No other flag or pennant should be placed above or, if on the same level, to the right of the flag of the United States of America, except during church services conducted by naval chaplains at sea, when the church pennant may be flown above the flag during church services for the personnel of the Navy. — 36 United States Code 173-178

No_Mike_Rounds_bn

Some ‘Republicans’ Hungry to Tax You, Too

November 30, 2012   ·   By   ·   2 Comments

hungrySouth Dakota RINO Governor Dennis Daugaard has a column out today which laments that some of your money isn’t making it into government coffers.

Specifically, he is whining about the tax revenue which is “lost” when South Dakotans purchase things online rather than in a store located in our state. He makes the typical liberal RINO bleat about “I do not support raising tax rates…” and then the But Monkey comes on stage to distract us with some smoke and mirrors about “equity and uniformity.’

Remember that in most cases, you will have to pay shipping and handling charges when ordering online that you don’t have to pay in a local store. Therefore, any pricing advantage an online store might have over a local store due to the sales tax issues is moot. In fact, the shipping and handling charges are likely to be far more than the sales tax would have been.

Also, if the online merchant is based in another state, it is very possible that the merchant is going to face corporate taxes imposed on them by that state, which means this taxation cost of doing business will already be built into the price of even goods that are sold online-further creating that “equity” which Daugaard talks about.

Add to that the factor of delayed gratification. Unless you pay extra for fast delivery (further negating any price advantage to an absence of sales tax), you’re going to have to wait a week or two to receive your online purchase…when you could have it NOW by buying it locally. That’s a powerful incentive to purchase locally, especially if you have a pressing need for the item.

“Equity?” It seems the deck is already stacked against online purchases as it is, with the absence of sales tax being a very tiny (dare I say “insignificant”) plus.

I have a number of friends who own businesses here in South Dakota, and I am very sympathetic to their need to make money and be competitive.  But we must not allow ourselves to become distracted by the politics of envy-liberal politics which have little to do with helping people and everything to do with feeding and growing government.  People who want to grow government are masters of misdirection. The politics of envy has no place in the Republican Party or conservative circles. The Left likes to deceive us into cheering them on as they stick it to some of our fellow Americans by making us think government is “looking out for us”…when in reality, government is only looking out for itself.

No, this has absolutely zilch to do with “equity” and everything to do with an insatiable hunger by the state government for more of YOUR money.

Since this kind of pro-tax liberal attitude is what apparently passes for “Republican” values in South Dakota, we have a serious problem with the “Republican” Party in this state. (It remains to be seen whether Republicans in Washington D.C. will cave in and sell out the American people to higher taxes nationally.)

With the Democrats hungry to take our money and grow government, and apparently “Republicans” are just as hungry for both (with the only difference being the “Republicans” claim they aren’t), South Dakotans have no party with any power which can and will defend their interests. Both major parties in this state are infested with liberalism and are quite eager to sell out their constituents to the government maw.

South Dakota needs real Republicans who will stand strong for Republican values of limited government.  We need leaders who will protect those values within our state, and who will protect our state from the ravages of federal liberalism that is tearing our nation to shreds.  In 2014, we need a real Republican for governor.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Similar Posts:

Bob Ellis has been the owner of media company Dakota Voice, LLC since 2005. He is a 10-year veteran of the United States Air Force, a political writer for the past decade, and has been involved in numerous election and public policy campaigns for nearly 20 years, including a Tea Party leader and organizer since 2009. He lives in Rapid City, South Dakota with his wife and two children.
Bob Ellis
View all articles by Bob Ellis
Leave a comment with your Facebook login
Print Friendly
  • SDJammer

    Bob, I hear what you are saying and tend to agree with your line of thinking. However, there are always two sides to every coin. I really think the other side needs to be considered. And by that, I don’t mean the liberal line of thought which does somewhat follow Governor Daugaard’s thought process.

    What I am referring to could be a conservative thought process. I believe that if a government entity is going to have a tax it must do one thing and one thing only and that is to raise revenue for the government entity. Therefore, any use of a tax to encourage people to purchase goods on-line deviates from that principle.

    The other issue is that ANY tax must be broad based. It is flat out wrong for any government entity to be picking winners and losers in the collection of taxes. Therefore, to exempt purchases over the Internet clearly in my mind chooses on-line retailers over brick and mortar retailers that support the local economy. However, this does not come down to the “emotional” ploy that it is hurting the local guy. It is all about some politician saying we are going to have a sales tax and these guys here don’t have to pay (winners) but you guys over there do (losers).
    I really like the idea of a Flat Tax or Fair Tax with no dedections or loopholes at the federal level and I think that when you apply that concept to a state sales tax, there is a reasonable arguement to at least be considered and debated in this matter.

    As a result, I really do think that there “could be” a legitimate argument against your line of thinking BASED ON CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES. Trust me; I don’t like paying more taxes any better than you. However, if we are going to be consistent as conservatives and stick to conservative principles, there just might be two sides to this argument?

    • http://www.americanclarion.com/ Bob Ellis

      Your statements are logical and well reasoned. I don’t disagree with any of them.

      Unfortunately, Gov. Daugaard instead chose a “rationale” that sounds more like the divisive envy politics that comes from Leftist Democrats. It is clear that he thinks like a liberal instead of a conservative with his bogus talk of “equity” where, at a minimum, it already exists in favor of the local business.

Featured Articles

Jesus_on_Trial

Limbaugh’s ‘Jesus on Trial:’ The Verdict is in

J. Matt Barber

With his latest book, “Jesus on Trial: A Lawyer Affirms the Truth of the Gospel,” David Limbaugh remains true to form. In fact, having read nearly every manuscript he’s penned, I believe this to be, hands down, David’s best and most important work to date. While managing to make each sentence of each chapter in this page-turner fascinating, Limbaugh also provides proof beyond any reasonable doubt that Jesus Christ, in both His historical and spiritual respects, was, and is, exactly who He said He is: God incarnate, the living, physically resurrected Savior of the world and the only, yes, that means the exclusive, path to God the Father.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Republicans shouldn’t pander to Hispanic voters

Star Parker

The immigration issue is now a political football because of the political baggage it carries. Both parties want the votes of the Hispanic population, the most rapidly growing demographic in the country. And this is the same population most sensitive to the immigration issue because most of the illegals within our borders are from Latin American countries.

turtle

SOS: Speaking of Seniors - Government and Turtles

Woodrow Wilcox

What do the federal government and turtles have in common? Speed! One of our senior citizen clients got married in October 2013. After her honeymoon, she did the responsible thing and asked the Social Security Administration to change the name on her social security card to her new, married name. A few weeks later, she got a new card with her married name. But, Medicare never sent her a new Medicare ID card with her new last name.

plan_blueprints

The Perfect Plan

A.J. Castellitto

159 House Republicans (including my district rep) and 33 Senate Republicans voted for arming Syrian rebels against the will of their constituents. In the meantime, our borders are a mess and our own government has been enabling (or simply ignoring) a multitude of illegal entries via land and air. Not only are we arming those who hate us (and will eventually come for us) but we are ignoring (and/or supporting) those who are planning and plotting something against us on our own soil.

Barack Obama and Ted Kennedy (Photo credit: Sage Ross)

EB-5 Program a Ted Kennedy Brainchild

Bob Ellis

The EB-5 "cash-for-visas" program has generated a lot of controversy and discussion in South Dakota over the past couple of years. Did you know the EB-5 program that some "Republicans" have embraced was created by a Democrat Ted Kennedy bill?

Archives




"We don't intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the party over to the so-called moderates wouldn't make any sense at all." - Ronald Reagan, Nov. 10, 1964