The Real Reason Democrats Hate Losing the State and Local Tax Deduction

Bob Barr

11/29/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

If you have ever wondered why leaders of liberal cities and states become giddy at any new spending opportunity – investments into light rail infrastructure, social programs for illegal aliens, public schools that look like palaces, billion-dollar sports stadiums – it is not because they are more public-minded than Republicans, or possess an innate sense of altruism. It is because such projects get them re-elected, especially when people other than their constituents are picking up the tab. And, thanks largely to the State and Local Tax (SALT) Deduction for federal income tax purposes, that is exactly what is happening.

In the current federal tax code, SALT deductions allow individuals to deduct state and local taxes, including property taxes, from their federal returns. On the surface, this seems like a great idea, as it generally reduces tax burdens, especially for those living in high-tax localities. At its core, however, the deduction is more a clever burden-shifting scheme to make it easier for state and local governments to over-spend, than it is a way to ease the burden on federal taxpayers.

Since state and local taxes can be deducted, the tax burden is shifted from those governments to the federal government, which in turn makes up for this lost revenue by keeping taxes higher on the rest of the country. In effect, taxpayers in low-tax states and cities, like those in the South, are forced to subsidize the lavish public spending of liberals in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California, who have little incentive to reduce the local taxes that fund their pet projects. It is much like making charitable donations online using someone else’s credit card. It does not make you Robin Hood. It makes you a charlatan, which is why rather than pay the bill, the millionaires who helped put these Democrats in power, would rather flee like cowards.

It also makes for a very sticky wicket when it comes to the GOP’s current tax reform proposals, which hinge on finding ways to help offset the “costs” of reducing federal taxes. Eliminating SALT deductions would make a sizeable dent in this gap; potentially $1 trillion in revenue over 10 years. Yet, the objections of Democrats, and even  some Republicans from the states most impacted, threaten to derail the entire process because of the political ramifications of exposing taxpayers, for the first time, to the true costs of their elected officials’ fiscal irresponsibility at the local level.

This also illustrates a perennial problem with every modern tax cut bill. Our massive and long-standing tax system is built almost entirely around political favors and deductions. Until we have a complete overhaul of the entire tax system, it will remain extremely difficult, if not next to impossible, to do completely away with any deduction of any meaningful significance, because someone’s prized ox is bound to be gored with every move to drop or scale back a deduction; or just as likely, a new one is added in its place as Congress negotiates with the hold-outs.

In an ideal scenario, Republicans would remember what it is to have a spine, and perhaps we might see real reform, such as a flat tax, where the only debate would be what the new tax rate should be, what should be the annual standard deduction that replaces every other deduction promised over the years as a political handout; and bring spending down to the level necessary to operate within the monies raised by the flat tax.

Of course, even in the ideal scenario, spending at all levels of government remains the central problem. Out-of-control spending at the local level is what causes higher taxes that makes eliminating SALT deductions so controversial. Out-of-control spending at the federal level is why Republicans are struggling to pay for tax reform by only eliminating deductions. And, without a plan for cutting spending – a long-forgotten ideal even of many self-styled congressional “conservatives” – the tax rates proposed in this tax reform are the best we can hope for, as either automatic trigger increases kick in 10 years down the road or the inevitable deficit catastrophe forces rates back up.

And, were this to happen, the GOP would rightfully deserve the fallout for its refusal to address spending. Notwithstanding this dilemma, tax reform is so badly overdue that even without spending cuts in place yet to offset the deficit, it is a worthwhile first step. But, it cannot be the last step either. Until the GOP gets serious about cutting spending, shirking this responsibility in the short term will have even greater consequences in the long-term – unfortunately a perspective not often exhibited in Washington.

European Environmentalists Rekindling Cocaine Problem in Colombia and in the United States

Bob Barr

11/22/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

Not that many years ago, the South American nation of Colombia was on the cusp of becoming a failed “narco-state.” With climatic conditions ideal for the growing of coca plants, and with dense jungles providing natural cover for illegal operations, Colombia became an international hub for the manufacturing and export of cocaine. As demand for these drugs grew in the United States from the 1970s on, so too did the violence and corruption of powerful drug cartels as they expanded territory, and battled rivals and the government. By the 1990s, Colombia was regarded as one of the most dangerous places on the planet.

Today, Colombia is far different. Abundant natural resources and a burgeoning economy make it a popular location for tourists and businesses alike. However, this turnaround was made possible only because of an aggressive and innovative foreign aid and partnership program between the United States and Colombia beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s.  “Plan Colombia” provided billions of U.S. dollars, along with military training and hardware, to the beleaguered South American democracy. This aid, along with a firm partnership between U.S. and Colombian political leaders, had a profound impact on drug violence there, while slowing the cocaine epidemic here at home.

Despite this progress, a new enemy has recently emerged and threatens to undermine years of hard work, and placing thousands of U.S. lives at risk. Shockingly, the culprit is not a new drug cartel, but liberal environmentalists from Europe. It might seem paradoxical that European Leftists could dramatically impact the cocaine epidemic in the United States, but they are doing just that. 

A pivotal method for weakening the ability of drug cartels to grow coca, and to manufacture and export cocaine, was glyphosate, more commonly known as the weed-killing product “Roundup.” Sprayed aerially from crop-dusting planes, glyphosate decimated coca production while avoiding deadly conflicts between military patrols and narco-guerillas.

The practice of aerially spraying coca fields abruptly ended in 2015, however, when Colombia’s government caved to pressure from the World Health Organization (WHO), which claimed glyphosate likely caused cancer; despite little scientific evidence backing such claims (a study released earlier this month debunks them altogether). Not surprisingly, cocaine manufacturing in Colombia is making a major comeback, which also has led to a rebound in cocaine use here in America after years on the decline. The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) claims Colombian production of cocaine is “at the highest levels ever recorded… due in part to decreases in aerial and manual eradication”; the result of WHO’s deceitful campaign against glyphosate.

It took only a year for the Colombian government to recognize its grave mistake in bowing to pressure from environmentalists; but rather than going back to the proven successes of aerial spraying, the current Administration in Bogota has taken only half-measures — attempting to manually spray fields from the ground. This not only means far fewer coca crops can be sprayed, but makes it easier for coca farmers to evade spraying, and increases the risk to those conducting the spraying. Meanwhile, the Colombian government can take credit for a “tough” stance on coca production, but also soak up praise from Leftists, both in Colombia and in Europe, who have long panned the aggressiveness of Plan Colombia, despite its positive results.

For example, Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos recently criticized current anti-narcotics strategies backed by the United States that directly targets coca cultivation, even though just a month earlier, he praised President Donald Trump for supporting Colombia’s efforts in executing those very tactics. It is clear that Colombia is willing to play both sides, if it means gaining kudos on the international level, regardless of the consequences on the ground.

And in Washington, the notoriously short-memoried Congress, forgetting the hard work it took to right the ship, is not pushing back against Colombia’s softening drug policy. Just last week, during Colombian Vice President Oscar Naranjo’s visit to Washington, apparently not a single member of Congress pressured him to restart the aerial spraying program. “We will return to Colombia undefeated,” Naranjo gloated of the lack of any U.S. resistance to (or even interest in) his government’s change of strategy.

While many facets of the U.S. Drug War, specifically interdiction at the border, have failed to make a discernable impact on drug consumption in the United States, our hard-fought efforts in Colombia in disrupting the supply at the source, most certainly did. Unfortunately, without a firm hand from Washington to maintain pressure on the Santos’ government, Colombia will continue to grow more passive with coca production. The result will be a continued surge of cocaine use in the United States, along with deaths from overdoses; and eventually, a resurgence of the cartel-based violence in Colombia itself.

One step to improve the situation would be to make the next U.S. ambassador to Colombia a political appointee by Trump, with a direct line to the White House; rather than installing just another State Department bureaucrat in that key post. This is the only way to demand Colombia’s continued attention, respect and continued cooperation in fighting coca production. Keeping Colombia from a fate it narrowly avoided in the 1990’s is ultimately in the public health and economic interests of the U.S., and it is high time the White House and Congress recognize this.

The Fed’s Encryption Conniption

Bob Barr

11/15/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

As soon as the news broke last week that the FBI was unable to gain access to the phone belonging to the Sutherland Springs, Texas killer, you could hear the indignant feet-stomping of security hawks on Capitol Hill. It did not matter that the killer was not a member of ISIS, and acted alone. It did not matter that the motive was a domestic dispute, not the result of some broader terrorist plot. And, it did not matter that it was the government’s clerical error in the first place, which allowed for this tragedy to occur.

There was data to be had, nominal in value as it may be, and Apple’s industry-leading encryption was keeping the feds from it.

The FBI’s frustration with Apple, which to its credit quickly offered its assistance to the FBI upon learning the phone at the center of the investigation was an iPhone, echoes a similar sparring match last year following the San Bernardino, California terror attack. Then, in response to Apple’s principled stand against being compelled to defeat encryption techniques designed to protect its customers (private and public), California Sen. Dianne Feinstein co-sponsored a bill which would force tech companies to provide unencrypted data to the authorities upon request, thus defeating the very premise of encryption. “No entity or individual is above the law,” Feinstein chirped at the time, noting that such power was crucial for the government “to know when terrorists are plotting to kill Americans.”

Unsurprisingly, Feinstein now is renewing the call for her bill, because, for her and other bureaucrats like her, personal privacy is a privilege; not a right.

Even in the post-9/11 environment, where our terrorism paranoia has allowed for all manner of curbs to our civil liberties, this warped view of personal privacy is especially troubling. And, the flimsiness of Feinstein’s justification for the major step of defeating encryption protections yet again exposes just how twisted security hawks on the Hill view privacy rights of Americans. The 4^thAmendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, quite clearly is written to preemptively stop government from taking action against individuals’ rights, as opposed to granting limited freedoms to citizens for personal privacy. That is why the first clause ends with, “shall not be violated,” instead of “at the discretion of law enforcement, or Congress.”

Our cell phones, which contain banking information, personal emails, photos, and other highly sensitive data, are like electronic vaults; meant to be as impenetrable as possible from intrusion of any kind, for the sake of protecting this data. Though Feinstein’s bill innocuously calls for compulsory assistance in cracking its encryption and avoids calling outright for a “backdoor,” that is precisely the outcome it intends in order for companies to meet the requirements of the proposed law. Inevitably (and routinely), the “cracking” techniques that use this backdoor would also be shared with state and local law enforcement as well, for use in investigations having nothing at all to do with stopping terrorists.

As cyber security experts have long warned, and numerous incidents of publicly leaking hacking techniques used by law enforcement have shown, the existence of exploitable backdoors essentially renders private encryption useless. Not only would anyone, from the FBI to the local sheriff, gain the ability to access your most personal data, so would Russia, China, North Korea, as well as the person who swipes a phone off a table at a restaurant.

And what are we putting our privacy at tremendous risk in order to gain? Merely an illusion of safety against the “terror monster” conjured by Feinstein to get her way. For years, government snoops and their supporters in Congress have argued for ever more advanced ways to spy on Americans in the name of “fighting terrorism,” while over this time, terrorists have opted for more low-tech ways to evade detection. Today, terror plots are rarely hatched through sophisticated, “Dark Web” networks of terrorists, but are more likely to be so-called “lone wolf” attackers with crude plans and methods for their attacks. Nor is it logical to expect terrorists to leave sensitive information available to police after the fact; for example, mass shooters routinely have destroyed their hard drives and cell phonesbefore their rampages, including the terrorist in San Bernardino.

And, the fact is, the government has many tools already in its arsenal to address such cyber problems without new, privacy-invasive powers.

Instead of focusing on new, high tech ways to catch terrorists by imperiling the privacy rights of everyone who uses or manufactures a cell phone, government should focus instead on getting the basics right — like reporting convicted domestic abusers and persons dishonorably discharged from the military to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Perhaps then we would have one less tragedy on the books, instead of another ineffectual power grab.

Gun Control Debate 101

Bob Barr

11/8/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

Reading the social media posts of liberals following the latest mass shooting tragedy, occurring over the weekend in the small Texan town of Sutherland Springs, one might notice a pious gloating to their collective outrage. Rather than just the reflexive recitation of hatred at the National Rifle Association and congressional Republicans generally, liberals also lashed out against Christians, viciously blaming “prayers” for the lack of gun control efforts in Congress. It was almost as if they wanted to be at the scene of the horrific crime – a church – just to wag their fingers at the dead, for not heeding their snarky memes about gun owners and discredited studies from Michael Bloomberg’s “Everytown for Gun Safety” group.

As victim-blaming goes, the Left has reached a new low; hard as that is to imagine.

There is, however, a reason Congress has yet to fully address the problem of mass shootings, but it is not prayers, PAC-money from the NRA, or any of the accusations peddled by gun control activists. It is because, despite the same, trite demand from the Left for an “honest discussion about common sense gun reform” after every mass shooting, the Left appears to have no idea how to (or interest in) engaging such a conversation.

Having served both in Congress and as a board member of the NRA, I have never met a serious person who is absolutely opposed to any limitations on firearms ownership or usage. However, this is often how gun owners are characterized when they refuse to engage the Left in a gun control debate on its terms; which is more or less standing there while they rant about the purposeless of individual firearm ownership, and how other countries do not have gun violence problems like America does.

In the interests of helping foster a meaningful and constructive conversation on firearms, there are at least three basic rules to follow:

First, parties must decide if they are discussing solutions for mass shootings specifically, or general gun violence. And, even here, further clarification must be made as to the definition of mass shootings. For example, does the terminology include indiscriminate “mass shootings” in public places like those in Texas or Las Vegas, or the broader definition that Bloomberg’s “Everytown” uses to pad its stats (which includes “any incident in which four or more people, not including the shooter, are killed with a firearm”)? While most gun control rhetoric follows close on the heels of any multiple shooting event, little of what is debated has relevance to the specifics of the tragedy. There is a distinct difference between mass shootings and, say, gang activity that involves multiple homicides; and, solutions to each issue will be just as distinct and complex. Actually and appropriately defining the problem is the only way to reasonably debate effective solutions.

Second, recommendations must not be vague; they necessarily must be specific, with the burden of proof on those calling for the curtailment of current freedoms. Arguing, for example, that “America needs common sense gun control,” or that “it needs to be harder for people to buy guns” are far too vague to be of any use beyond worthless rhetoric. What does “common sense gun control” entail? Or, how specifically would have making it harder for millions of Americans to purchase guns stopped the Las Vegas shooting? (And it is now apparent that the Texas church murderer was able to purchase his killing instruments because government bureaucrats failed to put his prior domestic-violence court martial in the government database.) If these questions cannot be answered directly and accurately by those proposing these ideas, then they are not sufficiently serious to warrant further exploration.

Finally, unless engaging in some abstract discussion of firearms, there are inescapable facts that cannot simply be waved away. For starters, the Second Amendment is real; and unless and until it is struck from the Constitution through the process of amending that magnificent document, the ruling a decade ago by the Supreme Court concluding clearly that it protects a fundamental and individual right to keep and bear arms, remains a cornerstone of any reasoned debate.

Moreover, this natural right is deeply imbued in American history and culture, meaning millions of law-abiding Americans will be impacted by any changes to gun laws, and will not take such changes lightly. There is no magic wand to change this reality – nor should there be — but if gun control advocates wish to try, have at it.  In the meantime, stop wasting our time with empty calls for “an honest debate,” which to this point have been anything but honest.

The Rannazzisi File: Congress Fuels Opioid Crisis

11/1/2017 12:01:00 AM – Bob Barr

In the childhood fairy tale Snow White, the magic mirror from which the evil queen seeks reassurance of her beauty never lies, much to her ultimate fury. In a contemporary story – definitely not a fairy tale – an expert on opioid abuse is forcing the Congress to look into the mirror, and realize that it is to blame, at least in part, for the tragedy of opioid abuse that is ravaging our nation.

In many respects, the opioid epidemic is more insidious than other problems the Drug Enforcement Administration has confronted. For starters, there is no typical “opioid” user; addicts range from wealthy suburbanites to inner city poor. Nor does the distribution chain resemble anything like that of cocaine or marijuana. Manufacturers are not South American “narcos,” but Fortune 500 companies. Dealers are not carrying burner phones and standing on street corners, but instead, wear stethoscopes and run offices with full-time staffs.

For officials like Joe Rannazzisi, who once spearheaded the government’s efforts to fight opioid abuse at the DEA, the challenge was immediate and immense. He took action, and it cost him his job.

Last month, Rannazzisi was interviewed on the CBS flagship program 60 Minutes as a part of a joint investigation with the Washington Post into America’s opioid crisis. Rannazzisi painted a disturbing picture of how multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical distributors diverted hundreds of millions of opioid prescription pills from manufacturers to so-called “pill mill” pain clinics, which serve as fronts for unscrupulous doctors to write fraudulent prescriptions. When prosecuting individual providers proved ineffective, Rannazzisi relied on the DEA’s regulatory power to investigate and fine distributors. These companies are required by law to make a “good faith effort” to report suspicious orders to the DEA so action can be taken; instead the companies often just look the other way rather than risk cutting off the money spigot from such sales.

For a time, the Rannazzisi strategy was effective; resulting in huge fines against some of the opioid industry’s largest players. Unfortunately, his efforts also drew the industry’s ire, precipitating a lobbying effort designed to convince conservative members of Congress that the DEA was interfering in the free commerce of legitimate business. Eventually, says Rannazzisi, even his superiors at the DEA started to push back on his team; and the number of cases being pursued plummeted, even as opioid deaths continued to rise.

The final straw came in 2015, when a bill written by a former DEA official then working for “Big Pharma,” raised the standard of proof required by the DEA before it could investigate suspicious orders, to a near-impossible level. The primary sponsors were Tom Marino (R-PA) in the House and Orrin Hatch (R-UT) in the Senate.

Objections by the DEA and Rannazzisi himself were insufficient to match the $102 million spent lobbying Congress; the bill passed both Houses last year by unanimous consent and was signed without publicity by President Obama. Rannazzisi by then had retired after a 30-year career at the DEA after a heated exchange with Marino and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) led to accusations he was attempting to “intimidate the United States Congress.” Coincidentally (or, perhaps not), both Blackburn and Marino received sizeable donations from pharmaceutical distributors that year.

In the end, it was Congress that proved to be the DEA’s biggest foe in slowing opioid diversion and abuse. “If it had been the intent of Congress to completely eliminate the DEA’s ability to ever impose an immediate suspension on distributors or manufacturers, it would be difficult to conceive of a more effective vehicle for achieving that goal,” Chief DEA Administrative Law Judge John J. Mulrooney II will state in an upcoming Law Review article acquired in advance by the Washington Post.

There is, of course, a line that must be drawn that prevents the government from directly interfering with, or limiting, the ability of doctors to treat patients with a pain management regimen best for the patients; and, prescription opioids have proven to be one of the best options for such treatment. However, there is a clear difference between bad legislation that hamstrings healthcare providersand the Marino bill that effectively robbed the DEA of any ability to uphold what was already the law targeting drug distributors.

The opioid epidemic is not going away on its own. The National Institute on Drug Abuse reports that nearly 80 percent of heroin users today first abuse opioid prescriptions obtained primarily by family, friends, or personal prescriptions. It is a vicious spiral that can only be broken by a multi-faceted approach. Accomplishing this, however, is being made needlessly more difficult by congressional actions such as the 2016 bill that hamstrung the DEA’s regulatory arm.