Oil Tax to Hit Consumers
Um, yeah...
Assembly Democrats might alter their 2009-11 budget proposal to let oil companies pass on a $260 million tax to consumers, key leaders said Tuesday, but other Democrats question whether the tax should remain in the spending plan to be voted on as early as June 10.
The oil tax proposed by Gov. Jim Doyle and approved by the Legislature’s budget committee last week is designed to raise money to pay for roads — amid a projected $6.6 billion budget shortfall — while barring oil companies from shifting the tax onto consumers in the form of higher gas prices.
But Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Madison, a budget committee co-chairman, said Tuesday he’s not sure that provision is constitutional.
It is unconstitutional and virtually impossible to enforce even if it wasn’t. This tax was always going to land on the backs of oil consumers (read: all of us).
Owen, this goes back to an earlier post/discussion where we lamented the lack of even the most fundamental business sense of this legislature.
Not only do they not understand the basics of capitalism they don’t understand basic constitutional law. This tax increase would be like forcing a company to lower their price, or profit margin and take a loss. I don’t believe this was allowed in the 3rd Reich.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 1745 hrs
The oil tax proposed by Gov. Jim Doyle and approved by the Legislature’s budget committee last week is designed to raise money to pay for roads — amid a projected $6.6 billion budget shortfall — while barring oil companies from shifting the tax onto consumers in the form of higher gas prices.
Posted by accent chairs on June 04, 2009 at 1819 hrs
Owen, if you’d just be a good little useful idiot and start taking the bus or the choo-choo then you wouldn’t have to worry about gas prices…
Posted by Mike Gallo on June 04, 2009 at 1922 hrs
Not to nitpick here, but legislators can not decide what is or is not “constitutional”. That’s not their job. They make the law and the Judicial branch, if asked, decides whether it violates the Constitution or not.
But to make a comment like, “We can’t do this because we think it’s unconstitutional” tells me that not only do some lawmakers not understand basic economics, they also don’t understand basic political science.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 1933 hrs
I disagree. Members of all three branches of government swear to adhere to the Constitution. If they think it is unconstitutional, then they are duty bound to oppose it.
Posted by Owen on June 04, 2009 at 1937 hrs
No…no…no….sorry…no. A lawmaker should never base their decision to craft legislation or not craft legislation solely because they “think” it may be unconstitutional. That’s just flat out wrong. Sorry, but I catagorically disagree with you on this one.
And they don’t swear to “adhere” to the Constitution, they swear to “support” it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 1944 hrs
We’re going to have to disagree then, my friend. I think that supporting the constitution means to abide by it. Having each branch of government consider the Constitutionality of a proposal before voting for it or signing it or ruling on it ensures the checks and balances designed by our forefathers. I don’t agree that it is the sole responsibility of a single branch to be the only arbiter of the Constitutionality of law.
Posted by Owen on June 04, 2009 at 1950 hrs
“Considering” the Constituition is a far cry from making a claim, as a lawmaker, that something IS unconstitutional and scuttling a legislative initiative based on that claim.
The voice of the people rests in the Legislature and if that voiced is silenced because one of its own has already decided that crafting a bill is unconstitutional, then we might as well just do away with the Executive and Judicial branches.
I’m quite certain there are many laws on the books right now that some lawmaker at some point in time thought might be unconstitutional. But as long as an Executive enacts it, and no one calls the question before the Justices, then it is “good” law.
But to arbitrarily make that determination from one branch of government before the other two branches of government get their kick at the cat runs counter to the “check and balance”, I would argue.
We will agree to disagree on this one.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 2116 hrs
Mr Pants,
Even when we disagree, I usually find some merit in your arguments. But you are off the reservation on this one. There are many reasons that the legislature must consider the constitutionality of a law. The first and most important is they should never pass a law that is clearly against the constitution. Supporting the constitution has to include not just willy nilly ignoring it like in this case.
That would be like the legislature outlawing free speech or the right to bear arms. Clearly unconstituional, and things, just like this law, that should never even be considered by a legislative body.
They can however pass laws where the constitutionalily is in question. Like laws around concealed carry, or political giving. In that case they aren’t bound by a strict constitutional prohibition, but they should still weigh the likelihood that the law will be shot down. In this case the likelihood of it either being unenforceable (and unenforceable laws erode the respect of the law, and should never be passes) or in addition in this case highly likely to be overturned, leaving an additional unaddressed budget shortfall, that should more prudently be addressed now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 2235 hrs
I like the “agree to disagree” thing. It’s a nice way to say, “Ugh. I’m right. I know it. You’re wrong. I know it. It’s not worth arguing and denting our friendship over something about which I’ll never change your mind.”
How come men are so good at being able to agree to disagree while women let it fester and turn into an episode of “Real Housewives?” I envy that characteristic in both of you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 2246 hrs
Owen just asked me if I was being fas—faciti-faceti—kidding. I wasn’t. I was, as they say, just sayin’.
Total thread hijack, for which I am eternally sorry.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 2251 hrs
Hijack away, typically you make more sense out here than the rest of us combined…Owen included. Have a wonderful night.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 2302 hrs
Total thread hijack, for which I am eternally sorry
Technically, it’s called Interjackulating.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 04, 2009 at 2313 hrs
No, Curt, you’re comparing apples to hand grenades in your argument. In addition, the Legislature does not “pass laws”, they “adopt bills”...which do not become law until the Executive enacts the bill. I’m not trying to get all ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ on you, but the semantics of this particular argument are important.
Keep in mind, they can adopt and pass any bill they see choose. They can not outlaw free speech or RTKBA, per se, but they could pass a resolution to amend the Constitution to repeal the 1st and 2nd Amendment. Of course, in Wisconsin that would require passage by two consecutive legislatures and then approval of the voter in a statewide referendum.
So it “could” be done by the Legislature, but it probably should not be done, and clearly an effort to do something of that nature would clearly be rejected by the electorate. But again, the Legislature - as the legislating arm of government - can draft, introduce, and adopt whatever they see fit. But, as a check and balance, the Executive can veto it, or - if challenged by a private citizen - the Courts can strike it down as not passing constitutional muster.
Again, I agree that legislators may “consider” the constitutionality of the their actions, as well as the public and political perception that goes with it, but a legislator should never self-censor him/herself from carrying out their appointed duty as a legislator because they “think” a bill might be unconstitutional.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 0653 hrs
a legislator should never self-censor him/herself from carrying out their appointed duty as a legislator because they “think” a bill might be unconstitutional.
Not true. Legislators are sworn to uphold the Constitution. Legislators should indeed consider constitutionally when introducing and voting on bills. Practically speaking, legislators can do whatever they want because they can have basically any opinion on constitutionality that they want, however, in hypothetical-land, introducing or voting yes on a bill known to be unconstitutional is impeachable, in my humble opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1031 hrs
Thank you Paul. Much better than the rant I started to write. I defer to Mr. Pants. They legally can pass unconsitutional bills. (although the amendment to the constitution that he cited as an example would be a perfectly valid bill, as the constitution gives them the right to attempt to amend it.)
So while they “legally” can vote for a bill that is clearly unconstitutional, one would hope that the either ethics (ok..back to hypothetical-land I guess) or sheer pragmatism (the odds that a clearly unconstitution bill will be shot down, in this case resulting in either a brand new gas tax, that can be passed on at the pump, or another hole to be addressed in this swiss cheese budget.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1049 hrs
None of this matters. When millions are spent to prove it’s unconstitutional, Diamond Jim will shrug his crooked shoulders and say “Oh, well; I tried not to pass it on to the consumer, but we need the money…the tax will stay. It’s all part of the plan. Remember, liberals work incrementally.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1053 hrs
“Oh, well; I tried not to pass it on to the consumer, but we need the money…the tax will stay.
Bajaskier: Money quote. Bingo! Why can’t Republicans be as devious in avoiding raising taxes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1150 hrs
Ugh. You guys are not thinking abstractly enough. And as to whether my opinion on this matter is “true” or “not true” is irrelavant. It’s my opinion.
Legislators passing a bill is not a question of legality. When was it ever “illegal” for a legislator to introduce and vote for a bill?
Yes, they are sworn to uphold the Constitution. But by that rationale, you are saying that legislators are prohibited from introducing resolutions to repeal amendments in the very Constitution they have sworn to support.
Of course, that is not true. They could take the oath of office and on the very same day, introduce resolutions to repeal every single amenment in the Constitution. They “could” do that. As to whether they “should” do that is another argument for another day.
But my initial argument stands: legislators should not annoit themselves as justices and make unilateral determinations of constitutionality. My argument, my opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1421 hrs
Hypothetical-land isn’t abstract enough for you?
Introducing a Constitutional Amendment IS in fact upholding the Constitution, as that is the Constitutionally prescribed method for altering the document. Passing laws (or voting for proposed legislation) which is in conflict with the existing Constitution is a different matter altogether.
Your opinion is wrong (and therefore, not an opinion). Judges are not the sole arbiters of constitutionality.
On a more practical note, when the judiciary is deciding cases Congress (generally) gets a great deal of deference as they are the direct representatives of the people and their views on Constitutionality are therefore entitled to deference. I don’t really care for that line of reasoning myself, but it does exist.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1522 hrs
I feel like I’m talking to my Aunt Sophie. ‘Opinions’ are neither right or wrong…that’s why they’re called, “opinions”.
Mine is an opinion. Please do not tell me that they are wrong. You may say you disagree or don’t understand or believe I’m smoking crack…but please don’t refer to an opinion as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.
I can’t believe I’ve spent most of my day today arguing this. Aren’t there any pictures of Hitler’s living room to comment on?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1551 hrs
Mr. Pelican Pants: I believe LSD appears to be your drug of choice. Your abstract thinking has exceeded Timothy Leary’s. That is just my opinion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1615 hrs
In my opinion, the sky is green.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 05, 2009 at 1735 hrs
A lower dollar is inflationary. On world markets you get less for your money. Meaning, prices rise. Since so much of what goes around the world eventually comes around to the US domestic market, soon consumer prices rise in the United States, too.
There was also a back-eddy in the stock market on Friday. The Dow gained 181 points. We call it a “back-eddy” because it looks to us as though the tide is running in the other direction – but we could be wrong.
Posted by Leather Sofa on June 11, 2009 at 1240 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 110
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:21 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).