You're Not The Boss Of Me

You're Not The Boss Of Me

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

In some ways, I guess I’ve enjoyed the spectacle of a pseudo-intellectual, gussied-up, pretentious Chicago politician trying to pass himself off as a sophisticated man for all seasons. The man is flawless, incapable of making a mistake. He has even managed to convince a large segment of the American public that he is unflappable and tolerant of criticism. He proved otherwise this past Wednesday in Arizona.

On that day, the sweet-tempered, the ever-smiling president landed in Arizona and exposed himself for the ill-tempered and thin-skinned creature he really is. He was greeted by the Governor of Arizona, Jan Brewer, who is not known as being a fan of The One. In fact, the confrontation turned into an Obama review of Brewer’s book Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure America’s Borders. The governor was there in her official capacity as state greeter, but she was also there to plead with the president for more border security.

Unfortunately for Brewer, Obama knew that she had written some unkind words about He Who Cannot Be Criticized. The conversation, largely out of earshot of the public and press and beneath the wings of Air Force One, was obviously heated, complete with some very visible finger-wagging on both sides. After a short exchange, the president turned his back on the governor and stormed off like a child who lost a playground match and grabbed his marbles and left.

Before he was able to get to a refreshed TelePrompter, Obama let it be known that the governor had not “treated him cordially.” Well, you have to admit, she forgot to kiss his ring as they approached each other. It was obvious that he knows that he is King of America and she is merely a provincial governor. One does not lecture the king of kings, nor write a memoir that does not sing his praises.

The governor says that before she could start a conversation, Obama stated that he was disturbed about her book. She never got to make the case for more border security. She asked him if he had read the book, but after responding that he had read “an excerpt” and stating categorically that she had committed lese majeste, he walked away from her while she was still in mid-sentence attempting to respond.

So what did the mainstream media pick up on? Pictures of Brewer’s “disrespectful finger-pointing.” The best they could say is that if she didn’t respect the man, she should at least respect the office. Well, the man has sullied the office, so I think she can be at least partially forgiven if she didn’t do proper obeisance. She is an independently-elected leader of a sovereign state, equally deserving respect which he did not grant her. Governors are servants of the people of their states, not subordinates of the emperor. If she had given him the finger instead of pointing one at him, he might have been justified in feeling he had not gotten due respect for his office.

Governors are heads of state as much as the president, and they are not in the military where his position as commander-in-chief might make the man/office mantra appropriate. The governor was there as head of her government to seek help in stopping the massive flow of illegal immigration, crime, and drug importing on the border between Mexico and Arizona. The president was there to campaign for re-election and to ignore his administration’s Mexico-US gun-running operation. Which deserves more respect?

This kind of regal displeasure treatment of his “inferiors” is getting to be a habit with Obama. After being greeted by Governor Rick Perry of Texas, Obama stormed off within less than half a minute when Perry raised the issue of border security. He fumed and fretted publicly after Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana dared to write the president a letter asking for some genuine work instead of talk during the Gulf oil spill disaster. He actually called Jindal a “whiner” for asking for emergency food programs while the residents of the gulf recovered.

Obama is completely incapable of understanding federalism. He sees the states as branches of the national government and governors as his lieutenants. Any word of disagreement by one of those lieutenants must be treated as disrespect for the glorious leader and rank insubordination. Well, this god has feet of clay and this emperor has no clothes (how’s that for mixing my metaphors?). Obama deserves the title of King of Cool about as much as Rosie O’Donnell deserved the title of Queen of Nice.

Update Well, I suppose this was inevitable. Now Al Sharpton, the NAACP, Joe Madison, MSNBC and a raft of left wing talk-show hosts have declared that Brewer's actions were not only disrespectful, but racist. One says that Brewer's actions were the natural fear that white women have of black men. The rest are absolutely convinced that Brewer would never had behaved this way if the president were white. One black contributor on Fox News says that she doesn't believe Brewer is a racist, but her actions are typical of white behavior toward blacks. "Typical white woman" anyone?

You're Not The Boss Of Me

View Detail

Jobs Bill: The Obama Is In The Details

Jobs Bill: The Obama Is In The Details

Things are not going well for Obama’s jobs bill. First, there was no bill, even though Obama insisted there was. Then there was a bill, but no Democrats were willing to sponsor it. In fact, they hate it. . . they fear it. Then Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert came along.

Obama’s jobs bill seemed destined for failure the moment Obama even announced it. The bill is a disaster of recycled, failed ideas which no one really thinks will do any good. The left hates it. The right hates it. Rasmussen says that only 38% of the public supports the bill. Even among Democrats desperate to do something. . . anything, this bill has been about as popular as the plague.

● Sen. Jim Webb (Va): “Terrible.”

● Sen. Mary Landrieu (La): “That offset is not going to fly, and [Obama] should know that. Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

● Sen. Tom Carper (Del): “I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan. That’s better than everything else the president is talking about combined.”

● Rep. Raul Grijalva (Az): “There is serious discomfort with potentially setting up Social Security as a fall guy.”

That’s why no Democrats have been willing to sponsor the bill.

Enter Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Gohmert has represented Texas since 2005. In 2008, he offered an alternative to the stimulus that would have given the country a tax holiday. In 2009, he cosponsored a bill that would have required presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate. Now he’s gone after Obama’s jobs bill, and what he’s uncovered is pretty shocking.

First, Obama’s bill would turn the unemployed into a protected class similar to ethnic minorities. Thus, if an unemployed person applies for a job and is not hired because someone who currently has a job is hired instead, that person can sue the company for discrimination. Seriously.

This is HUGE! Think about what this would do. The effect would be to (1) freeze everyone in place at their current jobs because no one would hire anyone who has a job, (2) stop all but essential hiring because of the risk of litigation, and (3) spur tons of frivolous litigation in the hopes of striking it rich or getting bought off. This would become the “Unemployed Litigants Enrichment Act.” You would literally see unemployed people bringing an avalanche of suits in the hopes of squeezing some cash out of local businesses.

This would destroy American business.

Secondly, there is a clause in this legislation which provides that any state that accepts federal money under any program will automatically waive its 11th Amendment protections (called “sovereign immunity”). That means states could then be sued for employment discrimination. Combine this with the unemployment bit above and you’ve got a recipe for the unemployed enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Even without the extra employment bit, this still would be a goldmine for employment lawyers.

These provisions are insane, which is why Obama is trying to create a sense of urgency to get the bill passed before anyone reads it. Hence, he spent the day talking about the “employment crisis” and our “national emergency.” Fortunately, this will never pass a Republican Congress. Heck, I doubt it could pass a Democrat Congress.

Finally, you should know that Gohmert has struck again. Since the Democrats have been unwilling to introduce the bill, Gohmert stole the name of Obama’s bill and introduced his own “American Jobs Act.” This is a two page bill that eliminates the corporate tax!

So yes, Mr. President. . . let’s pass the American Jobs Act now!!

Things are not going well for Obama’s jobs bill. First, there was no bill, even though Obama insisted there was. Then there was a bill, but no Democrats were willing to sponsor it. In fact, they hate it. . . they fear it. Then Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert came along.

Obama’s jobs bill seemed destined for failure the moment Obama even announced it. The bill is a disaster of recycled, failed ideas which no one really thinks will do any good. The left hates it. The right hates it. Rasmussen says that only 38% of the public supports the bill. Even among Democrats desperate to do something. . . anything, this bill has been about as popular as the plague.

● Sen. Jim Webb (Va): “Terrible.”

● Sen. Mary Landrieu (La): “That offset is not going to fly, and [Obama] should know that. Maybe it’s just for his election, which I hope isn’t the case.”

● Sen. Tom Carper (Del): “I think the best jobs bill that can be passed is a comprehensive long-term deficit-reduction plan. That’s better than everything else the president is talking about combined.”

● Rep. Raul Grijalva (Az): “There is serious discomfort with potentially setting up Social Security as a fall guy.”

That’s why no Democrats have been willing to sponsor the bill.

Enter Republican Congressman Louie Gohmert. Gohmert has represented Texas since 2005. In 2008, he offered an alternative to the stimulus that would have given the country a tax holiday. In 2009, he cosponsored a bill that would have required presidential candidates to provide a birth certificate. Now he’s gone after Obama’s jobs bill, and what he’s uncovered is pretty shocking.

First, Obama’s bill would turn the unemployed into a protected class similar to ethnic minorities. Thus, if an unemployed person applies for a job and is not hired because someone who currently has a job is hired instead, that person can sue the company for discrimination. Seriously.

This is HUGE! Think about what this would do. The effect would be to (1) freeze everyone in place at their current jobs because no one would hire anyone who has a job, (2) stop all but essential hiring because of the risk of litigation, and (3) spur tons of frivolous litigation in the hopes of striking it rich or getting bought off. This would become the “Unemployed Litigants Enrichment Act.” You would literally see unemployed people bringing an avalanche of suits in the hopes of squeezing some cash out of local businesses.

This would destroy American business.

Secondly, there is a clause in this legislation which provides that any state that accepts federal money under any program will automatically waive its 11th Amendment protections (called “sovereign immunity”). That means states could then be sued for employment discrimination. Combine this with the unemployment bit above and you’ve got a recipe for the unemployed enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. Even without the extra employment bit, this still would be a goldmine for employment lawyers.

These provisions are insane, which is why Obama is trying to create a sense of urgency to get the bill passed before anyone reads it. Hence, he spent the day talking about the “employment crisis” and our “national emergency.” Fortunately, this will never pass a Republican Congress. Heck, I doubt it could pass a Democrat Congress.

Finally, you should know that Gohmert has struck again. Since the Democrats have been unwilling to introduce the bill, Gohmert stole the name of Obama’s bill and introduced his own “American Jobs Act.” This is a two page bill that eliminates the corporate tax!

So yes, Mr. President. . . let’s pass the American Jobs Act now!!

Jobs Bill: The Obama Is In The Details

View Detail

Taxes: Main Street v. eStreet

Taxes: Main Street v. eStreet

Today’s topic involves an issue about which I am conflicted. Should states be allowed to “tax” internet merchants? I put “tax” in quotes because that's not actually what's going on. The real question is: should states be allowed to force internet merchants to collect sales taxes from customers? This is a much more complicated issue than it seems at first glance. Here is the problem as each side sees it:



1. The State View: Americans buy about $10 billion a year from the internet (and growing). But as a practical matter, states can’t tax this. Technically, they can and do tax it, but they can only collect the tax from the purchaser. Indeed, most states have laws requiring you to report what you purchase and pay tax on that. . . fat chance.



From the state perspective, this is lost revenue. To solve this problem, states keep trying to force internet retailers (e-tailers) to collect sales taxes just like bricks and mortar retailers do. Right now, e-tailers don’t do that, and states don’t have the power to force them.



The reason states can’t force this is the way jurisdiction works in the United States. To be able to regulate (and tax) a business, that business must have some “nexus” to the state. But the term “nexus” isn’t clearly defined. Operating a warehouse within a state clearly constitutes a nexus. Having a retail operation does too. But what if people buy from your catalog or off your webpage? So far, the courts have always said that is not enough to form a nexus. Thus, states can’t force e-tailers to collect sale tax for them. . . though they keep trying.



California is the latest state to try. What they’ve done is to declare that any e-tailer who deals with local sellers has a nexus to the state. Amazon falls into this category because it partners with small businesses all over the country including California. Because of this bill, Amazon has begun terminating its relationship with all of these people if they are located in California (10,000 were terminated in July). Amazon is also trying to get this bill repealed by referendum.



2. The Main Street Retailer View: Main Street retailers hate companies like Amazon. They have no choice but to collect the sales tax imposed by the state. Thus, they are at a disadvantage to the e-tailers, and the disadvantage can be serious. In liberal states like Illinois, for example, it can reach nearly 12% with local surcharges. That’s a significant handicap when the e-tailer doesn’t have to collect those taxes.



Extending this argument to its natural conclusion, retailers argue that if this situation is not remedied, then e-tailers will eventually wipe out retailers. But keep a couple things in mind. First, these are the same retailers who wiped out the mom and pop shops two decades ago. . . so their argument rings a little hypocritical. Secondly, there are other benefits the retailers get (like property tax breaks) that are not given to the e-tailer. Third, the retailer business model may be defective, and rather than trying to force a tax hike on e-tailers, maybe they should be looking for new services to lure customers back into their stores. Fourth, some products simply aren't amenable to the e-tailer model.



3. The eStreet Internet Retailer View: The e-tailer response is twofold. First, to allow states to force them to collect the tax would make them a special case that violates 200 years of jurisprudence. It’s the business equivalent of letting New York haul you into court just because you sent a letter to someone who lives in New York.



Secondly, e-tailers make a practicality argument. There are 8,000 different tax jurisdictions in the US, each with different rules, procedures and rates, which change at a moment’s notice. Moreover, these jurisdictions don’t align with zip codes. Thus, it would be a practical nightmare for a company like Amazon to assess and collect the right amount of tax. It would be impossible for smaller e-tailers. This change could effectively kill off all but the largest e-tailers.



4. My View: Politically, I am conflicted on this. As a firm believer in federalism and the 10th Amendment, I generally favor letting states handle their own affairs. . . even if they make a mess of it. So they should be allowed to tax whatever activity goes on inside their borders provided they don’t discriminate against out-of-state companies. But that argument really doesn’t apply here because they can tax these transactions, they just can’t get it collected the easy way. States have a right to regulate themselves, they don’t have a right to regulate outsiders just because it makes things easier for the state.



And practically speaking, I think it would be disastrous to allow 10,000 tax regimes to force themselves upon e-tailers. What’s more, how can we then be sure they are being treated fairly (i.e. that there is no discrimination against out-of-state companies)? Suppose a single sales tax is imposed on both retailers and e-tailers. That sounds fair, but what about the property tax breaks, utility discounts or other things the retailer gets that reek of local favoritism?



I don’t care for the idea that in the long run we are likely to end up with most retailers going out of business in favor of e-tailers (e.g. book and music stores). But on the other hand, these e-tailers have been very good for consumers even beyond the sale tax issue and the death of the retailer may be inevitable unless retailers find some way to improve their business model.



Right now Senate Democrats are trying to come up with a bill (the Main Street Fairness Act) to “solve” this problem. Amazon supports it, eBay opposes it. Frankly, this sounds like it will impose a fairly heavy regulatory burden on e-tailers. I suspect Amazon likes it because it will make it hard for smaller competitors to enter its market. eBay probably opposes it because eBay relies on thousands of small sellers, who would likely end up violating the new rules.



There may be no good answer, but when in doubt, I find myself coming down against any solution offered by Democrats with the support of the biggest company in the field and with the support of trade groups looking for a little protectionism for their members. So if I had to vote right now, I would vote to leave the system as it is.



What do you think? How would you solve this problem?

Today’s topic involves an issue about which I am conflicted. Should states be allowed to “tax” internet merchants? I put “tax” in quotes because that's not actually what's going on. The real question is: should states be allowed to force internet merchants to collect sales taxes from customers? This is a much more complicated issue than it seems at first glance. Here is the problem as each side sees it:



1. The State View: Americans buy about $10 billion a year from the internet (and growing). But as a practical matter, states can’t tax this. Technically, they can and do tax it, but they can only collect the tax from the purchaser. Indeed, most states have laws requiring you to report what you purchase and pay tax on that. . . fat chance.



From the state perspective, this is lost revenue. To solve this problem, states keep trying to force internet retailers (e-tailers) to collect sales taxes just like bricks and mortar retailers do. Right now, e-tailers don’t do that, and states don’t have the power to force them.



The reason states can’t force this is the way jurisdiction works in the United States. To be able to regulate (and tax) a business, that business must have some “nexus” to the state. But the term “nexus” isn’t clearly defined. Operating a warehouse within a state clearly constitutes a nexus. Having a retail operation does too. But what if people buy from your catalog or off your webpage? So far, the courts have always said that is not enough to form a nexus. Thus, states can’t force e-tailers to collect sale tax for them. . . though they keep trying.



California is the latest state to try. What they’ve done is to declare that any e-tailer who deals with local sellers has a nexus to the state. Amazon falls into this category because it partners with small businesses all over the country including California. Because of this bill, Amazon has begun terminating its relationship with all of these people if they are located in California (10,000 were terminated in July). Amazon is also trying to get this bill repealed by referendum.



2. The Main Street Retailer View: Main Street retailers hate companies like Amazon. They have no choice but to collect the sales tax imposed by the state. Thus, they are at a disadvantage to the e-tailers, and the disadvantage can be serious. In liberal states like Illinois, for example, it can reach nearly 12% with local surcharges. That’s a significant handicap when the e-tailer doesn’t have to collect those taxes.



Extending this argument to its natural conclusion, retailers argue that if this situation is not remedied, then e-tailers will eventually wipe out retailers. But keep a couple things in mind. First, these are the same retailers who wiped out the mom and pop shops two decades ago. . . so their argument rings a little hypocritical. Secondly, there are other benefits the retailers get (like property tax breaks) that are not given to the e-tailer. Third, the retailer business model may be defective, and rather than trying to force a tax hike on e-tailers, maybe they should be looking for new services to lure customers back into their stores. Fourth, some products simply aren't amenable to the e-tailer model.



3. The eStreet Internet Retailer View: The e-tailer response is twofold. First, to allow states to force them to collect the tax would make them a special case that violates 200 years of jurisprudence. It’s the business equivalent of letting New York haul you into court just because you sent a letter to someone who lives in New York.



Secondly, e-tailers make a practicality argument. There are 8,000 different tax jurisdictions in the US, each with different rules, procedures and rates, which change at a moment’s notice. Moreover, these jurisdictions don’t align with zip codes. Thus, it would be a practical nightmare for a company like Amazon to assess and collect the right amount of tax. It would be impossible for smaller e-tailers. This change could effectively kill off all but the largest e-tailers.



4. My View: Politically, I am conflicted on this. As a firm believer in federalism and the 10th Amendment, I generally favor letting states handle their own affairs. . . even if they make a mess of it. So they should be allowed to tax whatever activity goes on inside their borders provided they don’t discriminate against out-of-state companies. But that argument really doesn’t apply here because they can tax these transactions, they just can’t get it collected the easy way. States have a right to regulate themselves, they don’t have a right to regulate outsiders just because it makes things easier for the state.



And practically speaking, I think it would be disastrous to allow 10,000 tax regimes to force themselves upon e-tailers. What’s more, how can we then be sure they are being treated fairly (i.e. that there is no discrimination against out-of-state companies)? Suppose a single sales tax is imposed on both retailers and e-tailers. That sounds fair, but what about the property tax breaks, utility discounts or other things the retailer gets that reek of local favoritism?



I don’t care for the idea that in the long run we are likely to end up with most retailers going out of business in favor of e-tailers (e.g. book and music stores). But on the other hand, these e-tailers have been very good for consumers even beyond the sale tax issue and the death of the retailer may be inevitable unless retailers find some way to improve their business model.



Right now Senate Democrats are trying to come up with a bill (the Main Street Fairness Act) to “solve” this problem. Amazon supports it, eBay opposes it. Frankly, this sounds like it will impose a fairly heavy regulatory burden on e-tailers. I suspect Amazon likes it because it will make it hard for smaller competitors to enter its market. eBay probably opposes it because eBay relies on thousands of small sellers, who would likely end up violating the new rules.



There may be no good answer, but when in doubt, I find myself coming down against any solution offered by Democrats with the support of the biggest company in the field and with the support of trade groups looking for a little protectionism for their members. So if I had to vote right now, I would vote to leave the system as it is.



What do you think? How would you solve this problem?

Taxes: Main Street v. eStreet

View Detail