Lawmakers are falling all over each other over the proposed tax ban on internet service. Take a glimpse at this Fox News report and you can easily see what has lawmakers so concerned. (In case you can't, I highlighted it for you.)

Opponents of the ban [on taxes], like Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., say they fear cities that rely on taxes collected from telecommunications will suffer...

San Francisco could lose $30 million in existing taxes annually, Feinstein claimed. [...]

About 10 states that imposed a tax on Internet access charges before the original ban and were grandfathered from the moratorium, would lose $80 million to $120 million each year.

States that currently tax high-speed DSL services would be prohibited by the bill permitting a permanent ban. That would cost states up to $40 million each year.

Lastly, the CBO predicts "substantial revenue losses" [...]

The Multistate Tax Commission estimates changes to the current tax collection avenues will cost governments at least $4 billion a year...

They are taxing for the sake of taxing. When they aren't allowed to tax seize money from people at the point of a gun, they view it as a loss of revenue.

The government is like the mob. Every time goods, services, or money changes hands, they want a cut. If you exchange goods or services with your neighbor, they want a cut. If your neighbor has a yard sale, they want a cut. If your butcher slaughters a cow and sells you one of the steaks, they want a cut. If you buy a prepared meal, cigarettes, gas, food, or lodging, they want a cut. When you try to evade paying them their tribute, they send in Rocky the thumb-breaker a/k/a the IRS.

I think this cartoon (via Kevin) pretty much sums it up.

If you still need further proof, check out this instance of an elderly woman's $800,000 farm being seized and sold. The government sold her home (of more than 50 years) for a mere $15,000, because it was claimed that she owed $572 in overdue taxes. Those taxes were paid when due, but the government returned her check.

UPDATE: The buyer has given the home back to the elderly woman and received a refund from the state.