According to a new Wells Fargo/Gallup Small Businesssurvey, Obamacare can’t get here quick enough.The poll released this week found that 54% of the small business owners
surveyed said that healthcare costs were hurting their operations a lot and 19%
said hurting them a little.
Now what Gallup doesn’t tell us is whether these
business owners presently are providing healthcare to their employees or aspire
to do so if costs can be brought down.But either way, healthcare continues to be on the minds of small
businesses.
The hope is that Obamacare will start bending the
curve of healthcare costs to make insurance more affordable.That’s the goal.But one thing we know for sure, the status
quo before healthcare reform wasn’t getting the job done.
Americans
have long supported the idea that the federal government has a role to play
in keeping poisonous substances out of our food, homes, and workplaces. And
over the past 40 years, as new chemicals have been developed, the Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) have identified new cancer risks that have emerged.
So
why is a small, independent office in the Small Business Administration
commenting on these scientific assessments, even though staff at the office
admit they have no expertise in these areas?
Our
report – based on correspondence from Freedom of Information Act
requests – shows that lobbyists for trade associations dominated by large
chemical companies asked the Office of Advocacy to get involved, and it
agreed to do so. Its comments mirrored their talking points instead of
representing the views of small business owners.
Effective
government advances the priorities of the American people, not Big Business
lobbyists and their trade associations. The Office of Advocacy should support
and reinforce the work of other agencies, not delay scientific findings that
can improve the health and welfare of American families.
We
would like to see a GAO investigation into the activities of the Office of
Advocacy and more congressional oversight to ensure it focuses on helping
small businesses meet environmental goals, not on helping Big Business hide
the environmental impacts of its products.
The new leader of the South Carolina Senate Democratic
Caucus, Nikki Setzler, has a reputation as a respected problem-solver who works
well across party lines.This Wednesday
he will be having breakfast with the state’s Republican Governor, Nikki Haley
(no relationJ),
for a bipartisan discussion on improving the funding formula for K-12 public
education.
This overture by the Governor hopefully signals a
better working relationship not only between Democratic legislators and the Governor
but also between her and legislators in her own party.
If the two Nikki’s develop a good working
relationship on the issue of education funding, hopefully that good will can
spread to other important issues for the state’s small businesses.
Senator Setzler laid out two laid of these issues in
an opinion editorial this past Friday in The
State.
Our state’s economy is improving, but it still lags the
national economy. Our state must continue to recruit large employers, but we
must have an equal focus on small businesses. The state’s Department of
Commerce needs a small-business division charged with recruiting and supporting
small businesses, which create the majority of the jobs in South Carolina.
Often, it’s small businesses that are on the cutting edge of technology, and
South Carolina needs to support these entrepreneurs.
South Carolina needs to ensure access to medical
care for its residents. It’s a way to invest in the wellbeing of our people and
maintain a healthy and vibrant workforce. The U.S. Supreme Court has spoken:
The Affordable Care Act is the law of the land. Washington politics should not
be our politics. As legislators, we need to provide a better quality of life
for our residents. By expanding our state’s Medicaid program to cover the
poorest of the poor, we can do just that.
Having the Department of Commerce put boots on the
ground to help local communities grow small businesses has been a long time
goal of the S.C. Small Business Chamber.Expanding Medicaid will benefit small businesses by creating a healthier
workforce and making health insurance more affordable for business owners.
So good luck to Senator Setzler this week.His breakfast with the Governor is about more
than education—it’s about making South Carolina more small business friendly.
After
hundreds of thousands of calls and a million signatures on petitions, the U.S.
Senate failed yesterday to agree on significant changes to its filibuster rules.A super majority of 60 votes will still be
needed to pass legislation and the minority will still control much of the
Senate’s process.
There
will be no “talking filibuster” that would force Senators who want to thwart a
majority from voting on a bill to actually hold the floor and debate.Those who want to delay votes don’t have to
produce 40 Senators to do so but the majority still has to come up with 60
votes to end a debate.
But the Senate did agree to some procedural changes that should help.
Senator
Elizabeth Warren said, “It’s some change in a Senate committed to no
change. So that’s important.”
"The agreement that's been struck is a combination of rules and behavioral changes, and not as strong what many of us have been advocating,” said Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) a leading proponent of the talking filibuster. “However, it alters the way we deal with nominations, conference committees and motions to proceed -- all things I've been working toward.”
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Udall’s partner in calling for bold reform, said: “I’m
disappointed that we didn’t take a bolder step to fix the Senate, but what is most
important today is the deep determination of Senators to return the Senate to a more functional institution.
“If the modest steps taken today do not end the paralysis the Senate currently suffers, many Senators are determined to revisit this debate and explore stronger remedies,” he added.
In 2015 the Senate can again revisit its
rules.We’ll find out very soon if it will
be two more years of dysfunctionality.
The latest (see below) on the effort to reform the
U.S. Senate’s filibuster rules that have led to paralysis in that body are
paying off.Thanks for all the calls you
have made.
The next 24 to 36 hours are critical for you to
contact Senator Harry Reid’s office and ask him to support the “talking
filibuster”.Read
more about this issue by clicking here.
Call
202-224-3541 and ask Senator Reid to support the “talking filibuster” today.
The
Hill
Filibuster
reform is a headache for Reid
By Alexander Bolton - 01/22/13 08:25 PM ET
Filibuster reform has become a headache
for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).
Reid is stuck in the middle, between
liberal senators pushing hard for drastic reform and senior Democrats balking
at changing the culture of the upper chamber.
Powerful liberal groups and left-leaning
lawmakers see filibuster reform as necessary to advancing President Obama’s
second-term agenda, which includes immigration reform and gun-control
legislation.
“The president can’t act on
legislation if the Senate can’t act on legislation, and therefore it’s so
important that we end the secret silent filibuster that has plagued this body,”
said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), a leading proponent of reform.
A coalition of
liberal groups met at the headquarters of the National Education Association
(NEA) shortly after Obama won reelection to set strategy for advancing his
second-term agenda. One of the primary goals emerging from the meeting was
enacting filibuster reform.
Senate Democrats
debated how to proceed during a lunch meeting that stretched for more than an
hour Tuesday — and left the room with little resolved.
Reid has begun to
show signs of impatience with Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.),
with whom he has been negotiating for weeks. He said Tuesday that he and
McConnell have made progress, but added, “[W]e’ve got a long way to go.”
The Nevada
Democrat said he would give Republicans another 24 to 36 hours to agree to
filibuster reform and then trigger the so-called nuclear option. This
controversial tactic would allow him to change the Senate rules with a simple
majority vote.
“I hope within the
next 24 to 36 hours we can get something we agree on. If not, we’re going to
move forward on what I think needs to be done. The caucus will support me on
that,” Reid told reporters.
Although its use
has been threatened in the past to spur the minority party to agree to reforms,
the nuclear option has never been used to change the standing rules, say
parliamentary experts.
Reid has come
under heavy pressure from liberal advocacy groups to drastically limit the
minority party’s power to filibuster and delay legislation.
The Progressive
Change Campaign Committee on Tuesday launched a 36-hour pressure campaign
targeting Democratic senators to back using the nuclear option to implement an
ambitious reform package.
Liberal activists
have mobilized to press senior and centrist Democrats to endorse the package
crafted by Sens. Merkley, Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). At the
bill’s heart is the talking-filibuster reform, which would require lawmakers
who want to block legislation to actively hold the floor and debate for hours.
If there is no further debate, the Senate would proceed to a simple majority
vote.
Their measure
would also prohibit filibusters on motions to proceed to new business, expedite
the process for sending Senate legislation to conference negotiations with the
House and reduce the amount of floor time needed to move nominees once the
Senate has voted to end debate on them.
Reid, however, has
received pushback from senior and centrist Democrats such as Sens. Carl Levin
(Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and
Mark Pryor (Ark.), who are not fond of the nuclear option.
“I have not
favored that approach. I have a lot of troubles with the nuclear option for the
same reasons as then-Sen. Kennedy and then-Sen. Biden and a lot of senators
have had with amending the rules by majority vote when the rules call for
two-thirds vote,” Levin said in reference to former Sen. Edward Kennedy
(D-Mass.) and Vice President Biden, who served 36 years in the Senate.
“I have expressed
very major concerns with using the constitutional option,” Levin added, using a
term favored by Merkley and Udall, who argue the Constitution empowers the
majority leader to set the Senate’s rules on the first day of a new Congress.
Feinstein has also
weighed in, hampering Reid’s leverage in talks with McConnell.
“I would hope that
we wouldn’t have to use the nuclear option. I would hope that the two parties
can agree, and there’s some indication that that might happen,” she said.
In a statement
released Tuesday evening, Merkley said, “Leader Reid has left open two paths to
rules changes. … We face big challenges, and we can’t tackle those challenges
if we miss this rare opportunity to end the paralysis of the Senate.”
The White House
supports filibuster reform, but has not endorsed a specific bill.
Reid has extended
the first legislative day of the 113th Congress indefinitely to prolong the
threat of the nuclear or constitutional option and give himself more leverage
with McConnell. Extending the first legislative day still allows senators to debate
and vote on legislation.
Faced with
resistance from senior Democrats, Reid has attempted to negotiate with
McConnell a package of more modest reforms that could be implemented with 60
votes as a standing order of the Senate.
The package would
not include the talking filibuster, and a Democratic aide expressed doubt
McConnell would agree to a reform proposed by Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) to
require the minority party to muster 41 votes to sustain a filibuster. Under
current rules, the majority party must gather 60 votes to end dilatory debate.
Levin said he
believes Reid and
McConnell will
negotiate an agreement based on a bipartisan proposal co-sponsored by Levin and
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). That plan would eliminate the filibuster on the
motion to proceed in exchange for guaranteeing the minority leader and the
minority bill manager the right to offer one amendment each to pending
legislation.
Proponents of
far-reaching filibuster reform have criticized the Levin-McCain proposal.
The Home Office Tax Deduction:
Simplifying Rules And Helping Small Business Owners Succeed
White House Blog
Posted by Neal S. Wolin and Karen Mills
January 15, 2013
Today, many
taxpayers who qualify for the home office tax deduction are not claiming it.
The reasons often cited are that businesses and filers do not fully understand
the provisions or find it too complicated to calculate the amount.
That is about
to change.
As part of
ongoing efforts by the Administration to reduce paperwork burdens, the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) announced today that it is providing a new, simpler
option for calculating the home office tax deduction, allowing small business
owners and employees who work from home and who maintain a qualifying home
office to deduct up to $1,500 per year.
The IRS also
expects taxpayers to save more than 1.6 million hours per year in tax
preparation time from this simpler calculation method.
The new option
allows qualified taxpayers to deduct annually $5 per square foot of home office
space on up to 300 square feet, for as much as $1,500 in deductions. To take
advantage of the new option, taxpayers will complete a much simpler version of
the current 43-line form.
The
announcement builds on the President’s commitment to streamline and simplify
the tax code for small businesses and to reduce the burden for tax compliance.
It is part of broader efforts to make interacting with the federal government
easier and more efficient for businesses of all sizes.
These new rules
help our tax code better reflect the needs of America’s 21st Century workforce
and especially small businesses, which play a vital role in our economy. Today,
more than half of all working Americans own or work for a small business. An
estimated 52 percent of small businesses are home-based, and many of these
small businesses have home office space that would qualify for the deduction.
And as technology improves, more businesses – large and small – are going
virtual and recruiting employees from across the country, many of whom work
from home offices.
Since he took
office, President Obama has signed into law 18 tax cuts for small businesses.
And the recently signed American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 includes
extensions of several additional small business tax incentives designed to spur
innovation, support capital investment and make it easier to hire new workers.
Today’s
announcement also is part of a broader
effort by the President’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) to reduce paperwork burdens for small business owners and individual
taxpayers across all government operations. Agencies have posted paperwork
burden reduction updates on their OpenGov websites, which also have more
information on agencies’ regulatory
“lookback” efforts.
The new option
for the home office deduction will be available starting with the Tax Year 2013
return, which most taxpayers file early in 2014. In addition, the IRS is
accepting comments for improving upon this new option.
Current
restrictions on claiming the home office deduction, such as the requirement
that a home office be used regularly and exclusively for business and the limit
on the amount of the deduction tied to income derived from the particular
business, still apply under the new option.
Neal S. Wolin
is the Deputy Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Karen G.
Mills is the Administrator of the Small Business Administration.
The end of the fiscal cliff saga has launched the next drama
in Washington over spending and revenue.You are going to hear a lot about how the federal government must live
within its means and thus programs ranging from defense to healthcare must be
cut.
“We’re broke” many in congress have and will tell you over
and over and over again.
“We do not have a tax problem, we have a spending problem”
is another line regurgitated reflexively.
But the truth is we do have a tax problem and as a result a
revenue problem.Too many multinational
corporations are not paying their fair share of U.S. taxes.As a result, individuals and small businesses
are subsidizing the government services—defense, infrastructure, courts,
education, etc.—that these multinational corporations are using and all of us
want.
How bad is the problem?
A film called “We’re Not Broke” tells the story.I was fortunate to be asked to contribute to
this project but that’s not why I encourage you to watch it.Here is a trailer made specifically for small
business owners. http://youtu.be/h5HQKZDjWvg
I guarantee that after watching the film, you’ll understand that all the
cuts in government spending you’ll be told are needed over the next several months
to fix our deficit are not where we need to start.We have a taxation problem that allows free
loading multinational corporations to profit from our government services
without paying their fair share.
Preventing gun violence is front and center as a
national issue as a result on the tragic loss of life last month at an
elementary school in Newton, Conn.Clearly there is an elevated national concern for improving the safety
of all citizens, especially our children.
While everyone agrees that there is no one solution
to lessening the number of deaths from firearms, one common sense proposal is
almost universally supported—background checks for all gun purchases.
Licensed firearms dealers, most of which are brick
and mortar small business retailers, are required to use the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System for every gun sold other than shot guns and
rifles.
Since its inception, this policy has stopped the
sale of guns to almost 1.8 million criminals, the mentally ill who have been
involuntarily committed to an institution and others not permitted to own guns.All this is a rational, common sense effort
to protect the public and law enforcement personnel.
However, those who should be blocked from buying
guns often aren’t—instead, they simply buy a firearm at one of the many gun
shows that are common throughout the nation or through private sales.It is estimated that 40 percent of all gun
sales are made by these unlicensed dealers that are not required by federal law
to do background checks.Even though
several states do require background checks at gun shows, 6 million guns a year
are sold without this public safety procedure.
The folly of this policy is understood by the vast
majority of Americans who want to close this gun show/private sale loophole.
According to an informal telephone poll of local gun
retailers, our office found that the owners of these businesses support
background checks at all gun shows and other private sales of weapons. National polling shows that even National Rifle
Association (NRA) members and gun owners are strong supporters of this policy
change:
·90% of gun owners voting in swing-states
in 2012 support requiring background checks on all gun sales including private
sales (GOP Pollster Frank Luntz, 2012)
·74% of NRA members and 87% of non-NRA
gun owners support requiring criminal background checks on anyone purchasing a
gun (GOP Pollster Frank Luntz, 2012)
Gun
shows thrive because of the aura of no regulatory oversight.They take sales and profits from our small
businesses and allow much of this revenue to leave our communities.We should take steps to protect our locally owned
small business gun retailers from these private sales that not only put our citizens
in danger but also hurt our local economies.
Please join with Senators Jeff Merkley, Tom
Udall and Tom Harkin, by telling Senate leaders to include a real, talking
filibuster in any package of Senate rules reforms.
Between now and January 22, Senate leaders will meet to discuss whether
senators will continue to be allowed to silently stall any nomination or
legislation, or whether the public accountability of a real, talking filibuster
will be required from now on.
During these meetings, the grassroots need a way to send a message about our
frustration with unaccountable obstructionism directly to Senate leaders.
If we’re ever going to reinvest in America, hold Wall Street accountable, fight
global climate change and reform our broken campaign finance laws, we need a
Senate that works. At a bare minimum, that means senators must be required to
publicly make their case for why they are blocking legislation to the American
people.
As the climactic January 22 vote on filibuster reform approaches, no one can
deliver your message about the need for a talking filibuster better than Sens.
Merkley, Udall and Harkin. They can make it clear to the leaders of the Senate,
and to all of their colleagues, that the grassroots have had enough of
unaccountable obstruction.
TICKETS: Free for all members (and a guest) who have paid
dues in 2012. Only $20 for non-dues paying members.
Join SCSBCC President Frank Knapp, Jr., the Board of Directors, BuySC Advisory
Committee Members and Chamber Ambassadors for a fun social evening, networking
and discussion of small business issues and the SCSBCC's advocacy efforts in
2012 and 2013.
Enjoy gourmet food provided by the Spotted Salamander Catering and wine from
the Hampton Street Vineyard. Beer and non-alcoholic beverages will also be
available.
RSVP to sheila@scsbc.org or 803-315-2990.
You must have a ticket to attend. Space is limited so get your tickets now.
The U.S. Senate is scheduled to vote on reforming its filibuster rules on
January 22.
Here are 5 Senators that need to hear that you are tired of a
dysfunctional body that doesn’t get anything done on the problems facing our
country including promoting economic development. Senator
Harry Reid
Senator Max Baucus
SenatorDianne Feinstein
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Jack Reed
Pick up the phone and call one telephone number: 202-224-3121
This is the number of the Senate switch board that can transfer you to any
Senate office. Call each of these Senators with this simple message:
“I would like the Senator to vote in favor of the Udall-Merkley Resolution
Number 4 that requires a Talking Filibuster. And I want the Senator to
support the Constitutional option for this vote.”
The South Carolina House and Senate started the new
legislative session yesterday.For those
who have not experienced the occasion it’s similar to the first day back at
school in the fall.Everybody is
friendly and happy to see each other.
All were in a positive mood except for the small
crowd in front of the State House in the morning protesting Obamacare and calling
for state legislation to nullify the law they claim allows the federal
government’s “take-over” of healthcare.The protesters included several on motorized power scooters that they
probably purchased with the help of government insurance called Medicare.The irony would be laughable if it wasn’t
reminiscent of the very first time the nation heard the phrase, “Keep your
government hands off my Medicare”.For
the record, I was at that former Congressman Bob Inglis town hall meeting in
Simpsonville, SC, when that statement heard around the world was made. The Obamacare-protesters would have really hooted
and hollered had they heard what a reliable source told me yesterday.The GOP House leadership would like to find a
way to expand the state’s Medicaid program as allowed under Obamacare according
to my source.
While Governor Nikki Haley and her HHS director Tony
Keck have been telling the public that we can’t afford to expand healthcare
services to hundreds of thousands of uninsured low-income South Carolinians, Republican
leaders at least in the House might be seeing the issue through less partisan
eyes.The benefits of a Medicaid expansion
are improving the health of our citizens thus creating a more productive
workforce, making health insurance more affordable for small businesses,
protecting our hospitals from revenue loss and adding tens of thousands of new
jobs to boost the state’s economy.
If my source is correct, the real battle in the
State House this year over Medicaid expansion might not be so much between different
factions in the Legislature but between the Governor and the General
Assembly.
If you believe that the U.S. Senate is dysfunctional, nobody gets along, there is no cooperation, important legislation never gets approved….you’re not alone.
But there is hope. Read my op.ed below that ran in The Hill today. It describes the Senate filibuster rules problem and what is being proposed to fix it.
Then pick up the phone and call one telephone number: 202-224-3121
This is the number of the Senate switch board that can transfer you to any Senate office. If you want the Senate to function and really get to work on addressing big issues like strengthening the economy, then call this number 11 times. Each time ask for a different key Senator listed here.
Your message is simple. “I would like the Senator to vote in favor of the Udall-Merkley Resolution Number 4 that requires a Talking Filibuster. And I want the Senator to support the Constitutional option for this vote.”
The actual vote on this won’t happen until January 22 but those who want to maintain the minority’s ability to keep the Senate dysfunctional are trying right now to get Senators to support a very week alternative resolution.
This is truly about Senate traditionalists and nay-sayers who want to keep the old dysfunctional ways versus the public that wants an effective, efficient Senate to address the nation’s problems.
Here are the key Senators to call:
Max Baucus, Barbara Boxer, Thomas Carper, Dianne Feinstein, John Kerry, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed and Harry Reid
You can make the difference between 2 more years of dysfunctional government and a Congress that gets things done.
Thank you for your support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Hill’s Congress Blog
January 4, 2013
Real Senate filibuster reform needed
By Frank Knapp, Jr., vice chairman, American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund - 01/04/13 11:00 AM ET
Dysfunctional!
This is the term that almost everyone has used to describe the 112th Congress even after the New Year’s Day passage of the “fiscal cliff” legislation to responsibly address some pressing taxation issues. However, the public and media understand that this final bi-partisan act was only a temporary pause from Congress’s dysfunctional ways.
Much of this problem lies with the voters rewarding extreme partisanship over cooperative problem solving and Congress making policy decisions that guarantee later stalemates.
However, there is one self-inflicted structural problem in the U.S. Senate that magnifies both these electorate and policy decisions — the filibuster.
Except for rare occasions, the Senate is ruled by the minority. With 60 votes needed to end a filibuster that can essentially be “called-in” by the minority, the American public is being deprived
There is no transparency or accountability under today’s Senate filibuster rules. Consequently we have had an abusive and undemocratic use of filibusters in recent years at every step in the legislative process. The Senate has become frozen in its ability to address the nation’s problems, especially when it comes to promoting a healthy economy. That is why many business organizations like the American Sustainable Business Council, a national coalition of business organizations that together represent over 150,000 small and medium businesses, strongly supports filibuster reform.
With the new 113th Congress there is an effort underway in the Senate to put filibuster reform on the agenda for January 22 in an effort to create a more functional chamber. Two competing proposals are being offered but only one does the job.
Democratic Senators led by Jeff Merkley and Tom Udall have proposed a filibuster reform package that does not eliminate the filibuster or even decrease the number of votes needed for cloture. But it would require “talking filibusters”. No more simply phoning in an objection to a bill thus requiring an almost unattainable 60-vote supermajority of Senators to end debate, a debate that actually never takes place.
This “lazy filibuster” would end with a “talking filibuster” rule in which the Senators objecting must hold the floor and actually debate continuously as the definition of a filibuster indicates. If no filibuster supporter is talking, a majority of Senators present can vote to end the debate and move forward on the bill.
Recently Senator Udall indicated that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had 51 votes to make this change using the “Constitutional option”. Requiring only a majority of Senators to change rules at the beginning of a new session has been both upheld by the Supreme Court and used by previous Senates.
However, the “Constitutional option” raises a concern with some Senators who believe that it would make bi-partisanship even worse and that it doesn’t protect the minority’s ability to impact legislation. Thus a counter proposal has been offered by Senators John McCain and Carl Levin, who suggest using a temporary “Standing Order” to make slight changes to filibuster rules. Unfortunately, the changes offered do virtually nothing to stop filibusters on bills when the minority leader determines that a dysfunctional Senate better suits the minority’s cause.
Today’s Senate filibuster rules must be changed. Instead of creating a more toxic atmosphere in the Senate, a “talking filibuster” might encourage more bi-partisan cooperation on bills and improve the productivity of the chamber. Such a rules change will create a more functioning and efficient Senate that will return it to its rightful position of influence in the legislative process.
The “talking filibuster” will still protect the minority’s opinion. And legislative dissenters will still be able to voice their opinion to House, president and Supreme Court. And if all this fails the minority, there will be the next election. This is actually how our democratic system was meant to be.
Elections do have consequences. But when those consequential actions are hidden from voters and the public is denied the right to see their elected leaders in action in order to hold them accountable, then we perpetuate the public’s voting decisions that feed dysfunctional elected bodies.
+(124x76).jpg)
