The Freedom Bulletin

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) is facing a lot of flak for docking his and his wife’s yacht “Isabel” in Rhode Island, where he doesn’t have to pay taxes on it. I actually don’t think there is anything wrong with Kerry’s decision (and the author of this letter in the Globe agrees with me!).

Kerry is a typical Democrat who has voted for tax increases on the national level several times, so his desire to avoid the 6.75% Massachusetts sales tax does come off as inconsistent…but maybe Kerry is starting to realize how excessive taxes are in Massachusetts. I don’t agree with Kerry’s opinions about taxes if his votes are any indication, but I agree with his decision to try to avoid the sales tax (if that was, indeed, the reason behind keeping the boat in Rhode Island). When a tax is unjust, people have the right to do anything they can to avoid it.

Unfortunately, Kerry just said that he will pay the roughly $500,000 in state and local taxes that he would have owed had he kept the yacht in Massachusetts. I wish he had stuck to his guns in order to make a statement against the recent sales tax hike. Wouldn’t it be awesome if our Democratic senior senator took a stand against the ever-growing, ever-spending government of Taxachusetts?

Edit: As Jeff Jacoby points out, Kerry isn’t even doing anything illegal. He is just living his life in the way that makes the most financial sense, given the tax laws.

I was reading a post at the CNN Political Ticker about an NAACP resolution to condemn the “racism” of the Tea Party movement. The post quoted Mark Williams, a spokesman for the Tea Party Express, who made a really good point:

“It’s the Obama administration that rolled back civil rights to a pre-civil rights era with ‘Obamacare’ in which they removed the concept of individual rights…it’s the Obama administration that put a tax on white people with a tanning salon tax.”

I never thought of that before, but it makes sense.

Suppose that there was a product that was used almost exclusively by black or Hispanic people. Then suppose that the government decided to tax it. Wouldn’t the NAACP and lots of other people and organizations call this racist?

Tanning salons are used predominantly by white people, and the Democrats’ version of health reform puts a tax on them. Why is no one calling this racist?

Is it just me, or is there a double standard here?

In a Boston Globe opinion piece today, Tom Cosgrove argues against allowing casinos in Massachusetts:

“New revenue,’’ though, is just casino-speak for a new tax: a sucker tax on those willing to plunk down cash on tables tilted sharply toward the pit bosses. A sucker tax on those willing to sit at slot machines ergonomically designed to keep players in thrall of the lights and levers for hours at a time – complex algorithms creating the illusion of near-victory as wallets empty.

I’m not sure whether Cosgrove is saying that gambling itself amounts to a tax (which would be completely false because people can choose whether or not to gamble but people are required by law to pay taxes) or whether he is just arguing against taxing gambling. I’m going to assume the latter.

Although I am generally anti-tax, I favor bringing casinos to Massachusetts. I believe that taxes on gambling are much less objectionable than income taxes because people can choose whether or not to gamble and thereby choose to avoid the tax, while everyone is forced to pay the income tax. The government could then use the new revenue to cut the income or sales tax (it won’t, of course, but it should).

I don’t buy the paternalistic argument that casinos are bad because they cause gambling addiction. If you choose to gamble, that is your choice. If you choose to spend all your free time gambling and to lose all of your money gambling, that is also your choice. The presence of casinos does not force people to gamble. In fact, by banning casinos, the government is hurting people who otherwise would gamble, because it’s stopping them from doing something they want to do.

I don’t see any good reason to ban casinos in Massachusetts. They provide a fun activity for many people (I myself don’t gamble because I don’t want to lose money, but just because I don’t find something fun doesn’t mean other people don’t), and taxing them might allow other taxes to be decreased. Why not allow casinos?

I have not forgotten about Ed and Elaine Brown, the New Hampshire couple who refused to pay the federal income tax out of the conviction that it is unconstitutional. Ed was sentenced yesterday for his part in the standoff against U.S. Marshals who were trying to arrest him and Elaine for tax evasion. He received 37 years in prison for conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and weapons charges. Elaine was sentenced to 35 years last year.

It seems that throughout this trial, the court system has not treated the Browns or their views as respectfully as they should have. Of course, I wouldn’t expect the judge to agree with them that the Sixteenth Amendment is unconstitutional and dismiss the charges. The Browns did break the law, although I admire them for their act of civil disobedience.

But I disagree with Ed’s lawyer’s decision to order a mental health evaluation against his client’s wishes out of concern that he suffers from delusional disorder. I also disagree with the psychologist’s conclusion that Ed has narcissistic personality disorder. And I disagree with the judge’s comments that Brown is like a 6-year-old who needs a time out, that he is just someone who wants his 15 minutes of fame, that he should show remorse to Elaine for what happened, and that he is lucky to have been able to defy a court order for months before being arrested, while in other countries he would have been arrested immediately and executed.

No matter what you may think of the Browns’ beliefs – and they are radical, so I would not expect everyone or even most people to agree with them – it is hard to deny that they courageously stood up for what they believe is right. I think that both Ed and Elaine acted out of conviction, not out of a mere desire for fame, and certainly not out of mental illness. Holding unusual opinions and being outspoken about them doesn’t make one mentally ill, and to claim that it does is the worst form of bigotry. Ed shouldn’t apologize to Elaine – they were both equal participants, and  it’s the government who tried to forcibly take their money and arrested them when they resisted. And while some governments would immediately arrest and execute someone who defied them, we shouldn’t be thankful for a government that takes our money through the graduated income tax just because some governments are even worse.

The judge might think that Ed Brown’s “15 minutes of fame” are over, but I’m not going to forget about him or Elaine, and I bet they’ll have a sentence or two in the history books. I agree with a lot of what they have to say and salute their bravery for standing up for individualism, liberty, and property in a society where these things are unpopular.

Sources:

• Concord Monitor – “Ed Brown gets 37-year sentence”
• Union Leader – “Ed Brown erupts, gets 37 years”
• New York Times (AP) – “NH Tax Evader Gets 37 Years on Weapons Charges”

According to this Boston Globe opinion piece by Dan Payne, the ideal Republican candidate for U.S. Senate…

“would be antiwar; prochoice; an outspoken advocate for civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights; willing to challenge a president of his or her party; a voice for the poor; a conciliator; someone who had seen war.”

So basically, the ideal Republican would be…a Democrat!

Being in favor of women’s rights and civil rights, and being a conciliator, those things aren’t really associated with either party. But if by gay rights, you mean gay marriage, then that’s not so Republican. Neither is being a voice for the poor if by that you mean a supporter of welfare, WIC, Medicaid, SCHIP, and other programs that steal from people who have money in order to give it to those who have less money. And although I am pro-choice and not a huge supporter of the war, I differ from most of the GOP on these issues.

This description that Payne gives refers to Edward Brooke, the last Republican Senator elected in Massachusetts. I don’t know much about Brooke, but judging from Payne’s description of him, he seems like a Democrat who for some reason decided to call himself a Republican. Payne brings this up in order to criticize Scott Brown for his JFK-inspired TV ad, his choice of role models, his positions on the issues, and especially his emphasis on cutting taxes.

“Brown’s candidacy rests on one plain notion: lower taxes… For a man who absurdly televises himself as President John F. Kennedy incarnate, he offers no idealism, no great challenge, no call to sacrifice.”

I don’t see how it’s absurd for Brown to compare himself to JFK. I also don’t see why lowering taxes is so unappealing to Payne. It is idealistic, principled, and in my opinion right, to believe that the government has no right to take money from people simply because they have a lot and give things to people simply because they don’t have a lot. Redistribution of wealth, sadly, is popular among a lot of people today, and it takes guts and ideological purity to oppose it. Standing up for small government and private ownership of property is brave, principled, and all of the things that Payne says it’s not.

Also, Payne concludes by saying that Brooke would have voted “yes” on the health socialism bill, and “if Scott Brown wins and keeps his promise to vote ‘no,’ he would give Massachusetts the damning distinction of supplying the vote that kills health care reform.”

I think it would be great if Brown won and killed the bill! While Brooke (according to Payne) would want to force all Americans to buy health insurance, Brown would actually vote to allow people to make their own decisions. If Payne’s characterization of Brooke is correct, that’s certainly one respect in which Brown would be a better senator than Brooke.

PS: My apologies for the downtime the last couple of days. Apparently Imperial Kingdom was hacked Everything is fixed now though!

Citizens for Limited Taxation, a great anti-tax organization, might shut down! They are running out of money and are in dire need of donations before the end of the year. One way that you can help is by going to their annual brunch on Sunday, November 15 at 12:00. See this page for more details. If you believe in liberty and you have any extra money sitting around, you should really consider donating to CLT. They helped to prevent a graduated income tax in Massachusetts and to pass Proposition 2 1/2. They’re one of my favorite organizations in Massachusetts, and it would be sad to see them go!

P.S. I know things have been slow around here lately. That’s because I am ridiculously busy with school and the extremely fun process of trying to get a job. I’ve seen many things in the news that I want to blog about but just haven’t had the time! I will try to blog more often but probably won’t be able to blog every day or every other day until my life gets less busy.

Elaine Brown was sentenced to 35 years in prison yesterday for the nine-month standoff against government agents who were trying to arrest her and her husband, Ed, for tax evasion.

I admire her and the defiant speech she gave in court:

“I’m 68 years old. I don’t have much time left on this Earth. But I have no doubt I will spend eternity with my husband and a myriad of others who have fought tyranny and oppression,” she said, pausing several times to clear her throat but maintaining a defiant tone…

Brown insisted that she and her husband were being punished for nothing more than civil disobedience and “daring to challenge and question this massive government.”

“Our state motto is ‘Live free or Die,’ which is what we proclaimed over and over during our resistance,” she said. “I will always resist.”

The judge rejected the defense argument that Ed and Elaine were engaging in civil disobedience. I don’t see why – they believe that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, and so they refused to pay it. Even if you disagree with their beliefs, that sounds like civil disobedience.

Ed will be sentenced after his court-ordered psychiatric evaluation. I think it’s wrong for the court to suspect him of being mentally ill just because he refused to pay the income tax. The Browns’ views may be radical, but neither of them is delusional or mentally ill. They are brave patriots who had the guts to stick it to the man, and I admire them for that.

Further reading:

• CBS – “N.H. Tax Evader Gets 35 Years for Standoff”
• Union Leader – “Elaine Brown given 35-year prison term”
• Concord Monitor – “Elaine Brown gets 35 years”