2011 Year in Review: Your support of the Minnesota campaign for Internet Tax Freedom has paid off!

Your support of the Minnesota campaign for Internet Tax Freedom has paid off.

Starting in July 2010 or earlier, the Streamline Sales Tax organization (SSUTA) introduced the small seller exemption or small seller exception, which exempts both buyers and sellers from collecting tax for member states at various levels, including $500,000.

This is better than the proposed Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act level of $250,000.

Better still would be the level federal agencies define as the annual revenue of a small business, $10m. The $10m small seller level is supported by eBay. *

It is important to remember the various interests involved sharply contrast both each other and others in their group.

The interested parties include states that want revenue and small US e-commerce professionals.

Of the 50 revenue-seeking states, some like Texas and possibly Tennessee have foolishly counted on some imaginary revenue boon due to internet sales tax revenue to offset their lack of corporate or income tax.

Note also states rights are often defended not by the revenue-seeking states but by the e-commerce professionals or citizens like you and me.

For example states interested only in revenue might have no interest in preserving state-rights, common sense, constitutionally correct thinking reflected in the 1993 Quill decision because a federal law streamlining sales tax or dictating rates would not only ensure state revenue but share or scapegoat each state's political fallout for a decision to adopt new tax.

One of our accomplishments in highlighting tax freedom is that it is becoming less likely that every state will become a member of SSUTA, supported by the Retailers Association.

Of the 50 states, about 20 have not become member of the SSUTA.

This is important because the SSUTA is sometimes it's own worse enemy when it forgets or delays important legislative components like the small seller exemption.

2011 Tax Freedom bills

Highlights

Durbin finally joined Enzi bill

Enzi bill leaves option to not join. But does it allow SSUTA members to not collect sales tax? If not, MN should withdraw from SSUTA.

Womack may be strong on states rights but the rates are dictated and there are other issues

2011 Tax Freedom bills in order of preference

1)

HR 95 (eBay) http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr112-95

Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA), Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), and 30 cosponsors that reject new Internet tax burdens on small businesses with their bipartisan resolution, H.Res. 95.

2) Enzi SF Marketplace Act http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s112-1832

(introduced Nov 2011 - includes $500k small seller exception) (Amazon supported)

Durbin came around and finally co-sponsored this bill, lending bi-partisan support.

Downside: Contains streamlined streamline sales tax verbiage, which applies even to those 20 states not members of SSUTA. Starts us down path of standardized internet tax at a level too harmful to too many small businesses. The Small Seller Exemption may actually be a refund, not an exemption. It is uncertain whether SSUTA members can opt out, which is unfair since when most states joined the SSUTA, much of the current SSUTA policy did not exist.

3) Womack Marketplace Equity HR (introduced Oct 2011 - includes 100k default State Small Seller exception and $1m Federal Seller exception)

Complicated. Not good for states rights because it dictates rates.

4) Durbin SF Mainstreet Act (introduced July 2011; 1st to include small seller exception but did not include any detail or the exemption qualification level)

SSUTA 2010 and 5/19/11 amendments including $500k small seller exemption (really a refund?)

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=modules

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/Archive/SSUTA/SSUTA%20As%20Amended%2005-19-11.pdf page 93-94

Compiler’s note: This section was adopted on October 7, 2010 and became effective upon its adoption. 25

Compiler’s note: On December 13, 2010 this section was amended as follows: 26

A. For purposes of this section the term “small remote seller” shall mean a new remote seller which has gross 27 national remote sales of no more

than five million dollars ($5,000,000.00) as calculated pursuant to Section 610 of

this Agreement and shall include sellers which would be “new remote sellers” but for the fact that they had gross 1 national remote sales of less

than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000.00) as calculated pursuant to Section 2 610 of this Agreement. 3

4

B. Member states shall begin paying compensation to a “new remote seller” upon submission of the seller’s initial 5 return filed after the effective

date of the member state’s authorization for compensation that meets the standards of 6 Section 608. Notwithstanding the rates of compensation

established by a member state pursuant to Section 608, 7 to a "small remote sellers” may elect to receive

twenty percent (20%) of the tax collected and due(except for the compensation amount to be 11 retained by the small remote seller) to a state in a

month not to exceed compensation of eighty-five dollars ($85.00) 12 in any month in lieu of compensation calculated using the rates of compensation

established by a member state 13 pursuant to Section 608. Such election shall be for a six month period beginning with the first month that such 14

seller collects a member state’s tax. After such six month period, the rates used to calculate compensation for such 15 sellers shall be those rates

established by the member state pursuant to Section 608.

20

The increased amount of 16 compensation allowed by this subsection shall be available to a “small remote seller” which begins collecting tax 17 for

a member state within the first 12 months following the date of the member state’s authorization for the 18 collection of taxes on remote sales. 19

A seller subsequently found not to meet the qualifications of a “new small

23 remote seller” may be denied and 21 assessed, including any applicable penalties and interest, for any compensation it was not qualified to

claim. 22

26

The provisions of this section shall apply to each state which is currently a full member of the Agreement and to 24 each state which becomes a full

member of the Agreement after the adoption of this section. 25

B. C. If a member state determines that a "remote seller” had previously been registered in that state, 27 compensation for that seller may be

delayed until the state is required to pay compensation for all “in-state sellers” 28 as set forth in subdivision 3 subsection D of this section

31 ” The remaining subsections were 29 renumbered. 30

Section 610: SMALL SELLER EXCEPTION

*We need to ask each states' revenue dept for statistical sales tax data from companies reporting <> $10m in total sales.

It is currently estimated that 75% of state revenue is from companies reporting <$10m in total sales but I'm not so sure it is that high or that each state is like that.

Minnesota Internet Tax freedom Act - MN-ITFA

Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act elements.

Identify in MN code 297A the individual engaged in ecommerce as an entity-exemption.
eCommerce is any transaction involving shopping cart technology as defined by the collection of ecommerce patents owned by Soverain.
Update 297A to reflect that all eCommerce transactions are subject to Use tax only, not Sales tax.

Exempt (up to $250,000 yearly) all Minnesota eCommerce transactions in 297A.

Enact a resolution directing creation of a Revenue Commission rule that raises the Use tax exemption from $770 to $250,000.

Enact a resolution directing creation of a Revenue Commission rule whereby no seller shall collect online sales tax from any buyer and that all MN ecommerce sales are subject to Use tax to be paid by buyer only as a Use tax.

MN buyers and sellers who engage in eCommerce over $250k will be exempt from filing any remittance based on the federal ITFA and cannot ever be required to remit retroactively for the years covered by the federal ITFA.

If the federal moratorium, whichexpires in 2014, is not extended, MN buyers who engage in eCommerce over $250k / year will submit a volition-based Use tax report and remittance and sellers will continue to exclude internet sales from their sales tax remittance.
____


Minnesota Internet Tax freedom Act - MN-ITFA
Volition-based sales tax remittance
Starting at $250k / year
Minnesota - A model for the nation
Jamie.Delton@gmail.com
651-224-6564
http://www.JamieforStateRep.com/

Cost Detail for Tax Freedom and Internet Tax Freedom

Jamie for State Rep In 2008, the number of business locations that remitted greater than or equal to $17,500 in combined state Sales and Use tax was 29,939. Their total state Sales and Use Tax (Total Tax) was $4,362,074,123.

In 2008, the number of business locations that remitted less than $17,500 in combined state Sales and Use tax was 129,958. Their total state Sales and Use Tax (Total Tax) was $311,974,251.

$311,974,251 - small biz < $250k taxable
$2,000,000 - sales and use paper-filed (unregistered individuals)
523,932,500 - cost of big biz $17,500 exemption ($17500 * 29,939)

$837,906,751 total cost with all brick & mortar sectors included and big biz $17,500 exemption included.
$313,974,251 total cost with all brick & mortar sectors included and big biz $17,500 exemption excluded.

Now, of the $837 million above in potential government lost revenue after enacting Tax Freedom for all (up to $250k), representing 160,000 Minnesota companies, what percent is internet related? If the average Minnesota company gets a small portion of their revenue from online commerce, then the expected loss of revenue for Internet Tax Freedom will be as low as $60 million (7.16% of $837 million). Many Minnesota companies are not yet online (Menards is just one example). Enacting Internet Tax Freedom will cost little, and encourage all companies to be "computer literate" by helping them engage in online commerce based in Minnesota.
Enacting Internet Tax Freedom will increase the vitality of the Minnesota economy and improve Minnesota's livability by enabling grown children to better support their elderly relatives.

Stand for Freedom - Support The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act

The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will attract online shoppers in the same way our clothes exemption attracts clothes buyers. The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act relieves shoppers of submitting tax for online purchases from Minnesota companies. This is just one way it is a win-win situation for shoppers and businesses both - people from all over the entire country will be encouraged by Minnesota's tax freedom to buy homes in Minnesota and buy online from Minnesota companies once they're here.
Moreover Minnesota will not and has never had the inclination, under Republican Attorney General candidate Chris Barden or successive Democrat Attorney Generals (including Lori Swanson), to do what Texas is doing to Amazon in the link below. By removing the sales tax collection requirement and establishing the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, we attract businesses by relieving them of collecting tax from online Minnesota shoppers.
http://www.internetretailer.com/2010/10/25/amazoncom-gets-texas-sized-tax-bill
And finally the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act is a gentle, welcome push for business and shoppers towards computer literacy.

The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act

The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act

No online gambling operations are recognized under The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Pass legislation to define online sales and online commerce as transactions using patented shopping cart technology that, where taxable, is subject to Use tax only, not Sales tax. Define online shopper and online seller as entities involved in online sales.
Enact a single resolution or rule in the Revenue Department that says no seller shall collect online sales tax from an online shopper and that all online sales are subject to Use tax to be paid by online shopper only as a Use tax. This is the opposite of California law, where California businesses collect sales tax from everyone buying online from California businesses. This aspect of California burdens small-business.
Enact a single resolution or rule that raises the Use tax exemption from $770 to $250,000.
Identify in MN code 297A the individual online shopper as an entity-exemption up to $250,000.
Businesses registered to pay Sales tax will continue to submit sales tax in the conventional manner. There will be no credit issued by the Revenue department of any kind. Sales or Use tax collected online will no longer be collected.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.

Need
I oppose the Streamlined Sales Tax (SST),Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), any Sales or Use Tax code upgrading, and all such streamline efforts and attention to government revenue streams that is supported by Democratic revenue stream hunters(Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner, local pundit Andy Driscoll), government tax professionals, democrat social engineers ( the SSUTA governing board), and the National Retail Federation because much of the streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects online commerce by forbidding all government from imposing multiple discriminatory taxes on online commerce.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act would clarify what online commerce is and isn't.
Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, all e-commerce such as eBay selling and buying, is online commerce, qualifying for a sales and Use tax exemption for the Minnesota online buyer and seller.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will secure an optimistic outlook and competitive edge for all Minnesotans to enjoy.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act expires in 2014 and until then online commerce can't be taxed.
California's very poor online sales tax freedom act:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/internet/80824citfa.htm

There is a big difference between the genuine federal Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits multiple and discriminatory tax on online commerce and internet access, and the limited narrow California bill.
Ann Lenczewski's redefinition of telecommunication service to potentially include online commerce
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=154&doctype=Chapter&type=0&year=2008

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=297A.669&year=2010&keyword_type=all&keyword=Telecommunications+services

Helpful starter article:
http://www.jongingerich.com/?p=23

National Retail Federation
http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=Pages&sp_id=1389

On July 1, 2010, Representative Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 5660, the “Main Street Fairness Act,” 24 states ... conformance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
Is your state affected?
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=minnesota

The state of Minnesota became a full member of Streamlined Sales Tax on October 1st, 2005
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesota%20Taxability%20Matrix%202010.pdf

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesosta%20Letter.pdf

Daniel Salomone, MN commissioner of Revenue petition to join
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/MN%20Petition.pdf

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info

I have no financial interest in Tax Free e-Commerce that all Minnesotans cannot easily share in today.
I have no financial interest in any retailer, online or brick & Mortar, Soverain, Amazon, or any entity involved in the ongoing software patent litigation. I have no financial interest in tax-free e-Commerce except as an eBay hobbyist seller. Minnesota e-Commerce is a entrepreneurial activity that the Internet Tax Freedom Act encourages and holds up as an inspiration for others to further our culture.
It's clear Soverain is consistently collecting $2.5 million from anyone it chooses to "hit up" for infringement compensation. Because of this fact, government should not further burden e-retailers who must pay so much for the use of the shopping cart model in daily business.
Further, government should exclude related technologies that are even more broad, such as the hyperlink technology for which a patent has been issued.

Liberals, like Soverain, see e-retailers like Newegg as plump prey to be shaken down. Please elect me to thwart the liberals' worst instincts and preserve internet commerce as tax free with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Amazon 1 Click wins
http://yro.slashdot.org/submission/724171/Amazon-Gives-Thanks-for-Joke-of-a-Patent-System

nice summary of who owns the shopping cart tech:
http://www.internetretailer.com/commentary/2010/07/30/mother-all-patent-battles

Cost
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, applied to businesses as well as online shoppers, would cost $133.675 million, or 2.8% of all 2008 sales and use tax remittance ($4.674 billion business sales and use plus $2 million individual Use remittance).
The Act would require a cut to the regular cost-of-living biennium adjustment of just .4%. That's less than 1/2 of 1%.
http://taxes.state.mn.us/legal_policy/pages/research_reports_sales_use_2008_statistics.aspx

How many of the 160,000 registered businesses remit more than $17,500 in sales and use tax?
It's probably between 1,500 and 5,000. let's say it's 3,500. These 3,500 businesses account for perhaps 85% of all sales and use tax remittance.
The rest of the businesses average a very small remittance - let's just say $450.
So the cost of the small businesses' sales tax exemption is $70.425 million (450 x (160000-3500)). Plus the cost of the estimated 3500 big businesses' exemptions (utilities, phone companies, energy companies and so forth): 3500 x $17500 = $61.25 million. $61.25 million plus $70.425 million = $131.675 million.
Add in the almost negligible $2 million from voluntary paper-filed Use tax remittances from unregistered individuals and you get a total cost of $133.675 million. That's $133.675 million to transform Minnesota overnight into a national small business retail tax haven with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
$133.675 million in tax breaks to the hardest working people in Minnesota, many of whom are caring for an elderly relative or two (while easing the housing and personnel burden of the Human Services commissioner) and would not otherwise be able to if they did not have the means to earn a competitive livelihood online.

I have no financial interest in Tax Free e-Commerce that all Minnesotans cannot easily share in today

I have no financial interest in any retailer, online or brick & Mortar, Soverain, Amazon, or any entity involved in the ongoing software patent litigation. I have no financial interest in tax-free e-Commerce except as an eBay hobbyist seller. Minnesota e-Commerce is a entrepreneurial activity that the Internet Tax Freedom Act encourages and holds up as an inspiration for others to further our culture.
It's clear Soverain is consistently collecting $2.5 million from anyone it chooses to "hit up" for infringement compensation. Because of this fact, government should not further burden e-retailers who must pay so much for the use of the shopping cart model in daily business.
Further, government should exclude related technologies that are even more broad, such as the hyperlink technology for which a patent has been issued.

Liberals, like Soverain, see e-retailers like Newegg as plump prey to be shaken down. Please elect me to thwart the liberals' worst instincts and preserve internet commerce as tax free with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Amazon 1 Click wins
http://yro.slashdot.org/submission/724171/Amazon-Gives-Thanks-for-Joke-of-a-Patent-System

nice summary of who owns the shopping cart tech:
http://www.internetretailer.com/commentary/2010/07/30/mother-all-patent-battles

Below is a recent comment received in regard to the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.

blog said...

In your opening paragraph, you point out your opposition to an awful lot of organizations because their "streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act."

This is a common misconception of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.

Please take a moment to review the 1998 ITFA, in particular § 1104 (2). It describes that no new and discriminatory tax shall be placed on electronic commerce that would not otherwise be due on similar transactions to purchase any property, goods, services, or information through other means.

Sales and use taxes were adopted by the state of Minnesota in 1967 – and since then sale tax has been due on all transactions in the state, unless the purchaser has a valid entity exemption, or the item itself is subject to an exemption.

Exemptions are not available based upon the forum of a particular transaction – as such a definition would be discriminatory and would amount to government favoritism over a particular marketplace.

The ITFA in no way creates any forum-specific exemption for e-commerce. Is this what you are suggesting will be the goal of your “Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act?” I would expect a few retail malls might also appreciate such favoritism. Of course, as long as you are handing out forum-specific tax exemptions, I would expect that a few independent retailers may also appreciate such treatment.

The State of Minnesota is projecting a $4 billion shortfall this year (FY 2011). Last year, Minnesota failed to collect at least $143 million. No matter how aggressively MN continues to cut spending, it will be very difficult to reduce the budget by 25%. The Main Street Fairness Act (HR 5660) will grant Minnesota the right to compel out of state merchants collect and remit local sales taxes.

With the budget crisis being endured by governments across the country, the best ideas will control spending and income in a measured and prudent manner. It is a matter if basic responsibility that Minnesota should collect the tax that is already due, before forcing citizens to endure escalating taxes or reduced services. The Main Street Fairness Act, and the efforts of the 44 states (including Minnesota) in the Streamlined effort over the last 10 years should not be so quickly dismissed as they do not represent a new tax, nor a discriminatory tax on the internet – simply a mechanism to allow states to collect sales taxes which are already due.

R. David L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
The Federal Tax Authority (FedTax.net)



I reponded:


In the SSTGB effort to standardize categories - http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota2010/Minnesota%20Certificate%20of%20Compliance%202010.pdf - great effort is made to exclude specific technologies but no effort is made to exclude or include the shopping cart and online auction technologies most commonly used for e-commerce. We need to address these technologies. Show me where in the SSTGB documents you address these technologies. Eventually organizations like fedtax.net would like to see shopping-cart technology, not currently taxed, dumped into a taxable category such as "telecommunications services". This is dead wrong. It is important we preserve the current tax-free state of this body of technology or the marketplace forum, whatever is current law (and with all due respect I'm not sure you are correct in saying no marketplace-forum-based exclusions exist in tax codes) for future generations. Once taxed, the technology or forum will never again be exempted because the argument that expected revenue is lost will be used.

Hey Tom Horner: HANDS OFF our Minnesota Sales Tax!

Hey Tom Horner: HANDS OFF our Minnesota Sales Tax!
or
Minnesota Miracle Redux - Tax-free Online Commerce - A Win-Win for young and old together.

I oppose the Streamlined Sales Tax (SST),Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), any Sales or Use Tax code upgrading, and all such streamline efforts and attention to government revenue streams that is supported by Democratic revenue stream hunters(Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner, local pundit Andy Driscoll), government tax professionals, democratic social engineers ( the SSUTA governing board), and the National Retail Federation because much of the streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects online commerce by forbidding all government from imposing multiple discriminatory taxes on online commerce.

A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act would clarify what online commerce is and isn't.
Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, all e-commerce such as eBay selling and buying, is online commerce, qualifying for a sales and Use tax exemption for the Minnesota online buyer and seller.

A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will secure an optimistic outlook and competitive edge for all Minnesotans to enjoy.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
It a Win Win situation which costs nothing.
Wait a minute Jamie - aren't we creating 2 Americas - those who buy and sell online tax-free and those who can't afford to and pay Minnesota tax?
Yes - and that's the dynamic that has existed since 1998. What I propose is we recognize the prosperity and hope this generates for the lower and middle class through financial and computer literacy and harness the dynamic for the benefit of Minnesota in the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act - a national first.

There is no ambiguity as to whether Internet Sweepstakes operations will qualify. Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act no online gambling operations will be permitted.

The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act expires in 2014 and until then online commerce can't be taxed. There is enough ambiguity as to whether we are taxing items including items involved in online commerce, in the streamlining efforts of Lenczewski after 1998 (when the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act first took effect) to call for a halt to her work.

California's very poor online sales tax freedom act:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/internet/80824citfa.htm

There is a big difference between the genuine federal Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits multiple and discriminatory tax on online commerce and internet access,
and the limited narrow California bill:

This bill would enact the "California Internet Tax Freedom Act" to prohibit, with specified exceptions, the imposition, assessment, or attempt to collect any of the following: a tax on Internet access, Online Computer Services, or the use of Internet access or any Online Computer Services; a bit or bandwidth tax; or any discriminatory tax on Online Computer Services or Internet access. The bill would make specified legislative findings and declarations in connection with that prohibition.

Ann Lenczewski's redefinition of telecommunication service to potentially include online commerce
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=154&doctype=Chapter&type=0&year=2008

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=297A.669&year=2010&keyword_type=all&keyword=Telecommunications+services

Helpful starter article:
http://www.jongingerich.com/?p=23

national retail federation
http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=Pages&sp_id=1389

On July 1, 2010, Representative Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 5660, the “Main Street Fairness Act,” 24 states ... conformance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement

Is your state affected?
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=minnesota

The state of Minnesota became a full member of Streamlined Sales Tax on October 1st, 2005

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesota%20Taxability%20Matrix%202010.pdf


http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesosta%20Letter.pdf

Daniel Salomone, MN commissioner of Revenue petition to join
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/MN%20Petition.pdf

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info

update
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act applies to both residents and businesses!
update #2

We
Enact a single resolution or rule in the Revenue Department that says no seller shall collect online sales tax from a buyer and that all online sales are subject to Use tax to be paid by buyer only as a Use tax.
Enact a single resolution or rule that raises the Use tax exemption from $770 to $250,000.
Identify in MN code 297A the individual online shopper as an entity-exemption up to $250,000.
Exempt (up to $250,000) all Minnesota consumer-to-consumer and consumer-to-business transactions involving the patented shopping cart technology.
All transactions involving shopping cart technology are subject to Use tax only, not Sales tax.

Incumbents fail to show up for Capitol City Business Debate

Incumbent Reps Mariani and Pappas did not show up for the Capitol City Business
Council Debate last night Oct 12 at the Lao Family Center, 320 University Ave.
I recommend this space for any event - Suggested donation $100. One drawback -
no large kitchen. But plenty of space and a nice stage. Formerly a Union Hall.
We had a great debate with Rick Karschnia SD65 R, Paul Holmgren 65A R, Rena
Moran 65A D, Jamie Delton 65B R, and Amy Smith SD65 I.
Jamie Delton
Candidate, House Rep, West Side/downtown/Fort Road,
and a portion of Summit University
www.JamieforStateRep.com

Central Corridor

Please vote for me November 2 for your West Side/downtown/Fort Road House Rep.
I will represent your views on Central Corridor and help end this potential
nightmare which will congest, pollute, and eventually bring more crime as yet
more retail flees, just as the progressive agenda and big downtown employers
expect.

Here is some background info which most of you already know.

http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=3881

http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=3430

[corrected links from http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/5Z3AgTuU7QvAPBi8xyHd4U]

History of Met Council.
Started as regional Waste Water planning and management entity in late 60's or
early 70's.

The 2008 Transportation Finance Bill created the Counties Transit Improvement
Board (as a Joint Powers Agreement entity, defined in Minnesota statute with
questionable tax authority) and the Grant Evaluation and Ranking System (GEARS)
committee under the Met Council.

Voluntary members of the Met Council's CTIB: Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey
and Washington Counties.
Carver County and Scott County, chose not to join CTIB.
Generally a county board resolution is needed to join.
[corrected from http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/5Z3AgTuU7QvAPBi8xyHd4U]

Among the Counties Transit Improvement Board members:
Ramsey County
Commissioner Jan Parker
Commissioner Jim McDonough
Commissioner
Victoria Reinhardt

For membership, the people you represent get to share the cost of transit.
The Met Council's Counties Transit Improvement Board involves city
"representatives" like St. Paul City Council member Russ Stark as members of
GEARS - whose city interests are opposite of those interests of the 5 county
regional board.

Grant Evaluation and Ranking System (GEARS) committee in Anoka, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington Counties. The 2008 Transportation Finance.
Voluntary members of the Met Council's GEARS:

Council member Russ Stark
City of Saint Paul
Ramsey County Commissioner
Toni Carter
Commissioner
Victoria Reinhardt


The council members should be protecting St. Paul residents from the Met
Council and it's Counties Transit Improvement Board, instead city council
member Stark is applying for membership in the Met Council's
GEARS, and submitting to screening at the League of MN Cities on University
Avenue.

http://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2010/mandated/100155.pdf


Jamie Delton
Candidate, House Rep, West Side/downtown/Fort Road,
and a portion of Summit University
http://www.jamieforstaterep.com/

Minnesota not inspiration for Obamacare

Minnesota had nothing to do with Obamacare. If someone can argue otherwise comment below. I got this doorknocking - a sort of pride in Obamacare. Minnesota has a unique and worthy healthcare system but it is not like the federally proposed healthcare system which we must repeal. For starters there isn't a built-in, unaddressed, growing deficit in the Minnesota healthcare system that there is in the federal system. And Minnesota works closer with large companies to reduce cost for employees than the federal proposal. So when I read about democrat New Jersey US Rep Frank Pallone taking credit for Obamacare, I had to post it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/19/in-the-reality-tv-show-called-politics-there-should-be-a-show-called-the-next-best-political-upset/
"If Pallone wants to take credit for a massive overreach of government, lets help him get that message out to the voters so they make make a real and informed choice to reject candidates like Pallone who are trying to put big government in the drivers seat of our lives."

http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/bills/111/hr3590
H.R.3590: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The bill neither protects the patient nor makes healthcare inexpensive. We've seen before government efforts to control cost and reimburse doctors and hospitals fractionally for the care the doctors give to Medicare patients and Medicaid just induces doctors to charge more to those not in a federal or state program. Very few legislators read it and those who may have read it, could not have known it's final form.Pelosi admitted we would not know what's in it until it is implemented. Yet some Minnesotans, like Carlos Mariani, endorsed it before it became law (http://representativedelton.blogspot.com/2010/03/mariani-signs-internet-pledge-stating.html), and now act like Minnesota's healthcare was the inspiration in some way. I doubt this very much.

http://deltondigest.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare.html

I wrote this last April:

There are four (4) forces in healthcare – insurers, hospitals, doctors and government.

The patient is not being looked out for.
Non-profit healthcare providers and insurers may be thought of as private sector for-profit organizations.
People say this person I know in healthcare insurance makes over 100k, or the doctor I know built an expensive addition. The price of my healthcare is rising like inflation or the cost of education. Why?
The rise in healthcare cost is not like the increased cost to taxpayers of education or an economic
inflation.
Increased healthcare cost is caused by many things though. Increased healthcare cost is partly caused by Medicare low-ball reimbursements and doctors, hospitals or insurers increasing bills of non-Medicare patients in response.
Increased healthcare cost is partly caused by doctors' increasing insurance cost due to needed tort reform that is blocked by the trial lawyer lobby and their political allies. The cost increase is passed along to patients and insurers.
Increased healthcare cost is partly caused by accountability that is lost in the process between doctors and hospitals and insurers that can be fixed with real transparency (not phony sunshine provisions http://www.prescriptionproject.org/tools/sunshine_docs/files/Sunshine_Leg_Language.pdf) and the patient knowing all costs. Patient-centric transparency is not in HR3590. See the 10th paragraph here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/repeal
In the politics of envy, everyone in healthcare might look bad and it's not the case really - most have good intentions. Doctors, insurers, and hospitals are in a complicated free market which is driven by a $37 trillion Medicare deficit and a system that perpetuates the deficit.
In particular the healthcare insurance industry is not lucrative or high-margin - the healthcare industry is ranked 86th in profitability.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/08/health-insurance-industry-ranks-86-by.html
The government take-over of healthcare initiated by HR3950 on March 21 2010 and the reconciliation legislation is a new and important phenomena. We must identify and vote out this pernicious, destructive policy making.
Never before has the government assumed an interest in "revenue streams" like student loans or the auto industry. Never before has a sector of the economy been targeted by government for bankruptcy like private insurance.
Never before has massive debt and needless subsidies been accumulated by government on this scale with the promise of confiscatory tax of citizens and business or brutal national default.
Never before has private competition been so completely locked out of healthcare industry because of regulation or government favoritism.
Never before have the principles of free enterprise been so lost on a president and the will of the people and constitution ignored so callously.
Medicare is being destroyed by Obama and the Democrats in congress. Medicare is raided for $500 billion to pay for additional entitlements for households making $88K. Meanwhile everyone who needs healthcare is not insured.
The states are being burdened with increased federal Medicaid mandates that are federally unfunded.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/03/the-principle-of-repeal/

http://deltondigest.blogspot.com/2009/08/healthcare.html

1 Preserve existing Healthcare
2 Reduce the $37T Medicare deficit without distracting budget triggers and in so doing making Medicare sustainable and free from hidden dependence on future generations.
3 Allow private specialty and doctor owned hospitals.
4 Tort reform
5 Removal of mandates to make coverage affordable.
6 Nationwide cafeteria choice in insurance and HMO's to make coverage affordable.
7 Transform the employer's healthcare tax-break into an individual consumer tax-break

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg1895.cfm

8 Market-based health care including Minute-Clinics
9 Reject Democrats' socialist policy and their idea of public insurance, public option, co-ops, HR676 single payer, etc. Possibly compromise on a heavily regulated insurance industry.
10 Reject and repeal all reform involving distracting government take-overs, reductions in Medicare, and cost-shifting to Medicaid until sustainability is addressed.

#1 is important. HR3590 begins to destroy Medicare in at least two ways - by taking away $500 billion and giving it to a new redundant entitlement, and by tying the hands of those doctors who might want to serve Medicare patients by setting the fee-for-service rates those doctors will be reimbursed by the federal Medicare program too low. In the same way, private insurance is crowded out of the industry by a promised government option. Private insurance faces regulation designed to bankrupt it by setting requirements and price caps under which profitability cannot be maintained. Democrats had planned to set up a government "public option" insurance entity with the confiscatory tax power of the federal government to handle the expected failed insurers' clients. The public option was removed by Democrats. What we are left with is a hobbled private insurance industry absorbing millions of people at federal Medicare or state-funded Medicaid rates, which, under a constitutional system, would inevitably file for bankruptcy, but which will
instead, probably solicit congress for endless taxpayer subsidies.
#2 should be the focus. Once it is accomplished modestly expand Medicare to include the 12 million or so (not 30 million) that cannot afford insurance and need it.
#4 Tort reform -caps on lawsuits - will reduce doctors' insurance costs.
#5 Mandates are items such as port wine stains, mental health service, or HIV, that the state requires (or mandates) insurance companies in MN cover include in their insurance plans. These mandates should not exist. The insurance companies should create the plans for the market.
#6 This will lower premium costs and not burden current federal or state regulators.
#7 Employer-based insurance is a remnant of the WWII era when labor was scarce and companies wanted to attract the best employees. Employer-based insurance tends to lock out smart competitors unsavvy in collective healthcare plans.
#8 Many innovations are market based.
#9 Remember Jason Lewis' ideal capitalist system - subsidies of any kind are unfair government interference and tend to lock out the recipient's competitors. Regulations also tend to discourage competitors.
#10 Repeal!!


Jamie Delton

St. Paul MN April 2010

No Mosque at Ground Zero

Let's demand equal building rights from Saudi Arabia, others.

I want a federal moratorium on building new mosques until we verify Saudi Arabia and other arab countries allow Christians and jews to build in their lands. There seems to be a hostile placement plan, insensitive to 9/11 and confrontational with opponents, Christians and jews.

Some of my concerns are illustrated in a Facebook exchange with a local lefty (http://www.facebook.com/Jamie.Delton).

Visit http://www.facebook.com/JamieforStateRep for my current positions. Visit http://www.deltondigest.com/, and http://www.jamieforstaterep.blogspot.com/ for past positions.
Read about the GZ Mosque Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf in this interview with Walid Shoebat :
http://www.fireandreamitchell.com/2010/08/14/video-ground-zero-mosque-imam-faisal-
abdul-rauf-seeks-shariah-law-in-america

Charles Krauthammer reminds us why we must follow through on the immediate issue at hand. Very simply - the developer's intransigence is sacrilege.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/12/AR2010081204996.html


Sacrilege at Ground Zero

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, August 13, 2010

A place is made sacred by a widespread belief that it was visited by the miraculous

or the transcendent (Lourdes, the Temple Mount), by the presence there once of

great nobility and sacrifice (Gettysburg), or by the blood of martyrs and the

indescribable suffering of the innocent (Auschwitz).

When we speak of Ground Zero as hallowed ground, what we mean is that it belongs to

those who suffered and died there -- and that such ownership obliges us, the

living, to preserve the dignity and memory of the place, never allowing it to be

forgotten, trivialized or misappropriated.

That's why Disney's 1993 proposal to build an American history theme park near

Manassas Battlefield was defeated by a broad coalition that feared vulgarization of

the Civil War (and that was wiser than me; at the time I obtusely saw little harm

in the venture). It's why the commercial viewing tower built right on the border of

Gettysburg was taken down by the Park Service. It's why, while no one objects to

Japanese cultural centers, the idea of putting one up at Pearl Harbor would be

offensive.

And why Pope John Paul II ordered the Carmelite nuns to leave the convent they had

established at Auschwitz. He was in no way devaluing their heartfelt mission to

pray for the souls of the dead. He was teaching them a lesson in respect: This is

not your place; it belongs to others. However pure your voice, better to let

silence reign.

Even New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who denounced opponents of the proposed 15-

story mosque and Islamic center near Ground Zero as tramplers on religious freedom,

asked the mosque organizers "to show some special sensitivity to the situation."

Yet, as columnist Rich Lowry pointedly noted, the government has no business

telling churches how to conduct their business, shape their message or show

"special sensitivity" to anyone about anything. Bloomberg was thereby inadvertently

conceding the claim of those he excoriates for opposing the mosque, namely that

Ground Zero is indeed unlike any other place and therefore unique criteria govern

what can be done there.

Bloomberg's implication is clear: If the proposed mosque were controlled by

"insensitive" Islamist radicals either excusing or celebrating 9/11, he would not

support its construction.

But then, why not? By the mayor's own expansive view of religious freedom, by what

right do we dictate the message of any mosque? Moreover, as a practical matter,

there's no guarantee that this couldn't happen in the future. Religious

institutions in this country are autonomous. Who is to say that the mosque won't

one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi -- spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and

the Christmas Day bomber, and onetime imam at the Virginia mosque attended by two

of the 9/11 terrorists?

An Aulaqi preaching in Virginia is a security problem. An Aulaqi preaching at

Ground Zero is a sacrilege. Or would the mayor then step in -- violating the same

First Amendment he grandiosely pretends to protect from mosque opponents -- and

exercise a veto over the mosque's clergy?


Location matters. Especially this location. Ground Zero is the site of the

greatest mass murder in American history -- perpetrated by Muslims of a particular

Islamist orthodoxy in whose cause they died and in whose name they killed.

Of course that strain represents only a minority of Muslims. Islam is no more

intrinsically Islamist than present-day Germany is Nazi -- yet despite contemporary

Germany's innocence, no German of goodwill would even think of proposing a German

cultural center at, say, Treblinka.

Which makes you wonder about the goodwill behind Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf's proposal.

This is a man who has called U.S. policy "an accessory to the crime" of 9/11 and,

when recently asked whether Hamas is a terrorist organization, replied, "I'm not a

politician. . . . The issue of terrorism is a very complex question."

America is a free country where you can build whatever you want -- but not

anywhere. That's why we have zoning laws. No liquor store near a school, no strip

malls where they offend local sensibilities, and, if your house doesn't meet

community architectural codes, you cannot build at all.

These restrictions are for reasons of aesthetics. Others are for more profound

reasons of common decency and respect for the sacred. No commercial tower over

Gettysburg, no convent at Auschwitz -- and no mosque at Ground Zero.

Build it anywhere but there.

The governor of New York offered to help find land to build the mosque elsewhere. A

mosque really seeking to build bridges, Rauf's ostensible hope for the structure,

would accept the offer.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

A message to local metro PAC's who support Democrat pro-business candidates

I came across a metro PAC's statement on business.

http://www.saintpaulchamber.com/cwt/external/wcpages/public/get_involved.aspx

The PAC endorses and provides contributions to candidates running for elected office with a pro-business agenda. The PAC is an appointed Committee that is funded independently from the Chamber.

What is pro-business and what is Obama business?

It's the difference between a federal statutory line of credit for big business and the thousands of small businesses creating jobs and vitality but denied credit.
To boot their tax helps fund the line of credit for their government-allied competitor.

It's subsidy-chasing, Tax Increment Financed big business versus taxpaying small biz.

It's the possible expiration of the Internet Tax moratorium by federal Democrats in 2011 with Minnesota's long-ignored Use tax revived, ready and waiting ; versus supporting small local internet based businesses.

It's energy tax costs passed onto the small business owner by compliant energy companies thru Al Gore's fraudulently established cap and trade scheme; versus policy that decreases energy cost like facility expansion and competition.

It's large companies meeting rising healthcare costs versus small business that can't afford it.

And yes, it's PAC's in the Democrat metro area saying they only want to support a winner according to poll data they won't share with Republican candidates; versus fighting the Obama administration for the preservation of the system as we know it by backing republican candidates.

The administration's reports of the number of jobs created by government can't be trusted. They once said 2 million jobs would be created abolishing private healthcare insurance. Well the largest insurer at the time employed 69,000. So either the government report is bogus or they need 2 million to do the job of 69,000.

Challenge your fellow PAC's to support Republicans on principle - and not the phony pro-business Obama policy.

Please donate to
www.JamieforStateRep.com

Thank you!
Best Regards,

Jamie Delton
candidate, 65B Downtown St. Paul, Fort Road, West Side, capitol district neighborhoods
651-224-6564

Judicial Reform

Please visit http://www.facebook.com/JamieforStateRep for an important update to the expected 2010 ballot.

Below are my thoughts on judicial reform, which thankfully is not on the ballot this year, and the misguided federal AZ action by Eric Holder at the DOJ. Greg Wersal, who won a landmark 2002 case for the right to free association of judicial candidates, may have been a big influence on the tabling of Quie's judicial reform.

http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/stpaul-issues/messages/topic/5TArq3Jl7SFZaop71XTp2G

Contrast the two links below.

http://www.dolanmedia.com/view.cfm?recID=592187
The DFL has steadfastly declined to endorse judges on the ground that it would be inappropriate, given that such elections are supposed to be nonpartisan.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/96883114.html
Heaney [a democrat judge who passed away June 22 2010 at 92 after serving grateful Minnesotans honorably and well] helped shape political strategy for candidates, organize caucus strategies, acted as a filter on patronage jobs and got out the votes of the party faithful.


The MNGOP party contains two groups of thought on this. One group opposes party endorsement of judicial candidates out of respect for the non-partisan nature of the office, the importance of maintaining the neutrality of the office, and protecting judges from potential moral hazards; and one group supports it. As you can see there are strong arguments for each side.
We can disagree on this issue and still share and enjoy party unity - indeed it is critical to winning our races in 2010 that our party remain strong and enjoy wide support.

June 12 Cambodian Address

Here is the Cambodian Address where MN GOP Chairman Tony Sutton, State Representative Mark Buesgens (on behalf of GOP-endorsed Gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer), candidates SD67 Krysia Weidell, SD65 Rick Karschnia, me, and CD4 US Rep Teresa Collett each spoke briefly before the guest of honor, Sam Rainsy, Cambodian opposition leader, spoke on June 12, 2010 at 7000 Nicollet Ave Mpls MN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcgOS2gsDLE

According to http://www.asianresearch.org/articles/2881.html China’s strongest allies in southest asia are Burma’s General Than Shwe and Cambodia’s Prime Minister Hung Sen, leader of the Cambodian People’s Party (CPP), who is opposed by Sam Rainsy.
Prime Minister Hung Sen and his colleagues are suing political opponents, including Mr Rainsy, for defamation, when the opponents only speak the truth.
As late as 1990 Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot received chinese military assistance along the Thai border.
Vietnam threatens to take Cambodian land in a treaty supported by Prime Minister Hun Sen.
Prime Minister Hun Sen entered a disturbing agreement with China called the Comprehensive Partnership of Cooperation which included military aid, in 2006.
Hor Namhong, deputy prime minister and minister of foreign affairs, on May 2, reported that China offered a modest number of military trucks and uniforms to the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces to replace US military aid, rescinded because Cambodia deported 20 Muslim ethnic Turks, or Uygur refugees, to China in November 2009, to face government punishment for witnessing and documenting the killing of 197 Chinese in Muslim protests.
In few communities in the world, is it more clear, why the US should maintain relations with it’s allies.
Obama should continue US military aid for allies, even if it’s only 200 surplus trucks and trailers, despite brutal human rights violations by china.
Indeed you might say it is critical Obama should continue US military aid for allies because of brutal human rights violations by China and other communist powers.


In the struggle for freedom, the transition from colonial royalty, and the healing of the country after the 1975-79 genocide, there are 3 things Cambodians might be proud of: your ancient culture, your love of the process, and your treatment of Cambodia’s natural resources

1

Cambodia has a culture they can be proud of dating back to the 9th century and preserved for posterity in stone inscriptions at the base of temples. We in Minnesota yearn for such a provenance, and even created our own in 1898 called the Kennsington Runestone.


2. Cambodians are advancing in the use of, and trust of, the party convention process to elect government leaders. Cambodians have a love of the political party convention process as indicated by the alliance between the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP) and the Human Rights Party (HRP)
It is noteworthy and instructive, to Minnesotans, that Cambodians are willing to die for a freedom loving party that represents their country – the SRP, and that the SRP’S ally, HRP, is adapting a political party convention system like what we have here in Minnesota (made up of BPOU's - Basic Political Organizational Units).
Some here in MN occasionally dismiss our political party convention system for creating pragmatic and influential political "operatives" and thoughtless "bots" (short for robot). This a short-sighted criticism of a basically transparent and impartial convention system which both Cambodians and Minnesotans value.


3
The 3rd thing Cambodians can be proud of is
The protected Mekong River rain forest and the giant catfish - the world's largest freshwater fish. It is a joy to look at the wonderful pictures of this great fish and it’s beautiful river. I imagine the unique Mekong tributary, Tonle Sap, flow in reverse from june to september, from the royal palace in Phnom Penh, to the site of the ancient Angkor Wat temple, 200 kilometers away.


In conclusion I hope for Cambodians' continued success in Minnesota and in business through hard work, productivity, and commerce.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Party_(Cambodia)

The Uygur refugee issue represents probably the one issue we can potentially agree on with China. China supported us against Islamic terror in the very beginning on UN resolution 1441. We should support them when 197 of their people are killed by Muslim protesters. Obama is 180 degrees wrong on this of course, punishing impartial Cambodia for returning the Uygur refugees. We must however verify that the culprits get a transparent fair trial and are treated according to international standards.

Here's why it is important we support the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2009

Here's why it is important we support the Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2009 (USl House HR 1560)

http://www.hawaiisenatemajority.com/2010/03/04/in-support-of-streamlined-sales-tax-proposal/

"In 2003, Hawaii became a participant in the national Streamlined Sales
Tax Project by enacting the Hawaii Simplified Sales and Use Tax
Administration Act (Act 173, Session Laws of Hawaii 2003). In 2009, the
State Legislature passed streamlined sales and use tax legislation by
wide margins (23-2 in the Senate, 42-7 in the House) but Governor Linda
Lingle vetoed the measure. Twenty-three states representing over thirty
percent of the nation’s population have already been certified as being
in compliance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement:
Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin."

http://salestaxbuzz.org/2009/03/27/internet-sales-tax-cowgirls/
The well-established multistate Streamlined Sales Tax Project (“SSTP”)

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=327202
"Minnesota: Similar to Hawaii and New York, there’s the late January
introduction of a Minnesota bill (S.F. No. 282) to tax Internet sales.
Rep. Loren Solberg and Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee
proposed an expansion of the tax on Internet sales that currently
applies to sales of over $770 per year to include all Internet sales.
If this bill passes, it will go into effect June 30, 2009. But will
this one pass? Word on the Sales Tax Street is that Governor Pawlenty
just doesn’t like it very much . . . we’ll have to all wait and see"

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/86/HF0401.html

HF0401 Status in House for Legislative Session 86
Bill Name: HF0401
Bill Text Companion: SF0282
Senate author Tom Bakk
Senate Search Revisor Number: 09-1384
House Authors Solberg ; Lenczewski

The socialist liberals accomplish two things: 1) they establish 33% of the states as having passed something related to an internet sales tax to make it look like widespread support and expectation exists.
2) They talk about existing Use laws such as section 297A.14, subdivision 4, which allows a personal use tax exemption for up to $770 in purchases per year, as if they were ever actually applied which they weren't, because of the 1998, 2001, 2004
and 2007 Internet Tax Freedom Acts (IFTA).
The Federal Internet Tax Freedom Act is set to expire in Nov 2011.
It is important H.R. 1560: Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act of 2009
is passed to renew the Internet Tax Freedom Act permanently.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-1560&tab=summary

H.R. 1560
[Good !!]
Rep. Anna Eshoo [D-CA14]hide cosponsors
Cosponsors:
Geoff Davis [R-KY4]
Virginia Foxx [R-NC5]
Jane Harman [D-CA36]
Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]

[Bad !!]
HF0401 Status in House for Legislative Session 86
Bill Name: HF0401
Bill Text Companion: SF0282
Senate author Tom Bakk
Senate Search Revisor Number: 09-1384
House Authors Solberg ; Lenczewski

H.F. No. 401, as introduced - 86th Legislative Session (2009-2010)
Posted on Jan 28, 2009
1.1 A bill for an act
1.2 relating to taxation; sales and use; defining solicitor for nexus
purposes;
1.3amending Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 297A.66, by adding a subdivision.
1.4 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
1.5 Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 297A.66, is amended by adding a
1.6subdivision to read:
1.7 Subd. 4a. Solicitor. (a) "Solicitor," for purposes of
subdivision 1, paragraph (a),
1.8means a person, whether an independent contractor or other
representative, who directly
1.9 or indirectly solicits business for the retailer.
1.10(b) A retailer is presumed to have a solicitor in this state if it enters into an agreement
1.11with a resident under which the resident, for a commission or other consideration, directly
1.12or indirectly refers potential customers, whether by a link on an Internet Web site, or
1.13otherwise, to the seller. This paragraph only applies if the total gross receipts from
1.14sales to customers located in the state who were referred to the retailer by all residents
1.15with this type of agreement with the retailer is at least $10,000 in the 12-month period
1.16ending on the last day of the most recent calendar quarter before the calendar quarter in
1.17which the sale is made.
1.18(c) The presumption under paragraph (b) may be rebutted by proof
that the resident
1.19with whom the seller has an agreement did not engage in any solicitation in the state
1.20 on behalf of the retailer that would satisfy the nexus requirement of the United States
1.21 Constitution during the 12-month period in question. Nothing in this section shall be
1.22construed to narrow the scope of the terms affiliate, agent,
salesperson, canvasser, or other
1.23 representative for purposes of subdivision 1, paragraph (a).
2.1(d) For purposes of this paragraph, "resident" includes an
individual who is a
2.2 resident of this state, as defined in section 290.01, or a business
that owns tangible
2.3 personal property located in this state or has one or more employees
providing services
2.4 for it in this state.
2.5 EFFECTIVE DATE.This section is effective for sales and purchases
made after 2.6June 30, 2009.

Bill Summary
House Research Department
File Number: H.F. 401 Version: As introduced
Date: March 2, 2009
Authors: Solberg and Lenczewski
Subject: Defining “solicitor” for sales tax
nexus purposes

Analyst: Pat Dalton
"The bill defines a “solicitor” as a person who enters into a contract
to directly or indirectly refer potential customers to a business or
the Web site of the business. States that a business is presumed to
have a solicitor in this state, and therefore has a duty to collect the
state sales tax, if it has at least $10,000 annually of sales into
Minnesota based on referrals from residents of this state or businesses
with a physical presence in the state. Provides for a rebuttal of that
presumption. Effective beginning with sales made after June 30, 2009.
This law is based on a law recently enacted in the state of New York.
The law is aimed at establishing a duty to collect sales tax on
out-of-state Internet businesses, such as Amazon.com, that enter into
contracts with bloggers to put links from their sites to the company’s
website. The contracts often specify payment based on the number of
“referrals” or the amount of sales generated through these links.
Amazon challenged the New York law in a state court as violating the
interstate commerce clause. The New York court upheld that law. "

More caselaw (not part of MN analysis):
http://www.disco-tech.org/2007/01/strengthen_the_internet.php
http://money.howstuffworks.com/personal-finance/personal-income-taxes/internet-tax-freedom-act.htm/printable

Pawlenty signs Omnibus pension bill 5/15/10

Pawlenty signs Omnibus pension bill 5/15/10
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/sdaily.asp?sday=5/12/2010
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hinfo/sessiondaily.asp?storyid=2277
http://politicsinminnesota.com/blog/2010/05/pawlenty-signs-pension-bill/

Mariani's HF3093 - licensure reform

http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/sessionweekly/art.asp?ls_year=86&issueid_=59&storyid=1892&year_=2010

I support loosening licensure requirements and encourage mid-career changes into education. But I don't support Mariani's HF3093, despite the union opposition, because the licensure reform is too weak.

Additionally:

"Advocates also like a provision allowing school boards to renew expiring levy referenda at the same rate and term by written resolution, without going to voters."

This cannot happen. We deserve a vote on each and every tax increase.

"Rep. Paul Marquart (DFL-Dilworth) successfully offered an amendment May 4 in the House Taxes Committee that would allow a “reverse” referendum. Within 60 days of a school board deciding to extend a levy, 30 percent of voters could sign a petition to revoke the board’s decision and put it before voters."

This is bogus. 5-8% of the voting population, which is what the state-level and municipal-level petition requirements for city charter amendments and initiatives are, is very difficult without a funded year-long effort. 30%, even if it is within one school district, is an unreasonable percent and practically insurmountable in 2 months. For ISD 625 in 2009, which is roughly the city of St. Paul, 30% of the total vote would have been 10,212. This is an example of why we can't trust Democrats on election policy.

We can't trust the democrats on education policy. There are several questionable past policy decisions Mariani has been involved in, including the requirement new charter schools have a "sponsor" school.

This is too restrictive.

But the important education issues today are the education unions' requests for sustainability funds which are basically bailouts, and the evidence provided by the MMB that no healthcare fund was built up over the many years by MN unions. This deserves the same national attention as New Jersey Governor Christie's discovery of that state's unions' outrageous fiscal neglect, and the opposition to his healthcare fund building effort on behalf of state employees. It is ironic a Republican governor is the one standing up for employees' rights and the responsible management of their dues. The unions apparently would continue to use dues proceeds to advocate for their own continued influence on policy and not on building a fund for their members.
Whoever is doing Session Weekly now is doing a really nice job.

Highland Villager Apr 28 2010 - In the School's Best Interest

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Highland Villager Apr 28 2010 - In the School's Best Interest
See page 9 of the April 28 edition of the Highland Villager. My piece entitled "In the School's Best Interest" in the Inbox section was published. It is a rebuttal to Mariani's Mar 31 Viewpoint commentary.
Here it is:

State Representative Carlos Mariani (DFL-District 65B) writes that during the current session of the Minnesota Legislature he is carrying HF 3421, a bill that he claims will transform high school assessment and accountability and better focus state graduation requirements on preparing students for college (Villager Viewpoint, March 31). Mariani has served on and led House education committees for years, yet admits “the number of U.S. high school students prepared for college and the work place is lagging behind other industrialized countries.” Minnesota is now among the worst in the U.S. for performance of students, after several years of liberal control of state education policy.One thing you notice right away when studying Mariani’s legislative record is how combative he is with commissioners in his legislation. For example, he wrote HF 1818 to require “state commissioners to submit poverty-impact statements on bills when requested by a legislator.” And in 2008 Carlos Mariani co-authored HF3316 where he stipulated that the state commissioner of education, Alice Seagren, who is quite competent, “must not implement any element of any recommendation…without first receiving specific legislative authority to do so.”This is exactly the opposite education approach we need. We need to allow the commissioner to implement executive level solutions, not claim that the legislators somehow know best.
Jamie Delton Summit-University
Editor’s note: The writer is the Republican-endorsed candidate for the state House of Representatives in District 65B.

Obamacare must be Repealed

Obamacare funding is a sham; Obamacare will destroy Medicare and private insurers, raise premiums, and hinder reform.

Medicare, employer-based insurance, healthcare reform, and deficit reduction are put at risk by this administration.

http://deltondigest.blogspot.com/2010/03/obamacare-funding-is-sham-will-destroy.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/print/articles/repeal

65B incumbent Carlos Mariani states he will implement any federal healthcare legislation at the state level:
http://www.progressivestates.org/node/24644

Let's vote him out!
Please vote for me, Jamie Delton, for 65B State Rep this November.

Carlos Mariani ignores emails; Fails to defend Obamacare damage

Carlos Mariani ignores my emails and fails to defend Obamacare damage

The following healthcare update demonstrates why Mariani was wrong to support Obamacare before March 21, when it's final form was passed, to continue to support it as we learn of it's damaging effects on retirees and others, and to "assure you that we will continue to move forward in our 2010 and 2011 sessions to implement whatever federal reforms are finally enacted" in an online petition letter at http://www.progressivestates.org/node/24644.

Op Eds by those Republican legislators in the middle of the fight:
http://spitfiremurphy.wordpress.com/2010/03/26/required-reading-mike-pence-and-paul-ryan-op-eds/

Obamacare costs:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575141642402986422.html

Verizon letter:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTk1OWNjNGNmYWJiOTIzY2E4YjYyYmJjOTJhMGQwZDg=

Verizon, Medtronic, John Deere, Caterpillar and other companies are rescinding retiree drug benefits because HR3590 removes the 28 percent subsidy.

"Because Verizon offers retiree prescription drug coverage today, the government provides a 28 percent subsidy to help offset the financial burden of offering that coverage. The subsidy was intended to help employers continue to offer prescription drug coverage for retirees so that these retirees would not have to use the Government Medicare Part D program. However, changes affecting the Part D subsidy will make it less valuable to employers, like Verizon, and as a result, may have significant implications for both retirees and employers."

bill text:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3590/text

Join me in defending retirees and their modest Prescription Drug benefits.
Vote for Jamie Delton in 2010 and help unseat unresponsive incumbent Carlos Mariani in seat 65B in the Minnesota State House.