Letter
Rep. Chris Clem, R-Lookout Mountain, comments that a proposed constitutional amendment that would require a "super-majority" rather than a smaller simple majority to raise tax rates is beset with problems.

Says Clem:

First, the income tax would be immediate. Any consitutional amendment would take 4 years and may die anywhere along the way. In other words, we are to accept an income tax today in return for Speaker Naifeh's word that this constitutional amendment requiring 60% vote will eventually pass. This amendment must pass the House and Senate this year by 50%. Then pass the House and Senate in the following term by 2/3rd's. Then it must wait another 2 years then be placed on the November ballet in 2006.

Another problem is that this constitutional amendment only applies to sales tax and income tax. It does not apply to franchise taxes, use taxes, excise taxes, business taxes, car taxes, property taxes or any other tax that is not a sales or income tax.

Rep. Clem - a laywer and a CPA - is exactly right. This "cap" we're being offered is less than is advertised, and not a sure bet. Chances are it won't ever appear on the ballot - and the income tax would already be in place. What is needed is a Taxpayers Bill of Rights amendment similar to the one in the Colorado constitution, which requires government to return surplus revenues via tax cuts rather than spend it, and gives voters the final say over proposed tax rate increases or new taxes - at the state and LOCAL level - via a referendum.

One other strategic problem with the proposed constitutional cap on income tax rates: The income tax, which is currently not authorized by the state Constitution, may not pass this year. If it doesn't, but the proposed constitional cap amendment was placed on the ballot in 2006 and approved by voters, it would set forth the method the Legislature would follow to increase the tax - and that amendment no doubt would be interpreted as constitutional language authorizing an income tax.