February 22, 2008 07:17 AM UTC
Listening to Bentley Rayburn. SHOCK! If Crank should drop out, why I'll vote for Lamborn.
31 Comments- by: CD-5 Line
( – promoted by Colorado Pols)
[Very long post, but, with uncomfortable revelations for Bentley Rayburn.]
There is no shortage of reasons why many believe Doug Lamborn should not be our Congressman in the 5th Congressional District. But one thing Doug Lamborn is and that’s this: he is a member of our community who genuinely wants to be in our community, and of that none of us have any doubt. And that community commitment is central to the argument on why we should support him any day of the week, rather than Bentley Rayburn, IF the 5th Congressional race should for any reason end up as a two man race between Lamborn and Rayburn. (I won’t rehearse the reasons why many believe that head and shoulders above them all–Doug Lamborn, Bentley Rayburn, and Jeff Crank–that Jeff Crank should be elected our Congressman. I’m not going there at all. I’m discussing why, as compared to Rayburn, Lamborn would be the better candidate.)
Is this a shock? Lamborn rather than Rayburn as the better choice? It is to me. But, it’s true.
Until the Colorado Statesman published an article this past week regarding Bentley Rayburn’s stated reason for not owning a home in Colorado—he told the Statesman that real estate taxes are unconstitutional and so he refuses to own a home so he won’t have to pay taxes he says are unconstitutional taxes—until I read that as his reason for not owning a home, then were Jeff Crank for any reason to drop out of the 5th CD race, I would have vigorously supported Bentley Rayburn. I would have supported Rayburn no matter the general opinion that Rayburn does not have a realistic chance of defeating Doug Lamborn in the 5th Congressional District Republican Primary, whether one-on-one or in a three man primary that includes Jeff Crank.
Now, do I expect Jeff Crank to drop out of the primary? No. But, there actually is a scenario in which he could.
Crank will win the majority of the delegates’ votes at the 5th CD’s Republican Congressional Assembly. However, intervening events like a major illness, a death in the family, or some such similar catastrophic and life changing event could occur that would cause him to withdraw. And on the basis of such a tragic event’s happening, what is it about Bentley Rayburn’s assertion in the Colorado Statesman that property taxes are unconstitutional and that as a result, he refuses to own a home becaue he refuses to pay “unconstitutional” property taxes . . . what is it about this assertion that should rightly cause us to support Doug Lamborn in a two man race between Lamborn and Rayburn?
General Rayburn has been called a carpetbagger. Is he? Yes, in my opinion and that of many others he is, but, this foisted reason for not paying real estate taxes–for not wanting to own real property–says something far more troubling about General Rayburn, something that should serve as strong warning to all of us who have so many complaints against Doug Lamborn, something that is deeply troubling about Bentley Rayburn, moreso than Doug Lamborn’s shortcomings.
While the taxpayers may have paid for General Rayburn learning how to fly a plane and get a pilot’s license, I suppose he got his constitutional lawyer’s license out of a Sears and Roebuck catalog. Never mind, though, that while General Rayburn “refuses” to pay real estate property taxes in Colorado, he does in Washington State, where he does own a home. Yes. His mother lives in it. But, he could rent her a townhome also, as he is for his family in Colorado, as he has for the two years he has lived here. Renting a home for his mother would stop his paying “unconstitutional property taxes” in Washington. (I guess Washington State is a rung higher than Colorado, our state he likes to falsely call his “home” state.)
So, let’s talk about this idea Rayburn has–this idea that Coloradoans shouldn’t own real property because it forces us to pay “unconstitutional” property taxes.
Like many, I own a home. Like most who don’t, they aspire to. It is the American dream. It is the cornerstone of a sense of community, a sense of belonging, a sense of permanence and community pride, of involvement and mutual interests. No matter what we may believe are Doug Lamborn’s many shortcomings, we must believe Doug Lamborn has all these senses of commitment to the community–senses that Bentley Rayburn does not appear to have. And, like a disease, if Bentley Rayburn sets as his example of commitment that property ownership should be avoided so as to avoid paying “unconstitutional” real estate taxes, the result would be a tragedy for our communities. This is serious.
Whenever homeowners see rental signs going up in their neighborhoods, where they own homes it is always a reason for concern. My personal experience is that precisely because tenants are transitory–just passing through–they generally, but not always, let yards go, take less interest in shoveling snow from the walks in the mornings, and so on and so forth. They aren’t as involved politically, in their churches, in their communities. They hurt our property’s value. And, I submit, they make a community less safe with the passage of time should the neighborhood turn into a predominately rental neighborhood. Giving people of all economic walks of life a chance to finance a home, is not only upgrading and uplifting to the communities in which they live, but it benefits us all. Our general health, safety and welfare is improved by home ownership, it is improved by businesses owning property and paying taxes. Why?
Whether it is businesses that own property or home owners, the real property taxes they pay provide schools to our children, teachers salaries, they provide fire and police protection, county roads and bridges, community hospitals, and the list goes on and on and on. There are no free lunches.
In El Paso County alone, in 2006, there were approximately 225,000 separately assessed pieces of real estate, with millions of dollars of real property taxes collected to pay for essential public services. Are all those owners supposed to quit paying “unconstitutional taxes”? I suppose they could. They could deed all their property to the County, and save lots of taxes, and just move out. Or, they could rent from the County–and let the County provide public services from its rents as a landord–but no unconstitutional taxes. Where’s the free lunch?
Are we all not just the greatest fools in the world for paying our “unconstitutional” El Paso County real estate taxes so that Bentley Rayburn’s children can go to public high school in Monument, drive over our county roads, our bridges, have our sheriff’s protection, and so on? Are we not all the greatest fools in the world for paying our state income taxes all those years that Bentley Rayburn avoided paying them in Colorado, when we like saps, did?
We know that the first time Bentley Rayburn ever registered to vote in Colorado was in 2006, in Teller County, where he was trying to present that summer cabin owned by a trust controlled by his brother, as his “roots”, his “Colorado home”. Now, should we not wonder, given Bentley Rayburn’s history . . . should we not wonder about that trust? Was it a tax exempt trust? I don’t know. But, if the rest of the Rayburn family has, like Bentley Rayburn does have, this undying belief that our real estate taxes are unconstitutional, and paying them should be avoided, then, owning a piece of tax exempt real estate would certainly seem to fit the bill for having a place to live, without paying those “unconstitutional” taxes.
I do know this much. General Rayburn doesn’t seem to mind feeding at the public trough of public services that our taxes pay–the ones he does his best to avoid. And, he wants to feed even more, with the taxes we pay that would fund his salary as a Congresman.
Here’s what more I know. Bentley Rayburn is sensitive, as he should be, to the charge that he’s a carpetbagger, who played the roll of the spoiler in 2006, and is doing so again in 2008. And, the fact he does not own a home in Colorado and that he has publicly said he will not buy a home in our state, lays that “carpetbagging” charge wide open, real and raw. Had he been elected to Congress in 2006, after having moved here in April of that year, then, it wouldn’t have been until the summer of 2007, some 6 months after his January 2007 swearing in ceremony, that he would even have been eligible to enroll in a regular college term in Colorado as an in-state college student! My gosh, even our colleges would have treated him for what he was–an out of stater, taking advantage of election laws to run for Congress, while posing as if this was his home. We don’t need people getting into our back pockets who haven’t helped carry the burden Colorado’s taxpayers have born, and that’s why out-of-staters don’t get a free lunch at our colleges. Neither should Bentley Rayburn.
Bentley Rayburn’s “it’s-unconstitutional-to-pay-real-property-taxes-and-I-won’t-own-a-home-because-I-refuse-to-pay-unconsitutional-taxes” is a lame defense against the charge that he’s not a carpetbagger, someone without roots, and without any intention to stay here long term, if he loses his race for office. We should rather have someone like Doug Lamborn for our Congressman, if it should turn out to be a two man race between Rayburn and Lamborn only.
For all Doug Lamborn’s many faults that those who want him defeated see, he is, nevertheless, a home owning, taxpaying, member of our community, with deep roots, like Jeff Crank, with a long history of community involvement that includes being committed to paying their fair share of taxes, two men who aren’t trying to shift those burdens to others, even when they both want to lower them. But, Bentley Rayburn? He has marked himself as one notch below carpetbagger. He’s a freeloader, living off the productive efforts, and the taxes hardworking Colorodoans have paid, while wanting us to give him his “scholarship” to Congress–all again at our expense, on the taxpayer’s payroll. If for any reason it should be there is only a two man race between Doug Lamborn and Bentely Rayburn, I won’t have anything to do with helping Rayburn. I hope you won’t either. I will support Doug Lamborn, walk precincts for him, donate money to his campaign, to make doubly sure that when Bentley Rayburn packs his bags that one last time, he packs them to leave Colorado and return to his home state. And, I hope you will join me in this effort, if it comes to that, if it comes to that two man race between Lamborn and Rayburn only.
.
Either you support the Bentster in his run for Congress,
or you don’t.
I get the sneaking suspicion that, as of right now,
you don’t.
Did I get that right ?
Sometimes, Rick, you are just too subtle.
.
.
rub his nose in the fact that,
by paying rent to his landlord Doug Bruce,
he is making it easier for Doug to pay those unconstitutional taxes.
As a matter of Constitutional principle,
he should start withholding 8.7% of his rent so that his landlord has to come up with the money to pay those taxes out of his legislature salary.
That’ll show him.
.
You truly give your boy Jeff a Bad name.
Your not just a CRANKy Republican, your down right unpleasant.
Whether your posting under Libertarians4doug or Cd-5 Line, your slash and burn style does those you support little good.
You persuad no one. You bring no credit to those you champion.
Yes Rayburn should own a home in the District, yes his excuse is lame, done, move on, you are not helping Jeff Crank.
The ever effective carpetbagger attack. It has been a while since I have heard it, I almost thought you Crank folks had moved past that, but then again you Crank folks are pretty reluctant to move on in general.
The real issue here is the concept of what’s unconstitutional. Most folks who believe that real estate taxes are unconstitutional have a host of other similarly misguided positions.
These questions are also being posted on Mr. Rayburn’s website.
1.) What other taxes and fees federally and on the state level are unconstitutional and how do you avoid or minimize your payment of said taxes?
2.) Have you ever refused to pay any other tax or fee and have you ever been penalized by the IRS for those actions?
3.) Do you support Ron Paul who shares your views on this issue?
4.) What is the substantive difference between renting and someone else paying the property tax and just paying the tax directly?
5.) How much of your federal retirement (if any) is subsidized with taxes you believe are unconstitutional?
I have not read the Statesman article so I am just going off of what CD-5 is saying; but here are some thoughts.
It is my understanding that the tax on real property is only a state tax. If this is true, I have no idea why anyone would say it is unconstitutional. My understanding of constitutional law is that states have tremendous leeway in determining what is and is not acceptable practice for the state government. For instance, the founding fathers had no problem with states having official religions; but the Constitution put a prohibition on the federal government establishing a religion. Since conservatism espouses the beliefs of originalism regarding the Constitution, it is only logical to believe that the founding fathers would have had no problem with a state imposing a tax on real property. Thus, it seems like a logical and legal disconnect for a conservative to espouse the view that a state tax on real property is unconstitutional. Unless of course the argument is that it is against the state constitution not federal.
My disclaimer here is that I am completely going off of CD-5s version of Rayburn’s position. As of yet, no one has contradicted his (or her) account of Rayburn’s position so I am assuming it is accurate. If it is, then this is the biggest blunder that Rayburn has made in his short foray into politics. Not because of any carpetbagger charge, but rather because it shows a complete misunderstanding of the division of powers between state and federal government and how they function.
I’m sold, after reading this, I’ll be voting for Lamborn in August and November.
who did you support yesterday ?
I was just weighing my options.
As usual, GOPpundit has distorted the facts and had missed the boat. Besides the usual shocking nature of your will to smear Rayburn, it is also shocking that you rely on The Statesman for your information; =a publication known to more than occasionally cherry pick and misquote. So, since you did not bother to fact check anything let me do it for you.
Rayburn’s position is that property taxes are a major part of a tax system that is generally unfair, ineffective, and in need of drastic reform. Like Steve Forbes and other tax reform advocates, Rayburn sees the endless cycle of property taxes as contradictory to the original intent of the Constitution. Let me explain…
The first draft of the Constitution stated that we are entitled to “Life, Liberty, and Property.” Of course, this was changed to “Life Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” in the final version. Rayburn’s problem with property taxes is that nobody can ever completely own their property. Every year citizens are responsible for taxes on property that has oftentimes been paid off for many years. If they do not pay these taxes then they will lose the property. The question is whether or not the government should have the right to impose this endless tax, and if so is it the best method of taxation?
Rayburn believes that reform is needed at every level of the tax structure. The question I have now is why Jeff Crank and his supporters are in favor of this burdensome and relentless property tax? It is interesting that a candidate who has spent so much time railing against the IRS and the tax system is such a strong advocate of property taxes. Either advocate for tax reform or do not Mr. Crank. Any candidate who supports the unfair taxes that plague certain demographic groups of our society including the elderly, the poor, and widows is no candidate for me.
If Crank/his supporters so strongly support this method of taxation, then perhaps he should change his party affiliation because this is a very unpopular stance within the Conservative movement.
I myself was going to mention the original version of “Life, Liberty, and Property.” Actually, as I recall, one of the primary reasons they changed ‘Property’ to ‘the Pursuit of Happiness’ was to keep the issue of slavery from clouding the Constitution…and thus allowing that issue to be dealt with another time.
Regardless, I have to agree; once you own it free and clear, basic unalienable human rights seem to imply that you shouldn’t be unduly punished for owning your own property or land.
My other point was also on the source of this ‘information.’ Where’s the hard proof that such a statement was made? This is certainly the first I’ve heard of it.
“Life, Liberty, and Property”…”Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is in the Deceleration of Independence!
It was late, that was a complete miss statement, lol.
I have no business posting stuff past ten at night. Heh.
First of all, Rayburn came to Colorado as a young child back in 1963 (Crank was not even born yet and Lamborn had not arrived yet) where he used to gripe about not being allowed to join his sisters riding horseback “in the country” in the Garden of the Gods because he was too young.
Second of all, Rayburn graduated from the United States Air Force Academy in 1975. Last I checked the Academy was and still is in Colorado Springs.
Third of all, as far as i know, Crank nor Lamborn have never served their country in the military. Rayburn did. Did it ever occur to anyone that in Rayburn’s thirty plus year career, he may have had to sacrifice not living in Colorado for some time in his life…because he was in the military. If there ever was such an excuse for Rayburn not residing in Colorado, I can accept the fact that he was serving his country in uniform through the Cold War and the War on Terror. And the fact is he actually lived in Colorado for a longer period of time than anywhere else during his 30+ years in the service anyways.
And, fourth of all, in regards to this tax issue. What are you trying to say, Crank and the people that support him, are arguing for property taxes? I mean, if that is the case, fine. Everyone is entitled to their positions, but that rhetoric usually comes from the left. As a conservative, I would be embarrassed to support someone who openly supported taxes, period. (I know, I know, of course we need some taxes, I’m really not that much of an idiot). But what I want to hear from my candidates and policy makers are arguments for lower taxes and making our tax system more fair and then more efficient (not to mention a restraint on spending). I mean we are the party of Goldwater and Reagan, not FDR and Lyndon B. Johnson. I don’t get it, are the Crank people voting for Obama in the presidential election? I know he loves taxes too!
Of all the important issues facing on our country, you want to choose a representative on the basis of whether he owns or rents? And here I thought only credit raters and actuaries cared about crap like that. I don’t have a horse in this race. I’m in the Springs, but I’m a Democrat, and I’ll be sure to be moderately unhappy with whatever choice is made. But this is just the dumbest reason for a voting decision I’ve ever heard.
As for his unconstitutionality argument, (1) I am not a lawyer; and (2) I tend to assign anyone who claims taxes are unconstitutional to the nutjob category. That said, property taxes really do suck; they are the most evil form of taxation that exists, and serve to perpetuate modern forms of segregation. (Judging from some of the dispicable rhetoric above, you seem to support this segregation rather strongly.) I could almost respect Rayburn for taking a stand against them, no matter what his motives.
Would some of you take on my post above regarding the difference between a state and federal tax? I think that is really a much more important issue with property tax and I am curious how Rayburn’s camp would respond to my earlier post.
Rayburn’s position, is that the tax structure needs to be readjusted to be more fair and efficient, just as people like Steve Forbes have argued for more than a decade now. Certainly you would agree, that the conservative position on taxes, is that some major changes need to be made to the current tax fiasco we have going, right?
So to get to your point regarding state and federal taxes on property, I can’t answer for Rayburn, I can tell you my personal view. I’m no lawyer, but I would think that any thinker can understand basic constitutional law. The 10th amendment states: “The powers not delegated by the United States in the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
One of the main supporters of the Bill of Rights was Thomas Jefferson. He believed that government came from the bottom up. From the individual to the town/city, county, state then federal. The Constitution and Bill of Rights basically limited what government could do beyond the federal level. The tenth amendment states that any powers or issues not brought up in the Constitution were to be left to the states and the individuals. The Founders believed that individuals were born with certain individual rights including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” and that it was government’s responsibility to protect those rights, not impede on them.
They believed that in the “pursuit of happiness” property was included in what would make man happy. You have to understand that for a thousand years before this time, feudalism, was the way of life, and so such concepts of individual rights and one having their own property was basically considered new and radical.
So to get to the point, state’s may have the right to tax property, and it may fall in line with the tenth amendment, but I personally think that it still goes against the Founders original philosophy. Yes, they believed that as much government as possible should be taken at the local level, and I believe that whole heartedly, but I think that state governments, should seriously consider what the Founders believed in regarding property rights and taxes. I have to agree with cdsmith that property taxes are one of the most aggressive forms of segregation in our society. I think its time that we as a people voted in politicians, both at the state and federal level, ready to make some major improvements to the tax codes at all levels of government.
I hope that answers your question, and I hope that makes sense, but if I got anything wrong with my constitutional theories, please let me know.
with your points, both on the state’s right to tax, and the preference for them not to in most situations, as related to real estate.
One has to wonder what the Founders would have said, had someone raised this point; if it goes against what they had in mind, in terms of limiting governmental powers, I would think that they’d have stated so explicitly. I wonder if this slipped by them, or if they decided to leave the states with a way to raise money? After all, the states were far less unified than they are today, so they would have relied more on themselves in order to acquire funding.
.
if the policy dolts in the Bush Administration believed this mumbo-jumbo about
*** individual rights; and
*** government coming from the bottom up ?
For one thing, we wouldn’t be occupying Iraq right now.
.
I was tasked to prevent this war from breaking out in the first place.
I tried acting as an intermediary between Joel Hefley and Sadoun Hummadi.
I didn’t do so good with that one.
Then, as I understood it, I was tasked to bring it to a rapid conclusion.
I explained to the chief of policy at the CPA how to succeed and draw down.
You may already know how well that went.
Then I was given the opportunity to bring it to a halt through legal action,
getting a federal court to rule that the use of Mercenaries was in contravention of federal law.
Strike four.
What ?
Like you’ve never descended into dysfunctional obsession ?
and we will only be there 94 more years.
Not only do I and the Colorado Statesman stand by the story so does the Bentley Rayburn campaign.
First, here is the actual quote:
“I’ve got a real problem with property taxes,” said Rayburn, because it’s a “rent” charged by the government to citizens who own land. “It’s against the Constitution… the property is yours, but you’ve got to buy it back from the government every year.”
Next, here the response from the Rayburn campaign: “I loved your story on traveling the 5th. Awesome!!”
I don’t know why all of you are guessing at what all the fuss is about – and resorting to ridiculous assertions about The Colorado Statesman. Gen. Rayburn and his campaign team had zero problem with this quote and the full story.
seems to have been the fact that it was made to sound like an attack, I belive. As such, it merits responses, both to clarify the situation and to allow Coloradans a chance to voice their own opinions.
He may not sign the check, but if he pays rent, his landlord pays property taxes who then charges his tenants rent accordingly.
The only way you can not contribute to property taxes is by mooching off someone else or else be homeless.
As for the “pursuit of happiness,” we’ve decided that we like having public schools and other things so we’ve agreed to pay for them primarily through property tax. As soon as the majority of voters in a county disagree with that method of funding or with public education in general, they can do something else. But I hardly think the founders would have considered public education (it’s current state not withstanding) bread and circuses.
Now income tax… THAT’s unconstitutional (if you don’t count the 16th Amendment). So if Bentley really doesn’t want to offend the forefathers, he should resist getting a job in the 5th CD, at least one that he’d have to pay taxes on. (Do US Representatives pay federal income tax?)
Sorry, but that sounds kind of amusing to me. Heh…
You are right. Rayburn should pay back the taxpayers for all the training he received in the Air Force. How dare he use tax-payer money to prepare to defend us in Bush’s Illegal war. You and I are on the same page. I think we should make all military personnell pay us back for all the handouts they get! Especially the ones who get injured and get all the free healthcare. I am voting for Lamborn too!
I was outraged when you educated me that property taxes were being used to fund military training. I had thought this whole time that my income taxes were funding the illegal war and all the illegal troops. Now I find out that my property taxes go to George Bush to train his illegal F-16 pilots.