Everyone has heard about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  And now many are familiar with their cousin – the Export-Import Bank, which, as currently structured, is hurting American companies, costing jobs, and making open and fair competition impossible.

Ex-Im Bank was established in 1934 “to assist in financing U.S. trade with the Soviet Union” by executive order, with a stated mission to support export financing of U.S. goods and services.  But over the years the Bank has evolved, now subsidizing export financing with loan guarantees, credit insurance and below-market-rate direct loans to foreign buyers.

Ex-Im’s enigmatic responsibilities allow it to finance transactions the private markets deemed too risky, but only lend to companies where there is a reasonable chance of repayment.

Over the course of the last several years, this little-known government agency has been creating an aircraft manufacturing bubble similar to the one that brought down the U.S. housing market, exposing American taxpayers, who would involuntarily bear the burden of default.

U.S. airlines have been forced to compete against foreign carriers whose financing costs are reduced by as much as $5 million per wide body aircraft due to subsidies from the Ex-Im Bank.  Because of the Home Market Rule, American companies have not had access to the same below-market rate financing opportunities when buying aircraft and of course, have not received U.S. financial assistance for Boeing purchases.  In short, American carriers have been unable to play on a level playing field with their foreign competitors.

As a result, foreign airlines have been able to add excess capacity to routes, forcing out of the market the domestic carriers that are unable to compete, costing American jobs in the air and on the ground.

But all this appears to be changing.  The re-authorization of the Ex-Im Bank now appears that it will include serious reforms.  This will be accomplished by increasing transparency and oversight, forcing Congress to hold the Bank accountable, guaranteeing higher standards of business conduct and tying default rates to exposure limits.

Under H.R. 2072, the Treasury Secretary will have the ability to negotiate and end subsidies with global exporters, which will protect American businesses and workers.  The U.S. airline industry employs almost 400,000 people.  And sensible modifications in the way the Bank functions will ensure that thousands of American jobs will not be lost to foreign competitors.

Next, the legislation will augment public transparency allowing the public to comment on Bank’s transactions assessed at more than $100 million, including non-confidential summaries of transactions to those who request them.

Better yet, Ex-Im will now have to create and make public the procedures it employs when conducting an economic impact analyses.  In addition, they will be required to review the affect their actions have on American employers.  Lastly, H.R. 2072 will authorize the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to perform routine audits of the Bank’s transactions.

It certainly appears the changes made to the bill by Majority Leader Eric Cantor and Minority Whip Steny Hoyer have added teeth to the legislation and should aid in discontinuing the market distortions that have put U.S. companies at a disadvantage.

Work should continue on eliminating fully government subsidies of the variety Export-Import represents, but H.R. 2072 puts in place real reforms, improves accountability and transparency, and takes aim, in the short term, at the adverse effects the Bank has had on American employers.  With responsible reforms, the Export-Import Bank can be utilized to bolster our struggling economy and get the American machine working again.  It appears that H.R. 2072 goes a long way toward achieving that goal.

Through the stimulus package, President Obama promised to get the unemployment rate under 8 percent.  While we’re heading closer to that “magic number,” the reduced rate is not a result of economic growth, but rather because thousands of Americans have simply given up when it comes to finding a job.

When tallying the unemployment rate, the federal government only counts those individuals who are actively looking for a job, but are unable to find employment, which helps to create an illusion of progress even when our economy continues to shrink.

A better measure of progress may be to review how many jobs were added per month.  According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest report which was unveiled yesterday morning, just 115,000 jobs were added to the U.S. economy in March 2012 – hardly enough to even sustain the number of individuals entering the workforce every day, let alone putting unemployed Americans back to work.

Government spending will not produce economic growth.  Increased taxes will not produce economic growth.  Regulations will not produce economic growth.  The single best proposal to empower businesses of all sizes to reinvest in the economy would be to lower and simplify our tax code- especially the corporate tax rate.

Today’s code was designed 25 years ago – before the Berlin Wall came down, before the technological revolution, and before America’s economy collapsed.  While competitive when it was enacted, America’s corporate tax rate is now the globe’s highest at 39.2 percent when you combine state and federal rates.  Reducing the corporate tax rate would allow the United States to better compete with other countries in attracting foreign investment.

Moreover, the corporate tax code has grown increasingly complex over the last quarter century.  In an effort to gain favor with voters, politicians have offered loopholes to constituent businesses, cluttering the tax code, increasing its complexity and making it extremely unfair for companies that can’t afford large lobbying operations.

According to a 2012 Harvard Business School survey on economic competitiveness, the tax code’s complexity – and the uncertainty that it brings – was a primary factor that deterred companies from investing in the United States.

The archaic tax code impacts individuals as much as it does corporations.  In fact, studies have shown workers bear up to 75 percent of the burden of the corporate income tax.  Moreover, if the corporate tax rate were reduced to 25 percent – which is on par with the global average – an estimated 580,000 jobs would be created in the U.S. annually for the next decade and the average family of four could realize an additional income of $2,484 annually.

Today’s corporate tax rate impairs America’s ability to attract foreign investment, distorts financial and economic decision making by U.S. firms and spawns inefficient government programs and policies.  Additionally, it hurts job creation and reduces wages.

State governments are the lottery’s real “big winners,” collecting $17 billion of revenue annually from ticket sales, which are really a deceptive and hidden tax that expand the government’s influence.  While the ticketholder’s chances of winning the recent Mega Millions jackpot were about one in 176 million, state governments are always guaranteed huge payouts.  Last December, the Obama administration once again bypassed Congress, unilaterally opened the Internet for gambling, and made it easier than ever for state governments to collect the lottery tax and illegal foreign operators to further target Americans in their homes.  Now, Americans need only an Internet connection and a credit card to play their state’s lottery or gamblewith an illegal foreign operator.

In 1961, Congress passed the Interstate Wire Act, which prohibited certain forms of gambling.  Since then, online gambling of any kind has been illegal.  As lawmakers left Washington for Christmas in 2011, however, Obama’s Department of Justice reversed decades of precedent without congressional consult, ruling the Wire Act is limited to sports betting and effectively legalizing Internet gambling by removing the congressional prohibition.

Looking to bump tax revenues for the year and expand the size of government, statesare now moving quickly to take advantage of the new ruling.  Obama’s home state of Illinois became the first in the country to sell lottery tickets online – just three months after the administration’s decision. Delaware, New York, Maryland, Ohio and California are preparing for an online launch as well.

Not only did the Obama administration come to this radical verdict without congressional insight, the Department of Justice avoided a public dialogue, leaving many concerns about Internet gambling out of the national political debate.

Many advocates worry that moving the lottery online could lead to increased gambling among children and teenagers, as the identities of those purchasing the tickets are easy to conceal during a digital exchange.

Others remain concerned about the impact on low-income families, as the lottery tax disproportionately impacts underprivileged Americans.  In South Carolina, for example, people in households earning under $40,000 account for 28 percent of the state’s population, yet comprise 54 percent of frequent lottery players. Similarly in Texas, instant tickets are more likely to be purchased by someone who is unemployed than an individual who is working or retired.

Especially in a down economy, the state lottery can be a tempting game.  Throughout the recession, state lottery revenues have skyrocketed.  In fact, 28 of the 41 states that have a lottery achieved higher sales in 2011 than in 2010.  Seventeen of those states set all-time records.

“Looking at historical data, it is fair that there has been a trend of lottery ticket sales moving in tandem with economic conditions,” Garrick Blalock, a Cornell University economist, told ABC News. “When people are feeling desperate, they are more likely to stop by the gas station and buy five lottery tickets, hoping they get a big windfall.”

While it’s tragic that for some the American dream has devolved to hoping for luck rather than working hard to make your own luck, it is unfortunate the President and states have sought to take advantage of vulnerability in order to boost tax revenues.

What’s more, this controversial policy has been brought about by bureaucracy, not democracy. By dubiously sidestepping our elected legislators once again, President Obama has not only expanded the role of government in our lives, but amplified the Executive Branch’s role in the legislative process.

Unfortunately, it’s not the first time this administration has bypassed congress to advance its own big-government agenda.  Time and time again, President Obama has disposed of our system of checks and balances that have kept this nation stable and grounded for over two centuries in order to further their narrow ideological agenda.    In fact, a recent New York Times piece explained “[Obama] declared, aides recalled, that the administration needed to more aggressively use executive power to govern in the face of Congressional obstructionism.”

Our nation’s Constitution was not designed so government would make “in the moment” policy decisions.  It was designed so the nation as a whole could make slow and sure steps forward.  While our 24-hour-a-day news cycle and a need for instant gratification seem to reward knee-jerk reactions, it is irresponsible to thwart the constitutional safeguards that protect Americans from sporadic and ill-thought-through policy decisions.

The Obama administration has overstepped the president’s constitutional bounds, circumventing Congress and implementing its own agenda.  It’s time for Congress to regain control of this issue and call this administration’s bluff.

Each month the accuracy and implications of the new unemployment data is debated in opinion columns, cable news shows and political campaigns. When even minimal job growth is recorded, pundits claim that we are now getting back on the right track.   This short sighted outlook ignores our economy’s fundamental problems – such as our growing debt, sustained deficit and outdated corporate tax code – that will impact generations of Americans.

The Department of Labor’s announcement today that a far below expectation 120,000 jobs were created in the month of March further highlights our stagnant economy. To really spark economic growth, we need to make permanent policy changes that offer American companies a meaningful competitive advantage, and that begins with reforming the country’s archaic corporate tax code.

This month, the corporate tax rate in the United States became the highest in the world—39.2 percent when both state and federal taxes are included. This is over 50 percent higher than the average of the rest of the developed world.

The United States is used to being an economic leader, but our sky-high corporate tax rate is not only making it harder to reinvigorate our economy but is devastating our ability to compete on a global scale. Twenty-five years ago, the last time our corporate tax code was revamped, our nation was a leader in innovation and our business-friendly environment was a magnet for successful companies. However, since 2000, the United States has lost 46 Fortune Global 500 company headquarters, while countries like China and Korea have seen sizeable increases over that same period.

Like many aspects of our government, we can begin to fix the corporate tax code by making it simpler. Policymakers will greatly improve America’s ability to attract foreign investment and create jobs by removing burdensome red tape and closing loopholes that end up punishing small businesses – the true engines of our economy.

Reforming our corporate tax code won’t just benefit business owners; it will help the American workforce as well. Research shows workers bear a significant share of the corporate income tax in the form of reduced employment opportunities and lower wages. In fact, the U.S. Treasury Department estimates 75 percent of the corporate tax is borne by workers.

Moreover, lowering our rate to 25 percent, a level comparable with Canada and the United Kingdom, would lead to the creation of more than 500,000 jobs annually. And at this tax rate, a family of four could see its annual after-tax income rise by nearly $2,500 thanks to new employment opportunities and higher wages.

In February, the president announced a plan to reduce the top corporate tax rate to 28 percent. While it’s laudable that President Obama is beginning to discuss corporate tax reform, the top rate must be lower than 28 percent for America to be truly competitive internationally. Other developed nations are realizing the positive impacts a low corporate tax rate has on the overall health of their economy, and America must do the same.

A narrow focus on unemployment data and other indicators of incremental movement is simply short-sighted.  We must look long-term in order to fix the problems that will plague the economic environment we pass down to our children and grandchildren. Comprehensive corporate tax reform that reduces rates, simplifies the tax code and closes unfair loopholes is necessary for our nation’s businesses to grow, thrive and hire.

Americans for Job Security (AJS) has urged the Obama Administration to explain its abrupt disqualification last fall of Wichita-based Hawker Beechcraft from bidding on an almost one billion dollar defense contract to build US military aircraft, a contract the Administration later awarded to Brazilian-owned Embraer without warning.

That is, until recently.

Last week, the U.S. Air Force announced an unprecedented reversal, suspending its contract award to Embraer, and announcing a major investigation into a process the Air Force admitted had become an “embarrassment.”

Following up on this reversal, however, the Administration has taken steps that appear to attempt to ensure Brazil doesn’t feel left out and upset.  A high-ranking State Department official quietly traveled to Brazil last week and seemingly apologized to the Brazilian government for rescinding the contract. This is not only concerning, but somewhat alarming.  We advise not holding your breath waiting until they head to Kansas to apologize to the workers there.

Quite possibly worse is that the Administration remains silent in the face of Brazil’s outrageous warning to the US over its decision. [“Brazil Warns US Over Cancelled Jet Deal.” Financial Times, 03/02/2012].  The Brazilian government’s active involvement throughout this contracting process – subsidies, Golden Share, brazen threats against our country – has been troubling and it confirms that Embraer was, from the outset, the wrong choice for a major US Military defense contract.

On behalf of thousands of American workers, AJS is proud of our successful campaign to force the Administration to explain to the American people why it awarded a no-bid military contract to a foreign company partially owned by the Brazilian government.  AJS believed then, as it does today, that outsourcing a U.S. defense contract – and the almost 1,400 American jobs that go with it- to a foreign country that has long been hostile to America’s foreign policy interests is concerning.

AJS hopes the Administration’s investigative review of its contract process will ensure America’s Hawker Beechcraft, whose aircraft have a long, successful record of training virtually every U.S. military pilot, has a fair opportunity to compete for this important military contract.

American workers who sent nearly 20,000 letters to politicians on Capitol Hill and to key officials inside the Pentagon should be proud of their efforts in standing up to this Administration, demanding to know why our American tax dollars were almost slotted to fund the outsourcing of good paying military construction jobs to Brazil.

Make no mistake – the Administration’s reversal is a major win for American workers, but the fight is not nearly over.  The Administration should consider the loss of shipping these jobs overseas and especially when weighed with our national security needs.

AJS will continue to monitor the U.S. Air Force as it proceeds with its review.

America’s economy is lying idle and today’s job numbers only underscore that.  Just 227,000 jobs were added in February 2012, which pundits will certainly celebrate as positive growth.  However, when you consider that more than half of those jobs must be added simply to maintain the status quo, the true gain hardly moves our nation in the right direction when more than 12 million Americans are out of work.

Moreover, the reality of today’s economy is even bleaker than February’s stagnant unemployment rate of 8.3 percent implies.  America’s unemployment rate – which includes those individuals who have simply given up looking for work – is real at 9.9 percent and underemployment has hit almost 20 percent.  Moreover, since Obama’s stimulus passed three years ago, 2.6 million Americans have slipped into poverty – the highest number in the 52 years that the census bureau has published such information.

Washington has tried to treat the symptoms of a down economy with bailouts and handouts, but to no avail – the unemployment rate has failed to wane, the national debt has skyrocketed, and America’s competitiveness has collapsed.  We can’t put another Band-Aid on our economy.  Instead, we must work to fix the elements of our business environment that are broken, beginning with the corporate tax structure.

The last comprehensive corporate tax reform package was developed before the iPad, smart phones, debit cards, and even DVD’s.  At 35 percent, America’s federal tax rate will – in a matter of weeks – become the highest in the world.  Moreover, the average rate for OECD nations is 25.5 percent – 10 points below the U.S. rate.

While America’s tax rates were among the lowest and most competitive in the industrialized world when they were set 25 years ago, the landscape has significantly evolved.  With globalization and new technologies, our corporate tax structure has become outdated and uncompetitive.

Companies don’t do business the way they did 25 years ago, and they shouldn’t be taxed under a structure that was created a quarter-century ago.

The high corporate tax rate impairs America’s ability to attract foreign investment, distorts financial and economic decision making by U.S. firms and spawns inefficient government programs and policies.

Most importantly, the high corporate tax rate puts a significant weight on America’s workforce.  Studies have shown that workers bear up to 75 percent of the burden on the corporate income tax.  When the tax rate rises, consumers pay more for products, wages are frozen or reduced, and employers can’t create jobs.

Studies by the Heritage Foundation and the Milken Institute have found that a significant reduction in the corporate tax rate could create up to 2.2 million jobs in the U.S.  Another study found that if the U.S. rate was reduced to 25 percent, the average family of four would realize an additional income of $2,484 annually.

Rather than reforming the tax code, Washington decision makers have thrown recycled taxpayer dollars back at companies whose bottom lines have weakened and created loopholes to win political points.  In order to free our job creators to start hiring again, however, loopholes must be closed, the tax code simplified, and rates reduced.

Today’s jobs numbers will likely spark conversation that we are headed toward an unemployment rate that is below 8 percent.  However, even if the rate hits 7.5 percent next year, we have just attained a lower historically high unemployment rate than before.  Our jobs market is lying idle and we can’t afford it any longer.

Unless we grow our economy and GDP, our unemployment crisis will continue, our national debt will grow, and our children will inherit an America that is worse off than the previous generation.

Stephen DeMaura is the President of Americans for Job Security.

President Obama made many lofty promises during both the 2008 presidential campaign and his first year in office. One such promise was his vow to reduce the influence of lobbyists in Washington. In fact, at a 2007 campaign event Obama said, ““One year from now, we have the chance to tell all those corporate lobbyists that the days of them setting the agenda in Washington are over. I have done more to take on lobbyists than any other candidate in this race – and I’ve won.”

But with the recent release of the President’s 2013 budget it is clear that, just like many of his previous pledges, he has no problem breaking this promise.  Not only is he intent on using lobbyists to advance his administration’s agenda, but wants to use taxpayer dollars to do so.

Most budgets contain language specifically outlawing the use of federal funds for any kind of lobbying efforts. Typical language prohibits money for publicity or propaganda purposes and for the creation or distribution of any pamphlet, publication, radio or television presentation designed to lobby for or against pending legislation.

This language is also supposed to prevent administrations from allocating federal funds to local “do-gooder” groups who have historically lobbied for increasing the government’s involvement in Americans’ everyday lives. When these groups are successful in pushing their agendas, it usually means higher taxes, more government oversight and less individual freedom.

However, Obama’s recent budget strips three anti-lobbying provisions from last year’s appropriations bill. This means that the administration can use taxpayer dollars to advocate publicly for a bill or position – through television and radio ads, pamphlets, and presentations – or fund third-party groups to do the same.

The administration’s track record with using taxpayer dollars to advance its big government agenda is troubling to say the least. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has already used taxpayer dollars to lobby for a program that would allocate funds to state and local communities to implement strategies limiting Americans’ consumption of food deemed unhealthy by policymakers. Even though HHS is prohibited from engaging in lobbying activities, grant money was awarded to the state health department in Wisconsin to hire lobbyists to push a “wellness” agenda at the local level.

With rapidly rising gas prices expected to hit $6 a gallon in the near future, Americans want their hard earned tax dollars to go towards creating jobs, reinvigorating the economy and getting our housing market back on track not advancing the president’s social agenda. The president should stop treating federal money like his very own limitless credit card and start keeping his promises to the American people. He can begin by holding himself to that early campaign pledge and prohibit federal funding of lobbying efforts.

While a growing number of respected and principled leaders within the conservative movement have come out in support of sales tax fairness amongst brick-and-mortar and online-only retailers, some appear to misunderstand the fundamental importance of the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Case in point is a recent piece in the Daily Caller by Neil Stevens.  His piece correctly asserts that closure of the online sales tax loophole now enjoys bipartisan support from progressives and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans alike.  But the “risks” that Stevens points out are based upon unwarranted concerns, and his remedies would, in many cases, actually increase federal powers and burdens upon state and local governments.

The Marketplace Fairness Act’s purpose is straightforward: create a simple framework for states to work out their own issues with collection of the sales tax for online purchases, and thereby leveling the playing field between Internet and over-the-counter retailers.

Both small brick-and-mortar retailers and larger retail stores argue that closing the sales tax loophole will be good for business.  Even online retailers have stated leveling the playing field will not noticeably impact them in a negative way.  Most notably Amazon.com has come around to agree that closing the sales tax loophole must be a high priority for the American economy to continue to grow.

The reasoning is simple: government shouldn’t extend its heavy hand into the market place, disrupt free market competition, and artificially pick winners and losers.

If this were simply an issue of allowing cash-strapped states to haul in more revenue, it would not have the support of conservative, limited-government leaders like South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley, former Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels and former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, to name just a few.

Nor would these conservative leaders support the principle of sales tax equity if it were an infringement on states rights, as Stevens seems to imply.  The exact opposite is true – the Main Street Fairness Act gives states the right to manage their tax collection issues as they deem fit.  The Marketplace Fairness Act is fair because it eliminates the default preferential tax treatment of one segment of an industry over another.  This allows the free market to operate without the government picking winners and losers, something conservatives tend to support when the subject is raised in virtually any other industry.

The Marketplace Fairness Act is not an attack on online retailers.  It is not about revenue enhancement.  Nor is it a gift to brick-and-mortar retailers.  It is about getting rid of a glaring loophole in the tax code.  It stops government from interfering with free market competition.  Internet and over-the-counter retailers each have their own advantages and disadvantages, but ultimately it should be up to the consumer to choose which suits their needs.

Conservatives agree that an antiquated federal tax policy that gives preferential treatment to one industry over another is wrong. Conservatives also agree that a federal tax policy that prohibits states from addressing these issues on their own is not something most free market and limited government individuals will support.

With seven million signatures, Google’s petition against the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) is the most-signed petition ever to be sent to Congress.  In fact, it garnered almost seven times the number of signatures that were used to protest Obama’s health care bill.

In response to the public outcry over this legislation, 30 members of the House and 21 Senators came out in opposition to the bills within a 24-hour period.  While we are excited to see the discussion transform and the public’s voice heard, we recognize that this battle is far from over.   As revised legislation is proposed, conservatives must draw a line in the sand as to what absolutely should not be a part of any piece of compromise legislation.

With votes on both SOPA and PIPA now postponed and so-called “alternative” bills in the works, it is important that conservatives remain engaged and aware about the negative repercussions even amended versions of these bills could have for our economy.  We must avoid placing onerous, expensive regulations on technology companies that will pull resources away from growing businesses and instead, place those resources in the hands of lawyers and lobbyists who are charged with maintaining compliance with burdensome red tape.

In order to protect innovation, prevent undue regulation, and maintain the underlying structure and security of the Internet as well as the First Amendment rights of our citizens, we must ensure the following four items are not a part of any alternative legislation.

Private right to action: From a conservative perspective, one of the most troubling parts of both SOPA and PIPA was the so-called “private right of action” – a provision which would allow copyright holders, and eventually trial lawyers, to get a court order to shut down entire websites rather than simply removing infringing material.

Search engine liability and blocking requirements: Any potential bill cannot find companies like Twitter and Facebook, which host user-generated content, to be found culpable if a user posts illicit content.  Both SOPA and PIPA would have forced Internet Service Providers, search engines and other sites to police user-generated content—effectively killing social media.

Vigilante provisions:  The “vigilante” provision incentivizes search providers to censor content, putting legal pressure on them that would essentially force them to block innocent sites that receive any sort of complaint.  This greatly endangers innovation in the Internet space, as it only takes an accusation to shut down a competitor’s site – not a courtroom where evidence of infringement is given.  For many small businesses, their website is their front office.  A vigilante provision would too often close the doors of these growing businesses.

Expanded Attorney General Power:  SOPA and PIPA would give the federal government the power to unilaterally de-list websites from search engines and block specific domain names.  This is an unprecedented level of power that would be handed over to the unelected bureaucrats at the Department of Justice.  This cannot be allowed.

While making some valid arguments about freedom of the Internet from regulation, Neil Stevens’ recent Tech at Night piece unfortunately misses the mark on closing the uncompetitive sales tax loophole that requires brick-and-mortar retail outlets to collectsales tax, thereby driving up their prices at the point of purchase, while exempting online retailers, especially Amazon.com.

In every other industry, conservative correctly wretch at the thought of the government picking winners and losers through the tax code. One need look no further than the Obama administration’s Solyndra debacle.

Respected leaders in the conservative movement, including Govs. Haley Barbour and Nikki Haley and American Conservative Union chairman Al Cardenas have endorsed e-fairness as a conservative principle for free enterprise:

Gov. Haley Barbour (R-MS):

“As Governor or Mississippi, I value the important role that our Main Street retailers play in our communities. Failure to level the playing field threatens to, and in fact has, run many of them out of business, taking with them jobs and the sizable contribution they make not just [to] our community culture, but to the organizations who have long benefited from their charitable involvement … government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers.  In this area, at least, the Marketplace Fairness Act will end that practice, and that’s something conservatives should be proud to support.”

 Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC):

 “And I will tell you regardless of what happens with Amazon, we want them.  I have told them we want you to do business in this state, but we want you to do it on a level playing field.  They got free property, they got tax incentives, they got plenty of things. Don’t ask us to give you sales tax relief when we’re not giving it to the book store down the street or we’re not giving it to the other stores on the other side of town, it’s just not a level playing field.”

 Al Cardenas:

“Whether it’s the Department of Energy’s disastrous Solyndra project, or levying sales taxes, or a multitude of other policy decisions that impact the private sector, the government picking winners and losers is a perversion of the free market system. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill — especially conservatives — ought to at least acknowledge this when deliberating important reforms to the tax code. As we consider wholesale reform, exempting Internet sales can no longer be justified…the Marketplace Equity Act of 2011 begins this conversation.”

Stevens concludes by arguing, “Firms like Best Buys simply deserve to lose.” He may, in fact, be correct about that. But they don’t deserve to lose because of a bad law that punishes them through the tax code.