By Mark Fernald

Most of what has been written about the so-called LLC tax is not true. A recent change in the law to close a loophole is being characterized as an unfair tax on the self-employed and small businesses, even though the change is unlikely to affect them.

New Hampshire has never taxed earned income (wages). But in 1923, New Hampshire started taxing unearned income with the enactment of the interest and dividends tax.

The intent in 1923 was to tax the wealthy; they were the people with substantial interest and dividends. In the intervening 86 years, more people have become subject to the tax, as the interest and dividend income of the middle class has increased, and as the legislature has failed to adjust the personal exemption amount ($2,400) for inflation.

New Hampshire also taxes business income through the business profits tax. Small businesses are subject to that tax, but most do not pay it because salaries paid to the owners are a deduction. A small-business owner typically sets his salary so that the business income is reduced to zero. The business owner paying herself a salary pays no income tax because New Hampshire does not tax earned income, and the business pays no income tax because all of the profit of the business is paid out in salary.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

Any citizen in New Hampshire can bring a petition article to their Town Warrant by securing the signatures of at least 25 registered voters. The article is then added to the Town Warrant to be voted on in Town meeting. Today, the citizens of Lyndeborough resoundingly approved enacting into the town's laws the following warrant article regarding the counting of votes. I hope that NH citizens all around the state will enact the same law in their town at next year's Town Meetings.

Here is the petition citizens signed to add the article below regarding the counting of votes to the Town Warrant:

To see if the Town of Lyndeborough will prohibit vote counting concealed from the human eye by method of computers or otherwise, and require that all methods used for sorting and counting the votes in an election be publicly observable for full citizen oversight of the entire voting system (with the exception of the voter’s casting of the secret ballot).

First Iceland, then the World

Written by Michael Collins

SOURCE: DailyCensored.com

Michael Collins
The public is angry. Why should the public pay for the bankers mistakes. Iceland blogger Halldor Sigurdsson

Who cleans up the mess when ignorant, greedy bankers rack up massive debt then go broke? The people of Iceland made a strong statement Saturday. The sins of big bankers and government regulators shouldn’t fall on the citizens. By a 93% to 2% margin, they voted down a proposal requiring them to cover bad debt incurred by one of the nation’s oldest and largest banks. Covering the debt would have cost Iceland’s 317,000 citizens around $17,000 each.

Iceland’s national referendum was the first opportunity for the people of any nation to vote directly on who pays when the financial elite fail.

As citizens voted, Iceland’s Prime Minister was dismissing the importance of the vote and promising to negotiate a payment scheme obligating citizen subsidies for bad debt created by Iceland’s beyond-bad bankers.

March 6, 2010, By Joan Brunwasser

For a long time, I've been fascinated by the MRFF, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, especially after I read founder Mikey Weinstein's book. I recently learned that best-selling author and former evangelical Frank Schaeffer is on their advisory board. I interviewed him several months ago, so I invited him back today. Welcome to OpEdNews, Frank. Let's start at the very beginning. Can you tell our readers what MRFF is?

MRFF's role is to ensure that our government does indeed adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of the Constitution; that it leads by example when it comes to not allowing the military to become a place where religion takes residence as if in a church! Mikey Weinstein, who founded it, has a passion to protect us from the pitfall of allowing fundamentalists to hijack our military in order to 1) convert soldiers and 2) use our military as a platform for missionary work world-wide.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

February 23, 2010 By Joan Brunwasser

More Ellsberg: The Pentagon Papers and John Dean, Then and Now

My guest today is "the most dangerous man* in America" whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg. When you released the Pentagon Papers to the New York Times, you knew that you could be facing life in prison. Luckily, that turned out not to be the case. But, if you were to have done comparable actions since the passage of the Patriot Act, they would have tossed you in prison and thrown away the key. That's a sobering, concrete example of where we are almost forty years later. Do you ever think about that?

Good question. Actually, although (unknown to me and almost everyone else) the prior law was on my side in 1971-73, I came pretty close to spending 115 years in prison then. With good behavior, I would have gotten out (after 35 years) in 2008. It took a lot of luck, and a handful of individuals who told the truth (John Dean about the burglary, someone in the FBI about the electronic overhearing) to overcome the attempts of the president to bribe my judge with the directorship of the FBI.

And even before the Patriot Act, the trend of legal opinions--the terrible judgments in the Samuel Loring Morison case in 1984, an increasing disregard of legislative history which had weighed against using the Espionage Act as an Official Secrets Act--was against the chances for a future leaker of classified information. The Patriot Act itself didn't affect this situation that much. It doesn't include an Official Secrets Act--almost by oversight--though another 9-11 could almost surely get us one, even from Obama.

However, the Patriot Act and related legislation do have the effect of legalizing most of the actual crimes against me by Nixon. Sneak-and-peek entries and burglaries of a doctor's office, in search of information to use against a "terrorist suspect"? (i.e., someone like me who opposes and resists a president's terrorism). Legal, now. Warrantless wiretaps? Legal. Use of CIA against an American citizen? Legal.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

February 17, 2010 Annette Vander Ploeg: We Were First Responders to Haiti's Earthquake

By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome to OpEdNews, Annette. Last month, you were either in the right place at the right time or the wrong place at the wrong time. Please tell our readers why you were in Haiti in the first place.

I was one of 23 people who were on a team sponsored by Little by Little, (liitlebylittlehaiti.org) a nonprofit foundation focusing on pediatric medical care. Started by Sue Walsh, a nurse practitioner who teaches at UIC, groups of medical personnel (and non-medical, like myself) have been going several times a year for five years. This was my first year. We had been there a week, planning on leaving the 13th when the quake hit on the 12th.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

The Florida Supreme Court has just ruled in the appeal of Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections, et. al., v Browning et.al.
They ruled that the major portions of our county charter amendment, Parts a and b, requiring paper ballots and mandatory, random audits (spot checks) of machine counts are constitutional.

Part c (requiring under certain circumstances that all ballots be audited prior to certifying elections) was ruled unconstitutional, but the Court severed part c from the law. Parts a (paper ballots) and b (mandatory spot audits) remain in the law and are valid. We knew that the ruling on part c was a possibility, but are very pleased with the positive rulings for paper ballots and mandatory audits.

The ruling that Florida law does not preempt home rule charter counties from adding protections for voters is a huge success. We still look forward to the day when the Florida legislature enacts a law similar to part c of our charter amendment which requires an audit of all ballots prior to certification if it appears that the machines may be malfunctioning.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

---

February 4, 2010, BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris Tackles the Holt Bill, Part Two, By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome back for the second half of my interview with BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris. If people in the EI Election Integrity movement have serious reservations about the Holt Bill, Bev, why don't you just talk with Rep. Holt and give him your input? Who knows more about this than the actual people who have been in the trenches all these years?

Mr. Holt doesn't have the slightest interest in anything I have to say -- or anyone else advocating for restoration of public right to see and authenticate all steps in our own elections. What we are looking for won't line the pockets of the e-voting industry (and all the related little support industries that have developed). In fact, the kinds of solutions that will move us towards restoration of public elections:

SOURCE: OpEdNews

February 3, 2010, BlackBoxVoting's Bev Harris Tackles the Holt Bill, By Joan Brunwasser

Bev Harris is an investigative journalist and founder of non-partisan, election watchdog BlackBoxVoting.org. Welcome back to OpEdNews, Bev. The Election Integrity (EI) community is once more abuzz regarding Rep. Holt's proposed election legislation, the "Voter Confidence Act." Why is this such a constant lightning rod for people who care about election integrity?

The Holt Bill has literally split the election reform community into two camps, and that may turn out to be a good thing. On the one side are those of us who see current US election processes as a violation of human rights. On the other side are advocates willing to forego the right to public elections if they can just tweak the way concealed election processes are administered. I say this could turn out to be a good thing, because it forces us to articulate the end goal.

NEWS RELEASE FOR DISTRICT FIVE January 27, 2010 FROM DEBORA B. PIGNATELLI, Executive Councilor

January 27, Concord, NH - Listed below are some of the items that were approved at the Governor and Council Meeting on January 27, 2010 that might be of interest to District Five constituents.

The next Governor and Council Meeting will be held on Tuesday,

February 9, 2010 in the State House, Concord, NH.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT FINANCE AUTHORITY

Authorized to enter into an agreement with the City of Nashua, NH, for the purpose of establishing financing mechanisms for purchase and redevelopment of foreclosed upon homes and residential properties; purchasing and rehabilitating homes and residential properties that have been abandoned or foreclosed upon, in order to sell, rent, or redevelop such homes and properties; demolishing blighted structures; and redeveloping demolished or vacant properties in the amount of $1,500,000. Effective upon G&C approval through March 9, 2013. 100% Federal Funds.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

ebruary 1, 2010

Roger Shuler on Recent Supreme Court Decision

By Joan Brunwasser

Roger Shuler is an Alabama journalist and The Legal Schnauzer blogger. Welcome back to OpEdNews. The big news of late is the recent Supreme Court decision striking down limits on corporate campaign contributions. Everyone feels strongly about it. How about you, Roger?

My primary interest is how it possibly reflects on the apparent political prosecutions of the George W. Bush Justice Department. In the Paul Minor case in Mississippi, Minor's attorneys have already raised the Citizens United v. FEC ruling in their motion for reconsideration with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.All sidesseem to agree that a quid pro quo--something for something deal--remains illegal. But Minor's attorneys argue that there was no quid pro quo in his case, and the jury instruction did not require one. Therefore, based on Citizens United, the prosecution and conviction that Minor faced was aviolation of his First Amendment rights.

BY Paul Lehto

SOURCE: DU

"Citizens United" Attorney and Strategist Admits He's Almost Done with 10-Year Plan to Destroy Campaign Laws, The Final Step is Destroying Disclosure Rules Creating SECRET Contributions

James Bopp, Jr., the spearhead strategist for the group Citizens United as well as their lead attorney in the trial court for the Citizens United case just decided at the US Supreme Court, said the following about his several US Supreme Court successes in demolishing the idea that the government has the power to do ANYTHING in terms of regulation of campaign finance:

---

From Monday, January 25, 2010 New York Times, Page A11:

“We had a 10-year plan to take all this {campaign finance regulation} down,” he said in an interview. “And if we do it right, I think we can pretty well dismantle the entire regulatory regime that is called campaign finance law.”

How The American People Can Defeat Unlimited Corporate Money and Influence in Elections

By Kathleen Wynne

(With Contributions by Karen Renick)

“There is a dangerous, misguided movement out there that if we just let business rule the nation, all will be well -- markets will take care of themselves, health care, jobs, just let business handle it. You know who says that the loudest? Business.

And now, it can say it even louder. It can shout down any candidate who opposes it. What happened to ‘of the people, by the people, for the people’?”

Excerpt from “Big Biz Needed No Help InThe Election Game”, by Mitch Albom, columnist, Detroit Free Press

The country is rightfully reeling from the recent U.S. Supreme Court’s partisan 5/4 decision this past Thursday ruling that the “government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections.” This decision, without question, continues the devastation of the power of the people in the elections process by ruling that corporations are “persons” who have a First Amendment Right to make campaign contributions without any kind of restriction.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

January 17, 2010

By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome to OpEdNews, Brad. There's a lot riding on Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts for Sen. Ted Kennedy's replacement. It should have been a cakewalk for Martha Coakley. What's going on?

I'll leave the politics of the matter to those more closely involved in them. It's gonna be a tough slog this year for all Democrats, particularly in light of their "play it safe" positions on well, just about everything.

That said, on the eve of the important special election where their "filibuster-proof" majority hangs in the balance, my top concern is to make sure that the candidate who receives the most votes actually gets to WIN this time, and that the citizens of both MA and the U.S., know for a fact that that person has actually won!

Driving to Concord for the first day of committee hearings in the New Year, I looked forward to a short and pretty casual meeting of the Senate Energy, Environment and Economic Development Committee. After all, there was just one bill (SB 73), held over from last year, to be heard and it related to an annual report on the state’s efforts to reduce energy consumption.

My plans were shattered when Gail Brown, my assistant passed along an email that said that after the public hearing on SB 73 the committee would hold a public information session on a bill that had not formally emerged from the drafting process. I was surprised that I did not know about the planned session. I was told it was listed in our weekly calendar. And so it was but not in the usual section. It was listed with the “notices,” between information on filing our annual financial disclosure form and an invitation to attend a cocktail party hosted by a lobby firm after our January 6 legislative session. Easy to miss.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

January 10, 2010

Part Two: Veteran Journalists Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould Give OpEdNews the Lowdown on Afghanistan

By Joan Brunwasser

Welcome back for the conclusion of my interview with Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould. In the first half, you dissected how we got to this point. The next question for you two is, can we break out of this military mindset?

The U.S. is currently in a tenuous financial arrangement with the rest of the world and especially Russia and China. How long the United States can continue to act as a hegemonic power in Central Asia with the intention of controlling pipeline routes against Chinese and Russian interests is a delicate and growing issue. Without careful and ingenious diplomacy, the United States could soon find itself as the odd man out. No amount of military thinking or spending will resolve the problem the United States faces. If the United States can't adjust to this new post cold war reality, then the U.S. will go the way of the Soviet Union.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

January 9, 2010

Veteran Journalists Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould Give OpEdNews the Lowdown on Afghanistan

By Joan Brunwasser

Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are a husband and wife team of journalists who have spent the last thirty years keeping a close eye on Afghanistan. They are the go-to folks if you want to really understand this hot spot and its history. Welcome to OpEdNews, Paul and Liz. Your book, Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story, came out last year. Please tell our readers a bit about your background and what made you the right ones for the job.

Paul and Liz

Big things were happening in 1978, with new approaches to old problems as the Carter administration vowed to eliminate the threat of nuclear war and reevaluated detente with the Soviet Union. The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, SALT was a major vehicle for these changes and by 1979 we had focused on its impact by interviewing the central figures. By the end of 1979, we had finished a documentary called the Arms Race and the Economy, A Delicate Balance, analyzing the effects of defense spending on the US economy. Having experienced a decade of improving relations with the Soviet Union our documentary was received with great interest.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

January 7, 2010

New Study Asks "Was Prop 8 Straight?"

By Joan Brunwasser

Exclusive Interview with EI Advocates Sally Castleman and Emily Levy

I have with me Sally Castleman of Election Defense Alliance and Emily Levy of Velvet Revolution, two veterans of the Election Integrity movement. Welcome to OpEdNews, Emily and Sally.

In November 2008, Proposition 8 was a hot issue in the State of California. The proposition actually stripped existing marriage equality rights. There were strong feelings on both sides; between supporters and opponents, over $80 million was raised. The proposition was passed and the state constitution was amended. Almost immediately after the election, questions were raised about the validity of the election results. Recently, a study on Proposition 8 was released. What does the study show?

Sally: The study shows that at ten polling places in Los Angeles County where the exit polls were performed (that covered 19 precincts) the official election results appear to have been corrupted. The study doesn't prove that the results were wrong. Neither can whether any incorrect vote counts were the result of error or fraud. But the results of the study indicate that an investigation is warranted.

Sally Castleman

Emily: Fortunately, because California does have paper ballots and those ballots by law must still exist, an investigation is possible. In states where touch screen voting machines are used, a problem like this could not be evaluated effectively. In this case, if the chain of custody of the ballots and other evidence has been maintained, a meaningful investigation should be possible and should be initiated immediately by the Secretary of State's office. We've launched a new website, www.WasProp8Straight.org, where readers can write email to Secretary Bowen and take other actions.

SOURCE: OpEdNews

January 6, 2010

Maggie Mahar Untangles Health Care Legislation For OpEdNews

By Joan Brunwasser

Maggie Mahar is a Century Foundation fellow and expert on American health care. She is the author of the ground-breaking book, Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much. Welcome to OpEdNews, Maggie. Well, the Senate finally managed to pass a health care bill on Christmas Eve. How should we regard it? Is it a holiday gift or another boondoggle masquerading as meaningful, far-reaching reform?

This bill is a start. Over the next three years, there will be amendements and more legislation. This is not the final word on reform. For low-income people and people suffering from pre-existing conditions, this legislation offers much-needed help. This is important. But healthcare will remain too expensive for most of us unless the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (formerly called the Independent Medicare Advisory Council -- or IMAC) is given the power to change what Medicare (and other payers) pay for, and how they pay for it.

Some hospitals are overpaid -- they are being rewarded for being inefficient. In hospitals where more patients contract infections or fall victim to medical errors, they stay longer and undergo more procedures. As a result, Medicare winds up paying those hospitals more. Medicare needs to begin using financial sticks to encourage hospitals to pay more attention to patient safety. Medicare can also use financial carrots to reward hospitals with good safety records.

The lowest paid state employees are the court security officers including my neighbor.

As chair of the Senate Ways and Means Committee, I serve on the Joint Committee on Employee Relations. It is a blue chip committee chaired by the Speaker of the House. The Senate President, chairs of key House and Senate financial committees and minority leaders of both chambers serve on the committee as required by statute.

The employee relations committee has a narrow responsibility. It must hold a public hearing on labor contracts and make a recommendation on each contract to the legislature. So, the committee needs to meet infrequently.

The committee held a public hearing last week on a labor contract for the approximately 130 district court security officers that are currently paid $65 per day. If they work a full week, that would be $8.67 per hour. That is $3 less per hour than the next lowest paid position in state government.

Chief Justice John Broderick considered the issue so important that he personally came and testified. He said that “court security is a major concern of the judicial branch …” and believes “court security is one of the greatest challenges in government.” The Judge has been consistent saying that security is a problem and worries that one day he will get a call telling him of a killing or serious injury caused by a disruption in a New Hampshire courthouse.