Tag Archives: government regulation

Business, Economy, Newsletters

eBay blasts underhanded government attempts on internet sales tax in email to millions

17 Comments

WASHINGTON, D.C., October 23, 2014 – On Thursday evening eBay, the multinational e-commerce mega company, sent out an email to  millions of its American clients blasting the U.S. Congress for attempting to implement an internet sales tax.

The email stated, “Over 18 months ago the U.S. Senate voted on a deeply unpopular Internet sales tax bill. Unfortunately, rather than find consensus, there are now plans to bypass the normal legislative process and attach the Internet sales tax bill to whatever legislative vehicle is most likely to pass in the short, post-election, ‘lame-duck’ session of Congress.”

eBay’s Vice President & Deputy General Counsel of Government Relations Tod Cohen sent the email and in it urged citizens to take action to prevent Congress from passing a bill that would introduce an internet sales tax.

Cohen stated, “Now is the time to let your senators know if you oppose an Internet sales tax bill that will harm online small businesses.”

You can read the full email here.

 

Dear Michael:

Over 18 months ago the U.S. Senate voted on a deeply unpopular Internet sales tax bill. Unfortunately, rather than find consensus, there are now plans to bypass the normal legislative process and attach the Internet sales tax bill to whatever legislative vehicle is most likely to pass in the short, post-election, “lame-duck” session of Congress.

Now is the time to let your senators know if you oppose an Internet sales tax bill that will harm online small businesses. Click here to ask your senators to keep Internet sales taxes out of the post-election “lame-duck” session of Congress.

Together, we can make a difference!

Sincerely,

Tod Cohen
Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, Government Relations
eBay Inc.

 

Follow Michael Lotfi on Facebook & Twitter.

Politics, US

E-Cigarettes To Soon Be Banned In Chicago Restaurants & Bars

56 Comments

13ecig-web1-articleLarge

Electronic cigarettes, usually called “e-cigarettes,” are battery-powered devices meant to simulate tobacco smoking. They work by vaporizing a liquid solution — some contain nicotine but many simply release a flavored vapor. E-cigarettes have become increasingly popular with Americans who wish to ween themselves off of normal cigarettes. At this time, there is no scientific evidence that vapor emitted from e-cigarettes is dangerous. In other words, there is no proof that the electronic devices can cause harmful secondhand smoke.

But that doesn’t stop Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanual, who is moving to ban electronic cigarettes from being used indoors.

The mayor’s plan, which was recently advanced by City Counsel members, would require electronic cigarette users to smoke outside of Chicago restaurants, bars, and other buildings, along with regular cigarette smokers. Emanuel is attempting to push the new rules through the Clean Indoor Air act.

Supporters of Emanuel’s proposal claim that the ban must apply to both e-cigarettes loaded with nicotine and those with other liquid solutions. They say this is necessary since many restaurant and business owners are unable to tell the difference between e-cigarettes that use nicotine and those that do not.

Ald. Rey Colon, 35th Ward, does not support the proposed rules. He said, “It is a ban, because you’re making people go outside, you’re treating it just as you would an analogue cigarette or tobacco cigarette. You’re lumping it together in the same category even though you don’t really have any proof that it has any harm. You’re saying ‘We’re going to regulate first and ask questions later.’”

Ald. Brendan Reilly, 42nd Ward, agrees with Colon. Reilly said, “I’m certainly not here to defend Big Tobacco. They’re done enough harm in this country. But I do have friends and family members who are using (e-cigarettes) to quit, to get away from combustible tobacco that kills people.”

Emanuel’s plan also requires the electronic smoking devices to be sold behind store counters. Supporters of the rules claim this will make young people less likely to start smoking e-cigarettes. The Chicago Tribune pointed out that the “cartridges that can be loaded into the e-cigarettes can be bought in candy-like flavors that critics say are enjoyable for kids who then get hooked on conventional smokes.”

What do you think of Emanuel’s plan — is it a good idea, or merely another step towards a true nanny state?

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

Politics, US

Nanny State Alert: Put Out Your Cigarette Or Get Fined In Boston

51 Comments

120315110534-green-smoking-harm-story-top

A new ban in Boston, effective immediately, prohibits smoking in city-run parks.

Individuals caught smoking cigarettes, marijuana, or other “lighted or vaporized” substances will be slapped with a $250 fine.

251 separate parks and cemeteries are affected by the ban — this includes the Boston Common, one of the most popular and central places to go in the city.

Park rangers will be responsible for enforcing the ban, but officials are trying to encourage citizens to enforce it themselves. Signs alerting people of smoking rules will be posted at each city-run park — Boston officials hope that park-goers will see the signs and report smokers to park rangers.

Barbara Ferrer, executive director of the Boston Public Health Commission, said, “Secondhand smoke in any concentration is dangerous. There’s no safe level of exposure. [The new ban]  makes it less normal for smoking to happen around you.”

Mayor Thomas M. Menino was also in support of the new rule. In a public letter, he wrote, “This amendment is necessary to maintain the health and safety of our public parks and ensure that these valuable resources can be enjoyed by all Boston residents.”

The Boston Globe reported, “The ban is an expansion of an existing law that prohibited smoking at so-called tot lots. Six other large US cities have similar bans, including Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, according to the Health Commission. In Massachusetts, 35 municipalities have banned smoking in parks, beaches, or some other public space.”

Bureaucratic do-gooders in cities like Boston, New York, and Chicago have been passing regulations in the name of “keeping us healthy” for years.

Is smoking a health concern? Absolutely. But government interference and laws are not always the answer.

Laws dictating our food and lifestyle choice consistently fail at making us healthier consumers. But more importantly — when did it become the government’s job to control how we live? Of course, food and lifestyle regulation is tied to the advent of public health care. When Washington provides and pays for your health care, it will then try to control what you eat and smoke. Government keeps growing.

Still, it is easy to understand the logic behind an attempt to prevent secondhand smoke.

What are your thoughts on this matter?

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

Politics, US

Government Regulation Gone Wild: San Francisco Bans Fireplace Use On Christmas

20 Comments

Christmas_Fireplace

Looks like New York City has some competition for Nanny State capital of America.

San Francisco’s Bay Area Air Quality Management District issued a “Winter Spare the Air Alert,” which banned the use of indoor and outdoor fires. It went into effect on Christmas Eve and extended through Christmas day.

During this time period, residents and businesses in the Bay Area were not allowed to burn natural wood or manufactured logs in any fireplace, wood stove, or fire pit. These rules applied regardless of whether or not the burning devices were approved by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District claimed the ban was put into effect to reduce pollution in the area. In an official statement, the agency said, “We want everyone to enjoy their holiday this week, but unfortunately, weather conditions are causing unhealthy, muddy air again. Air is forecast to be extremely unhealthy this week so it is imperative that residents protect air quality and not burn in their indoor or outdoor fireplaces.”

Jack Broadbent, executive officer of the Bay Area Air District, said, “Please respect everyone’s health this holiday by observing the Winter Spare the Air Alert and not burning wood in your fireplace. We don’t want anyone to spend their holiday in the emergency room because they are unable to breathe. In the spirit of giving, please give the gift of clean air.”

So, what happens to those who violate the rule? First-time offenders will be forced to either take a wood smoke awareness class or pay a $100 ticket. Second-time offenders will be fined $500.

This is San Francisco’s 18th Winter Spare the Air Alert of 2013.

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

Politics, US

11-Year-Old Banned From Selling Mistletoe In Oregon Park

36 Comments

abc_katu_mistletoe_sales_kb_131202_16x9_608

Madison Root, an entrepreneurial 11-year-old from Oregon, tried to sell some hand-picked mistletoe in downtown Portland on Saturday. She was raising money to help her dad pay for her braces.

But her “business” didn’t last very long before bureaucratic rules and red tape shut her down.

A security guard, hired by Portland Saturday Market, told her to stop selling mistletoe because she didn’t have the proper permit or approval from the city. Portland city regulations apply to any business that includes “goods, or descriptions or depictions of goods or services, with the intent to engage any member of the public in a transaction for the sale of any good or service.” Vendors who wish to sell at the Portland Saturday Market face even stricter rules.

In a twist of irony, the security guard told the girl that although she could not sell her mistletoe in the park she could beg for money instead.

Mark Ross, a spokesman for the Portland Parks Bureau, explained that begging is allowed because it is considered “a form of free speech, protected by the First Amendment.”

Madison said she would never beg for money. She said, “I would rather work for something than beg. I wouldn’t think I’d have any problems because people are asking for money, people are selling stuff, this is a public place.”

The 11-year-old also pointed out that many of the beggars that she saw were openly soliciting money for pot. She said, “There are people next to me that have big signs that say ‘Got Pot?’”

Prior to being approved to sell at the Portland Saturday Market, vendors must jump through several hoops. Viki Ciesiul, a jewelry seller at the market, explained the process. She said, “We [vendors] are trying to avoid too many types of street vendors who might bring the place down. There are many ways she can participate and rules are there for a reason.”

On Tuesday morning, Portland Mayor Charlie Hales said that he will review the laws that prevented Root from selling mistletoe. As reported by KATU.com, “The saga of the 11-year-old entrepreneur and her box of mistletoe prompted the mayor to say he’ll review city laws and the Saturday Market to invite the little girl back… A spokesman for Mayor Hales said he plans to contact the staff at Portland’s Saturday Market to better understand what happened and whether procedures could be tweaked to allow kids to sell.”

As this story has gained national attention from media outlets across the country, many individuals and small businesses have contacted Madison and her father to order her mistletoe. Others have made donations to her braces fund.

 

 

Follow Kristin on Facebook and Twitter.

Opinion, Politics, US

Government Power Grab: FDA To Ban Trans Fats

65 Comments

695320912_1381547432

OPINION:

The United States is over 17 trillion dollars in debt, the national unemployment rate is over seven percent, and one-sixth of the American population is on food stamps. But fixing those problems is just so hard! So, some courageous politicians have decided to spend time and money dictating what we should be allowed to eat. They do this in the name of “keeping us healthy.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced a plan to ban trans fats because they are a “threat to people’s health.”

The FDA is moving forward with this power-grab despite the fact that the amount of trans fats in the average American’s diet has declined rapidly in the last decade.

The food industry will be required to gradually phase out trans fats. Once they have been completely phased out, anyone who wants to use trans fats will be forced to get special permission from the FDA.

The FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods, Michael Taylor, said, “We want to do it in a way that doesn’t unduly disrupt markets.”

As of right now, the exact timeline for the phase-out has not been decided on.

Michael Jacobson, the director of the advocacy group Center for Science, said, “Six months or a year should be more than enough time, especially considering that companies have had a decade to figure out what to do… [The ban is] one of the most important lifesaving actions the FDA could take.”

The FDA claims that trans fats are horrible for your heart — worse than saturated fat — and can contribute to heart diseases.

This is true… But when did it become the government’s job to control what we eat? Have we become a complete nanny state?

Smoking can cause lung cancer — so why don’t we ban cigarettes? Too much sugar often leads to diabetes — let’s go ahead and ban sugar, too! Alcohol can contribute to liver failure — ban it!

You get my point. The government simply cannot ban everything that is a “threat to people’s health.”

America is supposed to be the Land of the Free. If people want to make poor food choices, they should be allowed to. Of course, it is unfair to make the rest of us pay for their heart disease and diabetes. This is why ObamaCare (the biggest government power-grab in a generation) must be overturned immediately. In a free country, government cannot dictate lifestyle choices, nor can it become the overprotective mommy and daddy of its citizens.

Freedom means having the right to make bad choices and then deal with the consequences ourselves.

Opinion, Politics, US

Latest Attack On Freedom: NY Raising The Age To Buy Cigarettes To 21

26 Comments

On Wednesday, New York City lawmakers adopted the strictest limits on tobacco purchases in any US city.

The change would make 21 the minimum age to buy cigarettes and other tobacco items (the current minimum age is 18). The New York City Council also voted to set a $10.50 minimum price for a pack of cigarettes.

The Council passed these new rules in the name of “keeping us healthy.”

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn said, “This legislation will reduce smoking rates among New Yorkers — especially young New Yorkers — sparing them years of nicotine addiction and health problems.”

City Councilman James Gennaro, the bill’s sponsor, said, “This will literally save many, many lives.”

The new rules compliment recent efforts by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who has been trying to raise tobacco taxes and make all restaurants and bars smoke-free.

Following the Council’s vote, Bloomberg said, “By increasing the smoking age to 21 we will help prevent another generation from the ill health and shorter life expectancy that comes with smoking. It’s critical that we stop young people from smoking before they ever start.”

As noble as the Council’s rules sound, there could be some down sides.

ABC News points out that “cigarette manufacturers have suggested young adult smokers may just turn to black-market merchants. And some smokers say it’s unfair and patronizing to tell people considered mature enough to vote and serve in the military that they’re not old enough to decide whether to smoke.”

Even if the new rule did make some people “healthier,” when did it become the government’s job to control what adults do to their own bodies? Has America become a complete nanny state? Of course, increased smoking regulation is tied to the advent of public health care. When Washington provides and pays for your health care, it will then try to control what you eat and smoke. Government continues growing.

America is supposed to be the Land of the Free. If people want to make poor choices, they should be allowed to. Of course, it is unfair to make the rest of us pay for their lung cancer. This is why ObamaCare (the biggest government power-grab in a generation) must be overturned immediately. In a free country, government cannot dictate lifestyle choices, nor can it become the overprotective Mommy and Daddy of its citizens. Freedom means having the right to make bad choices and then deal with the consequences ourselves.

Still, politicians will likely keep regulating. Quinn said, “We have to do more and that’s what we’re doing today.”

Opinion

Prohibition and Prostitution

132 Comments

Opinion:

The principle of sex for money is horrifying to many. But why should something that is completely consensual, and done in private, be banned? However vile prostitutes’ activities may be, their actions are not directly affecting anyone who chooses not to be involved (except maybe the hotel maid the following morning). But as usual, Washington bureaucrats feel the need to get in people’s private business by banning consensual sex for money.

Why does it matter what people do in private if others are not affected?

Prohibition never works. For instance, alcohol consumption increased sharply during Prohibition in the 1920s. Other effects of this ban: alcohol became more dangerous to consume, crime increased, and prisons became very overcrowded. When something is banned, its use rarely decreases significantly, and a black market is always created.

Prohibition didn’t work with alcohol, and it doesn’t work with prostitution.

The laws banning prostitution are well intended. Would you want your daughter being a sex worker? Your sister? Of course not. But the unintended consequences of these laws are worse than the problems they attempt to solve. Prostitutes currently must operate in the shadows of society, which places them in jeopardy. Anonymity allows dangerous Johns to abuse the women (remember the Craigslist killer?), often with no consequences. Bringing both the prostitute and the John out of the dark reduces the likelihood of dangerous clients. Another benefit of transparency: prostitutes could advertise their services freely, eliminating the pimp from the equation. And just think how adorable those new billboards would be!

Prostitution legalization would also reduce the risk of STD transmission if the state mandated disease exams for sex workers. As it stands now, prostitutes with STDs, who may not even be aware that they are infected, can spread disease rapidly and repeatedly.

Most people are opposed to prostitution legalization because they think it is immoral. This is understandable, but just because something is immoral does not mean it should be illegal (with the possible exception of renewing Keeping up with the Kardashians for another season). Cruelty is immoral, but we can’t pass laws outlawing every cruel behavior. We simply cannot ban everything we don’t like.

But what is morally wrong with a consensual woman of age using her body to make money? Strip clubs are everywhere, and they allow women to make a living exploiting their own bodies. And porn stars make a good living having sex for money- and we’re okay with that because there is a camera in the room. The hypocrisy is laughable.

In Amsterdam, prostitution has been recognized as a legal profession since 1988. Despite prostitution legalization, the violent crime rate in Amsterdam is far lower than that of New York City. The Dutch believe that regulating the sex industry helps reduce human trafficking, forced prostitution, and exploitation of children. Dutch prostitutes pay taxes on their income, and get tested for STDs regularly. The city of Amsterdam has been so pleased with the system that in 2007, a bronze statue memorializing “working women” was erected (pun intended).

In the US, Nevada is the only state that allows regulated brothels. Moonlite BunnyRanch in Mound House, NV, is one of the legal brothels in the state. So far, it has been a tremendous success. The women who work there may set their own wages transparently, and are regularly checked for STDs. HBO has even turned the BunnyRanch into a popular reality television show. Most of the female workers say they love their job, and wouldn’t want to do anything else. On a side note, I wonder if they’re given a mandatory retirement age. If not, the situation could get really ugly at the BunnyRanch.

Does anyone truly believe that outlawing the oldest profession in the world makes it less prevalent?

Prostitution legalization would not ruin our culture. It would only make the sex industry, and society as a whole, safer and more transparent.