1991 PARTNERS, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE OIL REVENUE TRAPPED WITHIN IRAQ. THAT IS WHY MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES ARE URGENTLY SEEKING YOUR GRACIOUS ASSISTANCE. OUR DISTINGUISHED COLLEAGUES IN THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION INCLUDE THE SITTING VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RICHARD CHENEY,WHO IS AN ORIGINAL PARTNER IN THE IRAQ VENTURE AND FORMER HEAD OF THE HALLIBURTON OIL COMPANY, AND CONDOLEEZA RICE, WHOSE PROFESSIONAL DEDICATION TO THE VENTURE WAS DEMONSTRATED IN THE NAMING OF A CHEVRON OIL TANKER AFTER HER. I WOULD BESEECH YOU TO TRANSFER A SUM EQUALING TEN TO TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (10-25 %) OF YOUR YEARLY INCOME TO OUR ACCOUNT TO AID IN THIS IMPORTANT VENTURE. THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL FUNCTION AS OUR TRUSTED INTERMEDIARY. I PROPOSE THAT YOU MAKE THIS TRANSFER BEFORE THE FIFTEENTH (15TH) OF THE MONTH OF APRIL. I KNOW THAT A TRANSACTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE WOULD MAKE ANYONE APPREHENSIVE AND WORRIED. BUT I AM ASSURING YOU THAT ALL WILL BE WELL AT THE END OF THE DAY. A BOLD STEP TAKEN SHALL NOT BE REGRETTED, I ASSURE YOU. PLEASE DO BE INFORMED THAT THIS BUSINESS TRANSACTION IS 100% LEGAL. IF YOU DO NOT WISH TO CO-OPERATE IN THIS TRANSACTION,PLEASE CONTACT OUR INTERMEDIARY REPRESENTATIVES TO FURTHER DISCUSS THE MATTER. I PRAY THAT YOU UNDERSTAND OUR PLIGHT. MY FAMILY AND OUR COLLEAGUES WILL BE FOREVER GRATEFUL.

PLEASE REPLY IN STRICT CONFIDENCE.

SINCERELY WITH WARM REGARDS, GEORGE WALKER BUSH

(Courtesy R. Emmett McAuliffe)

Jesus Christ, Tax Collector

Enough said. Let's vote.

The U.N. and Iraq - The Washington Times: Commentary

Paul Craig Roberts nails the neocons, who have set us on a course of bankruptcy.

Richard A. Epstein: "Classical, Liberal, Rational" writes in the Wall Street Journal

Please note that Richard lumps zoning in with minimum wages and "progressive" taxation as one of the evils of the modern "welfare" state. He does not go into it, but actually zoning and land-use planning in general (ruled over by soviet-style committees of busybodies quite reminiscent of the neighborhood soviet goon-squads depicted in Dr. Zhivago which aroze to divvy up the spoils in post revolution Russia) is one of the more corrupting institutions in modern day America, pitting land owner against land owner in a race to use the political means of coercion and violence to trump the marketplace.

Proponents of tax plan raise more than opponents:

What big companies what to raise taxes in Alabama?: "Big contributions to the Alabama Partnership for Progress included: $800,000 from the Business Council of Alabama lobbying organization; $250,000 from Anheuser Busch; $250,000 from the Drummond Co.; $200,000 from EBSCO Industries; $150,000 from BellSouth; $100,000 from Protective Life Insurance Co.; and $100,000 from Birmingham businessman Phillip McWane."

State Allows Growing Trend of Eating At Home

WASHINGTON, DC - After much heated debate on the house floor, legislation was passed today to allow a growing number of families to cook meals for their families in their homes. The children must have annual physical examinations to assure proper growth and weight gain. Attempts to require weekly meal plans and monthly kitchen inspections were voted down.

A spokesperson from the National Association of Nutritionists (NANs) condemns this decision. "These children are being denied the rich socialization and diversity that is an essential part of the eating process. Without the proper nutritional background, it is impossible for the average person to feed their own children. We, as child advocates, see this as a step backwards and speak out for the sake of the children who cannot speak for themselves."

NEW "SERVICE FEE" TAX

There is a lot of discussion and question about what will and what will not be taxed under the new tax proposed by Governor Riley on 'services and repairs.' It is so unclear that a provision was added in the legislation directing the department of revenue to issue regulations on or before October 1, 2003 providing guidance for the services tax - after the vote. Most of what you hear is about automobile repairs. No one has been able to clearly define what will be subject to the new tax but generally here is my best guess.

A tax on services, repairs, and installation will be due on any tangible property where you paid sales tax on the purchase of the property. That means that if you paid sales tax on the purchase you will pay sales tax for any subsequent service, repair, or installation costs for/to that purchased item. This will include but not be limited to:

Vehicle repairs of every kind - tune ups, air conditioners, transmissions, oil changes, radiator flushes, wheel balancing and rotation, brakes, or just about any kind of service or repair to an automobile;

Motorcycles - similar repairs and services to automobiles;

Farmers; repairs to farm implements used in the farming business - (this is a gray area and might be at a lower rate and could mean that on some of the larger equipment where the repair bill can be tremendous, the farmer will probably attempt to make the repairs in-house instead of taking to the regular repair provider);

Household equipment - lawnmowers, riding mowers, chain saws, trimmers, brush cutters, pressure washers, etc.

Appliances - cook stoves, ovens, window air conditioners, bathroom and kitchen plumbing fixtures - maybe?; washing machines, dryers;

Electronic Equipment - TVs, Video players and recorders, computers and all related computer equipment, stereos, telephones, etc.;

...and the list can go on and on.

The state portion of the tax will be 4%. There will be a windfall to cities and counties because they will be authorized to collect this new tax at the local level. In many cities a total of 8% to 10% will be charged. Local governments will also see a windfall in property taxes. So not all of the new taxes will go to state government. Could this be why you see elected officials endorsing the plan? And - that money will go unearmarked to city and county budgets to be spent as the local politicians want!

In addition, there will be an increase in state tax on the purchase of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, mobile homes...

There will be an increase in the state tax when you purchase your tag each year...

There will be an increase on all tobacco products...

There will be a new tax on all lubricating oils...

And have you noticed that many of the business organizations supporting this measure are the same ones who were proponents of constitutional reform? When is the last time you heard anything about constitutional reform? It appears that it just turned into "tax" reform in the form of tax increases. These are the same people who talk about the negatives of the "regressive" sales tax, and now an additional "regressive" tax is being proposed in the form of this "services" tax? Whatever ones view is on constitutional reform, and I for one like the fact that the present constitution at least forces a vote on many tax increases, well

...either way be sure to vote NO on this tax increase - AND REMEMBER EVERY VOTE IS IMPORTANT!

Thou shalt pay more taxes
Doug Bandow




WASHINGTON - It has long been said that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. Today, religion plays that role. At least it does for Gov. Bob Riley of Alabama, who is pushing a massive tax hike in the name of God.