Operators of the popular Creation Museum in Northern Kentucky are seeking state tax incentives to build a creationism theme park at a nearby site -- a project that Gov. Steve Beshear officially will announce today.That's a nice test for those who believe in Creationism and limited government. But, this item really has something for everyone:
Advocates for church-state separation question whether the tax incentives would raise First Amendment issues.There are some days I wish I did talk radio. Hmm... There's that podcasting...Louisville attorney David Tachau, who successfully sued over a state appropriation for a religiously affiliated pharmacy school, said he would have to further research the issue.
"It certainly sounds as if the mechanism for supporting a particular religious dogma would violate the establishment of religious prohibitions in the state and federal constitutions, but there may be slippery ways this could pass muster," he said.
4 comments:
Are you suggesting there is tension between a religious organization receiving tax incentives and the limited government concept? Or a conflict between a religious organization receiving tax incentives from government regardless of the limited government concept?
IndyCAD
Yes, to both. Or, should be.
Regarding the first, I don't think a conflict can be established. There are many types of tax incentives written into the tax code. An incentive based on revenue is not at odds with limited government. Those types of incentives are not the same as earmarked funds. In fact, any reduction in taxation for a person or business is compatible with limited government philosophy. So the Tea party folks would not be inconsistent with their foundational beliefs if they advocated for the tax incentives for the Creation Museum. Unless you see a different angle that I am not considering.
The latter I think we are probably in agreement (which is why I sought clarification) albeit for different reasons I'm sure.
IndyCAD
Sure, limited government means different things to different people. I don't like tax code manipulation. To me, it's using the power of government to play favorites, which I take as an expression of big government. One special interest doesn't have to carry the same tax burden as one not connected or favored? What I prefer is a tax code with no loopholes, no exceptions, total uniformity, and therefore, fair. Flat tax or fair tax, or better still- one person, one bill.
When tax code manipulation is possible, lobbying is guaranteed.
Post a Comment