Juke or Jook: fake, (football) a deceptive move made by a football player.  Synonyms: fraud, imposter, pseudo, fake, faker, pretender,  role player, shammer, sham.

How long will it take for Missourians to wake up to the fact that we’ve sent a pack of jukes to D.C. and to Jefferson City to take care of our financial welfare. You know what jukes are, right? Jukes point left and run right, carrying our ball right along with them, leaving us with nothing and no prospects for anything. Right now there’s lots of jukin’ going on.

The primetime juking is happening in Washington where the chawbacon economists that have hit the capital have been pointing left and screaming “I see a deficit,” while running right and trying to make sure that government can no longer do any of the things we want it to do. This week GOP House members announced their support for cuts in spending for infrastructure, national parks, scientific research, food assistance to low income women and children, community health centers, etc. There’s lots more pain in the their plans than I have space to list (see list of proposed cuts here), but the kicker is – get this – for all the suffering and lost opportunities these cuts represent, they won’t do diddly about the deficit. As Think Progress puts it:

In the grand scheme of deficit reduction, these cuts will do absolutely nothing, but they will have extremely detrimental effects for those who depend upon the targeted programs. This shows the folly of the GOP’s approach to budgeting, which leaves huge parts of the federal budget immune to cuts (like the Pentagon), while taking an axe to non-defense discretionary spending. These cuts outlined above total about $1 billion, while simply retiring (and not replacing) one carrier battle group and its aircraft wing would save $1.5 billion.

So, our GOPers in the house are planning to take a wrecking ball to vital government programs that have nothing to do with the problems they cited when they persuaded us to give them the wrecking tools. They’re doing this even though, when polled, Americans don’t support the proposed cuts and they will cost thousands of jobs. But that doesn’t bother our jukes; pols like, for instance, Missouri’s Billy Long (R-7) are sure they’ve done something big. According to the Turner Report, ol’ Billy  is patting himself on the back and fatuously proclaiming, “we got ‘er done.”  

Back home in Missouri, the local jukes are also hard at it. Remember how they whined about jobs and job creation before the election? And what are they doing to create jobs? Attacking unions, undercutting workers, doing their best to insure that if, by some miracle, any jobs are created, they’ll be the sort that nobody but the most desperate will take. These ideologically driven strategies are supposed to create a “business-friendly” climate, but as the St. Louis Post-Dispatch observed:

Business-friendly is one thing. Business-promiscuous is quite another. Before the state goes past second base with these suitors, it would be wise to ask why – given all the pro-business initiatives of past years – the economy is still in a funk. Businesses were given tax breaks, tax credits, tax incentives, low corporate taxes and tort reform. So where are the jobs? Or did they just pocket the savings?

Of course not all jukes are created equal. And by that I mean competent; I also mean our new State Auditor, Thomas Schweich. When faced with the task of analyzing the financial impact of the proposed mega sales tax/income tax swap that is being engineered by political sugar daddy Rex Sinquefield, Schweich ended up looking like the proverbial deer caught in the headlights.

The facts, after all, aren’t that favorable to the unfair tax, so poor little Schweich, fearing to offend King Rex from whom all favors flow, claimed that the job just couldn’t be done. Nope. No way.  No mathematical skills, models, or reasoned estimates could be employed  – although use of those tools is an everyday thing for financial types – like auditors – who are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. The upshot: Schweich looks like a fool;  he pointed left, but just hasn’t got what it takes to run the ball to the right.

The unFair tax proponents are themselves juking in a number of directions. One of the most interesting is the proposal to cap the sales tax at 7%. As numerous analysts have shown, such a low cap is absurd if one expects the swap-out to be revenue neutral. And, of course, those of us who raise this point are missing the whole jukin’ game. These daddies don’t have the slightest interest in revenue neutral – they want to force cuts, the more the better. Here, one should note that in some dialects being juked has another connotation – as in baby, you’ve been screwed.

GOP juke economics are ultimately an exercise in ideological strategy. If there is less money, there will necessarily be less government spending on those vital programs that so disturb the John Galt roleplayers and excite the wrath of Tea Partying grannies  whose bile rises at the thought of all those welfare queens living high on the taxpayer dollar. When the consequences fall on all of us, though,  Missourians who voted GOP will have nobody to blame but themselves.

Wednesday night, I attended Governor Holden’s monthly Pizza and Politics event at Webster University, where Sen. Rob Mayer and MO State Budget Director Linda Luebbering were the guests. A reporter for The Beacon asked how high sales taxes would have to go if the Fair Tax were implemented. Sen. Mayer was surprisingly frank about it.

Here’s the meat of what Mayer had to say:

MAYER: There’s a lot of things that I have concerns about that, that ‘fair tax.’ And I probably shouldn’t be this frank and candid with you, but I can’t see us passing that ‘fair tax’ in this session. Now, I’m just one Senator and I probably shouldn’t make that kind of statement, but there’s a lot of details in that tax, in that proposal, that concern me. And you make a good, you ask a good question– how much does the sales tax have to be? You know, they talked about seven and a half percent or eight percent. But just, what, this last year, the realtors I guess, passed, wasn’t it some time of petition that would exclude them from that. And then, you know, then you start taxing attorneys and CPA services. And you know, then you get into this issue, well, certain ones want to be exempted out. And then everybody else wants to be exempted out. And before long, you’re talking about ten, twelve, thirteen percent. So, I mean, the concept intrigues me, but for me, there’s got be be a lot — I’ve got to have a lot of answers.

Bottom line: Not in the Senate, not this year anyway. And Luebbering’s assessment was even less favorable.

We actually did a fiscal analysis. I think, to the senator’s point, it’s a moving target because when some of the criticism comes back on ‘we’re gonna tax nursing homes’, they exempt nursing homes from the tax and we have a new version. And so it’s a moving target to try to figure out what the tax rate would actually be, based on the services that would be taxed. Based on the analysis we’ve seen, one of the versions would require a 14 percent tax rate with the average local taxes tacked on. We fondly refer to that rate as ‘Buy Kansas’ because people would go over the border to Kansas and buy things at that kind of tax rate.

But if this–should I dignify it by calling it an idea?–gets no traction in the Senate, that just shoves it down the road to an initiative petition. The question is, which version would Sinquefield pay to get on the ballot? Because whichever version he picks, the petition will face outrage–that we, of course, will fan. “What?! You’re not going to exempt nursing homes?” Or doctors? Or child care? Or auto repair? Or whatever.

St. Louisans will call it ‘Buy Illinois.’ Businesses in Kennett will call it ‘Buy Arkansas.’ Folks in Neosho will call it ‘Buy Oklahoma.’ And if/when an initiative petition is filed, we’ll come up with a catchier name for it. The fairly crazy tax? Is it too early in the meeting for the table to entertain other suggestions?  

Very rich Rex Sinquefield is getting ready for an unholy war against the poor and middle class; his objective: the unFair Tax. Right now he’s busily deploying his proxies, among them Missouri House Speaker Steve Tilley who, along with sundry other foot-soldiers in the Missouri legislature, is seriously in hock to Sinquefield for big chunks of campaign funding. The brute force brigade, known locally as the Let Voters Decide Campaign Committee, is simultaneously taking its place on the battlefield with the filing of not one, but nine versions of a petition for a proposed constitutional amendment that would abolish the income tax and substitute one or another version of a regressive sales tax, deceptively labeled a “fair” tax, to be applied to a vastly expanded body of goods and services. (The differences between the nine versions are summarized in this St. Louis Beacon article.) King Rex is a strategist; he knows to cover his rear flank should the legislative gambit fail to pay off.

I’ve written about why the unFair Tax is such a bad idea here and here; now that it’s coming down the pike and we are dealing with the particulars of Sinquefield’s proposal, mainstream outlets are also piping up (see, for instance this editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch). Essentially the arguments against Sinquefield’s unFair Tax proposal boil down to the following:

1. The unFair Tax is not revenue neutral and the state would lose money. To make a sales tax/income tax swap an even-steven proposition would entail prohibitively high sales taxes.

2. Revenue from Missouri’s already low income taxes is currently inadequate to meet the needs of the state. If the unFair Tax is enacted as proposed by Sinquefield et al., it would truly decimate state services – and things are already pretty grim on that front.  There’s a reason why CNBC’s Top States for Business Survey ranks Missouri 49th for quality of life.

3. The unFair Tax will create a toxic environment. It’s  obvious that higher sales taxes would seriously impact those with lower incomes. Businesses in border areas could suffer since those of us who can do so will most likely travel out of state when it comes time to make major purchases. To move into the realm of the anecdotal and personal, I would imagine that when it comes time for my husband to retire, should the unFair Tax prevail, we probably won’t be staying in Missouri  – heck, we might even look for a new house on the Illinois side of the river long before retirement. And I bet we won’t be alone; plenty of those who have the option to do so may just head for those nearby hills outside Missouri.

4. Since the proposal envisions exemptions from sales tax for some selected set of services, it doesn’t take a genius to see an opening for some very happy lobbyists and the concomitant nasty corruption.

5. There is no upside – the claim that eliminating state income tax translates into prosperity has been discredited over and over. Take for instance the much touted example of Texas. Unfortunately, it seems that those stories about streets paved with gold in the Lone Star State were fictional; Texas, with a looming $18 billion deficit, is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. And even worse for the anti-tax clique, Texas’ governor and big-time hypocrite, Rick Perry, has been busy for the past couple of years plugging holes in the state budget with the federal stimulus money against which he so loudly harangued – making things look a lot rosier less thorny than they actually were among the yellow roses of Texas.

6. The most important reason to reject the unfair sales tax is that it is so – wait for it – unfair. Rex Sinquefield wants the working people of Missouri to carry rich men on their backs. There are few cases where one can create wealth without leveraging the educational and physical infrastructure that our taxes provide. Those who make money do so because they have access to an educated workforce, transportation systems, and other elements of publicly provided infrastructure. It is not fair for those who have parlayed those tools into big bucks to weasel out of paying for their use – which is just what Sinquefield’s unfair sales tax would permit. Take a look at the following chart* which gives one a picture of how state and local taxes are actually apportioned:

It’s clear who’s carrying the weight of sales taxes here – and it isn’t the likes of Daddy Warbucks Sinquefield. Now imagine what the chart would look like if income taxes were eliminated and the sales taxes were increased across the board. Did you say regressive? Just before you fainted? All I know is that I’m sure as hell not going to sit idly by while King Rex and his pals try to get a free ride at my expense. And if you want to call this class war, well go ahead. As far as I’m concerned, I know who fired the first volley.

*Chart from “Who Pays?” (PDF), prepared by Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

 

In October I reported that my State Representative, Andrew Koenig (R-88), was crowing about reviving the fair tax initiative that limped into obscurity last year. The plan is to eliminate the state income tax and replace it with a regressive sales tax.

Sure enough, the newly-minted Speaker, Rep. Steve Tilley (R-106), has identified the sadly misnamed fair tax as one of his big legislative priorities (right along with busting unions via right-to-work legislation). Not surprisingly, the Wonkroom reports that Mr. Tilley – who ran unopposed – is in receipt of some $200,000 in campaign contributions from one Rex Sinquefield. Looks like Sinquefield was gunning for bigger game even before he was sure that the $11,218,000 that he spent was going to snare enough voters to pass Prop. A.

Proposition A has the potential to decimate the budgets of Kansas City and St. Louis, but eliminating the state income tax will amount to a blitzkreig on the poor and middle class in the entire state:

Completely eliminating the Missouri income tax would cost the state about $6 billion, when the state is already facing a nearly $1 billion shortfall in its 2012 budget. Missouri business groups are also pushing the new GOP legislature to repeal the state’s corporate income tax, costing another $500 million.

When the fair tax was proposed last year, the Missouri Budget Project demonstrated that sales taxes would have to be uniformly raised to 11% to compensate for the lost revenue (think about adding 11% onto the price of your next new car, onto your grocery bill, and to just about everything else that you buy). The fair tax plan outlined by Koenig, which is, I presume, the plan that Tilly endorses, specifies that the sales tax will be no more than 7%. Given that Missouri sales taxes currently vary from 4.25% to 9.421% in different jurisdictions, it is difficult to see how this tax alone will compensate for lost revenue. You think that budget cuts have been draconian this last year? Just wait and see what happens if this piece of rotten tripe becomes state law.

And who will the fair tax affect the most? The great majority of Missourians whose incomes cluster somewhere in the vicinity of the $42,000 median and the 13.5% below the poverty level will feel the pain for sure, while the state’s rich business movers and shakers who pour money into GOP coffers will dance all the way to the bank with big returns on their investment. To add insult to injury, middle-class and poor Missourians are already carrying the state’s rich schmucks on their shoulders; the Wonkroom’s Pat Garofalo observes that:

Missouri already has a slightly regressive state tax system; those in the lowest income quintile can expect to pay about 10 percent of their income in state and local taxes, while those in the top one percent will pay about 5.4 percent.

And what has letting the big guys and corporations off the hook done for the state so far? Have any of you missed the fact that Missouri isn’t exactly a dynamic place to live and do business? Does anyone really think that when the state is a wholly owned subsidiary of Rex Sinquefield Inc. – which it seems well on the way to becoming – our lives will be vastly improved?

I was struck by something that Digby posted today on the DailyKos:

Voting isn’t just about making good things happen for yourself and your family.  It’s about voting against  things that will make your lives worse. And if this Republican party — at this point in history — wins big over the next two years, the lives of average Americans will definitely be worse.

No sooner had I read this than came face to face  I received an email that brought it home to me; I received a newsletter from my State Representative, the Boy Scout from GOP Hell, little Andy Koenig (who is, sadly, unopposed this year). His big news? He and his buddies  are going to try again with that GOP golden oldie, the “Fair” tax.  Their rationale:

When designing a tax structure we would never pick the system we have today. Taxes do damage to whatever you are taxing so we need to pick a system that does the least amount of damage. If you tax productivity you will have a society that is less productive. The tax that does the least amount of damage is a consumption tax.

The least amount of damage! Although, if  you’re wealthy and don’t mind being subsidized by the middle class and poor, perhaps you agree. Specifically, this soon to be revivified version of HJR 71, which was sponsored by Baby Andy last session, would do the following:

1. The individual income tax will be eliminated over 5 years.

2. Corporate income tax will be eliminated in 1 year.

3. The Corporate Franchise tax will be eliminated in 1 year.

4. The sales tax will be capped at 7% and be broadened in scope to keep the

rate low.

5. Service providers such as plumbing, painting, and lawyers, will have a sales tax.

6. Sales tax on used goods will be eliminated. (Used cars, used boats, used items)

7. Each Missourian will receive a prebate. (A prebate is an estimated return based on the money spent in sales tax to achieve $2,800 dollars in tax free spending per person or $11,200 for a family of four.

8. Exemptions will be made for business to business transactions, insurance (includes a reverse exemption), tuition for K-Higher Education, gasoline, and charitable donations.

Currently state sales taxes are 4.225%; this tax may be augmented by counties and cities so that total sales taxes in the city of St. Louis are 9.421%; in Franklin County, 7.975%; in St. Charles, 8.40%; etc. Will city and county taxes still be appended to the 7% sales tax proposed above or will they have to be adjusted to come in under the cap as HJR 71 specified? The effects could be unbelievably painful – particularly if, as seems quite likely, Rex Sinquefield’s gift to his wealthy cohorts, Proposition A, becomes law.

Certainly, although the plan Koenig lays out promises lots of goodies, he doesn’t deign to discuss revenue, which is probably all to the good since, from his supply side of the economic chasm, it would all be speculative fantasy. The Missouri Budget project estimated that had the prototype for this legislation, HJR 71, passed last session, in order to maintain the revenue stream, Missouri sales tax would have had to be raised to 11% and all services would have had to be taxed – a level of uniform taxation that, as that the Missouri Budget Project points out, no other state has enacted. Of course, since the folks who’ll get soaked under this proposal aren’t those who finance political careers, it may not be such a big deal for dear little Andy.

I’m guessing that the best solution according to our baby GOPer would likely be spending cuts – and we have all seen what GOP budget cutting mania has done to the state over the past year. There’s little left to cut without destroying the viability of the state – although, on second thought, that might be the goal – a little shock doctrine and Missouri could become very attractive for corporations who want to exploit the suffering to set up sweat-shops.

Koenig’s arguments for dragging this moribund idea into the light once again is the perennial chestnut that states without an income tax experience greater economic growth than those that tax income. This argument has been exploded time and again, but proponents of the fair tax keep dredging it up with only slight variations. Arguing against HJR 71 earlier this year, Amy Blouin of the Missouri Budget Project, offered detailed refutations of such claims, concluding that:

What the data do indicate is that there is no correlation between state individual and corporate income taxes and economic growth. State rates of economic growth and taxes vary considerably and there is no common pattern to make assumptions from. Many recent national studies back this up.

To bolster his arguments, Koenig does try to offer proof of his contentions; he cites a study issued by the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, Rich States, Poor States, by Arthur B. Lafer (yes, that Lafer), Stephen Moore, and Jonathan Williams, a standard in supply-side circles, which attempts to correlate states’ economic competitiveness with income tax rates.

If you were to take a look at that study, you could not be blamed if you were to experience a sense of bemusement.  The relatively high position occupied by a state like Wyoming compared to New York’s low competitiveness ranking suggests that perhaps the authors bias their results by asking only part of the question that needs to be answered; income tax alone is not really the only determinant in play though this and similar studies operate from that assumption. As the political scientist and statistician, Andrew Gelman, notes apropos this study, “economic performance can be defined in different ways.” and, if one wishes to obtain a complete picture, definitely should be.

Such considerations, of course, seem to be beyond poor, ideologically driven Andy and many of his pals in Jefferson City (although to be fair, HJR 71 failed even the GOP smell test). Unfortunately, as I noted above, we can’t send Andy home this election, but we can try our best to make sure that he doesn’t have the back-up he would need to wreck this kind of havoc on the already ailing Missouri tax system. At the very least, with enough Democrats in office, we wouldn’t have to have this silly discussion over and over again.

Last year’s attempt in the Missouri lege to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot dumping the income tax in favor of a bigger sales tax went nowhere. But like a vampire yearning to suck the economic blood out of Missourians, it’s back again this year. And stronger. It got an early hearing in the state Senate on Wednesday.

It is a genuinely crappy idea.

In case you could use a refresher course on what’s wrong with it, here’s what I wrote last year:

Astroturf organizers are pushing the “fair tax”. The term is one of those “exactly the opposite of what it really means” phrases, like Bush’s Clear Skies initiative that actually weakened parts of the Clean Air Act. The Fair Tax, being pushed at both the national and the Missouri level, proposes replacing the income tax with a larger sales tax.

And it’s fair all right, in fact, more than fair–to the wealthy. Under the bill that was proposed in the last state legislative session (HJR 36), those making a million dollars or more a year would, according to estimates by the Missouri Budget Project, pay about $22,000 less in taxes a year. But 95 percent of us would pay more, especially those in the middle. Those making around $37,000 a year would pay about $2,000 more in taxes.

So you’ll find various organizations, the same ones in general who astroturfed the last round of Tea Parties, pushing the fallacious notion that we could eliminate the state income tax, raise the state sales tax from 3 percent to 5.11 percent, and fund all the same programs. But Missouri Budget Project figures that the sales tax would have to be closer to 10 percent to generate the same revenue, and that the 10 percent tax would be levied on virtually everything. You’d pay sales tax to the plumber, sales tax on medicine, sales tax on day care, sales tax on rent, sales tax on groceries, sales tax on auto repairs, sales tax on nursing homes and funerals and doctor’s visits. Hell, sales tax on smiles and handshakes.

So the hearing Wednesday of the Senate Government Accountability and Fiscal Oversight Committee attracted a wide variety of witnesses opposed to the idea. In a press release about the hearing, Missouri Budget Project (MBP) highlighted three pieces of testimony.

As part of his submitted testimony, Ron Leone, Executive Director of the Missouri Petroleum Marketers Association said, “SJR 29 doubles the motor fuel tax and we have grave concerns that it puts us at a competitive disadvantage with our border states.”

Jeremy LaFaver, Director of Public Policy for Partnership for Children, also testified at the hearing and spoke about the potential impact on Missouri families who have children, including increased costs for child care and private k-12 school tuition – both of which would be taxed under this proposal.

And Ron Sergent with AARP Missouri noted in his submitted testimony that, “Families with fixed incomes, like Missouri Seniors, would have their monthly costs increase by as much as 11 percent…while tax discounts would be decreased or eliminated.  For example, the proposal would eliminate all tax credits, including the Senior Citizen Circuit Breaker, which seniors and people with disabilities currently receive to offset some of their local property tax.”

Amy Blouin, executive director of MBP, pointed out that in these hard times, last year’s estimate that a 10 percent sales tax would be needed is too low. Now it would take 11 percent. And we’re not talking about more money for roads or teachers or bridge repair with that 11 percent. Uh-uh. No, that would only fund the bare bones budget that keeps Missouri near the bottom of the fifty state pack. Furthermore, Blouin says: “No other state taxes services as broadly as Missouri would under this plan. There simply is no comparison for Missouri to use to assess this proposal. It is untested.”

To sum up: Republicans are proposing a 5 1/2 percent sales tax that would come nowhere near funding even our spartan state services. True to form, the right wing legislature has found a way to exacerbate Missouri’s problems rather than address its needs.

On Friday Representative Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) held hour long town hall meetings in Holden, Warrensburg, and Knob Noster. Ten people attended the 9:00 a.m. gathering at the Holden Branch of the Trails Regional Library, approximately fifteen people attended the one at 11:00 a.m. at the Warrensburg branch, and approximately ten people attended the 1:00 p.m. town hall at the Knob Noster branch. Representative Hoskins might note that most people can’t attend town hall meetings held in the middle of the day.

The Holden town hall meeting.

Hoskins carried Knob Noster comfortably in the 2008 election. He also carried Holden narrowly. He did not carry the City of Warrensburg, the anchor of the 121st Legislative District. Predictably, the really interesting exchanges came from constituents at the Warrensburg meeting. Here is one of those exchanges, on the subject of Hoskins’ votes on regressive taxes:

…Representative Denny Hoskins: …I’ve always said that, I think, being accessible to the public is a, is a primary responsibility, being an elected official. And so I’d like to open the questions and comments and concerns that you have. And we can go from there, so do we have any questions?

Question: Um, I have a question about your changing your vote on an important piece of legislation. In fact there was just a demonstration in Jeff City about this, this is that fair tax thing. You told me you voted against it.

Representative Hoskins: Yes.

Question: That’s correct?

Representative Hoskins: Yes.

Question: On the third reading you voted against it, this is on April 16th.

Representative Hoskins: Um, hm.

Question:  But on April 14th in the perfection, you voted for it. Given the fact that you’re a CPA, you’re on the budget committee, why’d you change your mind on that bill in forty-eight hours?

Representative Hoskins: I’d have, I’d have to go back and look and see if I can see…

The Warrensburg town hall meeting.

…Question:  Ah, here. Here’s, uh, here’s the, the record. That’s you on April 14th.

Representative Hoskins: Thank you.

Question:  That’s you on April 14th.

Representative Hoskins: Right.

Question: You’re Hoskins 121, right?

Representative Hoskins: Yes. [crosstalk]

Question: It does say ‘aye’, right? [crosstalk]

Representative Hoskins: It does say ‘aye’.

Question: And here it is on the third reading of the bill on April 16th.

Representative Hoskins: Um, hm.

Question: And that is Hoskins ‘nay’, I believe. Uh, here. Hoskins 121 ‘nay’.

Representative Hoskins: Right.

Question: So in forty-eight hours you changed your mind on that bill. Why?

Representative Hoskins: Well, I, you know, to be honest with you, I’ve been against the, the fair tax bill. Um.

Question: So why vote for it, the first time, on perfection?

Representative Hoskins: I probably found out some more information.

Question: What’d you find out? You, you’re on the budget committee.

Representative Hoskins: I am on the budget committee.

Question: So you, so why didn’t you have enough information to vote against it on perfection?

Representative Hoskins: The fair, let me, are you familiar with the fair tax?

Question: You bet.

Representative Hoskins: Okay, great, great. I…[crosstalk]

Question: You want to explain to people in the room about what it is?

Representative Hoskins: Yeah…[crosstalk]

Question: ‘Cause they may not know what it is. [crosstalk] I mean, it, it, what it is, is really, an incredibly regressive, it’ll end the income tax and it’ll all be a sales tax. There was just a demonstration about it in Jeff City, Joe the plumber was there. And it, what it means for working people it will raise our taxes. And on the perfection vote our representative voted for it. And in forty-eight hours he changed his mind and voted against it. I’m just wondering what, what did you learn?

Representative Hoskins: I, I’d have to go back and, and take a look at that. I’d want to go back and take a look at it. But, what with the fair tax what…[crosstalk]

Question: [garbled] That is [garbled] right? I did represent your record correctly, didn’t I?

Representative Hoskins: If this is the record, than yes. Yes, you did.

Question: Okay.

Representative Hoskins: Um, with the fair tax, what the fair tax is, what it would do is increase the sales tax, uh, for the State of Missouri and eliminate the Missouri income tax. Now there’s some good points, uh, toward that. However, my concerns were that, um, I wanted to see the, what the net overall effect was. Currently the Missouri Society of CPAs, who I just conferenced with, oh, about three weeks ago, has set up a task force to look at the effects on working Missourians and to see what they, they would do. And what came up is I had a lot of questions on what, uh, effect that would have on Missouri. Um, you know, I think that our tax system needs to be reformed. Whether, but, I’m not sure that the fair tax, they way that it is, is the right way to go right now. Uh, maybe a combination of, we need to take a look at, at all, you know, different options out there. Because we’ve seen, when our, when we’re based on sales tax revenue and the economy goes down into the recession, we’ve seen what that can do to our state. So, and what I’d like to see is more stabilized revenue and if, if the, maybe the fair tax is a portion of that, um, including maybe the flat tax is a portion of that. But I think we need to look at, at all our options. And so probably I was given some more information on that.

Question: What did you know, why did you vote for it in the first place though? What did you say just now that is different from what you knew on April 14th when you voted for it in perfection?

Representative Hoskins: Obviously I must have gotten some more information on that.

Question:  Why’d you vote for it in the first place?

Representative Hoskins: I must not have had all the information that I had when I voted, er, against it.

Question:  You’re a member of the budget committee… [crosstalk]

Representative Hoskins: The budget…[crosstalk]

Question: …you’re a CPA and you still voted for a incredibly regressive tax? Thank you. Right, thank you. [garbled] all I know. [crosstalk]Thank you for answering.

Representative Hoskins: You [garbled] respect. [crosstalk][inaudible]….

“…Because we’ve seen, when our, when we’re based on sales tax revenue and the economy goes down into the recession, we’ve seen what that can do to our state. So, and what I’d like to see is more stabilized revenue…”

Is it just me, or did Denny Hoskins (r – noun, verb, CPA) present the definitive argument against a revenue system based exclusively on sales taxes? Wasn’t the exclusivity of sales taxes the whole thing in the “fair” tax proposal? Just asking.

It’s sad, really, when someone is congenitally unable to dismiss a stupid proposal outright because doing so would conflict with right wingnut dogma.

The Knob Noster town hall meeting.

Astroturf organizers are pushing the “fair tax”. The term is one of those “exactly the opposite of what it really means” phrases, like Bush’s Clear Skies initiative that actually weakened parts of the Clean Air Act. The Fair Tax, being pushed at both the national and the Missouri level, proposes replacing the income tax with a larger sales tax.

And it’s fair all right, in fact, more than fair–to the wealthy. Under the bill that was proposed in the last state legislative session (HJR 36), those making a million dollars or more a year would, according to estimates by the Missouri Budget Project, pay about $22,000 less in taxes a year. But 95 percent of us would pay more, especially those in the middle. Those making around $37,000 a year would pay about $2,000 more in taxes.

So you’ll find various organizations, the same ones in general who astroturfed the last round of Tea Parties, pushing the fallacious notion that we could eliminate the state income tax, raise the state sales tax from 3 percent to 5.11 percent, and fund all the same programs. But Missouri Budget Project figures that the sales tax would have to be closer to 10 percent to generate the same revenue, and that the 10 percent tax would be levied on virtually everything. You’d pay sales tax to the plumber, sales tax on medicine, sales tax on day care, sales tax on rent, sales tax on groceries, sales tax on auto repairs, sales tax on nursing homes and funerals and doctor’s visits. Hell, sales tax on smiles and handshakes.

No wonder Rex Sinquefield of the Show Me Institute is one of the astroturfers. Sinqufield has moolah to spare to push his pet projects: charter schools, free market health care reform. And sales taxes out the wazoo.

The latest astroturf-organized event was in Columbia last Saturday at the Boone County Fairgrounds. Samuel Wurzelbacher, a.k.a. Joe the Plumber, spoke and peddled his new book. People railed about government spending and about how the feds should butt out of everybody’s business. They joked about Obama’s immigration status. Depending on whether you believe the organizers or other folks, it drew either 4,160 people or between one and two thousand.

I don’t see this nonsense going anywhere. The proposed ballot initiative got through the House but wasn’t even brought up in the saner Senate. Its existence is more like having a couple of gnats tag teaming each other in front of your eyes when you’re taking a walk. On the other hand, it’s not wise to completely write off the crazies, especially in a state like Missouri. We’ll keep an eye on it.

Adding to what .Sean says here,  there’s no reason to think that instituting a flat tax would do away with the IRS, either. In fact, you’d likely have a more invasive tax agency inspecting every small business in America to make sure they are properly collecting sales tax and passing it on.

Just remember, the so-called “Fair Tax” is only “fair” if you’re rich. If you’re not, it will raise your taxes.