U.S. Senate OKs Internet sales tax bill

It is shameful that avaricious federal, State and local tax commissars won in the US Senate, negating Constitutional protections. Freedom-loving House leaders must stop this tax collection burden on innovative small entrepreneurs.

U.S. Senate OKs Internet sales tax bill
By Bill Bartel & Julian Walker
The Virginian-Pilot
© May 7, 2013

The U.S. Senate approved legislation Monday that would require large online retailers to collect state sales taxes, a welcome development for traditional merchants and Virginia leaders who are counting on the extra revenue.

The Senate passed the bill 69-27, getting support from Republicans and Democrats alike.

However, the Marketplace Fairness Act, which Virginia leaders say would provide hundreds of millions for transportation and education needs, is expected to face strong resistance in the House of Representatives, where many see it as a tax increase or too complex a burden for online retailers.

Supporters of the new requirement, which would apply only to businesses doing more than $1 million a year in online sales, say it’s a matter of fairness. Under current law, online sellers pay the sales tax only in the states where they have a physical presence.

CLICK HERE to continue reading.

Internet sales tax not so fair, say Peninsula e-commerce businesses

This article points out how big taxers’ proposal to force businesses to collect and remit taxes to over 9,000 separate taxing authorities in the US is a burden on small business owners. The taxers should Listen to creative entrepreneurs.

Internet sales tax not so fair, say Peninsula e-commerce businesses
April 30, 2013
By Nicole Paitsel
Daily Press

The Marketplace Fairness Act could put the Gloucester-based retailer Peace Frogs out of business, says Catesby Jones, president of the 30-year-old company.

Jones is adamantly against the bill, which is expected to pass the Senate later this week. The bill, also referred to as the Internet sales tax bill, will allow states to require online sellers to collect sales tax at the point of purchase.

Right now, online retailers are only required to collect sales tax for the state in which the company has a physical presence. The bill requires sales tax to be collected based on where the products are delivered.

In other words, under the Marketplace Fairness Act, a Virginia-based customer who buys something from Peace Frogs and orders it to be delivered to a friend in Tennessee would pay Tennessee’s sales tax.

CLICK HERE to continue reading.

“42″

This weekend, Susan and I saw the outstanding movie ’42′ about the hateful challenges the heroic Jackie Robinson faced as a MLB trailblazer with the Montreal Royals and Brooklyn Dodgers. It reminded me of passages I wrote in my book, ‘What Washington Can Learn from the World of Sports‘:

Washington could stand to learn a whole lot from the lessons taught in sports, from the enduring principles found in sports. Because many of the most difficult and most pressing problems that confound even the smartest minds in Washington are the kinds of problems that the sports world typically manages to address much more easily and effectively.

Take, for example, the issue of race. In the wake of Barack Obama’s phenomenal election in 2008, Americans of all political persuasions have rightly celebrated the historic ascendancy of an African-American to the Presidency. I worked for John McCain in the campaign, and was still personally moved watching Barack Obama and his family on the night of the election as he gave his victory speech at Chicago’s Grant Park. All of us who saw that victory speech were watching the inspirational fulfillment and embodiment of the American Dream in the world of politics. The election of an African-American president truly was—and is—an important milestone in our nation’s political history, and we are right to trumpet its significance in the course of human events.

African-Americans ascended to the top of the sports world long before they ascended to the top of the political world. In the 1930s, Jesse Owens became arguably the greatest Olympic sprinter of all time at the Berlin Games (much to Adolf Hitler’s aggravation). In the 1940s, Joe Louis held the world heavyweight boxing crown longer than any boxer before or since. In the 1950s, Jim Brown established himself as arguably the greatest football running back of all time, first for Syracuse University and then for the NFL’s Cleveland Browns. In the 1960s, Bill Russell led the Boston Celtics to the longest-running period of dominance in professional basketball, playing against the likes of Elgin Baylor, Oscar Robertson, Wilt Chamberlin, and other African-American NBA stars. In the 1970s, Atlanta Braves slugger Hank Aaron became the all-time home run king in Major League Baseball. In the 1980s, Michael Jordan began what would become the greatest professional basketball career in history. In the 1990s, Tiger Woods did the same in golf (following in the wake of other “minorities” such as Lee Elder, Lee Trevino, and Chi Chi Rodriguez). And here in the twenty-first century, Venus and Serena Williams have excelled at the game that Richmond’s Arthur Ashe loved, becoming the greatest “sister act” of all time in professional women’s tennis.

The reason I recount this long (yet greatly abbreviated) list of athletic achievement by African-Americans is not, in any way, to diminish Barack Obama’s electoral achievement. It is, instead, to make the point that black athletic achievement played a major role in helping change American attitudes about race. Black athletic achievement helped set in motion many of the positive changes that have taken place in American life. The characteristics of sports paved the way for many of the political milestones we celebrate today.

Indeed, interestingly, the desegregation of American schools occurred after the successful integration of the races in Major League Baseball and other professional sports. The passage of the Voting Rights Act occurred after black athletes had been voted recipients of various All-Star and Most Valuable Player and Rookie of the Year awards. And the adoption of the Civil Rights Act occurred after numerous black athletes like Jackie Robinson had the opportunity to excel on the playing field with white athletes.

To be sure, sport wasn’t the only cultural influence positively affecting race relations. And the path to racial equality in sports was, at times, anything but smooth.

***

The world of sports has greatly helped our nation see the horrible unfairness of racial discrimination. And the sports world has been able to play this leadership role for one vitally instructive reason:

The world of sports is a meritocracy.

The world of sports rewards excellence. It honors genuine achievement. It celebrates greatness. Sports teams do not care about a player’s religion, race, ethnicity, or place of origin. All a team cares about is whether a player can punt, pass, kick, run, tackle, hit, catch, pitch, dribble, shoot, jump, rebound, skate, evade, elude, block, or defend well enough to help the team win.

***

To his great credit, Martin Luther King Jr. understood the promise of the American Dream. Rather than deriding our founding fathers, Dr. King actually rooted his appeal for justice and change in the founders’ ideals, saying that it was high time for a nation of free people to fully live up to the lofty principles of those who had once proclaimed that “all men are created equal.”

As Dr. King noted, “When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.”

For Deacon Jones and Jackie Robinson and numerous other black athletes, that “promissory note” guaranteed equal opportunity—not equal outcomes. A level playing field means everyone can claim the rewards of their hard work and success; it means that people can’t legitimately claim they were wronged if they don’t succeed; it encourages hard work and responsibility and the competitive spirit athletes need to overcome adversity, and it helps prevent us from becoming a nation of bellyachers, whiners, and sore losers.

eBay: No Internet sales tax

This is yet another good example of why this unfair, burdensome tax collection scheme would hurt a Virginia entrepreneur who has a small online business. Small business entrepreneurs should be encouraged, not hindered with collecting and remitting sales taxes to thousands of taxing authorities throughout the US.

eBay: No Internet sales tax
Congress should not burden small businesses
By Todd Cohen
USA Today
April 23, 2013

The Internet sales tax bill threatens small businesses by treating them the same as multibillion dollar retailers that have stores and warehouses around the country. eBay’s message to lawmakers on sales taxes is simple. Protect small businesses that use the Internet to promote growth, jobs and competition that best serves consumers.

The Internet is a key part of 21st century retail for businesses of all sizes. Jon Gonzales is a great example. He has a growing computer accessories business in Virginia. Because he uses the Internet, his business sells across the country. But make no mistake, his small business is nothing like the giant national retailers that combine stores, distribution centers and Internet sites. Those businesses are located around the country so they are required to collect sales taxes in every state. Now there is a proposal to require small businesses operating out of only one state to do the same.

This new legislation would suddenly treat Jon like a giant business with teams of tax lawyers and accountants. The reality is that Jon’s sister Roceta handles the accounting and taxes. That’s the accounting and tax team. Complying with 9,600 tax jurisdictions nationwide, and more menacingly, being audited and threatened with litigation by tax authorities around the country, is daunting. The family-run business worries about its survival.

CLICK HERE to continue reading.

Allen: I-Squared is common sense immigration reform, meets nation’s needs

By George Allen
The Hill
April 11, 2013

Ever since the Virginia Company was founded in Jamestown in 1607, America has been the land of opportunity for generations of immigrants, who often risked everything to strive for their American Dream. America must continue to be a magnet for the best minds in the world to come here for the freedom to compete, innovate and grow our economy.

A recent survey of over 1,100 manufacturing executives by the National Association of Manufacturers’ Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte shows that 67 percent of manufacturing companies face a “moderate to severe” shortage of qualified workers. Four major high-tech companies – IBM, Intel, Microsoft and Oracle – say they have a combined 10,000 job openings in the United States alone. In Congressional testimony, Rick Stephens, senior vice president at Boeing, related that fewer than 5 percent of graduates from American colleges and universities attain engineering degrees, compared with about 20 percent in Asia.

This decade, there is a need in the United States to fill 1.2 million jobs in computing professions that require a bachelor’s degree. But at the current pace American colleges will not matriculate even half the number of American graduates needed to fill those positions. Unfortunately, this skills gap is making it hard for American companies to hire the employees they need to keep innovating, creating more jobs, and growing their businesses in the U.S.

Skilled, foreign professionals are net job creators for the United States. Immigrants with employment-based green cards and H-1B visas in the STEM fields – science, technology, engineering, and applied mathematics disciplines – are not taking jobs from Americans. There are tens of thousands of unfilled jobs in STEM sectors, even while our unemployment numbers are high.

According to the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute, each U.S.-educated advanced degree green card holder creates 2.6 American jobs, and each H-1B visa holder helps create 1.8 American jobs. In places like Silicon Valley and Northern Virginia, Indian and Chinese entrepreneurs account for a disproportionately large share of start-ups and technology-related job creation. By some estimates, about 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies had at least one immigrant founder.

There is a bipartisan solution that is worthy of support. Many tech industry leaders are putting their support behind The Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 (I-Squared), which aims to keep America globally competitive, and a leader in technology and innovation.

According to a report in the San Francisco Chronicle, industry leaders including Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg, Hewlett-Packard CEO Meg Whitman, venture capitalist John Doerr, Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, Cisco CEO John Chambers, Intel CEO Paul Otellini and Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer are among many others supporting I-Squared. In a joint letter they wrote to President Obama and leaders in Congress they noted that every tech job has the potential to create many other American jobs.

I-Squared would sustain and accelerate the growth of America’s tech industry in a two-pronged fashion. First, it would expand access to H1-B visas for foreign talent. Second, it would increase funding for American students studying for STEM careers. In many places, local schools and students are lagging in STEM achievement and employers are sounding the alarm.

To pay for focused, local STEM education improvements, I-Squared sets aside fees that will be paid by companies that need additional H-1B visas and green cards – without raising taxes. The legislation also includes a mechanism that adjusts the visa cap as economic demands change.

Existing H-1B training and scholarship fees will be increased and dedicated to state-level funding for improved STEM education. That’s good news for innovative enterprises, which will have a larger pool of talented potential employees. Small businesses with fewer than 25 employees will be allowed to pay an H-1B fee at half the level of larger employers.

CLICK HERE to continue reading.

Obama keeps rolling the dice on green energy

If federal government energy revenues are not used to reduce deficit spending and debt, then the revenues should be used for roads and transportation. This editorial offers a good perspective.

National editorial: Obama keeps rolling the dice on green energy
The Washington Examiner
March 16, 2013

Like a desperate gambler who doubles down on a losing bet, President Obama is calling for spending $2 billion more on green energy projects. Apparently these billions will succeed where previous billions have failed.

“We cannot afford to miss these opportunities while the rest of world races forward,” said Obama at a campaign-style rally Friday afternoon at the Argonne National Laboratory just outside Chicago.

The money will come from leases for offshore drilling. This might be a good idea if the administration were willing to increase offshore leasing. At least that way, domestic production would grow, reducing energy costs and diminishing America’s need for foreign imports, one of Obama’s stated goals.

But that apparently isn’t the case. White House officials have told the Hill they are dead-set against expanding offshore drilling, even as part of a deal with Republicans. So the White House is simply proposing to divert an existing revenue stream toward green energy companies. The only ones to gain here are the companies themselves.

CLICK HERE to continue reading.

California in Crisis: Golden State’s green jobs bust

Let’s have a rational, affordable and job creating energy policy rather than follow California’s mistakes.

California in Crisis: Golden State’s green jobs bust
Conn Carroll, Senior Editorial Writer
The Washington Examiner
February 27, 2013

It was supposed to be the next big thing.

California built decades of broad-based prosperity from the Gold Rush, then Hollywood, then aerospace, and later Silicon Valley. At the turn of the century, “green jobs” were supposed to be the wave of the future.

“This is not just a challenge, it’s an opportunity,” then-candidate Barack Obama said during a 2008 presidential debate. “Because if we create a new energy economy, we can create 5 million new jobs, easily, here in the United States.”

CLICK HERE to continue reading.

Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax

A carbon tax would simply increase costs for everyone and lower our quality of life while imposing yet another government burden on jobs in America. China, India, Brazil and other competitors won’t harm their citizens’ opportunities.

Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax
The National Association of Manufacturers

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) released a study conducted by NERA Economic Consulting that shows a carbon tax would have a devastating impact on manufacturing. The report, titled, Economic Outcomes of a U.S. Carbon Tax, found that levying such a tax would result in higher prices for natural gas, electricity, gasoline and other energy commodities. Manufacturing output in energy-intensive sectors could drop by as much as 15 percent and 7.7 percent in non-energy intensive sectors.

The study examines two carbon tax scenarios: one levied at $20 per ton increasing at 4 percent, and the other designed to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 80 percent. In both cases, any revenue raised by the carbon tax would be far outweighed by the negative impact to the overall economy. A carbon tax would lead to lower real wage rates because companies would have higher costs and lower labor productivity. Over time, workers’ incomes could decline relative to baseline levels by as much as 8.5 percent. The increased costs of coal, natural gas and petroleum products due to a carbon tax would ripple through the economy and result in higher production costs and less spending on non-energy goods.

CLICK HERE to read more and get state reports.

Allen: Charity should be the American way

By George Allen
The Daily Caller
February 6, 2013

“Wouldn’t it be better for the human spirit and for the soul of this nation to encourage people to accept more responsibility to care for one another, rather than leaving those tasks to paid bureaucrats?”

Ronald Reagan astutely posed this rhetorical question in 1982.

Sadly, Washington today is on a path contrary to President Reagan’s wisdom, moving in the opposite direction with tax policies whose consequences threaten to diminish charitable contributions in order to fatten the federal purse.

The first errant step has already been taken. The “fiscal cliff” deal rushed through at the beginning of the year includes a provision known as the Pease limitation, which diminishes the total value of itemized deductions a taxpayer can claim. Included within the Pease limitation is the deduction for charitable contributions. Further efforts to cap or otherwise limit deductions — and even to eliminate the charitable deduction altogether — are being discussed.

There is no question that taxes affect behavior. Witness golfer Phil Mickelson’s public musings about moving from high-tax California to a lower-tax place. Mickelson is not alone. Tiger Woods understandably moved from California to Florida years ago. It is well known that many people choose to move and retire to Florida or Texas precisely because they have no state income taxes. A good number of music artists prefer living in Tennessee or Nevada to living in California, since these states do not impose an income tax.

The latest census revealed that California, for the first time since it joined the Union in 1850, is not growing faster than the rest of the United States. The fast-growing states today are generally in the South and Mountain West. People are moving to these states because they are finding more job opportunities. To be successful, big and small enterprises decide to locate, invest or expand in business-friendly locations where the cost of operation is competitively lower. Tax burdens, energy costs, right-to-work laws, and a skilled workforce matter in business decisions and thus affect job and population growth.

The logical lesson is: tax policy promotes or inhibits both behavior and movement of capital. That is what makes recent and threatened tax-law changes that diminish the deductibility of charitable contributions so unsettling. Many charities rely on major donors, the very people who have the means to contribute $50,000 to $100,000 or more for cancer research, a world-class laboratory for university students, or a new interpretive center for the home of our nation’s first president. Yet in their zeal to “tax the rich,” Washington politicians are threatening to starve the charities that help our neediest citizens and enrich our lives and culture.

Americans are a generous people, contributing over $300 billion annually to charitable causes — over 75 percent from individuals. The charitable deduction in the tax code has encouraged Americans of financial means to help their fellow citizens and support nonprofit philanthropic efforts in higher education, medicine, religious-based rehab centers, the arts, and even the historic preservation of treasured presidential homes and historic sites.

Many Americans are unaware that some of the most significant presidential homes are conserved and preserved by private, charitable organizations that don’t receive a penny from government. In Virginia, George Washington’s beloved Mount Vernon and Thomas Jefferson’s cherished Monticello are privately supported, as is Rancho del Cielo in California, the Reagan Ranch where Ronald Reagan found peace and inspiration.

CLICK HERE to continue reading.

Freshman senators quickly join Keystone pipeline push

For American jobs and a reliable source of oil from North Dakota, Montana and our neighbor Canada, it is long past time to cease the political posturing and approve the Keystone XL pipeline. If our government prohibits this beneficial pipeline for western Canadian oil, then Canada will send it to their Pacific ports for export to China and other countries.

Freshman Dem senators quickly join Keystone pipeline push
By Ben Geman
The Hill
January 23, 2013

Two freshman Senate Democrats have jumped into the fight over the Keystone XL oil pipeline, joining seven other Democrats and dozens of Republicans in pressuring President Obama to approve the project.

Freshman Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) both backed the proposed pipeline well before they arrived in the Senate.

But their signatures on a letter, just days into their Senate tenure, from 53 senators calling for Obama to quickly approve Keystone signals that the red-state lawmakers won’t hesitate to stake out positions at odds with more liberal members of their caucus.

Heitkamp accused the Obama administration of dragging its feet on Keystone as she joined more than half the Senate on the new letter calling for approval.

CLICK HERE to continue reading.