• Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for March 24th on 08:00

    These are my links for March 24th from 08:00 to 09:50:

    • How television created and then killed Sarah Palin’s political prospects – It was television that destroyed Sarah Palin, just as it made her. I’ve said before and I’ll say it again – the arrival of Palin as a major political figure in 2008 was an emanation of the reality-TV culture, anchored in the belief that ordinary or “everyday” people, inarticulate though they may be, and with all the baggage of messy personal lives, are truly compelling public figures. Palin was the political equivalent. A figure who refracts national identity as it is shaped by the culture’s most powerful medium. Authentic, populist and dismissive of sophistication in thought and action.

      Then, television duly destroyed the Palin authenticity. The arc of her national political career began with a defining speech at the Republican National Convention in September, 2008, and ended in November, 2010, a few episodes into Sarah Palin’s Alaska. The show, a cringingly inevitable reality-TV series, gave her a huge platform and she blew it. If her exposure on TV in 2008 brought out the authenticity, the show brought out Palin’s inner princess. She talked about being a mom 87 times an episode (I’m exaggerating , but only a little) and made dubious attempts to make political parables linking her family, the outdoors and wildlife. It was ego unbounded. And this after quitting her job as governor of Alaska.

      ======
      Interesting enough Sarah Palin's next career will most probably be on television.

    • Why is Jon Huntsman running for president? – This is like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) without the war record and without the bona fides on national security. And speaking of which, Huntsman’s hiring “key members from McCain’s team at the helm.” That alone is enough to freak out many in the base, who came to detest the McCain campaign crew for incompetency and disloyalty to its VP pick.

      I’m trying to figure out who a “Huntsman voter” is. Rudy Giuliani attracted moderates before his campaign imploded (fizzled, actually). But he led New York through Sept. 11, governed like a no-nonsense fiscal conservative and offered up conservative positions on school choice, health care and tax policy. And he never served in a liberal president’s administration. Perhaps there is an untapped segment of the electorate to the left of Giuliani who doesn’t think that poorly of Obama. Unfortunately for Huntsman, they likely are Democrats.

      You do have to wonder how Huntsman, an intelligent man with business experience, was sold on taking the plunge. And you really have to wonder how thrilled his family will be if he decides to risk a chunk of the family fortune.

      ======

      Good question – because he has the massive fortune to do so?

    • California must enforce ‘use’ law — now – Or Support Internet Taxes – So be it. Holding affiliates hostage in a desperate effort to continue tax-exempt merchandizing shouldn't be condoned. Barnes & Noble, which does collect the sales tax, has offered to pick up some of the Amazon affiliates. Other online retailers could, too.

      If the tax-free e-tailers retained their affiliate marketers and began collecting the taxes, Skinner estimates, her bill would net between $250 million and $500 million annually for the bleeding state general fund.

      But California this year will be stiffed much more: $1.7 billion in taxes that should have been paid on Web purchases, according to a University of Tennessee study.

      Another bill, by state Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), would grant the Board of Equalization more power to force tax collections. She estimates it could gain the state more than $1 billion annually.

      A key backer is Democratic equalization board member Betty Yee.

      "Amazon used to argue that it didn't have the capability to collect the taxes, given the various different tax rates," she says. "They can track individual consumer preferences about products but can't track sales taxes? That's kind of crazy."

      Runner says, "The only way to solve this problem is with a national solution. You can't do it piecemeal."

      Perhaps. But a lot of California retailers could fold before the feds ride to their rescue. Meanwhile, deficit-plagued states are denied the taxes they're owed.

      Sacramento politicians should move swiftly to protect local businesses and demand the state's legal share. They should get off their inertia.

      =====

      George Skelton, the LA Times Columnist is an old tax and spend liberal who never met a tax he didn't like.

      He supports the loss of jobs to California affiliates of Amazon.com and Overstock.com.

      I suggest that those affiliates cancel their paid subscriptions to the Los Angeles Times.

      Oh wait, they already read the rag for free on the internet.

      Internet taxation is a bad policy for California and America.

  • Pinboard Links

    Flap’s Links and Comments for March 22nd on 09:10

    These are my links for March 22nd from 09:10 to 09:12:

    • Can California tax Internet purchases? – California's severe budget squeeze and a stagnant economy have rekindled a political war over how Internet purchases should be taxed – if, indeed, they could be taxed.

      California already has one of the nation's highest sales tax rates, approaching 10 percent in some communities. But it's applied only to transactions inside the state or to mail order and Internet sales when the seller has a "physical presence" in the state.

      The latter condition – decreed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992 – is the rub.

      Technically, Californians who buy from distant sellers are supposed to pay an equivalent "use tax" on state income tax returns. Few do, and enforcement is virtually impossible.

      That would seem to be that, but the potential revenue gain – officially at least a few hundred million dollars a year – and pressure from brick-and-mortar merchants about untaxed competition have sparked efforts to mine the Internet and mail sales vein.

      The situation's bête noire is Amazon, the huge Internet seller of almost everything. New York seized upon Amazon's use of affiliated sellers as the "physical presence" or "nexus" that would require it to collect sales taxes. But the New York law is tied up in the courts, and Amazon has threatened to cancel affiliate relations in any state that follows suit.

      Some California legislators want to emulate New York, prompting Amazon to issue a declaration that it not only opposes four pending taxation bills as violating the Supreme Court decision, but "would be compelled to end its advertising relationships with well over 10,000 California-based participants in the Amazon associates program." Overstock.com issued a similar warning.

      ======

      Read it all.

    • Levin 1, Wehner 0 – Advantage, Levin. Even if you don’t believe the seemingly apocryphal stories about Reagan regretting the 1986 bill, it clearly failed. (The amnesty part worked. The border enforcement part was blocked.) It’s one thing to say Reagan supported this policy the first time. It’s another to claim he would have supported making the same mistake a second time–and that this is the “conservative” approach. … P.S.: It’s particularly disingenuous for Wehner to claim that Bush “never supported” a Reagan-like “amnesty.” The main difference between Reagan’s approach and Bush’s is that Reagan was honest enough to call it what it was (“amnesty”).  Bush and his apparatchiks preferred poll-tested confections like “path to citizenship.” …  Also, Bush’s amnesty was bigger. …

      =======

      Bush's Amnesty Plan or Path to Citizenship would have been a MAJOR disaster.

      Reagan's "Amnesty" was bad enough – Mark Levin was correct.