DCRepublican.com

It looks like there is an update to the post I made back in April, Where ‘States Rights’ Sometimes Get Complicated.

Even though the Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday that the death penalty was too severe of a sentence for those found guilty of child rape, it appears that many state legislatures will remain steadfast in introducing and attempting to pass laws that provide these offenders with the toughest possible sentencing guidelines.

I was quite surprised Supreme Court was able to develop a majority opinion (5-4) that essentially removed the rights of individual states to determine what is ‘just punishment.’

Even though this was a huge victory for many on the far-left and certain religious types, I was pleased to see how John McCain and Barack Obama addressed this case:

Republican Sen. John McCain called the ruling “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.” Democratic Sen. Barack Obama said there should be no blanket prohibition of the death penalty for the rape of children if states want to apply it in those cases.

I have to admit, I was quite pleased to see Barack Obama make this statement. All too often to Democratic candidates succumb to the pull of the far-left fringe, and it usually comes back to haunt them, especially in middle America.

Obama’s statement makes me wonder what how he would prioritize the view of states rights when it comes to picking his Supreme Court Justice should he be elected. Would it be more important than a potential nominees stance on abortion? Gay rights?

I think it would be an interesting question to be presented to the candidates in a debate, “if you were given the task of picking a Supreme Court nominee during your presidency, list the top three ideological viewpoints that you would be looking for, in order, based on priority.”

Hopefully if they do another YouTube debate, someone can sneak in a question like this. Maybe the snowman.

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

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

Eerie video of a giant panda showing up at Senator Chris Dodd’s house in DC. Looks like he had an agenda: exposing Dodd’s Countrywide Financial scandal. Watch the video!

read more | digg story

Below is an email I received this evening from the DNC. While it’s obvious that I wont be making a contribution, this is definitely an approach that I’m curious to see the results for. What if you’re a lobbyist who just happens to like Barack Obama?

Is the ‘party of inclusion’ now becoming the party that has a theme of telling people that they cant play a role in this election? But I guess it’s their party, they’ll do what they want to.

Dear DC Republican,

I wanted to drop you a quick note about a major policy change here at the Democratic Party.

As we move toward the general election, the Democratic Party has to be the Party of ordinary Americans, not Washington lobbyists and special interests. So, as of this morning, if you’re a federal lobbyist, or if you control political action committee donations, we won’t be accepting your contribution.

This is an unprecedented move for a political party to make — one that has sent shockwaves through Washington and has turned the debate on clean campaigns upside down. We’ve unilaterally agreed to shut lobbyists out of the process, and are we’re relying on people just like you.

Just imagine what hundreds of thousands of Americans donating $20, $30, or $50 at a time can accomplish together. Imagine the signal that it sends to anyone who looks at John McCain’s political machine and the special interest money it needs to fuel every move it makes.

We have a chance to change the way business is done in this country, and we’re taking the lead. Will you join us and make a contribution right now to help us elect Barack Obama?

http://www.democrats.org/nonlobbyists

I’ve written before about guys like Charlie Black and Rick Davis, lobbyists who are at the highest levels of McCain’s campaign. But they’re just the start — John McCain and the RNC suck up lobbyist money millions of dollars at a time.

In May, McCain had his best fundraising month of the campaign, and it was directly because he refuses to shut special interests out.

But we did, and we need your help. This is an example of the kind of White House Barack Obama would run. Make a contribution to help elect him:

http://www.democrats.org/nonlobbyists

I’ll be in touch later about our plans for the general election, but I wanted to let you know about our policy change right away.

Thanks,

Howard Dean

Once again, another treat from BarelyPolitical.com:

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.

I hope this storyline changes soon (from CNN.com):

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Sen. Barack Obama raised millions more than his Democratic rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, and presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain in April. Obama brought in $31 million, his campaign announced Tuesday.

 Clinton, the New York senator and former first lady, raised $22 million in April, campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said. McCain’s take of more than $18.5 million was a new high for the Arizona senator, according to his campaign’s monthly finance report.

Though it’s not so bad for the party as a whole (from AOLNews.com/AP).

The RNC, which is the party’s main political arm, had nearly 10 times more cash on hand than its Democratic counterpart at the end of April, a notable GOP advantage in what has otherwise been Democratic fundraising dominance this election.

The committee on Tuesday reported having $40.1 million in the bank. The Democratic National Committee had $4.4 million.

The RNC raised $15.7 million in April compared to $4.7 million by the DNC.

Significantly, the financial disparity comes in a presidential election year when the candidates rely on the parties to mobilize voters and promote their message. Overall this year, the RNC has raised more than $52 million, the DNC has raised more than $22 million.

This shouldn’t be a reason for us to get cocky, because once the Democrats have their nominee, it should be no shock to anyone that they will probably match us dollar for dollar, especially if their Democratic White House Victory Fund idea actually takes off. This new concept will give the DNC the ability to maximize donor potential even before there is a nominee.

As part of the unusual pact, donors can contribute up to $33,100 to the newly created Democratic White House Victory Fund. The money would benefit whichever candidate becomes the nominee. Some Democrats said the deal would permit some of Clinton donors to get behind Obama without having to write a check directly to his campaign.

The fundraising success of the RNC is something that should be evaluated further. Does this suggest that the RNC is simply being more aggressive in their fundraising tactics? Does this mean that Republicans are more comfortable giving their money to the RNC than they are to John McCain?

Or, does this simply mean that the McCain campaign is doing its fundraising in segments - building the RNC war chest now, and waiting to do the more aggressive campaign fundraising when more people are mobilized behind his campaign and the mud starts flying?

I think it’s probably a little of each.

Despite the fact that the 2008 presidential primaries have been anything but uneventful, in terms of other campaigns across the country, it seems as if everyone else is off to an incredibly slow start.

Even though it’s already May, there are still many hot-races that haven’t even come close to moving into full swing.

While I find this extremely troubling for both parties, I find it to be most problematic for Republicans, simply because they are already heading into this election as the underdogs.

Awhile back, Time Magazine published what they thought were the top 10 Senate races in the 2008 election: Virginia, Colorado and New Hampshire. I completely agree with this assessment and if the GOP wants to at least have some voting muscle in the Senate, they need to win these races.

This isn’t new information, but for some reason it seems that these top three campaigns haven’t even moved into full gear yet, even though there is only a little more than 6 months until the November election.

To give you an idea of what I’m talking about, here is just a glimpse into some of the things (primarily problems) I’ve noticed amongst the ‘top 3’ campaigns, focusing primarily on the Republican side.

Virginia – Jim Gilmore:

Problem: It wasn’t until about two weeks ago that I actually started receiving frequent updates from the campaign letting me know what was happening. However, even though I signed up to be a volunteer on multiple occasions, I have yet to receive any communications from the campaign providing me with opportunities to get involved.

Bigger Problem: Someone from Mark Warner’s campaign got back to me quite quickly with a variety of things that I can do to get involved with the campaign.

Side note: this is almost the exact same problem I’ve had with the McCain campaign; however the McCain campaign at least sends updates for volunteer opportunities.

This was a race that was once considered ‘too close to call,’ however many are now saying it’s leaning favorably towards a Democratic win. I think this can be changed, but not at the pace they’re currently moving.

Colorado – Bob Schaffer

Problem: Despite the fact of knowing that this is going to be an extremely tough race for a Republican to win, it appears that this campaign has done very little (almost nothing) in terms of marketing themselves on the internet.

Even though their race will be expensive, they don’t seem to understand that one of the first places people go to get information on their candidate is the candidate’s website.

This is usually a good thing, unless you’re Bob Schaffer.

Please click here to see Bob Schaffer’s website.

Now, click here to see his opponent, Mark Udall’s website.

To Bob Schaffer, or anyone else on his campaign: set up a meeting with David All, Joe Mansour and Patrick Ruffini… fast. Marketing and web-overhaul, priority #1.

Just to give you an idea of how the two candidate’s sites perform against each other, check out this chart.

Side note, here is a great blog in Colorado evaluating many of the details of this race. 

New Hampshire: John Sununu

Problem: Exactly the same problem that Bob Schaffer is having. Even though his site isn’t as bad, in comparison to his opponents, it’s lagging severely.

Please click here to view John Sununu’s site.

Now, click here to view his opponent, Jeanne Shaheen’s site.

If you looked at both of those sites, I’m sure that this graph doesn’t really surprise you.

While this is obviously pessimistic, I think that if they made some simple adjustments and paid attention to what was working for the left (particularly Barack Obama) and implemented that into their strategy, both the candidates and the party as a whole would be in a much better position heading into November.