Pathetic, Incoherent Lies
While the Tennessean continues to publish the increasingly pathetic and incoherent rantings of Larry Daughtrey, at least they let the part-time conservative Tim Chavez edit a page of conservative viewpoints (though safely ghetto-ized on one page once a week, safely away from the traditional editorial and op-ed pages.)

Chavez' column this week on the dishonesty that permeates the tactics of the pro-income tax side is a good one. But for a real example of that dishonesty, just check out Daughtrey's column in the same paper.

The increasingly bitter Daughtrey has written another long piece of fiction masquerading as a political commentary in the Sunday Tennessean. Daughtrey's half-truths and misrepresentations in the piece are numerous - including claiming conservatives have not put forth credible budget-cutting proposals. They have; the legislative leadership merely chose to ignore them.

But Daughtrey's weirdest moment comes when he claims that opinions by the current and some previous Attorneys General that an income tax is constitutional "are legally binding on the legislature unless a court overturns them." Binding? The opinion certainly does not require the legislature to adopt a state income tax. And, obviously, it does not prohibit them from adopting an income tax. So in what manner is the opinion "binding"? Answer: none at all.

Daughtrey's assertion that an AG's opinion is binding "unless a court overturns them" is laughable, especially when you consider that is those attorney general's opinions that are seeking to overturn three separate and unanimous rulings by the state Supreme Court that a general tax on income is not constitutional.

Those Supreme Court rulings themselves would seem to be quite binding on legislators, and more so than a mere Attorney General's opinion, because legislature swore an oath to uphold the state constitution, and that constitution establishes the Supreme Court as higher on the legal food chain than a mere attorney general. Even without those rulings, the constitution itself says in Article 11, Section 9, that the General Assembly is "not authorized" to levy a state income tax. That section prohibits the legislature from granting any munipality "the power to tax incomes, estates, or inheritances, or to impose any other tax not authorized" by Sections 28 or 29 of Article 2 of the state constitution, which is the section that lists the taxes the legislature is permitted to levy.

Article 11, Section 9 serves as a commentary on Article 2, Sections 28-39. While the tax language in Article 2 lists the taxes the legislature is allowed to levy, its silence on other forms of taxes (including the income tax) has been interpreted as prohibitive of non-listed taxes. The pro-income tax side argues that the silence is not prohibitive, but Article 11, Section 9, says in simple langauge that the omission of the income tax from Article 2, Sections 28-29 in fact IS prohibitive.

Daughtrey has written numerous columns claiming an income tax is constitutional. I can't recall a one of them that ever explained how that could be true in light of Article 11, Section 9. The Attorney General's opinion doesn't touch it, either.