If the Internet sales tax bill becomes law, it certainly won’t be a testament to what most Americans want. Rather, it will simply demonstrate how powerful the lobbyists for big businesses are in Washington.
A recent poll indicates 61 percent of people disagree with the Internet sales tax bill:
In what was meant tolevel the playing field, the Internet sales tax has faced opposition from those arguing that a new tax would disadvantage small businesses by forcing them to collect sales taxes from multiple states.
Joining the opposition are consumers, a new study suggests, with 61% of U.S. voters saying they disagree with the bill, with 40% of those disagreeing because they are “sick of tax hikes.”
The study, sponsored by Endicia andpublished on Mashable, also reveals that 44% of U.S. voters responded they would make less online purchases if the Internet sales tax was in place.
IST. Heritage explains that though the Senate rushed the internet sales tax bill through, the House will have more time to deliberate about this harmful bill:
For someone running—or thinking about starting—a small online business, trying to deal with tax codes for all of the states that charge sales tax is ahuge deterrent.
Yet the Senate rushed this bill through. Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist said the rush itself was one of the reasons the Internet sales tax made it this far.
“It’s only passing the Senate because they took it out of regular order,” he said. “Why did they want torush it throughwithout amendments? Why did they do that? Because if people looked at it too long, it wouldn’t pass easily.”
The House is going to consider the bill through the normal committee channels, giving Members more time to review it and ask questions.
This also allows time for more facts to enter the debate and misconceptions to be exposed.
If you thought debates over Benghazi and immigration were contentious, just wait until you see Congressmen Derek Kilmer (D-WA) and Steve Daines (R-MT) duke it out on the hotly debated Internet sales tax.
BENGHAZI. Yesterday’s Benghazi whistleblower testimonies by Gregory Hicks, Eric Nordstrom, and Mark Thompson, were powerful and exposed both glaring inadequacies in Washington’s response as well as “heroic efforts of the embassy and CIA teams on the ground in Libya.” Heritage’s Helle Dale explains:
Most impressive were the glaring contrasts contained in the testimony. Hicks’s on-the-ground testimony shows both the glaring inadequacy of Washington’s response and the heroic efforts of the embassy and CIA teams on the ground in Libya. Both aspects of this case should be explored.
Standing out in the testimony was the fact that no one, from Ambassador Stephens on down, in any way interpreted the attack as part of a demonstration. Hicks described receiving two phone calls on his cell phone from Stephens. When the two of them made contact, Stephens told him, “Greg, we are under attack.” This was unambiguous.
Back in Washington, it took Clinton until 2:00 a.m. to call Tripoli to ask what was going on. Meanwhile, Thompson testified that the FEST team, created explicitly for such emergencies, was cut out of the action and the planning of the response.
But most of all, one got a sense of how alone the U.S. personnel in Libya were.
BENGHAZI. The White House’s disinformation campaign on Benghazi has continued for nine months, and we still do not know for sure what happened:
Dramatic hearings are expected today asGregory Hicks, a State Department official who was on the ground in Libya during the 9/11 attack when four Americans died, talks to a House panel.
Hicks’s testimony follows a House Republican Conferencereportand a detailed article on the “Benghazi Talking Points” inTheWeekly Standardthat further call into question the credibility of the Obama Administration’s response.
What is becoming increasingly clear is that (1) the Administration bungled security before the incident; (2) the response to the assault was disjointed and inadequate; and (3) the Administration made a consistent and considerable effort to hide these facts.