Monday, April 30, 2012

377 Million reasons for small business to like Obamacare

One of the provisions of the Affordable Care Act--Obamacare--is the requirement that 80% to 85% of health insurance premiums go toward actual medical costs and not to overhead and profit of the insurers.  Otherwise the policy holder is due a refund at the end of the year.

This medical loss ratio went into effect in 2011.  Now we our learning exactly how beneficial this part of Obamacare is for the American public.

The Kaiser Family Foundation has estimated that small businesses are due about $377 million in health insurance rebates thanks to President Obama's healthcare reform.  Big business should receive about $541 in rebates and individuals about $426 million.

This is the second Obamacare provision that is making health insurance more affordable for small business.  Since the reform was signed into law in 2010, hundreds of thousands of qualifying small businesses have been receiving federal tax credits for offering health insurance as an employee benefit. 

And there is more good news on the healthcare front.  According to the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services health care spending nationally is experiencing its slowest rate of increase (4% a year) in 50 years.

Controlling health care costs was something that most of us felt that Obamacare did not sufficiently address.  And while the Great Recession has played a role in restraining healthcare spending over the last few years, experts agree that the economy doesn't deserve all the credit for bending the healthcare cost curve.

Here are some of the other explanations offered by health economists.

--many insurers and health systems are moving to accountable care that rewards quality of care not quantity, focusing on patient follow-up to insure physician instructions and medication regiments are being kept in order to prevent expensive visits to the hospital.
--there has been an increase in high-deductible health plans that require people to pay more out of their pockets for healthcare costs before insurance benefits kick in resulting in people opting not to seek medical attention, even vaccinations (i.e. self-imposed healthcare rationing).
--a lack of expensive new drugs hitting the market and more emphasis on using generics is holding back increases in pharmaceutical costs—a  major healthcare spending driver.
--efforts to reduce medical errors that result in expensive and needless healthcare services are working.

But in addition to all these contributing tangible factors is the meaningful, if hard to measure, effect of the country’s attention being focused on the need for healthcare reform.

According to Mark McClellan, President George W. Bush’s Medicare and Medicaid director, past slowdowns in healthcare spending “have occurred not just because of the direct effect of reforms, but because of greater attention to reforms changing provider and patient behavior.”

When we all are talking about a problem and what to do about it, that alone can change our behavior.  Patients are a little more willing to take care of themselves and be more thoughtful in the medical services they seek.  Doctors and hospitals are a little more aware of the cost of procedures and best practices.  And insurers are a little more demanding on healthcare providers and a little less on raising premiums.

And there has certainly been no one who has directed the public’s attention to the healthcare crisis and reforms than President Obama.  For that alone he deserves enormous credit.




Friday, April 27, 2012

Two small business polls you should read

What do the small business owners in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, Nevada and Colorado have in common with those across the country?  On political demographics and opinions on some important issues apparently a lot.
Earlier this year a national survey of small business owners commissioned by the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business Majority found that 50% of the business owners identified as Republican or independents leaning Republican, 32% as Democrat or independents leaning Democratic and 15% as independents (not leaning toward either party).
A Small Business Majority poll released this week of small business owners in the 6 states mentioned above found that 44% identified as Republican, 38% as Democrat, and 10% as independent. 
Small business owners in both polls found high support for the federal government’s efforts to protect the environment.
In the national poll 61% supported moving the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy and 79% supported ensuring clean air and water.  The states’ poll “found that 71% of small business owners agree government has a role in driving our country toward a cleaner, more competitive economy” and 76% favored “the EPA’s federal rule that new power plants reduce previously unlimited emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.”  The states’ poll also found a majority of small business owners (58%) supporting the government investing in renewable energy “despite the failure of Solyndra.”
The two polls also found similar results relating to the continued off-base criticism in Washington that regulations are a primary concern of small businesses.  In both polls, small business owners ranked regulations way down on their list of problems—4th in the national poll and 5th in the states’ poll.
A sign that the economy is improving at a good pace can be found in the responses to both poll’s question of what is the biggest problem facing small businesses. 
The national poll conducted primarily in December of this past year found that the number one problem for small business owners at 34% was weak customer demand.  But in the states’ poll conducted just last month lack of customer demand came in 3rd as the top problems at only 24%. 
Now that’s great news.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Investing in Main Street Instead of Just Wall Street


BloombergBusinessweek
Small Business
April 25, 2012

For a certain breed of conscious consumer, shopping locally is paramount. It signals support for independent stores over big chains, urban downtowns over sprawling shopping centers, small farmers and craftsmen over multinationals. The theory is that a bigger piece of each dollar spent locally stays in the community, as those business owners buy from local suppliers and reinvest profits close to home.
Even the most dedicated local shoppers, however, have trouble extending that philosophy to their savings. While some people have shifted deposits out of Wall Street banks and into local lenders and credit unions, most investors have no way to steer portions of their long-term savings, such as retirement accounts, to Main Street companies. “There are 7,500 mutual funds. Not one invests in local businesses,” says Michael Shuman, an economist and author of Local Dollars, Local Sense (Chelsea Green, 2012).
Shuman and other supporters of local investing hope the new law enabling crowdfunding will make it simpler to include local businesses in investment portfolios alongside the S&P 500. Right now it’s difficult to do, but Shuman expects companies and nonprofits interested in local investing to begin building the tools to make it easier. Small businesses seeking capital will need software to help them meet heightened financial reporting requirements under the new law, he says, and investors will want arm’s-length evaluators to vet offerings. Mechanisms such as self-directed IRAs could be used to direct some retirement money into local businesses.
One of the inspirations for the new crowdfunding exemption was a petition to the Securities and Exchange Commission two years ago to allow businesses to raise up to $100,000 with no more than $100 coming from each investor. The author of that plan, Jenny Kassan, is chief executive of Cutting Edge Capital, a financial consulting firm in Oakland, Calif., that helps small businesses raise money through lesser-used exemptions in securities laws. (Shuman is a researcher there.)
What eventually passed into law is much broader than Kassan’s original idea: People will be able to invest $2,000 or 5 percent to 10 percent of their wealth, depending on their earnings and net worth. “Under this law, you can raise more, you can have more per investor, but it’s also much more highly regulated,” Kassan says.
The SEC still has to write the rules for how crowdfunding will work. Kassan says it might be two years before anyone starts raising money through crowdfunding, and other exemptions may still be better choices for businesses looking to raise money.
While concerns about fraud or just plain lousy investments abound, investing in local businesses is one way to give people some measure of confidence about where their money is going. Shuman sees it as a potential fit for “any business with a fairly consistent and loyal clientele, where the purchase of the security is another piece of that loyalty,” he says. “These are businesses that have been around for a long time. You say, ‘That’s a part of my community. Sure, I’ll invest in that.’”
Still, investors should go in with eyes wide open. Investing locally may involve higher risks, lower returns, and almost certainly less liquidity than more conventional investments. Frank Knapp, president of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and a supporter of local investing, says investors will be motivated as much by opportunity to aid a treasured local restaurant or indie bookseller as they are by the potential financial return.
“If they make it, wonderful. If they don’t, you know, I helped, we tried to help,” he says. “You’re investing in your local community. You believe in it, you want it to grow. You’re not risking a lot. You’re going to live there, your kids are going to grow up there. If you can maybe make something back on your investment, great.”

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Military base closures and corporate taxes . . . time to connect the dots

States and communities in many areas of the country are gearing up to protect their military bases from closures expected.  The reason given for the closures is the need to reduce the nation’s defense budget by $600 billion to address the country’s debt problem.
South Carolina has a Military Base Task Force that will try to convince the Pentagon to leave its state military bases alone and push the debt relief burden onto other states—cut them, not us.
But if the problem is not sufficient revenue, why is there never a mention by economic leaders of finding more money?  If our state and local economies will so devastated by base closures, why aren’t all the solutions on the table?
Tonight at 6:30 come see the independent film WE’RE NOT BROKE at the USC Law School auditorium (701 S. Main Street, Columbia).  Admission is free.  One solution to the hand-wringing by our business and political leaders over base closures will be on the silver screen—multinational corporations not paying their fair share of U.S. taxes. 
You’ll see a big reason for our debt problem, how these corporations avoid paying taxes and what to do about it.  Every member of the S.C. Military Base Task Force (and every taxpayer) should see this film to have their eyes opened and solution to their problem presented. 
WE’RE NOT BROKE.  Be there with me tonight at 6:30.  http://www.werenotbrokemovie.com/

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Independent Film Documents Lost U.S. Taxes

First screening in South Carolina April 25
 “We’re Not Broke” is a timely independent film documenting big corporations hiding over a trillion dollars from Uncle Sam.  The film was selected to be screened at this year’s Sundance Film Festival as well as the film festivals in Boston and Dallas.
**Public screening will be April 25 at 6:30 p.m. in the USC School of Law auditorium,
701 S. Main Street, Columbia.  Free admission.**
Columbia, SC—America is in the grip of a societal economic panic.  Lawmakers cry “We’re Broke!” as they slash budgets, lay off schoolteachers, police and firefighters, crumbling our country’s social fabric and leaving many Americans scrambling to survive.  Meanwhile, multibillion-dollar American corporations like Exxon, Google and Bank of America are making record profits.  And while the deficit climbs and the cuts go deeper, these corporations—with intimate ties to our political leaders—are concealing colossal profits overseas to avoid paying U.S. income tax.
WE’RE NOT BROKE is the story of how U.S. corporations have been able to hide over a trillion dollars from Uncle Sam, and how seven fed-up Americans from across the county. Take their frustration to the streets . . . and vow to make corporations pay their fair share.
“Our state economic leaders are very concerned about possible military base closings,” said Frank Knapp, Jr., president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.  “WE’RE NOT BROKE helps us connect the dots between big U.S. corporations avoiding paying taxes and the lack of federal dollars needed to keep our military bases open.” 
“This is also about our small businesses not being able to compete with big corporations because we pay our fair share of taxes and many of them do not,” said Mr. Knapp who appears in the film.
Attending the screening of WE’RE NOT BROKE will be Karin Hayes, producer, writer and director of the film.  Ms. Hayes and Mr. Knapp will answer questions following the screening. Dr. John Ruoff will also participate in post-screening discussion about corporate taxation.
--WWW.WERENOTBROKEMOVIE.COM--

Monday, April 23, 2012

Action Alert!!

Solar tax credits for commercial buildings
Contact Senators before noon Tuesday
The Senate Finance Committee will vote on H.3346 this Tuesday afternoon at 3PM.  The bill provides for tax credits for the installation of solar equipment on commercial buildings.  This will make solar energy more affordable for small businesses to address the ever escalating energy costs.  It will also jump-start a small business solar industry in our state.
Please contact the Senators below before noon on Tuesday (April 24th).
The message is:
Please vote YES on H.3346 to help make solar equipment for small commercial buildings more affordable and encourage the growth of a solar industry.
Senate Finance Committee (click on name to send email)

Leatherman, Hugh K., Sr., Chairman         (803) 212-6640
Land, John C., III                                         (803) 212-6180
Setzler, Nikki G.                                            (803) 212-6140
Leventis, Phil P.                                             (803) 212-6000
Peeler, Harvey S., Jr.                                    (803) 212-6430
Thomas, David L.                                         (803) 212-6240
McGill, J. Yancey                                          (803) 212-6132
Courson, John E.                                          (803) 212-6250
Matthews, John W., Jr.                                (803) 212-6056
O'Dell, William H.                                         (803) 212-6040
Reese, Glenn G.                                             (803) 212-6108
Hayes, Robert W., Jr.                                   (803) 212-6410
Ryberg, W. Greg                                           (803) 212-6320
Alexander, Thomas C.                                  (803) 212-6220
Grooms, Lawrence K. "Larry"                   (803) 212-6400
Pinckney, Clementa C.                                 (803) 212-6148
Fair, Michael L.                                             (803) 212-6420
Verdin, Daniel B. "Danny", III                   (803) 212-6230
Cromer, Ronnie W.                                      (803) 212-6330
Bryant, Kevin L.                                           (803) 212-6024
Elliott, Dick                                                    (803) 212-6116
Jackson, Darrell                                            (803) 212-6048
Anderson, Ralph                                           (803) 212-6032


Friday, April 20, 2012

Bucking the leadership

Yesterday, as expected, the U.S. House passed Majority Leader Cantor’s bill that would cut a small business owner’s tax on profits by 20% for 2012 only.  The bill’s intent, according to the supporters, is to spur job creation.  In my blog on Wednesday I explained why this would be a $46 billion debt-increasing failure in promoting hiring.
While the legislation passed mostly along party lines, Ten GOP House members did buck their leadership.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) argued that the bill would not “promote economic growth because it does little to reward new productivity at the margin.”  “At best it produces a one-year ‘sugar-high’ until the bills come due,” he said on the House floor.
And South Carolina Representative Mick Mulvaney also voted against this bill.  Lately Mr. Mulvaney has had considerable publicity in expressing his dissatisfaction with his GOP House leadership over financial issues using words like “embarrassment” and “disingenuous”.    
On this vote, Mr. Mulvaney got it right.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Eliminating Saturday postal service would hurt our competitive advantage

The Washington Post
April 15, 2012
By Tim Smith, owner Papa Jazz Record Shoppe in Columbia, S.C.

For 33 years, my business — Papa Jazz Record Shoppe in Columbia, S.C. — has been a cornerstone of the trendy Five Points shopping area of our capital city. As a small, independent retail establishment, we have weathered the ups and downs of the economy and fought to establish our niche in the record market.
Our single brick and mortar location, with seven full-time employees, has grown to not only serve our university community but to also supply music to regional, national and global markets. By adapting to the times, we have continued our success locally and online with e-commerce channels, such as eBay and Amazon, now accounting for upwards of 15 to 20 percent of our business.
But the success of our business model is now being threatened by proposals to end the United States Postal Service’s (USPS) Saturday public operations, and possibly close many rural post offices. Taking orders for our products online is only part of our e-commerce success. The USPS is the other essential part.
Shipping via USPS provides us a huge competitive edge and enables us to get products out to customers six days a week in a very cost-effective manner. Once someone places and pays for an order, we ship it out immediately. If someone places an order late Friday, the product will still ship on Saturday.
If Saturday shipping via USPS is no longer an option, an order that was paid for on Friday won’t go out until Monday. This takes away a huge part of what sets us apart from our competitors who mainly ship Monday through Friday. Since the late 1990s, Internet sales have kept us profitable during turbulent economic times. Our commitment and ability to ship on Saturdays has been a contributing factor.
In addition, USPS’s comparatively inexpensive rates have traditionally kept costs down for Papa Jazz. If we are forced to use another shipping service, such as UPS or FedEx, on Saturdays, our shipping costs will go up significantly, cutting even more into our narrow profit margin or increasing costs to our customers. The latter will result in many of our customers no longer doing business with us online. From experience, we know the tipping point for goods and shipping costs after which customer sales will drop off. With the current USPS rate structure, and even with a slight increase, if necessary, our shipping costs are in the acceptable range for customers. The same cannot be said if we are forced to use UPS or FedEx.
But shipping to our customers is not our only concern. Many of the products we receive are sent to us via USPS. If our customer suppliers have to pay more to send us their products on a Saturday (often the only time people have for these matters), that will increase our purchasing costs. This extra cost must then be passed on to our customers, which will decrease our sales.
We are only one of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of small businesses, across the nation that would be losing out if Saturday USPS delivery were eliminated. It is imperative that Congress hear our voices either individually or through organizations such as the American Sustainable Business Council, a network of socially responsible companies. The decision to close the USPS on Saturdays would have serious financial consequences for my small business and many, many more.

Wednesday, April 18, 2012

We’re not succumbing to the dark side

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has a plan that is scheduled to be taken up by the House tomorrow.  On the surface it looks like one of those political gimmicks that partisans like to feign outrange about.
Mr. Cantor proposes that small businesses with pass-through income (S-Corp, partnership) should have their 2012 tax obligation on business profit reduced by 20% if they have a non-owner/director employee.  With that, he insists, we will inspire small business owners to hire more workers, which will justify the added $46 billion to our national debt over 10 years.
The proposal probably sounds like a great job creation plan to the public but it is laughable to most real small business owners. 
This tax reduction would average about $6500 for a small business according to the Joint Committee on Taxation.  But that figure is the average that 99% of small businesses would get.  The wealthiest 1% of small business owners will receive 60% of the tax benefits according to the Tax Policy Center.  The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center estimates that nearly half of this $46 billion tax cut will go to people with incomes over $1 million a year.
So are real small businesses going to hire a new employee with their one-time only tax cut?  Not likely.
Small business owners don’t make hiring decisions based on personal income.  Hiring decisions are based on demand for goods and services.  If the demand does not increase, a slight increase of income to the owner will not make them hire unnecessary workers that will add much more costs to their business.
What will small business owners do with any “windfall”?  All the ones I’ve talked to over the last few days simply say they will put it into a retirement plan or use the money in some other personal way but not create a job.
But there are even more insidious consequences if this ineffective gimmick became law other than the obvious partisan victory and funneling more money to the wealthiest Americans.   Adding more to the debt will gin up more calls to cut non-military programs—the exact programs, like investing in infrastructure to create jobs and workforce development, which small businesses need for a healthy Main Street economy. 
Just as bad would be co-opting small business owners to be no better than multinational corporations—only being interested in increasing profit by not paying their fair share of taxes rather than investing in a strong, sustainable local and national economy.  That is a path small business owners can’t take because that is not who we are.

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Buffett Rule trumped by filibuster rule

In spite of a majority of Senators voting to pass the Buffett Rule creating a minimum tax rate for those making over a million a year, the bill failed.  Along an almost straight party line vote, the Buffett rule did not muster the 60 votes needed to stop a potential filibuster.
With 60%of the public and 57% of small business owners supporting a minimum tax rate on incomes over a million a year, the nation’s wealthiest can sleep well this tax day knowing that the our federal tax inequality is safe, at least for now.  
But the executive director of Center for Community Change, Deepak Bhargava, says in an opinion editorial in The Hill’s Congress Blog today that a tax revolt 2.0 is brewing.  According to Mr. Bhargava, the old Grover Norquist-style tax revolt has passed “like the Cold War or the fax machine.” 
Well, just like I still sometimes use a fax machine, the “never-raise-taxes” revolt is not completely dead.
Yesterday I participated in the national Buffett Rule battle and appeared for a live cut-in on Fox Business News. (No, Hell hasn’t frozen over but Fox did fail to identify me as the Vice-Chair of the American Sustainable Business Council even though that is how I received the invite.)
You can see the clip here. 
Now on to House Majority Leader Cantor’s bill to cut small business taxes on profit by 20% with the absurd prediction that this will inspire job creation.  More on this tomorrow.

Monday, April 16, 2012

Titanic tax lessons

Today the U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on the Buffett Rule that would require those making over $1 million a year to pay a minimum tax rate of 30% to put them in line with the average middle class American.  Supporters of the proposal say that this is a matter of tax equity requiring the wealthiest to pay their fair share.  Critics say that Buffett Rule seeks to divide the country and punish the wealthy.

Well, let’s say that we’re all on a big cruise ship, an appropriate analogy given all the media attention about the Titanic.

Our cruise ship has developed a whole in the hull of the ship but unlike the Titanic the amount of water coming in is manageable if all on board help bail.  According to the ship’s rules almost all adult passengers are issued a three-gallon bucket for the task and instructed to fill the bucket to the extent of their physical ability.  Those with more physical strength would be expected to lift heavier buckets than those who are less able. 

But the ship’s rules say that first-class passengers on the cruise are only issued tea cups for them to help keep the ship from sinking.    

Well it wouldn’t take long for the rank-and-file passengers to start complaining about this situation and demanding that the first-class passengers also be given a bucket so that they can do their fair share of the work.

Can you imagine the riot if those first-class passengers proclaimed that such a request to change the rules is divisive and meant to simply punish the wealthy for being so successful that they can afford a first-class cabin?

That’s what we have with the Buffett Rule.  The wealthiest Americans aren’t doing their fair share of the bailing.  And it’s not just the deficit waters that need to be eliminated, our ship needs to be reinforced with a stronger infrastructure so that the ship can not only get back on course but also be safer in future rough waters.  But the wealthy don’t want to lend a hand on that either even though they would benefit also.

Passing the Buffett Rule is doing nothing more that changing the rules on this ship that is sinking.  It’s a matter of tax fairness and strengthening our economy.  We’re all on board this economic ship and bailing us out of danger can’t be done with some of us using a tea cup.

Thursday, April 12, 2012

Small business leaders spotlight high cost of corporate tax dodging

New U.S. PIRG Report Highlights Negative Impact of Tax Haven Abuse
 on Small Businesses, Ordinary Taxpayers

 Washington, DC – Today, Representative Chris Van Hollen, Business for Shared Prosperity (BSP), the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and the Main Street Alliance (MSA) joined U.S. PIRG in unveiling its new report, “Picking Up the Tab: Average Citizens and Small Businesses Pay the Price for Offshore Tax Havens.”

U.S. multinational corporations should not be rewarded for hurting our Main Street economy by shielding money in tax haven countries, moving jobs offshore and using tricky accounting maneuvers to avoid paying taxes,” said Joseph Rotella, owner of Spencer Organ Company in Waltham, Mass. and a member of Business for Shared Prosperity.Taxes are not just numbers in spreadsheets. They provide the revenues that pay for public safety, public schools, public transportation and other infrastructure and services that businesses and customers rely on. We need to stop the tax haven abuse that lets big corporations avoid paying their fair share and gives them an unfair advantage in the marketplace.”

The U.S. PIRG report illustrates the high cost of corporate tax avoidance by using data from the Census Bureau and U.S. Senate to calculate the amount small businesses would need to pay if they were to compensate for the annual $60 billion in tax revenue lost because of corporate tax dodging through offshore tax havens. According to the report, small businesses with fewer than 100 employees would have to pay on average an additional $2,116 in taxes to make up for the large shortfall in revenues.

A recent national, independent survey also revealed that 91 percent of small business owners agreed that U.S. multinational corporations’ use of accounting loopholes to avoid taxes by shifting profits offshore is a problem. Moreover, three out of four owners said loopholes allowing big corporations to avoid taxes harmed their small business.

“America’s corporate profits as a share of our nation’s economy are at a 50-year high, yet at the same time corporate taxes as a share of our economy are at a 50-year low,” said Scott Klinger, director of tax policy for BSP and ASBC. “Big business tax avoidance has increased the pressure for deep budget cutbacks, draining our nation of the strategic investments needed to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and support the education, research and development underpinning economic success.”

BSP, ASBC and MSA have sponsored a petition calling for strong legislation to stop tax haven abuse, signed by more than 1,100 business owners and leaders to date. Specifically, the organizations have endorsed the Stop Tax Haven Abuse Act and the CUT Loopholes Act, legislation sponsored by Senator Carl Levin to rein in tax haven abuse and recover lost revenues.

Read the U.S. PIRG report here: http://uspirg.org/reports/usp/picking-tab

###

Business for Shared Prosperity is a network of forward thinking business owners, executives and investors. BSP has organized petitions for positive tax reform and for ending tax haven abuse and produced related reports. BSP is a member of the American Sustainable Business Council. www.businessforsharedprosperity.org

The American Sustainable Business Council is a growing coalition of business networks representing over 100,000 companies and 200,000 business leaders. ASBC advocates for public policies that meet the realities of the 21st century global economy. www.asbcouncil.org

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Look who wants more regulations

There are approximately 12,600 registered lobbyists in Washington (including one of the newest-- Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia’s son Eugene).  Spending on lobbying activities last year was about $3.3 billion according to the Center for Responsive Politics.  Much of all this lobbying power has recently been aimed at convincing our elected and non-elected officials that all government rules and regulations are evil, contrived by haters of free enterprise and therefore are… (wait for it)…JOB KILLING REGULATIONS.
Of course this phony argument is being peddled primarily by the carbon and financial industries trying to maximize their profits at the expense of the public’s health and safety, consumers’ financial protection and a fair playing field for small businesses to compete.  Polls continue to show that the public and even small business owners understand the importance of regulations.  And apparently, so do Washington lobbyists.  
The American League of Lobbyists (LDA) approved a proposal this week to support new regulations on lobbyists.  Not only do the lobbyists want more regulation of their profession, they want better enforcement of the regulations. 
The LDA wants tougher registration requirements that will result in more influence peddlers registering with the government and be subject to all the public disclosure laws.  It wants regulations to require faster reporting of new clients, mandatory ethics training and no more registrations exemptions for state, local and federal government employees.  The LDA also wants to move enforcement of the regulations from the U.S. Attorney’s Office to the stricter Justice Department’s Foreign Agents Registration Unit.
Why this new found love of regulations by the same lobbyists trying to deregulate every other industry? 
It turns out that the lobbyists are concerned for the public good and fair competition.  Sound familiar?
According to the story in The Hill, the LDA wants to “help rebuild public trust in Washington”.
“If people don’t have confidence in their system of government, we’re in sad shape, and I think that has been one of the things that has been happening,” says Howard Marlowe, LDA president.
But the newly proposed regulations are not just good for the public; they are also good for lobbyists. 
Lobbyists, like every other trade organization, want to improve the professionalism of their industry and to protect their members from unfair competition.  The proposed regulations would level the playing field for all those seriously lobbying in Washington by requiring all of them to be regulated to higher standards.
But while the LDA is lobbying Congress for more regulations on their members, don’t expect to hear the phrase “JOB KILLING REGULATIONS” used in their effort.  Even if the LDA is successful, there will be more registered lobbyists next year and the year after that and the year after that and …..

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Gas prices

Driving home yesterday evening I received a pleasant surprise.  In the last several days the gas station that I usually frequent had let its gas price rise by 6 cents a gallon in the last few days.  For several weeks the price had stayed the same—an indication that I hoped meant gas prices had stabilized. 
After all, a Reuters story on Sunday said that gas price increases had slowed dramatically nationwide and were in fact dropping in cities like Chicago, Los Angeles and markets in the West and Midwest.  Because some refineries have closed, the remaining are under less pressure to raise prices to make margins because they are producing more. 
Demand at home are not driving prices up because U.S. consumers are using 4% less from a year ago.  And the reality is that our nation is awash with oil with Saudi Arabia having increased shipments to the U.S. by 25% in the first quarter of this year and just contracted with an oil tanker company to keep that supply level coming.  Even the Saudi Oil Minister has said that recent oil prices are unjustified.
But in spite of all these good signs there was that slight increase in gas at my station over the last few days. 
So just as I was ready to turn my wrath on the petroleum industry and Wall Street traders for unjustified gas price hikes, the price dropped a few pennies and let the air out of my anger.  But if prices don’t keep coming down as they should, I’ll be back on the attack.

Monday, April 9, 2012

Supreme Court loses more public trust after partisan comments during “Obamacare” hearing

The following is an excerpt from an opinion editorial by Juan Williams that appears in today’s The Hill.

A Pew poll from last week found that 21 percent of Americans have a less favorable view of the Court after oral arguments in the healthcare case. Only 7 percent report a more favorable view. . .

According to polls, the overall level of public respect for the court is fading fast as it becomes just another venue for the polarized tug of war between liberals and conservatives. A January 2012 poll from the Kaiser Family Foundation found that 75 percent of Americans believe Supreme Court justices let their own ideological views influence their decisions while only 17 percent think the justices decide cases based on legal analysis. The Gallup poll finds that public trust in the high court has declined from 50 percent 10 years ago to 37 percent today.
Starting with its unprecedented decision in Bush v. Gore -- where the Court effectively decided a presidential election in favor of Republican George W. Bush -- and followed by the Citizens United case opening the door to big money dominating campaigns, the Court is increasingly seen as just another manifestation of the right-left polarization that characterizes American politics in the 21st century. The image of the justices rising above politics is close to a historical artifact. 
The reason is clear: The frequency of 5-4 decisions on hot-button political issues in recent years has caused many people to believe that justice is not blind to politics or the influence of money. . . .

Friday, April 6, 2012

How Everyone Else Pays for Big Business's Tax Breaks

US  News and World Report
April 5, 2012
Families and small businesses pick up the tab for egregious tax loopholes exploited by corporations
Some politicians might believe that "corporations are people," as former Gov. Mitt Romney declared last year.
At tax time, however, corporations enjoy better treatment than ordinary folks. While millions of individual Americans file last-minute income tax returns this month, some major corporations won't pay a dime despite reaping record profits.
From 2008 to 2010, the 280 most profitable U.S. corporations sheltered half of their profits from taxes, thanks to tax subsidies totaling nearly $224 billion, according to a 2011 analysis by Citizens for Tax Justice. A dozen large companies, including Exxon-Mobil, Boeing, and General Electric, reaped $175 billion in profits, but their combined tax rate was negative 1.4 percent, thanks to $64 billion in subsidies from oil depletion allowances, write-offs from overseas profits, and other loopholes, according to the study.
These subsidies didn't just come about by accident—at least 30 Fortune 500 firms pay their lobbyists more than they pay in taxes. Most small businesses can't afford lobbyists, so it's no surprise that the benefits of tax loopholes flow mainly to Wall Street, not Main Street.
Thanks to these loopholes, probably no major company pays the full federal corporate tax rate of 35 percent. The highest three-year average effective rate paid by any of the 12 large corporations in the Citizens for Tax Justice study was 14.2 percent—less than many middle class families.
That's the kind of sweetheart deal most taxpayers—and most small businesses—can only dream about. We do, however, get to pick up the tab for these costly tax breaks. For starters, when corporations shirk billions of dollars in federal taxes, middle class taxpayers must bear more of the cost of national defense, healthcare, and other necessary programs.
Then there is the effect on state and local services, most notably education.
Most states mirror federal tax loopholes, and many states also provide tax subsidies for companies just to locate within their borders. Total state and local tax subsidies to business add up to about $70 billion a year. That windfall for big business comes at the expense of students. Over the past three years local school districts have cut 238,000 education jobs, which means more students crammed into larger classes and fewer opportunities for extra tutoring or after-school programs. Middle class families have also had to foot a larger share of the bill for higher education, as total state funding has declined 3.8 percent over the last five years.
Small businesses also pay a price for corporate handouts. Not only is the tax burden shifted to companies that can't afford to game the system, but small businesses rely on public education to train skilled workers and teach them how to think critically. When Spencer Organ Company, Inc. was founded in 1995, many of the people who applied for jobs not only had basic reading and math skills—they also had been exposed to music education and had learned to use tools in shop classes, knowledge that is useful in the organ restoration business. Today, after years of curriculum cutbacks, most students have not had those opportunities, a shift that translates to higher training costs for this small business.
Our nation built the most prosperous economy in history during the 20th century, and public education was a foundation of that success. We all have a responsibility to provide similar opportunities for future generations to succeed, and our biggest corporations must do their fair share. After all, the same people who own stock in these companies also have a stake in America's future.
Joseph Rotella is founder and president of Spencer Organ Company, Inc. in Waltham, Mass. Dennis Van Roekel is a math teacher and president of the National Education Association.