As Red State reports 26 Republican Senators voted for the anti-business amendment imposing a state tax on internet transactions. This is done under the progressive mythology of fairness, but fairness to who? This from Red State.
On the Republican side, perhaps the most egregious vote was the Enzi amendment to allow states to form a cartel and collect internet sales taxes for other states. The so-called Market Fairness Act passed in the form of a second degree amendment by 75-24, with the support of 26 Republicans.
The Tenth Amendment Center clearly shows the intent of the Constitution.
The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.
Sadly the TEA Party favorite Ron Johnson was among the traitors to free enterprise and the Constitution. The intent of the Commerce Clause of the constitution was to promote free trade between the states, competition between the states promotes lower prices and taxes for all. This act is a protectionist act that punishes the consumer and rewards the politicians and the states that impose draconian taxes on it’s victims.
Of course Ron was not alone in this act Senator Roy Blunt is a champion of this treasonous act.
Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and other lawmakers want to close that sales-tax loophole for customers and online retailers alike, arguing that the system favors Internet companies over brick-and-mortar stores.
“It’s wrong for the government to penalize some businesses over others,” Blunt said this month as the Senate debated legislation that would allow states to collect sales tax for online purchases made from out-of-state retailers. “This is the fair thing to do.”
What part of TEA (Taxed Enough Already) did you guys miss? Mr Blunt, it’s wrong to penalize any business, period! The sales tax imposed by most states already exceeds the paltry Tea Tax that helped spark the original revolution. Every state imposes taxes in different ways, some tax clothing . . . some don’t so what is the regulatory expense going to be on these online retailers.
Ron Paul nailed it on the head when he said:
The Internet Tax Mandate also violates the original purpose of the Commerce Clause, which was to guarantee free trade among the states. Instead, the bill would allow states to levy taxes on goods crossing into their state, which is not what the Founding Fathers intended. Why should California be able to force a business in Texas to collect and pay California sales tax?
When considering any economic proposal, the unseen, potential ramifications must be examined. This mandate could discourage online commerce and stifle the growth of new businesses, exactly the opposite of what we need if we want to expand entrepreneurship and revive our economy. In addition, the long arm of Big Government would reach for companies operating in states currently lacking a sales tax.
Those brick-and-mortar businesses worried about competition from the Internet marketplace and wanting to “level the playing field” should instead focus on ways to decrease the burden of regulations and lessen government’s effect on a company’s bottom line. Reduced operational costs can lead to more competitive prices.
The National Internet Tax Mandate provides yet another example of the corporatism so prevalent in the “solutions” legislators are quick to propose—big business getting together with Big Government to step on the taxpayers and smaller competitors—and should be soundly rejected by those interested in restoring a vibrant economy.
Ron isn’t that one of the things that you were fighting against? The Regulatory expense imposed on businesses. I post Judge Nepolitano’s video regularly . . . I guess I have to repeat it regularly until you guys get it.
Ron you are a disappointment!
Ron saw the light and Voted against this act that should be appropriately labeled “The Marketplace Extortion Act” For more information.