A Pole Tax is an Unfair Tax

A few days ago the Los Angeles Times ran a story by Miguel Bustillo about taxes in Texas. It seems back in 2007, Texas passed a $5-per-patron fee (tax) on strip clubs to raise more than $40 million annually for anti-sexual-assault programs and health care for uninsured Texans.

Now most people would pile on the subject of health care. Here we go again with this health care nonsense. But you would be missing the big picture.

They imposed this stupid tax to raise some $40 million dollars per year in order to pay for anti-sexual-assault programs. It has been dubbed the “pole tax”.

There is no correlation between strip clubs and sexual assault at all. So why would Texas do such a thing? Because like many other states and the Federal Government, they think they can trample on your rights and liberty simply by tossing a tax on something they don't like.

You can call it whatever you want but the reality is, a license, a fee, a toll, all are nothing more than a tax. Taxes are used to control the behavior of you and me and it is unconstitutional. Yes, I said it. I am not a huge fan of strip clubs and I do believe they can be regulated as far as their location. (No a strip club should not be located in the same block as a high school)

But to regulate in such a way as to prohibit or discourage its usage is unconstitutional. It is not the governments job to do such a thing. And they damn sure have no business raising money from it.

The story says that the fee took effect on January 1 and that the owners of 162 strip joints in Texas took the state to court. The owners said politicians were cynically taxing a population they knew would not fight back. After all, men who make a habit of drinking and stuffing dollar bills in the attire of scantily clad women are usually not eager to tell the world about it at legislative hearings.

This could be said for a number of things. Which is why smokers pay such a heavy tax. I don't smoke cigarettes. I hate them. I think they stink. I think they are deadly. But I do NOT believe that smokers should be taxed so heavily on something that is legal. I do NOT believe they should be ousted from private businesses just because someone in a legislative chamber doesn't like them.

The story goes on to say that on March 28 of this year, Travis County District Judge Scott H. Jenkins said in his ruling that laws limiting such expression had to pass strict constitutional tests and that the pole tax didn't because, among other things, indigent health care had no connection to strip joints.

So this judge struck down this tax and well he should have. Just because government needs money it does not mean it can just go out and start taxing things it does not like. Besides it is not the governments job to provide funding for any kind of program or group.

Although it was done on a state level instead of the federal level (where such a thing should be done if it is done at all) it does not mean it should be done in the first place. And to levy a special tax leaves the door wide open for just about any activity to be taxed.

We have heard about the government wanting to tax snack foods and beer. They have wanted to tax SUV's and dirt bikes. They have wanted to tax certain professions like massage therapist. It does not end. Once you open the door to special or targeted taxes then we all become targets.

If the government cannot get by with the income it already has coming in, then it needs to figure out why that is and start getting rid of programs it has no business funding or administering. Think about it. We get reasoning for just about every new tax, fee or fine that comes down the pike now. The government may have a valid reason for doing something, but does it fit the Constitution is the question that needs to be answered. Kind of like seat belt laws which really are not about safety, they are about raising money for the government. Simple.

This pole tax was not about helping sexual assault victims, it was about raising money. Think about it, if this tax succeeded and ended up closing down the strip club industry, would sexual assault go away? No. Would the programs funded by those taxes go away? No. So how would they pay for those programs then?

Same for the smokers tax. If everyone stopped smoking, where would they get the billions in taxes collected every year to fund all the programs out there? From you and me in some other manor.

A tax is a tax and it is about control not about the programs that they say it will fund. It is about limiting your liberty your freedom. Don't fall for it next time someone in your state wants to tax something your or they don't like. Because someone will propose a tax on something you do like to do that they object to, like breathing.

A Closed Public Debate?

It looks like one of the rare Democrat debates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be a closed door session. Now why in the hell would the Democrats want a closed debate?

What exactly is a closed debate, Democrat style? Well, it looks like only Clinton and Obama campaign, the University of Texas, the Texas Democrat Party and CNN and the major US Spanish speaking network, Univision. So yes, with a crowd like this you know there will be no serious questions and there will be lots of standing ovations to answers that really are no answers at all.

This kind of debate is for those in academia and the liberal press. This will not shed any new light into what these two candidates think. We already know what they think and believe and what they want to do when they get into office.

The question will be who can out liberal each other. Well to be honest, Obama has that one in the bag. Barack has given few if any real details on his plans for the economy or Iraq other than to pander to the left with great flowery speeches that make you feel good but in the end, leave you feeling empty.

Why would you feel empty? Because Barack doesn't tell you what he is going to do or how is planning on doing it. I am sure if he wins the Democrat nomination he will have to start being more deliberate and insightful in his answers to how he is going to accomplish his lofty goals. At least I would hope that John McCain would not let him (or Hillary) get away with being superficial on their policies.

The point is, this is typical Democrat politics. Keep the public out because they are too stupid to know whats best for them. Only the academic world and the press know what the right questions to ask are. Only the people in high ivory towers are good enough to get close to the candidates and ask questions of substance. Oh wait. If real people are not allowed into the debate arena, there will not be real questions asked that real people care about.

What you will hear at this debate is how President Bush has screwed up the war on terror and the battle in Iraq. What you will hear is how Bush and his friends caused the mortgage crisis. What you will hear is that the rich are to blame for our economy and they should be taxed higher and how those who don't pay any taxes need a tax break. What you will hear is we have a health care crisis even though we have the most efficient and admired health care system in the world. What you will hear is how there needs to be universal health care and the cost be damned.

You wont hear any logic in this debate. You wont hear how they truly intend to pay for all their programs. You wont hear how their social programs now in place have failed to produce the results they (the Democrats and Liberals) promised. You wont hear how their control of Congress has led to the lowest approval rating in history. You wont hear any thing substantial or meaningful. And you surely wont hear either candidate tell the truth about how they feel about each other.

Hillary hates Barack. He is an uppity black man who doesn't know his place. Barack hates Hillary because she is just a back stabbing power grabbing white trash bitty from the south. Well maybe this debate will be worth watching after all. Then again, I think I have to file my cats teeth so I will be too busy.

Your Home is Your Castle as it Should Be

Texas. Things are big in Texas. They have big horns, big ideas, big oil, big cities, big ranches and big bold laws. One of these laws is getting some attention around the country and will no doubt get more attention as time goes by.

Texas already has one of the most generous concealed weapons laws on the books. In fact from what I hear from friends and family who live and work in Texas or visit the Lone Star State, it seems there are often people who walk around with their guns on their hips like back in the Old West.

I have seen pictures of bikers with their big hog type bikes fully decked out with all the bells and whistles and the rider being fully decked out to match their bike along with one other accessory, a couple of pearl handled six shooters strapped to both sides.

It must be noted that since Texans regained the right to carry out in the open again, violent crime has plummeted. But this post is not about the Texas carry law. Its about the right of a person to defend their property and themselves.

The Texas Castle Law, as it is commonly known, went into effect back in September of 2007. And it is now getting the attention of liberals and lawmakers all across the country. But what is this law? Here is how Gov Rick Perry puts it:

Gov. Rick Perry today signed into law Senate Bill 378, extending Texans’ rights to use deadly force for means of self-defense, without retreat, in their home, vehicle or workplace. The law takes effect Sept. 1, 2007.

“The right to defend oneself from an imminent act of harm should not only be clearly defined in Texas law, but is intuitive to human nature,” said Gov. Perry. “Today, I am proud to sign the Castle Law which allows Texans to not only protect themselves from criminals, but to receive the protection of state law when circumstances dictate that they use deadly force.

“I thank Senator Jeff Wentworth, Representative Joe Driver and the Texas Legislature for their dedication to ensuring Texans’ rights to self-defense.”

In 1995, the Texas Legislature created an exception to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack. The exception allowed a person to use force without retreat when an intruder unlawfully entered their home. Senate Bill 378 extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

• Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;

• Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or

• Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.

The law also provides civil immunity for a person who lawfully uses deadly force in the above circumstances. The use of deadly force is not lawful when it is used to provoke or if a crime other than a Class C misdemeanor is committed by the victim.

Texas is not the first state to enact such a law. In fact these laws are new in the USA. Florida was the first state to enact such a law but it did not do so until 2005. Other states have enacted this law in some form since 2005 and a few more state, including my home state of New Hampshire, are considering such laws.

First there should not be a need for such a law on the books because a person should be able to defend their person, their property without the fear of recourse or prosecution. It is sad that liberals have so watered down our own ability to defend ourselves that such laws must now be enacted to spell out this basic right.

Man all throughout history has had the ability to defend themselves and their property with deadly force if need be, without fear of general prosecution. This is something, this law, that every state needs to get on the band wagon and enact.

I would go so far as to say this is something that should be enacted on a Federal level. Every man, woman and child has the right to protect themselves and their property and should be able to do so without fear of prosecution or being sued by the perpetrator or their families. This is sensible law. This is logical law. This is fair law.

Read more about it:

Wikipedia

Clinton Machine Crashes

It looks like the Clinton Machine is crashing and burning. Hillary has loaned her campaign 5 million dollars. She has fired her campaign manager. She is conceding certain states to Obama in order to concentrate on states with more delegates.

Clinton is also pissed. This is the woman whom every one had anointed the next President of the USA. But then came along a challenger whom she dismissed at first. But no matter what she did, this skinny upstart from the state of IL would not go away.

In fact he pushed forward and even began winning. This was not supposed to happen. Hillary was o the ropes. She was so badly bruised that she even tried to cry on national TV. That ploy backfired. She tried putting forth a more "human" side. Nobody believed it. Many Americans view her still as an Ice Queen.

The big test was last week when most political pundits, up until the last minute, kept saying it was going to be a decisive victory for Clinton. It was not. In fact Obama made inroads. Obama built more momentum. Obama began looking like he could and would win the nomination.

Hillary brought out her husband Bill who tried to hammer on Obama. It didn't work. Hillary brought out her daughter, Chelsea, to try and woo the young and college vote. It didn't work either.

What will Hillary try and do now? Her negatives are still nearly twice that of President Bush even though some polls suggest that if the election were today she would edge out Republican McCain. This is highly unlikely since McCain has far lower negative numbers than Hillary.

What we will see is Hillary getting nasty. What we will see is the Clinton machine trying to get back in gear and try and tear Obama a new one. There is already some evidence of this. Clinton is hinting that Obama is taking money from lobbyist and giving them breaks and perks. As if the Clintons' are not the masters of paying off their lobbyist friends.

Sunday Brief 2 10 2008

Barack is on a roll or is he? It looks like Obama swept the 5 state primary/caucus yesterday. But did he really make gains on Hillary on the delegate count? Yes and no. There were not a whole lot of delegates up for grabs but since the two Democrats are nearly even in the count, every single delegate is going to count.

Next big steps will be in the states of Texas, Ohio and PA. But can Obama pick up those states? Can he win? Some polls suggest that if Obama were the Democrat nominee, that he would beat McCain.

Other polls suggest that Obama's lack of being specific about anything will hurt him in the general election because he has a very small record to lean back on. McCain has a huge record and that record seems to harm him when it comes to conservatives. But this is where Obama will have a tough time as well.

He will need to get specific about his plans. Inspiring and pretty speeches will not cut it when you have an opponent who presses you for specifics. Obama has not had to deal with that yet. Clinton won't press Obama on specifics for fear of having to give greater details on her own plans.

The who strategy here is, less is more for now. These Democrats are afraid to let you know there specific plans. Why? Remember a decade ago when Hillary was trying to get Hillary-care passed? Americans got the details and said no with a loud and deep voice.

She and Obama know that if they get specific on their plans, the American people will run away again. This is where a good strong Republican can win. McCain, despite his own liberal record, can win over conservatives and independents simply by getting Hillary and Barack to get specific about their plans and policies. Until that happens, we will have more flowery speeches and rallies by the two Democrats. there won't be anything relevant.
****

• The wealthiest 1%, in 2003, earned 14% of the income and paid 35% of all individual income taxes.

• By comparison, the bottom 60% of all taxpayers earn 28% of all income and pay just 1% of all individual income taxes.

This should dispel the notion that the rich don't pay their fair share or that the rich need to pay more in taxes. We already know that the higher income earners help the economy and those at the lower end of the economy as well.

Many people who earn under $36,$15per year do so in an industry that caters to those who earn more than $150,000 per year. These high earners buy stuff. They buy lots of stuff. They get services. They get lots of services. So people who sell or service the high earners depend on those high earners to spend that money. If they don't have as much money because of higher taxes then those people who depend on them will suffer and they will suffer big time.

How do you keep the economy going strong? Simple, you first cut the taxes on the people who have the money to spend. Then you cut the taxes on every other economic group that pays taxes. When people have money to spend, they will spend it and those people on the lower end of the economic ladder will benefit and will not need government services as much or at all.

Now do the Democrats really want to help the "less fortunate" or do they just want to pay lip service? You be the judge.
****

Waterboarding continues to be a hot topic on the political landscape. The UN (and we all know how reputable and fair the UN is) says that waterboarding is torture and needs to be halted in the USA.

The media has been focusing on this issue for months as well. Obviously, the media in general is against waterboarding. Why? Simply because it works without harming the individual being questioned. But many Americans, if you ask them, will tell you they are against waterboarding. Ask those same Americans if they know exactly what it is and they cannot tell you except they heard it was something bad.

I'm here to tell you that I have found out what this form of interrogation is and found it to not be torture at all. Interrogation is nothing but a mind game anyway and waterbording is a form of a mind game. If it gets people to talk and it does not physically harm another the person being interrogated, then it should be used.

Waterboarding, if done properly is a good, none lethal, non harmful way to extract information from an individual. And waterboarding has been proven to be far less harmful mentally than other forms of interrogation such as sensory deprivation.

Want to know more about waterbording? Go here:
How Stuff Works
Wikipedia
Waterboarding.org