Last week state elected officials swarmed Capitol Hill to pressure Congress to support the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, a proposal that does away with any requirement that a business have a physical connection to a jurisdiction before it can be required to levy taxes on its sales. If this law were to pass, a person merely calling up a Website of a business would be enough to require that business to pay taxes in that state where the caller resides. A discriminatory Internet tax would look promising by comparison.
During the rally before the push Congressman Womack said the legislation isn't creating a new tax but a "due tax." Clever rhyme, bad policy.
Taxes will increase as multiple jurisdictions lay claim to the same transaction and demand payment.
Clever rhymes will not heal the damage that will be caused. And he was obviously concerned because he urged people in the room to provide "certain types of cover" for conservatives, that free market principles should not include taxes "anywhere," and that this is a "state's rights" issue. Wow.
The U.S. Constitution was written, in part, in response to, and as a solution for, this exact problem, which developed under the Articles of Confederation: state looting across state lines and taxing without representation.
The Constitution included the Commerce Clause as a way to keep overly aggressive states from imposing barriers to trade on the citizens of other states. The Constitution never granted the power to tax out-of-state, and did grant the power of the individual states to protect their citizens from other governments. State's rights have never included, under our Constitution at least, the "right" to loot and wreck the economy of other states.
Given this history one might expect an open regular debate on Capitol Hill with roll call votes for the public to witness. Instead, the express instructions given to the legislators was to pass this legislation in the "lame duck" session, even if it gets attached to other legislation and never has to be voted on directly- even though Senator Enzi claimed to have "more than 60 votes."
If true, then there should be absolutely no reason not to have the bill debated openly, and not attached to some "must pass" legislation. The Articles of Confederation already failed once. For those who want to try again, they at least owe the country an open, recorded debate.
The people will decide if they appreciate their representatives voting in favor of such a dangerous tax scheme, and these elected officials should not be allowed to hide from the consequences behind the other "fiscal cliff."
December 13, 2012