Small government's antithesis
I was surprised to read Colin Hanna, a “conservative” leader, opining in favor of the Marketplace “Fairness” Act in his column “Congress should pass e-fairness legislation” . This bill is the antithesis of small government, as it would set tax collectors from almost 10,000 taxing jurisdictions free to roam the Internet in a quest for revenue, threatening thousands of small e-retailers in Pennsylvania and across the country with audits and even bankruptcy.
Instead, I would refer self-styled conservatives to Erick Erickson, a prominent conservative radio host, activist and blogger who wrote recently about “coin operated conservatism” on RedState.com . I may not always agree with Erickson, but I couldn't have agreed more when, writing about the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA), he decried “corporate dollars ... being spread around directly and indirectly to claim this ... is somehow conservative.” Where are these corporate dollars coming from? From mega-retailers — the likes of Wal-Mart and Amazon — that are seeking to use their friends in Congress to crush their small, online competitors through the MFA.
It seems odd that Hanna, who heads a “taxpayer advocacy organization,” is supporting a bill that is the embodiment of crony capitalism. Indeed, most top taxpayer groups and conservative thinks tanks are opposed to it. Those groups, and anyone interested in a vibrant 21st-century economy, are looking for solutions that will provide a level playing field for all businesses whether online or on a street corner, rather than embracing a big-government solution that merely serves the mega-retailers.
The writer is executive director of the WE R HERE (Web Enabled Retailers Helping Expand Retail Employment) Coalition (werherecoalition.org).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- ‘Trust’ in God
- Thomas’ ‘humanity’
- Pols’ real interest
- Fitz draws ire
- Mitochondrial disease awareness
- Honor Constitution
- Ferguson & sin