Climate costs rise like sea levels with delayed action on climate change

The Hill's Congress Blog

By Sandra Bridges 

Many of the readers have visited Charleston’s Market, just a couple blocks from the harbor, where my business is located. Tourism is our lifeblood as it is for our city.  So when our low-lying area of Charleston is flooded from heavy rain and tourists think twice before wading through more than a foot of water to shop, I’m concerned and very worried about even worse flooding problems in the future.

Charleston, like all of South Carolina’s coastal tourism communities, is significantly threatened by rising sea levels due to climate change. While my business today can survive the minor flooding, the next generation of small businesses and those through the end of this century will not survive even if sea levels only rise two to three feet, which most scientists accept. If seas rise by six feet by the end of the century, the upper end of today’s predictions, the businesses here in Charleston’s Market will be under four feet of water at high tide. I put a piece of blue tape pretty high up on my front door to show where the waters could rise.

This is obviously upsetting to me.

Just as disappointing is what I’m seeing out of Congress to try to reduce the impacts of climate change--pretty much nothing.  But it’s even worse than that. Some of our elected officials have helped stifle and block action on climate change in Congress. Then, they’ve tried to take away money so federal agencies can’t even work on climate as if ignoring the biggest environmental challenge we face will make it go away.

The House Subcommittee on Energy and Power is holding a hearing on climate change on the 18th but unfortunately its agenda appears to be focusing on how much the government has, in their view, overspent to study climate change, to try to prepare for its impacts and to lessen possible hardships on businesses like mine.

One of the things members of this committee are complaining about is the government using a cost benefit estimate called “social cost of carbon”, when proposing regulations on carbon pollution.  I’m not sure why this is controversial since the House has passed numerous bills calling for cost-benefit analysis aimed at federal pollution standards.

Maybe this “social cost of carbon” should more appropriately be called the “real cost of carbon.” It’s just a way of estimating how much families and businesses are paying, or will pay, for damages caused by carbon pollution. Carbon pollution drives climate change. It’s fueling extreme weather and raising sea levels. These are real costs that small businesses like mine and those to come will pay if we don’t address climate change.

The social cost of carbon puts a price tag on that damage and it also shows the benefits we can get from federal standards that cut carbon pollution. So, for example, it can help show the benefit of keeping a business like mine open. Certainly no one can argue that there isn’t an economic value to keeping small businesses, the backbone of our economy, open for business.

I am participating in an effort led by the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce to call the rising seas problem to the attention of my customers.  About half of the small businesses contacted in vulnerable coastal communities in my state have put up signage on the issue and even blue tape to show where the high tide is expected to be by 2100.

Most small business owners across the county understand that something needs to be done to address climate change that is causing extreme weather conditions and rising seas. The reason is, when we get hit by major weather disasters, many small businesses can’t recover. Our profit margins are such that we get knocked out completely. One-third of small businesses nationally report they’ve been affected by extreme weather and according to a poll by the American Sustainable Business Council 63 percent of small business owners support EPA efforts to limit carbon pollution from power plants.

While some in Congress focus on how much it will cost to address climate change, they’re looking at the wrong numbers. Better to examine how much it’s already costing our communities and our economy. Better to explore how much more it will cost the longer we stick our heads in the sand of our beaches that will be washed away. They could start by looking at the blue tape on my door.

Bridges is co-owner of the Palmetto Hammock & Resort Shoppe, Charleston, South Carolina.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/energy-a-environment/322787-climate-costs-rise-like-sea-levels-with-delayed-action-on-climate-change#ixzz2fGoof46P

Another regulatory victory for the SC Small Business Chamber

The South Carolina Public Service Commission has approved the settlement reached between the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, Duke Energy, SC Office of Regulatory Staff and other intervenors in Duke’s recent rate hike request.

This is another big victory for the work of the SC Small Business Chamber. Our track record of successfully fighting utility rate hike requests in our state has been exceptional.  In this case we negotiated a reduction of over 75 percent from Duke’s originally proposed 14 percent electric rate hike on small businesses.

Duke’s small business customers will now see a 2.29 percent increase the first year and 1.13 percent the second year for an overall increase of only 3.42 percent.

Below is a story form GSA Business.
-----------------------------------------------------------

GSA Business
September 12, 2013

Regulators approve Duke’s rate hike

Staff Report
gsanews@scbiznews.com

Duke Energy’s $118.6 million rate increase approved by the South Carolina Public Service Commission will raise rates by 3.42% over two years for small businesses, down from the 14% first proposed by the utility.

Overall, the PSC approved an average 6.42% increase for businesses, 7.34% for industrial customers and 10.16% for residential customers.

Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce, has described the negotiated agreement as a “very good result for small businesses in the Duke service area.”

Overall, the PSC-approved settlement that increases electricity rates for about 540,000 households and businesses in South Carolina rate case reduces Duke’s original $220 million rate request by almost half. The approved agreement also reduces Duke’s proposed 11.25% return on common equity — the maximum profit margin — to 10.2%.

The utility’s request for its third increase in three years prompted howls of opposition at a series of public hearings. About 1,700 people registered with the PSC as opponents.

Before the PSC’s July 31 hearings on the rate request, the Charlotte, N.C.-based utility reached a settlement agreement with the state’s utility watchdog agency, the S.C. Office of Regulatory Staff, and a lineup of intervenors that included the small business chamber’s leader.

Overall, instead of an average increase of 15.1% that was first proposed to generate another $220 million annually, starting Wednesday customers will pay an average of 5.53% the first year and 2.63% more starting in September 2014.

In addition to the rate increase, the PSC directed Duke Energy to use $3.5 million at shareholder expense to provide $2.5 million for public-assistance programs, manufacturing competitiveness grants, economic development and/or education-workforce training programs. Another $1 million will be allocated by the utility through the Office of Regulatory Staff to support senior outreach and public education initiatives.

Duke Energy said the increase is needed to pay for facility upgrades. Ryan Mosier, a spokesman for the utility, has said the agreement “achieves a balance between the concerns for our customers and the need to recover the investments we’ve made in the system.

https://www.gsabusiness.com/news/48844-regulators-approve-duke-rsquo-s-rate-hike

 

Don't tie the hands of Consumer Product Safety Commission

The Hill’s Congress Blog 

By Frank Knapp, Jr.

We have heard an ongoing cry from organizations claiming to represent all businesses that they oppose any government action on toxic chemicals in our products, warning of increased costs and job losses. Now, a new independent poll shows that when it comes to protecting workers and consumers from negative effects of toxic chemicals, small-business owners agree with voters in that both want to be protected by stricter regulations.

A national poll released in July also showed that voters are seriously concerned and want action taken regarding the threat posed to people’s health from exposure to chemicals they come in contact with regularly.

This national poll of more than 500 small-business owners was conducted by Lake Research Partners and Public Opinion Strategies. The poll was commissioned by the American Sustainable Business Council, a national coalition of business organizations, which together represent over 150,000 small and medium businesses sharing the goal of a sustainable economy.

Some big-business organizations have dominated the public debate about government regulations, often citing their concern for the impact of regulation on small businesses. Convincing the public that all regulations are evil and a threat to small-business growth, organizations such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have made anti-regulation legislation in Congress a priority.

But the reality is that small-business owners are not of the same mind as CEOs of multinational corporations. While the latter are consumed with maximizing profits to satisfy Wall Street, small-business owners are focused on growing healthy Main Streets.

Small-business owners have always had a strong sense of community; they are not just a major part of local economies. They are your neighbors whose children go to local schools. Their families worship in local houses of faith and attend community plays and sporting events. They have the same interests, concerns and desires as the workers they employ and the customers they serve.

The small-business owners’ poll found that:

- 75 percent support stricter regulations of chemicals used in everyday products.
--87 percent support government regulations of chemicals used in growing food.

- 73 percent support government regulations to ensure the products companies buy and sell are non-toxic.


- 91 percent support chemical manufacturers being held responsible for ensuring their chemicals are safe.


- 76 percent support tax incentive for companies that innovate to provide safer chemicals.


- 92 percent support regulations to protect air and water from pollution by toxic chemicals.


- 78 percent support government regulations to reduce air pollutants linked to environmental and health problems.

In this poll, small-business owners strongly believe regulations should require the transparency needed to ensure safer products. Eighty-two percent believe that businesses should be required to share chemical ingredient information all along the manufacturing supply chain -- from chemical production to final consumer product. Creating a public, easily accessible database identifying chemicals of concern to human and environmental health is supported by 92 percent of small-business owners.

Small-business owners understand that the way to achieve greater protection from toxic chemicals is to reform the federal law dealing with chemical regulations. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) was passed more than 36 years ago and has never been updated to deal with the new world of chemical threats.

Congressional legislation to reform TSCA would require chemical manufacturers to show that their chemicals are safe in order to sell them. Chemicals that may harm the public health could be limited and companies would be able to receive government support for research and development for innovation in producing safer chemicals. Seventy-three percent of small-business owners support this TSCA reform.

As we head into a new congressional session, elected leaders need to take a break from misguided efforts to stall or kill all regulations through legislation such as Senate Bill 3468, which would curtail the Consumer Product Safety Commission from protecting children from toxic chemicals. Instead, Congress should listen to the real opinions of small-business owners and voters. Stronger regulation of chemicals to protect our health and safety, and spur companies to create safer chemicals is a goal shared by all Americans.

Knapp is the vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund and president/CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/270289-dont-tie-the-hands-of-consumer-product-safety-commission

Access to capital through crowdfunding

This week I’m off to DC to join David Levine, co-founder and director of the American Sustainable Business Council, in a media tour for the ASBC (I serve as vice-chair of the organization).  We will be doing a few other things including have discussions with the Americans for Financial Reform and hopefully some Congressional staff on the issue of crowdfunding.

I first mentioned crowdfunding as a potential tool for small businesses and entrepreneurs to have access to capital way back on November 17, 2010.  At that time only a few organizations, including the ASBC and the SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce (SCSBCC), were aggressively supporting changing SEC regulations to allow crowdfunding and we thought it was a long shot.  My have things changed.

First President Obama announced his support and instructed the SEC to seriously consider it.  Then the House overwhelmingly passed a version of crowdfunding.   Then bills were introduced in the Senate.  The House just recently passed more legislation including crowdfunding again and this week there may be action in the Senate.

But with all this relatively rapid action there is the distinct possibility that the original crowdfunding concept to really help small business will be lost as Congress and special interest groups expand the concept well beyond the initial idea.  The ASBC and SCSBCC will be working in DC this week to protect our small business interests.

The ASBC has posted on their website (also below) a good overview of how crowdfunding can help small business.  I’ll keep you informed of actions on the Hill.

Crowdfunding: Accessing Capital for Small Business

Given the challenges small businesses and entrepreneurs face in raising capital to help them grow and compete, the crowdfunding concept is a viable solution. Crowdfunding, especially in the context of community-based financing of local projects, has the potential when done correctly to be a very useful tool in opening up access to capital for business. Crowdfunding simply put is raising investment funding in small increments from a large number of people often through Internet marketing.

Current Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) rules make this type of small dollar investments cost prohibitive due to registration and reporting requirements at both the state and federal level. Since 2010, ASBC has been one of the earliest supporters of crowdfunding as a vehicle for small business to gain access to capital. ASBC has worked on Capitol Hill to insure that the interests of locally-owned small businesses and entrepreneurs are properly served in the development of crowdfunding legislation.

Legislation is moving through Congress that would create a Crowdfunding exemption to the SEC regulations. The House passed the McHenry bill, the Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act (HR. 2930), with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. In the Senate, two bills are pending: Democratizing Access to Capital Act (S.1791) by Sen. Scott Brown (MA) and the CROWDFUND Act (S.1970) by Sen. Jeff Merkley (OR). We applaud the work of both senators.

It is vitally important for any crowdfunding legislation to allow small businesses to pursue maximum investments of $100 or slightly higher from individuals with an aggregate cap on total capital raised in the range of $100,000. Low individual investor limits combined with aggregate caps promote community-based economic support for local businesses while keeping potential investor losses and fraud risks relatively low; these limits allow relatively light SEC oversight.

We understand the argument for making intermediaries optional, since many small business owners and investors are not tech-savvy and may not be comfortable investing via an unfamiliar third-party platform. However, further work is needed to ensure sufficient investor protections without requiring an intermediary. We support strong and enforceable investor protections that won’t unnecessarily restrict the flow of capital within local communities and to local projects.

Because individual state laws on investments pose an obstacle to crowdfunding, the federal law should override state regulations.

For more information, or to get involved in the working group that manages this campaign, please contact us.

Online poll: State should promote solar energy

Union Daily Times

by Charles Warner
Editor

February 23, 2012

The State of South Carolina should use business tax credits to promote the growth of solar energy in the state according to the majority of the readers who participated in an online poll conducted by The Union Daily Times.

The Finance Committee of the SC Senate is currently considering House Bill 3346 which would provide tax credits of 35 percent for the installation of solar equipment on commercial buildings. The bill is supported by the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce (SCSBCC) as a means of stimulating economic development and job growth.

In a telephone interview with The Union Daily Times earlier this month, SCSBCC President Frank Knapp pointed out that passage of the bill would provide South Carolina with “a great opportunity to jump start a renewable energy industry” similar to what North Carolina has done. Knapp said North Carolina used tax credits to make solar equipment more affordable for businesses in the state. He said passage of House Bill 3346 would make South Carolina more attractive to the solar energy industry, promoting the growth of the state’s renewable energy sector including small businesses and even solar farms.

While South Carolina currently offers some residential solar tax credits it does not provide them for commercial facilities. Despite this, Knapp said some companies are already installing solar panels on their facilities to heat water and/or generate electricity. Among them is Boeing, which Knapp said has already installed solar panels on its new plant in North Charleston and the Columbia Museum of Art in Columbia which has also installed solar panels on its building.

For many businesses, however, especially small ones, installation of solar equipment is not currently cost-effective without the kind of tax incentives that would be provided with the passage of House Bill 3346. Knapp said that with the tax credits, South Carolina would reap the economic benefits of increased revenue through economic development and job creation resulting from the growth of the solar energy industry.

In addition to the benefits of economic development and job creation, the SCSBCC website states that the growth of the solar energy industry would reduce the need for building expensive new energy producing plants. It would also help reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change which threatens South Carolina’s tourism and recreation industries.

Taken together, Knapp said this makes solar equipment credits for business a good investment for the state.

Poll

An overwhelming majority of those who participated in an online poll conducted last week by The Union Daily Times agreed.

The poll asked readers “Should the State of South Carolina use business tax credits to promote the growth of solar energy?”

A total of 50 votes were cast with 68 percent or 34 voting yes and 32 percent or 16 voting no.

Knapp welcomed the poll results as a sign of growing public support for the use of tax incentives to promote the growth of the solar power industry in South Carolina.

“This is very good news, we’re very happy that the readers of The Union Daily Times agree with the position that we need to offer financial incentives for commercial solar equipment to both create small business jobs and reduce our energy demands,” Knapp said Wednesday afternoon. “Alternative and renewable energy really is the future for South Carolina and the country and passage of this bill will put us on the road to that end.”

Small business poll

On regulations, taxes and money in politics…"We're not like them"

Columbia, SC—A national poll shows the opinions of small business owners differ dramatically from the advocacy of big businesses and multinational corporations.  The results of the national scientific poll were released over the past four weeks by the American Sustainable Business Council, Main Street Alliance and Small Business Majority.  The poll was conducted by Lake Research Partners between December 8, 2011 and January 4, 2012. 

"Many of the real opinions of small business owners are far different than what are portrayed by big business interests," said Frank Knapp, Jr., Vice Chair of the American Sustainable Business Council and President/CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. 

"There are some real ‘man-bites-dog’ stories here that are particularly amazing since half of the respondents self-identified as either Republican or leaning Republican," said Knapp. 

"Small business owners do not hate regulations,” said Knapp.  “They support regulations ensuring clean air and water and those moving the country toward energy efficiency and clean energy.  And regulations are not stopping hiring as we've been hearing—lack of consumer demand is doing that.  In fact, small business owners view regulations as protecting them from big business."

“Small business owners also don’t agree with the big business mantra on taxation,” said Knapp.  “They say that big businesses and multinational corporations use loopholes to avoid paying their fair share of taxes which harms small businesses.  A majority of these owners also support higher tax rates on individual income over $1 million, even $250,000.”

“These opinions fly in the face of the rhetoric about not raising taxes on the wealthiest because they are the ‘job creators’”, said Knapp.  “Small businesses are leading the job recovery in this country and they believe the wealthiest corporations and individuals are not paying their fair share of taxes.”

“On other issues small business owners share the public’s disgust with money in politics and disapprove of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision,” said Knapp. “Citizens United has unleashed massive amount of money from big corporations and millionaires and billionaires into political campaigns.  Small businesses believed they have been harmed because of this.”

Below are details of the poll results:

• Small business owners see their top problem as weak customer demand, not regulations: 34 percent cited weak customer demand as the most important problem for their business, while only 14 percent named government regulations.
• On the question of what would do the most to create jobs, cutting regulations came in low on the list: the top response was eliminating incentives to move jobs overseas at 24 percent; reducing regulation was fifth at 10 percent.
• Small business owners see an important role for standards and safeguards: 78 percent believe some standards are important to protect small businesses from unfair competition, and 76 percent believe regulations on the books should be enforced.
• Small business owners see regulations as necessary for a modern economy: 93 percent agree their business can live with some regulation if it is fair, manageable and reasonable.
• Small business owners express strong support for specific rules and standards: 78 percent support rules to prevent health insurance companies from increasing rates excessively, 84 percent support food safety standards, 80 percent support product safety standards and 80 percent support disclosure and regulation of toxic materials.
• Small business owners support clean energy policies: 79 percent support ensuring clean air and water, and 61 percent support moving the country towards energy efficiency and clean energy.
• Small businesses believe in streamlining government processes: 73 percent of respondents believe we should allow for one-stop electronic filing of government paperwork.
• Nine out of ten small business owners say big corporations use loopholes to avoid taxes that small businesses have to pay: 92 percent say big corporations’ use of such loopholes is a problem. Three-quarters of owners say their small business is harmed when loopholes allow big corporations to avoid taxes.
• Nine out of ten small business owners say that U.S. multinational corporations’ use of accounting loopholes to shift their U.S. profits to their offshore subsidiaries to avoid taxes is a problem: 91 percent agree it is a problem, with 55 percent saying it’s a very serious problem. When asked what would do the most to create jobs, small business owners chose eliminating incentives to move jobs overseas.
• Small business owners say big corporations are not paying their fair share of taxes: 67 percent believe big corporations pay less than their fair share. An even bigger majority, 73 percent, says multinational corporations pay less than their fair share.
• Small business owners say millionaires pay less than their fair share in taxes: 58 percent say households whose annual income exceeds $1 million pay less than their fair share.
• Small business owners support a higher tax rate for individuals earning more than $1 million: 57 percent agree that individuals earning more than $1 million a year should pay a higher tax rate on the income over $1 million.
• Small business owners want to eliminate the “carried interest” loophole that gives hedge fund managers a big break on their taxes: 81 percent favor hedge fund managers paying taxes at the ordinary income tax rate, which currently tops out at 35 percent, rather than the 15 percent capital gains rate they pay now.
• Small business owners support ending upper-income tax cuts: 51 percent say Congress should let tax cuts on taxable household income over $250,000 a year expire (only 40 percent believe they should be extended).
• Respondents in this scientific national survey were politically diverse, with a majority Republican or independent-leaning Republican: 50 percent identified as Republican (27 percent) or independent-leaning Republican (23 percent); 32 percent as Democrat (14 percent) or independent-leaning Democratic (18 percent); and 15 percent as independent.
• Small business owners say Citizens United decision hurts small businesses:  66 percent of small business owners view Citizens United v. FEC decision as bad for small businesses; 88 percent hold negative view of money in politics overall.

Read the full poll reports at these links:

http://www.asbcouncil.org/poll_regulations.html

http://www.asbcouncil.org/uploads/Taxes_Poll_Report_FINAL.pdf

http://www.asbcouncil.org/poll_money_in_politics.html

http://www.asbcouncil.org/poll_access_to_credit.html

Annual Policy Summit

The South Carolina Small Business
Chamber of Commerce
Annual Policy Summit
December 13, 2011

6 to 8 p.m.

Join SCSBCC President Frank Knapp, Jr.
and members of the SCSBCC Board of Directors
discuss current policies and upcoming issues related to small business

Key Note:

Curtis Loftis, S.C. Treasurer

Enjoy gourmet catering and beverages including beer and wine
Sponsord by Spotted Salamander Catering and Houston's Low Country Grill

Location:
South Carolina Press Association
106 Outlet Pointe Boulevard

Click here for directions <http://cts.vresp.com/c/?TheSCSmallBusinessCh/314b9cd88f/c79162405a/f58b0f46a9>

$10 for Basic (free) members and non-members

Be sure to bring plenty of business cards for networking!
 See You Tomorrow Night!

email: sheila@scsbc.org   telephone: 803-252-5733

Tickets at the Door:
Complimentary for dues paying members

Lack of demand is the problem not regulations

Politico
Letter to the Editor
November 9, 2011

Former Sen. Blanche Lincoln, in her Opinion piece “Why Small Businesses Matter” (POLITICO, Nov. 1), insists that too much regulation is “the roadblock that many small businesses cite as their greatest impediment to growth.”

But Lincoln, who is now the chairwoman of an anti-regulation organization created and funded by the National Federation of Independent Business, provides no hard data to prove her — and the NFIB’s — claims about the imperative of regulation reform. And for good reason. Regulations aren’t standing in the way of small businesses creating jobs.
During the first half of 2011, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that less than one-quarter of 1 percent (0.0023) of U.S. job layoffs were due to regulations, according to the businesses themselves. About 30 percent of layoffs were in fact due to poor “business demand.”

This data is confirmed by every credible recent survey of owners of small businesses — lack of consumer demand and economic uncertainty are the most important reasons small businesses aren’t adding jobs. It was found by surveys for the Small Business Majority, McClatchy News Service, National Association for Business Economics, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and even the NFIB.

Without the hard data to prove their case, NFIB President Dan Danner has launched personal attacks on small-business organizations that oppose their anti-regulation proposals. “Some of the administration’s friends say that regulation isn’t actually hurting small businesses,” Danner says in the latest radio ads, “I’m not sure if these regulation deniers have ever met a small-business owner.”

As vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council (representing over 100,000 small and midsize U.S. businesses), president and chief executive officer of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce (with more than 5,000 members) and owner of several small businesses, I have met plenty of small-business owners. To a person, they tell me that what they really need to grow is more customers.

That doesn’t make us regulation deniers or even friends of the administration. It makes us realistic business people without a partisan agenda.

Frank Knapp, Jr.
Vice Chairman
American Sustainable Business Council

Small Business Left Out of House Hearing on Tax Reform and Jobs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Small Business Left Out of House Hearing on Tax Reform and Jobs; Small Business Leaders Meet With White House Officials Thursday Afternoon

Washington, DC, June 2, 2011- The House Ways and Means Committee is holding a hearing on tax reform and jobs Thursday morning without small business, the engine of job creation. “It’s unfortunate that a hearing about job creation and tax reform doesn’t have room for the voice of small business,” said Frank Knapp, President and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce. “We want reform that is fair to all businesses and provides adequate funding for the public services and infrastructure upon which all businesses depend.”

Mr. Knapp will submit written testimony on behalf of a network of small business organizations who have signed a letter calling upon Congress to generate more revenue and create a level playing field by closing tax loopholes that favor U.S. multinational corporations and opposing short and permanent tax holidays on profits parked overseas. Mr. Knapp is a member of Business for Shared Prosperity, which sponsored the letter co-signed by the American Sustainable Business Council, the Main Street Alliance, American Made Alliance, National Latino Farmers and Ranchers Trade Association, Wealth for Common Good, Green America, Social Venture Network and others.

Scott Klinger, Tax Policy Director for Business for Shared Prosperity, will join Mr. Knapp and other members of the American Sustainable Business Council, a partnership of 30 business organizations, in a meeting with White House officials Thursday afternoon. “Over the last sixty years, the costs of paying for government have been steadily shifted off of the largest and most prosperous corporations and onto small businesses and the middle class. That’s what needs reforming,” said Klinger. “In the 1950s, corporate income taxes accounted for one third of federal revenues; today they make up less than a tenth. Corporate tax avoidance is undermining our economy and our global competitiveness.”

Mr. Klinger’s remarks in the White House meeting and Mr. Knapp’s written testimony make three main points about corporate tax reform:

1) It should be revenue positive, not lock in corporate taxes at an historical low share of total federal government revenue.

2) It should not contain short or long-term tax holidays on profits parked overseas.

3) It should assure that ALL companies pay their fair share toward the cost of government, including the public services and infrastructure we need for a strong economy and job creation.

“Big U.S. corporations are presently sitting on record levels of cash. If they wanted to build new plants and hire more employees, they have plenty of resources to do so now,” said Sam Blair, National Director for the Main Street Alliance. “It is counterproductive to give more loopholes, tax cuts and subsidies to U.S. multinationals while cutting programs and public investment needed to revitalize our economy.”

Mr. Knapp’s full testimony is available HERE on Google Docs:

Business for Shared Prosperity is a network of forward-thinking business owners, executives and investors.

###

http://www.businessforsharedprosperity.org/

Egypt: A warning for U.S. democracy

The below opinion editorial by SCSBCC president Frank Knapp, Jr. ran in the Augusta Free Press, The Ellis County Press (TX), Manufacturing Digest, NJ Today.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Egypt: A warning for U.S. Democracy

By Frank Knapp, Jr.

Make no mistake about it – the peaceful Egyptian revolution was brought about by the workers and small business owners of that country protesting together. They want economic opportunity for all and a democratically elected government that puts its peoples’ interests above the interests of the financially powerful, well-connected oligarchy. 

There is a lesson here for our country.

Our government structures are becoming ever more influenced by those with extremely deep pockets at the expense of our citizens and small businesses. And while we have a tradition of a democratic election process to address needed changes in our government, that process is becoming less and less democratic.

This important issue was the topic of many meetings on my recent trip to Washington – reducing the extraordinary influence of big corporate money in our government. Last year’s Citizens United Supreme Court ruling that corporations are “people” that have a Constitutional right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections has moved our country rapidly down the road to a far less democratic nation – a road we were already on.

Our government “of the people, by the people and for the people” is in jeopardy of becoming “of the corporations, by the corporations and for the corporations.” Real “people” will only be pawns to be manipulated when corporate money totally dominates our elections. Already we’ve seen how corporate lobbyists dominate the legislative process.

Small businesses are and should be very concerned. We know that big U.S. and multi-national corporations are only interested in profits regardless of the consequence to small businesses.

The fact is that what is good for big business is often not good for small business.

That is exactly the reason The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce was founded over 10 years ago. Small businesses must fight for ourselves and not simply rely on paternalistic big businesses to allow scraps to fall off the bountiful table they have bought for themselves.

Right now in Washington big corporate campaign donors are pushing:

• for even more tax incentives for offshoring production and jobs – lost opportunities for small businesses to supply goods and services to domestic manufacturing and fewer workers buying from our local small businesses.
• to eliminate regulations aimed at protecting us from another financial meltdown causing another great recession – one that destroys the customers base, credit and loans small businesses need to survive.
• to cripple any chance for comprehensive national energy and climate legislation – a significant opportunity for jumpstarting a green economy that will both create new small businesses and offer more opportunities for existing ones.

These and other goals of big corporations, many that now have no allegiance to our country or any country, are likely to be successful not on the merits of the ideas but on the size of the corporate campaign chests.

Fortunately, citizens and small businesses across this country are organizing to take back our democracy from these corporate “persons.” We understand that what the Egyptians are demonstrating to get, we are on the verge of losing.

So while our members of Congress publicly express their support for the Egyptian peoples’ desire for real democracy, they need to look at the direction our own country is heading and start listening to the concerns of our citizens and small businesses.

Egypt is a warning to the United States.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank Knapp Jr. is president and CEO of The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

http://augustafreepress.com/2011/02/15/frank-knapp-jr-a-warning-for-u-s-democracy/ 

http://www.elliscountypress.com/news/11225-egypt-a-warning-for-u-s-democracy.html  

http://www.mfgdigest.com/?p=6229
http://njtoday.net/2011/02/16/egypt-a-warning-for-u-s-democracy/

Small Business Chamber December Newsletter

Tell Congress to stop new 1099 requirement

The new health care law, the Affordable Care Act, has tremendous benefits for small businesses, particularly the tax credits and health insurance exchanges. But the 1099 provision, which has nothing to do with healthcare reform and was included only as a revenue-raising measure, works against them. It would require small businesses to file a 1099 form for the purchase of any goods and service over $600—forcing them to spend an inordinate amount of time filling out paperwork instead of doing business.

Contact Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint with this message:

Congress needs to correct the 1099 provision in the Affordable Care Act now. This past Saturday you voted against a bill that included the elimination of the 1099 problem as well as other small business friendly measures. It’s time to put politics aside and get the job done now for small businesses. Please vote to rescind the 1099 provision of the ACA only.

You can also sign a petition sponsored by the Small Business Majority by clicking here.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House votes down deficit spending
Senate fails to do the same

Last week the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to keep the Bush-era tax cuts for 98% of Americans. Any income over $200,000 for an individual $250,000 for joint returns would not keep the tax cut set to expire December 31st. In this way, all tax payers continue to keep the reduced tax rate on their income up to those levels and Congress would cut deficit spending by $700 billion over ten years..

Saturday, the U.S. Senate could not reach the 60 votes needed to pass similar legislation. A compromise to raise the income threshold to $1 million was also not successful.

The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce supports the House passed legislation. For more details on this position click here.

Contact Senators Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint with this message:

I oppose increasing deficit spending by $700 billion in order to extend tax cuts to the top two tax brackets. Very few hands-on small business owners fall into these tax brackets yet we all will share in the increased debt that won’t be used to generate new jobs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Say “no” to low-cost, low-value health insurance policies

The South Carolina Department of Insurance has requested a waiver from the U.S. Department of Health & and Human Services (HHS) on requiring health insurance companies to use 80% of premium for medical expenses or give refunds to policy holders. This request is only for individual policies.

The new Affordable Care Act set this 80% Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) for individual and small group coverage to give consumers more value for their premium dollars. The current MRL in South Carolina is only 55% meaning that 45 cents of every premium dollar goes to something other than medical care (such as profits, marketing, commissions, administration, etc.)

The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce has sent a letter to HHS opposing this waiver. We encourage you to do the same.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Insurance industry proposes change that will hurt small business

Last week Frank Knapp, Jr., the president of The South Carolina Small Business Chamber, testified against a proposed change in the Workers’ Compensation regulations that would allow an insurance company to cancel a workers’ compensation policy after only 10 days notice of non-payment of premium. The current policy is 30 days notice. To read about the arguments made at the public hearing, click here.

In response to our Action Alert on this issue, a sizeable number of letters from small businesses were sent to the Workers’ Compensation Commission opposing the change. This grass roots lobbying was very effective. A decision by the South Carolina Workers’ Compensation Commission on this request might come as early as December 13th.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SEC receives petition to allow for small investments in local businesses

The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce is supporting a Securities and Exchange Petition for Rulemaking filed by Sustainable Economies Law Center. The petition is to exempt securities offerings up to $100,000 with $100 maximum per investor from registration. Granting this exemption will be a great benefit to small businesses that have been shut out of the traditional lending process and give more funding opportunities for entrepreneurs and local businesses.

To read the petition, click here. To voice your support for the petition to the SEC send an email to rule-comments@sec.gov with “File 4-605” in the subject line.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bring Your Business Cards...

The next BuySC Micro Conference is scheduled for Tuesday January 11, 2011 from 6-8pm. Small Business Authority and writer for the Lexington Chronicle Jerry Bellune and 3 co-authors will be discussing their new book "Killer Secrets of Successful Entrepreneurs" at the Inn at USC (3rd Floor Gallery), 1619 Pendleton Street, Columbia, South Carolina 29201. The discussion will be followed by a book signing, networking with small business owners and delicious refreshments provided by our sponsors Edible Arrangements and Gervais and Vine.

Members may bring a guest for free, too!

RSVP Today!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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" 

http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/23/1429381/hammered-hardware-stores-pushed.html#ixzz13200kYHa

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.

Small Business & the Next Governor

The South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce (SCSBCC) today released an assessment of the three candidates running for Governor—Rep. Nikki Haley, Sen. Vincent Sheheen and Dr. Morgan Reeves. The assessment was based both on specific critical legislative votes and a questionnaire sent to each candidate on July 7, 2010. The questionnaire can be found at http://www.scsbc.org/issues.aspx?article_id=883.

While the SCSBCC does not endorse candidates for any office, it is educating the small business owners in the state as to how small business-friendly each candidate has been to date and might be in the future if elected.

“It is important that small businesses have a good understanding of how the election of the next Governor might affect them,” said Frank Knapp, Jr, president and CEO of the SCSBCC. “In 2002 we were in our infancy as an organization and thus not in a good position to evaluate Gubernatorial candidates. As a result, what many small business owners thought they were getting with Mark Sanford did not pan out.” Mr. Knapp’s blog on this issue can be read at http://www.unconflictedsc.com/2010/06/sheheen-haley-sanford-endorsement.html.

Summary and Assessment

Below are the detailed results of our questionnaire and review of critical legislative votes.

Because both Rep. Haley and Dr. Reeves failed to respond to our questionnaire, they have deprived small businesses the opportunity to compare the candidate’s positions on extremely important small business issues. Dr. Reeves, the candidate of the Green and United Citizens Parties, might receive a pass on this matter due to lack of resources. However, there is no excuse for Rep. Haley’s unresponsiveness to a questionnaire from a statewide small business advocacy organization with thousands of members that has successfully represented the interests of small business in the Legislature and in regulatory matters for over 10 years.

Sheheen @ Wateree River Sweep

Sen. Sheheen should be applauded not only for responding but also because his comments reflected an appreciation for not increasing health care costs to small business, projecting leadership in creating alternative energy jobs, and promoting comprehensive tax reform and reducing small business property taxes. Most importantly, Sen. Sheheen recognizes the importance of small business growth and development and proposes a Division of Small Business and Entrepreneurship within the Department of Commerce.

A review of critical small business votes indicates that both Rep. Haley and Sen. Sheheen have casts numerous votes in support of matters strongly favored by the SCSBCC.

However, Rep. Haley has demonstrated that she has been willing to forgo supporting small business in the case of affordable health care insurance when it was tied to a tax increase on cigarettes. Since 2006 she has voted multiple times against such legislation that was specifically targeted to help small businesses. Confusing the understanding of her votes is Rep. Haley’s apparent recent endorsement of increasing the sales tax on groceries thus indicating that she is not universally opposed to raising taxes.

One of the most important questions Rep. Haley did not respond to was our inquiry of her support for establishing a small business division within the Department of Commerce not only to give Commerce a small business development focus it has never had but also to provide assistance to local communities to help make them more small business friendly.

Sen. Sheheen strongly endorsed such an initiative. Rep. Haley’s silence causes great concern given her public statements about economic development. These statements appear to completely ignore the important role of small business and possibly demonstrate a lack of knowledge about small business.

Rep. Haley’s primary economic development campaign promise is to eliminate the corporate income tax. She no longer talks about her earlier promise to reduce small business income taxes.

Image: Haley's Facebook page

Growing our small businesses and encouraging entrepreneurship apparently are no longer an important part of Rep. Haley’s economic development plan, even though over 60% of all new jobs come from small businesses. Instead, she promises only more of the traditional, and not very successful, economic development strategy of recruiting big business.

That is the essence of her “elimination of corporate income tax” pledge. For the uniformed, and possibly this might apply to Rep. Haley, very few small businesses pay corporate income taxes because they are not C-corporations. The elimination of corporate income taxes will not help our small businesses. Instead, it would create an unlevel playing field between big and small businesses on income taxes.

In 2005, after a major legislative battle with Governor Sanford, the SCSBCC scored one of its most significant victories in having the income tax paid by small businesses reduced from 7% to 5% primarily to achieve parity with big business C-corporations.

There is an underlying problem with Rep. Haley’s unresponsiveness to the questionnaire and her campaign’s lack of courtesy in failing to even notify the SCSBCC that they would not be responding. In the past, Rep. Haley has demonstrated this same lack of respect for the SCSBCC in her refusal to meet with the SCSBCC to discuss legislation. This is the same path Mark Sanford took with the SCSBCC, refusing every request for a personal meeting.

It is possible that Governor Sanford and Rep. Haley both believed that they already had the answers to all the state’s problems and didn’t need to listen to alternative opinions. Unfortunately, we know that this gubernatorial attitude failed our state over and over during the last 8 years.

Questionnaire Response

Haley: Unfortunately, Rep. Haley did not return the questionnaire. To insure that her campaign received it, the questionnaire was hand delivered to her campaign communication director, Mr. Rob Godfrey, on July 27, 2010. The SCSBCC did not receive a response by the due date of August 2, 2010, or a request for an extension. No contact from the Haley campaign has been received by the date of this release.

Sheheen: Senator Sheheen did respond to the questionnaire but requested an extension to do so. His response was received on August 17, 2010. Senator Sheheen addressed each of the areas of interest—healthcare, energy, taxation, and economic development. Although some specific questions within these areas might not have been addressed, his answers did sufficiently address the issues to allow for analysis.

Senator Sheheen’s response can be read at http://www.scsbc.org/issues.aspx?article_id=882.

Image: Reeves' website

Reeves: Dr. Reeves called our office immediately upon receiving the questionnaire promising to provide a response. A series of e-mails were received with responses but subsequently, Dr. Reeves contacted our office again to ask us to disregard those responses that were prepared by a volunteer consultant no longer with his campaign. No further communications or response to the questionnaire was received. Consequently, we must consider Dr. Reeves not to have responded.

Critical Legislative Votes

Since 2005, Rep. Haley and Sen. Sheheen haves taken votes on certain legislation of extreme importance to South Carolina small businesses. Dr. Reeves has not served in the South Carolina Legislature and thus is not included in this analysis. Below is an explanation of these critical votes and whether the candidates supported these bills.

2005—The SCSBCC supported job tax credits for small businesses so that the hiring of as few as two new employees would qualify many of the state’s small businesses for this economic development incentive. These job tax credits had never before been available to small business. Both Rep. Haley and Sen. Sheheen supported this bill that passed both chambers.

2006—The SCSBCC was the primary business organization supporting an amendment to the state budget that would have increased the cigarette tax from 7-cents per pack to 39-cents. The additional revenue would have been used as a Medicaid match to give premium assistance for small businesses providing health insurance to employees with family incomes of up to 200% of poverty. This effort to reduce the cost of small business health insurance failed. Rep. Haley voted against the budget amendment. Because the budget amendment failed in the House, it did not come up for a vote in the Senate.

2007—The SCSBCC was the primary business organization supporting the establishment of a $1000 tax credit per new employee in a Registered Apprenticeship program. Rep. Haley supported the bill. The Senate passed the bill on a voice vote.

2007—The SCSBCC proposed reform in the state’s workers’ compensation insurance law that would require the state to regulate how much an insurance company could build into the premium for profit, taxes and other expenses. The non-regulation of this Loss Cost Multiplier component of premiums had cost businesses over $200 million in excess premiums over several years. The bill that contained this reform passed with the support of both Rep. Haley and Sen. Sheheen.

2007—The SCSBCC was a strong supporter of increasing funding of the State Child Health Insurance Program to extend Medicaid to the children in families with incomes of up to 200% of poverty. This change would help make health care more affordable and reduce health insurance costs for small businesses by helping to stop health care cost shifting from the uninsured to the insured. The Legislature passed this bill but Governor Sanford vetoed it. Both Rep. Haley and Sen. Sheheen voted to override the Governor’s veto.

2007/2008—In 2007 the SCSBCC and a growing coalition of business organizations supporting an increase in the state’s cigarette tax to provide more affordable health insurance for individuals and employees. The House passed its version of the program in 2007 with Rep. Haley voting against the bill. In 2008 the Senate passed its version of the bill calling for a 50-cent increase in the cigarette tax to be used in a non-Medicaid premium assistance program for small employers offering health insurance to workers below 200% of poverty. The state’s Medicaid program would also be expanded to parents between 50% and 100% of the poverty level. Sen. Sheheen voted for this bill. Governor Sanford vetoed the bill and Rep. Haley voted not to override. The House sustained the Governor’s veto thus no Senate vote was held.

2008—The SCSBCC first identified in 2003 the problem with excessive amounts (approximately 42%) of our state procurement dollars going out of state to purchase goods, labor and services. As the primary advocate for procurement reform that would result in more procurement dollars staying in our state to benefit our small businesses, legislation was crafted for the SCSBCC by the Budget and Control Board and introduced by Republican leadership in the Senate (Leatherman) and in the House (Harrell). The Legislature passed the Senate bill but the Governor’s veto failed to be overridden in the House. Both Rep. Haley and Sen. Sheheen voted to override the Governor’s veto.

2009—The exact same procurement reform bill passed in 2008 but stopped by a gubernatorial veto was reintroduced in the Senate by Senators Knotts and McConnell and in the House by Speaker Harrell and Rep. Mac Toole. The Senate bill was passed by the Legislature and vetoed by the Governor. Both Sen. Sheheen and Rep. Haley voted to support the successful override of the veto.

2009/2010—The SCSBCC once again joined the even greater chorus of organizations supporting an increase in the cigarette tax. In 2009 the House passed a 50-cent increase in the cigarette tax with the new revenue used for a tax credit for small businesses providing health insurance to low income employees, a tax credit for low-income individuals purchasing health insurance directly and premium assistance for those wanting to enroll in the state’s high-risk health insurance pool. Rep. Haley voted against this bill. In 2010 and in recognition of the new national health care law which created a small business health insurance tax credit program, the Senate passed a 50-cent increase in the cigarette tax with most of the funds going into a Medicaid Trust Fund to make health insurance more affordable for low-income South Carolinians. Sen. Sheheen voted for the bill. Governor Sanford’s veto of the bill was overridden with Rep. Haley voting to sustain the veto and Sen. Sheheen voting to override.