A misleading ‘Obamacare’ poll, courtesy of the Chamber of Commerce and Harris Interactive

U.S. Chamber and Harris Interactive teamed up to lie to public about Obamacare in a recent survey.  Read the story from The Washington Post below that exposes the fraud.

Here are the important points.

--The survey was not a traditional random survey of businesses.  Instead it was an opt in of 499 U.S. Chamber members (think big businesses that hate Obamacare) and 805 non-U.S. Chamber members considered to be small businesses by Harris Interactive.  But since this group was not random and we don’t know what list they were drawn from, they could have all been from the National Federation of Independent Business (the NFIB is another Obamacare-hater group).

--The U.S. Chamber released the results of this poll like this:  “Despite the Administration’s delay of the employer mandate by a year, small businesses expect the requirement to negatively impact their employees. 27% say they will cut hours to reduce full time employees, 24% will reduce hiring, and 23% plan to replace full time employees (30 hours per week or more) with part-time workers to avoid triggering the mandate.”

--The U.S. Chamber wanted the public to believe that 74% of small business owners will be cutting employee hours or not hiring because of Obamacare.  Here is a tweet from Speaker of the House John Boehner, “Study: ‘74% of small businesses will fire workers, cut hours under #Obamacare.’”

--Close analysis of the survey and the results actually show something quite different. The actual number of  “small business” owners or executives in the survey saying that they might reduce employee hours or not hire was only 4.5 to 8.5 percent.  

The Washington Post story concludes, “the Chamber of Commerce got exactly what it paid for in this poll.”  That would be the U.S. Chamber, not those of us that actually represent small businesses.

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

The Washington Post
July 31, 2013

A misleading ‘Obamacare’ poll, courtesy of the Chamber of Commerce and Harris Interactive

By Glenn Kessler

We have long warned readers about the perils of relying on data from opt-in Internet polls, especially those that make broad claims about estimating population values. We have given Pinocchios both to President Obama, for relying on an opt-in poll when he claimed that a majority of millionaires support the Buffett rule, and the National Rifle Association, for asserting that an opt-in poll reflected the views of the nation’s police.

This is a yet another case, but with a wrinkle. Here, the polling company, Harris Interactive, and the sponsor, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, presented the data in a highly misleading way — and then made false claims about the type of poll that had been conducted.

The Chamber has been a fierce opponent of the health-care law, a.k.a. Obamacare, and we frequently warn readers they should always be skeptical of polls peddled by partisan organizations. Perhaps it should be no surprise that this poll was released just as the GOP-led House of Representatives scheduled a vote to repeal the law.

Given the way the data was presented, Republican lawmakers thought they had been handed a gift — and ended up with egg on their faces.

Read more.

Fewer Than 50 Staffers? Your Four Main Obamacare Options

Entrepreneur
August 7, 2013

BY Dinah Wisenberg Brin

Small businesses with fewer than 50 full-time employees -- or the equivalent -- as defined by the U.S. Affordable Care Act may wonder what they should do to prepare for employee open enrollment on the new healthcare exchanges this October.

If you're among those with questions, watch this recent webinar hosted by a state office of the U.S. Small Business Administration. In it, Frank Knapp Jr., president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, shares the main options. We've listed the highlights below, but you can access it yourself here.

Option 1: Do nothing. Businesses with fewer than 50 "full-time-equivalent" employees aren't obligated to provide coverage under the ACA. These businesses can opt out of providing health insurance and take no action. In this scenario, employees will be responsible for obtaining their own health insurance and will be eligible for government premium subsidies if they qualify based on income and if they purchase coverage on the individual exchanges. Bear in mind that the law defines full-timers as employees who work, on average, at least 30 hours weekly, and counts the hours worked by part-timers toward an employer's number of full-time-equivalent workers.

To note: You may decide to "do nothing" as a business owner, but you're still required (as an individual) to obtain health insurance for yourself and family, either via the exchange, outside the exchange or through your spouse's employer.

Option 2: Do not offer health insurance, but offer help. These companies can find an insurance agent or broker to guide employees through the exchange, and help them choose the most appropriate coverage for themselves and their families. Qualifying employees will be eligible for subsidies under this scenario as well. Keep in mind that subsidies are not just for low-income Americans; many middle-class individuals and families will qualify as well. Brokers receive commissions from the exchanges and might negotiate fees with businesses, depending on the additional services they can offer you.

Option 3: Use the exchanges to offer one plan for all employees. Offer health insurance to employees through the small-business exchange in your state, choosing one plan for all employees. You can do this on your own or consult with an insurance broker or agent who also can handle enrollment. Employees enrolled in this plan will not be eligible for government premium subsidies. (The Obama administration expects that employers eventually will be able to offer employees a choice of plans on the small-business exchanges for coverage starting in 2015.)

Option 4: Obtain health insurance for employees outside of the exchange. Employers may do this on their own or through a broker or agent. By securing group health insurance outside the exchange, however, the employer will become ineligible for the tax credits that are available to many small businesses offering coverage through the official, state-based marketplaces. Employees won't be eligible for government premium assistance in this scenario.


Read more: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/227674#ixzz2bOF4eRAE

NOAA: 2012 among 10 hottest years

The Hill's Energy & Environment Blog
August 6, 2013

By Zack Colman

Last year was one of the 10 hottest on record for the planet, according to a new federal report that could provide new fuel for President Obama's climate change push.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration-led study said 2012 was either the eighth or ninth hottest on record globally, depending on the data set used. Temperatures in the United States specifically were the warmest on record.

"Many of the events that made 2012 such an interesting year are part of the long-term trends we see in a changing and varying climate-carbon levels are climbing, sea levels are rising, Arctic sea ice is melting, and our planet as a whole is becoming a warmer place," acting administrator Kathryn D. Sullivan said in a statement.

Read more

S.C. laws hinder clean energy investment

Columbia Regional Business Reports
August 6, 2013

The state has missed out on millions from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Meanwhile, South Carolina’s laws also are blocking projects on Defense Department sites.

By Mike Fitts
colanews@scbiznews.com
Published Aug. 5, 2013

South Carolina’s laws are holding back growth in promising clean energy fields while other Southeast states are forging ahead, according to several experts on entrepreneurship in the field.

State rules require that solar companies be regulated like full-blown utilities if they sell energy to any third party, even a U.S. military base. This imposes a burden on startups that is blocking the state’s potential, a top expert in financing clean energy projects told attendees of the S.C. Clean Energy Summit on July 11.

“Your state policy doesn’t lend itself to renewable energy development,” said Lee Peterson of Cohn Reznick, an Atlanta-based accounting and tax advisory firm.

Federal tax laws encourage clean energy projects, and there is substantial capital out there from hedge funds and other investment groups looking to back them, Peterson said.

In other states, Peterson said, entrepreneurs can set up and operate a solar or wind farm, for instance, and capital investors will buy a majority interest in exchange for the tax breaks. South Carolina laws shut all that down, except for projects launched by the major utilities, and the capital flows to other states.

Missing out on investment

South Carolina has missed out on millions from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Peterson told the conference. North Carolina has gained more than $700 million in clean energy projects from one of the act’s tax reimbursement provisions, while South Carolina has only drawn $57 million. That shortfall is directly attributable to the state’s outdated laws on clean energy investment, Peterson said.

South Carolina’s laws also are blocking projects on Defense Department sites, according to Dave McNeil, president of Hannah Solar Government Services. The Charleston-based company launches renewable energy projects on military bases, but has none in South Carolina, despite federal incentives.

A bill to change how South Carolina regulates clean energy (House bill 3425 and similar Senate bill 536) failed to advance in this year’s legislative session. The Legislature’s Public Utilities Review Committee has appointed an advisory panel to work on these issues, and South Carolina Electric & Gas is working in that process, according to utility spokesman Eric Boomhower. Boomhower points out that SCE&G has more than 200 customer-owned solar powered generators, providing or displacing nearly 1.3 megawatts of generating capacity. Owning your own solar or wind power system avoids the legal issue that has left entrepreneurs unable to resell power in the state.

The Clean Energy Summit brought renewable energy entrepreneurs and utility leaders into the same room together; SCE&G served as one of the event’s sponsors. The event saw some positive and substantial discussion among the parties, said Tom French, executive director of the event host, the S.C. Clean Energy Business Alliance.

“The issue is complicated, but both sides are trying to define win-win outcomes,” French said after the summit.

In his keynote address at the event, Sen. Vincent Sheheen, D-Camden, noted the differences of opinion in the room and urged the sides to come together so that the state can grow its economy and jobs with clean power.

Keeping dollars at home

Helping clean energy build in the state would keep billions of dollars here that now flow to other states that produce fossil fuels, he said.

“This is an industry we need to get behind,” said Sheheen, considered the likely Democratic candidate for governor next year.

State government needs to show more leadership on clean energy, including showing taxpayers how embracing solar power and energy efficiency can save them money, Sheheen said. Such projects as solar arrays on state office buildings would help with government’s huge power costs and help the industry show what it can accomplish, Sheheen said.

“Our state government certainly should be a good example,” he said. Sheheen described constituents

That shows how much room South Carolina has to improve on energy, Sheheen said. To address this, Sheheen endorsed making small loans for efficiency improvements available, to be repaid through customers’ energy bills.

Not improving energy efficiency and clean energy use would be a waste of the state’s resources, Sheheen said. So far, the state has fallen behind because of a lack of leadership on energy, he said.

“The big vision needs to come from the governor’s office,” Sheheen said.

https://www.columbiabusinessreport.com/news/48495-s-c-laws-hinder-clean-energy-investment?rss=0

SC Department of Insurance releases bogus analysis of data to scare public

The Greenville News
August 3, 2013

“I would strongly encourage the public not to get too excited about these numbers, because there’s actually good news coming in federal subsidies,” said Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber who supports the changes to how customers buy health insurance.

Health law to hit some hard

By Eric Connor

Health insurance premiums for those in South Carolina who aren’t covered through their employers could rise dramatically next year once the federal government’s Affordable Care Act takes effect, according to a state insurance agency’s review that proponents of the new health care law insist doesn’t paint a complete picture.

The state Department of Insurance on Friday released the results of its review of health plans that insurance companies want to offer on the new federally subsidized insurance exchanges that are required under what’s commonly referred to as Obamacare.

The agency’s director, Ray Farmer, said that average rates for individuals buying insurance will likely increase between 50 to 70 percent, and in some cases could more than double depending on age, health and insurance needs.

Those who participate in small group plans will likely see average rate increases between 10 to 20 percent, Farmer said.

Premiums for people who are insured through employer-sponsored plans won’t be affected when new coverage plans go into effect on Jan. 1, he said.

“Due to a number of new federal requirements going into effect next year as part of the Affordable Care Act, consumers should plan for premiums to increase significantly,” Farmer said.

The estimates are based on comparing plans insurance companies offer now to those they have submitted for exchange enrollment on Oct. 1.

However, critics of the findings said Friday that the analysis doesn’t elaborate on other factors of the health care law, such as federal subsidies that will help most customers afford the premiums.

“I would strongly encourage the public not to get too excited about these numbers, because there’s actually good news coming in federal subsidies,” said Frank Knapp, president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber who supports the changes to how customers buy health insurance.

The insurance plans offered today aren’t comparable and in fact many wouldn’t be allowed under provisions of the new law that ban limits on pre-existing conditions and mandate coverage for everyone, said Cheryl Fish-Parcham, deputy director of health policy for the advocacy group Families USA.

“Insurance will be covering more than it has in the past,” she said. “In the past, many people faced crazy exclusions of benefits like buying coverage but it not covering maternity care for a woman. For the first time, people are going to be getting real coverage that covers them.”

The state’s largest insurer, BlueCross BlueShield, said the rates it submitted for review were fair but that new requirements must be taken into account, such as more benefit requirements, federal taxes and fees, changes in how companies must calculate rates and guaranteed coverage.

“These additions and changes add unavoidable, additional expense for our customers,” said BlueCross spokeswoman Elizabeth Hammond.

Lawmakers in South Carolina have fought implementation of the health care law from the start, citing an overreach of government authority that requires people to buy health insurance they might not want.

The state opted not to create a state exchange, instead relying on the federal government’s system, and rejected federal money expanding Medicaid.

“Today’s news that insurance premiums in South Carolina may skyrocket as much as 70 percent for some South Carolinians is as awful as it is unsurprising,” said Doug Mayer, spokesman for Gov. Nikki Haley.

About 900,000 uninsured South Carolina residents will have to sign up for insurance or face fines under the law.

In 2014, a person who doesn’t pay for health insurance but is deemed financially able to faces a fine of $95 or 1 percent of annual income, whichever is greater. The fine is $47.50 per child but no more than $285 for a family.

In 2015, the fine increases to $325 per adult, $162.50 per child but no more than $975 for a family, or 2 percent of annual income.

The fine in 2016 and beyond will be $695 per adult, $347.50 per child but no more than $2,085 for a family, or 2.5 percent of annual income.

The fine wouldn’t provide health insurance if a person got sick.

The federal government must now approve the exchange plans insurance companies submitted to the state.

Of South Carolina’s 12 health insurers, four will be selling policies on the exchange with the remaining selling alternate policies off the exchange, Farmer said.

The policies off the exchange will be reviewed in the next 45 days, he said.

The insurance department provided wide-ranging estimates for how the new requirements could impact premiums.

For instance, a person at age 20 could see rates increase anywhere from 5 to 151 percent, Farmer said. A person age 40 could see increases between 2 to 162 percent, a person age 60 between 13 to 134 percent.

The department is “actively working with all carriers seeking approval of filings for products to be sold in the state,” Farmer said.

“It’s a new process for everyone,” he said. “I encourage our citizens to shop around.”

 

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20130803/NEWS/308020062/Health-law-hit-some-hard?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Obama’s tax plan a bad bargain for small business

The Hill's Congress Blog

8/2/13

 

By Frank Knapp Jr. - 08/02/13

President Obama is right to address the urgent need to modernize our once grand infrastructure. Unfortunately, the president’s corporate tax reforms would leave us in a deeper hole down the road.

The president’s plan to cut corporate tax rates responds to the tireless mantra of U.S. multinational corporations that America’s tax rates hurt their global competitiveness. In reality, American corporations are enjoying their highest level of profits in 60 years while their federal income taxes are close to the lowest level. The Government Accountability Office recently reported that large profitable U.S. corporations paid an effective federal tax rate of just 12.6 percent in 2010, a rate lower than many small businesses and middle-class families.

Large corporations like Pfizer, Bank of America and Google have avoided paying their fair share of U.S. taxes by abusing offshore tax havens and using accounting gimmicks to disguise U.S. profits as foreign profits. U.S. corporations are holding about $2 trillion offshore to shield it from U.S. taxation. These corporations have gamed the tax system, contributing mightily to the deficit while leaving small businesses and households to pick up a greater share of the cost of public services and infrastructure – from schools and police to roads and safe drinking water.

While the details aren’t clear, the president’s plan includes a one-time fee on offshore profits – much lower than the regular corporate tax rate – that he wants to use for investing in our country’s aging infrastructure and other priorities. Small businesses applaud increased investment in bridges, ports and other needed infrastructure that will also create jobs and put money on Main Street. However, history shows that rewarding corporate tax dodgers with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax breaks – as happened with the 2004 tax holiday that promised job creation and delivered a windfall to CEOs and shareholders instead – only accelerates tax haven abuse in the future. It would incentivize the armies of corporate accountants and lobbyists to create and exploit new loopholes even as old ones may be closed.

Ending corporate tax dodging is not a Republican issue or a Democratic issue; it’s an American issue. In a nationally representative poll, in which Republicans outnumbered Democrats, more than 90 percent of small business owners said it is a problem when large corporations use accounting gimmicks to shift their U.S. profits to foreign tax havens in order to avoid taxes pay. Whether called a one-time fee or a tax holiday, a corporate tax amnesty policy is completely unacceptable to small businesses.

The president could close offshore tax loopholes without temporarily or permanently cutting corporate tax rates through a number of bills currently pending in Congress. These include bills to end deferral of taxes on corporate profits held offshore so that corporate income is taxed as it is earned and requiring offshore transactions to have an economic purpose beyond simply avoiding taxes.

Moreover, lobbyists who could not prevent the top-bracket Bush tax cuts from being reversed are saying that the president’s plan for reducing corporate tax rates to 28 percent, with a lower 25 percent rate for manufacturers, should be accompanied by a reduction in top tax rates for individuals in order to be fair to small business owners – most of whom report their business profits on their personal tax returns. This is another effort to use middle-class small business owners as a foil to help hedge fund managers, wealthy lawyers and big businesses like Bechtel, the nation’s largest engineering firm, that are formed as pass-through income organizations. These are the two to three percent of high-income “small business” owners who would reap a big windfall if income tax rates for those at the top were reduced; the rest of the real small business owners would not be affected.

The reality is that what small businesses really need is dependable modern infrastructure and more demand for their goods and services, not tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy individuals. We can strengthen this demand by making big corporations pay their fair share of taxes and investing the new revenue in economic development.

Tax reform should be about building a vibrant 21st century economy for all businesses, not rewarding big corporations for free loading on the rest of us.

Knapp is the president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce and co-chair of the American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/315087-obamas-tax-plan-a-bad-bargain-for-small-business#ixzz2aq1cxhqx

S.C. businesses have new financing option

For more information about this story, contact Frank Knapp at sbchamber@scsbc.org or 803-252-5733.

 

GSA Business
July 31, 2013

The S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce has joined a Mission Markets online crowd-funding portal that gives businesses access to financing and donation-based investment resources.

Chamber President Frank Knapp said the portal gives businesses and non-profits conducting a business enterprise another avenue to gain access to capital.

The portal, called “Invest in a New Economy,” is a partnership between the Small Business Chamber, American Sustainable Business Council and Mission Markets Inc., a New York-based securities firm. Applications are being accepted and the portal is expected to go live by the end of August.

“Any business in this state or nonprofit conducting a business enterprise will be able to use this portal,” Knapp said Wednesday.

He said there will be an application fee of about $100 and applicants will automatically become members of the chamber.

The portal allows S.C. businesses to seek capital through donation crowd-funding, which involves asking the public to make donations toward a project or business activity. Financing options also are available through private placements that involve high-income individuals investing in a business for an equity position; and — if approved by the Securities and Exchange Commission — through individuals who make relatively small investments in a business for an equity position.

Knapp’s posting on the chamber website said the Mission Markets crowd-funding portal is another option to seek capital “for the entrepreneurs and small business owners who just don’t have the equity or capital assets a financial institution needs for a loan or a line of credit.”

He said the Columbia-based chamber, with more than 5,000 members, is working with Mission Markets “because of its mission to do good, its technology to enable these proprietary blended portal networks and its goal of reaching across organizations.”

“By offering small businesses access to equity from accredited investors, and donation-based crowd financing, we are helping local communities to thrive in a socially responsible manner,” Knapp said.

https://www.gsabusiness.com/news/48446-s-c-businesses-have-new-financing-option