Freedom Alerts

February 8, 2012

 

 

January 26, 2012

Alliance For Main Street Fairness Announces Main Street Leadership Council To Represent Small Business Interests
Small Business & Community Leaders Across South Carolina Come Together To Promote Fairness In Retail Marketplace

Columbia, SC – The Alliance for Main Street Fairness (AMSF) in South Carolina today announced the launch of the Main Street Leadership Council (MSLC) to represent small businesses across the state in their fight for a level retail playing field.  These local business and community leaders are on the front lines in helping to restore a level playing field for sales taxes that will benefit Main Street businesses and grow our economy.  Members of the MSLC will serve in an advisory role pushing for a federal solution to end a sales tax loophole that hurts Main Street businesses.

The South Carolina Main Street Leadership Council members include:

Terry Brown, Edens and Avant Commercial Real Estate, Charleston, SC  
John Darby, The Beach Company, Charleston, SC
State Senator Kevin Bryant, Bryant Family Pharmacy, Anderson, SC
State Rep. Nathan Ballentine, V.P. Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, Columbia, SC
Grayson Kelly, Upstate Small Business Advocate, Greenville, SC
Rob Yerger, National Freedom Foundation, Columbia, SC
Drew Johnson, Chester County GOP Chairman, Chester, SC
Gary Ginn, Midlands Small Business Advocate, Columbia, SC
Ellison Thomas, Accountant, Mt. Pleasant, SC

“The blending of traditional and online marketplaces is inevitable, but local stores deserve a shot at competing on a level playing field with Internet sellers in this new marketplace.  Our country needs a viable framework for sales tax collection that will accommodate new realities of 21st Century commerce.  This cannot be done without action from Congress,” said Terry Brown, chief executive officer of Edens & Avant, one of the nation’s leading private owners, operators and developers of retail real estate.

Bipartisan legislation has been introduced in both the U.S. House, known as the Marketplace Equity Act, and the U.S Senate, known as the Marketplace Fairness Act.  With the passage of e-fairness legislation, Main Street businesses in South Carolina hope they will finally be able to compete on a level-playing field and end the government’s role in picking winners and losers in the marketplace.

To learn more about Main Street Leadership Council in South Carolina, visit www.standwithmainstreet.com/southcarolina.

###

January 18, 2012

An OpEd from State Senator Kevin Bryant:

For Immediate Release

 

12.26.2011. LTE, SC.

To the Editor:

It’s fine to cheer a new unemployment report that puts the national jobless rate at 8.6 %. But as a state elected official, I see far too many Americans still out of work, including those here in South Carolina where unemployment stands at 9.5 percent. Why then, are some federal policymakers so eager to create new regulations on job creators such as the broadband industry?

Since 2008, American Internet providers have invested more than $250 billion to expand broadband access and improve performance. And while the industry supports over six million well-paying technology jobs nationwide, it also is giving small businesses the broadband tools and training they need to compete in the global economy, add workers and spur economic recovery.

Many who would rather the federal government play a lesser role in our lives and businesses are right to question policymakers on why they are trying to “fix” sectors of our economy that are actually succeeding. Excessive regulation of the vigorously competitive broadband industry could slow investment, innovation and job creation needed to spur growth here in South Carolina and across the nation. We are right to ask why some in our government – which claims to be focused on putting Americans back to work – is so intent on fixing something not broken.

Sincerely,

Kevin Bryant

Member of the South Carolina Senate

Kevin Bryant is a State Senator and small business owner from Anderson, SC. He has represented South Carolina’s Senate District 3 since 2005. He can be contacted at kevin@kevinbryant.com

 

January 17, 2012

An OpEd from State Representative Ann Thayer:

For Immediate Release

 

Dear Editor:

As a member of the committee which focuses on Education, I am particularly sensitive to the benefits of broadband access to the internet to schools, to students, and to parents.

At the elementary and secondary school levels, broadband access in the home allows a student in even the smallest community access to the same museum, library, and research sites as a student in Columbia or Charleston. Teachers can email assignments and “collect” finished schoolwork on-line, leaving more time in the classroom to work with students face-to-face.

Using readily available software and often-included hardware, parents and teachers can discuss a student’s progress on-line from home or an office so parents don’t have to take time off from work for parent-teacher conferences.

At the post-secondary level, easily accessible broadband allows our major universities to compete for the best faculty members and provide first-class research facilities. Sharing information among colleges and universities was one of the drivers in the early development of what we now call the Internet, and that function is still a crucial reason for its continued growth and speed.

South Carolina must continue to focus on making broadband access to the Internet available to every home and business in the state. To do any less will mean we will begin to fall behind in the vital business of education at all levels.

 

Sincerely,

Anne Thayer

Member of the South Carolina State House

 

“Representative Thayer is a freshman member of the South Carolina State House of Representatives. She serves on the House Education Committee and is a school choice and small business advocate from Anderson, SC serving South Carolina’s house district 8.”

 

January 12, 2012

Each and everyday, America loses just a little bit more of our freedoms.  Government regulations are paralyzing American business and productivity.

More and more bureaucrats want to enact job killing regulations for the Internet.  This must not stand!  Please stand with us against this additional encroachment on our liberties.

As freedom loving Americans we stand with Broadband for America.  Let’s send Congress and our Presidential candidates a clear message to keeps their hands off of our Internet!  If you agree with us, please join our team and sign the petition by clicking here.

Thanks for your support.  Please visit BroadbandForAmerica.com for more information and future updates on where your Congressman and all the candidates stand on this important issue.  It is time for them to keep their hands off our Internet.

 

 

December 16, 2011

 

December 14, 2011

Broadband for America

America was founded on the key principles of Freedom and Liberty.  These principles must be protected.  But Washington insiders and big government insiders are trying to chip away at those very principles each and every day.

Even now, they want to enact more and more regulations on the Internet.  Please stand with us against this additional encroachment on our liberties.

As freedom loving Americans we stand with Broadband for America and want to send Congress and our Presidential candidates a message that it is time now to stand up to those who would stifle our freedoms with burdensome regulations.  That is why it is important to sign their petition by clicking here.

Thanks for your support.  Please visit BroadbandForAmerica.com for more information and future updates on where your Congressman and all the candidates stand on this important issue.  It is time for them to keep their hands off our Internet.

 

 

August 4, 2011

Amazon Battles States Over Sales Tax

Stu Woo
August 3, 2011
The Wall Street Journal

Amazon.com Inc., the world’s largest online retailer, hasn’t charged sales tax in most states since its founding in 1994. And it has taken some extreme measures to keep it that way.

Among them: Staff traveling around the U.S. have been required to first consult a company map that shades each state red, yellow or green, said three people who have worked for the retailer. These people said they needed permission from managers or company lawyers before entering “red” states because a worker’s actions might trigger laws that force Amazon to collect taxes in those states.

Such steps to avoid local levies allow Amazon to undercut in-state retailers by the amount they must add in sales tax, which can exceed 8%.

A close examination of Amazon’s corporate practices, based on interviews with more than a dozen former employees and people who have done business with the Seattle company, as well as a review of corporate documents, indicates that the company believes its sales-tax policy is critical to its performance.

Credit Suisse recently estimated that if Amazon were forced to collect sales taxes in all states, it would lose as much as $653 million in sales this year, or 1.4% out of an estimated $45.5 billion in revenue.

Amazon says it doesn’t win orders by nixing sales taxes. Spokeswoman Mary Osako said the company focuses on “low prices, vast selection and fast delivery,” adding that Amazon earns more than half its revenue in jurisdictions, including many overseas, where it collects sales tax or the local equivalent. Ms. Osako cited a July report from William Blair & Co. that said if Amazon added sales tax it would still be priced lower than other major retailers on nearly half of the products the report surveyed.

Like many online retailers, Amazon says it is obliged to add state and local sales taxes only on purchases from residents of states where Amazon has physical retail operations. But it also has defined retailing narrowly as selling, so related operations such as warehouses don’t put it on the hook to charge tax, company representatives have said.

Amazon said it follows a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. Legal experts say the retailer’s approach is aggressive but within the law.

In response, lawmakers in nine states have passed new legislation aimed at limiting Web retailers’ wiggle room to avoid charging sales tax. Amazon is now challenging the bills through a lawsuit and a ballot initiative. It is simultaneously redoubling its efforts to avert triggering their requirements for tax collection by retreating from states it deems unfriendly.

State and local governments nationwide this year will lose $10.1 billion to $11.3 billion in sales taxes not collected by Web retailers, estimated University of Tennessee researchers in a 2009 report.

Amazon’s campaign marks a new chapter in a long-running battle over sales tax. Shoppers for years have crossed state lines to get lower rates. Before the Internet, many catalog-retailers didn’t charge tax to out-of-state customers.

In the past two decades, the boom in Web retailing has turned a quirk of tax law into a nationwide fiscal battle, heightened by broader forces affecting the economy. State budget deficits are growing and so is the volume of tax revenue states lose to Web commerce. But states’ legal tools to claw back those funds largely predate the Internet.

“Eventually, it’ll be the U.S. Supreme Court or the Congress that will be the final arbiter of the issue,” predicts Richard Pomp, a professor of law at the University of Connecticut and expert on Internet tax issues.

Amazon advocates a national sales tax for online retailers, which it argues would simplify tax collection. Congress is now considering such a law, but previous attempts over recent years have failed.

“These complicated state-by-state tax rules perfectly illustrate the need for a simplified, federal solution which is the approach Amazon has supported for years,” Ms. Osako said.

State authorities fume at Amazon’s ability to elude their taxing powers, which are limited across state lines. Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos has said the issue was forefront in his mind when he created the company.

“Amazon has been quite clear…that they designed this business model to not have to collect sales tax,” said Nancy Skinner, a California assemblywoman who sponsored legislation aimed at methods used by Web retailers. Ms. Osako denied that was the case.

Currently 45 states levy sales taxes and require any retailer with a physical presence to tack them on most in-state transactions. But businesses, lawmakers and legal minds have long debated what constitutes a physical presence. State legislators have recently moved to broaden the definition.

California earlier this year passed a law requiring any Web retailer that develops products in its state to include sales taxes on purchases there. New York has done likewise for any retailer with online-advertising affiliates based in the state. Illinois and other states have passed similar bills, informally dubbed “Amazon laws” because it is the biggest target.

But many of these laws are legally questionable, said John Swain, a University of Arizona law professor and tax expert. He said they may violate a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which stated retailers don’t have to collect sales taxes in states where they lack a physical presence. He said Amazon has “the right to minimize their taxes lawfully,” and its maneuvers appear valid.

Betty Yee, an elected member of a California board that oversees tax collection, said the new laws in many states are legal. “The world of commerce has changed so much that physical presence does not necessarily mean having a brick-and-mortar physical location,” she said.

Amazon began as an online retailer of printed books before branching out to sell music, movies, electronics, clothing, household goods, groceries and other items. Since 2007, it has invested heavily in digital content such as music, video and books. The company now operates separate sites for at least eight countries, including China and the U.K.

Amazon’s Mr. Bezos has said he established the company in Washington partly because it has a tech-savvy but relatively small population, so state taxes wouldn’t affect many potential customers.

“It had to be in a small state,” he said in a 1996 interview with Fast Company magazine. He even mulled basing Amazon on a California Indian reservation because he thought it would allow his company to avoid collecting sales taxes in the state, he added.

Amazon declined to make Mr. Bezos available for this article.

Amazon charges sales taxes on purchases from Washington state residents. It also collects sales taxes in Kansas, Kentucky and North Dakota, where it has sales operations.

The company has facilities such as warehouses and product-development labs in other states, including California and Texas. Amazon has said such operations shouldn’t trigger tax collection because they don’t sell products, only ship them.

To emphasize the distinction, Amazon controls these operations through wholly owned subsidiaries, using a legal tactic known as “entity isolation.”

Several chain retailers, including bookstore Borders Group Inc., have also tried not to charge sales tax online, but were blocked. Borders argued that its Web operation was separate from its stores, but a California court in 2005 rejected the argument, ruling the two were intertwined. A spokeswoman for Borders, which faces bankruptcy liquidation, declined to comment.

State leaders in South Carolina and Tennessee assured Amazon that it could operate its planned warehouses in those states without collecting sales taxes, lawmakers and Amazon have said.

Many of Amazon’s online-only peers do charge sales tax in states where they operate warehouses. But since they are smaller than Amazon, none faces issues in as many states.

California-based electronics retailer Newegg Inc. collects sales tax in the three states where it has warehouses. Newegg general counsel Lee Cheng said, “The entity isolation strategy is very questionable.” Ms. Osako countered that Amazon is “compliant with state tax rules.”

Former Amazon staffers say the tactic is typical of its aggressive approach to minimizing sales tax. Early employees recall requirements to consult lawyers before arranging trips to states including California. Former staffers say they got grilled about the purpose of trips and warned to avoid soliciting new customers, promoting products and doing similar activities in certain states because of tax concerns.

In the 2000s, Amazon documented the restrictions in a U.S. map that shaded each state red, yellow or green and was given to new employees, said three people who saw it. It couldn’t be determined precisely which staffers received it and to what extent the practice is followed today.

Other employees received a spreadsheet with two columns: “bad states” and “safe states,” said a person who saw the document within the past year. One copy of the spreadsheet, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, listed nine “safe states,” including the four states where Amazon declares retail operations. The spreadsheet listed 19 “bad” states, including Arkansas, Connecticut, Illinois and Texas, which have sought to expand taxation of online sales.

Former employees said “red” states and “bad” states were those with strict laws about what employee actions would force a company to collect taxes there, or with aggressive tax offices. The workers were told to not do certain activities, such as soliciting new customers and promoting products, while in those states.

Employee conduct was also restricted in the 22 states that didn’t appear on the spreadsheet, or that were shaded yellow on the company map, say people familiar with the matter. One example cited was that staff could attend trade shows but not actively solicit business in some states.

For travel to California, some former employees recall being instructed by lawyers and managers to use special business cards. Rather than distributing typical “Amazon.com” cards, they used ones from “Amazon Digital Services,” a wholly owned subsidiary that sells digital content such as books and music. Representing a subsidiary, rather than core retail operations, would help prevent state authorities from going after Amazon, the people said.

“It’s a very unscrupulous practice,” said Ms. Yee of the California tax board. She said Amazon employees visiting the state on business should present themselves clearly. If they don’t, she added, “I think it’s a conscious attempt to evade California’s tax laws.” She declined to comment on whether the practice was illegal. It couldn’t be determined to what extent Amazon currently uses the method.

Three former employees recall Amazon lawyers and managers telling staff not to send work emails while in certain states. One example was a situation in February 2010, they said. Business-school students who had applied for Amazon’s summer internship program received an email from an Amazon recruiter, Jamie Kezner, who said she was stuck in New York and “only able to communicate interview decisions when I am in Washington state,” according to two applicants who received the email.

The email doesn’t make an explicit link to sales taxes, but several former employees say it was likely a key factor. Ms. Kezner didn’t respond to requests for comment.

At Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, in Evanston, Ill., Amazon for years sent Kellogg graduates on its staff back to recruit interns. But the company stopped doing so after recruiting for summer 2008, after Illinois officials started considering an “Amazon law.”

Rather than hold gatherings, Amazon conducted video conferences with prospective Kellogg recruits. People who watched the conferences said Amazon recruiters explained openly that their presence in Illinois could force the retailer to collect sales taxes there. A Kellogg spokeswoman didn’t return requests for comment.

Elsewhere, Amazon isn’t as acquiescent. In six states that are pressing Web retailers to collect sales taxes because they have online affiliates, such as blogs that refer customers for a commission, Amazon has ended relationships with its affiliates. Amazon and a trade association representing the affiliates have said the ties were cut because of new laws.

In California, Amazon is working to repeal the state’s new online-tax law. Ms. Osako of Amazon said that “the California law is unconstitutional.”

 

 

July 22, 2011

Call your Congressman and ask them to support H.R. 2602!

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2602

To improve the accountability and transparency in infrastructure spending by requiring a life-cycle cost analysis of major infrastructure projects, providing the flexibility to use alternate infrastructure type bidding procedures to reduce project costs, and requiring the use of design standards to improve efficiency and save taxpayer dollars.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 20, 2011

Mr. PAULSEN (for himself, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

A BILL

To improve the accountability and transparency in infrastructure spending by requiring a life-cycle cost analysis of major infrastructure projects, providing the flexibility to use alternate infrastructure type bidding procedures to reduce project costs, and requiring the use of design standards to improve efficiency and save taxpayer dollars.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Fiscal Accountability and Transparency in Infrastructure Spending Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) AGENCY- The term `agency’ has the meaning given the term `Executive agency’ in section 105 of title 5, United States Code.

(2) ALTERNATE INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE BIDDING- The term `alternate infrastructure type bidding’ means a process under which a Federal, State or local agency determines, from engineering and economic analysis, that 2 or more initial project designs utilizing different construction materials and methods and their forecasted performance and life-cycle costs are comparable or similar enough to warrant solicitation of bids on more than 1 design for a project.

(3) LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS- The term `life-cycle cost analysis’ means a process for evaluating the total economic worth of an infrastructure project by analyzing initial costs and discounted future costs, such as structural maintenance, user costs, reconstruction, rehabilitation, restoring, and resurfacing costs, over at least a 50-year period.

(4) MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS- The term `major infrastructure projects’ means highway, transit, rail (including high-speed passenger rail), airport, seaport, public housing, energy, water, bridge, and military construction projects, including those authorized under titles 23, 40, and 49, United States Code, for which the total Federal cost estimated by the Federal or State government, including the cost of materials, is not less than $5,000,000.

(5) MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDE- The term `Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide’ means the pavement design guide and software, developed under National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 1-37A, providing a uniform basis for the design of flexible, rigid, and composite pavements, using mechanistic-empirical approaches.

SEC. 3. LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS.

(a) Requirement To Obtain Life-Cycle Cost Analysis- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, each agency shall obtain a life-cycle cost analysis based on the standards developed by the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to subsection (c) for each major infrastructure project prior to obligating funds.

(b) Sources of Life-Cycle Cost Analysis- The life-cycle cost analysis required under subsection (a) may be obtained from State or local governments, or private sector entities.

(c) Guidance-

(1) DEVELOPMENT- Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, shall issue a circular that provides guidance to agencies on implementing the requirements under subsection (a).

(2) REQUIREMENTS- In developing the circular required under paragraph (1), the Director shall–

(A) provide the public with notice and opportunity to comment before issuing the circular;

(B) consider the principles contained in section 2 of Executive Order 12893, `Principles for Federal Infrastructure Investments’ (January 31, 1994; 59 Fed. Reg. 4233); and

(C) require that any analysis obtained pursuant to subsection (a)–

(i) be conducted over at least a 50-year valuation period; and

(ii) use actual material life and maintenance cost data.

(d) Transparency- Any life-cycle analysis obtained by an agency pursuant to subsection (a) shall be posted on the agency’s Web site not later than 72 hours after it is received.

SEC. 4. FLEXIBILITY TO USE ALTERNATE INFRASTRUCTURE TYPE BIDDING PROCEDURES.

(a) Application to National Highway System- A State transportation department or local transportation agency may, in its sole discretion, award contracts for projects on the National Highway System pursuant to alternate infrastructure type bidding procedures.

(b) Application to Other Major Infrastructure Programs- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, Federal, State and local governments may award contracts for major infrastructure projects pursuant to alternate infrastructure type bidding procedures.

SEC. 5. MECHANISTIC-EMPIRICAL PAVEMENT DESIGN GUIDE.

Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall require States to utilize the Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design Guide for the initial design phase of all projects authorized under title 23, United States Code.

 

 

July 12, 2011

National Freedom Foundation Urges Congress to Support the Fiscal Accountability and Transparency in Infrastructure Spending Act

Life-Cycle Budgeting Helps Ensure Fiscal Transparency and Accountability in Infrastructure and Building Investments.

WASHINGTON, DC – Senator David Vitter (R-LA) yesterday introduced legislation that would require a comprehensive life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) to be conducted for major infrastructure projects that receive at least $5 million in federal funding.

In a press release announcing the introduction of the Fiscal Accountability and Transparency in Infrastructure Spending Act, Senator Vitter said, “Congress needs to get serious about reducing federal spending on all fronts so we can get on a different, more sustainable fiscal path. Louisiana has many vital infrastructure projects, and my bill would help make sure their budgets are open and transparent so that taxpayer money is not wasted.”