Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Utah seeks to exempt its guns from federal rules

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=9550878

CONCEALED_WEAPONS_nat_1600.jpg
Utah seeks to exempt its guns from federal rules
February 2nd, 2010 @ 6:46pm
By Brock Vergakis, Associated Press writer

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Guns made and kept in Utah would be exempt from federal regulations under a measure the Utah Senate gave its initial approval to Tuesday, despite concerns it could lead to a costly legal fight in a lean budget year.

Senate Bill 11 mirrors one signed into law in Montana last year that's intended to trigger a federal court battle.

Both are intended to allow guns made in their respective states to be exempt from rules on federal gun registration, background checks and dealer-licensing.

The goal is to circumvent federal authority over interstate commerce, which is the legal basis for most gun regulation in the United States.

In the process, it could lead to small arms dealers in the state operating with little to no oversight.

Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem, said her bill is part of a broader effort to send a message to Congress that the federal government is overstepping its bounds.

"This is about our state's immutable right to establish control of our own rules and laws in our state," she said.

The Senate approved Dayton's bill 19-10. It needs one more formal vote before advancing to the House.

Efforts to bypass federal authority have been heard before by the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2005, the court upheld federal regulation of marijuana in California, even if its use is limited to noncommercial purposes and is grown and used within a state's borders.

Legislative attorneys said Dayton's bill has a high probability of being found unconstitutional, but she said it's a fight worth having.

Senate Minority Leader Pat Jones, D-Holladay, isn't so sure.

Jones said that at a time Utah faces a $700 million budget shortfall, the state shouldn't waste resources fighting legal battles solely intended to send a message. Dayton acknowledged she didn't want anybody to violate federal gun laws under Utah's statute until Montana's law had worked its way through the courts.

That process has already begun.

The Department of Justice, in a brief filed last month, asked a judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed last year by gun advocates in Montana who argued the state should decide which rules, if any, would control the sale and purchase of guns and paraphernalia made in Montana.

The brief said the 1934 National Firearms Act was first put in place to regulate guns that could be "used readily and efficiently by criminals or gangsters."

Congress followed it in 1968 with a gun control act aimed at decreasing serious crime, and further strengthened its control over interstate commerce, the brief points out.

Those laws and others all mean to keep tabs on guns that easily pass between state borders, the Justice Department argued.

(Copyright 2010 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Utah lawmakers take on federal government with several bills

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=9554110

February 2nd, 2010 @ 6:24pm
By Richard Piatt

SALT LAKE CITY -- Utah lawmakers are taking a stand for states' rights. Tuesday, two bills advanced that take on the federal government and its laws.

There are strong feelings that the federal government is too big, and therefore too intrusive. The bills that advanced are among a dozen or so similar ones at the Utah Legislature.

The first bill, House Bill 67, would put the brakes on any federal health care legislation Congress may pass. It would prohibit any state agency from implementing the federal programs without reporting to the Legislature first. In other words, the Legislature and governor would have to approve of it.

It would also provide a way for Utah to opt out of such a bill. Rep. Carl Wimmer, R-Herriman, is sponsoring the bill and says support has been overwhelming.

"That's the way it should be," Wimmer says. "We are representatives of the people. We are set up to protect their rights. We should be a stopgap to prevent what the federal government is trying to impose on them."

Related:
Utah seeks to exempt its guns from federal rules
Guns made and kept in Utah would be exempt from federal regulations under a measure the Utah Senate has initially approved.

A second states' rights bill, Senate Bill 11, passed the full Senate Tuesday morning. It would keep federal firearms laws from applying to a gun or ammo manufactured in Utah, and Utah-made firearms would have "made in Utah" stamped on them.

The bill is patterned after a Montana law, and several other states are joining in that state's court fight to tell the federal government to back off.

"It's called 'emerging consensus' when you have so many states following the same pattern and using the same language," said Sen. Margaret Dayton, R-Orem. "The issue really is the Constitution. We're just addressing the guns process."

Dayton also took on No Child Left Behind a few years ago. The difference now is that many more states are part of this fight.

E-mail: rpiatt@ksl.com

IRS Purchasing Shotguns...Are they that unpopular? ;)

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8d3b076bd4de14bbda5aba699e80621d&tab=core&_cview=1&cck=1&au=&ck=

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) intends to purchase sixty Remington Model 870 Police RAMAC #24587 12 gauge pump-action shotguns for the Criminal Investigation Division. The Remington parkerized shotguns, with fourteen inch barrel, modified choke, Wilson Combat Ghost Ring rear sight and XS4 Contour Bead front sight, Knoxx Reduced Recoil Adjustable Stock, and Speedfeed ribbed black forend, are designated as the only shotguns authorized for IRS duty based on compatibility with IRS existing shotgun inventory, certified armorer and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Obama budget: Record spending, record deficit

And yes, I opposed it when the republicans were over spending too

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100201/ap_on_bi_ge/us_budget

WASHINGTON – Spelling out painful priorities, President Barack Obama urged Congress on Monday to quickly approve a huge new shot of spending for recession relief and job creation, part of a record $3.8 trillion budget that would boost the deficit beyond any in the nation's history while only slowly beginning to put Americans back to work.

If Congress goes along with Obama's election-year plan, the nation would still end the year with unemployment pushing double digits at 9.8 percent and this year's pool of government red ink deepening to $1.56 trillion — by the administration's accounting.

The spending blueprint for next year calls for tax cuts for workers and business and more aid for cash-starved state governments as well as the unemployed. The jobs initiative largely mirrors last year's stimulus bill, but is about one-third its size. The president is asking for nearly $300 billion for recession relief and job stimulus.

The budget paints a remarkably dire picture of a federal government that will have to borrow one-third of what it spends next year as it runs a deficit that still would total some $1.3 trillion.

At the same time, Obama is acutely aware that persistent joblessness is the issue most likely to spell political trouble for Democrats in this year's midterm elections — and perhaps for his own re-election chances in 2012.

The president's budget plan sees the deficit coming down by nearly $300 billion next year, and he's offering more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction proposals over the coming decade.

While proposing increases for immediate needs, he urged lawmakers to follow his lead and make cuts, even painful ones in programs dear to them. "I'm asking Republicans and Democrats alike to take a fresh look at programs they've supported in the past to see what's working and what's not, and trim back accordingly," he said.

"What I reject is the same old grandstanding when the cameras are on, and the same irresponsible budget policies when the cameras are off," the president said. "It's time to save what we can, spend what we must, and live within our means once again."

Republicans weren't impressed with the proposals.

"They're not willing to do big ideas. They're doing ideas that create perception but don't do anything big," said New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg, senior Republican on the Budget Committee. "The spending freeze for example. You're talking what, $10 billion on a $1.6 trillion deficit?"

Democrats, facing the prospect of major losses in November, are likely to join Republicans in balking at many of Obama's proposals. Moderate Democrats already are wary of another debt-financed economic stimulus program and may also choke on many of the recommended tax increases and spending cuts.

Obama's proposal to cut payments to wealthier farmers, for example is probably dead on arrival and his renewed push to end purchases of new C-17 cargo planes for the military is sure to incite a battle with lawmakers from California, where the planes are assembled.

Proposing a partial spending freeze, tax increases for wealthier people and a new fee on banks, the president's proposal still amounts to just tinkering at the edges of the larger budget problem.

Obama's budget presents a delicate balance between trying to cement the fragile recovery and pivoting to curb deficits that are on the rise not only in dollar figures but also as a political issue that is causing Democrats to lose popularity with independent voters.

So while pledging to tackle deficits, he also said that continuing them in the short term is necessary to help lower unemployment. We will "do what it takes to create jobs," he said. "It's essential."

His budget proposed a job creation tax credit of up to $5,000 for each new worker that businesses hire, another round of one-time $250 checks for senior citizen on Social Security and extended unemployment benefits and health insurance subsidies for the jobless. Obama also wants to extend a $400 "Making Work Pay" tax credit for most workers through 2011.

While White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs spoke Sunday of a $100 billion jobs initiative, these "temporary recovery measures" in fact total $282 billion through the autumn of 2012, according to budget documents.

At the same time, Obama wants to hand off to a commission decisions on the tough steps needed to reduce deficits and slow the growth in the federal debt to levels economists deem prudent. The panel's recommendations wouldn't be due until after the midterm election.

Obama's proposal lays out a path to reduce annual deficits to about $700 billion in four years, but ideas for tax increases or cuts in popular benefit programs like Medicare or Social Security to reduce them an additional $200 million would have to come from the commission.

"We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences, as if waste doesn't matter, as if the hard-earned tax dollars of the American people can be treated like Monopoly money, as if we can ignore this challenge for another generation," Obama said.

Balancing the budget or producing surpluses of the kind from 1998 through 2001 is now seen as all but impossible. Instead, many policymakers are for a secondary goal of stabilizing the national debt in relation to the size of the economy. That generally requires keeping the deficit to 3 percent of gross domestic product. Just three years ago, the deficit stood at 1.2 percent of GDP. This year it's 10.6 percent.

Obama dropped his plan into a poisonous election-year atmosphere. Republicans in Congress immediately labeled it as a toxic mix of higher taxes, big spending and debt, saying it would still produce deficits totaling $8.5 trillion over the coming decade.

Obama inherited a difficult deficit situation when taking office amid a severe recession and financial crisis that made tax revenues plummet and caused unemployment benefits and food stamp costs to spike.

"When I first walked through the door, the deficit stood at $1.3 trillion," Obama said, citing the estimates that greeted him a year ago.

Still, Obama now mostly owns the deficit as a political issue after passing last year's $862 billion economic stimulus bill and other major spending legislation that's earned mixed reviews with the public.

Obama would extend most of former President George W. Bush's tax cuts, as they apply to middle-income earners. Married couples making more than $250,000 and individuals making more than $200,00 would see their marginal tax rates rise to as much as 39.6 percent and also lose some of the benefits they take on itemized deductions like charitable gifts and mortgage interest.


"Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100201/bs_nm/us_budget_backdoortaxes


NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.



Monday, February 1, 2010

States seeking to ban mandatory health insurance

By David A. Lieb
Associated Press, Published: Monday, Feb. 1, 2010

The full article is at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700006299/States-seeking-to-ban-mandatory-health-insurance.html

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Although President Barack Obama's push for a health care overhaul has stalled, conservative lawmakers in about half the states are forging ahead with constitutional amendments to ban government health insurance mandates.


The proposals would assert a state-based right for people to pay medical bills from their own pocketbooks and prohibit penalties against those who refuse to carry health insurance.

In many states, the proposals began as a backlash to Democratic health care plans pending in Congress. But instead of backing away after a Massachusetts election gave Senate Republicans the filibuster power to halt the health care legislation, many state lawmakers are ramping up their efforts with new enthusiasm.

The moves reflect the continued political potency of the issue for conservatives, who have used it extensively for fundraising and attracting new supporters. The legal impact of any state measures may be questionable because courts generally have held that federal laws trump those in states.

Lawmakers in 34 states have filed or proposed amendments to their state constitutions or statutes rejecting health insurance mandates, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a nonprofit group that promotes limited government that is helping coordinate the efforts. Many of those proposals are targeted for the November ballot, assuring that health care remains a hot topic as hundreds of federal and state lawmakers face re-election.

Re: [Right Jeff] Carl Wimmer: Bill to opt-out of health care

Here is the email addresses for Utah's representatives. Let them know what you think of HB67
bcferry@utah.gov,    bdaw@utah.gov,    bdee@utah.gov,    beckyedwards@utah.gov,    billwright@utah.gov,    blast@utah.gov,    blockhart@utah.gov,    briansking@utah.gov,    bwallis@utah.gov,    cfrank@utah.gov,    cherrod@utah.gov,    christinejohnson@utah.gov,    coda@utah.gov,    csmoss@utah.gov,    curtwebb@utah.gov,    cwatkins@utah.gov,    cwimmer@utah.gov,    daagard@utah.gov,    dclark@utah.gov,    dipson@utah.gov,    dlitvack@utah.gov,    ehutchings@utah.gov,    evickers@utah.gov,    fgibson@utah.gov,    fhunsaker@utah.gov,    gfroerer@utah.gov,    greghughes@utah.gov,    janderson34@utah.gov,    janicefisher@utah.gov,    jbird@utah.gov,    jbiskupski@utah.gov,    jdougall@utah.gov,    jdraxler@utah.gov,    jdunnigan@utah.gov,    jfisher@utah.gov,    jgowans@utah.gov,    jmathis@utah.gov,    jseegmiller@utah.gov,    jseelig@utah.gov,    kaymciff@utah.gov,    keithgrover@utah.gov,    kgarn@utah.gov,    kraigpowell@utah.gov,    ksumsion@utah.gov,    kwgibson@utah.gov,    lblack@utah.gov,    lfowlke@utah.gov,    lhemingway@utah.gov,    lwiley@utah.gov,    mariepoulson@utah.gov,    markwheatley@utah.gov,    melbrown@utah.gov,    merlynnnewbold@utah.gov,    mikemorley@utah.gov,    mnoel@kanab.net,    neilhansen@utah.gov,    nhendrickson@utah.gov,    ppainter@utah.gov,    pray@utah.gov,    priesen@utah.gov,    rchouck@utah.gov,    rgreenwood@utah.gov,    rmenlove@utah.gov,    rogerbarrus@utah.gov,    ronbigelow@utah.gov,    ryanwilcox@utah.gov,    sclark@utah.gov,    sduckworth@utah.gov,    sherylallen@utah.gov,    ssandstrom@utah.gov,    steven_mascaro@comcast.net,    tbeck@utah.gov,    tcosgrove@utah.gov,    toddkiser@utah.gov,    wharper@utah.gov

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Jeff <jeff.a.baird@gmail.com> wrote:

ACTION ALERT! Tue. Feb. 2nd at 8:00am, Rm W30 of the state capitol, the House Health and Human services committee will take official action on HB67, the opt-out of the Fed. health care bill! If you're able to come, we want to pack the room with support! If you can't come, email the state Reps and tell them to support HB67 Carl Wimmer's health care opt-out bill. (will post a link below to the emails of all Reps)



--
Posted By Jeff to Right Jeff at 1/30/2010 04:54:00 PM