• Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for July 25th on 20:38

    These are my links for July 25th from 20:38 to 21:24:

    • How Governments Are Using Social Media for Better & for Worse – Social media has become a crucial part of how we interact with our friends, community and even run our cities. Governments are starting to take serious notice and incorporate social media into their own day-to-day actions.

      Governments may not be early adopters but the proliferation of social in national media has ramped up its importance for governments around the world. While this initial stance kept politicians on the defensive, enough time has passed that individual politicians and even entire governments are starting to use social media to connect with their communities in new, open ways.

      We’ve chosen a few examples to illustrate some of the many ways government is embracing social media. Have a read through some of these initiatives and let us know in the comments how your own government or political representative is putting social media to good use. The list is neither exhaustive nor does it try to summarize the entirety of a government’s social outreach. It is instead meant to start a conversation.

    • Speaker John Boehner’s solution to the debt-ceiling standoff – A Republican aide aware of the discussions in the House e-mails me the contours of the debt deal the speaker of the House will proceed with:

      Republicans insisted if the President wants his debt ceiling increase, the American people will require serious spending cuts and reforms. This two-step approach meets House Republicans’ criteria by (1) making spending cuts that are larger than any debt ceiling increase; (2) implementing spending caps to restrain future spending; and (3) advancing the cause of the Balanced Budget Amendment — without tax hikes on families and job creators. While this is not the House-passed “Cut, Cap, & Balance,” it is a package that reflects the principles of Cut, Cap, & Balance. Here is more information on the plan:
      ?Cuts That Exceed The Debt Hike. The framework would cut and cap discretionary spending immediately, saving $1.2 trillion over 10 years (subject to CBO confirmation), and raise the debt ceiling by less — up to $1 trillion.
      ?Caps To Control Future Spending. The framework imposes spending caps that would establish clear limits on future spending and serve as a barrier against government expansion while the economy grows. Failure to remain below these caps will trigger automatic across-the-board cuts (otherwise known as sequestration).
      ?Balanced Budget Amendment. The framework advances the cause of the Balanced Budget Amendment by requiring the House and Senate to vote on the measure after October 1, 2011 but before the end of the year, allowing the American people time to build sufficient support for this popular reform.
      ?Entitlement Reforms & Savings. The framework creates a Joint Committee of Congress that is required to report legislation that would produce a proposal to reduce the deficit by at least $1.8 trillion over 10 years. Each Chamber would consider the proposal of the Joint Committee on an up-or-down basis without any amendments. If the proposal is enacted, then the President would be authorized to request a debt limit increase of $1.6 trillion.
      ?No Tax Hikes. The framework included no tax hikes, a key principle that Republicans have been fighting for since day one.
      Is this the same plan the Senate majority leader and Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-Ohio) presented to the White House? A House senior aide tells me, “The plan we are introducing is essentially the plan that McConnell, Boehner, and Reid agreed to and which Reid presented to President.” A Senate adviser confirms, “If there are any changes, they are minor.”

      =======

      Then what?

      The House bill goes to the Senate and will pass with some changes.

      Then, Obama can either sign it or let America go into default.

      This is what the GOP should have done weeks ago instead of negotiationg with the primma dona who resides in the White House.

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for July 25th on 18:48

    These are my links for July 25th from 18:48 to 19:01:

    • Ron Paul thinks defaulting isn’t such a bad thing – Ron Paul, the conservative congressman from Texas, doesn't think the panic about raising the debt ceiling is as serious as some would have us believe. In fact he thinks it might be healhy for the nation in the long run.

      The man affectionately known as "Dr. No" wrote an op-ed for Bloomberg on Friday titled "Default Now, or Suffer a More Expensive Crisis Later" in which he says that the U.S. defaulted three times in the 20th century and the world didn't end.

      "Despite the defaults in 1934, 1968 and 1971, world markets have been only too willing to purchase Treasury debt and thereby fund the government’s deficit spending," wrote Paul, a GOP presidential hopeful.

      "If these major defaults didn’t result in decreased investor appetite for U.S. obligations, I see no reason why defaulting on a small amount of debt this August would cause any major changes," the Republican argued.

      Paul did acknowledge that losing the pristine AAA rating would hurt, but the longtime legislator said the pain would actually be good for a Congress that he thinks spends far too much.

      "If the government defaults on its debt now, the consequences undoubtedly will be painful in the short term. The loss of its AAA rating will raise the cost of issuing new debt, but this is not altogether a bad thing. Higher borrowing costs will ensure that the government cannot continue the same old spending policies. Budgets will have to be brought into balance (as the cost of servicing debt will be so expensive as to preclude future debt financing of government operations), so hopefully, in the long term, the government will return to sound financial footing," wrote Paul, the father of "tea party"-backed Sen. Rand Paul.

    • White House stokes debt-ceiling crisis – A Republican aide e-mails me: “The Speaker, Sen. Reid and Sen. McConnell all agreed on the general framework of a two-part plan. A short-term increase (with cuts greater than the increase), combined with a committee to find long-term savings before the rest of the increase would be considered. Sen. Reid took the bipartisan plan to the White House and the President said no.”

      If this is accurate the president is playing with fire. By halting a bipartisan deal he imperils the country’s finances and can rightly be accused of putting partisanship above all else. The ONLY reason to reject a short-term, two-step deal embraced by both the House and Senate is to avoid another approval-killing face-off for President Obama before the election. Next to pulling troops out of Afghanistan to fit the election calendar, this is the most irresponsible and shameful move of his presidency.

      As for the House, why not pass the deal that Sen. Harry Reid agreed to, send it to the Senate and leave town? Enough already.

  • Amazon Tax,  Internet Sales Taxes

    California Amazon Internet Sales Taxes Will Be Suspended When Referendum Qualifies for Ballot?



    Looks like it, as per a new legal opinion from the Office of the Legislative Counsel.

    Legislative lawyers believe that if a referendum on the new law requiring sales tax collection by online retailers qualifies for the ballot, the law will have to be put on hold until the voters have their say.If that opinion holds, it may raise the stakes for a budget written with an expectation of at least $200 million from the law in question.

    “We are of the opinion that the operation of the statute would be suspended during that time period,” writes attorneys for the office of
    the Legislative Counsel in a letter dated Friday to state Sen. Joel Anderson (R-San Diego).

    Anderson apparently asked for a legal opinion on whether the law, contained in ABx 28, would be operable should the newly launched campaign to overturn it via referendum gather enough voter signatures.

    The six page letter (PDF) tackles an issue raised a few times before, and several times since, voters approved Proposition 25 in November: whether a majority vote budget and its related “trailer” bills are subject to referendum.

    But, I am positive that this will be litigated once the requisite signatures are gathered.

    Which I do not surmise will be too long with Amazon.Com’s deep financial pockets. With the polling already showing a likelihood that the referendum will pass, Walmart, Target and the other brick and mortar retailers will want to keep Amazon’s feet to the fire – and in legal fees.

    Some have suggested that the budget and any related bill which includes an “appropriation” could, under Prop 25, may be immune from the referendum. In part, the quandary is linked to the California Constitution’s exclusion of “urgency statutes” (which go into effect immediately and require a supermajority legislative vote) and those “providing for appropriations.” Until Prop 25 lowered the budget vote in the Legislature, both seemed to apply to state’s annual fiscal plan.

    “Before Proposition 25,” the opinion letter states, “the referendum was applicable only to statutes that did not go into effect immediately.”

    But now, write legislative attorneys, the budget can no longer be considered exempt from referendum because Prop 25 didn’t explicitly say so. And while the constitution doesn’t expressly put a statute on hold once a referendum has qualified for the ballot, Legislative Counsel says the courts have nonetheless operated on that assumption.

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for July 25th on 06:08

    These are my links for July 25th from 06:08 to 13:30:

  • California Republican Party,  Michele Bachmann,  President 2012

    President 2012: Michele Bachmann To Address California GOP Convention

    Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., speaks during a rally at the Delaware County fairgrounds in Manchester Iowa, Monday, July 25, 2011

    A Friday night speech which is NOT prime time but coming to California must mean fundraising time.

    GOP presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann will make a trip to Southern California in September to speak at the California Republican Party’s fall convention.

    The conservative Minnesota congresswoman is scheduled to address delegates on the first night of the three-day convention, which will be held in Los Angeles Sept 16-18.

    CRP Chairman Tom Del Beccaro said in a statement that he believes Bachmann’s “pure energy, vibrancy and leadership will be a hit with our delegates.”

    “This is a great opportunity for us to hear directly from one of the Republican Party’s leading presidential candidates,” he said.

    The full speaker line-up has yet to be confirmed, though CRP spokesman Mark Standriff said invitations have been extended to other GOP presidential candidates as well.

    Interesting that Bachmann who, if the GOP Presidential nominee, will have NO chance of beating President Obama is still coming to the Golden State. Obviously, it is to meet with donors and to fundriase but it may also be to preempt Mitt Romney and Rick Perry (who has addressed the convention previously) from having an exclusive forum in the vast nationwide media market which is Los Angeles.

    I might actually buy a ticket for the Friday night speech and/or cover the event for flapsblog.

  • Amazon Tax,  Internet Sales Taxes

    Poll Watch: California Voters Split on Internet Sales Taxes ( Amazon Tax) Referendum

    For the second year in a row, USC Dana and David Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences is partnering with the Los Angeles Times for a public opinion poll about the state of California. Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics, and Evan Halper, Sacramento Bureau Chief from the Los Angeles Times, discuss the amazon.com tax.

    According to the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll.

    California voters are split about new legislation that would require Internet retailers to begin collecting sales tax on online purchases, according to the USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll. This week, opponents of the so-called “Amazon tax” were given approval by Secretary of State Debra Bowen to begin collecting signatures for a ballot referendum to overturn the measure.

    Conducted July 6-17, 2011, the latest USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Poll shows 46 percent of voters favoring the online sales tax as a revenue source to help balance the budget and pay for state services. Forty-nine percent opposed the measure, which would raise taxes and could hurt local businesses who sell products through online retailers such as Amazon.com.

    This will be a costly media campaign and remember once the half million or so signatures are collected, the internet sales taxes are suspended until after the election. Also, the way the referendum is worded, voting NO means NO Tax – a clear advantage to the referendum proponents.

    Now, whether Walmart and Target will team up with Big Labor and the Democrats to fight the referendum will be an interesting development. The early polling may scare them away from such a massive ad driven campaign though.

    Stay tuned….

    Non-white voters are slightly more likely than White voters to oppose the tax. Among White voters, 47 percent favor the tax and 49 percent oppose it. Among non-white voters, 43 percent favor the tax and 52 percent oppose it, including 57 percent of Black voters and 52 percent of Latino voters.

    Younger voters are also more likely than older voters to oppose the tax. Fifty-nine percent of young men oppose the tax, as do a majority – 52 percent – of young women. (37 percent of young men and 45 percent of young women support the tax.)

    Overall, 55 percent of young voters opposed taxing online purchases by California residentsand 41 percent support it. In contrast, 43 percent of voters over the age of 50 oppose taxing online purchases, and 52 percent support it.

    Opposition to the sales tax correlated to online shopping habits. Among voters who do most of their shopping online, 61 percent oppose taxing online purchases and 39 percent support it.

    But a significant majority of California voters — 82 percent — currently do little or no shopping online. Among voters who never shop online, 48 percent support charging sales tax for online purchases, and 45 percent oppose it.

  • Amazon Tax,  California,  California Citizens Redistricting Commission

    Flap’s California Morning Collection: July 25, 2011

    A morning collection of links and comments about my home, California.

    However we vote, Amazon loses

    A Times-USC poll last week showed a close contest. After registered voters were read some arguments on both sides, the so-called Amazon tax was supported by 46% and opposed by 49%.

    Looking inside the numbers, two factors stood out, neither shocking.

    A majority of Democrats (52%) favored collecting the tax online; the majority of Republicans (59%) opposed it. Independents were almost evenly split.

    There was a generational divide: The younger the voters, the more opposed they were to online tax collections. The older, the more supportive. Specifically, 55% of people under 50 were opposed, 52% of the over-50 crowd supported it.

    The conflicting political dynamic is this: The best bet is there’ll be a low turnout for the election. A low turnout normally benefits Republicans. Score one for Amazon. But younger people usually don’t bother to show up; older voters do. Score that for Wal-Mart.

    Regardless of the outcome on election day, Amazon looks like a loser. First, it’s going to spend tens of millions — and probably scores of millions if it persists in fighting this tax issue in states all over the country.

    More important for Amazon, its corporate brand will be smeared from one end of the state to the other. Get used to “tax cheat.”

    Ask Pacific Gas & Electric Co., Mercury Insurance Group and Valero oil whether they’d again try to enrich themselves in California voting booths.

    But at least this new ballot brawl should benefit one sector of the California economy.

    Dan Walters: Higher California fees are the epitome of fairness

    The fire fee is conceptually similar to a new requirement that local redevelopment agencies must share their revenue to remain in business. Those agencies have been skimming about $5 billion a year off the top of the property tax pool before funds are distributed among schools and local governments.

    The state must make up about $2 billion of that diversion to schools. So in effect, all state taxpayers have been subsidizing local redevelopment projects.

    And then there are those college fees. One commentator went so far as to claim that when Republicans refused to go along with Brown’s pitch for additional tax revenue, they were indirectly imposing a tax on college students.

    Balderdash.

    A fee is a fee, not a tax. Taxes are involuntary but fees pay for specific non-mandatory services, such as college educations.

    Roughly a third of California’s adults have four-year college degrees, so they have enjoyed low-cost educations at the expense of everyone else.

    One could argue, with great validity, that everyone has a stake in having a well-educated workforce, but even with the fee increases, college in California is still highly subsidized and still a very good deal.

    California State University fees will still be among the lowest in the nation vis-à-vis comparable institutions, according to data from the California Postsecondary Education Commission. University of California fees will be about average. And our community college fees are still rock-bottom.

    Fair is fair, and the new fees that are causing such angst are very fair.

    Will ballot measures test vested pension rights?

    A local ballot measure in San Jose and a statewide initiative, both only proposals at this point, would attempt to cut the cost of public pensions promised current workers, believed by many to be “vested rights” protected by court decisions.

    The watchdog Little Hoover Commission, warning in February that soaring pension costs could “crush” government, said cuts to new hires would not yield enough savings and recommended legislation allowing pension cuts for current workers.

    A key point: The commission and the proposed ballot measures would not cut pension amounts already earned by current workers through years of service. The cuts (in benefits or employer contributions) only apply to pensions earned after the change.

    The Little Hoover Commission said the courts have held that public employees have a vested right under contract law to the pension benefits offered on their first day on the job, even if it takes five years of work to qualify for them.

    But the commission said the rulings, which differ from private-sector pensions that can be cut for future work, have provided openings to modify benefits for current workers that must be clarified.

    “Government agencies cannot generate the needed large-scale savings by reducing benefits only for new hires,” said the commission. “It will take years if not decades to turn over the workforce, and the government is hardly in hiring mode today.”

    The backers of the proposed ballot measures are already hearing from defenders of the vested rights of current workers.

    A paper on vested rights issued by the California Public Employees Retirement System this month suggests the giant system, which covers half the non-federal government workers in the state, would go to court to protect the rights of its members.

    Independent commission finishes drawing new districts

    California’s fiest-ever independent redistricting commission finished drawing 177 new congressional, legislative and Board of Equalization maps late Sunday after a rare conflict over racial issues.

    The new maps, which will be released to the public on Friday, are expected to generate a flurry of lawsuits and at least one referendum drive, all of which would, if successful, shift redistricting to the courts for final resolution before the 2012 elections.

    Created by two ballot measures, the commission is doing a job that in the past had been done either by the Legislature or the courts. Overall, its districts – if finally adopted – are expected to give the state’s dominant Democratic Party opportunities to gain two-thirds majorities in the Legislature and increase its control of the state’s congressional delegation.

    The 14-member commission – five Republicans, five Democrats and four independents – spent the entire weekend on final district-by-district reviews, making dozens of mostly minor changes that sometimes involved just a few people.

    Enjoy your morning!

  • President 2012,  Rick Perry

    President 2012: Rick Perry to Launch Campaign in Late August But…..

    Gov. Rick Perry, center, is flanked by state senators and representatives and anti-abortion supporters as he signs the sonogram bill at the state capitol in Austin, Texas. The Texas law requires doctors to conduct a pre-abortion sonogram and describe the fetus’ features to the pregnant woman. Doctors who don’t comply would face loss of their medical license and possible prosecution. The law doesn’t allow women to opt out, with exemptions for cases of rape or incest

    Apparently so.

    Texas Gov. Rick Perry is all but certain to launch a presidential campaign and is nearing an announcement set for the second half of August, according to sources familiar with his political team’s planning.

    For months, Republican activists, donors, elected officials, and even voters have dithered about their choices in the 2012 presidential primary contest. This is especially true of grass-roots conservatives who have clamored for someone else to enter the fray, only to be disappointed by the likes of Indiana Rep. Mike Pence, South Dakota Sen. John Thune, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee — all of whom declared this year they would not be candidates, in that order.

    But they may have their man in Rick Perry, a telegenic and booming political presence who boasts executive experience as the nation’s longest serving governor, as well as a healthy level of support from the tea party faithful. The governor’s wife, Anita, has given him her blessing for a national campaign, and now that anticipation of a Perry candidacy is reaching a fever pitch, he is poised to jump into the race next month.

    Potential donors to Perry’s presidential effort met Tuesday in Austin, and those familiar with what transpired there told RealClearPolitics that key players in Perry’s orbit indicated the 61-year-old Republican will announce a campaign between Aug. 15 and Aug. 31. Perry himself said on Friday that he’ll at least make his intentions known within the next three to four weeks.

    In the past month Perry’s team has moved swiftly to put the parts in place for a campaign.

    But, not all is happy with the GOP, the Tea Party and Rick Perry’s history of less than conservative policies.

    Yet the enthusiasm over a possible Perry candidacy has thus far clouded one inconvenient truth: While the governor is currently the model of a Tea Party politician, his past includes plenty to give Tea Partiers and social conservatives pause if and when they decide to take a closer look.

    That fact was highlighted last Thursday, when former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took a very pointed shot at Perry. “For all his new found commitment to hyper-conservatism,” said the former GOP presidential candidate, “he’ll get to explain why he supported pro-abortion, pro-same sex marriage Rudy Guiliani last time.”

    Perry’s support for Giuliani – whose moderation on social issues alienated social conservatives and contributed to his dramatic flameout in the 2008 presidential race – isn’t his only potentially problematic endorsement. He doesn’t much like to talk about it these days, but Perry was actually a Democrat until 1989; the year before he converted to the GOP, he served as Texas chairman for then-presidential candidate (and current target of conservative disdain) Al Gore.

    Then there are the issues, chief among them immigration. Perry, who presides over a state with a large and growing Hispanic population. has been criticized by Texas Tea Party groups for not pushing hard enough to pass a “sanctuary city” ban and other hard-line immigration legislation. In 2001, he signed the Texas version of the DREAM Act allowing children of illegal immigrants access to in-state college tuition. As Arizona Sen. John McCain’s reelection campaign illustrated last year, any perceived softness on immigration issues can become a major headache in a Republican primary. 

    There are niche issues that could hurt Perry, like his support for the (never-created) Trans-Texas Corridor, a toll-road despised by small-government types that would have meant the appropriation of an estimated 81,000 acres of rural land. Or the executive order he signed in 2007 requiring that Texas sixth-grade girls be vaccinated against the human papilloma virus, a sexually transmitted disease that causes cervical cancer. (The order was ultimately blocked, but the order outraged many conservatives.)

    And then there’s the elephant in the room: Texas’ debt problem. In the 2010 governor’s race, Democrat Bill White pointed out that Texas’ debt has doubled under Perry. Since 2001, according to the Star-Telegram’s Mitchell Schnurman, Texas’ debt has grown at a faster rate than that of the U.S. government. Perry assumed office in December 2000.

    All this could lead Republican voters to the same conclusion about Perry that many have made about Romney, whose position on a number of issues has shifted over the years: That he is a political opportunist without core beliefs. Some conservative bloggers have already seized on a list of 14 reasons Perry “would be a really, really bad president.” The list points to many of the issues mentioned above as well as tax increases. One blogger, citing the list, derides Perry as “a big-time globalist.”

    And, don’t think that Mitt Romney and Michele Bachmann won’t try to exploit these policy differences.

    Game on…..

  • American Debt Linit,  Barack Obama,  Day By Day,  Democrats

    Day By Day July 25, 2011 – Truck Stop

    Day By Day by Chris Muir

    Notwithstanding Sam, but President Obama is throwing the American people under the bus in insisting on a debt ceiling deal that carries past the 2012 Presidential elections. Actually, he is playing Russian Roulette with the world-wide financial markets.

    The House GOP should send him a short term “all cuts” deal and dare the Democrats in the Senate and/or the White House to block it.

    Then, the Dems/Obama break it, they OWN it.

    Previous:

    The Day By Day Archive