The Queen of Strawman is back

Leave a comment


Sue Wilson’s attack on talk radio continues over at Brad Blog.

The radio industry magazine Radio Inkcaught wind of my recent article, “Tell the FCC: Talk Radio is NOT ‘Bonafide News’”, as published at The BRAD BLOG, (and subsequently reprinted by the Huffington Post.)

As might be expected by an industry with a long track record of willfully misinforming the public, perhaps it is not surprising that Radio Ink — which bills itself as “Radio’s Premier Management & Marketing Magazine” — would wildly mischaracterize not only the piece I wrote, but the legal underpinnings of the case which is helping to bring the question of what comprises “Bonafide News” to the forefront.

Of course there is no mischaracterization by Media Trackers Radio Ink or me.  The FCC rule that she refers to only applies to qualified candidates and not to the followers of candidates.  Again the FCC rules are narrow and quite specific.

(a) Equal opportunities requirement; censorship prohibition; allowance of station use; news appearances exception; public interest; public issues discussion opportunities

If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provisions of this section. No obligation is imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any—
(1) bona fide newscast,
(2) bona fide news interview,
(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or
(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),
The fact that neither she nor her followers are qualified candidates and by extension the rest of her argument is moot.  From the FCC’s own pages she does not have a standing.

(c) Timing of request. A request for equal opportunities must be submitted to the licensee within 1 week of the day on which the first prior use giving rise to the right of equal opportunities occurred: Provided, however, That where the person was not a candidate at the time of such first prior use, he or she shall submit his or her request within 1 week of the first subsequent use after he or she has become a legally qualified candidate for the office in question.

(d) Burden of proof. A candidate requesting equal opportunities of the licensee or complaining of noncompliance to the Commission shall have the burden of proving that he or she and his or her opponent are legally qualified candidates for the same public office.

Rather then arguments of actual law and the constitution Sue makes emotional arguments of “fairness” which is subjective depending on your point of view.  Nowhere can Sue show that the above rules are extended to anyone other then the candidates or can she show that even the candidates are entitled to equal time to the talk show hosts.  What makes Sue think that she or her followers are entitled to more time then the candidates themselves?

The Zapple Doctrine that she refers to is a leftover from the “fairness doctrine” and pertains to advertising time Which is why Zapple is called quasi-equal opportunities (having some resemblance usually by possession of certain attributes).  DAVID OXENFORD a renowned broadcast attorney goes into detail here.

So no Sue Radio INK’s statement is not incorrect.

Garziglia concludes, “Radio listeners often have the erroneous impression that they, or others who are not the radio station licensee, have some sort of First Amendment right to airtime. That is wholly wrong. With the exception of equal opportunities afforded by law to political candidates themselves, there is no such right to airtime.”

As Sue is aware of  David Oxenford has written extensively on the subject.  Her socialistic claims of ownership of the airwaves is yet another red herring, not even the FCC makes such a claim. Regulation is not ownership otherwise we would all be slaves to the state as we are all regulated and by Sue’s logic by extension owned.

The legal underpinnings of your case are non-existent, what is  bona fide  is moot as only qualified candidates qualify for equal time but even if your arguments were valid the FCC has ruled on what is bona fied on several occasions as David Oxenford discusses here.

So again Sue WTMJ station manager Steve Wexler’s letter is entirely accurate both factually and legally.

Thank you for your email. We frequently receive emails about our programming and the discussion of important political elections in particular. While some of our programming may include commentary and the personal opinions of program hosts, the station works diligently to ensure that a variety of views on important public issues are reflected in the totality of our news and talk programming.

We understand that not all listeners will agree with every opinion or statement made on the station. However, we are neither able, nor is it legally required, to provide each listener who disagrees with a statement made on the station the opportunity to appear on the station and express his or her opinion.

Thank you again for providing us with your thoughts.

Steve Wexler
Executive Vice President
Journal Broadcast Group
720 E. Capitol Dr.
Milwaukee, WI
53212

Direct Line: [redacted]
Direct Fax: redacted

[email redacted]

The Red Lion case she refer’s to was struck down in it’s entirety by FCC vs League of Woman Voters.

Unidentified Justice: But what if, say, the State of Alabama or the City of Birmingham, whatever the other, say we would like our station to editorialize?

Samuel A Alito Jr: Well, I think the Congress in regulating broadcasting can take into account the kinds of abuses that may develop when a publicly owned station using public funds, even state or local funds, engages in editorializing and supporting or opposing candidates.

I think that creates the possibility of grave abuses that are not present, certainly in the area of commercial broadcasting.

It creates the danger that the station will be used as an outlet for government propagandizing, and I think that one of the things the First Amendment tries to prevent is government at any level drowning out private voices in the media of communication.

The entire oral arguments can be heard here.

Conclusion
Decision: 5 votes for League of Women Voters of California, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 47 U.S.C. 399

Yes. Even though the Commerce Clause gives Congress the power to regulate the broadcast medium, “since broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity,” Congress must use the First Amendment to “inform and give shape” to its regulation. Justice Brennan argued that no legitimate government interest was served by the law which broadly banned all editorializing, a form of speech which “lies at the heart of First Amendment protection.”

As a result the FCC struck down the “fairness doctrine” in it’s entirety.

In 1985, under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan’s presidential campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the FCC released a report stating that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

In August 1987, under FCC Chairman Dennis R. Patrick, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[13] The FCC suggested in Syracuse Peace Council that because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional, stating that:

The intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists.

At the 4-0 vote, Chairman Patrick said,

We seek to extend to the electronic press the same First Amendment guarantees that the print media have enjoyed since our country’s inception.[14]

Update June 11, 2013

Given the left’s proclivity for censorship I’ve added the following which I posted on their site along with a screen shot.

COMMENT #11 [Permalink]
… Marshall Keith said on 6/10/2013 @ 10:12 pm PT… 

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
@ Gus Wynn I also would like to add to your comment “As users of the limited public-owned airwaves” The government does not own the Airwaves as you and Sue claim, Radio stations are privately owned businesses that are regulated as most businesses are. I challenge both you and Sue to show ownership papers or what act of congress committed the socialist act of seizing ownership? In the FCC vs the League of Women voters pertained to Public Radio which at the time were for the most part owned by taxpayers and the FCC ruled that the stations ruled that the stations had the right to editorialize and they had control over the content. The equal time rules only apply to the candidates. From the ruling.”Court upheld the right of access for federal candidates imposed by 312(a)(7) of the Communications Act both because that provision “makes a significant contribution of freedom of expression by enhancing the ability of candidates to present, and the public to receive, information necessary for the effective operation of the democratic process,” id., at 396, and because it defined a sufficiently “limited right of `reasonable’ access” so that “the discretion of broadcasters to present their views on any issue or to carry any particular type of programming” was not impaired. Id., at 396-397 (emphasis in original). Finally, in Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, supra, the Court affirmed the FCC’s refusal to require broadcast licensees to accept all paid political advertisements. Although it was argued that such a requirement would serve the public’s First Amendment interest in receiving additional views on public issues, the Court rejected this approach, finding that such a requirement would tend to transform broadcasters into common carriers and would intrude unnecessarily upon the editorial discretion of broadcasters. Id., at 123-125. The FCC’s ruling, therefore, helped to advance the important purposes of the Communications Act, grounded in the First Amendment, of preserving the right of broadcasters to exercise “the widest journalistic freedom consistent with [their] public obligations,” and of guarding against “the risk of an enlargement [468 U.S. 364, 380] of Government control over the content of broadcast discussion of public issues.” Id., at 110, 126. 13 “

sue_wilson

Update #2 June 19,2013

As I predicted,  owner of the blogs challenges to me.  He argued that the airwaves were socialistic, (owned by the people) and therefore subject to government censorship.

Finally, you claim, without offering a shred of evidence, that “The government does not own the Airwaves”. Really? Who does then? If the government (we, the people) do not own them, why do stations agree to license them from us? Seems kinda stupid of them, no?

 

I showed him in plain English the supreme courts ruling to the contrary.

Finally, although the Government’s interest in ensuring balanced coverage of public issues is plainly both important and substantial, we have, at the same time, made clear that broadcasters are engaged in a vital and independent form of communicative activity. As a result, the First Amendment must uniform and give shape to the manner in which Congress exercises its regulatory power in this area. Unlike common carriers, broadcasters are “entitled under the First Amendment to exercise `the widest journalistic freedom consistent with their public [duties]

The Queen of Censorship is Back

2 Comments


With the obvious attack on Liberty minded people blatant and obvious from the administration’s attack on journalist and the obvious attack on Liberty groups by the IRS, the attack on right minded people continues.

Sue Wilson is renewing her attack on Conservative talk radio.  Of course she again shows her ignorance of both Constitutional law and broadcast rules and regulations.  She bases her arguments on the first amendment ignoring the fact that all of the “Bill of Rights” put limitations on the government and not private individuals or businesses.

President Obama recently nominated Tom Wheeler as the new Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the federal agency tasked with protecting the public interest in broadcasting, particularly over our public airwaves. . . . Such selective private censorship over our public airwaves violates not only the First Amendment — by denying certain individuals free speech — but also the “Zapple Doctrine,” a little known FCC rule (also called the quasi-equal opportunities rule) that requires stations to provide comparable time for supporters of both political parties when it is requested.

The following is the first amendment that she refers to emphasis mine for the constitutionally challenged like Sue.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The “Zapple doctrine” that she refers to was an offshoot of the “Fairness doctrine” that was found unconstitutional. It pertains to time purchased on the air and has no bearing on the editorial content of the talk shows.  What she fails to mention that the FCC already informed her of that fact!

For the Zapple Doctrine to be invoked, the supporters of the opposing candidate would have to specifically ask the station for air time.  If the station refused, the supporters could then appeal to the FCC, but no such Zapple complaint has been made in at least eight years.  Therefore, there was no violation of the Zapple Doctrine by the stations here, and even if there were, that would not be a basis for the denial of a license renewal, since programming has nothing to do with licensing in the first place.(Emphasis mine)

She also makes the socialist/communist claim that the government owns the airwaves and therefore by extension the radio stations themselves.

But broadcasting, local radio and TV, is a  public/private partnership:  the public owns the airwaves needed for transmission;  private business own the buildings, equipment, etc. needed to broadcast programming.   When private business goes into broadcasting, it makes a deal with the public:  a free license from the Federal Communication Commission – if it agrees to “serve the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”

Again wrong Sue, the FCC is a regulatory agency that regulates all modern forms of electronic communications eg radio/TV, telephone and even the internet, is it your assertion that they own these too and can dictate content?

Can You show under what constitutional authority this ownership was taken or show documentation of this ownership?

Name any forms of governments that dictate the content of the media, are any of them not totalitarian?

Then she goes on to make the claim that the entire industry is racist/sexist without showing how any female or minority group has been denied the right to buy or own a radio station.

However, just because that restriction is built into the law does not mean the FCC will necessarily either enforce or obey it. (For example, on issues of the lack of women and minorities having access to radio licenses,

Broadcasting like any business is competitive and unless you have a customer base you can’t survive.  The success of any radio station depends on the number of listeners. The arbitron shows the number of listeners and the success of radio.  The market that she attacked is in the Milwaukee Area and the minority viewpoint was unsuccessfully represented.

The Milwaukee radio station WMCS-AM (1290) has served the city’s African-American radio audience for more than two decades with a variety of popular on-air hosts and personalities.

Black talk radio is a vibrant force in town, particularly during local elections, but the city’s two black-owned radio stations have always been challenged by economic realities that made the going tough. (The other station is  WNOV-AM 860, which still offers talk radio.)

The general manager at the company that runs WMCS chalked up a drastic decision to end the all-talk format on most days to strictly business. “Radio stations have to make money and serve the community,” said Bill Horwitz, vice president and general manager of the Milwaukee Radio Alliance.

The bottom line is that no one wants to listen to the pabulum spewed by leftist like Sue, The ratings of The Rachel Maddow show are a clear indication of this.  Free Markets are the ultimate form of Democracy, you the listener get to decide what you listen to.  The enemies of freedom would deny you of that right.

Lawmakers to take up Scott Walker DNA proposal (Good Intentions Bad Policy)

Leave a comment


Madison — Wisconsin lawmakers are set this week to consider Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to take DNA from anyone arrested for a felony and anyone convicted of any crime.

Wisconsin currently collects DNA only from convicted felons and sex offenders. Walker’s executive budget lays out nearly $6 million for the initiative. The money largely would come from an existing $250 surcharge on felony offenders and a new $200 surcharge on misdemeanor offenders.

For starters being arrested for a crime felony or not you don’t forfeit your constitutional rights namely your fourth amendment rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong.  Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you.  While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises.  Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes.  Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to.  Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

Letter to Governor Walker and Budget Committee

Leave a comment


My name is Marshall Keith and am an active Tea Party Member.  Your recent action as members of the budget committee is appalling and betrays every principle this country was founded on, namely the right of property and the right to own and run a business. Your action take against RYO machines amount to a regulatory taking without just compensation.

  I have a personal friend who is directly affected by this action, he mortgaged his house to buy two of these machines to the tune of $70,000 dollars. As a result of this he will more then likely lose both his home and his livelihood.

 

Do any of you think that sticking something like this in the budget even closely represents anything even closely related to Due Process?  I remind you all that you swore an oath to defend and uphold both the State and Federal Constitution, are any of you aware of these words from both the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”. How about these words from the state constitution  ”The property of no person shall be taken for public use without just compensation therefor”

 The vast majority of you ran on the Republican platform of limited government and individual rights yet use the same tactics that Governor Doyle used to strip property owners the right to use their property and cater to the clientele of their choice and enact what is essentially a “Jim Crow” type law when enacting the smoking ban.  He slipped it into the budget.

 Is this what you mean by limited government and freedom, because to me it seems that we have just replaced one statist regime for another.  I was active in the fight against the Recall against Scott Walker but recent actions, namely Walkers DNA proposal, his endorsement of the Marketplace Extortion Act make me regret that decision.

 Before you claim that it is about the evasion of taxes, it is not.  These RYO shops pay the draconian 70% of list price tax inflicted by the Doyle administration?  If they are considered manufacturers did you exempt them from this 70% tax in favor of the cigarette tax stamp?  Of course not, you caved to the lobbying interest of “Big Tobacco”, the convenience stores and the likes of Smoke Free Wisconsin.

 When election time rolls around again I will be working hard to get every one of you replaced in favor of candidates that actually believe in the principles of limited Government and property rights.

Marshall Keith

Committee Members

Senate Members​ ​Assembly Members
Senator Alberta Darling, Co-Chair​ Representative John Nygren, Co-Chair​
Senator Luther Olsen​ Representative Pat Strachota
Senator Sheila Harsdorf Representative Dale Kooyenga
Senator Joe Leibham Representative Dean Knudson
Senator Mary Lazich Representative Dan LeMahieu
Senator Glenn Grothman Representative John Klenke
Senator Jennifer Shilling Representative Cory Mason
Senator Robert Wirch Representative Jon Richards
Committee Clerk:
Joe Malkasian
Room 305 East, State Capitol
Madison, WI  53702
(608) 264-8314

Lawmakers to take up Scott Walker DNA proposal (Good Intentions Bad Policy)

Leave a comment


Madison — Wisconsin lawmakers are set this week to consider Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to take DNA from anyone arrested for a felony and anyone convicted of any crime.

Wisconsin currently collects DNA only from convicted felons and sex offenders. Walker’s executive budget lays out nearly $6 million for the initiative. The money largely would come from an existing $250 surcharge on felony offenders and a new $200 surcharge on misdemeanor offenders.

For starters being arrested for a crime felony or not you don’t forfeit your constitutional rights namely your fourth amendment rights.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

On conviction of a felony you do lose constitutional rights but only on conviction. Not for an arrest. You have to show probable cause to seize anything. Some people may say what’s the big deal if you have done nothing wrong.  Would you let them search your house simply because you got caught speeding?

This goes far beyond searching your house, they are taking a piece of you.  While they always make promises that it will only be used for criminal investigations history shows that the government never keeps those promises.  Putting your DNA in a database will eventually be used for other purposes.  Obamacare is a classic example, your DNA can be used to determine what diseases you may be prone to, you could be denied government jobs because of this, it could be used under Obamacare to determine how much money they will spend on healthcare based on what diseases you are prone to.  Demand probable cause before forfeiting your rights.

Scott Walker the Traitor of the TEA Party Movement

Leave a comment


When Scott Walker ran one of the promises that he made was to repeal the smoking ban.  Not only did this ban violate the Constitution namely the takings clause of the fifth and 14th amendment. ” nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Mr Walker not only reneged on that promise, it appears that he is expanding the attack on smokers using the exact same methods that Comrade Doyle used to enact the ban.  The state budget. First here is Scott in his own words on the smoking ban.

Mr Walker has a multi-pronged attack on smokers in the budget.

The first is an attack on the owners of the RYO machines on page 435

17. Cigarette Regulation Updates
The Governor recommends defining organizations that operate roll-your-own cigarette rolling machines for public use as cigarette manufacturers. The Governor also recommends studying the use of additional cigarette stamping methods. The fiscal impact from the change in regulation of roll-your-own tobacco machines is an estimated increase in tax revenue of $1.4 million in FY14 and FY15.

Ignoring the fact that there will be no increase in revenue, actually revenue will go down as a result of smuggling, it is a matter of justice.  Should the books be balanced on the backs of smokers?

On the Freedom index Wisconsin rates towards the bottom we are the 12th worst, down two points from 2009.

Wisconsin performs below average in a number of personal freedom categories. The state has high victimless crimes arrest rates, though its drug enforcement rate is below average. It has the worst gaming laws in the country (social gambling is not allowed) and almost the strictest campaign finance laws. The state also performs below average on gun freedom and travel freedom. Home schools are regulated with some onerous notification requirements. Wisconsin has some of the best alcohol laws in the country, with taxes fairly low across the board. However, its cigarette taxes are very high and smoking bans are extensive. Wisconsin recently enacted a domestic partnership law. Its asset forfeiture laws score well (over one standard deviation better than average).

Policy Recommendations

  • Reduce the income tax burden while continuing to cut back spending through cuts in government employment and public employee benefits.
  • Pass a right-to-work law, whenever political conditions so allow.
  • Reform tobacco and marijuana regulations, using the state’s alcohol-friendly beer, wine, and spirits regulations as a model.

The second assault is on Government employees. On Page 167

The Governor recommends that the Group Insurance Board expand the current wellness program and implement a tobacco use surcharge for state employees beginning in calendar year 2014. The Governor also recommends increasing expenditure authority for supplies and services related to these wellness initiatives.
4. Modifications to Group Insurance by the Group Insurance Board
The Governor recommends a statutory modification that will allow expansions of group insurance coverage only if deemed cost-effective by the Group Insurance Board.
Employee Trust Funds 155

Of course it has been proven time and again that smokers cost society less not more so any surcharge is punitive and more “Nanny Statism” and not good policy.

The last is the funding of the very groups that lobby against smokers.  They do it under the guise of Quit lines but these lines are the very groups that lobby against smokers so any funding to them is direct funding to their lobbying efforts since it frees up their other money. Page 220

MISSION
To support economic prosperity and quality of life, the department exercises multiple roles in the protection and promotion of the health and safety of the people of Wisconsin.
PROGRAMS, GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES
Note: Programs, goals, objectives and activities have been modified.
Program 1: Public Health Services Planning, Regulation and Delivery
Goal: Provide QuitLine tobacco cessation services for up to 8,000 BadgerCare Plus adults and First Breath face-to-face cessation counseling for up to 3,000 pregnant BadgerCare Plus members using financial incentives as a tool for increasing engagement in treatment and increasing quit rates.
Objective/Activity: Create structure and process to link BadgerCare Plus members in South Central and Northeastern Wisconsin to the QuitLine by January 2012.
Objective/Activity: Create structure and process to link BadgerCare Plus pregnant women in Southeastern Wisconsin to First Breath by January 2012.
Objective/Activity: Implement protocols for evaluation by March 2012. Evaluate effectiveness and return on investment of individual incentives on tobacco cessation by December 2015.

Of course the above is pushed by those who work in tobacco control and lobby for these laws.  What it does not show that the big pharma solutions that they push are not only ineffective but they fail to show their ties to the big pharmaceutical companies pushing them.

Again Nanny Statism is not a legitimate function in a constitutional government.

The tactics used by Scott Walker are identical to those of Comrade Doyle and one can only wonder how much this has to do with his wife’s ties to the American Lung Association.  From her bio page.

First Lady Tonette Walker

First Lady Tonette Walker was born and raised in Milwaukee, Wis.  She spent more than 20 years employed in the insurance industry before working for the American Diabetes Association. Currently, the first lady works in the development department for the American Lung Association.

Ron Johnson Against the Constitution? Tell Me It’s Not So Ron!

1 Comment


As Red State reports 26 Republican Senators voted for the anti-business amendment imposing a state tax on internet transactions.  This is done under the progressive mythology of fairness, but fairness to who?  This from Red State.

On the Republican side, perhaps the most egregious vote was the Enzi amendment to allow states to form a cartel and collect internet sales taxes for other states.  The so-called Market Fairness Act passed in the form of a second degree amendment by 75-24, with the support of 26 Republicans.

The Tenth Amendment Center clearly shows the intent of the Constitution.

The original intent of the Commerce Clause was to make “normal” or “regular” commerce between the states; thus it was designed to promote trade and exchange not restrict it. Further, it was specifically aimed at preventing the states from enacting impediments to the free flow of “commerce” such as tariffs, quotas and taxes.

Sadly the TEA Party favorite Ron Johnson was among the traitors to free enterprise and the Constitution. The intent of the Commerce Clause of the constitution was to promote free trade between the states, competition between the states promotes lower prices and taxes for all.  This act is a protectionist act that punishes the consumer and rewards the politicians and the states that impose draconian taxes on it’s victims.

Of course Ron was not alone in this act Senator Roy Blunt is a champion of this treasonous act.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and other lawmakers want to close that sales-tax loophole for customers and online retailers alike, arguing that the system favors Internet companies over brick-and-mortar stores.

“It’s wrong for the government to penalize some businesses over others,” Blunt said this month as the Senate debated legislation that would allow states to collect sales tax for online purchases made from out-of-state retailers. “This is the fair thing to do.”

What part of  TEA (Taxed Enough Already) did you guys miss?  Mr Blunt, it’s wrong to penalize any business, period!  The sales tax imposed by most states already exceeds the paltry Tea Tax that helped spark the original revolution.  Every state imposes taxes in different ways, some tax clothing . . . some don’t so what is the regulatory expense going to be on these online retailers.

Ron Paul nailed it on the head when he said:

The Internet Tax Mandate also violates the original purpose of the Commerce Clause, which was to guarantee free trade among the states. Instead, the bill would allow states to levy taxes on goods crossing into their state, which is not what the Founding Fathers intended. Why should California be able to force a business in Texas to collect and pay California sales tax?

When considering any economic proposal, the unseen, potential ramifications must be examined. This mandate could discourage online commerce and stifle the growth of new businesses, exactly the opposite of what we need if we want to expand entrepreneurship and revive our economy. In addition, the long arm of Big Government would reach for companies operating in states currently lacking a sales tax.

Those brick-and-mortar businesses worried about competition from the Internet marketplace and wanting to “level the playing field” should instead focus on ways to decrease the burden of regulations and lessen government’s effect on a company’s bottom line. Reduced operational costs can lead to more competitive prices.

The National Internet Tax Mandate provides yet another example of the corporatism so prevalent in the “solutions” legislators are quick to propose—big business getting together with Big Government to step on the taxpayers and smaller competitors—and should be soundly rejected by those interested in restoring a vibrant economy.

Ron isn’t that one of the things that you were fighting against?  The Regulatory expense imposed on businesses.  I post Judge Nepolitano’s video regularly . . . I guess I have to repeat it regularly until you guys get it.

Ron you are a disappointment!

Update

Ron saw the light and Voted against this act that should be appropriately labeled “The Marketplace Extortion Act”  For more information.

http://www.teapartyperspective.com/2013/05/06/the-marketplace-extortion-act/#more-2647

Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.