Friday, October 29, 2010

Walmart on steroids

If you, like everyone else, are tired of all the negative political ads, take solace in the fact that they’ll be gone next Wednesday.

But unfortunately, what will stay with us is an outright attack on our democracy. Our “government of the people, by the people and for the people,” thanks to the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, might now be better called “government of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.”

And by “corporation,” I’m not talking small businesses. I'm talking about giant special interest, multinational companies that brought us these beauties:

Image: NyeGateway.com

  • The Gulf oil disaster
  • The financial crisis that led to the recession
  • Skyrocketing health insurance premiums
  • Jobs exported overseas
  • Bloated military budgets to fight unnecessary wars

These corporations have been given the green light to spend all the money (actually their customers' money) they want to influence our elections, while not letting the voters know who is paying for the ads—most of which are negative—or being accountable for the truthfulness of the messages.

Total spending -- by candidates, political parties and special interests -- has topped $3.2 billion and is likely to hit $4 billion when reports detailing last-minute donations and spending are tallied, according to a study released Wednesday by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. That would obliterate the record $2.85 billion spent in 2006, the last midterm elections. Read more….
For the small business owner who might think that these giant multinational companies have their best interest at heart, you’ve been suckered into voting against your future.

Think Walmart on steroids.

####

Want to do something about it?
  1. Vote this Tuesday, November 2
  2. Join us for our next BuySC Micro-Conference, Wed., Nov. 10 (details below)
  3. Shop local on Nov. 20, 2010, Happy Hardware Day!
The SC Small Business Chamber presents the next installment of our BuySC Micro-Conference series:

Keith Spiro: 5 Steps to Business Freedom
 

When: November 10th, 2010
Where: 701 Whaley, Olympia Room (2nd floor), 701 Whaley Street, Columbia, SC 29201

Time: 6pm - 8pm
Price: Free for paying SCSBCC members / $5 Basic Members /$10 for non-members.  Click here to register and buy your tickets now

Want to save $5? Become a BuySC member at the "free" level and your ticket is half price. Why? Because we're a non-profit, and we want to unite SC's small business community.


Copy this digital poster to use on your Facebook, blog, website, wherever!

Our locally-owned, independent hardware stores need us more than ever. Let's support them!

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Still the naysayers on lending crisis

In the run up to the vote in the U.S. Senate on the Small Business Jobs Act that included a $30 billion small business lending fund to help address the complete collapse of lending to small businesses, opponents began claiming that small businesses were no long looking for loans. The economy--according to the naysayers like the U.S. Chamber and its lapdog, the NFIB--had scared small businesses from wanting to take on any debt.


Even today after the Jobs Act has been signed into law and the loan fund regulations are being finalized; there are still deniers of a small business lending crisis even by some who should know better.

Russell Colombo, president and CEO of the Bank of Martin in California, recently told a reporter that there is plenty of capital available to make small business loans but there is no demand.

Well, enough of partisan-tainted opinion. Here is the reality.

Last week the New York Federal Reserve Bank released the results of a survey that clearly demonstrated that access to capital is an important issue for small business with 59% of respondents had applied for credit during the first half of 2010.

Of the small businesses trying to get a loan or line of credit only half were successful and 75% of all respondents said that they received only “some” or “none” of the credit they were looking for.

This week Small Business California in a press told of a survey of their members that generated “over 150 comments regarding the problems they are having with banks, especially the big banks.” Scott Hauge, president of the organization, stated that “small businesses are seeing their lines of credit pulled, their loans pulled, interest rates on credit cards spiraling upwards of 30% and extending the time of clearing deposit checks.”

Our banker, Mr. Colombo, needs to get out of his executive office more often and visit the real world of small business.

Monday, October 25, 2010

10 down and 2 to go

2010 has been a very successful year for The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and there are still 2 months remaining before 2011.

Below is a very brief overview of wins this year and also some historical victories.

Success in 2010

-Passage of national health care reform resulting in no mandate or tax on small businesses. 53,000 SC small businesses being eligible for health insurance tax credit this year. Insurance exchanges in 2014 to allow small businesses to leverage collective clout to drive down premiums and elimination of premium increases due to worker with pre-existing condition.

-Passage of the state cigarette tax increase with funds going to meet health care needs of Medicaid recipients (133% of poverty and below starting in 2014).

-Passage of  national Wall Street Reform to reign in the excessive risky behavior of the financial industry that created the recession and create an agency for consumer, including small business, protection.

-Passage of the national Small Business Jobs Act which included a $30 billion lending fund to enable community banks to start making small business loans again and increase SBA lending ability.

-Successfully intervened in an SCE&G electric rate hike request of 9.52% to have it reduced to 4.88% over three years, a savings of over $96 million to customers.

-Successfully intervened in SCE&G’s proposed Demand Side Management program to enable small businesses more opportunity (inclusion in an energy information display pilot) to take conservation actions to reduce cost.

-Launched a “BuySC” (BuySC.org) program to encourage the public to purchase more goods and services from locally-owned South Carolina small businesses and establishing a free on-line directory of these businesses for customers to use.

Some of the past SCSBCC Successes

-Reducing the income tax on small business from 7 to 5 percent saving small business owners $129 million each year.

-Regulation of workers' compensation rates to reduce premiums.

-Job tax credits for the first time for small businesses.

-$1000 tax credit for new Registered Apprentices.

-Opposing SCE&G electricity and gas increases at the S.C. Public Service Commission resulting in savings to residential and business customers of over $172 million from 2003 to 2010.

-Opposing workers' compensation proposed rate increases in the Administrative Law Court resulting in saving state businesses over $185 million on premiums since 2006.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Our next networking seminar: Wed., Nov. 10 at 701 Whaley!

Our last networking event and small business seminar was quite a terrific success! If you missed it, no worries. We have another one coming up fast!

Join us on Wednesday, November 10 at 701 Whaley St. in Columbia, SC for a talk by business coach Keith Spiro, with hosted food and drink by Mac's on Main:

Friday, October 22, 2010

Challenging the U.S. Chamber

The nonprofit, membership-driven South Carolina Small Business Chamber will officially be supporting an IRS complaint against the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

We, along with other business organizations, are questioning potential violations of exemptions under the federal tax law in the U.S. Chamber’s conduct of lobbying and campaign funding. More on this later.

Below is a must-read New York Times story about the U.S. Chamber. If you have not been paying attention to the U.S. Chamber’s heavily financed legislative agenda and how it often is at odds with our agenda, this story should help bring you up to speed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Times
October 22, 2010
Top Corporations Aid U.S. Chamber of Commerce Campaign
By ERIC LIPTON, MIKE McINTIRE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Prudential Financial sent in a $2 million donation last year as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce kicked off a national advertising campaign to weaken the historic rewrite of the nation’s financial regulations.
Dow Chemical delivered $1.7 million to the chamber last year as the group took a leading role in aggressively fighting proposed rules that would impose tighter security requirements on chemical facilities.
And Goldman Sachs, Chevron Texaco, and Aegon, a multinational insurance company based in the Netherlands, donated more than $8 million in recent years to a chamber foundation that has been critical of growing federal regulation and spending. These large donations — none of which were publicly disclosed by the chamber, a tax-exempt group that keeps its donors secret, as it is allowed by law — offer a glimpse of the chamber’s money-raising efforts, which it has ramped up recently in an orchestrated campaign to become one of the most well-financed critics of the Obama administration and an influential player in this fall’s Congressional elections.
They suggest that the recent allegations from President Obama and others that foreign money has ended up in the chamber’s coffers miss a larger point: The chamber has had little trouble finding American companies eager to enlist it, anonymously, to fight their political battles and pay handsomely for its help. . . . Keep reading

####


Join the SC Small Business Chamber in supporting our independent, locally owned hardware stores next month:

Buy SC's Happy Hardware Day!!
Saturday, Nov. 20, 2010
Shop at independent, locally owned hardware stores to show your support for SC small business! 





A local success + Happy Hardware Day Nov. 20!

Who's got the cheapest lumber in town? The cheapest mortar?

Think the best prices are way out at Lowe's? 

Think again. 

Shuman-Owens Supply Co., located just 5 minutes from downtown Columbia, SC, is a brick's throw from the S.C. State Fair Grounds and Gamecock Stadium.

And it's one of the last independent, locally-owned hardware stores in Columbia.








Despite the slump in the building trades and consumer flight to suburban big box retailers, this Shop Road standard is somehow creaming the big box retailers. How are they managing to succeed in such a tough climate?

Buy SC Local Success Spotlight:
 
Local Hardware Store Hammers the Big Box




What is this small business doing right?

"Well, for starters," says local stonemason Jefferson Hubbell, "Shuman-Owens is cheaper than Lowe's for just about everything I need on the job."





He gives an example: "If you need a 75 lb. bag of mortar for a masonry job," he notes, "Shuman-Owens will charge you $8, while a smaller, 70-pound bag will cost you $10 at Lowe's.

This really makes a difference when you're in a business that requires hundreds of bags of mortar per year."

(Choosing this local hardware store for just 10 bags of mortar per week for a year would indeed save you over $1000.

Not exactly chump change.)


The low prices don't quit on building materials, even as a project scales upwards.





"If your client needs a million dollars' worth of western cedar timber for his  post-and-beam hunting lodge," Hubbell adds, "Shuman-Owens will source it for less per board foot than pretty much any competitor in the Southeast."












A true family-run business
"The service makes a big difference for me," says Hubbell. "It's a family-run business."

""I've been going into Shuman-Owens for near 20 years, and it feels good. We know each other." 











While there are certainly a fair share of friendly, knowledgeable staff working at big box retailers like Lowe's, it's hard to beat the personal level of service that a local, independently-owned business can provide.

It's up to consumers to support these local businesses by voting with your hardware dollars
Read reporter Kristy Eppley Rupon's recent story in The State, "Hammered: Hardware stores pushed out by big-box retailers, economy" 


And then take action!

1. Take your free spot in the new Buy SC directory of locally owned small businesses:

Sign up here: http://www.buysc.org

2. Fly the Buy SC badge on your website, Facebook fan page, etc., and ask us for a Buy SC sticker -- just like the one you see below on the front door of Shuman-Owens!

3. Talk up Happy Hardware Day, Saturday, Nov. 20! It's the first installment of our new "Local Has It" action campaign series here at the nonprofit SC Small Business Chamber, and we're really excited.


Shuman-Owens flies the Buy SC badge!


HAPPY HARDWARE DAY!
On Saturday, November 20, 2010, go and shop at independent, locally owned hardware stores throughout South Carolina. Spread the word!

You can print the Happy Hardware Day poster below, upload it to your website and Facebook, and pass on this call to action to your own social networks. It's up to all of us!

Spread the word! Let's Buy SC!


Huge thanks to the talented graphic designer Karen Williford, who designed the Happy Hardware Day poster *and* the Buy SC logo for the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Health care rationing

Remember the most effective warnings about the new health care law?

“Rationing” and “Government getting between you and your doctor”

To this day the opponents of reform are still out on the stump scaring voters with these statements.

Read today’s story in the New York Times and see where the real rationing and interference with patient care will be coming from in the future—the health insurance companies and even doctors.

Health insurance companies are starting to pay cancer doctors for not prescribing the most expensive cancer drugs. The article points out that these doctor incentives “could represent a first step toward denying patients additional treatment or the latest chemotherapy regimen based solely on the cost….the new effort could be viewed as a move toward rationing care at the end of life.”

Joseph P. Newhouse, a health policy professor at Harvard who has studied how the Medicare payment system affects doctors’ choice of treatments, suggested that some payment options might give doctors an incentive to stop treatments if they lose money or make too much by not actively treating patients. . . . In the UnitedHealthcare program, for example, oncologists still get a fee even if the patient is not getting chemotherapy.
There is no argument that cancer treatment is very expensive and that “Hail Mary” unproven therapies need to be reigned in for the good of both the patient and cost, especially if we are all paying through Medicare. And that’s exactly why the new health care law establishes a system of medical experts to determine comparative effectiveness of treatments for all types of illnesses.

But ironically the political party striving to take control of Congress has pledged to eliminate the government effort to determine effectiveness of treatments. If they are successful, only the health insurance industry will make cost benefit decisions about treatments for you and your doctor. Are you afraid now?

Monday, October 18, 2010

Health care reform in the courts

Last week a Florida judge allowed parts of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patients Protection and Affordable Care Act to go forward.  That received a lot of press attention and chest thumping by those who want to repeal national health care reform.

Earlier judges in Marland, California and Michigan dismissed cases challenging the new law so Florida was a big deal to the "repeal and replace" folks.

Political Correction, a project of Media Matters Action Network, has compiled a jargon-free document regarding the Florida judge's ruling and what it means going forward.  Read the document below and be informed.

The Impact Of The Florida Judge’s Ruling On
Health Care Reform And Other Pending Lawsuits

On October 14, 2010, United States District Court Judge Roger Vinson issued an order that allows Florida and twenty other states to continue with their lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). This comes after United States District Court Judge George Steeh dismissed the lawsuit brought by the conservative Thomas More Law Center. Judge Steeh found the individual mandate to be constitutional, citing precedential authority and congressional intent. These differences amongst the judicial circuits foreshadow the long battle that proponents of the PPACA will face in the coming months.

Order And Opinion Overview

Four Counts Of The States’ Lawsuit Were Dismissed…

Count Two: Challenge To The Individual Mandate On Substantive Due Process Grounds.

The States’ Argument: The states attempted to argue that the individual mandate provision deprived citizens of their life, liberty, and property by requiring them to purchase health insurance.

The Judge’s Ruling: The judge ruled that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for this count due to the fact that the individual mandate does not “implicate fundamental rights.” In other words, invoking the individual mandate does not deprive United States citizens of their life, liberty, or property. He also explained that the legislation is “rationally related to a legitimate end.” This is a standard of review in Constitutional Law known as the “Rational Basis Test,” in which there must be a showing that the legislation is rational and that it is related to a legitimate purpose. This is a very low standard of proof.

Count Three: Violation Of Constitutional Prohibition Of Unapportioned Capitation Or Direct Tax.

The States’ Argument: Here, the states’ argument is that the individual mandate provision is a tax, and that Congress is prohibited from directly taxing United States citizens.

The Judge’s Ruling: The judge immediately dismissed this count in his initial analysis because he found that the penalty for non-compliance with the individual mandate is not a tax. Thus, the states had no claim.

Count Five: Coercion And Commandeering As To Healthcare Insurance.

The States’ Argument: In this count, the states claimed that the provision in the PPACA that requires the states to set up health exchanges amounted to coercion.

The Judge’s Ruling: The judge threw out this claim because the states have the “choice” to set up the exchanges. If a state chooses not to do so the federal government will administer the exchange in that state.

Count Six: Interference With State Sovereignty As Employers And Performance Of Governmental Functions.

The States’ Argument: This claim is the infamous “Tenther” argument that frames states’ rights against federal government’s involvement. The states claim that the federal government cannot interfere with the with state government functions (i.e. enforcing the health exchanges and other provisions of the PPACA).

The Judge’s Ruling: The judge explained that because the PPACA will affect both public government and private employers it is a law of general applicability. This means that even if it isn’t “per se constitutional” it is still a valid law.

Two Counts Of The States’ Lawsuit Will Proceed…

Count One: Challenge To Individual Mandate As Exceeding The Commerce Clause.

The States’ Argument: The states’ argument is that the federal government is trying to regulate something that is “inactivity,” which is beyond the scope of their power. This is the critical argument to the States’ case.

The Judge’s Ruling: The judge felt that, at this stage in the litigation, both sides need to offer more arguments and proof of the impact. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress is only allowed to regulate the channels, instrumentalities, and activities of commerce. The judge ruled that because this argument is unprecedented he needs more information to make a ruling on the issue. He also added: “Of course, to say something is ‘novel’ and ‘unprecedented’ does not necessarily mean that it is ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘improper.’”

Count Four: Coercion And Commandeering As To Medicaid.

The States’ Argument: This is another essential claim for the states’ lawsuit. The states argue that the changes to Medicaid go beyond the scope of the Congressional power to spend for the general welfare of the public.

The Judge’s Ruling: The judge evaluated whether Congress exceeded its Spending Power by including provisions in the PPACA that would expand Medicaid in the states. The judge explained that the states have two choices — accept changes to Medicaid or withdraw from the system entirely — the latter of which would result in loss of funding and leave thousands of the poorest individuals in the country uninsured. For this reason, he ruled that the states’ claim is plausible and that this provision could amount to coercion.

[Florida et. al v. Department of Health and Human Services, Order and Memorandum Opinion, 10/14/10]

What To Expect Next…

Timeline

Action/Date:

Parties File Motion For Summary Judgment/On or before November 4, 2010
Opposing Party Responds/On or before November 23, 2010
Moving Party Replies to the Response/On or before December 6, 2010
Hearing on Motion For Summary Judgment/December 16, 2010

Final Points

Future Lawsuits Will More Than Likely Have Similar Claims To Counts One and Four. Now that the judge has ruled that these are plausible arguments, there will probably be a trend of plaintiffs amending their complaints to have similar -- and stronger -- arguments about the Medicaid provisions and the scope of the Commerce Clause.

No One Has Won/Lost… Yet. The ruling at this point is only instructing us that states may continue with their lawsuit. Although a dismissal would have been a better result for the federal government, it now has the opportunity to refine its argument in the Motion For Summary Judgment.

Motion For Summary Judgment Means That The Winner Takes All. A Motion For Summary Judgment is a pre-trial tactic that is employed frequently. Both sides again have the opportunity, through evidence, pleadings, etc., to state why they should win. If the states win, then the PPACA will be deemed unconstitutional. If the federal government wins, then the lawsuit will be dismissed. If neither wins, then the case will proceed to an actual trial (opening/closing arguments, discovery, etc.).

The Judge’s Ruling Is Not Binding Precedent For Other Courts. Although other courts that have lawsuits before them may consider the judge’s opinion in shaping their future decisions, they are not bound by his ruling because of two primary reasons: (1) The United States District Court is the lowest court in the federal system and therefore doesn’t make precedent and (2) Circuits in other areas of the country (i.e. other states) are not bound by authority in states or circuits other than their own.

Friday, October 15, 2010

DOR expected to call off tax dogs

Two phone conversations last evening and one this morning indicate that the South Carolina Department of Revenue (DOR) will suspend its controversial sales tax ruling on contract services until the Legislature addresses the issue next year.

The controversy exploded upon news last weekend that DOR was trying to collect back sales taxes from certain small businesses that had never been informed to collect the tax. B.J. Rodgers of Greenery Gallery in Charleston faced a $42,000 sales tax assessment deadline earlier this week.

The issue went viral with this blog on the issue being sent to thousands of small businesses across the state and to the media.

Angry small businesses began contacting their legislators and DOR. Rep. Mac Toole of Lexington County engaged DOR personnel in a series of conversations expressing his and other top House members’ displeasure of the DOR ambush of small businesses. The issue was serious enough for the discussions even to include a possible special legislative session if DOR didn’t take action now to suspend its efforts to collect the tax.

While we wait for official word from DOR, we need to thank Mr. Toole for his quick and vigorous actions to defend small businesses.

But even if DOR finally does the right thing, there are some questions that need to be explored.

Why did DOR take so long to interpret a 2005 tax law to mean that businesses providing service contracts should be collecting sales tax? Apparently this decision was made sometime after 2005, probably 2008.

The word is that some bright person advanced the idea that DOR was missing a lot of sales tax if the 2005 was interpreted in a special way. The possibility of “found” revenue was important to DOR because the General Assembly had instructed DOR to increase tax revenue by $100 million after legislators were told that a lot of regular sales tax was not being collected.

But DOR needed to test out this new revenue generating plan. B.J. Rodgers became DOR’s guinea pig. When an Administrative Law Judge ruled in DOR’s favor recently saying that B.J. owed $42,000 in back sales taxes she had not collected, DOR was off to the races trying to collect from other small businesses.

So where is Governor Mark Sanford, who oversees DOR, in this story? Apparently still AWOL according to sources. I’m sure he’ll try to take credit for protecting small businesses from this taxing situation—one that happened right under his nose by his DOR.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Wake up call for business owners -- big and small

Very interesting piece by financial columnist James Surowiecki, excerpted from The New Yorker:
ILLUSTRATION: CHRISTOPH NIEMANN 
(reposted with respect from The New Yorker)
"In the nineteen-eighties, a new kind of chain store came to dominate American shopping: the “category killer.” These stores killed off all competition in a category by stocking a near-endless variety of products at prices that small retailers couldn’t match. Across America, independent stores went out of business, and the suburban landscape became freckled with Toys R Us, CompUSA, and Home Depot superstores. 

But the category killers’ reign turned out to be more fragile than expected. In the past decade, CompUSA and Circuit City have disappeared. Toys R Us has struggled to stay afloat, and Barnes & Noble is in the midst of a boardroom battle prompted by financial woes. And, last month, Blockbuster finally admitted the inevitable and declared Chapter 11."

"The obvious reason for all this is the Internet; Blockbuster’s demise, for one, was inextricably linked to the success of Netflix. But this raises a deeper question: why didn’t the category killers colonize the Web the way they colonized suburbia? That was what pundits expected. Companies like Blockbuster, the argument went, had customer expertise, sophisticated inventory management, and strong brands. And, unlike the new Internet companies, they’d be able to offer customers both e-commerce and physical stores—“clicks and mortar. It seemed like the perfect combination..." (Read more http://www.newyorker.com/talk/financial/2010/10/18/101018ta_talk_surowiecki#ixzz12Alkr2YC)

While the demise of any business is not good news for a community, this turn of events does raise some good questions for small business owners.

What are *you* doing to prepare your small business for the ongoing technological shifts in the way our culture buys and sells?

Part of our mission here at the nonprofit South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce is to help SC's small business community grow and maximize ROI.



Two simple action items for you:

1. Join our free BuySC online business directory at http://www.buysc.org!

2. Come to our next small business seminar!
 


BuySC Micro-Conference: 
5 Steps To Business Freedom with Keith Spiro

Wednesday, November 10
6:00pm - 8:00pm

Olympia Room, Second Floor of the 701 Whaley Building
701 Whaley Street
Columbia, SC, 29201
Price: Free for paying SCSBCC members / $5 Basic Members (free membership) /$10 for non-members. 
Become a member for free, and save $5!

Refreshments and hors d'oeuvres for the reception will be provided courtesy of our event sponsor: 


Please register at www.buysc.eventbrite.com

 
To learn more about SCSBCC membership, please go to http://www.scsbc.org/membership

About the Lecture:

Why do 90% of businesses fail within the first 10 years?

* 78% lack a solid business plan
* 73% are being overly optimistic about sales
* 77% are not pricing their products or services properly
* 70% don't recognize or ignore their weaknesses and don't seek help

Turn those threats to your company into business freedom. Come learn concrete practical ways to steer clear and head toward freedom in your business.
About the SCSBCC:

The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce is a non-profit advocacy organization representing the general interests of small business.

For more information please go to www.scsbc.org, www.buysc.org or contact Stephanie Lombardo, Membership Coordinator at 803-252-5733 / Stephanie@scsbc.org

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Small business tax "ambush"

When the S.C. Department of Revenue (DOR) told B.J. Rodgers that her Charleston business, Greenery Gallery, owed $42,000 is back sales taxes, she considered filing bankruptcy for her 24-year old business. Fortunately for us, she decided to fight back.

In 2005, the General Assembly passed a package of changes to the state tax code. Much to the chagrin of some of today’s legislators, buried in the bill was an obscure provision that set DOR off on a collision course with thousands of our small businesses that have service contracts.

DOR’s brass interpreted the statute as requiring the collection of state sales tax on service contracts. In the case of B.J. Rodgers it was service contracts for watering plants belonging to other businesses. But untold types of other businesses should have been collecting sales tax on their service contracts since October 2005 according to DOR. If you have an agreement, written or not, with a client to provide a service for a flat fee, DOR wants you to pay up even if you haven’t collected the sales tax.

Instead DOR “ambushed” B.J. and other small businesses.

But while DOR started notifying other businesses of their past due “new” tax liability, it ran into a stubborn B.J. Gordon. Because B.J. decided to protest her bad news back in 2008, DOR was forced to defend its attack on unsuspecting small businesses in court. This past July, DOR got the green light from an Administrative Law Court.

But instead of trying to pay the tax on yesterday’s deadline (with money she didn’t have) or going the bankruptcy route, B.J. went public.

Katy Stech of the Charleston Post and Courier broke the story on Saturday and did a follow-up today.

Now alarmed and worried small businesses are making calls.

I’ve talked to legislators who are angry saying that the Legislature never intended for sales tax to be levied on services. Two, Senator Larry Grooms and Representative Mac Toole, have indicated that they would file legislation if necessary to correct the problem.

Legislators also need to have these questions answered.

Why didn’t DOR notify small businesses to start collecting sales tax for service work? Why do DOR employees doing audits of small businesses think that such service work should not be subject to a sales tax? Why did every other professional tax preparer B.J. asked not know about this new interpretation of sales tax law? DOR has a lot of “s'plaining” to do.

But while most legislators and all small businesses never knew about DOR’s new taxing plan, apparently Governor Sanford’s office was informed. B.J. told me in my radio interview with her yesterday that she had contacted the Governor’s office about her situation but never received a response. Yesterday, Sanford’s spokesman admitted that the office knew of the court case but, according to the newspaper report, “declined to comment because it’s still pending.”

While it is not uncommon for agencies to hide behind “pending” legal cases in order to avoid answering important questions, it shouldn’t have been difficult for the Governor’s spokesman to answer the question of whether Sanford supports a sales tax on services or not. He refused to answer that question.

This issue should never have gone to a judge. DOR is a cabinet level position meaning that its director works for Sanford. The Governor’s office knew of this situation and failed to intervene to protect B.J. specifically from an unfair situation and failed to stop DOR from creating a new tax on small business.

DOR’s “Revenue Rulings” can be changed by statute, as some legislators have indicated they will do, or by another Departmental advisory opinion. So if Governor Sanford won’t act, the Legislature will have to. In the mean time, DOR should give B.J. an extension on her $42,000 tax bill until this is cleared up.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Good news on energy

Three interesting developments in the area of energy/climate this week.

First, a blog in The Hill yesterday summarizes 4 recent poll results from ABC News/Washington Post, Wall Street Journal/NBC, USA Today/Gallup and Benenson Strategy Group. All showed strong public support for regulating greenhouse gasses and renewable energy.

The blogger, David Di Martino, concludes, “American voters would support a policy that holds polluters accountable by charging them for the pollution they create. Shadowy front groups supported by the oil industry and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are doing their best to scare voters over energy policy. But the reality is the American people want action on clean energy and climate change.”

Second, the S.C. PURC (Public Utilities Review Committee) Energy Advisory Board met for their second meeting on Wednesday. This advisory board (unfortunately with no small business representation) is charged with developing and recommending a framework for comprehensive energy policy of South Carolina. This week’s focus was on renewable energy.

Much of the discussion revolved around the increased costs associated with producing energy from biomass, wind and solar and who was going to pay. Finally, John Ramsburgh of the Conservation Voters of S.C. pointed out that other factors needed to be considered in the discussion like the costs to the public’s health and environmental degradation if renewables aren’t pursued. And, much to my appreciation, John talked about the benefits of job growth opportunities from developing new energy industries. The group decided to pursue contracting for a study of the different energy options to answer the cost and benefits questions.

The third, and possibly the most important revelation this week, was from The State’s Andy Shain who reported on Wednesday that Santee Cooper was considering backing off its $4.4 billion commitment to the new nuclear plant in Fairfield County it is building with SCE&G.

This appears to be a significant opportunity to do something in the energy area that I and others have called for—coordinating and sharing energy generation by our three private companies (SCE&G, Duke and Progress) along with our state-owned company Santee Cooper.

Instead of every power company building new plants separately with capacity they won’t need for a long, long time, why don’t they project their joint energy needs for the state for the immediate future and then build plants together. The consumers will save money and the companies (except for Santee Cooper) will only need to make one request to the Public Service Commission for approval. (Santee Cooper being state-owned is not regulated by the PSC—something that should change.)

During the debate last year over the now shelved idea of Santee Cooper building an new coal-fired power plant, Ron Calcaterra--president and CEO of The Central Electric Power Cooperative that is the wholesale power supplier for the state’s 20 electric cooperatives--specifically wrote about having the state’s utilities collectively share their existing and future power supplies to serve the needs of the state as a whole.

Mr. Calcaterra stated, “Years from now, environmentalists, regulators, politicians and utilities will mourn the missed opportunities to think big if we don’t stop the target shooting and get down to some visionary planning-together.”

Hopefully the leaders of the power companies serving our state are having these discussions right now about divvying up ownership of the nuclear power plant under construction. The success of such collaboration would be a major breakthrough for the future of energy production efficiency in South Carolina.

Wednesday, October 6, 2010

The Un-American Chamber

All those angry voters in the country who are worried about foreign and multi-national corporations influencing our government and the shipping of American jobs overseas will probably end up voting the way those foreign corporations want them to vote.

A new report shows that donations from foreign corporations are being funneled into this year’s Congressional campaign advertising all through one organization's $75 million political effort—the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Corporations in China, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Russia and other countries are all trying to buy the most foreign-friendly Congress they can get. And the U.S. Chamber wants to deliver with a political advertising campaign that dwarfs the efforts of any other special interest group.

What are just some of the goals of foreign corporations?

 Defeating Congressional efforts to discourage out sourcing of jobs to other countries.
 Defeating Congressional efforts to put any controls on foreign oil companies.
 Defeating Congressional efforts to reign in free trade policies.
 Defeating Congressional efforts to stop foreign tax haven abuse that costs taxpayers over $30 billion a year.
 Defeating Congressional efforts to promote the purchasing of American manufactured goods.

The U.S. Chamber has adopted all the goals of their foreign contributors, all of which will hurt American small businesses. Yet the U.S. Chamber still tries to convince the public that they only want what is best for our country. The reality is that the U.S. Chamber only wants two things—power and money. And the latter gives them the former.

Is this foreign money in our Congressional races illegal? Yes it is.

The Department of Justice has been asked to investigate. But with only four weeks until the elections don’t look for anything to stop the U.S. Chamber‘s un-American campaign.

Monday, October 4, 2010

A horse is a horse, of course, of course . . .

Let’s stretch our imaginations for just a bit.

What if we discovered that every horse in the state was suffering from a disease that only affected horses? But the cost of the needed medicine was too much for horse owners to afford.

So a legislator running for a higher office, realizing that everyone loves horses, takes the issue straight on.

“We need to help promote the health of our horses,” she says. “So I propose that state government give a tax credit for medicine given to zebras, animals that I like to call horses.”

Huh?? “Ok, so zebras kind of look like a horse and they are genetically related but they are not horses. So how can giving a tax credit to medicine for zebras help horses,” everybody asked the political candidate?

“How dare you question the candidate,” lectured the candidate’s handler. “She visited zoos as a child and has watch plenty of old cowboy TV shows. She’s a big horse supporter and her proposal will help those important animals.”

The other candidate protested, the press pressed for an explanation and horse experts tried to explain to the uninformed that zebras were not horses so a medicine tax credit for zebras wasn’t going to help horses.

The moral of this bizarre story is that you can call a zebra a horse all you want but that doesn’t make it a horse.

This is where we are today with Nikki Haley and her proposal to help small businesses by eliminating the corporate income tax, something she likes to call a small business tax.

HORSE, HORSE, HORSE

Listen to this horse owner.

Very few small businesses, defined as those with 100 or fewer employees (97% of South Carolina’s businesses) pay corporate income taxes. The reason—we’re not set up as C-corporations for tax purpose. We’re S-corps, LLC’s, and sole-proprietors. Any profit we get from our business is reported on our personal income tax returns not a corporate tax return. So eliminating the corporate income tax won’t help most small businesses.

Haley can call the corporate income tax a small business tax all she wants but it doesn’t make it a horse.