UnConflicted

Report: 62 percent of Poll Respondents in Deep South Support Expansion of the Medicaid Program

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:09:00 +0000

Majority of Whites as Well as African-Americans Support Medicaid Expansion

In Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, Even 47 Percent of Self-Identified Conservatives Support Medicaid Expansion

Washington, D.C.—A poll released today reveals that expanding the Medicaid program as called for in the Affordable Care Act has the solid support—a 62 percent favorable response—of a broad mix of residents in the five southern states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

The poll, conducted in March and April by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, found that Medicaid expansion is supported by 78 percent of self-proclaimed liberals, 70 percent of politically-moderate respondents, and nearly half, 47 percent, of the respondents who termed themselves conservative.

Analyzing poll respondents by race, the Joint Center found strong support across racial lines, although African-Americans positive responses (85 percent) clearly outweighed that of non-Hispanic whites (53 percent).

While the poll shows that the Affordable Care Act still faces challenges in acceptance, two of the other key provisions of the law intended to expand health coverage—health insurance premium tax credits and the creation of statewide insurance marketplaces—also drew strong support across the South, with a majority of conservatives joining others in voicing approval.

The poll results showed:

Respondents in all five states responded favorably (62 percent) to the idea of expanding Medicaid for low-income uninsured adults, as did residents of each individual state—Alabama (64 percent), Georgia (61 percent), Louisiana (63 percent), Mississippi (59 percent) and South Carolina (65 percent).
Approximately 85 percent of African-Americans supported the expansion, while about 53 percent of non-Hispanic white residents in the five states favored the expanded coverage.
Both male and female respondents favored the expansion, with women (65.5 percent) stronger in their support than men (58 percent).
Support varied less among age groups, although younger respondents, ages 18-24 (66 percent) and 25-44 (64.5 percent), favored Medicaid expansion a bit more than older residents, ages 35-64 (62 percent) and 65 and older (60 percent).
Medicaid expansion drew strong support from residents of the five states who described themselves as “liberal” (78 percent) and “moderate” (69 percent), while just under half of the those calling themselves “conservative” (47 percent) favored the expansion.
Party affiliation sharpened the differences in support for Medicaid expansion, with strong support coming from Democrats (87 percent) and Independents (57 percent), but with many fewer supports among Republicans (38 percent).

“The results of this report should paint a clear picture for southern governors that refusing to implement the Medicaid expansion places them out of step with the needs and wishes of their constituents,” Ron Pollack, Executive Director of Families USA said today.

“These governors need to acknowledge what a growing list of other governors—Democrats and Republicans—have recognized, namely, that the Medicaid expansion is a win-win-win for the people of their states,” Pollack said. “It will reduce the number of people who can’t afford health care; it will increase the number of jobs throughout the state; and it will strengthen the state’s economy.”

“This survey clearly shows that governors and state legislators in the South who are resisting the Medicaid expansion are out-of-step with their constituents,” said Brian D. Smedley, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of the Joint Center's Health Policy Institute. “A strong majority of respondents in our poll understand that not only will broader Medicaid coverage save lives and end unnecessary suffering, it will also stimulate job growth and the economy in these states. We encourage elected officials to take a good look at the benefits of the ACA's Medicaid expansion provisions and make decisions based on the evidence.”

The full polling report, “The Deep South and Medicaid Expansion: The View from Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina,” is available at
www.jointcenter.org/research/the-deep-south-and-medicaid-expansion

Click here for a Families USA data snapshot which summarizes the key findings of the Joint Center's polling report.

The IRS and Syria...investigative reporting must reads

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Mon, 20 May 2013 13:49:00 +0000

Yesterday’s New York Times had excellent investigative stories about two of today’s major news stories.

First, Nicholas Confessore, David Kocieniewski and Michael Luo give you the real inside story on how the IRS managed, or more accurately mismanaged, operations in its Exempt Organizations Division in Cincinnati that has resulted in all the partisan turmoil in Washington.

Second, Thomas Friedman, who we usually just read on the opinion pages, tells how the intersection of climate change and the deregulation of agriculture land in Syria laid the foundation of Syria’s revolution.

      (A)fter Assad took over in 2000 he opened up the regulated agricultural sector in Syria
      for big farmers, many of them government cronies, to buy up land and drill as much water
     as they wanted, eventually severely diminishing the water table. This began driving small
      farmers off the land into towns, where they had to scrounge for work.

      Then, between 2006 and 2011, some 60 percent of Syria’s land mass was ravaged by
      the drought and, with the water table already too low and river irrigation shrunken, it
      wiped out the livelihoods of 800,000 Syrian farmers and herders, the United Nations
      reported. “Half the population in Syria between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers left the
      land” for urban areas during the last decade, said Aita. And with Assad doing nothing to
     help the drought refugees, a lot of very simple farmers and their kids got politicized.

These two stories represent the best in investigative reporting. Not only do they contribute to our understanding of important issues but they demonstrate how critical it is that we have print reporters to do this kind of hard, time-consuming investigative work.

And we say we love our children

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Thu, 16 May 2013 13:23:00 +0000

You probably wonder why the rate of childhood diseases like autism are at all-time highs. Same thing for cases of Attention Deficit Disorder. The answer might be right on store shelves.

The Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States report that children’s products are loaded with toxic chemicals like mercury, arsenic and cadmium. Over 5000 of these products are just waiting for you to purchase and take home to poison your kids.

Having a child’s birthday party? Why not make them wear party hats from Hallmark containing cancer-causing arsenic. Those cute dolls from Walmart have a little something extra for your child—the hormone-disrupting bisphenol A.

The researchers didn’t have to do a lot of testing to find the 41 toxic chemicals used in these children’s products. The manufacturers were required by a Washington state law to report any toxic chemicals used in their products for kids.

Other states are trying to pass the same kind of law so at least the states or researchers can connect the dots for consumers.

What kind of country are we that doesn’t make manufacturers of any consumer product, let alone products for our children, disclose if they are using toxic chemicals and then make them stop it. When the voters and small business owners are asked if they want more government protection from toxic chemicals, the answer is overwhelmingly YES.

But yet our federal and almost all state governments refuses to act.

We say we love our kids and buy them lots of stuff…stuff that is making them sick.

We adults are the ones who are sick for allowing this to go on.

Read the full press release on this issue below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Children’s Product Makers Report Over 5000 Products Contain Toxic Chemicals Of Concern To Kids’ Health

May 01, 2013

Seattle, WA –Over 5000 children’s products contain toxic chemicals linked to cancer, hormone disruption, and reproductive problems according to reports filed with the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). An analysis of the reports by the Washington Toxics Coalition and Safer States found that makers of kids’ products reported using a total of 41 chemicals identified by Ecology as a concern for children’s health, including toxic metals such as cadmium, mercury, and antimony, and organic compounds such as phthalates. Major manufacturers who reported using the chemicals in their products include Walmart, Gap, Gymboree, Hallmark, and H & M.

Examples of product categories reported to contain toxic chemicals include:

Hallmark party hats containing cancer-causing arsenic.
Graco car seats containing the toxic flame retardant TBBPA (tetrabromobisphenol A)
Claire’s cosmetics containing cancer-causing formaldehyde.
Walmart dolls containing hormone-disrupting bisphenol A.

“The data shows store shelves remain full of toxic chemicals that we know are a concern for children’s health,” said Erika Schreder, science director for the Washington Toxics Coalition. “These reports are critical for understanding the presence of toxic chemicals in our homes and the marketplace.”

The chemical reports are required under Washington State’s Children’s Safe Products Act of 2008, which requires major companies making children’s products to report the presence of toxic chemicals in their products. The reports cover certain children’s products sold in Washington State from June 1, 2012 to March 1, 2013.

Major findings from the reports include:

More than 5,000 products have been reported to date as containing a chemical on Washington State’s list of 66 Chemicals of High Concern to Children.
Products reported so far include children’s clothing and footwear, personal care products, baby products, toys, car seats, and arts and craft supplies.
Toxic metals such as mercury, cadmium, cobalt, antimony, and molybdenum were reported, with cobalt being the metal most often reported.
Manufacturers reported using phthalates in clothing, toys, bedding, and baby products.
Other chemicals reported include solvents like ethylene glycol and methyl ethyl ketone, and a compound used in silicone known as octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane.

“Too many products contain chemicals that do not belong in items we give our kids. To truly protect children, manufacturers need to identify safer ways to make their products and stop using harmful chemicals,” said Schreder.

A Washington state bill that would have required manufacturers to stop using toxic flame retardants in children’s products and to identify safer ways to make their products failed to pass the legislature before the end of the regular session on April 28th. The Toxic-Free Kids and Families Act (HB 1294) was opposed by a coalition led by the American Chemistry Council, Walmart, and the Association of Washington Business.

Walmart, a major opponent of the Toxic-Free Kids and Families Act, reported a total of 459 instances of products containing chemicals including arsenic, cadmium, phthalates, bisphenol A (BPA), and mercury.

“It is particularly disturbing to see the large numbers of products reported by Walmart at the same time the company has been working to defeat Washington’s bill that would address some of the most problematic uses,” said Schreder. “Companies like Walmart need to show they’re serious about children’s health by getting toxic chemicals out of their products and supporting common-sense legislation.”

Washington State is the first state to have a comprehensive chemical reporting program. It is considered a model for other states.

“The Washington experience shows these reporting programs can work without being too burdensome on business,” said Sarah Doll, Director of Safer States. “At least seven additional states are considering implementing similar programs on the extent of chemical use in children’s products in their state. Critical in these proposals are requirements that companies begin looking at safer ways to make their products and an eventual phase-out of the use of harmful chemicals.”

A full analysis of Washington State’s chemical use reports are available at http://www.watoxics.org/chemicalsrevealed

A searchable database of chemical use reports filed with the Washington State Department of Ecology is available at http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/swfa/cspa/search.html

The Washington Toxics Coalition is nonprofit organization that works to protect public health and the environment from toxic chemicals in Washington state. www.watoxics.org, www.facebook.com/watoxics or @WA_Toxics

Safer States (The State Alliance for Federal Reform (SAFER) of Chemical Policy) is a coalition of state-based organizations championing solutions to protect public health and communities from toxic chemicals. www.saferstates.org, www.facebook.com/saferstates or @SaferStates

NFIB's big business funding revealed again

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Wed, 15 May 2013 13:58:00 +0000

Last July I had an opinion editorial in The Hill’s Congressional Blog entitled, “Big money behind misinformation on healthcare law”. It talked about the revelations of big donor money flowing to the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) to fight against the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare).

According to a Public Campaign analysis of IRS 990 filings from the NFIB and NFIB Small Business Legal Center for 2009-2011, the NFIB organizations have had dramatic increases in contributions since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. But the new-found wealth is not from dues of the average NFIB member. The IRS filings show that the NFIB organizations received $10 million from just 10 contributors in 2010-2011. In the previous year the largest individual contribution was just $21,000. News reports have identified the conservative and superpac Crossroads GPS as one of the NFIB contributors in 2010 giving $3.7 million.

The fact that the NFIB is just a front group for big business and partisan interests, a small business pretender organization I have called it, is well documented. Yet much of the media amazingly still rushes to the NFIB for its position on small business issues.

Hopefully the latest news about where the NFIB gets it funding will finally make the press wake up about this faux small-business organization.

The National Journal reported yesterday that the NFIB’s efforts to stop a new tax on health insurance companies that will help pay for implementation of Obamacare is being funded by the big insurance industry group America’s Health Insurance Plans to the tune of $850,000.

It took a lot of comparing tax filings by Chris Frates of the Journal to uncover the secret deal.

The back-channel spending shows how insurers were able to fund a key—and much more politically popular—ally in their fight against the premium tax. After all, helping small businesses is a political no-brainer while aiding big insurers is a political nonstarter.

Here is the bottom line. The NFIB does not represent the interests of small businesses. It represents the interests of its major funders….big corporations.

Senate video worth watching

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Mon, 13 May 2013 14:57:00 +0000

Momentum is building in the U.S. Senate for change in the filibuster rules.

If you remember at the start of the current session Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refused to allow a vote on significantly changing the filibuster rules. The Senate has become dysfunctional with nothing really getting done due to the abuse of the present rules that allow the minority to control the Senate. It is so easy to block any movement on bills and even nominations that the country’s important issues are not being addressed effectively.

This frustration boiled over recently at a Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works that met to consider the nomination of Gina McCarthy for EPA Administrator. All the Republican members of the Committee boycotted the meeting so that no action could be taken.

Watch the fireworks for yourself at the link below. Advance to the 27 minute and 40 second mark when the meeting begins. It is well worth watching and when you are done call Senator Reid’s office at 1-866-736-7343 and demand the Senate reform its filibuster rules.

http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Choose&Hearing_id=670b95e6-ae45-33e6-edac-c256181b8e10

Mark Sanford...slaying an already tamed deficit

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Thu, 09 May 2013 15:15:00 +0000

Congratulations to Mark Sanford for his victory Tuesday in South Carolina’s First Congressional District.

Sanford’s campaign message was pretty simple. Elect him and he would totally focus on reigning in federal spending in order to cut the budget deficit.

Well, in a strange ironic coincidence The Washington Post ran a story on the same day Sanford was elected with this lead, “After four years of trillion-dollar deficits, the red ink is receding rapidly in Washington.”

Federal spending is down and revenue is up.

According to The Washington Post story, “Defense spending has been declining rapidly with the end of the war in Iraq and the ongoing drawdown of forces in Afghanistan. A surprising — and apparently durable — slowdown in health-care costs has sharply reduced projected spending on Medicare and Medicaid. And the falling jobless rate and improving economy have helped push federal tax collections up 16 percent over last year, according to figures out Tuesday.”

Throw in sequester cuts, Social Security tax cuts going away and households with more than $450,000 income paying just a little more in taxes and you get the reduced red ink. In fact the federal government is expected to actually make a small payment to reduce the national debt in June.

Now none of this will stop Mr. Sanford from pushing for the type of failed austerity measures that have crippled the European economies. But this good budget news should make those in Washington pay less attention to his deficit-hawk voice in Congress. And that is a good thing for a country that needs to invest in infrastructure, education, healthcare and other areas to rebuild a stronger economy that will create more tax revenue to get us closer to a balanced budget.

Success in the U.S. Senate

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Tue, 07 May 2013 14:59:00 +0000

Below is a message from the Alliance for Main Street Fairness that has helped lead the fight in Congress to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act that will allow a state to require online stores to collect sales tax on purchases from that state.

The Senate in an overwhelming bipartisan vote yesterday passed the bill. This is a victory for brick-and-mortar stores that already collect state sales tax putting them at a competitive disadvantage to the online stores.

Senator Lindsay Graham supported our small businesses with his vote but unfortunately Senator Tim Scott voted against this bill.

Now the legislation goes to the U.S. House.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear South Carolina,

We did it!

The Senate just passed the standalone Marketplace Fairness Act by a binding vote of 69-27. Next stop: the House of Representatives.

Read more about this exciting e-fairness development in our latest blog post.

This vote represents a huge victory for all of us who want to see the sales tax loophole closed—and we couldn’t have done it without your help.

But while we now have Senate passage behind us, we are only halfway home. We need to motivate the House to pass this important bill so it can be sent to the President to be signed into law.

Thank you again for making this victory in the Senate possible. Let’s continue working together to enact the Marketplace Fairness Act this year!

Best,

The Alliance for Main Street Fairness

Inglis still pushing for business solution to climate change

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Mon, 06 May 2013 13:46:00 +0000

Former South Carolina Congressman Bob Inglis continues to lead the effort to promote a responsible business model for addressing climate change that is the biggest threat to our state’s future tourism economy. He might have lost his re-election some years ago partially because of his willingness to tell the truth about climate change, but he has a positive attitude about it.

“Losing an election is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Losing your soul is considerably worse,” says Inglis.

Read the two stories below.

The Hill
May 5, 2013

Carbon tax backers quietly forge ahead

By Ben Geman - 05/05/13 06:00 AM ET

Activists are quietly forging ahead with their campaign for carbon taxes despite long odds on Capitol Hill.

Bob Inglis, a former GOP House member from South Carolina, is part of a very loose collection of policy wonks and advocates fighting to change the politics of taxing emissions.

“It’s a longer-term play here,” Inglis said.

Inglis, who launched the “Energy and Enterprise Initiative” at George Mason University last year, sees several forces converging that will enable a carbon tax to surface in a broader fiscal policy deal.

It would happen, he said, by “immaculate conception,” but not until 2015 or 2016.

Politico
May 6, 2013

Bob Inglis going the distance on carbon emissions tax

By: Darren Goode

Former Rep. Bob Inglis knows that his devotion to a carbon tax might have cost him his job.

But the South Carolina Republican has no regrets as he dedicates his post-congressional career as well to the battle to persuade fellow conservatives to embrace a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

“And really, I am the worst commercial for this, because I got my head blown off trying to do it,” he told POLITICO, sitting at a coffee shop a short walk from the Capitol. But he added, “Losing an election is not the worst thing that can happen to you. Losing your soul is considerably worse.”

The controversial tax proposal has long won the backing of many economists, who say it is the simplest and purest means of reducing emissions blamed for contributing to climate change. And while it has also won tentative backing from oil giants like Shell and ExxonMobil, it’s been pilloried by many oil-state politicians and conservatives, who say it would raise energy costs and hurt fossil fuel industries.

Locally owned businesses can help communities thrive — and survive climate change

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Fri, 03 May 2013 14:15:00 +0000

Grist
April 26, 2013

By Stacy Mitchell

Cities where small, locally owned businesses account for a relatively large share of the economy have stronger social networks, more engaged citizens, and better success solving problems, according to several recently published studies.

And in the face of climate change, those are just the sort of traits that communities most need if they are to survive massive storms, adapt to changing conditions, find new ways of living more lightly on the planet, and, most important, nurture a vigorous citizenship that can drive major changes in policy.

That there’s a connection between the ownership structure of our economy and the vitality of our democracy may sound a bit odd to modern ears. But this was an article of faith among 18th- and 19th-century Americans, who strictly limited the lifespan of corporations and enacted antitrust laws whose express aim was to protect democracy by maintaining an economy of small businesses.

It wasn’t until the 20th century that this tenet of American political thought was fully superseded by the consumer-focused, bigger-is-better ideology that now dominates our economic policy-making. Ironically, the shift happened just as social scientists were furnishing the first bona fide empirical evidence linking economic scale to civic engagement.

Read more

Stacy Mitchell is a senior researcher with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. She is the author of Big-Box Swindle and also produces a popular monthly newsletter, the Hometown Advantage Bulletin. Catch her recent TEDx Talk: Why We Can't Shop Our Way to a Better Economy.

Rising seas clearly evident along SC coast

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Thu, 02 May 2013 12:40:00 +0000

By Bruce Smith, Associated Press | Associated Press

April 29, 2013

GEORGETOWN, S.C. (AP) -- Living in a coastal town or city with seawalls and docks on the waterfront, it can be difficult to notice the sea level rise by increments each year. But effects of higher sea level are very clear down a winding dirt road in South Carolina's Georgetown County where acres of what was once a forested wetland have morphed into a salt marsh of dead trees jutting toward the sky.

"When you go into the field, you really see a lot of trees dying. That's the first thing that catches your eye," said Alex Chow, who teaches biosystems engineering at Clemson University's Baruch Institute of Coastal Ecology and Forest Science located at Hobcaw Barony, a 17,500-acre wildlife refuge northeast of Georgetown.

Chow and two other colleagues at the institute used aerial photos to map how the salt water has advanced into freshwater Strawberry Swamp from nearby Winyah Bay.

Their study found that over the past six decades, the amount of salt marsh in the area has increased from about 4 acres to more than 16 acres. The study was published in December in "Wetland Science and Practice," the quarterly journal of the international Society of Wetland Scientists.

"Over long periods — and what we looked at is over 60 years — the maritime forest retreats at approximately the same rate sea level rises," said Tom Williams, a professor emeritus of forestry and natural resources who is a co-author.

He's not ready to say the all the change over six decades is the work of global warming.

"Sea level rises and falls based on earthquakes and changes in a great number of things. I'm not the expert to say how much sea level rise in the last 20 years is climate change and how much is other things," he said.

Bo Song, and assistant professor of forestry and natural resources also contributed to the study.

The study notes that along the state's north coast, the sea level rise has average 3 to 4 millimeters a year during the past century or so.

William Conner, a professor of forestry and natural resources at the institute, said that what is happening in Strawberry Swamp is similar to what is happening throughout the Southeast where the shorelines tend to be flattened. The dead trees along the Cape Fear River in Wilmington are an example, he said. In areas where rivers are dredged for shipping, it also makes it easier for salt water to impinge on freshwater areas.

"It's been a little more dramatic in recent years," he said.

"Based on the calculations in this study, you can see it's happening much faster in the past two decades," Chow said.

In natural areas sea level rise will mean a lost habitat for animals and birds that inhabit freshwater swamps. Salt marshes are also an abundant area for various species. But it can take years for the salt marshes created out of other land to become productive as a spawning ground for shrimp and other creatures.

"I call it a degraded swamp," Chow said. "It will take some time for that to happen."

http://news.yahoo.com/rising-seas-clearly-evident-along-161913044.html

NFIB admits its position on Medicaid expansion will hurt many small businesses

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Wed, 01 May 2013 14:51:00 +0000

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) has strongly advocated that states not expand their Medicaid programs as allowed under the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). This wasn’t a business decision by the organization because expanding Medicaid will benefit small businesses as I have pointed out in opinion editorials (here, here and here).

Instead it was a partisan decision that has been part of the highly political NFIB’s opposition to Obamacare since before there even was Obamacare. The NFIB was a prominent plaintiff in the Supreme Court challenge to the healthcare law and rails against it to this day.

But now that the NFIB has been politically successful in convincing most states to either outright reject expanding Medicaid or delaying the decision (only 22 states plus the District of Columbia have committed to the expansion), they are now trying to undo the damage to small businesses that their advocacy will spawn.

In a March 18^th letter the NFIB sent to the IRS, the faux small business organization admits that any state that follows the NFIB’s position against expanding Medicaid will result in many small businesses in that state with 50 or more full-time employees being subject to significant penalty fees for those employees who would have qualified for Medicaid. Under Obamacare any businesses with these numbers of employees are required to either offer health insurance or pay a $2000 annual fee per employee if even one of the workers receives a health insurance premium subsidy within the new insurance exchanges. However a penalty fee would not be paid on employees covered by Medicaid.

“A business should not face expensive penalties for state and regulatory decisions beyond their control,” the hypocritical NFIB whined to the IRS. The NFIB wants the IRS not to levy the penalty fees on businesses in states that followed the NFIB’s own position on not expanding Medicaid.

This financial liability for not expanding Medicaid has been well known since the law was passed. The NFIB simply chose not to share this information with the state legislatures and governors it apparently has so much sway over because it didn’t fit into their mantra of how “bad” Obmacare is.

Now the NFIB want the IRS to clean up its mess!

ACTION ALERT!!

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:52:00 +0000

Expanding Medicaid Essential for Controlling
Health Insurance Costs

Contact Senate Finance Committee NOW!!!

Today the South Carolina Finance Committee begins their budget debate. Whether our state should expand Medicaid to cover individuals with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level will be debated.

It is critically important for our state to accept $11.2 billion through 2020 of federal money to cover all the cost for the first 3 years and 90% of it after that. The South Carolina Small Business Chamber and the following chambers have endorsed expanding Medicaid: Anderson, Charleston, Dillon, Darlington, Florence, North Myrtle Beach and Orangeburg.

Here is why:

--An economic study projects that the federal dollars will create 44,000 jobs and the result will be that the state will actually net $9 million more to its budget by 2020.

--Employees covered by Medicaid will be healthier, miss less work and thus be more productive.

--Small business employers will be better able to afford group health insurance if some of their employees are covered by expanded Medicaid.

--Expanding Medicaid will largely eliminate the “hidden tax” in every health insurance premium to pay for the uncompensated care of the uninsured. Based on projections of the actuarial firm used by the state’s Department of Health and Human Services, this “hidden tax” is about $1000 per year for family coverage.

--Small businesses with 50 or more full-time employees that decide to offer health insurance rather than pay a penalty fee will not have cover their Medicaid eligible workers.

Contact Senate Finance Committee members now with this message:

Please expand Medicaid to help control the cost of health insurance and health care for small businesses.

Below are the names of these Senators. Click on the name to find their contact information.

Thank you for your support.

Senate Finance Committee

Leatherman, Hugh K., Sr., Chairman
Setzler, Nikki G.
Peeler, Harvey S., Jr.
McGill, J. Yancey
Courson, John E.
Matthews, John W., Jr.
O'Dell, William H.
Reese, Glenn G.
Hayes, Robert W., Jr.
Alexander, Thomas C.
Grooms, Lawrence K. "Larry"
Pinckney, Clementa C.
Fair, Michael L.
Verdin, Daniel B. "Danny", III
Cromer, Ronnie W.
Bryant, Kevin L.
Jackson, Darrell
Ford, Robert
Cleary, Raymond E., III
Lourie, Joel
Williams, Kent M.
Campbell, Paul G., Jr.
Davis, Tom

Rally With Us Against Duke’s 15.1% Rate Hike

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 13:52:00 +0000

May 2^nd—9AM—Charlotte

Thursday, May 2^nd, Duke Energy holds its Annual Shareholder Meeting to explain how it plans to increase electricity rates to make more money.

Outside the building residential and small business ratepayers will explain how we plan to stop Duke’s average 15.1% rate hike in South Carolina.

Come join ratepayers from the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce, AARP-SC, Consumers Against Rate Hikes and many other organizations who are standing up against being gouged by Duke Energy. The company just had a 6% rate hike earlier last year. Another 15.1% would mean a 21% increase to us in a little more than a year!

Raise your voice with us at 9AM this Thursday, May 2^nd, at 526 S. Church Street in Charlotte.

The fight against this Duke rate hike starts Thursday. Let the company know that you are willing to stand so that their rate increase will not.

Please call us with questions at 803-252-5733.

Thank you for your support.

Frank Knapp Jr.
President & CEO
South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce

Support the Marketplace Fairness Act

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 17:09:00 +0000

The U.S. Senate will be voting on legislation that will level the playing field for ALL retailers. The bi-partisan Marketplace Fairness Act will treat all transactions - whether online or in the store - equally and put money into state treasuries to invest in essential projects like infrastructure.

Tell your Senators to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act.
Exempting online retailers from having to collect sales tax gives these companies the sizable competitive advantage in retailing of a 4 to 9 percent price over local stores. And it undermines state and local governments by reducing tax revenue for infrastructure development, schools, police, and other services -- investments needed to strengthen our economy.
Passing the Marketplace Fairness Act allows states to enforce their existing laws. Provisions in the bill ensure minimal burden for online retailers to comply. And today's technology puts to rest the excuses that it's too hard to collect multi-state taxes.

Tell your Senators to pass the Marketplace Fairness Act.
Thank you for taking action today!

Richard Eidlin
Policy Director

Tax havens unfair to small businesses

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:23:00 +0000

The Washington Post Published: April 22

The latest deficit-reduction plan offered by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson supports the interests of big business at the expense of the United States’ small businesses by calling for adoption of a territorial tax system. In two recent polls, small-business owners have soundly rejected making abuse of offshore tax havens by multinational organizations legal and permanent.

A March poll sponsored by the American Sustainable Business Council and Main Street Alliance found that 85 percent of those surveyed, including 67 percent of Republican small-business owners, opposed a territorial tax system that would exempt foreign profits from U.S. taxes. The National Small Business Association reported that only 16 percent of small business owners they polled supported a shift to the territorial tax system.

Elected leaders should not support any proposal for taxing multinational corporations that small business owners view as wrong and unfair.

Frank Knapp Jr., Washington

The writer is vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council.

Original Article

Fallout for states rejecting Medicaid expansion

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:45:00 +0000

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rejecting the Medicaid expansion in the federal health care law could have unexpected consequences for states where Republican lawmakers remain steadfastly opposed to what they scorn as "Obamacare."

It could mean exposing businesses to Internal Revenue Service penalties and leaving low-income citizens unable to afford coverage even as legal immigrants get financial aid for their premiums. For the poorest people, it could virtually guarantee they remain uninsured and dependent on the emergency room at local hospitals that already face federal cutbacks.

Concern about such consequences helped forge a deal in Arkansas last week. The Republican-controlled Legislature endorsed a plan by Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe to accept additional Medicaid money under the federal law, but use the new dollars to buy private insurance for eligible residents.

One of the main arguments for the private option was that it would help businesses avoid tax penalties.

The Obama administration hasn't signed off on the Arkansas deal, and it's unclear how many other states will use it as a model. But it reflects a pragmatic streak in American politics that's still the exception in the polarized health care debate.

"The biggest lesson out of Arkansas is not so much the exact structure of what they are doing," said Alan Weil, executive director of the nonpartisan National Academy for State Health Policy. "Part of it is just a message of creativity, that they can look at it and say, `How can we do this in a way that works for us?'"

About half the nearly 30 million uninsured people expected to gain coverage under President Barack Obama's health care overhaul would do so through Medicaid. Its expansion would cover low-income people making up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level, about $15,860 for an individual.

Middle-class people who don't have coverage at their jobs will be able to purchase private insurance in new state markets, helped by new federal tax credits. The big push to sign up the uninsured starts this fall, and coverage takes effect Jan. 1.

As originally written, the Affordable Care Act required states to accept the Medicaid expansion as a condition of staying in the program. Last summer's Supreme Court decision gave each state the right to decide. While that pleased many governors, it also created complications by opening the door to unintended consequences.

So far, 20 mostly blue states, plus the District of Columbia, have accepted the expansion.

Thirteen GOP-led states have declined. They say Medicaid already is too costly, and they don't trust Washington to keep its promise of generous funding for the expansion, which would mainly help low-income adults with no children at home.

Concerns about unintended consequences could make the most difference in 17 states still weighing options.

A look at some potential side effects:

-The Employer Glitch

States that don't expand Medicaid leave more businesses exposed to tax penalties, according to a recent study by Brian Haile, Jackson Hewitt's senior vice president for tax policy. He estimates the fines could top $1 billion a year in states refusing.

Under the law, employers with 50 or more workers that don't offer coverage face penalties if just one of their workers gets subsidized private insurance through the new state markets. But employers generally do not face fines under the law for workers who enroll in Medicaid.

In states that don't expand Medicaid, some low-income workers who would otherwise have been eligible have a fallback option. They can instead get subsidized private insurance in the law's new markets. But that would trigger a penalty for their employer.

"It highlights how complicated the Affordable Care Act is," said Haile.

-The Immigrant Quirk

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, called attention this year to this politically awkward problem when she proposed that her state accept the Medicaid expansion.

Under the health law, U.S. citizens below the poverty line - $11,490 for an individual, $23,550 for a family of four - can only get coverage through the Medicaid expansion. But lawfully present immigrants who are also below the poverty level are eligible for subsidized private insurance.

Congress wrote the legislation that way to avoid controversy associated with trying to change previous laws that require legal immigrants to wait five years before they can qualify for Medicaid. Instead of dragging immigration politics into the health care debate, lawmakers devised a detour.

Before the Supreme Court ruling, it was a legislative patch.

Now it could turn into an issue in states with lots of immigrants, such as Texas and Florida, creating the perception that citizens are being disadvantaged versus immigrants.

-The Fairness Argument

Under the law, U.S. citizens below the poverty line can only get taxpayer-subsidized coverage by going into Medicaid. But other low-income people making just enough to put them over the poverty line can get subsidized private insurance through the new state markets.

An individual making $11,700 a year would be able to get a policy. But someone making $300 less would be out of luck, dependent on charity care.

"Americans have very strong feelings about fairness," said Weil.

Medicare and Medicaid chief Marilyn Tavenner, also overseeing the health overhaul, told the Senate recently that cost is a key question as the administration considers the Arkansas deal. Private insurance is more expensive than Medicaid.

But Tavenner said the Arkansas approach may be cost-effective if it reduces the number of low-income people cycling back and forth between Medicaid and private coverage, saving administrative expenses. "We are willing to look at it," she said.

--- Associated Press reporter Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Ark., contributed to this report.

Original Article

Reform the Toxic Substance Control Act

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 13:24:00 +0000

Reforming the federal Toxic Substance Control Act is widely supported by small business owners across the country. That was one of the conclusions of a poll released in late 2012. My opinion editorial in The Hill gives more of the results of that poll.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The New York Times

April 18, 2013

A Toothless Law on Toxic Chemicals

By THE EDITORIAL BOARD

It would be hard to design a law more stacked against the regulators than the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, which is supposed to ensure the safety of thousands of chemicals used in household products and manufacturing. It is long past time for Congress to reform the law so that it provides genuine protection against harmful chemicals in products like shampoos and detergents.

Tens of thousands of inadequately tested chemicals were allowed to remain in use after the law was enacted. For the most part, the law requires the government to prove that a chemical is unsafe before it can be removed or kept off the market instead of requiring manufacturers to prove that their chemicals are safe before they can be sold and used. And it makes it hard for the Environmental Protection Agency to pry the information it needs to assess risk from the manufacturers or to require them to conduct tests.

Companies have to alert the E.P.A. before introducing new chemicals, but they don’t have to provide any safety data. It is up to the agency to find relevant scientific information elsewhere or use inexact computer modeling to estimate risk. The agency can only ask the company for data or require testing if it first proves there is a potential risk, which is hard to do without the company’s data.

The failure of the law can be read in these dismal statistics: since 1976, from a universe of chemicals that now numbers roughly 85,000, the agency has issued regulations to control only five existing chemicals.

Senators Frank Lautenberg, a Democrat of New Jersey, and Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democrat of New York, recently introduced a bill — the Safe Chemicals Act of 2013 — that would modernize and reform the law, mostly by requiring manufacturers to prove that a chemical is safe before it can be sold. It has more than two dozen Democratic co-sponsors but is opposed by the chemical industry and many Republicans, who argue that the E.P.A. already has enough power to regulate chemicals and simply needs to exercise it more effectively. The American Academy of Pediatrics, a far better guide to what’s needed to protect children, endorsed the bill on Wednesday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/19/opinion/a-toothless-law-on-toxic-chemicals.html?ref=opinion

Yesterday: Big business wins two, small business picks up one

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Thu, 18 Apr 2013 14:28:00 +0000

It was a busy day yesterday for the S.C. Small Business Chamber of Commerce. Two Senate subcommittees and the House Ways and Means Committee held meetings on legislation we supported. Unfortunately two of these bills did not get the favorable votes we wanted.

The morning started out with a Senate subcommittee on S.145, a bill that would outlaw most favored nation clauses in contracts between health insurance companies and healthcare providers. These contracts are used to guarantee that one carrier always gets the best provider reimbursement rates forcing the provider often to charge other insurance companies more for the same services. The result is that other insurance companies have a harder time competing with the company that has the most favored nation clauses in their contracts. This leads to lack of competition in our health insurance market which drives up rates for everyone.

Only two people testified at the hearing—a representative of Blue Cross, Blue Shield and myself. The BC-BS argument against the bill was that they are a major employer in the state, they are the only domestic health insurance company in the state and that the Legislature shouldn’t do anything that would hurt even if that means allowing them to maintain uncompetitive practices.

One Senator totally bought into that BC-BS pitch and threw the free-market and reduced insurance rates for small businesses and individuals under the bus. The other Senator didn’t think the state should make any changes in our insurance laws until the Affordable Care Act goes into effect.

So don’t look for this bill to see the light of day again until January, 2014, if then. Congratulations to BC-BS for having their way once again with our Legislature.

Then a Senate subcommittee met to discuss S.536, a bill that would make it legal for third parties to finance and own solar panels installed on homes and commercial buildings and sell the electricity produced to the occupant. This practice has worked well in other states and results in the financing company to make money and the building occupant to save money. After lengthy testimony, including mine, on the merits of allowing the free market to reign, the subcommittee voted to hold another public hearing. The reason—they wanted to hear from the energy companies (Duke, SCE&G and Progress Energy).

The question is why would the Senators give these companies another chance to be heard? The energy lobbyists were sitting in the room but simply chose not to testify in public. The answer is pretty simple. By having another meeting probably after the Senate deals with the budget, the deadline for moving any legislation from the Senate to the House this year is lost. Congratulations to the big utility companies for winning once again over the consumers.

But there was a ray of sunshine yesterday. The House Ways and Means Committee voted to send H.3125, the Microenterprise Development Act, to the full House. This bill will empower our Department of Commerce to help our non-profit microloan organizations obtain more money to lend to very small businesses (4 or less employees).

ACTION ALERT!!

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Tue, 16 Apr 2013 14:14:00 +0000

Allow 3^rd Party Financing of Solar Panels

Bill would make solar energy affordable for homes and commercial buildings

Don’t let the state’s energy companies do what they did in the S.C. House—stop a bill that will allow 3^rd parties to finance solar panels on buildings and sell the electricity to the occupant owners.

A public hearing will be held on Wednesday, April 17^th, at 10AM in room 308 of the Gressette Building on the “Energy System Freedom of Ownership Act” (S.536).

Contact the Senators below and ask them to:

Support the free market by allowing 3^rd party financing and ownership of solar panels placed on the roofs of homes and businesses. Vote for S.536.

This bill would eliminate the biggest obstacle to solar energy—the upfront costs. The owners of the building would buy the electricity produced by the solar panels at a rate less than off the grid thus saving money while the investors earn a fair return on their investment. The bill limits how much energy can be produced in this way to protect the energy companies from economic loss.

If you can be at this meeting to support the bill, please attend.

You are also invited to join attend the SC Conservation Lobby Day Oyster Roast that evening from 6-9 at the Seibels House in Columbia.

Call Senators:

Luke Rankin (Chair), phone: (803) 212-6410

Brad Hutto, phone: (803) 212-6140

Ross Turner, phone:(803) 212-6148

Thanks for your support.

New “Tax Evaders” Video Game Lets Taxpayers Blast Corporate Tax-Dodgers

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Sun, 14 Apr 2013 17:38:00 +0000

** PLAY HERE: www.taxevaders.net **

Bank of America, GE, Wells Fargo, Exxon-Mobil, BP, Chevron, Citi, Verizon, Microsoft, Facebook, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Blasted As Tax Evaders

American taxpayers nationwide will have the opportunity to blast some of our country’s biggest tax-dodgers in a new video game, “Tax Evaders.” Inspired by the iconic “Space Invaders” video game, “Tax Evaders” will allow everyday taxpayers to blast tax-evading corporations like Bank of American, General Electric, Wells Fargo, Exxon-Mobil, BP, Chevron, Citi, Verizon, Microsoft, Facebook, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan.

PLAY ‘TAX EVADERS’ HERE: www.taxevaders.net

“Why are we even discussing cuts to social security and other public services before going after the Tax Evaders who are stealing hundreds of billions from our economy?” says Gan Golan, coordinator of the national project. “We don’t need to close schools and hospitals. We need to close tax loopholes for corporations and the very rich.”

In the last week, a number of studies released by Americans for Tax Fairness and US PIRG have shown that wealthy corporations have rigged the game in order to pay less than their fair share of taxes and these coordinated actions represent a growing backlash to the billions held in corporate tax havens and the tens of millions of dollars spent on lobbying by these companies to protect them.

In the game, the classic Space Invaders have become corporations trying to escape with society’s resources. The player is a crowd of citizens (activated by a Wii controller, or body motion) who blast the evaders and cause revenues to fall back to earth, revitalizing public services.

The game was designed in collaboration with famed game designer, Paolo Pedercini of Molleindustria to bring attention to the issue of corporate tax evasion and allow for the player to shoot Twitter-bombs at the corporations #taxevaders.

Clocks ticking. Do you know where the multinational profits are?

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:02:00 +0000

The clock is ticking and your personal tax filings are due on Monday. If you are like me you asked for an extension on your business tax filing that was due before this (S-corps and LLCs).

So as you rush to get the taxes done or are checking with your tax preparer to see how it is going, take a few minutes to see that your same anxiety is not shared by most multinational corporations that won’t be sending Uncle Sam any income taxes—or for that matter don’t have to pay any.

Watch the clips below and then raise your voice with your members of Congress. We’re subsidizing these giants because Congress won’t make them pay their fair share of taxes.

What do America's Biggest Tax Cheating Corporations Want Now? http://youtu.be/_GizC6OnVpM

• Big Corporations are pushing for a Territorial Tax System.
Find out what it is and how it's going to affect Americans!

How Do Billion-Dollar Corporations Cheat America Out of Tax Revenue? http://youtu.be/miO8cuIhYrs

• This tells how corporations use transfer pricing to shift profits offshore and get out of paying taxes in the U.S.

The Truth About Corporate Tax Rates http://youtu.be/YsWq2kaD-gs

The tax rate is 35%. Corporations complain it's too high. But how much are they really paying?

Speaking of Big Corporate Tax Cheats... http://youtu.be/tVPgpoN-RzY

• Carl Gibson, co-founder of US Uncut, speaks on the Mississippi State Capitol steps about how individuals pay more taxes than many multinational corporations.

Look who your taxes are subsidizing

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Thu, 11 Apr 2013 13:20:00 +0000

As America gets ready to finalize their taxes, you need to check out these three very short (less than 75 seconds) video clips to get your blood really boiling. I am featured in the third clip.

Small Businesses Picking Up the Tab for Multinational Corporations? http://youtu.be/4AicxgXgmZc

• Small businesses can't escape the corporate tax rate, multinational corporations can - so who ends up paying? Isn't it time to level the playing field?

How Do Giant Corporations Get Away with "Legal" Tax Cheating? http://youtu.be/ubjGmCIbrjQ

• See how multinational corporations lobby corporations to write their own tax laws.

Who Pays for Corporate Tax Dodgers? YOU DO. http://youtu.be/XRNBNzJ42VM

• How multinational corporate tax cheating hurts the average tax payer.

More tomorrow.

Small business opposes multinational corporations' tax avoidance

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Wed, 10 Apr 2013 13:29:00 +0000

The Hill's Congress Blog
April 9, 2013

By Frank Knapp, Jr., vice chairman, American Sustainable Business Council

In our highly partisan environment there seems to be very few issues that Republicans, Independents and Democrats agree on. This partisanship is easily seen in Congress but is also alive with voters across the country. Small business owners are often no different than their customers in demonstrating divergent opinions on issues depending on their political preferences.

So when we find an issue on which small business owners agree, regardless of partisan leanings, we should take notice. And when that agreement centers on one of them most contentious matters that Congress will soon be addressing, our elected officials in Washington need to pay close attention. Such is the case involving federal tax fairness between small business and large, multinational corporations.

Small business owners are keenly aware that multinational corporations are legally escaping paying much, and often all, of the highly publicized 35 percent U.S. corporate income tax rate. In a poll released early last year by the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and others 80 percent of the small business owners surveyed said that U.S. multinational corporations using accounting loopholes to shift their U.S. profits to offshore tax havens is a problem. Seventy-five percent said that big corporations using tax loopholes harms their own small business.

Accounts of giant businesses like Boeing, General Electric, Pfizer, Microsoft and Honeywell International using offshore tax loopholes to dramatically lower their taxes – often to zero -- are all too common. U.S. Public Interest Research Group just released report showing that each of America’s small businesses on average picks up the tab for $3,067 to cover the costs of tax avoidance by U.S multinational corporations playing the offshore profit-shifting game.

It is clear to small business owners that the ability of these large corporations to minimize their tax liability through offshore tax loopholes is contributing to our nation’s budget problems and is harmful to the small business community. This awareness of multinationals shirking their tax responsibility has resulted in a bipartisan small-business owner consensus on the need of large, multinational corporations to pay their fair share of taxes.

Last month ASBC and the Main Street Alliance (MSA) commissioned a scientific telephone survey of over 500 small businesses across the country. As national business organizations representing small and medium size companies, both ASBC and MSA have advocated for equitable taxation on big business profits to invest in the country’s infrastructure and address the national debt.

Here are some of the overwhelmingly bipartisan consensus results of that ASBC/MSA small-business owner poll just released.

• More than three quarters of small business owners support closing overseas tax loopholes with a unitary combined reporting system:  75 percent or more of Republican, independent and Democratic small business owners support this approach, which is successfully used by states to stop corporations from shifting the location of profits to avoid taxes.

• More than four out of five small business owners oppose a proposal to institute a territorial tax system (a system that would eliminate U.S. taxes on profits made or shifted offshore):
85 percent of small business owners oppose a proposal for a territorial tax system. Across party lines, at least 67 percent strongly oppose the proposal.

• Small business owners support ending deferral of taxes on foreign profits and requiring US corporations to pay income taxes on income earned overseas: When asked if foreign earnings of U.S. corporations should be taxed after given credit for foreign taxes paid, 64 percent of small business owners expressed support. Within each party affiliation, at least 62 percent, expressed support.

These results should send a clear signal to Congress and the President from the country’s small business owners. The priority for reforming our nation’s tax code is to stop multinational corporations from using offshore tax havens to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. And these elected leaders are also put on notice to not support any proposal for a territorial tax system for multinational corporations that would lock in what small business owners of all political persuasions view as completely wrong and unfair.

Knapp is vice chairman of the American Sustainable Business Council and president and CEO of the South Carolina Small Business Chamber of Commerce.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/292645-small-business-opposes-multinational-corporations-tax-avoidance#ixzz2PznClNww

New Poll of Small Business Owners

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 14:51:00 +0000

Reveals Strong Bipartisan Opposition to Corporate Tax Loopholes

First Poll on Overseas Tax Haven Reforms Finds Rejection of “Territorial” Tax System

April 9, 2013, Washington, D.C. – Small business owners oppose the current system for taxing U.S.-based multinational corporations, according to a new poll. The national scientific poll released today by the American Sustainable Business Council (ASBC) and the Main Street Alliance (MSA) – two national business policy groups – shows that support for reform is bipartisan and widespread.

This new poll is the first to query small business owners on specific policies for addressing overseas corporate tax havens. Current tax law enables companies to defer indefinitely taxes on profits earned overseas. The ASBC-MSA poll tested three possible reforms: ending deferral, instituting a territorial system, and establishing combined reporting. The report of poll results may be found here: http://asbcouncil.org/sites/default/files/library/docs/MSA_ASBC_poll_reportTaxesApril2013.

Key findings from the survey include:

· More than four out of five small business owners (85%) oppose a territorial tax system, which would permanently exempt offshore profits from U.S. taxation. Across party affiliation, 67% or more are strongly opposed to the proposal.

· 76% of small business owners support closing overseas tax loopholes by implementing a unitary combined reporting system, which would limit the ability of corporations to avoid taxes by shifting profits offshore. A majority (55%) are strongly supportive.

· 64% support ending deferral, a provision of current tax code that allows corporations to indefinitely defer payment of U.S. taxes on profits made or shifted offshore. Across parties at least 62% support this idea.

· By a margin of more than two to one, small business owners prefer to close corporate tax loopholes rather than cut government programs. Both Democratic and Republican small business owners preferred closing loopholes to cutting spending on education, infrastructure or defense.

· Respondents in the survey were politically diverse, with a strong plurality of Republicans or Independents who lean Republican: 47% identified as Republican or Independent-leaning Republican; 27% as Democratic or Independent-leaning Democratic; and 26% as Independent or other.

"I’m not afraid as a small business to compete with the big boys," said Henry Passapera, a member of the Main Street Alliance and the co-owner of P&R Trading, an international supplier of airline parts and equipment based in East Rutherford, New Jersey. "But when big corporations use offshore tax havens to avoid their tax responsibility, it puts small businesses like mine at a competitive disadvantage. If you want to fly the American flag at your corporate headquarters, you ought to pay your fair share of taxes."

“All businesses are hurt when we allow tax loopholes for big companies while cutting budgets for public education, research and infrastructure,“ said Josh Knauer, a business leader in ASBC and President and CEO of Rhiza Labs, a Pittsburgh-based software company. “Tax dollars were a vital component in America's past innovations and infrastructure, fostering economic success. The taxes we pay, wisely invested, are the down payments on our future success.”

“Policy makers now have poll data showing that small business owners are strongly against instituting a territorial system, which would make permanent the broken tax system we have now,” said Scott Klinger, Tax Policy Director for ASBC. “Corporate income taxes as a share of the economy are at a 60-year low, and many U.S. multinational corporations pay higher taxes in foreign nations than they do here. So the last thing we should do is lock in an unearned, anticompetitive deal that will hurt the economy as a whole.”

“Small business owners see two problems with the current system for taxing U.S. multinationals,” said Joshua Welter, Director of Special Projects for MSA. “First, they know we can’t afford these loopholes, since the reduced revenue forces cuts in economy boosting investments, such as education, Social Security and Medicare. Second, the overseas tax structure is a big thumb on the scale for big companies, and a thumb at the nose of small business.”

To view the full survey results, visit: http://asbcouncil.org/sites/default/files/library/docs/MSA_ASBC_poll_reportTaxesApril2013.

Poll results reported here represent findings from a scientific national phone survey of 515 owners of small businesses (with 2 to 99 employees), commissioned by the American Sustainable Business Council and the Main Street Alliance and conducted by Lake Research Partners. The nationwide live phone survey was conducted between March 14-25, 2013. It has a margin of error of +/- 4.4%.

###

The Main Street Alliance is a national network of state-based small business coalitions. MSA and its state affiliates create opportunities for small business owners to speak for themselves on issues that impact their businesses and local economies. www.mainstreetalliance.org

The American Sustainable Business Council and its member organizations represent more than 165,000 businesses nationwide, and more than 300,000 entrepreneurs, executives, managers, and investors. ASBC informs and engages policy makers and the public about the need and opportunities for building a vibrant and sustainable economy. www.asbcouncil.org

Support the Microenterprise Development Act

noreply@blogger.com (The SC Small Business Chamber of Commerce) — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 12:30:00 +0000

Action Alert!!

Public hearing is this Wednesday, April 10th

For everyone who has complained that the state of South Carolina has not done enough to help small businesses, your support for House Bill 3125 is needed.

The legislation would establish a Microenterprise Partnership Program (MPP) within the SC Department of Commerce to support organizations that serve microenterprise businesses and the self-employed.

The MPP will secure funding to provide grants to non-profit’s that make microloans and offer technical assistance to businesses and with up to 5 employees (microenterprises).

Please contact the Representatives below with the following message.

Small businesses need help with access to capital. Please support the Mircoenterprise Development Act, H.3125.

Click on the name of the Representative below for a link to their contact information at the General Assembly. Please make contact today or Wednesday morning. The subcommittee hearing will be around 2PM Wednesday afternoon in room 321 of the Blatt Building.

Representatives:
Dwight A. Loftis
Gilda Cobb-Hunter
J. Roland Smith
Liston D. Barfield
Harry L. Ott, Jr.

Thank you for your help.