Tag: federal

Hey, did Hillary Clinton and Americans United For Change just violate federal campaign law?

(H/T: @SonnyBunch) Probably not, but they should have to at least explain this one.

Remember, by the way: these people are advocates for even stricter campaign finance laws than the ones they have. They therefore have to be better about this sort of thing than their opponents. Myself, I think that it’s absurd that this sort of thing could even be arguably illegal, but then I think that most campaign finance laws are absurd anyway. Hillary Clinton doesn’t have this excuse*.

You ever get the feeling that the Democratic party leadership has an inherent difficulty at understanding just how badly emails can blow up in your face, if you’re not careful?

Moe Lane (crosspost)

*Said excuse she should be intimately familiar with, because… well, perhaps we shouldn’t go there.

Report: it will take $45M and almost two years to ‘fix’ Cover Oregon.

That’s under current conditions (keep the database, keep current vendor Oracle), at least according to the Deloitte Development report that the state of Oregon commissioned on how to get from under the horrible state exchange disaster inflicted on Oregon by Governor John Kitzhaber and his fellow Democrats. Reading the report, it looks like Deloitte’s recommendation would be that Oregon simply cut Cover Oregon loose and join the federal exchange. As the Oregonian noted:

Oregon could hook up to the federal exchange far sooner and for a fraction of the cost, according to the report obtained by The Oregonian. A hybrid solution mixing the federal exchange and an unfinished Oracle-based small-business section of the exchange would also be faster than sticking with the current plan, as well as cheaper.

Continue reading Report: it will take $45M and almost two years to ‘fix’ Cover Oregon.

End the state/local income tax deduction! #fairshare #sharedsacrifice

Charles Lane (no relation) makes the obvious point:

What the deduction does is enable higher-income states and localities to tax — and spend — more than they otherwise would, while shifting some of the cost to other states. It also encourages them to collect revenue in forms that are easier to deduct on federal returns.

Two states, California and New York, reaped almost 30 percent of the deduction’s value in 2009, the latest year for which I could find Internal Revenue Service data. Other states that benefit disproportionately include Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts and Maryland.

I’m arguing against interest here, by the way.  My taxes would go up.  I assume, so would Charles’.  And so would about 3/4ths of the Media elite’s, which is why you’re going to see a lot of people in print and broadcast journalism get the vapors over this.  These folks are on the sweet side of a wealth transfer, after all.

…Which is something that they should be disclosing, mind you.

Moe Lane