CLUB FOR GROWTH NEWSLETTERS

Home > Club for Growth Newsletters

May 05, 2010

The Wednesday Update

May 5, 2010  Volume 4, Number 18  IN THIS ISSUE:  Harley and the Tax Yo-Yo; Stick a Fork in KRM

May 5, 2010 Vol 4, Number 18	Wednesday Update
In This Issue: 1. Harley and the Tax     Yo-Yo 2. Stick a Fork in KRM 3. Feingold Vs. Free     Speech	Harley and the tax yo-yo Combined reporting is the bureaucracy’s name for states taxing business income earned by a company’s subsidiaries in other states. The tax allows revenue-hungry governments to reach outside their jurisdictions for more and more money. And it’s about to cost Wisconsin more than it’s worth. Harley-Davidson, a living symbol of Wisconsin’s proud history of high-quality manufacturing, may pack up and leave. One reason is the Doyle administration jamming combined reporting into law in 2009 as it cobbled together a state budget. For Harley, the result was a $22.5 million tax increase almost overnight and in the midst of recession-driven losses of $55 million last year. Harley now says it must cut costs more than $54 million to stay viable in Wisconsin. That means concessions from a work force already shrunk by one-fourth. Ironically, it could also mean tax concessions from Democrats who were only too eager to jack up Harley’s tax burden when they imagined they could get away with it. This nicely illuminates the Doyle-Democrat mindset we can expect more of if Tom Barrett is elected governor. Take an attitude that business exists to generate tax revenue, add a dose of indifference about squeezing them too hard, and when major employers synonymous with “Wisconsin Industry” head for the exits, try luring them with tax breaks that would never be available to anyone who isn’t convincingly prepared to leave. Thus the governor and Assembly speaker who enacted combined reporting are now joined by Mayor Barrett gabbing about tax incentives for Harley. If they didn’t understand taxes are a problem, they wouldn’t be offering incentives. Evidently their objective is to keep the company available for another fleecing as soon as it starts to look safe again. Big-government liberals can become suddenly (and selectively) flexible when their agenda is threatened by the damage they do with overreaching tax policy. The one option they never seem to consider is to not do the damage in the first place. Time to Stick a Fork in KRM By Fred Young Racine, WI For ten years, proponents of commuter rail in SE Wisconsin have tried to obtain federal funds and state/local subsidies for a train from Milwaukee to Kenosha. For ten years, they haven’t convinced voters, the legislature or the feds that their proposal is sound. In the afterglow of the latest failure, SERTA (the transit authority for KRM) still exists. It has an unelected board with the power to tax (up to $18/car rental), condemn property, float $50M of bonds, hire lobbyists, engage PR firms and study the subject to death. The existing bus transit systems are in decline, so the last thing they need is for KRM to compete with them for subsidies from the WI transportation fund….a fund which Gov. Doyle has already depleted with major raids to supplement general revenue. State finances are in terrible condition with debt having doubled during the current administration…. increases to the transportation fund are a pipe dream. I-94 is being widened and Amtrak to Chicago is being upgraded in speed. Why would anyone want to go to Chicago from Milwaukee on KRM with a change of train to Metra in Kenosha...a total of 2 hours 40 minutes one way with up to 31 stops! The $800M train from Milwaukee to the Madison airport (competing with several private bus lines), the downtown Milwaukee trolley and the new Spanish train sets for Amtrak are going to collectively require enormous subsidies. Adding KRM on top of all these new and permanent, annual expenses would be nuts. It’s time to stick a fork in KRM by repealing SERTA. Fred Young is a retired businessman and strong advocate for limited government. Feingold v. Free Speech All anyone needs to know about Russ Feingold is that he, along with co-sponsor John McCain, is the fellow who outlawed effective criticism of incumbent officeholders in the weeks preceding an election. So it isn’t a big surprise that Feingold, who faces the voters this November, was horrified by the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that the free-speech right of corporations and unions to spend money promoting their views during an election can’t be abridged. (Corporate contributions to candidates remain prohibited—a fact that might be obscured if your source of information is Russ Feingold or his media accomplices.) Joined by Senate luminaries Al Franken (D-MN) and Chuck Schumer (D-TV), Feingold is rushing to enact new restrictions that would partially thwart the Court’s January decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Feingold would require that entities running ads appear on camera and disclose their donor lists. Businesses that contract with or receive assistance from government and corporations headquartered outside the U.S. would be forbidden to run political advertisements. If you’re tempted to say this looks like wholesome transparency and protection against foreign interests intervening in our elections, consider the potential for intimidation of contributors. Also consider the vast numbers of Americans employed by foreign corporations that might have valid points to make about elected officials’ policy positions, and all the businesses denied any voice because they’ve sold something to the government. And keep in mind that the new restrictions would not tamper with the union free speech recognized by the Court in Citizens United. Count us among those who believe negativity and special-interest domination of our politics is best countered by more speech, not less. Russ Feingold’s relentless effort to restrict political expression should be seen for what it is: A coldly calculated attempt to erect a barrier to prevent people from interfering with government of the incumbents, by the incumbents and for the incumbents.