In the meantime, certain members of the legislature would be well served to read the WSJ piece, Soak the Rich, Lose the Rich.

As the title implies, the column focuses on the consequences for states that solve their budget gaps by raising taxes on the “rich.”

Here’s the problem for states that want to pry more money out of the wallets of rich people. It never works because people, investment capital and businesses are mobile: They can leave tax-unfriendly states and move to tax-friendly states.

That’s the bottom line, but there’s also data to back that claim up.

Updating some research from Richard Vedder of Ohio University, we found that from 1998 to 2007, more than 1,100 people every day including Sundays and holidays moved from the nine highest income-tax states such as California, New Jersey, New York and Ohio and relocated mostly to the nine tax-haven states with no income tax, including Florida, Nevada, New Hampshire and Texas. We also found that over these same years the no-income tax states created 89% more jobs and had 32% faster personal income growth than their high-tax counterparts.

There is so much more.  I recommend reading the whole piece, especially if you happen to be in the Vermont legislature.  It’s really not that long.

Here’s another excerpt, just in case you don’t read the whole thing.

We believe there are three unintended consequences from states raising tax rates on the rich. First, some rich residents sell their homes and leave the state; second, those who stay in the state report less taxable income on their tax returns; and third, some rich people choose not to locate in a high-tax state. Since many rich people also tend to be successful business owners, jobs leave with them or they never arrive in the first place. This is why high income-tax states have such a tough time creating net new jobs for low-income residents and college graduates.

But that would never happen here, would it?

(Hat tip: Ace of Spades.  I also saw this linked over at Vermont Tiger.)

I found out this morning that Bill Simmon and Steve Benen talked about my tea party post on their Poli-Sci-Fi Radio show Sunday, so I will be responding to what they had to say, as well, though I will not get to everything that warrants rebuttal.

You can listen to the episode online, here.  Tea Party talk starts about half-way through.

The first thing I want to address is the common Where were these people the last 8 years? response to the Tea Parties, popular among the left.

Answer: Complaining about Bush and the Republicans in Congress spending too much money.

I was, when I covered national politics.  So were other conservatives.  Here is a post from March 2006 – just one month after I started this blog on Blogspot – in which I reference a Cal Thomas column entitled, “Spending Obsenities.”  (Link is to my post.)

Mr. Guy, in the comments of my previous Tea Party post, claimed that Freedom Works, a sponsor of the tea parties, was not active in opposing spending before now.  I don’t know how long he has been a Freedom Works member, but a quick search of my e-mail shows a Freedom Works newsletter from January of 2006, opposing government-funded, universal pre-K and supporting consumer-driven health care, as an alternative to government-funded plans.

Libertarian groups, such as CATO, have been criticizing government spending and corporate welfare all along.

What you have to understand is that the people attending these tea parties, by and large, are not Republican Party defenders.  They are citizens who support smaller government, less spending, lower taxes, and more freedom – Libertarians (both big and small “L”), Ron Paul and Bob Barr supporters, Constitution Party members, and GOP voters who are disillusioned with the party’s power-drunk spending spree over the past decade.

Another claim is that the tea parties would not have happened if McCain were elected.

Wrong again.

Conservatives did not like McCain’s penchant for spending, either.  Conservatives also opposed the bailouts under Pres. Bush last fall.  I had a post (actually quite a few) in the fall of 2006 discussing the GOP and its lack of conservatism.

We are sick of the big-government, big-spending, and disregard for the 10th Amendment.  There is no longer a place for lovers of small government and people are looking for a way to speak out.  This was a long time coming and it would have happened no matter who was elected last November.

On the Poli-Sci-Fi radio episode I linked to, Steve Benen brought up the fact that Bush and Cheney had bad approval ratings – no one was saying, “At least they are not expanding government” – as if some sort of evidence that people do not want smaller government (or less government expansion).

That might have been a good point, if only Bush had not expanded the government’s size and power.  In fact, he did.  Being a political blogger for 6 years, one would think Steve would have known that.

Benen did raise one good point, though, that the tea partiers did not do a good job articulating their message to the rest of the country.  That was unfortunately true.  There is a good message to be had in all of this, but without a spokesperson or official group that can put together a platform, people are left to their own interpretation or that of the media, which in the case of the Tax Day Tea Parties, was largely wrong.

.

It’s worth noting that there were a couple of things said on that PSFR episode that I still need to address, but they necessitate their own post(s).

I want to try to clear a few things up, if I can, for people who don’t understand what these protests were about.  (This is from my own perspective.  Obviously, there are other perspectives out there.)

Myth: Tea Party-goers think taxes are bad.

Taxes have been the scapegoat for expanded government because taxes are the part of a big government that directly affect our wallets – and our ability to spend our money the way we want to, but taxes are not the problem.

I read on Twitter yesterday the comment, “I proudly pay my taxes, the cost of a free society.”  Aside from the fact that taxes are also the cost of an un-free society, this statement is true.  Most conservatives are more than willing to keep the government running, performing the functions that a government should perform.

There’s the hitch.  A conservative view of which functions a government should perform is very different from the functions currently being performed by our government.  Under President Obama and the Democratic Congress, those functions are growing, and growing, and growing, way beyond what conservatives believe a government should be doing.

That is what the tea parties were about – growing government power, growing government spending.

The loss of freedom comes, too, but the loss of money via higher taxes comes sooner and is more tangible.  That is why many of the protesters focus on higher taxes.

Which brings me to…

Myth: Most Tea Party-goers will not even see a tax increase.

Maybe, maybe not.  The projections of this country’s debt are so enormous – nearly 100% of projected GDP by 2012 – that it is likely that everyone will have to pay for it.

But let’s say that it is true that most of the people at the tea parties will not see an increase in taxes.  What are the reasons, then, to protest?

First, freedom.  As I said above, this is not just about taxes.  Arguably, taxes are not even the real issue.  The issue is the loss of freedom.

With every expansion of government power, there is a loss of freedom.

Unlike the connection between executive pay and yours, this actually is a zero-sum game.

In any given set of activities, the more the government regulates those activities, the less power you have.

The stimulus and other bills have expanded the government’s role and the government’s power, therefore, it has lessened our roles and our power over our lives.

Who cares whether or not we, personally, have to pay for it?  It’s still something to be concerned about.

Second, just because we are not paying it ourselves is no reason to ignore an injustice.  Expecting 5% of the people to fund government programs that put their money into our pockets is wrong.  Expecting 5% of the population to pay for the services we all use is wrong.  Everyone should pay something to support our society.

If paying taxes is patriotic, as Vice President Joe Biden says, why are we letting 43% of the people pay no income taxes at all?  Are they not part of this free society?

Finally, over-taxing the “rich,” ie. the people who create jobs and produce goods and services, is bad for all of us.  Think about it.  When your company gets hit with higher and higher tax burdens, do you think that will not affect you?  When the producers of products you buy are spending more on taxes, do you think that will not affect prices?

As with many political causes, this is not just about what affects us personally, but what affects us all.

Myth: A majority of Americans support expanded government.

This was a misrepresentation of a poll coincidentally released the day before the tea parties and touted by Huffington Post and others as proof that the tea partiers were not representative of America.

It was as close to a lie as you can get without actually lying.

While it is true that the poll found a narrow majority of Americans (53%) support the government expansion to aid the economic crisis, a majority (55%) also said it was too expensive.

The more telling piece of polling data came when people were asked if they support the expansion of government being permanent.

Only 13% said yes.  The rest either oppose it altogether, or want it rolled back when the economy is no longer in crisis (if it even is).

Another way to say that is that 83% of Americans do not want permanently expanded government power.

83% rejects the progressive left’s vision for centralized power and a government that is involved in shaping our economy.

This makes the Tea Partiers very much representative of America.

There is so much more to cover here, but I will stop with these few for now.  I will have more posts like this over the next week.  Feel free to jump in with your comments, questions, etc.

Here’s a look at the crowd, via video.  I have to warn you, it is a little shaky.  I was trying to navigate my way through the crowd, without saying “excuse me” on camera.

No word yet on the turn out in Rutland, where Tea Party participation was expected to be even greater.

I put together a little montage of the protest signs, in case you missed it.

The event will be taking place on the State House lawn from noon – 2:00.

From the facebook page:

Matt Cropp, of VT Campaign For Liberty, American Socialism for the Rich and the Bank Users Strike Team will talk about credit unions and how they benefit users and the communities they serve.

Jim Hogue, blogger, farmer and radio host will be discussing the Federal Reserve and how this private banking cartel took control of the American Taxpayer.

Stewart Skrill, farmer and former VT and US House of Reps. candidate, will be speaking about the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

Vermonters For Economic Health will also be providing us a speaker.

Please bring at least 3 tea bags with you to the rally. We will have 3 crates set up near the Federal building in which you should deposit your tea bags. The crates will then be delivered to the offices of Rep. Welch and Sens. Leahy and Sanders. I am asking for volunteers who would be willing to make these deliveries (especially to Welch as his office is in Burlington).

**UPDATES**
Be sure to pack a lunch and bring a blanket or chairs to sit on. There is no vending on the State House Lawn, though the cafeteria will be open. Again, this is a peaceful, family-friendly event. No pets allowed unless they are service animals.

Vermonters For Economic Health will be making a presentation “Vermont’s Unsustainable Future” immediately following the Tea Party at 2pm in the AIV conference room. This presentation is free and open to the public. Having seen this presentation before I highly recommend making time to attend. For more information please visit http://www.vermontersforeconomichealth.org/

The “We The People” Food drive at the Tea Party will benefit the Salavation Army Emergency Food Shelf. TJ Michael’s will be helping me coordinate this effort. Please make sure to bring a non-perishable food item.

Again, we have a website www.vermontteaparty.com and comments can be made at this site: www.taxdayteaparty.com/vermont

And don’t forget– the Legislature is in session! Be sure to allow time for yourself to stop in and say hello. Let your Representatives and Senators know where you stand!

Hope to see you there!

(Except you, Ryan.)

Stimulus check that is.

Well, in the mail soon, anyway. The first payments go out May 2. You can view the whole stimulus payment schedule at the IRS website.

A while back, Rep. Peter Welch sent out a constituent mailing about the stimulus checks, among other things. In it, he said the sooner you send in your tax return, the sooner you will get your stimulus check. At least, I thought that’s what it said because I remember thinking that it was weird that they would send out stimulus checks based on when you filed your tax return.

As it turns out, when you will receive your check has nothing to do with when you filed your return. As long as you filed by April 15, you will receive your payment according to the above mentioned schedule.

If you didn’t, make sure you file by October 15 to qualify.

The IRS also has a stimulus payment calculator. You need to enter some information from your 2007 return and it will tell you your stimulus payment amount.

It is worth checking out. Our payment is less than the number reported in the media. Probably because of the amount of our tax burden (or lack thereof).

Remember, the numbers reported in the press were preceded by “up to,” as in up to $1200 per couple.

So what do you all plan to do with your stimulus checks?

We were planning on putting the whole thing into our savings, but we might use some of it to get a purchase I have been saving for.

Either that or they are loosening their editorial standards over there.

I jest.

I have no problem with the intended result of this bill – to curb the use of plastic bags (or is that, to bolster the State’s coffers?).

What I do have a problem with is the method of accomplishing that goal.

Yeah, yeah, Ireland did the same thing and plastic bag use decreased 94% within weeks.

Can’t we find more creative solutions, though?

Must our knee jerk reaction to every problem be to levy a new tax?

When people want to make a change in our society, why don’t they try to find a non-government solution first?

Why don’t the sponsors of this bill instead call a press conference and urge the people in the state and the retailers to stop using bags?

The media can be a valuable tool in bringing about social change.

Speaking of which, why don’t the media outlets run PSAs touting the importance of using cloth?

Why don’t the many stores that already offer cents-off for using your own bags do more to promote those programs?

There is so much we can do as a society to make ours a better world.

But trying to force it to become one through taxes, won’t necessarily make it so.

Okay, so that was a paraphrase. Here’s the real quote.

“When business generally whines about the high tax burden, the burdensome regulatory environment, whatever, it concerns me by sending a signal that they care less than they should about being good corporate citizens.”

You can read the rest here.

To be honest, I really don’t know where to start commenting on this.

There is more than one way to be a good citizen, corporate or otherwise. One way is by delegating your responsibility to the government, letting them make the decisions and determine what is best for everyone, and pay your share of the taxes to make it happen.

If that was the only way to be a good citizen, well, then Rep. Kitzmiller would be correct in his assertion that to complain about high taxes means that one does not want to be a good citizen.

But there is another way to be a good citizen. That is when you take it upon yourself to do the right thing, without the government forcing you to. That is when you determine needs in your community and work to address those needs.

In that case, your reluctance to fund a bloated bureaucracy, one that is often out of touch with the needs of the people it serves, has no bearing on your goodness of citizenship.

I would like to encourage all of my Vermont readers to take a look at Tom’s site. Especially the page entitled, “Vermont’s Economic & Demographic Crisis: Its Symptoms.” It really puts in perspective the financial obligations that Vermont is facing in the coming years and the urgent need to do something to grow the Vermont economy in order to have the revenue to meet these obligations.

As Tom said on the show tonight, this is not – or should not be – a partisan issue. This is something that is going to hit all Vermonters hard if we do not plan for it.

Speaking of planning, another thing that Tom mentioned was that he is having a planning/brainstorming meeting at his home this Sunday at 4:00 PM. His address and phone number are on this page of his website if you want more information.

It was a great show. We had a few good calls, too. I will post the audio podcast on Monday.

Go check it out.

Did I mention that She’s Right loves Vermont Tiger?