We must keep in mind that several of TVA's sites use fuel iol. I don't know if that fuel has a tax that is expiring in September, but Congress is now speaking of the need to increase the tax on diesel fuel and gasoline because there has been no rise in the tax rate in 18 years PLUS there is a need to take care of several more 'shovel ready' infrastructure boondoggles...oops, I mean 'projects'.
Until we learn the specifics of the 'deal' Gov. Bredesen made, I will reserve judgement on it. I once believed that a Chief Executive (Governor in this case) could not circumvent a law or the Legislature, but with all the twists and turns by the current National Chief Executive, it is hard to tell what thay can do.
I believe Gov. Haslam is using the correct approach of investigating the legality of the 'deal' while simultaneously working out an arrangement whereby Amazon will collect the tax in the future.
However, whether Amazon was in or out of the state, sales (or 'use') taxes are supposed to be PAID BY THE BUYER. Sales taxes are to be collected at the Point of Sale (which is the current contention by some lawmakers and businesses) while 'use' taxes (same rate as sales tax) are to be mailed to the State Department of Revenue.
There are a lot of administrative costs involved in collecting taxes and accounting for and then sending the funds AND Documentation to 'government', most of which must be absorbed by the business because these 'costs' are not usually treated as tax 'credits' but are simply deductible as business expense.
As inducements to locate or expand in certain states and communities,many companies are given certain types of 'tax exemptions' for a number of years, or other considerations, but it is better that it is by agreement than forced down one's throat, again, like so much of what the National Government did during the last session of Congress.
Since this article is from AP (Associated press) I presume it has tried to sugar coat the hard truth.
I would first ask, "Who are the employers who did the hiring?" As I see it, if the private sector does the hiring then they are national 'wealth producing' jobs, whereas 'government' jobs are generally national wealth CONSUMING jobs.
I am ALSO sort of curious as to what criteria determined that "the recession officially ended in June 2009" because 'OFFICIALLY' increased government spending can be called 'spending cuts' and the Consumer Price Index can "OFFICIALLY" be virtually flat or only slightly increased BECAUSE 'GOVERNMENT' CONVENIENTLY LEAVES OUT THOSE ITEMS THAT HAVE SHOT UP DRAMATICALLY -- FOOD AND ENERGY.
And, before anyone gets to ecstatic, look at the last paragraph and one can see that the 'OFFICIAL' unemployment rate leaves out a lot of people, and the 'decline' has been because a lot of people are no longer looking.
I have the highest regard for law enforcement officers but there was a comment about 'protection'. I guess it might surprise a lot of people that police are NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TO PROTECT US. As indicated by many federal court decisions " there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen".
(Castle Rock V. Gonzales, South v. Maryland, Bowers v. DeVito, and others).
What is peculiar to me is that since government officials of 'the State' are not constitutionally required to protect us from the worst damage from murderers and madmen, where does 'the State' get the constitutional requirement to be a 'protective' nanny in other areas?
I wonder why there was no mention of 'government sector' retirement plans?
If common sense prevailed and Justice was the goal, about 90% of lawyers would be out of jobs and the majority of today's politicians, including many in the Judicial Branch would be behind bars, IMO.
When a private American citizen makes a mistake and a willful, intentional capitalizes on it, it seems quite puzzling that the unintentional and unwilling victim can be considered to be 'at fault' as if an 'accessory before the fact'.
I also wonder just how these judges would rule if a 'bait car' had been involved because sometimes those cars get lost because of traffic conditions. It seems like another win for the lawbreakers.
I believe that Justice can prevail only if the person who deliberately intitiates an illegal act is held solely and totally accountable for all the consequences resulting from that illegal act which is a form of planned, premeditated 'ambush' to the unsuspecting citizens.
It is unclear whether the car was on a public street or on private property, but the decision STILL seems asinine ...unless you are a lawyer, I guess.
In addition, it would seem that with the same sort of logic, since our borders are not closed, how soon will it be before law abiding American citizens will be forced to pay for any mayhem caused by illegal aliens because our 'agents' in government have even KNOWINGLY 'aided' the lawbreaking border crossers and trespassers by NOT sealing the border?
An open ended 'credit card' that obligates 'someone else' to make the payments has never been a real solution, but it seems that liberals ALWAYS think it will work.
So far in 2010 the INTEREST PAYMENTS ($414 Billion) on 'National Debt' exceed THE ENTIRE ANNUAL NATIONAL DEBT following World War II UP UNTIL JUNE 1971.
Essentially, the Federal government is borrowing money to pay the INTEREST on existing debt. In other words, 'government' is borrowing from TODAY'S INVESTORS in order to pay interest to PREVIOUS INVESTORS in addition to skimming some off for themselves for 'vote buying'.
When Bernie Madoff and others engaged in similar practices, 'government' called their activities 'Ponzi schemes' and FEDERAL CRIMES. In addition, 'government' even went after those who had 'profited' from the schemes.
At last, a lot of people have begun to take a critical look at several 'government operated schemes' and are beginning to wonder how we let them get away with it for so long.
While some folks may get hurt, sooner or later everyone will realize that 'something for nothing' and 'taking out much more money than one put in' are not plans that can be sustained very long, and that our 'leaders' have pushed us to the end of the pier and 'the sharks' are waiting for us to fall off.
We just can't afford to keep spending money we don't have, no matter how 'noble' the purpose might sound. My stars, if I am on the brink of foreclosure, is is smart to go to a loan shark to get money to give to someone I don't even know?
This is the SAME Ben Bernanke who said in June 2009, in London, England, “Either cuts in spending or increases in taxes will be necessary to stabilize the fiscal situation.” Then, he added…
“The Federal Reserve will not monetize the debt.”
To 'monetize the debt' BTW is for 'The Fed' "To buy Treasury debt, the Fed in effect prints money."
We have seen 'intervention' since 2008 and after spending around $2 TRILLION dollars they had to 'borrow' for which all we really get is them telling us "It would have been worse" if they hadn't done what we did and NOW they must print money (that is not backed by anything) because they can't borrow more from those who have said they have gambled enough -- with no assurances that it won't get even worse that it already is.
Back then we were told "If we do nothing it will be even worse", and that is the song they continue to play. Quite obviously they are either lying to us or are just guessing. My suggestion is to cut taxes and spending and then let the chips fall where they may because THAT is not artificial unlike every 'fix' proposed by government' that includes some specious 'intervetion' rather than letting the market decide.
They need to quit guessing and apply those things which HAVE worked in the past, not those things which have usually failed. Of course, we need a Congress that REALLY wants problems to be solved, not simply to get themselves re-elected.
I wonder if it occurred to any of those union members that there might be even fewer jobs at Spring Hill if they had not agreed to a cut in pay and benefits?
It seems to me that if "it is federal government’s exclusive power to regulate immigration" then why have the judges not ruled that the head of the government agency is guilty of dereliction of duty, malfeasance in office or a host of other things related to FAILING to regulate 'immigration', and then state that if it were not for the failures of the federal goverbment to do its duty to protect the rights of U.S. citizens, none of the other government entities from states on down to municipalities would even be attempting to do anything.
After all, how loudly and how long have Congressional Democrats and members of the Obama administration clamored about the need for government to 'regulate' just about everything else and yet ignore the very thing that has been ruled by several federal courts that it is their DUTY to REGULATE while 70 or more percent of 'the People are screaming "Do something to prevent illegal border crossers from coming to or staying in the United States".