July 15, 2009

Sotomayor Either Perjured Herself, or Is Intellectually Unqualified to be on the Supreme Court

No, I didn't say it. A liberal law professor disgusted with her testimony did.

Ace distilled the essence of Sotomayor thus:

She's denying that there exists something called "theory of jurisprudence," which includes such doctrines as originalism, strict constructionism, and, of course, the ever-flexible and ever-expanding doctrine of the "Living Constitution." As she doesn't want to admit she's an adherent of the latter, she claims there's no such thing as judicial philosophy whatsoever.

For example, faced with a legal question about which the Constitution is absolutely silent, a conservative justice would say there is no Constitutional dictate either way: A law is permitted to exist; it is also permissible to have no law. Lacking a constitutional source of authority, a judge herself has no authority to set policy.

On the other hand, someone like Sotomayor does not stop her inquiry simply because she finds that she has no authority whatsoever to make a ruling that binds anyone. She then looks to international law; the always-popular "changing social mores and norms;" "public policy considerations;" anagrams of Ricky Martin song titles; etc.

So, yeah, she's lying.

I fully expect Sotomayor to be confirmed by the Democratic supermajority in the Senate. While the nation as a whole doesn't support her nomination, there simply doesn't seem to be enough of an immediate cost to her confirmation to make voting for her a short term political risk, which is all politicians care about any way.

The fact of the matter, however, is that activist judges like Sonia Sotomayor and her peers that believe in what Ace so correctly mocked as the "Living Constitution" undermine the laws that holds society together with every decision they make. The constantly shifting standards and "law of the now" approach to jurisprudence means that no law is ever actually law; it is an ever-changing rough guideline. With no fixed compass, the law—as law—ceases to exist.

She is a dangerous choice... and no one knows that better than the radical neophyte America elected as President who appointed her.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:03 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 14, 2009

Angel in Iraq

I don't have the words.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:07 AM | Comments (30) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 10, 2009

Obama's Science Czar Wrote Book Advocating Forced Abortions, Sterilizing Americans By Poisoning Our Drinking Water

Zombie has once again gone deep into print to discover a book called Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment where John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, suggested dictating how others should live their lives to assuage pseudo-scientific hysteria.

Forced abortions. Mass sterilization. A "Planetary Regime" with the power of life and death over American citizens.

The tyrannical fantasies of a madman? Or merely the opinions of the person now in control of science policy in the United States? Or both?

These ideas (among many other equally horrifying recommendations) were put forth by John Holdren, whom Barack Obama has recently appointed Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology -- informally known as the United States' Science Czar. In a book Holdren co-authored in 1977, the man now firmly in control of science policy in this country wrote that:

• Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
• The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
• Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
• People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
• A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.

Impossible, you say? That must be an exaggeration or a hoax. No one in their right mind would say such things.

Well, I hate to break the news to you, but it is no hoax, no exaggeration. John Holdren really did say those things, and this report contains the proof. Below you will find photographs, scans, and transcriptions of pages in the book Ecoscience, co-authored in 1977 by John Holdren and his close colleagues Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich. The scans and photos are provided to supply conclusive evidence that the words attributed to Holdren are unaltered and accurately transcribed.

The dark mind of Holdren that pushed for totalitarian in the 1970s based upon the projections of junk science is participating now in activist legislation that is based upon projections made up by the junk science of man-made global cooling global warming climate change.

While you're there, stomach aflutter as your soak in the detached derangement of a man who could so coolly and "logically" advocate such horrors, your mind may start to connect him to other totalitarian associates of Barack Obama who were just as willing to expose 25 million Americans to "re-education centers."

I asked, "Well what is going to happen to those people we can't reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?" And the reply was that they'd have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say "eliminate," I mean "kill."

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

One can rest assured that Barack Obama cannot turn to his old associate Bill Ayers to be his "education czar" thanks to how Ayers and his wife were exposed as domestic terrorists during the campaign, but now Holdren has been exposed as having a similar sort of pathology, the chilling thought of someone with a similar mindset being given such a position doesn't seem as easy to laugh off.

There is something deeply, dangerously wrong with the kind of people who harbor such delusions, and there is something deeply, dangerously wrong with the kind of president who promotes people with such viewpoints to positions of power.

John Holdren needs to leave his postion, and leave it now.

For Barack Obama, we'll have to wait until January 20, 2013.

Update: More on Obama's eugenicist at Noisy Room and Bookworm Review.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 05:01 PM | Comments (57) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 07, 2009

Tarheel Media Spin Hard to Cover Governor's 22% Sales Tax Increase

Influential North Carolina media like WRAL TV and the News and Observer seem intent on covering up a massive tax increase proposed by Governor Beverly Perdue.

First the spin from WRAL.

Trying to break a legislative stalemate on state budget negotiations, Gov. Beverly Perdue on Tuesday called top lawmakers to the Executive Mansion to lay out her own plan for raising extra revenue in the coming year to erase a projected $4.6 billion deficit.

Perdue called for raising the state sales tax by a penny for 13 months, beginning Sept. 1. The increase would raise more than half of the $1.6 billion in revenue she would like to include in the 2009-10 fiscal budget.

And now from the News and Observer:

Gov. Beverly Perdue told legislative leaders Tuesday she wants a 1-cent sales tax increase and a total tax hike package of $1.6 billion to balance the budget.

Perdue, a Democrat, met with lawmakers at the Executive Mansion and gave them a list of tax and other revenue options that she would like to see passed. It was an effort to help break the impasse between Democratic Senate and House leaders over what taxes to increase and how much.

Highlights of Perdue's wishlist, provided to Dome, include: an "emergency" 1-cent increase in the sales tax that would expire in October 2010, an emergency income tax surcharge on single taxpayers who earn more than $500,000 and married couples filing jointly making more than $1 million.

"Raising the state sales tax by a penny" or calling it a "1-cent increase" seems like small potatoes until you realize that North Carolina's current sales tax rate is already 4.5% and by raising the rate another cent—to 5.5%—Perdue is seeking a 22% sales tax increase.

Neither news outlet did the due diligence to point out the substantial rate increase the governor is pressing for instead of reigning in out-of-control government.

One can only speculate why that may be.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:04 PM | Comments (59) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 And this is one of the reasons that I am selling my house at a loss so I can move further south.

Posted by: Matt at July 07, 2009 10:02 PM (54Fjx)

2 A temporary tax increase has a 99% chance of being permanent.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at July 08, 2009 12:55 AM (gHFXi)

3 Make that 99.99% Ken.

Posted by: 1903A3 at July 08, 2009 06:12 AM (E8ZSe)

4 The reason is obvious: A 1 cent sales tax increase sounds much better than a 22% sales tax increase. It's also less alarming. Compared to the sales tax rates in the few states that don't have a state income tax, a 5.5% sales tax IS small potatoes. Granted, combined with your state income tax, it is an increase.

As for the state income tax surcharge on high income earners, not very many people are going to be concerned with that. That will be a non-issue for the vast majority of people.

Seems that everyone wants govt. services and low taxes. They want services curtailed as long as it doesn't effect them. My two cents worth.

Posted by: Dude at July 08, 2009 10:51 AM (byA+E)

5 4.5% is of course extremely low.
I'd jump at a 5.5% sales tax, would mean an 14.5% lower sales tax than we have here or a 60% (roughly) reduction.
Ain't gonna happen of course, in fact they want to raise it to 21% and boasted that they were so "generous" because they delayed the raise for a year "due to the economic crisis".

Posted by: J.T. Wenting at July 08, 2009 11:59 AM (hrLyN)

6 As always, so glad I "weighed my options" and moved out of Charlotte to the less obnoxious state south of that border...

Posted by: jdb at July 08, 2009 12:29 PM (+uLnA)

7 Added to the local county/city taxes, this "mere" one percent will raise the tax here to 7.7%. And of course, the news article glosses over all the additional goods and services Queen Beverly now wants to have taxed, raising the effective amount of taxes much higher. Past time to move!

Posted by: Candy at July 08, 2009 10:40 PM (JvK/q)

8 "Raising the state sales tax by a penny" or calling it a "1-cent increase" seems like small potatoes ...

... because it is. This urge to express a tax rate change as a percentage of the previous tax rate is one that all sides would do better to resist. It reminds me of Benjamin Disraeli's line "there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." When your average joe realizes that the "22% tax increase" you're railing about is actually one penny on every dollar he spends, he's going to snort in disgust, and be that much less likely to listen to your antitax arguments next time. Call it what it is: a one percent increase, or a one cent increase.

Because the real issue is not how much the rate is going up. It's the fact that the rate is going up at all. At a time like this the state should be cutting spending, not raising tax rates and thus making recovery that much more difficult.

Posted by: wolfwalker at July 08, 2009 10:54 PM (LiRHS)

9 You can assure yourselves that at the RECEIVING end this is indeed a "22% tax increase".

Posted by: Druid at July 08, 2009 11:42 PM (jZ7AH)

10 Speaking as one who audits such taxes for a state, Druid is correct. Though I'd clarify his ...at the RECEIVING end this is indeed a "22% tax increase" to "at the RECEIVING end this is indeed a 22% revenue increase from the sales/use tax".

Posted by: PhyCon at July 09, 2009 11:03 AM (4od5C)

11 So I'm confused...how does a 1 penny increase translate into a 1% increase?

Posted by: ConstanceRifle at July 09, 2009 01:18 PM (6Qdzb)

12 The increase is large only because the tax is low. The governor could not raise sales tax by less than a penny because one cent is the smallest denomination we have. In this case you are just trying to make a responsible move to cover the shortfall into some terrible tax grab.

I can understand legitimate criticism of the decision to raise the taxes over reducing the spending but you are just trying to be sensational now. Its the same reason I stopped reading the papers. The real information was not reflected by the headline given to it.

I have read your blog and several other blogs for a long time and it seems that after the election you guys went over the edge and have started to sound like all the nuts on DU and those various sites.

Posted by: alecthemad at July 09, 2009 03:31 PM (sptsT)

13 You always hear "well everyone wants government services, but don't want to be taxed" argument. That's not the problem! State Politicians will not make providing those "services" more cost efficient because they would have to fire public sector workers, cut their benefits and retirement programs.

All that has already happened to private enterprise - our health care benefits are 100% more expensive, our retirement plans are gone and we only have 401k's, we no longer have lifetime benefits, and we are asked to provide the same services to our companies as before.

Private companies are producing more with less people and less cost, but no one is willing to take on the State Employees Unions to get the same cost efficiencies in government.

If you are employed by the People (Government) doesn't mean you have a lifetime job, or better benefits than provided in private enterprise. Politicians need to step up.

Posted by: Jim at July 09, 2009 05:23 PM (WacVk)

14 Jim is precisely correct. The problem is thatthe only people really feeling the pain are the private sector employees. I have operateed a small business in NC for over 20 years now, and have yet to hear a Governor call for a substantial decrease in state employment.

As for the folks that say an increase to 5.5 % is small, tell that to people that scape by on an hourly wage. This isn't about sensationalizing a tax increase. It's about private secotr workers shouldering all the pain. In the unlikely event one of our homegrown idiot Democratic politicians evenly splits the budget shortfall between state employees and the rest of us...well shoot, that just ain't gonna happen.

Posted by: Chuck at July 09, 2009 06:54 PM (vyqps)

15 "at the RECEIVING end this is indeed a 22% revenue increase from the sales/use tax"

Depends on your definition of the "receiving" end.

Posted by: Druid at July 09, 2009 07:45 PM (jZ7AH)

16 A one-cent increase doesn't sound like much, until you go to buy a dependable used car and the tax goes up $100.

Posted by: MikeM at July 09, 2009 08:29 PM (DKZAR)

17 The governor could not raise sales tax by less than a penny because one cent is the smallest denomination we have.

FYI - many sales taxes are fractional.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 09, 2009 10:24 PM (4YLl8)

18 To purple avenger,

yea, gas tax and such. I get it.

It does not detract from my point and that of some other posters. Calling the increase 22%, while technically correct, is not aiding the debate.

The debate should not surround the size of the tax increase but the question of increasing taxes at all if money could be cut from the budget.

Being a resident of NC and a fan of small government I am certain that money could be cut if the political will could be mustered.

Wasting energy by shouting 22% sales tax increase does not decrease the tax burden. It just makes people happier to hear a lower percentage later on.

The percent of the increase should not matter.

Posted by: alecthemad at July 10, 2009 04:45 AM (sptsT)

19 The liberals here don't get it. This tax will kill my business. I just fired one manager and cut anothers salary in half cause I just can't afford them anymore. I haven't been able to pay myself in over a month and I'll be lucky to make $30,000 this year. What's my business? I own Tumbleweeds bar and grill. My gross sales have gone down from $100,000 to 80,000 over the past year. Sounds like a lot doesn't it? Well after all the bills I'm nearly broke. That tax will cost me an extra $800 a month. I literally won't be able to survive it. Not with the economy the way it is. So much for the small retail businesses.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 10, 2009 08:07 AM (MxQFN)

20 That $100,000 and $80,000 are gross sales monthly.

This tax isn't targeted at the "average person." It's targeted to those of us who put our life savings into a small business.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 10, 2009 08:10 AM (MxQFN)

21 Druid: You are correct. In this case, I meant the state Dept. of Revenue's viewpoint. Their tax collection projections will reflect a "1 cent sales tax increase" as a "22% sales tax revenue increase".

alecthemad - The above is why CY's headline is correct, though your point is also salient as he could have expressed that in his text a bit better.

Jim - My division had to cut 3 FTEs (total FTEs at the time - 21) this year out of something like a total cut of 20 statewide. Our D Gov told us state-trough-feeders he was doing everything he could to 'save jobs' a la TOTO. Then he instituted a hiring freeze. Our state employees age average is north of 55. Since January, when the hiring freeze was put into place, the state has shed over 500 employees thanks to retirements and such. Most of those positions have subsequently been eliminated. As such, there has been close to a 10% reduction in active state employees thus far from the Dec 2008 total. Since a significant majority of state employees here are within 5-10 years of retirement, that total % is going to grow significantly especially with Cap & Tax on the way.

CI - 'I feel your pain' (to quote Slick Willy). In a previous life (before my current occupation) I owned a small carpet cleaning company where I was CEO all the way down to CBW (chief bottle washer). I had no employees but my plans were to grow to at least 4 employees. Those plans and the business all went away with the short economic downturn started in 1998. The business finally died its ignominious death in 2000. As I see it, your only option is to raise your prices which is going to cost you clientel...wash, rinse, repeat and I can see your doors closing .

Welcome to TOTO's economy...even for state employees.

Posted by: PhyCon at July 10, 2009 01:55 PM (4od5C)

22 alecthemad:

The sales tax being discussed already does and will continue to split pennies. It is being increased from 4.5 pennies on the dollar to 5.5 pennies on the dollar. You're saying he was /forced/ to increase it by a whole penny, but keep it at a fractional per cent? The tax owed exact to a fraction of a cent (which must be rounded to be paid) will vary with the value of the purchase, and it does so whether the rate is 4.5, 5, or 4.56789123.

The cost to purchase an item did not go up 22%, but the tax most definitely did go up 22$.

Posted by: Saywhat at July 10, 2009 04:33 PM (1cITz)

23 Woops, that should have been 22%, of course. Though I wouldn't put it past the libs.

Posted by: Saywhat What? at July 10, 2009 04:37 PM (1cITz)

24 I find it difficult to fathom how a 1 cent sales tax increase is going to have much of an adverse effect on people's buying habits.

Also, a business that raises their prices doesn't necessarily translate into less revenue for that business. Granted, there's a point where it will. It depends on the local economy (if it's a local business), the business itself, competition, client base, etc.

Sure, there will always be people who are going to shop for the lowest possible price. On the other hand, there will always be people who consider more than just the price of a product or service.

Several years ago someone that I know personally raised their prices on their products (hand made, custom built items). Indeed, their gross revenue decreased by a small amount. But, their net revenue increased by a larger percentage! So, for this business, they did less work and their bottom line increased.

Obviously, a price increase will have more of an adverse effect on a business that's highly competitive. It depends on the business. I realize that the above example won't apply for all businesses.

Time will tell if this 1 cent sales tax increase will have much of an effect of the buying habits of folks in NC. I rather doubt that it will.

Posted by: Dude at July 11, 2009 01:50 PM (byA+E)

25 Dude, did you even read my comment? An extra $800 a month will put me (and hundreds of other small businesses) out of business. Thus the state will make LESS money and unemployment will skyrocket. Are all liberals this intellectually bankrupt?

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 11, 2009 05:12 PM (MxQFN)

26 Capitalist Infidel, Yes, I did read your post, a couple of times actually, wanting to be sure that I understood what you were saying.

If I'm reading your post correctly you're saying that this 1 cent sales tax increase is going to cost YOU an extra $800.00 per month. Forgive me but I don't understand how that can be.

Do you not collect the sales tax from the customers at your business and then pay that tax, which you collected from you customers, to the state? If that's the case I don't understand how the sales increase is going to cost YOU 800 bucks per month. Please explain.

Or, are you anticipating that you will experience an $800 per month decrease in sales directly due to the 1 cent sales tax increase? If that's the case, that doesn't seem like a realistic projection to me.

Granted, I do understand that many restaurants and bars are going through difficult times right now. I know that I, myself, eat out less often than I used to. I don't go to bars. Occasionally, I will go out to a restaurant that also has a bar. Of course, I'm frequenting restaurants less often now because of the state of the economy. I don't have as much money to spare on the luxury of eating out as I did two years ago.

Here in Tennessee the combined state and local use sales tax, depending on what county you're in, is appx. 10%. That means that a $15.00 meal with a beverage at one of my favorite eating joints is going to cost me $16.50. If our sales tax here were raised one more penny on the dollar that meal would cost me 15 cents more, $16.65. I can assure that the extra 15 cents would not be a factor in my decision to eat out or not.

I'm very sorry that you're business is having hard times, truly I am. But, I just don't understand how a 1 cent sales tax increase is going to cost you the extra 800 bucks out of your profits. Please explain to me what I'm missing.

No, all of us so called "liberals" aren't intellectually bankrupt. My guess is that it would be about the same percentage as that of so called "conservatives", perhaps a little lower percentage but not much. As I've said before in other posts, the terms liberal and conservative are pretty much meaningless anyway. That's mostly a diversionary tactic to divide people and take their minds off of the issues that REALLY matter.

But, that's another topic altogether for another time. I do have an excellent example that proves my point. Should you be interested in hearing it, I'll be glad to discuss it with you.

I do hope that you business increases and flourishes. I sincerely mean that.

Best Wishes,

Dude

Posted by: Dude at July 11, 2009 05:54 PM (byA+E)

27 "I do hope that you business increases and flourishes. I sincerely mean that. "

Of course he does. His poor little Kenyan bastard-god is depending on it...

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 11, 2009 08:59 PM (6XMIC)

28 Thank you Whine Nine for your usual meaningless contribution to civil discourse. Are you aware that you're a repulsive human being? In fact, you're a disgrace to our species.

Posted by: Dude at July 11, 2009 11:58 PM (byA+E)

29 lol - definitely a SWPL type, for sure.

I'm an awful human being, but the Magic Negro's little Dr. Mengle merits nothing but proggie apologetics. Got it. I hope to God he DOES think I'm an awful human being - coming from this Negrofascist apologist, what greater compliment is there??

I'm so compassionater than you fascist rethuglikkkans! Waah!"

Posted by: Nine-of-Diamonds at July 12, 2009 12:52 PM (6XMIC)

30 Dude:
If I'm reading your post correctly you're saying that this 1 cent sales tax increase is going to cost YOU an extra $800.00 per month. Forgive me but I don't understand how that can be.

Forgive me for cherry-picking but you really are ignorant of CI's situation. Allow me to educate you. From my experience auditing bars (or even bar/restaurant combos), the bar portion "backs into the sales tax due". That means if they have the price of a drink/beer/pop/etc set at $2.00 they have to DEDUCT the sales tax amount from the $2.00. They don't look at a customer and say 'the drink is $2.00 and with sales tax that will be $2.11" ($2.11 @ 5.5% sales tax). This is why CI is saying it will cost him money. The only way to recoup that loss is to raise his prices.

Stick with being a doctor, otherwise you would quickly be a bankrupt bar owner.

Posted by: PhyCon at July 13, 2009 12:53 AM (x6IK4)

31 PhyCon: Thanks for the explaination. Here in Tennessee non alcoholic beverages are taxed just like the food in restaurants/bars in which I dine. You get your check, the tax is added to the food and beverage total and you pay the bill. I don't know how it's done with alcoholic beverages. I'll ask around and find out. I'm curious now.

I see your point that CI would need to raise his prices in order to not have to pay the extra 800 bucks per month out of his profits.

I don't know what a beer sells for in a bar these days but for the sake of this discussion let's say 4 bucks. So, if bar owners in NC raise their price of a beer by a nickle, to $4.05, that would cover them, right? In fact, they'd be a penny ahead of the game.

Do you think that will lead to a decrease in business for bar and restaurant owners? I don't see that such a small increase in price would have much effect. Of course, I'm not a bar/restaurant owner.

Thanks again for the explanation. I do wish CI well during these tough economic times. I wish all of us well. We'll get through these times!

Dude

Posted by: Dude at July 13, 2009 11:11 PM (byA+E)

32 You are welcome, Dude. I should have used the word 'elucidate' instead of 'educate' as well. My apologies.

Usually a restaurant does include their 'drinks', whether alcoholic or not, in their check, then subtotal, then apply the sales tax, and then total the bill. That is why I limited my comment to only a bar or the bar portion (when one only enters the bar and orders drinks) of a combination.

A 5 cent price increase would indeed cover his loses. However, since you admitedly do not frequent bars, please understand most bars put their drinks at even dollar, 1/2 dollar, or even 1/4 amounts. They do this for many reasons among which include (but most definitely not limited to); ease of drink order calculations, tip generation, and tax calculations. So the 5 cent increase would suffice to cover their costs but isn't practical.

How CI spedifically handles his business is his province and I may only speak in generalities.

Posted by: PhyCon at July 14, 2009 02:15 PM (4od5C)

33 Sheesh, my proofreading skills are lacking today:

"How CI specifically handles his business is his province and I may only speak in generalities."

Posted by: PhyCon at July 14, 2009 02:17 PM (4od5C)

34 [quote]Do you think that will lead to a decrease in business for bar and restaurant owners?[/quote]

For me? Yes it would. Not exactly because of the price.

Have you ever been to a strip club? If not let me explain.

You walk in with four twenty dollar bills. By the time you leave you have (unless you spend all your money on dances) thirty dollars in ones.

Imagine that, but with nickles and dimes.

I will just go to the bar that eats the cost.

Sorry CI.

Posted by: Matt at July 14, 2009 07:24 PM (XKpp2)

35 So, just raising the prices is the answer to liberals eh? Already had to do that last year when they raised the minimum wage. Had to do it again when food vendors raised prices because of fuel increases (which still hasn't gone down) did I mention I also had to do it because of the increase in liquor and beer taxes? Pretty soon only the ultra rich will be able to buy a beer and a shot.

Posted by: Capitalist Infidel at July 15, 2009 08:30 AM (MxQFN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Barack Obama, Economic Battlefield Surgeon

The madness of an illogical mind:

A second economic stimulus package could still be on the table, President Obama suggested Tuesday as the unemployment rate hovered close to 10 percent.

In an interview with FOX News in Moscow, Obama defended the roll-out so far of the stimulus package passed in February, saying he knew the scope of the economic crisis would make recovery difficult no matter what.

"I think it's important to understand that we've got a short-term challenge which, no matter how big our stimulus was, was going to be a challenge -- partly because we've got fiscal constraints," Obama said.

The president said the government has spent money as fast as it could as the "economic tsunami" unfolded, admitting that getting cash to the states has been difficult.

"You just can't push that out that quickly, partly, not just because the federal government has to process applications, but also because states and local governments have to gear up to get these projects going," Obama said.

President Obama's current stimulus package increased unemployment beyond what doing nothing would have done. We know, because this is his graph.

Well, it isn't entirely his graph.

The light blue line represents what the Administration said we'd see if we did absolutely nothing. The dark blue line is what Obama said the stimulus would do.

The red dots, however, are reality, the real numbers that Barack Obama and all the Democrats in Congress would rather ignore. Those bright, red dots represent the hundreds of thousands of Americans that have lost their jobs because Barack Obama and the Democratic Party rammed through a massive stimulus bill that none of them read.

I'll repeat that again.

The massive stimulus bill Democrats unanimously voted for has cost America hundreds of thousands of jobs, and Obama wants to leave the option open to do it again.

Obama has become something like a mad battlefield surgeon from the Civil War, hacking off limbs with his crude and barbaric medicine, killing and maiming more than he saves. Our economy is bleeding out due to his hackery and that of the incompetents and cheats his employs.

We don't need any more of his help, and we'll be damn lucky if we survive the medicine he's already prescribed.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:15 AM | Comments (49) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Gullible's Travels

"The future does not belong to those who gather armies on a field of battle or bury missiles in the ground."

Obviously, part of what Mr. President is concealing in his hidden university records are his failing grades in history.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:51 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 06, 2009

An Ode to Michael Jackson

Ashes to ashes

Dust to dust

Let's bury the freak

And get on the bus

Yeah, I borrowed that from something I read somewhere years ago, but it fits.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:38 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

OBAMANOMICS: NC Unemployment to Hit Highest Rate since Great Depression

Hope and Change:

North Carolina's unemployment rate, already one of the highest in the country at 11.1 percent, will "peak" at 13 percent in the first quarter of 2010 before it begins to improve, North Carolina State University economist Michael Walden predicted Monday.

In his "North Carolina Economic Outlook" report, Walden said that "an emerging consensus" points to an economic rebound beginning "in late 2009 or 2010."

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:43 AM | Comments (34) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

"The Obama Administration is the Most Fiscally Irresponsible in the History of the U.S."

That comes from a paragraph of Kevin Hassett's at Bloomburg:

The federal picture is so bleak because the Obama administration is the most fiscally irresponsible in the history of the U.S. I would imagine that he would be the intergalactic champion as well, if we could gather the data on deficits on other worlds. Obama has taken George W. Bush's inattention to deficits and elevated it to an art form.

The Obama administration has no shame, and is willing to abandon reason altogether to achieve its short-term political goals. Ronald Reagan ran up big deficits in part because he believed that his tax cuts would produce economic growth, and ultimately pay for themselves. He may well have been excessively optimistic about the merits of tax cuts, but at least he had a story.

Obama has no story. Nobody believes that his unprecedented expansion of the welfare state will lead to enough economic growth. Nobody believes that it will pay for itself. Everyone understands that higher spending today begets higher spending tomorrow. That means that his economic strategy simply doesn't add up.

Nothing President Obama has done adds up. Not his economic strategy, nor his domestic policy, nor his foreign policy.

Just an eighth of the way through his presidency Barack Obama appears to be the most dangerously incompetent man to have ever held the office, doing more long-term damage to this nation than any foreign invader could have ever dreamed. That he has another 3 1/2 years in office ahead of him, and an equally radical coalition of far left activists in Congress until at least 2010, is disheartening, to say the least.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:44 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 05, 2009

After Three Centuries, Brits Lose Ability to Arm Themselves

Rather pathetic considering their history of small arms development, but perhaps to be expected from a now-neutered nanny-state that thinks normal kitchen knives are too dangerous.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 12:02 PM | Comments (35) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 04, 2009

Big Democrat Donors Bluffed to Close Tea Party Protest

I wrote recently about how Democratic Party donors used their influence to shut down the Atlanta Tea Party after reading conservative blogs, including an entry on Confederate Yankee where I warned that if the ever-encroaching government did not reign in ever-expansing intrusions into personal liberties, they may one day face their own Lexington Green.

We now know that the group responsible for shutting down the protest did so by apparently lying about their authority in order to get the protest cancelled. The Simon Property Group had no legal claim, and seems to have bluffed the actual property owner into canceling the event.

Democrats spent much of the Bush Presidency warning of an impending fascist state, and now seem to be doing everything in their power to create one of their own, where even peaceable dissent is to be quashed if at all possible.

Happy Independence Day.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 09:13 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Palin Resigns

I was driving back from Savannah, GA yesterday with my family and didn't get in until last night, and so the news that Sarah Palin resigned the governorship of Alaska is still very new to me.

I haven't yet caught up on the commentary that I'm sure is reverberating around the blogosphere, and I can't fathom why Palin would chosen to resign now, and in the manner she did.

Perhaps she's gunning for Lisa Murkowski's Senate seat. Murkowski sure seem to be reacting that way in a defensive press release.

Others, I imagine, will conclude this is an unorthodox move from an unorthodox Presidential contender already laying the groundwork for at the Republican nomination for 2012. I doubt it, as the timing simply seems off. The only way resigning now for a Presidential run would make any sense in my mind is if Palin was considering a run on a conservative third party ticket, and thought she needed the time to make the third party candidacy a viable option.

My greater fear is that Palin resigned because of some sort of medical issue that she would prefer to keep out of the public eye. No, I'm not thinking that there is another child on the way (though considering her seemingly excellent physical condition, I wouldn't rule it out), but it isn't out of the realm of possibility that a personal or family ailment may require immediate medical attention.

I sincerely hope that this is not the case.

Time, I suspect, will answer all our questions.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:50 AM | Comments (56) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

July 02, 2009

Thomas: Obama Worse Than Nixon

Wizened White House Press Corps gnome Helen Thomas says that the current administration's attempts to control the press is the worst she's seen:

"I'm not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well--for the town halls, for the press conferences," she said. "It's blatant. They don't give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame."

Anyone who has been closely following Obama's Presidential run has long known that our neophyte leader has forged an illusion of competence by being more heavily stage-managed than a teen pop group (while being roughly as qualified). It really says quite a bit when a reporter as experienced and blatantly liberal as Thomas rips into the administration as she has.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 08:07 AM | Comments (68) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 The story goes that when Walter Cronkite came out against the Vietnam War just after the Tet Offensive, LBJ knew that his political career was over. "We've lost Cronkite," he lamented, according to the accounts I've read.

Obama doesn't have a tithe of the political savvy LBJ had. He's going to be running into a brick wall -- of his own making -- any day now.

I've got half a case of popcorn. This should be almost as much fun to watch as Lucha Libre.

Posted by: Steffan at July 02, 2009 10:19 AM (GniAO)

2 I am long psst considering Helen Thomas as anything but as bitter, partisan, rude and borderline senile. She is long past her experation date.

So question for Ms Thomas, what basis did you to believe that Barack Obama was competent, as opposes to merely slickly packagyed? When did you discover that Obama was a fraud?

Thomas a columinst, not a reporter. I believe her column appears in one paper. Count em.

Posted by: DavidL at July 02, 2009 10:38 AM (AK8DM)

3 DavidL takes the normal liberal route, attack the messenger not the message. The Ad-Hominem attack is the basic tool of the left since most of their positions cannot stand up to the light of reason and logic.

Granted the MSM should be ashamed of itself, but since anyone who comes out against BO or criticizes his administration will already find themselves under attack by Obamamaniacs there is no reason for conservatives to "pile on" too. Be grateful for another voice decrying "dear Leader".

Posted by: Scott at July 02, 2009 11:23 AM (sQmd1)

4 DavidL,

While I agree with you regarding Thomas she does have her moments of fluidity and this was one of them. She has been in the front row of the press room since Eisenhower and has broken a myriad of stories of which still effects us today. Her statement was SPOT ON and she deserves some respect in my opinion of course as she has seen any and all attempts at POTUS manipulation and this charge is damning. She supported Obama just as I based upon what Obama promised in the primaries that were parroted in the general. This is what got my vote and now its obviuous Mr. Obama doesn;t have a clue. Iran? Hunduras? N.Korea, shall I go on?

Tina

Posted by: Tina at July 02, 2009 12:01 PM (vpbdO)

5 Helen Thomas, at long long last, has begun to atone for the savagely biased vitriol which she has poured into the stream of "news" from Washington for decades. Bless her for waking up.

But if she's so smart, why did it take so long to recognize the manipulation of the all-too-willing press which Obama has successfully employed since 2004?

Posted by: micropotamus at July 02, 2009 12:11 PM (xhI7V)

6 when one helps to create a monster he is often one of the first to be consumed by the same.

Posted by: joe buzz at July 02, 2009 12:51 PM (jbXDH)

7 I don't know about Helen Thomas, but I have nightmares about Obama. I darkly suspect he and his people will try to get rid of term limits as set forth in Amendment 22 so he can stay in power for the rest of his life. Besides, how do we know he's legally entitled to be president? I'm with Alan Keyes on this one.

Posted by: Old Bob at July 02, 2009 03:19 PM (nJ7MX)

8 Old Bob,

Want to know why Obama wants to reinstate Zelaya in Honduras? Because he knows that if tries to muscle his way to a third term, he could be in for the same treatment from SCOTUS, Congress, the Armed Forces, and an armed citizenry.

Posted by: MarkJ at July 02, 2009 05:09 PM (ZFVlP)

9 She's only pissed because she been pushed to the end of the o-iizz line. When she gets back up front she'll be back to being her usual bagopus self.

Posted by: emdfl at July 02, 2009 07:41 PM (Mkonf)

10 Thomas "retires" due to "health concerns" in 5..4..3..2..1..

Posted by: Purple Avenger at July 03, 2009 12:44 AM (g/H5G)

11 Considering the nakedly Leftwing nature of Helen Thomas's career this has to be afforded the credibility of a statement against interest. The outrage is obviously real and personal and sufficient to overcome her demonstrated ideological affinities. If she looks at BHO and says she sees RMN you had best believe that not only does she see it but she feels its being forced down her wattle and she has no choice but to make a fuss. Isn't this the sort of thing that would usually be complained of with discretion? After decades of seeing her on the bowsprit of the ship of media I cannot believe she could do/say anything that would be redeeming. Wow.

Posted by: megapotamus at July 03, 2009 02:06 PM (W//tK)

12 We have the video up on COMMON CENTS...
Great post!
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com

ps. Link Exchange??

Posted by: Steve at July 03, 2009 03:02 PM (vPg5t)

13 Wow...And Nixon had Ron Ziegler as press sec bullying the media.

Posted by: John Ruberry at July 04, 2009 11:59 AM (5fr7A)

14 Oh, someone will throw her a bone and she'll be back to her ol' self any day now. Or, more likely, Obama will "explain" to her in his legal-sleaze manner WHY it's important for him to control the press, and she'll toe the line.

There's NO WAY she's suddenly non-partisan.

Posted by: DoorHold at July 05, 2009 12:48 PM (/Lp1y)

15 You ain't seen nuttin yet!

Posted by: Georg Felis at July 06, 2009 09:09 PM (i5bRG)

16 Very good site. Thanks!!, bracelet magnetic strong, >:OOO, silver lining production, lnp, free livestrong bracelet, 26578, bea arthur golden girl, lubpjd, jewelry anniversary band, wkimr,

Posted by: baby bracelet carriage at July 07, 2009 12:47 PM (AQF+j)

17 Nice site. Thank you., bead jewelry store, 457, picture hope diamond, 124450, diamond jewelry on ebay store, :-), best western crystal river resort, 31676, antique diamond ring sapphire, brk,

Posted by: discount celtic jewelry at July 07, 2009 10:50 PM (iFV/2)

18 Nice site. Thank you., picture of golden rod flower, 401928, copper pendant lighting, :-OO, ball gold gown, %-D, austin power goldmember quote, 8-[, golden gate bridge view, %-PPP,

Posted by: jewelry craft box at July 08, 2009 02:05 AM (hYzFt)

19 Very good site. Thanks!!, cyclothymic disorder, 967989, ams plastic, :], pet medicine, :]]], teaching morphology, kde, article coaching executive, 940963,

Posted by: oakmont mortgage at July 09, 2009 01:12 PM (7Qr+/)

20 Very good site. Thanks!!, there is none like you chord, 4701, sri lanka cricket news, 364, chocolate covered truffles recipe, >:-(, south park comedy central, 09278, fireside corner, 771,

Posted by: chicago narcotic anonymous at July 09, 2009 05:27 PM (55dTn)

21 Nice site. Thank you., norman blake tony rice, >, carpet cleaning sunnyvale, =[[, jack rabbit baby, orvfv, acorn store, jighr, live lobster delivery, nui,

Posted by: maryland realtor at July 10, 2009 02:49 AM (VEX0R)

22 Nice site. Thank you., cell phone case free shipping, 8-[, phone review satellite, qdr, al gras mardi mobile schedule, wnnnin, the diplomat crunk music lyric, 7319, get download free ringtone, 332714,

Posted by: pop music at July 12, 2009 03:18 PM (pjXzb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 29, 2009

Changes in Latitude

I'm in West Palm Beach this week on vacation. Blogging will be light, the Bacardi cold, and the water warm.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 04:42 PM | Comments (46) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 26, 2009

Pissing Away America's Promise: Cap and Trade Passes 219-212

ON CSPAN.com (not link yet)

HOUSE PASSES ENERGY BILL, 219-212
Today

The House has approved passage of the American Clean Energy & Security Act by a vote of 219 to 212. The climate change bill, a legislative priority of Pres. Obama's, centers on a renewable electricity standard, and a cap-and-trade policy aimed at reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate is likely to take up the legislation after the July 4th recess.

Never have so few done so much to so many for so little.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:25 PM | Comments (41) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Amazon Closes Associates Program in North Carolina Over Tax Concerns

Via email this morning, another classic case of tax-and-spend Democrats costing American jobs through short-sighted greed.

We are writing from the Amazon Associates Program to notify you that your Associates account has been closed as of June 26, 2009. This is a direct result of the unconstitutional tax collection scheme expected to be passed any day now by the North Carolina state legislature (the General Assembly) and signed by the governor. As a result, we will no longer pay any referral fees for customers referred to Amazon.com or Endless.com after June 26. We were forced to take this unfortunate action in anticipation of actual enactment because of uncertainties surrounding the legislation's effective date.

Please be assured that all qualifying referral fees earned prior to June 26, 2009 will be processed and paid in full in accordance with our regular referral fee schedule. Based on your account closure date of June 26, 2009, any final payments will be paid by September 1, 2009.

In the event that North Carolina repeals this tax collection scheme, we would certainly be happy to re-open our Associates program to North Carolina residents.

The North Carolina General Assembly’s website is http://www.ncleg.net/, and additional information may be obtained from the Performance Marketing Alliance at http://www.performancemarketingalliance.com/.

We have enjoyed working with you and other North Carolina-based participants in the Amazon Associates Program, and wish you all the best in your future.

Best Regards,
The Amazon Associates Team

I don't personally know of anyone who used the Associates program as anything other than an alternative source of income, but the fact remains that it was taxable income, and now it's nothing.

NC Democrats have acted rashly, attempting to use the Associates program as an "in" to tax Amazon's corporate profits. They were hoping for a big payday.

Now they—and we—get nothing.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 07:12 AM | Comments (82) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

1 Just received that very e-mail notifying me that my Amazon associate account is now closed. You're right they will get nothing, now how stupid is that.

Posted by: jav at June 26, 2009 07:24 AM (SxIpk)

2 >>You're right they will get nothing, now how stupid is that.

But it is "fair" which is all that matters to some.

Posted by: Tregonsee at June 26, 2009 08:10 AM (FTqcA)

3 Why is this so hard to learn?

Tax something and you get less of it.

Posted by: Jack at June 26, 2009 08:45 AM (Ss83y)

4 Old Soviet joke:

Soviet dissident: "Under socialism, we have nothing!"

Communist Party member: "True enough. However, at least it's equally shared."

Posted by: MarkJ at June 26, 2009 09:41 AM (ZFVlP)

5 I'm just wondering - what did North Carolina try to tax and why did Amazon have to close the Associates program to get rid of it?

The email has precious little background information and I'm wondering why.

D

Posted by: David H Dennis at June 26, 2009 09:51 AM (Um+qY)

6 Famed blogger and teacher Betsy Newmark, of Betsy's Page, used her Amazon referral income to buy extra books for her history students and school library. The damage is far deeper than mere taxes.

Posted by: Timothy at June 26, 2009 09:52 AM (y8hzV)

7 It is less than nothing because now they don't get the income tax either. And yes there are a number of schools that use referral programs as part of their fund raising so now that is gone. When are the governments going to get the fact that the real economy is around 8.6 trillion and dropping? Government is going to have to contract and if you are a local government you had better look at how you are going to keep control of your budget and not depend on state and federal money because there is going to be nothing shortly.

Posted by: ken at June 26, 2009 10:03 AM (XQgWn)

8 Yes, please add a link to any previous blog posts, or to a news story or other blogger who covers this situation. What tax is NC planning against Amazon that canceling the program will prevent?

Posted by: Opus17 at June 26, 2009 10:07 AM (0rpqu)

9 Hm. See this story.
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/06/26/article/amazon_cuts_relationships_with_affiliates

It appears that NC is trying to impose a sales tax on purchases made through affiliate click-through links, even if the purchases does not live in NC.

I live in New York, and Amazon already collects NYS sales tax on my purchases. It seems that this new law would have required Amazon to also collect NC sales tax, if I followed a click-through link from an NC resident.

Posted by: Opus17 at June 26, 2009 10:15 AM (0rpqu)

10 David,

I don't know for sure, but I would guess that the legislation would make Associates an official business address in NC (which is just nonsense), making all sales in NC taxable (not just those with an Associate in NC).

If a business has an office in your state (even if the HQ is somewhere else), mail order or not, you have to pay sales tax. By closing the program in NC, Amazon is sending the signal that they won't be bullied, and this will discourage other states from passing similar legislation, to make the address of royalty or commission recipients an address of the company.

States have been salivating over ways to apply sales tax to out of state purchases.

It is, as Amazon has stated, an unconstitutional measure. The Founders wrapped it up entirely. Congress cannot tax goods in a state and states can't tax each other's goods.

Article I: Section 9: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Article I: Section 10: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress.

Posted by: Mrs. du Toit at June 26, 2009 10:15 AM (IG1sJ)

11 This is not a democrat / republican thing. This is that the state governments are broke because greedy wall street stole our confidence in American commerce. The states are grasping at straws to get enough money to keep police on the streets.
Internet merchants have escaped state sales taxes. North Carolina tried to grab some revenue from in-state internet merchants, so their local Walmarts would not be at so much of a disadvantage. It does not appear to be working.

Posted by: Ted at June 26, 2009 10:18 AM (BaOGZ)

12 A quick and dirty explanation for those who don't understand what it's all about.

Amazon associates are bloggers that have cut a deal with Amazon to get a percentage of the purchase price of items they recommend if their readers who purchase those items do so through a direct link to Amazon from their blog.

Usually a state doesn't charge sales tax on internet sales items because States can collect taxes on goods that people buy off the internet only if the company they bought the stuff from maintains an 'economic presence' in that state. Traditionally this means a brick and mortar store that handles distribution of goods ordered on line.

Because Amazon has no retail outlets in any state the only revenue that the state can legally collect on Amazon's total sales to residents of the state is the income taxes on the payment by Amazon to their associates and sales through these associates is a very small fraction of Amazon's total sales in any state

North Carolina has decided to expand the definition of an 'economic presence' for Amazon in their state to include bloggers who are Amazon associates that reside in North Carolina.

This would allow the State of North Carolina to charge sales tax on ALL sales by Amazon to anyone residing in North Carolina, not just on sales by Amazon Associates.

By trying to gain a sales tax windfall on all of Amazon's sales in NC the NC legislature has effectively destroyed a small but healthy revenue stream available to the citizens of North Carolina.

otpu

Posted by: otpu at June 26, 2009 10:29 AM (ENINb)

13 This is not a democrat / republican thing. This is that the state governments are broke because greedy wall street stole our confidence in American commerce.

Sorry, Ted, I call bullshit.

The states have not been living within their means. They've been providing welfare benefits to anyone who passes through. They've discouraged business development (where they can get additional tax revenue) and put onerous regulations on new business startups and home-based businesses.

And it is a republican/democrat thing, because the states in the most trouble are the ones who have been ruled by democrats.

The government is supposed to be the ally of business, but they've become its enemy, deciding instead to throw entitlement coins at citizens to get elected, and tax businesses at punitive levels so they eventually leave the state.

Well, the piper has arrived. It's time to lay off workers in non-essential departments. It's time to CLOSE those departments. It's time to offer incentives to bring more business to the state, and to lower taxes on existing businesses so they can expand/grow (yielding more revenue).

Texas isn't having a problem, because they've done the above, and businesses are coming to the state in droves. In the open market, Texas is winning, because other states have been stupid.

Posted by: Mrs. du Toit at June 26, 2009 10:33 AM (IG1sJ)

14 Ted:
What you choose to call greed is what motivates people to take RISKS to start an expand businesses. That is a good thing, Ted.

I wonder why you don't mention the truly HUGE money grab by Democrats in Congress in forcing banks to "lend" money to people they KNEW could never pay it back. That program -- which Republicans tried to stop -- is far, far more directly responsible for this mess than your favorite bogeyman, Wall Street.

If you choose never to take risks, that's fine, Ted, but understand that you probably work for someone who DID. Envy is also greed, Ted.

Posted by: Bill Smith at June 26, 2009 10:42 AM (pAUxf)

15 Amen, Mrs. du Toit!!!

Posted by: Bill Smith at June 26, 2009 10:44 AM (pAUxf)

16 NC has always been a bag of nutcases when it comes to taxes no matter who was in charge. They've already had a "consumer use tax" to snag a share of taxes on internet sales for a few years now. I'm really only surprised it's taken this long for them to try this.

Posted by: Chris at June 26, 2009 10:57 AM (M0246)

17 optu,

It can't be that simple, because New York did exactly that (in direct violation of the Supreme Court's current standing decisions on the matter), and although Amazon is suing New York State over it, they are collecting Sales Tax in the mean time and did not drop their affiliates. Either they regard NY as different from NC (perhaps they have too many affiliates there) or there is something more onerous in the proposed legislation in NC (such as what Opus17 wrote - that they would have to double-collect sales tax).

Posted by: Nobody at June 26, 2009 11:05 AM (CPTIY)

18 LOL all that work by the NC solons... and now they're going to get nothing for it.

NC is becoming more and more like a Northeastern seaboard state -- probably unsurprising because of the continuing influx of Northerners. (The same is becoming true of New Hampshire and its Massachusetts "settlers" as well.)

Posted by: Kim du Toit at June 26, 2009 11:06 AM (IG1sJ)

19 They got me the same way, since I live in NC. I went in to check, and my Affiliates account is already closed.

NC legislators are nutters. Did you know that they expect residents to claim out of state purchases in order to pay tax on those purchases, even though you already paid tax on them?

Posted by: William Teach at June 26, 2009 11:31 AM (7yTel)

20
"... we still find the Greedy Hand Of Government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry, and grasping the spoil of the multitude. Invention is continually exercised, to furnish new pretenses for revenues and taxation. It watches prosperity as its prey and permits none to escape without tribute.

--Thomas Paine (Rights of Man)

Posted by: Lily at June 26, 2009 12:10 PM (gIQ7K)

21 Louisiana assesses a 'use tax' on purchases made outside of Louisiana for 'use' in Louisiana. IIRC it is 8%, or roughly the average state & local sales tax. It is self-reported on the income tax return, so only applies to the honest Louisianians.

Posted by: Glenmore at June 26, 2009 12:51 PM (8J8z3)

22 Amazon is a Dem-donating company, isn't it?

Posted by: Mina at June 26, 2009 12:51 PM (N0hv7)

23 Let's clear the air about "sales tax on internet sales/purchases" and what the states are trying to do.

What most citizens do not know is every single state has TWO "tax imposing" statutes for this sort of 'excise tax' - one for "sales tax" and the other for "use tax". I believe everyone knows what a "sales tax" is. A "use tax" is the companion/corollary statute. The name "use tax" is misleading and does not equate to where you 'use' something. Sales tax is usually voluntarily collected/remitted by a vendor when selling to the ‘final consumer’. Use tax is supposed to be voluntarily remitted by the purchaser when the seller does not collect (enough) sales tax...IF the sales tax would 'normally apply' to the situation. For example, if you go out of state and purchase something you are going to use in your local area and the following applies (just one example...there are many others): If the sales tax rate you pay out of state is 4% and your local rate is 5% you would get credit for paying the ‘legally imposed 4% sales tax’ to the vendor but owe the 1% difference and should remit that to your local jurisdiction. Internet purchases are almost always a use tax scenario simply because of the misconception of the ‘internet is not taxable’. The federal moratorium on ‘taxing the internet’ ONLY applies to the access charge paid to the ISP.

The reason Amazon and most other internet retailers do not collect and then remit sales tax for most taxing jurisdictions is they do not have "nexus" = "a substantial business presence" (among other things) in a taxing jurisdiction. States, like NC and NY, are attempting (rightly or wrongly) to use whatever means necessary to establish nexus for internet based companies and these statutes are attempting to label the 'click-through associates' as 'agents for the company'. If they pass these laws then the courts will find, in accordance with that SCOTUS definition, that those associates do in fact create "a substantial business presence". This effort may or may not run afoul of the US Constitution's Commerce Clause. That will require these companies collect/remit sales tax and the state won’t have to rely on the good intentions of the purchasers to remit use tax. Please note: most sales/use tax statutes are ‘voluntary’ and I used the word ‘require’ in the previous sentence. Basically, if a business has nexus and wants to sell anything they HAVE to collect/remit sales and use taxes. If they don’t then the taxing jurisdiction may do all sorts of nasty things to them. One of which is sending someone like me to examine their records to establish what the business should have collected/remitted.

Use tax is a confusing little animal even for auditors sometimes. That is slowly getting cleaned up though thanks to a group of states that have signed on to the Streamlined Sales Tax Project (SSTP) and have adopted the SSTP sourcing rules. If you want to bore yourself to death, look up your local (probably state level) sales/use tax information (Departments of Revenue usually) and also the SSTP.

(I audit 'excise taxes' but am not employed by NC.)
NC Sales and Use Tax information
Streamlined Sales Tax information

Posted by: PhyCon at June 26, 2009 12:59 PM (4od5C)

24 All of you who are jumping on Ted are woefully uninformed about your state's (and even other local taxing jurisdictions) statutes and rules/regulations.

This is not a democrat / republican thing. This is that the state governments are broke because greedy wall street stole our confidence in American commerce. The states are grasping at straws to get enough money to keep police on the streets.
Internet merchants have escaped state sales taxes. North Carolina tried to grab some revenue from in-state internet merchants, so their local Walmarts would not be at so much of a disadvantage. It does not appear to be working.
(my emphasis added to his 'correct' part)

He is correct in the one sentence I bolded and italicized in his 2nd paragraph...his 1st paragraph is a rant for the most part.

'Use tax' is supposed to 'level the playing field' between in-state and out-of-state players inclusive of catalogue sellers and internet sellers. Where he fails being correct in his Wal-Mart sentence is "in-state internet merchants" are already subject to the NC sales tax statute IF the sell to in state customers. If they sell to an out-of-state customer then that state's Use Tax statute will apply to the customer (unless the seller has Nexus in that state, of course ). See how confusing it can get?

Posted by: PhyCon at June 26, 2009 01:22 PM (4od5C)

25 Thought you might like to see my take on the issue: http://nclawlife.com/2009/06/18/amazon-v-the-nc-general-assembly/

Posted by: Donna Chmura at June 26, 2009 01:48 PM (K7hMo)

26 Well, I was planning on moving to North Carolina next year, aging parents and all that, but now as an internet marketer, I may have to change my plans and remain in Georgia.

Good job legislature. I would have been hiring people and creating jobs in your state, now it may be easier and more effective bringing my parents (taxpayers by the way) here.

Posted by: Tom at June 26, 2009 02:23 PM (k7MTU)

27 Yes, this tax is somewhat confusing. That couldn't be by design, could it? Hurrah for Ms. du Toit. And Ted, well, whether you're right or not on your technical analysis of the taxation nexus, you're DEAD WRONG on NC or any one of a bunch of other states (particularly Calif. where I live) about them needing additional tax revenue to put police on the streets.
Clearly, no meaningful conversation or solution to balance a state's budget or the National budget can be made without getting rid of all the illegal "squatters" who've showed up here in our Nation from where ever in the world they've come from. One of the reasons this state, CA, is soooo far in debt is they're feeding, educating and giving medical care to these millions of illegals.
We cannot seem to take care of returning veterans and their families, but we can feed and nurture the illegal population. Have you ever asked yourself who's making the money and/or power on that deal?
Also, the NC tax deal once again shows the truth of the old adage that the two main character traits of politicians is they are 1. Greedy, and 2. Stupid.
Stan45

Posted by: stan45 at June 26, 2009 03:10 PM (1J6cS)

28 Now that, Stan45, is an entire comment I can get behind!

Posted by: PhyCon at June 26, 2009 04:57 PM (4od5C)

29 The legislature here in NC has been justifiably taking their lumps for this; but I haven't heard anyone take issue with Amazon for shutting NC Associates out of the program because they [the Associates] came out on the wrong end of a cost/benefit analysis.

Granted, the Associates Program Agreement probably allows for this kind of shutdown at AMZN's discretion; but part of me wonders why Jeff Bezos didn't do what so many other companies have done -- spend some money on a lobbying firm to come to Raleigh and plead their case.

Please let me know if I missed that; because otherwise it looks to me like Amazon is punishing its NC Associates so that they in turn will punish the legislators at the polls. That's certainly cheaper than spending shareholder $$$ on lobbyists; but "look what they made us do" seems a pretty poor return for all the revenue the AMZN Associates here sent to Bezos & Co.

Posted by: InfoGeek at June 26, 2009 05:48 PM (5Nhu9)

30 The problem with all these internet taxing schemes is that sales tax currently inheres in the BUYER'S location, not the seller's. Also it is technically the buyer's responsibility to pay the sales tax, though sellers voluntarily collect it and remit it to the state as a courtesy to their customers. Each state has its own sales tax collection agency, and since each locality has control over part of their sales tax rate, there is a different tax rate for every locality. These rates change all the time; I get a quarterly bulletin from the state I'm in detailing all the sales tax rate changes.

So if an internet retailer were to collect sales tax for all her buyers, not only would she have to write 50 checks (one to each state) but would have to keep track of the sales tax rate for EVERY CITY in the entire U.S. of A. Now imagine that you, like me, are running an internet retail business out of your home, and it's just you. You don't have an accountant or an assistant or even a janitor. Add to that the fact that most people don't even know how to calculate sales tax even with a calculator, and you will see why all these sales-tax-on-internet schemes won't work.

Now, if they were to make sales tax inhere in the SELLER's location, that would be much easier. I'd charge everyone the same sales tax rate and write one check. But that would mean that states could compete for internet businesses on the basis of their sales tax rates, and we wouldn't want THAT, now would we?

Posted by: Wacky Hermit at June 26, 2009 06:51 PM (1OwrP)

31 'Use tax' is supposed to 'level the playing field' between in-state and out-of-state players

Such altruism! Curious the collected cash doesn't go to the local merchants, rather into state coffers.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at June 26, 2009 06:56 PM (JhEpq)

32 Poor analysis, InfoGeek. Amazon provided a service; NC politicians decided to steal from them, over and beyond what that service was legally responsible for paying. So, they stopped that service. Why is this so hard for people to understand?
Several years ago, San Franciscans patted themselves on the back for passing a law punishing those eeeeevil banks who charge a buck or two for use of their ATM's by non-bank customers. The morning after the vote, just imagine the sad little looks on their smug f'ing faces as they realized that instead of getting free use of someone else's equipment and labor, they simply were unable to use the ATM at *any* price, because the bank simply refused to provide that service for free. Sounds like NC has a case of the same situation - trying to get something for nothing.

Posted by: baboy at June 26, 2009 10:44 PM (GB1t6)

33 If the sales tax rate you pay out of state is 4% and your local rate is 5% you would get credit for paying the ‘legally imposed 4% sales tax’ to the vendor but owe the 1% difference and should remit that to your local jurisdiction.

So if I live in a state with tax rate of 4% and make a purchase in a state with a tax rate of 5%, does my home state owe me the 1% difference? Somehow, I don't think so.

Posted by: Just Sayin' at June 27, 2009 01:39 AM (o2bVb)

34 Hey baboy, way to side with the greedy, thieving bankers against your fellow citizens. We should let them do whatever they want, right? It's thinking like yours that got us into this mess in the first place.

Posted by: Anatoli at June 27, 2009 02:20 PM (znAs1)

35 All of our tax money is being spent to brainwash people into communism. The public education system is a communist brainwashing program. ACORN is a communist brainwashing organization. If you began to "cut out" the program portions that are about communist brainwashing... we'd probably pay very few taxes.

(They could just give us vouchers for education and we could educate our own children where we choose - and just trim all the propagandizing out of public education and ppl might choose those schools for their voucher system. But we certainly don't need coerced communism through taxation with no choice by voucher of where to send children to school = public education).

Posted by: laura at June 27, 2009 04:03 PM (JFvHi)

36 Nobody, are we really talking about salestax here?
Or is NC trying to define Amazon as a North Carolina company because they have people with affilliate accounts there and declaring that because of that Amazon should pay corporate taxes in NC?
They could even redefine those affilliates as employees of Amazon and try to have Amazon pay income tax and social security premiums in NC despite those people not being on the payroll.

I've not read this bill, but if it's not about salestax it's got to be something like that.

Posted by: J.T. Wenting at June 28, 2009 01:15 AM (hrLyN)

37 Not that I ever made any substantial income off it, but my account was also closed, of course. I am irked beyond my ability to describe.

Is there some rule somewhere that says every activity must be taxed? Is it too much for politicians to keep their expletive-deleted hands to themselves for a change?

Rope, tree, politician. Some assembly required.

Posted by: Russ at June 28, 2009 04:58 AM (QH1SN)

38 Just sent this to a few close friends:

'Found this on Insty:

http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/289027.php

Guys, this is really starting to piss me off. So much so that I'm starting to look for alternatives. As in: moving to another state. The damn "Yellow Dog Democrats" down East will never elect a responsible government in Raleigh.

Note what Mrs. du Toit (of "Nation of Riflemen" fame) has to say about Texas gaining business in the comments. Businesses are leaving Kalifornia in droves. And I expect it to start in NC shortly.

Based on the "Freedom in the 50 States" report, I'm looking at Tennessee, Missouri and Texas. Colorado ain't bad but I'm not sure I want to winter there. Unfortunately I'm afraid most of the cheap land in Texas is gone unless you get up in the Panhandle...

BTW: if you haven't already, read "One Second After". This is not an "If it happens" scenario. It's a "When it happens"....

http://www.amazon.com/One-Second-After-William-Forstchen/dp/0765317583/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246199976&sr=8-1'

Posted by: Don at June 28, 2009 10:53 AM (dcgqO)

39 Don,

Forget Colorado, we've been Californicated and are headinq quickly down the dumper with Ritter and a Dem controlled legislature.

Posted by: RC at June 30, 2009 01:26 PM (fGQQq)

40 Amazon has just done the same thing with Rhode Island affiliates, for the same reason. Where there was revenue, now there is none. Brilliant job, legislators.

Posted by: Pablo at June 30, 2009 04:01 PM (yTndK)

41 @ RC,

Yeah, I know. But my Mom owns land in Colorado. Far enough away from Denver that I can mostly ignore it. I'm thinking of spending the summer at the ranch and winter in Tennessee or Missouri. I'd love to find a place in the Hill Country but I'm not sure it's do-able anymore...

Posted by: Don at June 30, 2009 10:07 PM (C2pDJ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

June 25, 2009

Alleged Moonwalking Pedophile Dies; World Forgets Obama Won't Use The Insurance Plan He Intends to Force Down Our Throats

Pardon me for keeping some perspective.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 06:53 PM | Comments (33) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Democrat Donors Shut Down Atlanta Tea Party

The land of the free?

Update: The Simons don't care for other groups either, though earlier this year their response was to shut down the mall. (h/t Andrew H.)

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 11:52 AM | Comments (25) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

June 24, 2009

SC Gov Mark Sanford Preps for 2012...

... by burnishing his "foreign affairs" experience.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 03:28 PM | Comments (59) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Anti-Gun Harold Koh Headed for Confirmation Vote

From Foreign Policy:

A cloture vote on the nomination of Harold Koh will be held this morning at 11 a.m. ET, The Cable has learned. Koh, the dean of Yale Law School, was tapped to become the State Department's legal advisor nearly four months ago, but has faced criticism from conservatives for an alleged "transnational" approach to the law.

According to reporter Dave Wiegel of the Washington Independent, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said through a spokesman that he is confident he has the 60 votes needed to overcome conservative opposition to Koh's nomination.

Koh is a self-described "trans-nationalist" radical who believes in global gun control.

Koh's positions treat our constitutional law as if it were a mere local ordinance on the greater world stage. This is of particular concern to gun owners at a time when the U.S. Congress is under pressure from President Obama to ratify an international gun control treaty with countries in the western hemisphere. That treaty, known by its Spanish acronym CIFTA, would likely serve as a forerunner to a more extensive United Nations initiative, the "Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in all its Aspects."

The Bush administration, under the leadership of UN Ambassador John Bolton, rejected the small arms treaty. Bolton plainly told the world that the United States will not accept a gun control document that violates our Constitutional right to bear arms. Harold Koh commented that Bolton was being "needlessly provocative."

In a paper entitled "A world drowning in guns," Koh maintains that a civil society cannot exist with broad gun ownership: "Guns kill civil society," he said.

Given President Obama's track record of participating in schemes to undermine Second Amendment scholarship, and his disdain for those "bitter clingers" who believe in the Constitution, it is unsurprising that Koh would be nominated to the position at the State Department.

What is surprising is that Senators that desire to retain their seats would consider confirming such a radical so hostile to basic Constitutional rights.

Call your Senator this morning and express your disdain, while you still have a chance.

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:22 AM | Comments (31) | Add Comment | Trackbacks (Suck)

Processing 0.03, elapsed 0.3674 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3361 seconds, 335 records returned.
Page size 263 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.