DCRepublican.com

When President Bush announced his economic stimulus in January, he bragged that his package was the “right size” and would “boost” the economy. It sure has led to “higher consumer spending,” but not where Bush had probably hoped. The adult pornography industry reports that has seen a huge uptick in business thanks to Bush’s package.

Of  course, this is also a great opportunity to bring back one of my favorite videos from ht

digg story

For more what Chuck Grassley is trying to do, click here to read more.

Even though it was inevitable that the Democrats would get the cloture vote that Harry Reid was seeking on the Foreclosure Prevention Act of 2008 (aka: Housing Bailout Bill), I have to admit that I was quite surprised to see it get the overwhelming support that it did.

The final vote on H.R. 3221 was 83 yea’s, 9 nay’s, and then there were 8 member of the Senate who were either running for President, recovering from surgery, or simply didn’t want to show the American people that they had a pair and stand up for what is right.

Regardless of how this vote turned out, there are 9 members of the Senate who deserve our thanks and gratitude for standing up and speaking out against this horrible piece of legislation.

Senators who have a pair:

Senator John Barrasso, Wyoming

Senator Christopher Bond, Missouri

Senator James Bunning, Kentucky

Senator Michael Crapo, Idaho

Senator Jim DeMint, South Carolina

Senator John Ensign, Nevada

Senator Michael Enzi, Wyoming

Senator Jon Kyl, Arizona

Senator David Vitter, Louisiana

And then there are those Senators who simply don’t get it:

Blogs covering this:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2008/06/senate_key_vote_doddshelby_hou.php

http://usmegatrends.blogspot.com/2008/06/is-there-goat-in-house.html

http://www.mathies.com/weblog/?p=1319

http://rubechat.kfan.com/forums/thread/3139831.aspx

http://senatus.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/another-emergency-spending-bill-possible-housing-bill-may-be-pushed-back/

http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-sns-ap-congress-housing,0,2396621.story?track=rss

http://thekansascitian.blogspot.com/2008/06/senate-housing-bailout-further-erodes.html

If you’re covering the post-cloture segments of the Housing Bailout Bill, let me know, I’d be more than happy to add your link to the list.

Sadly, its one of our own that has come up with one of the most ludicrous amendments to what is already seen by many as one horrible package of legislation.

It’s none other than Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa that has developed the language that would essentially open the door to online merchants like Ebay, Amazon, Google Checkout, etc. reporting all of their transaction activity to the government.

First of all, it’s important to note that this provision was packaged in the Housing Bill, which has absolutely nothing to do with online merchants. The provision was buried amongst 600+ pages of legislation, making it more likely to be overlooked by tired Hill staffers. For those who haven’t read the language, here it is (source):

Payment Card and Third Party Network Information Reporting. The proposal requires information reporting on payment card and third party network transactions. Payment settlement entities, including merchant acquiring banks and third party settlement organizations, or third party payment facilitators acting on their behalf, will be required to report the annual gross amount of reportable transactions to the IRS and to the participating payee. Reportable transactions include any payment card transaction and any third party network transaction. Participating payees include persons who accept a payment card as payment and third party networks who accept payment from a third party settlement organization in settlement of transactions. A payment card means any card issued pursuant to an agreement or arrangement which provides for standards and mechanisms for settling the transactions. Use of an account number or other indicia associated with a payment card will be treated in the same manner as a payment card. A de minimis exception for transactions of $10,000 or less and 200 transactions or less applies to payments by third party settlement organizations. The proposal applies to returns for calendar years beginning after December 31, 2010. Back-up withholding provisions apply to amounts paid after December 31, 2011. This proposal is estimated to raise $9.802 billion over ten years.

It’s quite clear to see the many problems that could be created if this piece of legislation was enacted.

Of course, after this was exposed, Kate Szostak, a staffer on the Banking Committee quickly tried to kill any doubts and/or concerns people had with the legislation:

“This is not a controversial provision or a new one. Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee have supported it for months, and it has been included in the Administration’s budget proposal for years. This provision simply requires banks–not small businesses–to report sales transactions to the IRS each year and to merchants at the end of each day. It makes the tax system fair for everyone, without burdening small businesses and without putting consumers’ privacy rights at risk.”

With all due respect to Kate, this is indeed a very controversial provision that could greatly effect how business is done online.

For example, let’s say I sell 500 widgets on Ebay every month and at the end of each month, $20,000 or so is transferred into my bank account. Stop. That is basically what is going to be reported to the IRS and filed away under your EIN or SSN and it should be no surprise that they are going to be there at the end of the year waiting for you to pay taxes on it.

However, if you’re a business owner, there is much more to this equation than the IRS would be seeing. Nowhere in this reporting would Ebay or the IRS have any idea how much each of these widgets cost you. Sure, you might have had $20,000 transferred to your account, but what if you had to spend $19,500 on acquisition and shipping of the widgets?

This number has to first be deducted from the $20,000 before any accurate representation of income can be generated. When you tack on other things like operating costs, it’s even easier to see how the IRS is going to have skewed numbers.

I’m sure many of you are now asking, so what, you’ll report all of this on your tax forms and pay taxes based on that.

The reality is that even if this is the case, with the IRS having all of this data, they are going to be looking harder than ever for anyone that is cheating the system. Any discrepancy on either end could potentially throw up a red flag and lead to an audit. No matter what criteria they create, there is always going to be a discrepancy in numbers, simply because each small business operates in a different way, having different pricing structures, sales models, operating costs, exposure, etc.

With this legislation, I don’t see how the IRS would be able to operate without a major expansion, and that’s just to cover the oversight of this data. There are many other arguments that people have brought up over this legislation, including privacy concerns and other important logistics, but for some reason, some of our elected officials don’t want to bring this up for more debate and are hoping to end discussion of this in the next 48 hours.

So, that’s where we come in and help disseminate information exposing America’s #1 R.I.N.O., Senator Chuck Grassley.

Here are some other bloggers that are also covering this topic, and have made excellent posts.

http://techliberation.com/2008/06/23/senate-housing-bill-to-require-collecting-of-online-payment-information/

http://blogs.courant.com/on_background/2008/06/credit-card-tracking-slipped-i.html

http://www.infowars.com/?p=2785

http://papundits.wordpress.com/2008/06/24/housing-bailout-bill-new-provision-report

http://osispeaks.com/

http://fetchingjen.blogspot.com/

http://www.oregonconservative.com

http://www.conservativerecord.com

It looks like the Democrats decided to go a bit too far this time, trying to slip in some last minute provisions into the mortgage bailout bill that had absolutely nothing to do with mortgages. Here is just a taste, but check out the rest of the story at the link below:

“This is a provision with huge reach, and was slipped into the bill this week. Not only does it affect nearly every credit card transaction, such as Visa, MasterCard, Discover, and American Express, but the bill specifically targets payment systems like eBay’s PayPal, Amazon, and Google Checkout, that are used by many online businesses.”

read more | digg story

FreedomWorks interns at their finest, showing the DC and the country what grassroots activism is all about (@ approx. 2:00 into the video). Watch out Chris Dodd, not only will ethics investigators be breathing down your neck, but you’ll also have to deal with the 5′10″, 180lb. Panda.

More coverage of the Dodd/Countrywide Scandal:
Commentary: Be honest, we all wish to be VIPs
Major Networks Avoid Dem Senators’ Countrywide Loan Scandals
UPDATE 1-US Senate presses ahead on housing, delay rejected

It’s going to be hard as hell for Barack Obama to paint himself as the “change” candidate presenting a “new kind of politics” when he’s continually surrounded by nut-jobs like Congressman Robert Wexler (from ABC News/Political Punch):

Congressman Robert Wexler, D-Fla. — the Florida co-chair for the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. — today announced that he has signed on to support the Articles of Impeachment against President George W. Bush, introduced this week by Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio.

I guess there were no serious issues for the Congressman to be focusing his time and energy on. Gas prices, housing woes, etc, nah… let’s just have some fun and try and impeach the President.

Even before gas prices started to inch near the $4.00 mark, one of the hot items in Washington has been a Democrat-pushed effort to try and pass a “windfall profit tax” on big oil companies.

If you work on the Hill or read the news regularly, odds are you’ve heard the concept of this tax tossed around dozens of times. However, one thing that you never hear when this is discussed is what does “windfall profits” actually mean?

Yes, I know that this effort has been blocked by Republicans in the Senate (thanks, guys), however I’m quite confident that this isn’t the last you’re going to see of this, or something similar. Take note that Harry Reid voted against this bill, just so they would have the issue back on the floor.

So the question what are “windfall profits?”

Instead of me trying to explain it, I think the Economist does it best:

A controversial concept, often used by politicians to justify imposing a tax on profit that in theory is earned unexpectedly, through circumstances beyond the control of the company concerned, and is thus deemed undeserved and ripe for the taking by the tax authorities. As the profits were neither expected nor a result of the efforts of the firm, taxing them should not harm the firm’s incentives to maximize future profits.

The problem comes when greedy politicians start claiming that profits are windfalls when in fact they are deserved and expected. Then taxing them sends a signal to firms that they should not try too hard to make profits, as if they do too well they will not get to keep the profits anyway. If this became widely believed, effort would probably decline and economic growth would be slower.

Why on earth would the government ever want to present a proposal that would suggest that if something happens beyond your control and you make money on it, you should be taxed more excessively than if they were planned occurrences? Since when was America about the government telling you what profit is reasonable?

To make this issue resonate and make it more comfortable amongst constituents, Democrats paint a nice picture of these tax dollars going towards advancements in energy independence. They make it sound like taxing evil big oil is going to save the world and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

If it wasn’t so ridiculous, their logic would be funny to me. From what I gather, the Democrats model to energy independence runs something like this:

1. Excessively tax oil companies who happen to make a profit off of selling a product to American consumers.
2. Prevent any attempts to tap into American oil reserves
3. Propose some ridiculous new government program
4. Blame the Republicans for our current energy and economic problems
5. Take a long recess

Both House and Senate Democrats (and even a few Republicans) need to get together and take a crash course in basic economic concepts. The principles of supply and demand are very powerful, and it should be no surprise to anyone that they play more of a factor in the price of oil than any executive.

Instead of listening to what the pundits are saying about the price of oil, I recommend that anyone who is interested in this issue start following what the business news channels are saying. For example, here is what you won’t hear the pundits talk about:

Citigroup raised its 2008 oil price forecast to $117 from $95 a barrel, and boosted its estimate for 2009 to $122 from $88 a barrel, citing fundamental reasons for the upward trend, driven by continued erosion of non-OPEC supply estimates, and the fact that demand, while softening, is by no means falling low enough to materially offset tightening supply. (Source: BusinessWeek.com)

When you follow the business side of the news, you often see things from a different perspective than what is being presented to you by the network news. Furthermore, if you follow international headlines, like this one from two weeks ago:

Nigerian militants warn of attacks on oil facilities

You’ll start to get a better glimpse into why we’re in the position we’re in today, as well as a better argument for why we should start tapping into some of the oil that we have here as a means to offset these unpredictable situations that are increasing the price we pay at the pump.

I know that there is a lot more to this issue; however, I’ve noticed that there are a lot of people, including many Hill staffers and Members of Congress who have resorted to simply using the talking points that the majority leadership has put together, without addressing the real issues we’re facing.

Sadly, the only reason that their talking points are able to work is because the American public is so uninformed, and reliant on news outlets to digest complex stories for them.

Maybe $5.00 per gallon gasoline will lead people to start doing their homework?

—

Of course, I can’t write about oil and gas prices without providing a shameless plug to a great petition that I urge you all to sign: GasPriceProtest.com

Very rarely are there instances where I’ll feel compelled to write about the mistakes being made by conservative organizations. Primarily, I tend to only go after political figureheads when they deviate from the original principles of the Republican Party.

However, today there was an email sent out that absolutely appalled and infuriated me. This time it wasn’t something about a partisan hack, but instead was about an employee of the American Conservative Union, Lisa De Pasquale and her efforts to try and shut down a harmless facebook group, CPAC 2009.

Here is the text of the email:

Hey guys,

You won’t believe this facebook message I got from a “Lisa De Pasquele”! You can read it and my response below.

Thanks for being a part of the group.

-Beau

———–
Hi Beau,

The chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation has decided to pursue legal action with Facebook to get your CPAC 2009 group removed. Just wanted to let you know because I don’t know if they automatically disable groups during when legal complaints are brought.

Lisa
———-

Subj: Threat to sue over our Facebook group name

An Open Letter to “Lisa De Pasquale”

Dear Lisa,

I just received your message on Facebook. Needless to say, I am a tad shocked you or (so you say) the chairman of the ACU, David Keene, are threatening legal action over the fact that I started an unofficial Facebook named, “CPAC 2009.”

The group was created by a dedicated small government conservative (myself) and frequent attendee of past CPACs. My only intention was in providing an unofficial source for information and news for the ‘09 gathering.

It is with a genuine sense of concern that I ask whether you threatened the same against unofficial CPAC 2008, 2007, and 2006 groups? Perhaps the reason you are threatening me is because this group has had more members than yours for several months now.

I don’t know.

But what I do know is that I find it doubtful that ACU members and donors would be pleased that you and Mr. Keene are so quick to spend their well-meaning contributions on what would be an expensive DC lawyer for such a sue-happy endeavor.

Speaking of frivolity, your demands do illustrate a much larger point.

What are you doing when you are not threatening legal actions against fellow conservatives?

Certainly not spending that time in trying to get a real conservative as the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Perhaps if you had done more of that then there would be less of a chance we would be stuck with a nominee who led the Amnesty for Illegal Aliens effort on the floor of the United States Senate.

Lastly, you told me months ago (yes, you didn’t have anything more important to do back then either) that the ACU (American Conservative Union) does not even own the name “CPAC 2009.” Nor had they in previous years. So, I don’t think you are legally entitled to be the only user of the name either.

But alas, I do not have the time to continue to endure the yapping about the name of the group from an incessant whiner such as yourself. So, I will close it down.

You are Welcome,
Beau Correll

CC: 619 members

To sum it up, Lisa De Pasquale, an official representative of the American Conservative Union emailed Beau Correll, informing him that the American Conservative Union Foundation was going to pursue legal action over a Facebook group.

Beau, a Virginia Prosecutor, makes some great points in his response, especially in stating that the ACU should be using their donors money for more important battles.

Of course, the last thing you want to do is rile up dedicated conservatives who know how to use the internet. Very quickly this story made its way around the country and within an hour or two, Lisa De Pasquale had posted the following statement on the ACU’s CPAC 2009 Facebook group:

The complaint to Facebook (not LEGAL ACTION) was to remove the group because of confusion it might cause. As you might not know, CPAC is run by a 501c3 (non-profit) organization. The videos posted are political in nature and would constitute IRS violations of our non-profit status.

It looks like the creator of this group has finally added a disclaimer about the group, which is what we asked for in the first place. We have no problem with CPAC groups. As you can see, there are dozens of different CPAC groups.

Well she’s definitely changed her story. Here is her message to Beau again:

Hi Beau,

The chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation has decided to pursue legal action with Facebook to get your CPAC 2009 group removed. Just wanted to let you know because I don’t know if they automatically disable groups during when legal complaints are brought.

Lisa

However, trying to cover-up a lie that was sent to the masses wasn’t her only mistake.

In her latest statement she mentioned that CPAC is run by the American Conservative Union Foundation, which is a 501(c)(3), nonprofit educational organization, and the fact that Beau’s group had “political” videos on it, could jeopardize their tax status, implying that they can’t be affiliated with any political organizations, pursuant to IRS code.

What’s interesting is that in Beau’s group, he has classified it as “Just for Fun - Fan Clubs,” which is exactly what it is. However, the now “official” CPAC 2009 Facebook group, which is managed by Lisa, an employee of the American Conservative Union Foundation, is classified as “Organizations - Political Organizations,” I think that creates more problems than anything that Beau is doing.

Maybe they too should add a disclaimer to clarify (note: as of 6:30pm on 6/5/08, there is no disclaimer).

The fact of the matter is that Lisa got caught up in a scare tactic that has blown up in her face. Even if there would have been serious legal action brought against Beau’s group, the Facebook terms of service only prohibit such situations when applied to Facebook Pages. From the Terms of Service:

Facebook Pages are special profiles used solely for commercial, political, or charitable purposes. You may not set up a Facebook Page on behalf of another individual or entity unless you are authorized to do so.

Had they created a Facebook page first and then Beau tried to copy that, they might have had a case for it to be shut down. However, Beau wasn’t trying to scam them, his group isn’t spamming people and if anything, he is only helping the conservative movement.

As of 6:45pm on 6/5/2008, there isn’t a Facebook Page for CPAC 2009, or the American Conservative Union.

To many, this might not seem like a big deal. However, if you’re a conservative who believes that we need more like-minded people brought into the online world, or “joining the conversation” as a well known consultant says, you can see how this throws up huge roadblocks.

The American Conservative Union is suppose to serve as the umbrella organization for the conservative movement, not the Gestapo. Furthermore, they’re suppose to be for less government in our lives, not finding frivolous claims to bring it in more. It’s hard enough to convince conservative activists to take action online now, but when you throw in threats of legal action over such minor things, you basically set us back months in terms of catching up with the left.

I truly believe that this series of events isn’t representative of the American Conservative Union, however I think it shows how careful employees need to be when trying to use scare tactics on the internet.

Update: Beau’s group is no more. I guess there is no room for little guys.

For those of you haven’t already heard, Barack Obama has finally clinched the Democratic nomination, finally bringing a start to the much awaited general election.

Even though Senator McCain has already acknowledged that the general election begins today, there is still the factor (or non-factor) of Hillary Clinton.

There were many reports today that Hillary Clinton was going to be dropping out of the race this evening, giving Barack Obama the go-ahead and guaranteed nomination. However, I knew from the beginning that those reports were inaccurate for one reason, her Wednesday morning schedule.

Hillary Clinton is scheduled to speak to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s (AIPAC) policy conference, where she will address over 6,500 pro-Israel activists. It should be no surprise to anyone that if Hillary Clinton wants to remain successful in bankrolling her future elections, keeping the New York Jewish community (that is in heavy attendance) happy is an absolute must.

Walking into the conference the morning after (I guess a political walk of shame could apply here?), giving a speech as the loser is something that no Clinton would ever do. She will take advantage of this speaking opportunity in some way, whether that be by finally stepping aside, or declaring that she will remain steadfast. But, no matter what she says, she’ll get media coverage and will have text for a future fundraising letter.

This could also be a good venue for Senator Clinton to make the case that even if she cant be on the ticket as the Presidential candidate, she still can bring a lot to the table as the Vice-Presidential candidate.

Currently, Barack Obama does not have strong support within the Jewish community. In fact, this past weekend at the Israel @ 60 birthday celebration here in Washington, I was shocked to count over 300 John McCain stickers on random attendees, and only 30 or so Obama stickers.

Unfortunately the Clinton campaign didn’t send any staff to this event, however I have no doubt that there would have been an exponentially higher number of people showing their support for Hillary Clinton over Obama at this event.

This is something that Obama is really going to have to consider if he wants to even come close in this election.

Without someone like Clinton on the ticket, someone who is down with the chosen people, Obama is going to have a hard time getting to many of the pro-Israel, Jewish Democrats, simply because they don’t see him as someone who will stand up to groups like Hamas and Hezbollah when Israel is in her time of need.

With that observation, this should be the time that the McCain campaign, Republican National Committee (RNC), and the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) go after the Jewish, pro-Israel vote more aggressively. This is a base that Republican Party must make great inroads with if we want to be successful in any upcoming election. Based on what I saw this weekend, it appears that McCain is right on cue with their outreach.

I’m hoping the RNC will soon follow.