The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 - Another bad idea!

I have neglected my political blog for quite a while.  Listening to and reading about all the murder trial nonsense while our legislators consider bad bills which give political or economic advantage to a few over the majority of citizens, makes me sick. 

 I don't believe it's our job to have to scrutinize each and every bill that moves through congress.  We live in a republic and elect representatives to fulfill that task on our behalf.   Most of the time that system works, but more and more  it seems our representatives are being influenced by special interest instead of their constituents.

H.R 684 is one of those bills that makes me ill.  It's sponsors call it the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 and it is anything but fair.  A month or so ago I received an alert from eBay about this bill.  If you have an eBay account you probably did too.  They pointed out the implications of H.R. 684 and asked that I sign a on-line petition and contact my Representatives - I did both.  

I never heard from my two Senators.  Not surprisingly, the Senate passed this bill.  I haven't checked to see how Senators Murray and Cantwell voted.  Yesterday,  I received a response from Cathy McMorris Rodgers thanking me for my concern and well... I posted her e-letter below so you can read it for yourself.

HOME

|

SERVICES

|

BLOG

|

ISSUES

|

NEWSROOM

Dear Mr. Jeffers: Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 684, the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013. It is an honor to represent the people of Eastern Washington and I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me. The Internet has revolutionized the way we receive information, communicate, and shop. Yet, at the same time, it has brought a host of new issues that have not been dealt with previously, including online taxation. H.R. 684 would allow states to require online-retailers to collect sales tax and remit those proceeds to the home state of the purchaser. Undoubtedly, allowing a state to levy a tax on an online business transaction increases the overall price a consumer pays and increases the operating and compliance cost for the online-retailer.  However, the implementation of an online sales tax would certainly help level the playing field for small community businesses, which already collect and remit sales tax. Be assured, I will keep your thoughts in mind should H.R. 684 come before me in the House of Representatives.  Thank you again for contacting me on this important issue. As your Representative in Congress, I am committed to putting the best interests of Eastern Washington first. I invite you to visit my website at www.mcmorrisrodgers.house.gov for additional information or to sign up for my e-newsletter. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance. Best Wishes, Cathy McMorris RodgersMember of Congress P.S. For daily updates, subscribe to my Facebook and Twitter news feeds.

All in all, it is a very nice letter, after all what wrong with paying sales tax?  Right?  

Well, nothing except this bill requires citizens to pay 56 billion additional sales tax than they do currently.  Proponents argue that citizens should be paying this anyway, suggesting maybe citizens are illegally avoiding paying sales tax.  A supreme court ruling (1992 before internet) stated businesses are not required to collect taxes if they do not have a "physical presents" in the state.  That law still stands but H.R. 684 will change that.   As one citizen stated, our Congress can't get together to pass a budget but they will find ways to add taxes at the drop of a hat. 

Not only will this bill take 56 billion dollars out of consumer's pockets but it will add huge overhead through additional regulation  to businesses.  That cost will  be passed on to the consumers as well through higher prices.   This bill requires businesses to collect sales tax in every state they sell stuff - regardless of their physical presence.  

The bill conveniently overlooks all the problems that will occur by assuring us the federal government will produce (at no charge) software for companies to use. What other problems could there be?  Being required to collecting taxes for  a state your not associated with is huge.  What if there is a dispute about how much taxes you collected?  Is that state allowed to audit your books? This bill doesn't really explain how that would work.  Or, would it be the federal government that will audit your books to ensure you pay each state their taxes?  Either way, this bill grows government and multiplies the burden of doing business by 50 times.  Even if you live in a state that doesn't have a sales tax you would be required to collect for all the ones that do.

The bill's preamble reads: "To restore States' sovereign rights to enforce state and local sale and use tax laws, and for other purposes."   Since when has the federal government been interested in the states' sovereign rights?   This bill only serves to further restrict the freedom of the American economy which is what "for other purposes" must mean.  

It is important to recognize who supports this bill and is pushing hard to get it passed.  It is large multi-state big box businesses like Target, and the National Retailers Federation (which includes Walmart, Kmart, J.C. Penny Co, Sears, and others.)  It is also supported by Amazon the largest online retailer in the world.  They already have a presences in most states and accordingly pay sales taxes in those states.  So why are they so concerned about online sellers collecting sales tax? 

eBay has taken up the cause for small sellers - of whom I am one.  There are literally hundreds of thousands of individuals who sell through eBay and other services like etsy.com.  These sites and other independent sites sell everything from art and crafts, new stuff and second hand items.   eBay alone generates 72.2  billion dollars per year globally.  Add in the hundreds of thousands of other small sellers and you can see why the big box stores are interested in getting rid of all these pesky little sellers.  I guess getting a bill passed that crushes your competition is what Marketplace Fairness is all about.

In my opinion, this legislation is a first step to marginalize eBay and other online retailers.  The next step would be to require eBay along with everyone else to collect taxes on all sales generated.  That would end it for most of the little guys and leave the big box retailers a clear playing field.  

The Sequesters are here! Whoopty-do!

Saturday, March 2, 2013 and the humungous 2.85% reduction-in-spending-increase ax has fallen upon us all - or shall I say on our government.  I didn’t hear any large crash in the night, did you?  Okay, okay the President did say in his radio broadcast today that the decreases (I refuse to use the term cuts) won’t be felt immediately.  But, he assures that middle class families will begin to “have their lives disrupted in significant ways.” He said that as long as the cuts stay in effect, Americans will know that the economy could have been better had they been averted.  "The pain, though, will be real," Obama said.  And you know what?  I believe him.  

I believe him because the President is not a nice man.  He is a bully when he wins and look out when he loses!  He will not let Congress off the hook for allowing the sequester to take effect.  He will see to it that the most vulnerable Americans among us “hurt” to make his point - the sequester was a mistake.  

If unemployment goes up, or a massive layoff is imminent, or the stock market falls, it will be because of the sequester.  If Iran (I should probably say when Iran) develops the bomb, it will be because of the sequester.  When the next weather event occurs, you guessed it, it will be because those nasty Republicans allowed the sequester to occur.  Any glitch in the next two years will be the fault of the sequester.

Over the course of his presidency, Obama has used his campaign skills, his cabinet, and even the press to effectively coerce Congress into passing legislation by scaring the bejeebers out of gullible citizens.  This time Congress bulked, citizens slept, and the President didn’t get his way. 

Saturday, after the sequester went into effect, the President said there was still time to find a smarter solution to the nation's debt problem.  "I still believe we can and must replace these cuts with a balanced approach - one that combines smart spending cuts with entitlement reform and changes to our tax code that make it more fair for families and businesses without raising anyone's tax rates.”  No one can argue with that, Mr President, but the trouble is none of that was part of your "balanced approach" before the sequester.  You have never mentioned entitlement reforms.    

Ben Hallman, Senior Financal Writer for the Huffington Post agrees, it wasn’t clear what Obama meant by “balanced approach.”  He wrote, “So what perks, exactly, does Obama want to cut?  The president has avoided going into much detail, but public statements and a recent White House policy paper suggest these likely priorities.”  Hallman then speculates on what the President could have meant.   You can read his article at the Huffington Post Web site for the details. 

Interestingly, vague proposals, like the one above, is another tool the President has used while in office.  He never offers his leadership to solve a problem.  He leaves that to Congress, which has confounded Republican Speaker Boehner more than once.  On spending cuts and entitlement reform, we can expect more of the same. The President will let the Congress propose cuts, which he will oppose  - so he can appear the hero and Congress the villain.   

As far as closing the loopholes in the tax code, both Speaker Beohner and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell agreed with the President to close loopholes - just not as a trade-off for tax cuts.  Good thinking gentlemen.

The Sequester Fester

President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, pressured Congress to find a way to avoid the sequester.  In the President's radio address this past weekend, he said the sequester would be "a huge blow to middle-class families and our economy as a whole."  The President’s senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer warned that "devastating" sequester cuts would "imperil our economy, our national security, (and) vital programs that middle class families depend on."    

So, how much will the sequester cut from the budget you ask?  This year, 2013, the Federal Government is expected to spend $3.8 trillion dollars.  The government will collect  $2.9 trillion in taxes.  The difference, $901.4 billion, will be added to our our current 16.3 trillion dollar debt. 

The sequester, as it turns out, cuts a whole $85 billion dollars in 2013 or 2.24% of total spending. The defense budget for 2013 is 900 billion dollars.  The sequester will require a 42.7 billion dollar cut in defense spending or 4.74% from their budget.  Now here is what’s hard to take, the federal government has been growing their budget  4.64% on average each year since 2007.

So, to put this in perspective, if you made 50,000 dollars last year and were told your pay increase this year would only be $1,200 instead of $2,320 how “devastating” would that be?  You might be disappointed but it certainly wouldn't put your household finances in “economic peril!”

2nd Amendment Rights vs. Media Control?

Sometime today President Biden will announce to the President and the public a proposal to curb the shootings in our schools and other public haunts.  Sadly, the major focus will be on weapons and ammunition.  There will be some concern for more security in our schools and better care of the less stable people in our society.
    

What won’t be included in Biden’s proposal is anything that addresses the entertainment industry’s moral wickedness which they subject society to through films, television programing, computer gaming and even advertising.

Televised violence is known to have severe effects on all audience groups, be it children or adults.  Before you agree to limiting your 2^nd amendment rights, consider the following excerpts from some studies on the subject. 

1.  “Prior to this study, it had already been well established that television influences many kinds of attitudes and behaviors by modeling them as appropriate and/or desirable. A highly successful multi-billion dollar advertising industry is built on that premise. More specifically, violence on television has been shown in hundreds of studies to have an influence on aggressive behavior. Over the past 20 years, numerous respected academic and public health organizations and agencies — including the American Psychological Association, the American Medical Association, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the National Institute of Mental Health — have reviewed the existing body of evidence in this area and have unanimously affirmed the validity of that conclusion. Three main effects of viewing televised violence have been noted in the literature: learning aggressive attitudes and behaviors, desensitization to violence, and increased fear of becoming victimized by violence.” ¹

2.  “Media violence poses a threat to public health inasmuch as it leads to an increase in real-world violence and aggression. Research shows that fictional television and film violence contribute to both a short-term and a long-term increase in aggression and violence in young viewers. Television news violence also contributes to increased violence, principally in the form of imitative suicides and acts of aggression. Video games are clearly capable of producing an increase in aggression and violence in the short term, although no long-term longitudinal studies capable of demonstrating long-term effects have been conducted. The relationship between media violence and real-world violence and aggression is moderated by the nature of the media content and characteristics of and social influences on the individual exposed to that content. Still, the average overall size of the effect is large enough to place it in the category of known threats to public health.” ²

3.  ^“According to a report published by the American Academy of Pediatrics in the year 2000, violence (in the form of homicide, suicide, and trauma) is a leading cause of death amongst children, adolescents as well as young adults. It is a more prevalent cause than diseases like cancer or congenital disorders. 

The top consumers or the heavy consumers of violent television programs are males in the age group of 18 to 34, followed by females in the same age group. 

According to research done by Huston in the year 1992, by the time a child is eighteen years old, he/she has already witnessed 200,000 acts of violence including 40,000 murders on television. 

Since the early fifties over one thousand studies have been carried out about the effects of violence on television and in the movies. A majority of these studies conclude that children who are exposed to considerable amounts of television violence are more likely to exhibit aggressive behavior. 

According to research done by Buchanan in the year 2000, children who watch more television or even play more video games are exposed to more media violence and tend to exhibit more aggressive tendencies amongst their peers. 

According to Denis McQuail's theory published in 2002, violence from media, especially television is encoded in the cognitive map of viewers and subsequent viewing of television violence helps to maintain aggressive thoughts, ideas and behavior.

Most of the children in the age group of two to five years watch television for an average of 31 hours each week, which is equivalent to more than four hours of television viewing per day. No wonder, impressionable young minds are falling prey to the element of violence present on the television.” ³

¹National Television Violence Study Vol 3, Executive Summary 

²The Role of Media Violence in Violent Behavior

³Facts about Television Violence

Laurel & Hardy - The Great Compromise! Coming Soon!

Democrat Stanley Laurel (left) and Republican Oliver Hardy

Well, Stanley, just look at the mess you and your Democrat friends have gotten us into this time!  You just tax, tax, tax!  And now, the voters are very upset!  

“Yes Ollie, we certainly are in a pickle, aren’t we.  But you got it all wrong.  We Democrats just gave the voters the biggest tax reduction in history!"  

"Democrat tax reductions!  Why you listen to me, Stanley, those were Bush Tax cuts and that was our idea!   You were against the tax cuts, remember?"

"Yes, we were against it, but now we're for it!"

"So now Stanley, we don't have any more money, so, we have no choice but to cut our spending!"

"Well Ollie, we won't have to do that  because we Democrats voted to make the rich pay for everything!" 

"We can't do that!  Soon they will be as poor as us!  Then what will we do, Stanley?"

“Olliver, I’ve got an idea.”  

“All right Stanley, let’s hear it.”

“If we are out of Money, why don’t we just print some more?  Then you can pay our debt, and I can spend all I want, and the voters won't have to give us a dime!"

“Why Stanley, I think that's a great idea!”

“Thank you Oliver, I’m glad you like it!”

In The Waiting Room of a Car Dealership

In the waiting room of a car dealership the other day, while waiting for service, I became captive to the brand new Katie Couric Show. Katie’s guest was talking about the Fiscal Cliff and gridlock in Congress.  Her comment to her guest was,  “I don’t even know what the Fiscal Cliff is about!”  

The car dealership receptionist, who was also part of the captive audience, responded,  “I’m with Katie, I have no idea what this Fiscal Cliff is either.”  

“Well,”  I said  “I wouldn’t use Katie Couric as your political roll model.”  

“I do!”  she responded a little offended.  Oops.

I felt bad she had chosen to aligned herself with the uninformed.  But, unfortunately,  Katie Couric and the receptionist aren’t alone.  Most Americans have no clue what Congress and the President are fighting about, nor do they wish to complicate their lives by attempting to understand the gravity of the situation that our country is in.    

Unlike abortion or same-sex marriage, which have very little influence on the lives of most Americans, what Congress and the President do about the Fiscal Cliff will impact everyone.  

First of all, the crisis is misnamed.  It isn’t a cliff.  It is a self imposed deadline mandated by Congress to correct government overspending.  The deadline was imposed by Congress much as you or I might decide to go on a diet.  

We know that in order to lose weight we must go on a diet and exercise.  So, we set a date to start a diet.  On that day, we will begin exercising and quit eating so much food.  But as that date nears, we become fearful and regret our commitment.   We may even hedge a bit and decide to not start the diet just yet - until things settle down in our lives.

That is exactly what is going on right now with Congress and the President.  As the day approaches, they fear the consequences.  If they decrease government spending, it will kill many jobs and lower incomes for millions of Americans.  And, if they increase revenue, by raising taxes, it will also kill many jobs and lower incomes for millions of Americans.  Just like a diet, lowering our deficit means tightening our belt.  A good measure of both decreases in spending and increases in taxes are necessary if it's going to work.  And that is what the "Fiscal Cliff" does.     

The worst thing we could do for our Country is not go on the diet, or to do so little that it has no effect.  And you know what?  That seems to be just where Congress is headed.    

   

con·spir·a·cy the·o·ry

A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the general public.

My son John, who is generally skeptical about such things pointed out that there might just be a media conspiracy surrounding Christmas.  At the beginning of each holiday shopping season, there is nothing but positive news about the economy.  And then, shortly after Christmas, he said, we are told how dismal the shopping season was for retailers.   Never noticed?  Well, yes, come to think of it - that's true!

On October 2, 2012 the Associated Press writer Anne D’innocenzio’s article was picked up.  The headlines read, Retail Sales Prediction: 4.1% higher than 2012.  In the article  D’innocenzion points out, “[This year] is higher than the average growth of 3.5 percent for November and December over the past 10 years.”  Pretty impressive.

A few days later on October 15, 2012 Marketplace published Jeff Horwich’s piece.  He wrote, “consumer sales rose 1.1% last month because Americans are more confident and that due to stock prices and home prices both giving consumers more confidence.  

A month later, November 14th, NBC headlines read, Chamber of Commerce Data Shows Retail Sales on the Rise. The article quotes North Carolina Regional Chamber of Commerce President Timothy Hulbert who says, “We have come back from the so called great recession and the tepid recovery that has occurred since that recession and so, we are looking forward to a good holiday shopping season.  

And then on December 13^th, another Associated Press article written by Martin Crutsinger headlined, U.S. Retailers Sales rose .3 percent in November.  Crutsinger said “figures were much stronger after factoring lower gas prices. When excluding a large drop in gas station sales, retail sales increased a solid 0.8 percent”.  

I picked these four articles to typify what was being written before Christmas.  The media was swamped with rosy news about the season.  After Christmas, yesterday, something snapped and the media was filled with articles of doom and gloom.  You probably read or hear news like this headline from Reuters which proclaimed, “U.S. retailers scramble after lackluster holiday sales.”  

Is this a conspiracy?  It certainly is.  It is an unspoken sinister plot between the news media outlets and retailers who conspire to promote sales by showing a robust and growing economy which makes people feel good and spend money.  

There were many articles written which predicted a poor shopping season but those articles weren’t picked up by the news media.  The articles that were picked up and widely promoted and published, were the articles that were upbeat and positive.  After all, retailers are not going to place ads on networks or in newspapers that predict doom and gloom.  Knowing this the news media selects and publishes news which will enhance the sales of their advertisers.  

After the shopping season the illusion ends, and the media outlets revert back to the stark reality in which we live.  The economy is poor, good jobs are scarce and the future is dark.  Until next year, when the hype begins anew.