Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

These are my links for March 3rd from 20:23 to 20:32:

• Jim DeMint: Public Broadcasting Should Go Private – When presidents of government-funded broadcasting are making more than the president of the United States, it's time to get the government out of public broadcasting.

  While executives at the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) are raking in massive salaries, the organizations are participating in an aggressive lobbying effort to prevent Congress from saving hundreds of millions of dollars each year by cutting their subsidies. The so-called commercial free public airwaves have been filled with pleas for taxpayer cash. The Association of Public Television Stations has hired lobbyists to fight the cuts. Hundreds of taxpayer-supported TV, radio and Web outlets have partnered with an advocacy campaign to facilitate emails and phone calls to Capitol Hill for the purpose of telling members of Congress, "Public broadcasting funding is too important to eliminate!"

  PBS President Paula Kerger even recorded a personal television appeal that told viewers exactly how to contact members of Congress in order to "let your representative know how you feel about the elimination of funding for public broadcasting." But if PBS can pay Ms. Kerger $632,233 in annual compensation—as reported on the 990 tax forms all nonprofits are required to file—surely it can operate without tax dollars.

  The executives at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which distributes the taxpayer money allocated for public broadcasting to other stations, are also generously compensated. According to CPB's 2009 tax forms, President and CEO Patricia de Stacy Harrison received $298,884 in reportable compensation and another $70,630 in other compensation from the organization and related organizations that year. That's practically a pittance compared to Kevin Klose, president emeritus of NPR, who received more than $1.2 million in compensation, according to the tax forms the nonprofit filed in 2009.

  ++++++

  Agreed

• The Kochs fight back – Listing Who, What and Why – Faced with an avalanche of bad publicity after years of funding conservative causes in relative anonymity, the billionaire industrialist Koch brothers, Charles and David, are fighting back.

  They’ve hired a team of PR pros with experience working for top Republicans including Sarah Palin and Arnold Schwarzenegger to quietly engage reporters to try to shape their Koch coverage, and commissioned sophisticated polling to monitor any collateral damage to the image of their company, Koch Industries.

  At the same time, through their high-priced lawyers, private security detail and influential allies in conservative politics and media, the Kochs have played hard ball with critics and suspected foes.

  Young environmental activists who pranked them have been hit with a lawsuit seeking more than $100,000 in damages, and the leak of an internal document describing their political activities resulted in an investigation – complete with document analysis and interviews of suspects – that eventually identified the mole.

  Both their new openness and their aggressive – and sometimes secretive – tactics were on display before and during the Kochs’ closed-door, invitation-only four-day annual winter meeting of conservative donors and leaders that concluded Tuesday with a breakfast at the pricey resort that hosted it here in the Palm Springs suburbs.

  +++++++

  Read it all.

  I missed this piece a month ago when I covered the Koch Conference in Ranch Mirage

• The Enquirer’s Edwards Source’s Story – Observations by Mickey Kaus – Everybody’s favorite Rielle Hunter source, Pigeon O’Brien, tells her story in the Huffington Post.  I learned some things: 1) A lot more people were investigating the Edwards/Hunter sex scandal than I’d thought. It wasn’t just the National Enquirer and Sam Stein of HuffPo. Other campaigns and other publications were calling O’Brien for confirmation. Which raises the question: If so much of the MSM knew or suspected the story was true, why was it subequently so easily cowed by the efforts of John and Elizabeth Edwards to cover it up? 2) After Edwards’ first semi-confession, when he swore he couldn’t be the father of Rielle Hunter’s child, MSM reporters took his side with O’Brien:

  Rielle was flown out of the country and Edwards “confessed” on television (the first confession, the one in which he denied he was Quinn’s father) but included a troubling aside that he’d been with her at the hotel late at night because of her “troubles.” The press leaped on this and my phone rang all night: She’s blackmailing him for Andrew Young’s baby! Appalled, I spoke out and was told again and again, off camera, “Why do you defend her? Edwards says she’s a slut. Who knows whose baby that is?”

  ++++++++

  Read it all

  I first learned of the National Enquirer and the entire flap through reading Mickey's blog

These are my links for March 3rd from 18:35 to 18:38:

• Think Ignorance Swings and Misses – Apparently the deconstructions I have been doing of Think Progress's attacks on Charles and David Koch and their company, Koch Industries, have hit home. That web site has now responded with a silly attack on me, titled "Blogger From Koch's Law Firm Defends Koch, Doesn't Disclose Ties." Lee Fang writes:

  Fighting back against public scrutiny, Koch Industries is relying on a small army of conservative bloggers, reporters, and lobbyists. Chief among them is John Hinderaker, a blogger at the "Powerline Blog." However, in his now daily defense of the Koch brothers, Hinderaker has failed to disclose that his law firm counts Koch Industries as a major client.

  I don't know about "major," but Koch Industries is a client of my firm. This is no secret; the firm's web site lists Koch as a client and identifies four lawsuits in which we have represented Koch entities. (I had no involvement in any of those cases.) When I mention companies, I never say whether they are clients of my law firm. There are two reasons for this. First, try to I keep my political/media activities separate from the firm's law practice, to the point of not even using a firm-owned computer to write posts.

  +++++++

  Read it all

• How the John Edwards Affair Ended Up in the Enquirer – Lisa Druck was trouble. You'd run into her at Nell's where we all tended to hang out and she'd be in a panic. Some guy would be running from her, taxiing quickly to another club. She'd storm the bathrooms and you could hear her voice from behind the closed doors, operatically singing the latest drama.

  Yet we liked her. There was something charming and feral in her aggressive bubbliness. The seedier stuff bothered my prudish self, stories of strip poker and non-monogamy. But I was seeing her ex-boyfriend and if I wanted to keep him out of the riskier stuff, I had to like her. So I did.

  That was the 1980s. I grew up and years passed and Lisa Druck vanished from my life, only leaving behind her likeness in a shocking book by our friend Jay McInerney, Story Of My Life.

Republican Senator Richard Lugar is in trouble against Richard Mourdock. 

Barring an unexpected decision to retire before November 2012, Lugar will face Indiana voters for the sixth time as the incumbent. He recently raised an estimated $400,000 from one event and has amassed a campaign warchest in excess of $2.3 million. Expect that total to swell in coming months.

He’s also raised something else – the hackles of Indiana Tea Party members and a primary challenger, Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock.

According to the conventional wisdom, Lugar’s seniority, establishment connections, well-funded campaign treasury, and easy access to sympathetic national media coverage should make him a shoo-in for a seventh term.

Don’t count on it. Lugar made  a big mistake by claiming last year that the Tea Party needed to “get real.” He might as well have put on a dunce cap because such remarks often hint at the very attitudes of overweening pride of incumbency and blindness to genuine voter dissatisfaction that have driven many a respected incumbent into retirement – think Tom Daschle, Jim Wright, Tom Foley and Robert Bennett.

Saying things like that is how you become the latest installment of that old, familiar Washington story – former senator.

My bet is that Lugar retires within the next six months.

These are my links for March 3rd from 15:39 to 15:49:

• Wisconsin Senate Does Not Need a 3/5ths Quorum to Pass Much of the Budget Bill – Super Quorums under the Wisconsin Constitution

  This essay takes a brief and preliminary look at the remedies available to the Wisconsin Senate to enact its 2011 proposed budget legislation without Democratic senators who fled the state in February 2011. Article VII, §8 of the Wisconsin Constitution requires a three-fifths quorum only for statutes that are fiscal, that is, statutes that actually appropriate money, impose taxes, create a debt, or release a claim owed to the state. Even then, these categories have consistently been interpreted in the most limited form conceivable.

  For example, in State v. Stitt (1983), the Wisconsin Supreme Court determined that the issuance of short-term debt was not debt under Article VIII of the constitution and thus was not “fiscal” so as to trigger the three-fifths quorum and roll call requirements.

  The Wisconsin attorney general in 1971 gave a formal opinion to the legislature that a bill that changed collective bargaining rights substantially was not fiscal in nature and was not subject to the three-fifths super quorum provision. Because collective bargaining rights and that very statutory chapter (ch. 111) are at the heart of the proposed Senate Bill 11, the most controversial portions of the bill could be passed constitutionally with just a simple majority of elected members present, without a three-fifths quorum.

  Though some provisions in Senate Bill 11 are clearly fiscal — e.g., increasing appropriations for needy families, health care, and corrections — much of the bill is not fiscal. Even provisions that observers might reasonably assume to be fiscal are probably not fiscal under Wisconsin law, such as the rule that in the future employers can agree to pay no more than 88% of health care costs.

  Because much of Senate Bill 11 is not subject to the three-fifths quorum, these portions could be separated from the rest of the bill and passed by majority vote in the presence of a simple majority of the elected Senators. With Republicans holding 19 of the Wisconsin Senate’s 33 seats, Republicans thus constitute a quorum to pass much of Senate Bill 11 without any Democratic Senators present or voting. The rest of the bill would have to await the return of the wandering Senators and the return of a three-fifths quorum.

• Government Unions: Restore Voter Control and a Nonpartisan Civil Service – Abstract: With Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker attempting to rein in the unbalanced power of government unions, and given the fierce stranglehold that union members have on their ever-increasing taxpayer-provided benefits, now is a crucial time for Americans to understand the difference between private-sector and public-sector unions. Collective bargaining in the private sphere—where companies face competition—is a world away from collective bargaining in government—which faces no competition, and where unions have a legal monopoly. Heritage Foundation labor expert James Sherk explains why it is time to restore voter control over elected government, and how it can be done.

  Collective bargaining by unions takes place very differently in government than it does in the private sector. Private-sector unions have competitors and bargain over the profits they help create. The government earns no profits. Government unions have a legal monopoly and bargain for a greater share of tax dollars. Collective bargaining in government means that voters’ elected representatives must agree on tax and spending decisions with union representatives.

  Collective bargaining also politicizes the civil service. Government unions negotiate contract provisions that force workers to join and subsidize their fundraising. These subsidies have made them the top political spenders in the country. They use that money to lobby for higher taxes and protect their inflated compensation.

  compensation.

  America can no longer afford these special-interest subsidies. State and local governments should:

  * Restore voter control over government spending by ending collective bargaining with government unions.
  * Restore a nonpartisan civil service by ending subsidies for union fundraising and giving workers the choice of paying union dues. Voters should tell the government how to spend their money, not the other way around.

  +++++++

  Read the piece from the Heritage Foundation in full

You remember the legislation which will impose internet sales taxes on Amazon.com, e-Bay and Overstock.com

Now, at a California Assembly hearing on “Use Taxes” the California Board of Equalization staff raised calls for alarm as to what this legislation would really mean for California. Read the draft Board of Equalization Staff Legislative Bill analysis here (Pdf.)

Some interesting points in the analysis:

COST ESTIMATE

• The BOE would incur costs to administer this bill. These costs would be attributable to notifying affected out-of-state retailers and ensuring compliance, potential litigation costs, and costs related to revising the BOE’s Regulation 1684 and related publications, and answering inquiries. An estimate of these costs is pending.

REVENUE ESTIMATE

• The revenue impact from this proposed change to the definition of a “retailer engaged in business in this state” is subject to considerable uncertainty. And, there could be an unknown delay of any revenues due to potential litigation arising from enactment of this provision. In a purely static world (no behavioral changes resulting from the change in tax policy) with full compliance, we estimate that the proposed change would lead to a state and local revenue increase of $152 million in 2011-12 (a half-year effect) and $317 million in 2011-12. These estimates are based on the combination of (1) the amount of revenues currently being collected in New York, adjusted for California’s larger economy, and (2) increased revenues associated with out-of-state retailers that sell to California consumers on eBay that would have a use tax collection obligation under the provisions of this bill (see Comment 3).

• However, the State’s likelihood of actually realizing these revenues depends entirely on (1) Internet retailers’ (such as Amazon and Overstock) willingness to continue their affiliate programs, and (2) other retailers’ willingness to continue to sell on eBay and to fully comply with the added use tax collection obligations imposed by this bill. We have received direct confirmation from Amazon that it will terminate its relationship with its 10,000 California affiliates should this measure become enacted. We estimate that Amazon currently comprises roughly 50 percent of the Internet sales of large firms who currently do not have nexus in California. Consequently, the static revenue estimates cited above, adjusted for Amazon’s response, would drop to $114 million in 2011-12 and $234 million in 2012-13. If other firms were also to terminate their affiliate programs in response to the enactment of this bill, the potential revenue gain would be further diminished. Similarly, while we lack the data to determine to what extent out-of-state retailers would discontinue their use of eBay to sell to California consumers, any drop in such eBay usage would even further lower the revenue gain.

• Additionally, the termination of affiliate programs would have an adverse impact on state employment, which in turn would lead to lower revenues from sources such as the personal income tax and the corporation tax. The amount of these potential reductions is unknown.

In fact, California Board of Equalization member and former California State Senator George Runner issued the following press release (Pdf):

Board of Equalization Member Senator George Runner today warned that Amazon will terminate its relationships with more than 10,000 California-based affiliate businesses if pending legislation becomes law.

“In no uncertain terms, Amazon has made it clear to me that the checks they send Californians will be cut off overnight if pending legislation aimed at regulating their operations becomes law,” said Runner.

Runner cited a letter he received from Paul Misener, Amazon’s Vice President for Global Public Policy, in which Misener cites four specific bills—AB 153 (Skinner), AB 155 (Calderon), SB 234 (Hancock), SB 655 (Steinberg). These measures all aim at requiring out-of-state online retailers like Amazon to collect sales tax on purchases made by Californians.

In his letter Misener writes: “If any of these new tax collection schemes were adopted, Amazon would be compelled to end its advertising relationships with well over 10,000 California-based participants in the Amazon ‘Associates Program.’”

Runner warned, “This is an imminent threat to California jobs. Lawmakers would do well to pay attention.”

Misener notes that similar statewide terminations have already occurred in North Carolina, Rhode Island and Colorado after those states enacted similar laws.

Misener explains that these participants—also known as affiliates—“place Amazon advertisements on their websites, and then are compensated by Amazon for purchases made by visitors whom they refer to Amazon’s website.”

A revised Board of Equalization analysis of the pending Assembly measures cautions that 50% of projected revenues would vanish as a result of Amazon’s action. Revenues would be “further diminished” if other firms also terminated their affiliate programs.

The BOE analysis also warns of an “adverse impact on state employment,” resulting in lower corporate and personal income tax revenues for the state.

In conclusion Runner said, “The Legislature needs to stop considering bills that would hurt jobs and instead start improving California’s dismal business climate so we can attract much-needed jobs to our state.”

So, the California Board of Equalization understands just like the other states that this legislation is disputable in its federal constitutionality, will raise far less revenue than touted and will cost Californians jobs.

For what?

Oh yeah – the answer is easy. California Democrat legislators, including Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) and Democrat State Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-sacramento) can milk campaign contributions from Wal-mart, Target, Home Depot Barnes and Noble, et al. who desire a competitive business advantage over Amazon, e-Bay and Overstock.com.

Look for these bills to come back over and over again as the Democrats milk them for all that they are worth – a bad deal for California.