Am I missing something here?  All items purchased over the internet are indeed taxable.  The question becomes who is responsible for collecting them.

If I purchase an item from Amazon over the internet and it is delivered to me in Pennsylvania, it is a taxable transaction (as it is in all but about 5 states).  The issue is whether I report the tax directly to the state (a use tax) or whether Amazon collects the tax on my behalf (sales tax) and remits it to the state.   Either way, it is a taxable transaction the way most state statutes are written.

The problem is that the state lacks the resources to enforce that each individual pays their $5 in sales tax.  What states are seeking to do is have Amazon collect the tax from me and all those similarly situated.  There are compliance costs on business to make sure they are collecting and remitting the proper amount in each state and/or locality that imposes a tax but looking solely at the purchase transaction itself, this would not be imposing a new tax, only imposing a collection responsibility for a current one.

The PA Legislature has been mostly Republican controlled over the last decade.  The Republicans have controlled the PA Senate for the last 12 years or so and the PA House for all but 2 or 3 years during that period.  

I think the lack of of fact-checking is a feature rather than a bug of Obama 1.0.  Let's make sure it goes the way of Microsoft Vista.  

To me, his main accomplishment was getting conservatives to stop blindly accepting the liberal media's premises. When the cries of "racist" came after the Tea Party protest to the Obamacare vote, Breitbart refuse to accept the premise and demanded proof. In fact he bet $100,000 that it was a lie and was proven right.I was reminded of this again today when the media and House Dems demanded that House Republicans repudiate Rush Limbaugh. Sure enough, Republicans took the bait and apologized for something someone else said; someone, who by the way has no official affiliation with the House. Of course, Bill Maher, Andrew Sullivan et. al get to say things multiple times worse with no repercussions.Brietbart refused to accept the rules of engagement dictated by the Left and instead sought to frame the debate with actual facts. As anyone who followed his Twitter feed can attest, he was slandered and called horrible things because he wouldn't accept the Left's premise out of hand.I worry that without him, we will again fall back into old patterns and allow the Left to frame the terms of the debate on the important issues

If inauthenticity disqualified a politician from being president, we would have had a vacant office for significant periods of this country's history.My issue with Romney isn't that he isn't a "real" conservative; it's that he doesn't seem like much of a "real" anything. Everything about him seems pre-programmed and calculated to always appeal to the bare majority of people in the room without offending the other 49%. On the numerous occasions where he tells us how conservative he is, I get the sense that he is trying to convince himself as much as he is trying to convince us.

It's the oldest diversionary tactic in the book. When you cannot logically attack the premise, attack the person. Why debate when you can call names. The left excels at this tactic and we take the bait by expending energy defending our character rather than debating the position. Until we begin rejecting the premise and stop allowing the left to set the rules of debate (and allow them to change them at will) we will continue to lose the public debate.

Isn't the real issue with judicial activism, that the courts are creating rights that are nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution?  The entire idea of a living constitution is repugnant to the idea of limited government and separation of powers as envisioned by the framers.

The danger is that judges are creating constitutional rights where none are found and then saying that those "rights" cannot be changed because they are constitutional. This is why I cannot understand how judges can be anything but faithful to the text of the Constitution.  The Constitution is purposeful in what it says (and what it doesn't say) because the framers did not want to bind future generations to the values that existed at the time. It was to lay out what government can and cannot do with respect to its citizens.  The framers left it to the future legislatures that have the pulse of the people to fill in the gaps through legislation that represented the will of the people.  

I think the judges that find constitutional rights where there clearly are not any are violating their oath to uphold the Constitution.

Under Article III of the Constitution, Congress has the power to define the Court's appellate jurisdiction (i.e. the Court's power to hear those cases).  Most cases are in the Court's appellate jurisdiction except those involving disputes between states and those involving ambassadors.  Thus, the constitutional check on the Court's power is that Congress can simply strip the Court of the power to hear certain cases. 

Marbury v. Madison came along and allowed the Court to essentially decide it's own jurisdiction on the issue of constitutionality, but that's a whole other discussion.

Some of my favorites have already been mentioned (Blazing Saddles and Airplane).  Harlem Nights and Get Shorty are two of my most underrated comedies.

Let's not forget that the real goal here is to defeat Obama in 2012 and I think most, if not all the contributors and members on Ricochet will agree that any one of the Republican candidates are better than a second Obama term.

My personal opinion is that I have nothing personal against Romney, it's just that he represents more of the same ruling class mentality that has pervaded both the right and the left.   I see a man who doesn't have a problem with government, only those running it.  He seems to think that if only he were allowed to share his expertise with us, government would run better.  Sure that might make things better around the margins but is not the fundamental re-thinking of government's role in our life that it appears most Ricochet members want.

I don't dare speak for Peter, Dr. Rahe or any of the other contributors or members accused of "visceral dislike", but if I had to venture a guess, most of them, like me, would pull the lever for Romney if he were the Republican nominee, even if they had to hold their nose while doing so. 

How about "Are you a source of embarrassment everywhere you go, or just here?"

Fair enough. But he wasn't disciplined, only "reminded" about the policy.  If he were to do the same thing after today, would you agree that he could be disciplined by his employer without ESPN violating his free speech rights?

Actually, the closest we can come to that is to decrease tax rates.   Of course, there is no guarantee but the best mechanism government has to stimulate the economy is to decrease the burden (e.g, taxes, regulation) on business.  That can easily be legislated.

Generally, with a decrease in tax rates comes increased economic activity and increased revenues. It's been widely reported so I won't hammer the point but company balance sheets, for the most part, are flush with cash that isn't moving.  The Dems position is to give that to the government.

I'm in favor of broadening the base and including a flat tax so everyone has skin in the game.  Actually, I'm in favor of a consumption tax (sales or VAT) provided the income tax is repealed.  But that is not what is contemplated currently by our president.  It's higher tax rates without a significant change in the structure of the tax code, or, in other words, simple income redistribution.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need increased revenues, not increased tax rates.   A rise in tax rates has generally not resulted in an increase in tax revenues.  

I agree with what Marco Rubio said when he explained that the problem is not that there aren't enough taxes, it's that there aren't enough taxpayers. The way to increased revenues is to grow the economy.

Why we let Obama get away with setting the message continues to be of the greatest concern to me because when he says we need to raise taxes, it is not to pay down the debt or to make the country any more solvent, it is so he can spend more.

Try going to your boss and saying you need a raise, not because you have been responsible or a hard worker, but because you bought a house you couldn't afford and blew some more money on gambling and booze.  I suspect most of us would never do that and if we did, the argument wouldn't get very far.  That's what we are being asked to do by our president and our government.

I think we forget that Republicans only hold one house of Congress and will never get the magnitude of spending cuts through the Senate.  Nor will they get the president to sign off.   

This morning's editorial in the WSJ probably summarizes it best.  Since Obama only really cares about the 2012 election, he's trying to position Republicans as either agreeing to tax increases or obstructionists responsible for default (even though there are several ways to avoid a true default).  Without any real power to pass what the Republicans want, the McConnell plan simply puts the onus entirely on the Dems and White House.

I think the debt ceiling is going to get raised either way and I think it's clear the only way we get meaningful cuts is to couple them with tax increases, which is a complete non-starter for me. I would agree this option would have been better put forth two weeks later and I'm not entirely sold on the plan but for those yelling sell-out, what is the alternative?