As state governments face increasingly tight budgets, The New York Times reports that more and more states are turning to an innovative solution that not only raises revenues but also combat illegal drug use - imposing taxes on illegal substances.  New York is pushing to become the 30th state requiring a tax stamp on all illegal drugs.   Last year, North Carolina collected $11 million with a similar strategy.  Here is how it works:

For example, imagine that there is a drug dealer in North Carolina who wanted to do everything by the book. He would go to the authorities — anonymously, of course — and pay a tax based on the weight and the type of drugs he was holding. He would be given a tax stamp, not unlike the tax stickers on cigarette packs. The dealer could then place the stamp on his quarter-ounce bag of marijuana or kilo of cocaine to show that he had paid the tax.

Almost no dealers actually do this, nor does Mr. Spitzer expect them to. The vast majority of revenues from the tax are collected after law enforcement officials seize the drugs, said Kimberly Y. Brooks, a spokeswoman for the North Carolina Department of Revenue.

Officials look for the tax stamps on drugs, but not surprisingly, almost never find them, Ms. Brooks said.

Officials then can assess how much tax is owed, and the payment can be taken either from any cash found with the drugs or from the dealer’s other assets.

“It’s really about cutting the drug dealers off at the knees,” said Ms. Smith of the tax administrators group. “It kind of goes back to the Al Capone model.” Proving tax avoidance is much easier than proving a drug crime, she said, so the tax laws help the authorities keep seized drug money even when a suspect accused of dealing drugs goes free.

This is one tax increase that Freedom's Watch could get behind!

Lawrence Lindsay has written an op-ed in today's Washington Post about the Employee Free Choice Act - a bill supported by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John Edwards.  This legislation would do away with secret-ballot elections for unionization, allowing union bosses to know how workers voted, leaving them open to intimidation.  Additionally the legislation would make it illegal for a business to raise pay while the plant is being organized, providing further incentive to dispense with a campaign and secret ballot and just bring in the union.

As our democratic process grinds toward selecting the next leader of the free world, it is also shedding light on the values a democracy should hold dear. Last weekend in Nevada, former president Bill Clinton said he witnessed voter intimidation firsthand. According to Clinton, a union representative was telling workers to agree to caucus for Sen. Barack Obama or expect to get a work schedule making it impossible for them to attend at all. ...

Now that Bill Clinton has seen for himself that union leaders can and do intimidate employees over whom to vote for in a party caucus, he might want to think about whether union leaders might do the same things when something even more relevant to them is at stake -- such as whether their union can win an organizing battle and begin forcing workers to pay dues. Hillary Clinton may have lost a few votes in Nevada because of union intimidation, but the Clintons should keep in mind that workers have a lot more to lose from a bill she is supporting.

Many in Iran had hoped that an upcoming parliamentary election would provide a referendum on Admadinejad's Presidency of that country, but The New York Times is reporting that 70% of the reformist candidates running in the election have been disqualified by religiously conservative forces in the current government.

“Such a large number of disqualifications is unprecedented,” said a statement by the reformist party posted on the Emruz Web site.

The out-of-power reformists had hoped that the coming election would be a referendum on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s management of the state. With inflation and unemployment high, and now a serious shortage of heating gas during a record cold winter, the races were seen as a way for reformists and their allies to gain a second chance at power in Iran. They had once controlled Parliament and the presidency.

But the president and his allies control the system of vetting candidates for access to the ballot. The first step is for local boards in each province, known as the Executive Councils, to approve a candidate for access to the ballot. The boards are appointed by regional governors who have been appointed by the president.