A New Money Machine for Policy Makers: The Plastic Bag Tax

When first reading the headline about taxing plastic bags I thought what a novel idea. Surely we could support a tax that would promote limiting the "plastic faced bag" of the left -- Nancy Pelosi.

Upon further reading it was discovered this is really just another "money-grabbing" sin tax....

From ABC News --

Who knew the lightweight disposable sacks, which millions of shoppers use every day to lug home groceries and take-out, could help states bring in much needed revenue.

Starting next year, Seattle residents will pay for disposable bags at stores.

At least, that's what some policymakers have proposed. Only one US city – Washington, D.C. – has successful instituted a plastic bag tax, but at least 13 other states are considering one.

The plastic bag tax represents an expansion of so-called sin taxes, which have existed, in some form, since George Washington's whiskey tax.

This year, several states have increased sin taxes, especially cigarette taxes, to raise revenues. But more plastic bag taxes seem unlikely – two cities, Fairbanks, Alaska, and Seattle, Wash., have both repealed plastic bag taxes shortly after approving them in recent years. More...

We would still support a Anti-Pelosi Tax!

Butler County GOP Supports Immigration Reform for OH

It sure is nice to see a county Republican party from OH being proactive in the fight against illegal immigration....

From the Fairfield -Echo --

The Butler County GOP passed a resolution at its organizational meeting Wednesday, June 30, commending Sheriff Richard Jones and State Rep. Courtney Combs for their efforts regarding immigration reform.

In the resolution, party members praised Jones and Combs for their efforts to secure the nation’s border and added that “this part commits to assist them in that goal.”

Jones and Combs have vowed to bring immigration reform to Ohio by putting a citizens initiative before the Ohio General Assembly next year. If lawmakers don’t act on it, the issue could go to voters in November 2011.

Their goal is a bill in Ohio that “mirrors” the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement to question anyone detained in the enforcement of another law about his or her immigration status if there’s reasonable suspicion that person is in the country illegally.

If you are aware of another Republican or Democrat county party standing up for OH residents by combating illegal immigration please notify us so they too can be commended.

For Tea Party & 9.12 members that have recently joined Central and/or Executive Committee positions on a county party, ask that your county party do the same.

Locally, we will be asking the candidates running for Cuyahoga County Executive their position on illegal immigration -- Should the Federal Immigration Laws be enforced? Do they support the above initiative?

Seeing that some of the candidates for County Executive are either unkowns (Lanci & Voinovich), bought & paid for by the local unions (Fitzgerald) or a liberal in conservative clothing (Dolan), it is important we know where they stand on this important issue and what they will do about it if elected.

Happy 4th of July

How does Ohio Immigration Law Differ from AZ?

The answer -- prior to AZ passing a state law on immigration -- would be not much. Since OH does not have a state law on immigration we would be governed by the federal immigration laws as stated below by the Lake County Sheriff's Office.

You will see other than putting the power of enforcing immigration in the hands of the state, that even though OH does not have an immigration law on the books there is still not much difference between AZ's law and the federal law.

From the News Herald --

With so much attention focused on Arizona's new immigration law, some have asked how it differs from enforcement in Ohio.

Capt. Lonnie Sparkman of the Lake County Sheriff's Office said the laws are not that different because both mirror federal laws.

To be more specific, Ohio does not have a state immigration law. It operates under the federal law. Arizona recently passed a state law that is, in some ways, more stringent.

The Arizona law requires police to determine the immigration status of someone if that person has been stopped, detained or arrested on another crime and if a "reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States."

The law also requires that people have immigration papers with them. However, officers can only ask for immigration papers under the previously described conditions.

While Ohio law does not require officers to ask about immigration status, Sparkman said Ohio law officers can inquire about immigration status under the same circumstances.

Originally, the Arizona law said officers had to ask about immigration status if there was reasonable suspicion during any "lawful contact." The law was rephrased after a Phoenix police officer sued, saying that he would need to ask it of children on their way to and from school.

That unrevised law would have differed significantly from Ohio's.

Arizona lawmakers reworded it so people had to be stopped, detained or arrested for another crime before they could be asked of their immigration status.

Lake County Sheriff Daniel Dunlap stressed that his department does not make pretextual stops, meaning that deputies do not pull people over because they think the drivers are in the country illegally.

However, Dunlap said, if a person has been pulled over and they do not have identification, they may inquire as to legal status.

"If there's a traffic offense or a reasonable suspicion of a crime, we will stop you. And what is the first thing that authorities ask for when you're pulled over? Driver's license and registration," Dunlap said.

If the Lake County Sheriff's Office identifies someone as being in the country illegally, it will contact a federal enforcement agency, either Immigration and Customs Enforcement or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Dunlap said most people carry some identification with them, and it is rarely an issue.

"It's a pretty low percentage of people who get picked up and don't have papers, much smaller than you'd think," he said.

Support AZ by asking your City Council or Township Trustees to pass a Resolution supporting AZ and their right to protect their own borders. If you do, please email us at clevelandteaparty@gmail.com so we can help support your efforts.

Please click here for a template of a Resolution you can submit to your City Council or Township Trustees.

EPA will use Clean Air Act to Attack Small Business

Applauding the defeat of the Murkowski Resolution, EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson released a statement consistent with the White House's "just lie" policy....

The Murkowski resolution also undermines EPA's common sense strategy for cutting greenhouse gases. Our carefully constructed approach exempts small businesses, homes, farms, and other small sources from regulation. We know that the local coffee shop or the backyard grill is no place to look for meaningful CO2 reductions. We're tackling our largest polluters and calling on Congress to pass a comprehensive energy and climate law -- one that would extend the protection of small businesses. (Read complete statement here.)

Targeting the largest polluters? Really?

With the failure to pass the Murkowski Resolution, through the EPA & an over reaching use of the Clean Air Act, Cap & Trade has been effectively enacted through regulation over legislation. Besides killing the coal industry & causing utility prices to skyrocket, the EPA will be targeting small business' Jackson claims to be exempting from these draconian measures.

A little know provision of the Clean Air Act -- the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy -- small businesses will also become a target of the Green Energy Goon's at the EPA & the administration's quest for control....

From NYT -- (emphasis added)

The Environmental Protection Agency is 10 years behind schedule in setting guidelines for a host of toxic air pollutants, according to a report from the agency’s inspector general.

The report, which was released last week, found that the agency had failed to develop emissions standards, due in 2000, for some sources of hazardous air pollutants. These included smaller sites often located in urban areas, like dry cleaners and gas stations, but also some chemical manufacturers.

The inspector general also found that the agency had not met targets outlined in a 1999 planning document, the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, including tracking urban dwellers’ risk of developing health problems from exposure to pollutants.

For example, the agency’s last assessment of the risk of toxic air pollutants is based on emissions data from 2002. That analysis found that 1 in 28,000 people, or 36 in 1 million, could develop cancer from lifetime exposure to air toxics from outdoor sources. That number is an average, however, and people living in densely populated cities may face a higher risk.

Jeffrey Holmstead, who was assistant administrator for air and radiation at the E.P.A. from 2001 to 2005, said that even though Congress increased the agency’s budget when it passed significant amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990, the E.P.A. still did not have enough money to fulfill all its requirements.

Some evidence suggests that there is now more attention being paid to this category of air pollutants within the E.P.A. The agency noted in its response to the report that for the first time in a decade, funds are shifting to the air toxics program this year to meet regulatory deadlines.

Senator Sherrod Brown Supports Suppression of Free Speech

Patriots please find below the response of Senator Sherrod to one of members contacting him about the Free Speech killing DISCLOSE Act. (Click here to read more about the Disclose Act)

As many of us had already guessed, Senator Brown has no problem supporting measures limiting your right to Free Speech....

Dear Robert:

Thank you for sharing your views on the Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light On Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) Act (S.3295). While you and I disagree on this issue, I appreciate hearing your thoughts.

On January 21, 2010, by a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court overturned a long-standing precedent that prevented businesses from spending corporate dollars on campaigns. Large corporations can now use their near-unlimited treasuries to pump billions of dollars into the support or opposition of candidates.

I am extremely troubled that there will now be even more special interest money in the political system. Drug companies, insurance companies, and Wall Street banks will now be free to spend millions of dollars on campaigns to push their agendas. The Court's decision is not good for our political system, and it is not good for America.

S.3295 would protect American consumers by imposing disclosure requirements on businesses that choose to use corporate dollars in political races. These protections would make it easier for consumers to know if portions of their daily purchases are being used to fund political advertisements and campaigns. This legislation would also ban contributions by foreign-controlled corporations in order to protect the American democratic process from foreign interference and influence. Campaign spending by government contractors would also be banned as an additional measure to ensure that taxpayer money is not spent on political advertisements.

In addition to S. 3295, I have introduced the Citizens Right to Know Act, S. 3004, which would ensure the public knows when corporations are sponsoring campaign ads, prevent corporations from diverting dollars into campaign spending without the explicit approval of their shareholders, and further stop foreign-owned corporations from influencing U.S. elections.

S. 3004 is currently pending in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. As a member of this committee, I will work with my colleagues to ensure that people, not corporations, hold the power in our democratic system.

Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this important issue.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown

Hmmm.... I wonder if the color of Senator Brown's shirt matches his last name?

Thomas Jefferson says...

From FSOP