The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget favors the Inflation Reduction Act

by Rod Williams, Aug. 2, 2022- I have reached a point to where disgust with extreme partisanship makes me less likely to believe something just because a Fox news host or a Republican Congressman tells me it is true. When they continue to support the big lie of the stolen election and still display fealty to Donald Trump they are not to be trusted. 

Congress is on the verge of passing a bill called the Inflation Reduction Act which will raise taxes on the super-wealthy and fund some green energy initiatives and allow Medicare to negotiate with drug companies to lower drug prices and do some other things.  I tend to think raising taxes in a recession is never a good idea. However, this bill is probably not as bad as some on the right would have you believe.  It may not do much good, but probably not a lot of harm either. 

I have read the editorials and news accounts of the bill and watched the talk shows. Actually understanding the economic impact of the bill would take more time than I could give it and is probably above my paygrade anyway. Since I certainly do not trust the Tucker Carlson's of the world and do not trust the woke partisan mainstream media to tell me the truth, I need guidance from some trusted source. 

One source I have trusted is The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  I have considered them "conservative," but that is because it seems to me that most people that actually understand economics are conservative.  Over the years The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has advocated for many policies favored by conservatives. The organization has advocated social security reform and has been a major voice advocating deficit reduction. They have opposed student loan forgiveness proposals. They have also been a major voice in alerting the public and Congress about the pending insolvency of many of the trust funds, such as the Highway Trust Fund to be insolvent by 2027 and the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund insolvent in 2028.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is truly non-partisan. It has some prominent Democrats who were founders and currently serve on its board and some steller Republicans. The current co-chair is Mitch Daniels, former governor of Indiana, and who served as Director of the Office of Management and Budget under President George W. Bush.  It has some of the most credentialed economists in the country servings as researchers and analysts. 

Here is the recent press release from CFRFB.

IRA Will Help Fed Fight Inflation

AUG 1, 2022 - A recent Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) study has been used by opponents to claim the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) would increase rather than reduce inflation. In reality, the study finds the legislation would have essentially no effect on inflation in the near term and would reduce inflation modestly over time. We believe the actual deflationary effects of the bill will be more significant on both fronts for several reasons. Specifically, the IRA’s deficit reduction is likely to be higher than estimated by PWBM, accompanying regulatory and permitting reforms will help reduce inflationary pressures, and the microeconomic effects of the bill – by lowering observed prices for households and businesses – will likely help combat persistent inflation.

Ultimately, we expect the IRA to very modestly reduce inflationary pressures in the near term while lowering the risk of persistent inflation over time and thus make it easier for the Federal Reserve to reduce inflation without causing a recession. Policymakers should follow the IRA with further inflation-reducing actions and should especially avoid policies that would worsen inflation and make the Federal Reserve’s job harder.

.... However, the effects are likely to be modest, especially in the near term. The IRA can assist the Federal Reserve in fighting inflation by making its job easier, but it will by no means replace the need for action from the Fed. To further support the Fed's efforts, lawmakers should build on the IRA with further deficit-reducing and health-care-cost-lowering legislation and actions. And they should especially avoid measures that would worsen inflation, such as extending the student debt repayment pause.

The IRA isn’t going to fix inflation on its own, but having fiscal and monetary policy row in the same direction is an important step forward. (continue reading)

Sounds boring right? Policy is often boring. I don't understand the "Penn Wharton Budget Model' but there are people who do and I trust them more than TV pundits screaming "Socialism!" 

 If I were in Congress I would not buck the party and vote for IRA because despite the recommendation of CFRFB there are other responsible voices persuading me it is not a wise move. But every policy decision is not black and white.  There are a lot of grays. Every vote is not the good guys on one side and the bad guys on the other.  Sometimes one is not 100% certain of one's position but only 51% certain of one's position. Sometimes if people would talk to one another rather than scream at one another they might end up with better solutions. One should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.  Thinking rather than just emoting is a virtue. Compromise and bi-partisan should not be dirty words. One should strive for a little courtesy, modesty, and dare I say, "moderation."  

Top Stories

Democrat Pollster finds 55% of Tennesseans disapprove of tax reform plan

A company was expanding rapidly and its operations were becoming more complex and the company president decided he needed to hire a Director of Finance. He advertised the position and after narrowing the search, whittled the applicants down to three people, a mathematician, an accountant, and an economist. During the job interview he asked each of the applicants a simple question: "What is two plus two?"

The mathematician said, "That's simple. It's four."  The accountant said, "There is a 99% probability that it is four, given a plus or minus factor of .02."  The economist looked both ways, lowered his head, leaned in, and in a low voice said, "What to you want it to be?" This could also apply to consultants and pollsters.

The Tennessean reports, "Poll, Tennesseans disapprove of congressional tax plan."  That headline should qualify the news story as "fake news." Not that the facts are fake, but that it is presented as if it had some validity.  Unfortunately, that is the similar headline that newspapers across Tennessee used to report this story and is how the media in Maine and Arizona reported the story in their state where the same polling firm also conducted polls and found similar results.

The polling firm conducting the poll was Democratic pollster Hart Research Associates and the poll was paid for by the left-leaning Institute on Taxes and Economic Policy and Americans for Tax Fairness. The firm polled 400 registered Tennessee voters and found only 57 percent of those polled were familiar with the plan, and among those familiar with it, 55 percent disapprove of the measure.

The Tennessean does not give the actual wording of the poll, but this quote from the article is revealing: "The poll takes as fact the plan will cause (insurance) premiums to increase; when presented with this prospect, 77 percent of respondents said they were less likely to support the plan."

The Republicans need to commission a poll that finds 70% approve of the proposed tax reform plan.  I am not trained as a professional pollster but I believe I could design a poll question that could elicit 70% approval.

Top Stories

What is in the proposed tax reform

Lower Rates for Individuals and Families 
The framework shrinks the current seven tax brackets into three – 12%, 25% and 35% – with the potential for an additional top rate for the highest-income taxpayers to ensure that the wealthy do not contribute a lower share of taxes paid than they do today.

Doubles the Standard Deduction and Enhances the Child Tax Credit
The f ramework roughly doubles the standard deduction so that typical middle-class families will keep more of their paycheck. It also significantly increases the Child Tax Credit.

Eliminates Loopholes for the Wealthy, Protects Bed rock Provisions for Middle Class 
To provide simplicity and fairness the framework eliminates many itemized deductions that are primarily used by the wealthy, but retains tax incentives for home mortgage interest and charitable contributions, as well as tax incentives for work, higher education, and retirement security.

Repeals the Death Tax and Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
The framework repeals the unfair Death Tax and substantially simplifies the tax code by repealing the existing individual AMT, which requires taxpayers to do their taxes twice.

Creates a New Lower Tax Rate and Structure for Small Businesses
The framework limits the maximum tax rate for small and family-owned businesses to 25% - significantly lower than the top rate that these businesses pay today.

To Create Jobs and Promote Competitiveness, Lowers the Corporate Tax Rate
So that America can compete on level playing field, the framework reduces the corporate tax rate to 20% – below the 22.5% average of the industrialized world.

To Boost the Economy, Allows “Expensing” of Capital Investments
The framework allows, for at least five years, businesses to immediately write off (or “expense”) the cost of new investments, giving a much-needed lift to the economy.

Moves to an American Model for Competitiveness
The framework ends the perverse incentive to offshore jobs and keep foreign profits overseas. It levels the playing field for American companies and workers.

Brings Profits Back Home 
The framework brings home profits by imposing a one-time, low tax rate on wealth that has already accumulated overseas so there is no tax incentive to keeping the money offshore.

Top Stories

Is it possible to use Tax Increment Financing to finance mass transit?

Is it possible to use Tax Increment Financing to finance mass transit? I don't know but a local neighborhood leader who was active in the Stop Amp organization and has remained active in transit issues, reports that it may be.  She writes this on a local Google Group:

In my Transit Citizen Leadership class tonight, we had a transit engineer guest speaker from out of state, knowledgeable in FTA funding rules for transit. A rarity.

He mentioned one possible funding method for mass transit - use a TIF. He gave a brief overview of what that means, in layman's terms. He said a geographical boundary is drawn around the transit route. Usually a wide patch of land, but it follows the proposed transit line. The population votes whether to approve channeling calculated increases  in property values into a fund. This fund is reserved to pay the local match cost, and yearly operating costs, for operating the transit system. The transit system is the reason for the rise in land value.

Land values are calculated to rise, based on the things built and generating new tax revenue around the proposed transit stops.  If no transit comes to the route, then the land value won't rise as calculated (in the TIF).

My question to that info, tonight: since Nashville has a lot of downtown TIF Districts already in place -- can a transit TIF be created on top of an existing TIF? Basically, no. Its possible, but not likely. Voters would need to approve it and that's getting expensive. TIF diverts cash away from local services for decades. Voters usually want to see a benefit in their lifetime. He did say, though, theoretically a TIF on top of a TIF was possible. Just not very wise.

Now that I'm reading of the TIF meeting today (excellent work, council!), my next questions would be to that committee (or maybe to MDHA?), see if you can get these answers:

(1) If Nashville has TIF's already in existence downtown - what is the land value increase calculation? What portion of that calculation is dependent upon a transit system running through the TIF boundary?  Another way to put this: Are any of the existing TIFs downtown, already transit TIFs?

I fear the MDHA may need to give up their TIF proceeds for the transit dependency requirement in the TIF. I hope not - as there is no transit planned in most downtown TIF boundaries - that I am aware of.

(2) If the downtown TIFs do NOT have land increase calculations based upon a Transit system, WHAT is the reason the land values will "go up" in those TIFs? The trigger is...what? Cannot just be population increase it has to be some infrastructure or job/gold mine.

This in interesting news. Until reading this, I did not know TIF could even be used to fund mass transit but it makes a lot of sense. The AMP was the wrong corridor to build a transit route, in my view. Perhaps the people living in East Nashville would have ridden the AMP, but I do not believe those more affluent people living along West End Avenue were ever going to give up their cars to ride the bus. Also West End is so highly developed already and runs through some of the most expensive and stable neighborhoods in the city, that I do not think there was much opportunity for new development to occur along that route. 

I  think there are corridors such as Nolensville Road, Dickerson Pike, or Charlotte Avenue that could benefit from a mass transit development. I also think it would make a lot of sense to build a transit system in conjunction with planning that encourages development around major transit stops by offering density or height bonuses or relaxation of parking requirement and some TIF financing for the development around the major stops.

Downtown is certainly not "blighted" and I think TIF is being misused by continuing to be available downtown.  Some of our major corridors however are low income and underdeveloped and could more rationally be considered "blighted."  There ought to be a better use for the property along Nolensville Road than tote-the-note used car lots.  I hope the administration and the Council will explore the opportunity of using TIF to finance mass transit and see mass transit as a means of improving our major corridors. 

Top Stories

Iconic Nashville Buildings Pay Little For City Services. Only $155 of $2600 tax on glitzy 1-BR condo goes to pay city services.

By Ben Hall. May 4, 2015, News Channel 5, NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Many of Nashville's most prominent buildings are essentially off the property tax rolls, a NewsChannel 5 investigation discovered.

Millions of dollars generated by those buildings in property taxes do not go toward city services and schools. Instead, their property taxes help pay for more development.
It's because of Nashville's use of tax incentives called tax-increment financing, also known as TIF.

That revelation came as a surprise to Diane Jarrell, who has watched Nashville grow from the balcony of her condo. She's a retired teacher who loves living downtown.

"Everybody's like you live in the ritzy part of town," Jarrell said.

She's reminded of the cost every time she pays property taxes. Her last bill was more than $2,600 for her one-bedroom condo.

"I know it's a high price, but it's the lifestyle I wanted," Jarrell said.

She doesn't complain about the taxes because her itemized bill shows much of it going to schools and public safety.

But she was shocked when we told her almost all of her property taxes actually go to the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA).

Last year, only $115 of her property taxes went to city services.

My Comment:  The next time you pay your  property taxes on your modest home in Madison or Woodbine or Antioch, to make the process even more painful, stop and realize you are subsidizing the city services enjoyed by some of Nashville's weathyist who live in the glitzy new high rises downtown.

Top Stories

Do you think of downtown Nashville as "blighted?" Well, the Council says it is and downtown will need special help at least through 2040.

Is downtown Nashville blighted?  Of course it is not.That is an absurd question.  It is booming and expensive, yet the Council has declared it to be so and has said downtown Nashville is "detrimental to the safety, health, morals and welfare of the people of Nashville." In order to cure this blight, the council extended the downtown development district through the year 2040.

By declaring Nashville "blighted" the city can encourage downtown development by making Tax Increment Financing available when developers want to build downtown. When these new developments pay taxes, the tax does not go to finance schools and pay for police and fire protection and roads and parks and libraries or subsidize Farmers market or pay for all other services provided by the city; it goes instead to the Metro Development and Housing Agency to finance more downtown development. Now, the State is questioning if Nashville is using this development tool for the purpose it was intended.

To learn more about this issue, follow this link and read about it and watch the News Channel 5 news report.

Top Stories

Demand Congress investigate the IRS for targeting tea party groups

It is an outrage that the IRS has been used to stifle decent and punish critics of the administration. The use of the IRS  to target groups for audits and reviews on the basis of political leanings is an abuse of power. Remember the Nixon "enemies list?"  This is the same thing. Congress should issue subpoena's and hold hearings to get to the bottom of this. I am skeptical that this policy originated with overzealous, lower level IRS employees. We need to find out who ordered this program.  We need a list of every agency that was targeted. Was the IRS doing the bidding of the Oval Office?

With the Benghazi coverup, the Enroll America shake down, and now the IRS enemies list, it may be time to appoint a special prosecutor and determine if their are sufficient grounds for articles of impeachment.
 
Please email or write your congressman and demand an investigation or follow this link to do so: 
click here to demand Congress investigate the IRS for targeting tea party and other groups on the basis of political leanings!

Top Stories

What is wrong with the Internet Sales Tax

From the Heritage Foundation

Beware the Internet Sales Tax

The Internet sales tax is back, and it could be the next big vote in the Senate.
The proposed law would enable states to force businesses to collect sales tax from customers who live in their state—even when the businesses have no connection to that state.

As Heritage President Jim DeMint has said, this violates the classic American principle of “no taxation without representation” Retailers would be forced to act as tax collectors for states in which they have no voice.

Under current law, retailers are required to collect sales taxes only in states where they have a physical presence. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is pushing for a vote on a new Internet sales tax that would hit all online businesses—no matter where they’re located.
DeMint says:

Consider the absurdity of such a law. When a customer buys a product in a store, does the cashier ask for the customer’s home address? Of course not. The store simply charges the state and local sales taxes applicable for its physical location, no questions asked.

“Brick-and-mortar” stores like Wal-Mart are in favor of the Internet sales tax, because they see these online retailers as competitors. But the other big proponents of the tax are state governments, which would be able to reach into other states for revenue.

States are struggling with their own budgets—but they should have to make the hard decisions to manage their budgets, rather than trying to collect taxes from citizens of other states to help cover their expenses. As DeMint said.

Politicians want this bill passed to raise new tax revenue for broken state governments facing budget shortfalls. But legislators in state capitals don’t want to make the hard decisions to cut spending or raise taxes on their constituents—they fear the voter backlash. So they’d like their allies in Washington to make it legal for them to tax people who can’t vote against them.

This taxation without representation might boost some state tax collections, but it wouldn’t help the economy. Heritage legal expert David Addington has written that “hobbling out-of-state businesses that sell through the Internet or mail order catalogs does not help the national economy .”
Instead, the Internet sales tax would “increase the amount of tax dollars millions of Americans pay, encourage states to increase the size and scope of their governments, favor some states over others in granting federal authority, and discourage free-market competition in interstate commerce,” Addington wrote.

It’s simply another bad idea coming out of Washington at a time when consumers and businesses are struggling to get by.

My comment: 
I oppose this Internet sales tax and am disappointed that it is being sponsored by our own Senator Lamar Alexander.  He has been pushing this initiative for several years. 

Now, if I was to drive to Kentucky and buy groceries, I would not have to pay Tennessee sales tax but I would pay the Kentucky sales tax. If I buy something on-line from a vendor in Kentucky, why should I pay Tennessee sales tax?

While the principle of taxation without representation is most persuasive, there are practical reasons to oppose this bill also. It will place big burden on online vendors who will have to calculate 50 different tax rates and have the expense of accounting for and remitting the collected taxes. Looking further down the road, if the states are successful in requiring the vendor to collect state sales tax, then it is very likely that cities could also require vendors to collect local sales tax. A vendor would have to calculate thousands of different taxes and remit money to thousands of different cities. This bill could cripple Internet commerce and slow this growing sector of the economy.

One of the arguments in favor of this bill is that it creates fairness for brick and mortar store merchants. Brick and mortar stores result in a cost to the government jurisdiction in which they are located and sales tax collections cover these cost. Brick and mortar stores result in a need for police protection, road maintenance, traffic and parking management and numerous other government services; Internet sales do not require these services of local government.

Top Stories

Jim DeMint: No Internet Taxation Without Representation

Jim DeMint: No Internet Taxation Without Representation

online.wsj.com

By JIM DEMINT - Our nation was born from the idea of "no taxation without representation"—that citizens should not be taxed by governments in which they have no political voice. Yet now lawmakers in Washington want to overturn that bedrock principle in order to extract more revenues from American consumers.

The Marketplace Fairness Act recently introduced in the Senate would require online retailers to collect and pay sales taxes to states where they have no physical presence or democratic recourse.

 

My Comment: I am disappointed that Senator Lamar Alexander is supporting this effort to tax internet sales. Among the reasons I oppose this act is (1) Taxation without representation, (2) Invasion of Privacy, (3) The burden that would be imposed on small businesses dealing with up to10,000 state, local and municipal tax jurisdictions nationwide, and (4) stifling a growing source of economic activity and growth.

Top Stories

Senate panel sends income tax ban to floor vote

Senate panel sends income tax ban to floor vote 

The Senate Finance Committee has advanced a proposed constitutional amendment to explicitly ban a state income tax to a full floor vote.
more>>

Comment: We are nailing the coffin shut on a state income tax. Good! The measure still has to pass both the House and the Senate by two-thirds vote before it can go to the public, but I suspect that will happen and I suspect that in 2014 the voters of Tennessee will pass a constitutional amendment that will bury a State income tax forever. 

Top Stories

The Tennessean: HCA deal is among Nashville's biggest

by Joey Garrison, Nov 19, 2012

The nation’s largest private hospital chain is close to landing Metro’s third-most-generous financial incentive package ever, totaling a projected $66 million, in exchange for filling a prominent midtown eyesore with headquarters offices and bringing 1,750 new jobs to Davidson County.
 .....
Dean has aggressively pursued direct incentives to companies during his time in his office, while his predecessor Bill Purcell never executed the strategy. The current mayor’s approach has only a handful of council skeptics.

“I feel like a broken record,” said Councilman Josh Stites, who has voted against tax breaks awarded to LifePoint Hospitals Inc. and Ryman Hospitality Properties over the past year. He intends to do the same with HCA. “You can look at downtown and there are some buildings that shaped downtown, as this would do for West End, that received zero tax abatements.

“It is a huge fallacy to say that we have to give tax abatements in order for these companies to come here.” (continue reading)

Top Stories

Tax penalty to hit nearly 6M uninsured people

WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly 6 million Americans — significantly more than first estimated— will face a tax penalty under President Barack Obama's health overhaul for not getting insurance, congressional analysts said Wednesday.  Most would be in the middle class.

The new estimate amounts to an inconvenient fact for the administration, a reminder of what critics see as broken promises.

The numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office are 50 percent higher than a previous projection by the same office in 2010,... (link)

Top Stories

I am not disappointing with Governor Romney's position on pre-existing conditions.

 Calm Down, Obamacare Foes

 By Grace-Marie Turner, September 10, 2012, National Review Online

Some conservatives are aghast that Mitt Romney told NBC’s Meet the Press that there are some health reforms he would support.

“I’m not getting rid of all of health-care reform,” Mr. Romney said in an interview broadcast Sunday, sending conservatives into a fury. “Of course there are a number of things that I like in health-care reform that I’m going to put in place.” (link)

My Comment

I know already! Anyone who is not for repealing the whole thing is a RINO, a sell-out, or worse.  Many on the right would rather get nothing rather than half a loaf. Get real! As the author says, "Romney is right. There are problems in the health sector that need to be fixed, and we can’t stick our heads in the sand and pretend otherwise. If we fail to act, the health-reform battles will return with a vengeance."

The system we have now is not a free market health care system. It is a mixed system. With Medicare, Medicaid, and mandates that hospitals serve all who come regardless of ability to pay and then take a tax deduction for the loss, and restrictions requiring that new hospitals must show a community need before they can open, what we have is not a free market in health care at all. While I want to roll back the role of government in health care, we must tweak what we have as we strive to roll back government. This much is clear: The status quo is not acceptable.  Those who advocate the status quo are on the losing end of the argument.

Anyone who has ever paid $25 for a 2 cent aspirin or tried to understand a hospital bill will not buy the argument that everything is just fine and government should just stay out of healthcare.

I am  not disappointing with Governor Romney's position on  pre-existing conditions. I am no so happy with the position on "young people." At twenty-five, you have been able to drive for nine years, get married without your parents permission for nine years in many states, vote for seven years and drink for four years and have an abortion without your parent permission and enter into contracts. It is time to kick those "young people"  out of the nest. Nevertheless, if this can peal off a few Democratic voters, I am not going to nitpick it. 

While Romney makes these concession to Obmacare and public opinion, I wish he would hammer home a message that included the ability to purchase health care across state lines, informational technology improvements, tort reform and a health savings accounts.  Those issue are winners for our side. We need to articulate Republican reform while at the same time we accept those popular provisions of Democratic reform. 

A bold proposal that I think could be a winner, is to advocate transferring from the employer to the individual the tax advantage of the cost of an insurance premiums. How many people are chained to a job they hate because that is the only way then can get insurance?  Your employer should no more provide you with health insurance than they should provide you with homeowner's insurance or auto insurance or food or lodging. We should advocate ending the ability of the employer to exempt from his income the cost of insurance premiums and advocate transferring this deductability to the individual. While I know this position is not without risk and could distorted be by the other side,  I think on balance it would resonate with many and is a winning argument.

Top Stories

It's the taxes, stupid/A free country does not charge it's citizens a fee to flee.

 It's the taxes, stupid

BY JUDSON PHILLIPS | MAY 21, 2012, Tea Party Nation

Facebook made its initial public offering this week. The IPO, which made Mark Zuckerberg a billionaire overnight, also created some other controversy.

Eduardo Saverin was one of the co-founders of Facebook. Saverin is originally from Brazil, but he became a naturalized American citizen. Saverin decided to give up his American citizenship a few months ago.

Why? Because of Facebook’s IPO. By giving up his U.S. citizenship, Saverin is saving over $100 million in taxes.

Politicians went nuts over this news. Let’s face it; politicians are not the sharpest knives in the drawer anyway.

 Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Bob Casey of Pennsylvania immediately introduced a bill that would impose a 30 percent capital gains tax on anyone renouncing their citizenship to save taxes.

Who would determine whether someone was doing that or not?

The IRS.

House Speaker John Boehner immediately joined in on one of the weekend talk shows saying, “If it is necessary, I will support it.”

What?

If taxes are so high that billionaires are fleeing the nation, that is a sign that taxes are too high. Ronald Reagan understood this. He wanted our taxes to be so low that we would attract capital. The not very bright people who are currently running our nation do not understand this.

If you penalize capital, it will flee. If you penalize wealth, the wealthy will flee.

If you make a nation attractive for capital, people will invest. That is what we want in America. We want people to invest in the next Facebook or Microsoft or Apple.

The only funny part of this disgraceful story is the reaction of liberals. Schumer and his buddies are shocked that people do not want to willingly pay excessively high taxes to a government that wastes insane amounts of money. That is pretty alarming.

My Comment 

A free country does not charge it's citizens a fee to flee. 

I agree 100%. I have reposted the above editorial from Judson Phillips in full and hope he does not mind. I was going to say essentially the same thing, so rather than write my own editorial on the topic, I am reposing his.

In addition to the tax policy that drives wealth from our country, there is something even more disturbing about this event.

Before the fall of the wall and the demise of the Soviet empire, the Soviets under pressure of world wide condemnation would allow a trickle of soviet citizens to depart, primarily Jews wanting to emigrate to Israel. However, the USSR imposed a so-called "diploma tax" on those leaving, sometimes as high as twenty times their annual salary.

In other times, in other places dictatorial regimes have charged people a fee to leave their country or demanded they leave all of their wealth and property behind.

A free country does not charge it's citizens a fee to flee. You should not have to buy your way out of the United States. This is a despicable concept.

Top Stories

Update: What happended at the April 3rd Council Meeting

 The Gaylord-Dollywood Snow-Splash Park tax giveaway and the HCA tax giveaway

Here is the video of the April 3rd Council meeting. See below for a summary of the meeting and the highlights.


The invocation is offered by Pastor Maury Davis of Cornerstone Church who is the guest of Council Member Karen Bennett. This is noteworthy because Maury Davis is an outspoken conservative minister who has his critics in the community.

Mr. Brock Parks is unanimously approved for an appointment to the Beer Permit Board. The only reason this is noteworthy is because Parks lost a close race for council District 26 last year to sitting Councilman Chris Harmon.

Several appointments to Boards and Commission where deferred and no explanation was offered. There may be a very good reason why these votes where deferred. Maybe the nominated appointees had a conflict and could not attend the meeting, but an explanation of why the nominations were deferred would seem appropriate. Also the reappointment of both Mr. Dwight Beard and Mr. Roy Black to the Vegetation Control Board were withdrawn. Why? I don't have a clue but it seem like if they simply did not want to serve they should have asked their name not be put in nomination. I think a simple explanation should be provided if a name is withdrawn. 

Resolution number 2012-203 appropriates a lot of money to various department of Metro Government including $405,000.00 to the Election Commission. Councilman Bo Mitchell takes to the floor (see 8:39) and complains that coming this August two of the early voting sites are closed which are the Belle Meade and Bellevue early voting sites. He says he hopes that the Election Commission will reconsider and open those two sites. CM Mitchell is one of the most liberals members of the Council but this issue has broad and passionate support across the political divide.

Many Republicans feel that failure to have a site in West Nashville will suppress Republican turnout and given that the Election Commission now has a Republican majority and a Republican Director, many Republicans are very disappointed in the decision to close the two westward most early voting sites, sites that tend to vote Republican. Many thought that a Republican majority Election Commission would be more sensitive to Republican interest in matters such as siting early voting locations. It seems no one in the west part of the County is happy with the Election Commission. Davidson County Republican Party Executive Committee Member Lonnie Spivak has been especially vocal in urging people to call and write the Election Commission and try to get a early voting site in the Belle Meade-Bellevue community.

I know that the other Council Members from the west part of the County are not happy with this decision to not have early voting in the western part of the County. I think this is an example of how weak our council really is. When an agency comes before the council seeking funding, that is the time to force the agency to yield to the will of the Council. I know when I served in the Council we often exerted the Council's power of the purse to force agencies to respond to Council concerns. Even if you yourself did not feel strongly about an issue, you may vote to support another Councilman in a matter such as this that was important to he and his constituents. The Council has power and the legislative branch of government in theory should be a co-equal branch of government. I don't know why we so seldom see the Council exert their authority. If may be that the Council is weaker than in the past due to term limits. With no council members serving for long periods of time, the body may simply never develop a sense of identity as a co-equal branch of government. It may be that this particular Council is just not cohesive enough to support each other in getting concessions from the administration and various agencies of government. This would have been a perfect opportunity for the Council to force an agency to do something that was important to a number of the Council Members and was the right thing to do. Unfortunately it didn't happen.


BILL NO. BL2012-118 is the Gaylord-Dollywood snow-splash park tax giveaway bill. (Discussion starts at 16:27.) CM Mitchell makes an argument that the bill needs to include some sort of amendment or accountability mechanism to insure that local workers get the jobs associated with the construction project.

Council Member Josh Stites (22:18) argues against the bill. "I want to make sure my appreciation and adoration of Dolly Parton is not called into question," he says. "I actually have her latest album, Back with Barbie, on my iPod, and I am proud of that. However, I am going to support her with my own money and not someone else's."

He questions the economic impact study data. He says he has a “problem with giving tax incentives to companies that move here.” He questions the promised construction job creation and says it is “disproportionate” with the project’s $50 million price tag. “I don’t think we should be charging other private investors that have large water parks 100 percent taxes, so we can then turn around and essentially subsidize a new water park,” an obvious reference to Nashville Shores.

Councilman Robert Duvall also takes to the floor in opposition (25:02). “The last thing we need to be doing is giving tax incentives to some individuals and then turn around and raise property taxes on people," he says. "What we are doing as a body when we pass this is, we are selectively choosing who will succeed and who won't and it is wrong; it is the wrong thing to do."

Councilman Tim Garrett and Councilman Charlie Tygert, Walter Hunt and others argue in favor of the bill.

After all the good debate, the bill passed by voice vote. Why did not someone demand a roll call? I want to know how they voted. Too often Councilmen hide behind voice votes. The opponents of this bill should have demanded a recorded vote. How do you know who the good councilmen are, if councilmen seldom go on the record? Knowing how their councilman voted on second reading might have given the public a chance to lobby their Council Member between now and third reading and convinced them to change their vote.

BL2012-115 which extends the smoking ban on public property from 50 feet from a hospital entrance to 200 feet from a hospital entrance appears to serve no purpose except to punish smokers for having a nasty habit. This bill passed by voice vote with no audible "no" votes. This was an opportunity for a conservative council member to make a principled argument against government expansion but no one did.

ORDINANCE NO. BL2012-116 on third reading was the HCA tax giveaway bill. This deal gave a 100% tax abatement for the first five years, and a 50% abatement for the next five years on a new regional data center being built in Antioch. Robert Duvall takes to the floor (57:34) and argues against it. He points out that there is no grantee that the 155 jobs supposed to be created by this bill will in fact be created by this development. The jobs may be existing jobs that are simply a transfer of people. All jobs created since Jan. 1 this year by HCA are credited toward the 155 total. Karen Johnson argues in favor of the bill. It passed by machine vote with only Tennpenny, Duvall and Stites voting against it. 

This was a pretty interesting council meeting. Thanks to Councilmen Stites and Councilman Duvall for taking principled stands and speaking out.

Top Stories

Stop the Metro tax hike

Ralph Bristol
March 26, 2012

You haven’t yet seen the headline in the Tennessean that announces “Dean asks for property tax hike,” but by the time you do, it will likely be too late.  You need to act now if you want to help stop Mayor Karl Dean’s stealth tax increase.

What Mayor Dean appears to have done [I think they teach this in public administration 101] is borrow and spend a billion dollars on a new convention center and other legacy projects, while simultaneously squeezing infrastructure budgets to the point where residents are starting to complain about the neglect – particularly in streets. He then makes the case that the only way to pay other essential bills AND fix the streets is to increase taxes. He creates a visible, aggravating, need for more spending on county infrastructure.

Step two – Dean goes to council members one by one, metaphorically sits them on his lap and asks them what projects he can buy for their districts – if they vote for his tax increase. read more

Top Stories

Metro Council rubber stamps another Karl Dean property tax giveaway to a big corporation

 From Enclave

Remember this when the Mayor proposes a property tax increase on regular Nashvillians the next time his budget comes before Metro Council for approval; the next time he defends that tax increase by saying, "We have no other choice if we want to fund Metro services":
Metro Council rubber stamps another Karl Dean property tax giveaway to a big corporation

My Comment: I agree. We are giving away the store and taxpayers will pay with a tax increase.

Top Stories

Haslam and Republicans move to repeal the "death" tax

This afternoon, the death tax bill was amended to fully repeal the tax by 2016. It passed the House Finance Subcommittee by unanimous voice vote and now goes to the full Finance Committee, and if it passes there, it will go on to a vote by the full House in the coming weeks. This amendment to completely repeal the death tax had the support of the Governor.

 "We know this tax drives people, capital and jobs out of the state. We know this tax splits up family farms that have been in the family for generations,” said House Speaker Beth Harwell.
 

"The death tax does nothing but punish small businessmen and farmers building for the next generation. Unlike Washington, Tennessee plans for the future. I look forward to making sure the death tax meets the reaper," said Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey.

The death tax is one of those taxes that actually decreases revenue to the state. With the repeal of the death tax, it is likely that more people will choose to retire in Tennessee and economic growth should outpace any lost revenue that was generated by the tax.

Top Stories

Ken Jakes to Metro Council on the 40% tax break to Gaylord-Dollywood

I am taking the liberty of reposting the following letter from Ken Jakes to all members of the Metro Council and I am reposting the emails which were attached to Ken Jakes letter to the Council members. Since Ken Jakes has already widely distributed this information I am not considering it a private communications. I am however deleting the email address and phone numbers of "John and Vicky" since they may not have wanted that information made public.

Ken Jakes is a frequent critic of Metro Government and a citizen activist discovering and exposing government corruption and waste. He is a former and probably future candidate for public office.

Members of our Council,

I was asked to respond to the forwarded email so let me share my thoughts and please consider. To say that the 40% property tax on the Gaylord and Dollywood winter park is more then the vacant land is bringing into Metro at it's present tax rate is the wrong outlook. Any development in Nashville and Davidson County that would take vacant land and build structures, buildings, parking, etc. will bring in more revenue then in it's present state. If this is the approach the Council will take on development, are you going to approve on all development of vacant land to only charge 40% of the established Tax Rate ? I'm sure every hardware store, grocery store, and all other small business owners would love that approach, however I don't see that happening.

It is to the benefit of Gaylord to move this project forward because the land is already zoned for this project and to let the property set vacant is costing Gaylord revenues. When you talk about economic development and sales tax revenues that this project will provide, it is nothing in comparison to all the small business combined collectively together in Nashville and Davidson County who are struggling and paying more taxes. Every dollar of tax break provided to Gaylord and Dollywood has to be picked up by the remaining tax payers.

It is right that we can not predict the future, however I believe if we are going to assume, then we can assume if this practice continues that it will be nobody left but the BIG CORPORATIONS. Small business will fall and deteriorate, by being crushed by picking up the tax burden provided to the LARGE CORPORATIONS, because it was better then what we had.

Just for the record, my property at 2223 Whites Creek Pike, was vacant land that had been sitting for years until it was bought and Jakes Produce was built. The property has gone through the Council's process in Zoning, and I can assure you that the Davidson County Tax Office noticed the improvements and charge according to the established tax rate. Sure would have been nice if our Council had said, what the heck, cut the taxes 60% because it is better then what we had.

In closing let me just state the Administration in my opinion and I believe in your opinion, will be seeking a tax increase from the people. How would you explain to your constituents, Oh yea we need you to pay an increase but Gaylord and Dollywood got a decrease in taxes ? Something tells me that this will not go over very well.

I am just writing my opinion, however I believe it is the overwhelming opinion of the tax payers and constituents across Davidson County.

Members of our council, I hope you consider me to be genuine in my thoughts and at least you can state that Ken Jakes leaves no doubt where he stands. I would not care who would see where I stand on the issue. If you support the tax break for Gaylord and Dollywood can you do the same ?

Sincerely,
Ken Jakes.
___________________________________________________________________________________
From: "John Murphy" To: "Ken Jakes" Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:54:44 PM
Subject: Fw: No Tax Break for Gaylord and Dollywood.

Ken, Don't have time to respond to this. Your thoughts, maybe you can contact the council and ask them that you plan to expand and would like a tax break for the next 12 years, who knows they may grant it.

John & Vicki Murphy

Original Message ----- From: "McGuire, Sean (Council Member)"
To: "John Murphy" Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 2:04 PM Subject: RE: No Tax Break for Gaylord and Dollywood.

John, Thank you for writing to the Council to let us know your thoughts on this proposal. I really do want to understand your point of view, so please do not misinterpret my questioning it. My main question to you is aren't the property and sales tax revenues from this proposal (although they will be 60% less for 12 years) better than no tax revenues at all? By that I mean, are they not better than the revenue stream currently in place for the property? These property taxes that we are talking about abating would not be there but for this investment/project. I understand your argument that they are profitable companies and would do fine. You may be right. However, would they be able to make such a massive investment if they did not receive the breaks? Could they make it work economically? We of course do not know that answer, but I think it is a safe assumption that the tax breaks truly make the project economically viable. Some may also argue that we shouldn't give these breaks to Gaylord/Dollywood because we may be able to get another project there that would pay all of their taxes as opposed to 40% for 12 years. I would argue that, while that is good in theory, we a.) cannot know if that future project would have more or less economic impact than this project (in terms of overall investment, job creation, tax revenues, etc.), but more importantly b.) we cannot predict the future, and I, for one, am not willing to bet on that happening in the future when we can consider the proposal currently before the Council. We need to weight this project on the merits of what it is, not what could be done in its place. I do look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best, Sean
________________________________
From: John Murphy, Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:08 AM
To: Council Members
Subject: No Tax Break for Gaylord and Dollywood.

Dear Council Member, It seems that every time a large business has a plan to expand in Nashville the first thing that is done is provide huge tax breaks for extended periods of time. Both Gaylord and Dollywood are profitable companies. To provide tax breaks is saying we want to make them more profitable at the expense of every other business and person in Metro Nashville. This is not right! Please do not approve any property tax breaks or personal tax breaks for these companies, they will still be profitable and prosper without any tax breaks. John &Vicki Murphy.

Top Stories

Gaylord-Dollywood snow-splash park should pay their taxes

by Ken Jakes

Ken Jakes

Legislation heading to the Metro Council this month would let Gaylord Entertainment Co. and Dollywood Co., working together as a company called Park Holdings LLC, pay an amount equaling 40 percent of their real and personal property taxes for up to 12 years, starting no later than Jan. 1, 2014. Mayor Karl Dean's plan would net a saving on property taxes for Gaylord and Dollywood of about 5.4 million dollars.

It seems to me that our elected officials are set on giving our city away. If this project is going to produce revenues of 60 million a year as claimed, you can bet they will come anyway. Nothing in life comes for free. Every dollar our city gives in tax break cuts, you and I the remaining tax payer gets to carry the burden. I ask that you contact members of the Council and express your opinion. You can contact all Council Members at once by using this email, Councilmembers@nashville.gov. My opinion is that they should pay their taxes as Metro requires all other small business to pay.

When I ran for Council at Large in 2011, the Tennessean News Paper kept referring to me as the Frequent Metro Critic. Well in response to that name they have given me, let me just state as long as what I believe back room deals are being cut and placing a heavier tax burden on the people you can bet I will continue to fight for the people. They are already planning in my opinion a tax increase for the people and a tax decrease for Gaylord and Dollywood. Surely , I am not the only individual who would feel this way. Please let your voice be heard as well.

 
We all want tax relief, but how are we ever going to get relief when we are constantly picking up an extra load. The pack on my back is full and I do not want another symbolic tax brick piled in for me to carry. Enough is enough.

Ken Jakes is a frequent critic of Metro Government and a citizen activist discovering and exposing government corruption and waste. He is a former and probably future candidate for public office.  

Top Stories