Van Jones's Plan = 3 Pay Checks for Red-State Farmers

Van Jones, who worked with the Obama Admin to redistribute tax payer money via "Green Jobs,"  talked to undergraduates and law students as well as the public at Washington University today.

While I was only able to video tape the last 15 minutes of his speech, I can say two things about Van Jones:

1. He's an inspiring speaker who is motivated by a deep moral conviction that it's important for the strong to stand up for the weak.

2. He believes the best way to stand up for the weak is through government programs that implicitly require the redistribution of wealth using a 21st-century code word for it: green jobs.

Watch Van Jones describe the three pay checks (from who?? YOU minus money to pay politicians and bureaucrats) that "Red-State farmers" would get if his plan was enacted. Note: he is about real equality; he's not just giving taxpayer money to the inner city communities, he wants to give it to the rural communities too!



In sum:

1. Farmers would get paid by the government via subsidies needed to support windfarms and turbine technology that requires huge capital investments

2. Farmers would get paid to grow "energy crops" via substidies given to business that can't support themselves without help because their energy costs MORE than coal, gas or nuclear energy

3. Farmers could sell carbon from the ground to companies who need carbon credits if "Cap and Tax" passes!

Yes, there might be "Green Jobs" out there, but my question for Van Jones is: where's the pay check coming from?

Amdt 3: An Afterthought on Special Interests Tax Exemptions

Here is a letter from former State Rep. Ed Emery who is steadfast in his zeal to honor God and support the principles that made our country great. This information conflicts with earlier information I posted in support of Amdt. 3. After reading this letter, it's more clear than ever in mind that learning to ask the right questions is key to deciding how to vote. The main question in my mind is: why is Amdt 3 on the ballot now? We've been buying and selling homes in this area almost as far back the Lewis and Clark expedition...

Why is Amendment 3 on the ballot?

Ed Emery has part of the answer:

To the Citizens of Missouri,

Numerous conservative organizations across the state have asked whether or not Amendment 3 will hurt efforts to end the state income tax. Ed Emery, sponsor of MO Jobs and Prosperity Act 2010, responded to that question and to a charge of deception concerning his position. Mr. Emery is urging a ‘no’ vote on Amendment 3 for the following reasons:

“I have not tried to be deceptive but informative. I have fully supported (I think even co-sponsored) Missouri Association of Realtors efforts to ensure that transfer fees are not imposed, but for whatever reason we have not been able to pass that legislation. MAR can probably fill in the blanks on who has been responsible for killing the anti-fee proposals. I also have not opposed their efforts to accomplish the same thing via Missouri's petition process because I was told by their representatives that the petition was confined to their fee issue and did not impact efforts to eliminate the income tax in Missouri.

Once I took time to read the ballot language, it was clear I had been misled.

Amendment 3 imposes a special industry-specific exemption from the provisions of SJR 29 (or its legislative successor). It invokes a serious flaw into meaningful tax reform. Not only will passage of Amendment 3 increase the consumption tax rate needed to eliminate the income tax and remain revenue-neutral, but it will be followed by a long line of similarly "important" exemptions. Missouri will be thrown right back into the process of government picking winners and losers by tax code. That's the taxation model that always favors the powerful elite over small business, punishes economic success, and ultimately penalizes the consumer.

The consumption tax model (SJR 29) is not a tweak or even major modification of the income tax model. It represents a step-function transformation: a paradigm shift. MAR, with Amendment 3, is threatening this strategic transformation in the economic climate and prosperity of Missouri for a tactical victory that is trivial in comparison and that benefits only a few Missourians. True tax reform benefits all Missourians.

That is my view and why I am passionately opposed to Amendment 3. I am happy to do whatever I can to help ensure that the transfer fee issue is fixed, but not at the cost of meaningful tax reform. Whatever the people choose on Nov. 2nd, my goal is that they be fully informed on both the surface and the strategic impacts before they vote.

I would say fully informed on the "secondary effects," but after reading the Amendment 3 language, I don't think the confrontation with SJR 29 is a secondary effect, but the primary purpose. I think the proposed special treatment of one industry relative to SJR 29's proposed tax reforms is MAR's primary purpose even though they have told membership the primary purpose is the threat of new fees.

As always - frequently mistaken, but seldom without an opinion,

I remain sincerely yours,

Ed Emery