After going
through the hundreds of bills introduced in the 2020 Legislature, a few themes
appear to be emerging.
One of them is
that there are a plethora of requests for “special funds.” Special funds are pots of money that exist
for a specific purpose, and largely bypass the legislative appropriation
process. The existence of hundreds of
these special funds has often confounded those who seek answers to simple
questions like “How much money does the State have?”
This year, for
example, bills have been introduced to establish:
A cigarette litter abatement special fund (SB 2301) which would
be funded by a new cigarette litter abatement tax;
A wildlife conservation special fund (HB 1675, SB 2509) which would
be funded by a barrel tax increase;
A solid waste management research and development special fund (HB 1684) which would
be funded by diverting 1% of ALL general state revenues;
A climate change countermeasures special fund (HB 1686) which would
be funded by 1% of all insurance company assessments;
A clean vehicle special fund (HB 2493, SB 3022) which would
be funded by a surcharge of up to 75% on GET on sales of gasoline powered
vehicles;
A “Blue Lives Matter” special fund (HB 2728) to benefit
law enforcement officers, which would be funded by a new tax on overseas
arrivals and departures; and, last but not least,
A quality education special fund (HB 2144) which would
be funded by hefty increases in the individual and corporate income taxes.
There are many
others. A number of these measures
involve tax increases or revenue diversion (which probably would lead to tax
increases after the agency or agencies whose revenue was diverted figures it
out and screams bloody murder).
Our Legislature
is supposed to be the steward of all state moneys, but special funds make it
very easy to lose track of where the money is and how it is being spent. Departments are supposed to tell the
Legislature if they have special funds and how much is in them, but they don’t
always. Recently, in Report No.
20-01, the State Auditor took DBEDT to task for failing to report $6.5
million in non-general fund moneys.
DBEDT’s response? Just that
they’ll “take corrective action.” Not
even a “Whoops! We screwed up and
promise to do better next time!” This
followed closely on the heels of Report No.
19-16, where the Auditor found that $1.04 million in non-general fund moneys
administered by the Attorney General wasn’t reported. That department responded that they “shall
establish procedures to assure required reports are issued.” Is it any wonder that it’s getting harder and
harder to follow the money and rein in government spending?
Another tactic
that appears to be gaining traction among special fund supporters is “scope
creep.” It involves expanding the scope
of what the special fund moneys may be spent on. If special fund moneys can be spent on more
and more things, then there tends to be more spending, and then the funds need
to be fed more and more to stay afloat.
Then who is going to do the feeding?
Probably we, the taxpayers.
The moral of
the story is that special funds are often used to obfuscate and confuse, to put
a smokescreen between those who spend the money and those who are charged with
making sure the money is well spent.
Let’s do all of ourselves a favor and get rid of the special funds we
don’t really need, and make sure that the operations of the ones we do need are
transparent and accountable.
Rob Kay, the Honolulu-based author of Lonely Planet’s original Fiji guidebook, along with Lautoka, Fiji-based web and applications developer David Barnes, have updated the online travel guide, FijiGuide.
Fiji Guide features all original content including blogs, videos and photos from local photographers.
Kay said the site provides the most relevant, up-to-date advice on accommodations, restaurants, tours and attractions as well as extensive coverage of Fijian language and culture. Fiji Guide covers the entire Fiji archipelago—from Kadavu in the south to Vanua Levu and Taveuni up north.
“Everything has been updated for 2020”, said Kay, who recently returned from a 5 week visit to Fiji. “I was able to spend considerable time in Savusavu, as well as Levuka, Kadavu, and Taveuni. What’s impressed me the most is the growth of sustainable tourism, particularly in Fiji’s north and Kadavu. By all appearances, it’s Fiji’s future.”
Kay believes sustainable tourism is Fiji’s future. The photo depicts coral planting at Makaira Resort on Taveuni, an activity that has become popular with visitors.
The site covers outdoor activities such as diving, surfing, hiking and golf. It features day trips and tours ranging from Zip lining on the Coral Coast to Black Pearl tours in Savusavu.
Fiji Guide also offers tips on packing, village visits and a full event calendar.
Kay stated the site provides objective data for visitors and travel industry professionals. “Whether you’re a traveler, looking for an ideal resort or a travel agent, serving your client, you’re going to need unbiased information. We provide readers with facts–not advertising copy. We vet each listing,” said Kay.
He added that the site is affiliated with regional Fiji visitor’s associations from the SunCoast, Savusavu, Kadavu and Coral Coast.
The site is primarily targeted at English-speaking countries, but is also available in Hindi, Chinese, Japanese, German and French.
Kay said that Fiji’s natural attractions are a tremendous enticement, but after 30 years travelling in Fiji, he believes the destination’s #1 draw are its people.
Kay, who has been a journalist for over 30 years, writes a column on sustainable tourism for the Honolulu Star Advertiser and is the travel editor of Hawaii Reporter, a local news publication.
He thanked the Fiji Hotel Association, Fiji Airways and Tourism Fiji for supporting him in his efforts.
If you’ve got a 1911 and you want to add a red dot, fear not! It’s easy. I recently mounted a Vortex Venom on a Clark Custom 1911. All I needed were a few tools, an EGW mount and a little advice. All can be acquired from Brownells.
But let’s take a step back.
I love the .38 wadcutter round. I like its light recoil, accuracy and the perfect little circles it punches in paper. When a friend was ready to unload a Clark Custom “Long Slide” (6”) 1911 configured in .38 Special, I jumped at the chance to buy it. Produced largely in the 1960’s and 70’s, these are target pistols with traditional Bo-Mar iron sights.
So why did I need a red dot? I can still shoot with iron sights respectably but as a baby boomer, unlike vintage wine, my eyes are not improving with age.
The stock Clark Custom Long Slide .38
Some Clark History
Before discussing how to add the optic, I thought it appropriate to discuss the genesis of Clark’s .38 wadcutter. For those of you not familiar with Shreveport, LA-based, Clark Custom, this humble family enterprise has produced some of the best Bullseye guns of the last century. According to legend, when the founder, Jim Clark, a WWII Marine Corp veteran, was called back into service in 1951 during the Korean war he spent considerable time at Camp Pendleton, California, gunsmithing Marine competitive shooters’ .45 pistols
It’s said he encountered a .38 Colt Super that had been converted to a .38 Special wadcutter and was thoroughly captivated by it.
Years later, when he established his shop, Clark started fashioning his own .38 Specials, both in 6” and 5” versions. In those days the long slides were not mass produced. In fact, they weren’t produced at all, so he rolled his own by welding the end cut from a military slide to a second slide in order to fabricate the long heavy slide of a .38 wadcutter (or a .45) bullseye gun.
Clark made some of the best Bullseye guns in the business.
Likewise, he had to manufacture his own six-inch barrels. He did so by drilling and reaming the cut off rear end of military barrels to accept six inch barrels machined from premium Douglas barrel blanks. Subsequently, after the long slide guns became popular, Clark had others fabricate the long slide blanks for further production.
If you look carefully at a Clark Custom long slide you can discern where one end of the slide was welded to the other. There’s a faint difference in the bluing.
Clark was not only an inventive gunsmith (having been awarded American Pistolsmith of the Year) he was also an exceptional shooter. He won the National Pistol Championship in 1958 — the only civilian ever to accomplish this feat as well as the National civilian title five times.
The Bo-Mar sight system was the gold standard back in the day.
Adding the Dot or Not
Before messing with this classic gun, I thought it best to do diligence.
I called Clark Custom to ask what was entailed in adding a red dot and was fortunate enough to speak to Logan Clark, the grandson of Jim Clark.
I was told, it was simple enough to remove the rear sight but there might be consequences. First and foremost, accuracy could suffer. That’s because an “accuracy tuner” is integrated into the old-fashioned Bo-Mar rear sight. Operated by two screws (the ones closes to the ejection port) the tuner puts pressure on the barrel to keep it snug against the slide when in battery.
Clark’s solution to removing the old fashioned rear sight was to add his own red dot mount which also has an accuracy tuner.
Sounds reasonable but in order to mount the Clark adapter you had to tap a few more holes in the slide to affix this mount.
I didn’t like that idea for two reasons. The first was that I wanted to add a Red Dot without having to adulterate the original Clark in any way. After all, it’s a collector’s item. The second reason was that I wanted this to be a DIY project.
It’s easy to remove the sight with an Allen wrench and a screwdiver. The two forward screws from the “accuracy tuner” also need to be removed. The tuner system keeps the barrel stationary while in battery.
I asked Clark if it was possible that the gun didn’t need the accuracy tuner—that the barrel to slide fit might be accurate enough without it. He said this could be the case and suggested I loosen up the two hex screws and “un-tune” the gun and see what happens.
I did just that and was able to get decent (under 2″) groups at 25 yards off the bench. As far as I was concerned, the gun was plenty accurate—even without the accuracy tuner.
Thus, I didn’t need to go with the Clark mount. There was another 1911 sight mount available from a company called EGW which didn’t entail tapping more holes. I had used EGW parts in the past and was extremely impressed with their quality and engineering. The company specializes in fabricating competition-quality parts for 1911s and other firearms.
All Systems Go
The next step was to acquire the parts. Armed with the proper information, I called Brownells, the which specializes in DIY gun smithing. They had the EGWmount in stock.
The EGW mount was designed for red dots from Docter and, the Vortex Venom. I opted for the Venom which works great and has a very reasonable price point ($229). It’s also super light (1.1 oz)–light enough so that it didn’t interfere with the slide’s cycling. The weight of the optic combined with the mount is less than half of the original Bo-Mar unit. This is important because adding even more weight to the slide could mean having to change out the recoil spring.The EGW mount was designed for red dots from Docter and, the Vortex Venom. I opted for the Venom which works great and has a very reasonable price point ($229). It’s also super light (1.1 oz)–light enough so that it didn’t interfere with the slide’s cycling. The weight of the optic combined with the mount is less than half of the original Bo-Mar unit. This is important because adding even more weight to the slide could mean having to change out the recoil spring.
The Vortex Venom’s 3 MOA dot is perfect for target shooting. At $229 it’s priced right. It’s also very light–the combined weight of the optic + mount is less than half of the original Bo-Mar.
The Vortex Venom red dot was crisp and its 3 MOA dot is ideal in my estimation, for 25 and 50 target shooting. I like a precise dot that allows me to specifically cover the bullseye–and no more. It has two modes–auto, which adjusts to ambient light and manual, which is user adjusted. It will automatically shut off (in auto mode) but not in manual. To turn it on, you simply press one of the arrows and to turn it off, you hold the down arrow for five seconds.
I own four different Vortex optics and have found them to be dependable and durable. I shoot with one of the best marksman in the state (a former Camp Perry winner) and he uses a Venom on his high end 1911s. If its good enough for him, it’s more than good enough for me. Their tech support is excellent, should you need it, and they have a lifetime guarantee.
Getting the rear sight on the old Clark was not difficult. The sight is easily removed by unscrewing the Allen head screws and the altitude adjustment screw. Beneath this assembly is one more hex screw and the whole shebang comes off. You’re left with a slide that has four tapped holes. I noted that the EGW mount covered three of the four holes. The fourth was located just behind the ejection port. Before adding the mount I wasn’t sure if it was necessary to plug all the holes.
The mount went it with a little persuasion. This is a DIY project that anyone can do. I got my parts from Brownells, which has an excellent tech support staff.
I contacted George Smith, the founder of EGW who knows a thing or two about gunsmithing. George said that I shouldn’t be concerned about the three holes that mount covers because they enter the tunnel for the firing pin. “Not a big deal,” he said, “actually dirt comes in from the chamber area so the holes on top do not represent a danger unless I take the gun to a beach.” We agreed that this was not likely.
I left the three tapped holes open but decided for aesthetic reasons to cap the fourth with a 6-40 plug screw, also from Brownells.
So I placed the slide in my vice, protecting the sides with wood. I was careful not to cinch it down too much–just hard enough keep the slide stationary. I carefully tapped the mount in with a small brass mallet from left to right, trying not to damage the finish. I did manage to take off a little of the coating but covered with a little Birchwood Casey “Superblack”. No one was the wiser. (As my colleague pointed out, a real gunsmith would not have left any marks or blemishes on the parts).
It went on with a little effort and I measured it with a caliper to make certain it was mounted smack in the middle of the slide. After a little tweaking the job was done.
I then placed the Vortex Venom atop the mount with a touch of blue Loctite and voila, my Clark had been transformed into a 21st century firearm.
The old Clark Custom Longslide .38 got a new lease on life.
Shooting and Ammo Prep
So how did the darn thing shoot?
After getting the red dot mounted I had about two hours until range closed that afternoon. I sprinted out to Kokohead Range and got the gun sighted in without much ado. After doing so, my second group off the bench was under 1 1/2″ at 25 yards. Was I pleased? You bet. Could I do even better? Unquestionably.
There are a number of good loads for this particular gun but my tried and true was 3.1 gn of 231 powder over a Zero Bullet. I found this worked best for semi-autos using conventional 5 inch slides (rather than the 6″). I also loaded 2.8-2.9 gr of Bullseye, which is considered a classic load for this bullet and proved equally accurate and was slightly stronger. The Clark has a lot of slide to push around.
High quality brass is a key component to accuracy and dependability. I use Starline.
But there was a snag. I was shooting accurately, however it had trouble cycling. Once in a while the slide would get stuck, but after close inspection I realized it wasn’t always the light load at fault. I was using shell casings way past their prime. The tolerances on the barrel were really tight to the point where if the cases weren’t perfectly sized, they would stick in the chamber. Some of the cases were just too tired and stretched out.
Thus the issue had more to do with the cases rather than the load. What I discovered was an old lesson that I’ve been preaching in these columns.
Yes, it’s accurate. 15 shots offhand at 25 yards.
My refrain has been, “use decent brass”. I decided to follow my own advice and acquired some new Starline .38 Special brass. I tweaked the sizing die, just to make sure and loaded up a bunch of the new brass. Not to my surprise, the gun cycled like a champ.
What about the bullet?
There are some excellent wadcutters out there but I like Zero, which makes an excellent hollow-based, swaged, wadcutter. I’ve used it in several .38 semi-autos with success. The head of production at the company, Fred Stallings, told me that over the past few weeks the manufacturing process of his HBWC bullets have been improved and he thinks they are better than ever.
Zero is an excellent choice for 148 gn HBWCs.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that the venerable Clark. 38, fitted with modern optics, was still was extremely accurate even without the old Bo-Mar tuner. Just as important;y, the pistol is eminently more usable for my aging eyes.
F. Scott Fitzgerald once wrote, “there are no second acts in American lives.” Fortunately that’s not the case for traditional American firearms.
This is the kind of modification anyone can do with the right tools and the right advice. I did derive pleasure from being to do this on my own, which is what a DIY project is all about.
The author is not responsible for mishaps of any kind, which might occur from the use of this data in developing your handloads. It is the user’s responsibility to follow safe handloading guidelines to develop safe ammunition. You use this data at your own risk. No responsibility for the use or safety in use of this data is assumed or implied.
On January 8,
OHA Trustee Brandon Kalei’ana Lee wrote an op-ed in the Star-Advertiser entitled
“OHA has right to attorney-client privilege.” In that article, Lee was reacting to State
Auditor Les Kondo’s insistence that the OHA trustees turn over unredacted executive
session minutes that apparently contain legal advice given by their hired
counsel. He contended that “it is clear
that such communications are clearly protected as part of the OHA board’s
attorney-client privilege as a matter of longstanding U.S. Supreme Court
constitutional law,” and turned the matter into an indigenous peoples
issue: “Why is it when Native Hawaiians
seek the same rights and protections to which everyone else is entitled, they are
called protesters, are deemed uncooperative, or are accused of hiding something?”
This deserves
an answer.
The answer
starts with Hawaii Revised Statutes section 23-5(a): “The auditor may examine and inspect all
accounts, books, records, files, papers, and documents and all financial
affairs of every department, office, agency, and political subdivision…”
Section 23-1
defines “departments, offices, and agencies” to mean “all executive
departments, boards, commissions, bureaus, offices, agencies, and all
independent commissions and other establishments of the state government
(excepting the legislature) and all quasi-public institutions and all courts
which are supported in whole or in part by, or which handle state or public
funds.”
So, if you are
a department, office, or agency, and you handle public funds, then the auditor
gets to see all, and I repeat “all,” accounts, books, records, files, papers,
and documents. In other words, if you
are handling public money then it’s the auditor’s prerogative to see what is
going on with it.
The
attorney-client privilege protects confidential communications between an
attorney and a client and protects against disclosure of those communications
to a third party. It doesn’t prohibit
disclosure to someone who is not a third party.
Suppose I was the store manager of the Pa’ia branch of Tomco, a national
retail store chain, and I consulted with an attorney on store business, receiving
a memo from her as a result. If Tomco’s
San Diego-based regional finance manager wanted to see the memo, he has the
right to see it regardless of my wishes, and the attorney-client privilege
would not stand in the way. It would be
a different story, however, if I hired the attorney myself and did not pay her
with Tomco money.
The flaw with
Trustee Lee’s reasoning is that he has a myopic perception of the
“client.” We the People, speaking
through the Hawaii Constitution, created OHA (article XII, section 5), the
Office of the Auditor (article VII, section 10), and the rest of state government. No government official, not even an elected
one like Trustee Lee, has the authority to create a fiefdom unaccountable to
the rest of government, or to the people of Hawaii who put that government in
place. The same result, by the way,
applies when public moneys and assets are dropped into a limited liability
company owned by the agency. The limited
liability company thus created is still a part of government and, as we found out
from the courts recently, is subject to our Uniform Information Practices
Act and other open records laws.
This is not an
indigenous peoples issue. The same
result would apply to any other agency. Our
state constitution says that the auditor will “conduct post-audits of the
transactions, accounts, programs and performance of all departments, offices
and agencies of the State.’ That’s what
the auditor is doing. There are
consequences for getting in the auditor’s way, and, barring a last-minute
attitude adjustment, we will soon find out what they are.
The most useful takeaway at Wednesday’s 2020 Legislative Preview were the words of Rep. Cynthia Thielan, who has announced that she is leaving the House after 30 years of service to Hawaii. “The best way to reach out is to come to Committee hearings and testify on bills,” she said. “Show up in person to change legislation. Explain your position. Don’t just read… Speak from your heart.”
As a reporter for over 30 years, I have seen the effect of heartfelt testimony; she is right.
Blair kicked off the discussion musing about the unexpected unity among the majority members of both the House and Senate to support legislation to raise the minimum wage to $13/hour, improving schools, create more affordable housing and fight homelessness – all issues critical to the future of Hawaii.
Keohokalole took advantage of the opportunity to address the State’s crisis of homelessness, mental illness and drug addiction. He expressed his frustration with the the cycle of substance abuse, jail and hospitalizations – which usually ends by returning people to the streets still homeless and addicted. “We need to reposition some of our resources; we’re burning through money for a population that needs more help than we can provide.” He wants to expand what he termed as “underutilized state health facilities,” to expand mental health opportunities.
None of that is a revelation; nor does it solve the housing crisis, the addiction problem, the wage gap or homelessness. But it sounds good.
Keohokalole also talked about decriminalizing and legalizing drugs, starting with marijuana. Possession of up to 3 grams of marijuana carries a $130 fine, though it is still not legal in Hawaii. “We have to wait for a new governor,” he said, referring to Gov. David Ige.
Ige has been clear on his position. “As long as it’s illegal from the federal government perspective, I really don’t believe we should be making it legal for recreational purposes,” he said. He neither signed nor vetoed the law, allowing it to become law.
Thielen has long promoted the cultivation of industrial (non-THC) hemp, used in the production of everything from food to cosmetics, which she mentioned during the discussion.
And while it is terrific that state legislators acknowledge that the cost of living is out of reach for most Hawaiians, it is also clear that the proposed $13/hour is not a “livable wage.” That was confirmed by Gavin Thornton, who pointed out that the current rate, $10.10/hour, is $21,000 annually. It would be $13 in 2024, which would hardly keep up with inflation.
His organization is pushing for $17 minimum wage by 2025. “Today, we need to figure out a way to make it possible to make ends meet. Nearly half [the population] don’t earn enough,” referring to the ALICE report by the Aloha United Way. Pointing to the number of people migrating off the island, he said that Hawaii has the lowest wages in the nation, when figuring in the cost of living.
Thornton encouraged the legislation’s goal of expanding early childhood education for Pre-K kids, calling it a “smart investment.” His Appleseed “Wish List” included a greater hike in the minimum wage and paid family leave to care for family members and newborns.
Thielen was asked about her position on the last piece of the rail puzzle, currently set to include seven stations between Kaka’ako and Ala Moana. “We can’t control the sea level rise,” she said, though legislators continue to approve easements for sea walls and embankments for 55-year periods. “We’re slow to recognize the emerging problem problem of the emerging sea. We’re not paying attention.” HB1611 would authorize the Board of Land and Natural Resources to provide shoreline encroachment easements for not more than 10 years to landowners with structures that encroach on the shoreline, and requires that the policy adopted considers the impact of the expected rising sea levels on the structures.
In addition to acknowledging the impact of global warming on an island state, Thielen also noted that there were no women in leadership on opening day Jan. 15. “Not a single woman up there e with the leaders calling the shots… 100% men. There needs to be better equality in this building and more women elected.”
“Here, McConnell is
trying to prevent the witness from ever testifying, and the public from ever
finding out what they have to say…this will be the first impeachment trial in
American history in which the Senate did not allow the House to present its
case with witnesses and documents.” – House Democrats Impeachment Managers statement,
January 21, 2020
After a Progressive Democrat-led House impeachment
process that included secret, behind-closed-door meetings that excluded any
Republican; that refused to allow Republicans to call witnesses of their
choice; that censored Republican lines of questioning; and that Democrat
leadership stated upon its codifying vote was “proof positive” and “airtight”, now Progressive-Democrats say they need
an opportunity to “make their case”?
The time for “making the case” was during the phase
of the process when the case was required
to be made. That phase was the House impeachment phase.
The impeachment process draws from the idea of our legal
system but it is a political vehicle that only draws loosely from that model.
Just as the House is not mandated to present evidence of a specific compilation
of impeachable conduct (i.e. they can be vague, as in the case presented
against Trump), the Senate is not mandated to apply specific procedural rules
or due-process standards during an impeachment trial (i.e. they do not have to
satisfy a call for witnesses given that the evidentiary phase of the process
was supposed to be satisfied in the House).
That is the takeaway here: The evidentiary phase of the
process was supposed to be satisfied in the House before any vote on impeachment was undertaken.
Aside from the fact that McConnell’s rules for the Senate
impeachment trial include the caveat
that Senators can vote on additional
witnesses and documentary evidence after
the House managers deliver their case, we are left with an obvious and
obnoxious point.
The Progressive-Democrat impeachment managers floating of
the false narrative that additional discovery is necessary is not only an
indictment of an inadequate, flawed, and politicized process in the House, it stands
as their conviction on the charge
that the entire effort was manufactured to affect the 2020 General Election,
the very thing they are accusing the President
of doing.
Any insistence that witnesses be called is evidence that
the House leadership – mainly Schiff, Nadler, and their respective committees, failed
to make their case and were unsuccessful in meeting the requirements for
impeachment.
Any insistence that additional evidence be submitted is
proof the House Democrats failed to meet the burden of demonstrating that High
Crimes and Misdemeanors have been committed and that they were, again, were ineffective
in meeting the constitutional requirements for impeachment.
In a nutshell: There was and is no there, there.
To that end, any
attempts by the House impeachment managers and Speaker Pelosi to apply pressure
on the Senate to conduct their trial in any
specific way is an unconstitutional encroachment onto the purview of the Senate
and grotesque abuse of power. Further, McConnell (of whom I am not a fan) was
absolutely correct to include a “kill switch” that allows the President’s
defense team to request a motion to judgment or dismissal. To not have included
that mechanism would have been to invite a trial by media and not by the
Senate.
The totalitarian Islamofascist regime in Iran understands
that they must maintain the ability to regulate opinion; to control the news,
the narrative so that the illusion of legitimacy is maintained. In that pursuit,
they instructed the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps to create the Basij.
The Basij serve as an auxiliary force
engaged in activities that include enforcing state control over society,
policing morals, and suppressing dissident gatherings.
The coercive tactics of the Progressive-Democrat Basij – their attempt to bully the
Senate into accepting their conditions
for and definition of a fair trial, and their furious propagandizing to the
American people; their attempt to control the narrative surrounding impeachment
– is no less egregious than what the Iranian Basij do to the Iranian people who end up bloodied and dead in the
streets of Tehran.
The protestations of Progressive-Democrats; their insistence that they get their way, rules be damned, are the protestations of an arrogant, elitist class of narcissists who have routinely violated due process to achieve their goals and bring about socially engineered changes they deem appropriate for all of our society.
This is not the workings of a Republic. This is the workings of despotism.
Following a
major U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2018 (South Dakota v. Wayfair), many
States, including ours, enacted “economic nexus” legislation, which means that
we consider any business that transacts $100,000 or more in Hawaii sales or 200
or more Hawaii transactions to be subject to Hawaii tax laws, and we require
such a business to comply with the law by registering and paying tax. That legislation went into effect July 1,
2018.
Last year, our
legislature followed up by enacting “market facilitator” legislation, meaning
that a market facilitator such as Amazon (for Amazon Marketplace) would be
required to pay our general excise tax (“GET”) for the Hawaii transactions that
it facilitates. That legislation took
effect on Jan. 1, 2020.
After this
one-two punch, many more businesses that sell to Hawaii customers are going to
find themselves with Hawaii tax obligations.
That
circumstance creates corresponding opportunities for Hawaii individuals and
businesses.
All states with
sales tax or similar taxes, including Hawaii, impose a “Use Tax.” It’s designed to protect local
businesses. If a local customer has a
choice between buying local and buying from an online seller, and the online
seller is not obligated to pay our GET, then the online seller has an advantage
because the local seller must pay the tax and the online seller doesn’t have
to. The Use Tax Law compensates for this
by saying that if you as the local customer buy from the online seller (or any
seller who is not obligated to pay our GET), then you are required to pay an
amount comparable to the avoided GET.
Most individuals don’t know about this tax, but many businesses do
because the Department of Taxation will scrutinize large business purchases for
this tax if the business is under audit.
If you are
buying from a business that must pay our GET (whether or not it actually is
paying), then you don’t have to pay Use Tax on purchases from that business. The trouble is that it’s not always obvious
who is obligated to pay, and the facts could change over time. A 1988 Hawaii Supreme Court case involving a
large auto dealership highlighted the problem.
It paid Use Tax on purchases of motor vehicles for many years, thinking
that the car manufacturer wasn’t obligated to pay GET. It was indeed paying – from 1969 to 1982 –
but didn’t publicize the fact. The tax
was 0.5% only, but over the several years and with the large purchases the
dealership made, the Department collected over a million dollars extra because
it was being paid by both the manufacturer and the dealership. Too bad, so sad, the court ruled, because the
statute of limitations says you can only get the most recent three years
refunded.
A Hawaii buyer
can never really know whether its vendor pays GET because of tax return
confidentiality rules, but it can take these steps:
If the invoice shows the seller with a Hawaii address, don’t pay Use
Tax.
If the invoice shows Hawaii GET, don’t pay Use Tax.
If the seller has an active Hawaii GET registration number (which can be
searched for on the Department’s website) don’t pay Use Tax.
If the buyer knows that the seller has a GET payment obligation, for
example if it purchased $100,000 or more of merchandise (meaning that the
seller had $100,000 in sales), then don’t pay Use Tax.
Taking these
steps will allow most local buyers to avoid paying unnecessary Use Tax and will
prevent the Department from doubling up on you.
As buyers, we need to be vigilant and not be paying more taxes than we
must.
Happy New
Year! It’s now 2020 and talk already has
begun about raising our minimum wage.
$10.10 an hour is not a living wage, some say, so we should be hoisting
our minimum wage to say $15 or $17, which some say is the minimum required to
make ends meet here in Hawaii assuming you are working 40 hours a week. Shame on the big bad employer lobbies, they
say, for they are intending to confuse the issue and distract from the real
problems at hand. There also seems to be
an unsaid undercurrent of “Sure those fat, greedy employers can pay it, so sock
it to them!”
But have we
ever thought about what a minimum wage law actually does?
Our minimum
wage law, HRS section 387-2, specifies that “every employer shall pay to each
employee employed by the employer, wages at the rate of not less than” a
certain specified dollar amount. If the
employer doesn’t, HRS section 387-12 specifies consequences of fines,
imprisonment, restitution of the minimum wage to the affected employee, and
other things. Our minimum wage law is
typical of those used in many states.
In other words,
a minimum wage law is a prohibition on employment. You can’t hire someone if the worker gets
less than the minimum wage.
Under a minimum
wage law, it doesn’t matter what the employee wants.
Under a minimum
wage law, it doesn’t matter what skills the employee has or doesn’t have. Are we willing to say, as a society, that
someone with zero skills but who is willing to work 40 hours at something – a
plantation worker comes to mind – is entitled to be paid enough to make ends
meet here? If so, then why did many of
us bust our butts trying to acquire marketable skills? Was it so the government could tax away most
or all of what we make above subsistence salary?
Under a minimum
wage law, it doesn’t matter what other costs the employer is being required to
pay, even if those costs are on the employee’s behalf, either because of other
government mandates or because of market competition. For example, employers are subject to tons of
other requirements, such as providing workers with prepaid health care,
workers’ compensation, and temporary disability insurance.
And then, workers’ pay is subjected to taxes, including state income tax when the worker earns it and general excise tax when the worker spends it. Income tax applies even to those earning minuscule amounts of income, and general excise tax applies even when the buyer has no income at all.
The fix has traditionally been tofocus on increasing the “living wage”, while the reasons for an ever-increasing “living wage” has been a second tier topic of discussion.
If the
government requires that certain workers be paid higher wages, then businesses
adjust for the added costs, such as by reducing hiring, cutting employee work hours,
reducing benefits, charging higher prices, laying people off, or perhaps by throwing
in the towel and closing shop. Some
folks think that companies can simply absorb the costs of minimum wage
increases (or other cost increases) through reduced profits. That rarely happens, especially if their
market competition is willing to make the other adjustments just mentioned.
Instead of
mindlessly jacking up the minimum wage to a “living wage” without knowing what
a “living wage” is paying for, why don’t we get rid of some of the obstacles to
making a living in Hawaii such as a tax system that grinds the poor deeper into
poverty, and other employer mandates that further skew the labor market?
Once again, and purely for political purposes, Nancy
Pelosi and the “America bad” Progressives in the Democrat Party are moving the
goalposts to fit their agenda. This time it is the crafting of resolution
language that would – one again – politicize
military operations and hobble the President’s ability to defend our military
personnel on the ground.
In the aftermath of the Soleimani get, Pelosi and her
gaggle of self-important, power-hungry over-steppers have indicated they are introducing
and voting on a War
Powers Resolution that would limit the President’s use of force against
Iran. This grandiose action is, in reality, a reiteration of the War Powers Resolution
of 1973 and brings nothing new to the table. It is an attention-grabbing action
to insert Pelosi and her ilk into relevancy on the issue of Iran.
The War
Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President (the constitutionally
mandated Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces) to notify Congress within 48
hours of inserting US forces into a military theater without limitation and,
limits the President’s authority to maintain a US military presence in any
situation to 60 days without congressional approval. For the record, President
Trump satisfied this requirement by delivering a classified communique to
congressional leaders within the required 48 hour time period.
So, what is the genesis
of the War Powers Resolution? It is the byproduct of President Truman’s and
then Presidents Kennedy and Johnson’s constitutionally questionable “police
actions” in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. It was in Korea and then in Vietnam
that the politicians in the United States moved away from “declaring war” and
toward engaging US military forces conditionally and without a clear mandate.
This has facilitated the very “never-ending wars” that the Left insists they
abhor.
Ironically (or not), the three Presidents who created
this unconstitutional situation were all Democrats; Truman, Kennedy, and
Johnson were Democrats. And in both instances – both in Korea and Vietnam – it took
an electoral change of leadership in a Republican president to disengage our
soldiers from conflict.
It was during President Nixon’s maneuvering to position
the United States for a “position of strength” withdrawal of US troops from
Vietnam that the Democrats came up with the War Powers Resolution of 1973; an
effort to maintain control of the military after
an electoral defeat. The move was wholly unconstitutional.
While the US Constitution mandates that the Legislative
Branch holds the sole power to “declare war”, the President of the United
States is Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces, exclusively. Article II,
Section 2 of the US
Constitution plainly states:
“The President
shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of
the Militia of the several States…”
It has no limitations placed on that status. While
Article I, Section 8 states that Congress has the authority to “declare war”
and “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”,
it gives Congress no authority to
interfere in battle operations or the strategic defense of the country or her
military apparatus in theater.
So it goes that the War Powers Resolution has been
challenged and even ignored by many presidents including Nixon in Vietnam, Reagan
in El Salvador, Clinton in Kosovo, and Obama in Libya. In fact, the US Supreme
Court refused to hear a case challenging the violation of the War Powers
Resolution regarding Yugoslavia under Clinton in 2000.
All of this understood and proven factual by history,
Pelosi and the Democrat’s move to “reiterate” the War Powers Resolution of 1973
in the context of President Trump’s actions regarding Iran can only be viewed
as a desperate cry for relevance on the issue, and a cry that reeks of election-year
politics. The exclamation point on this analysis comes in Chuck Schumer acknowledging
that President Trump satisfied the War Powers Resolution in his whining that
the communique should be “de-classified”.
An aside, the communique, because it involves military
operations should not be declassified.
The United States should never
telegraph its military intentions to the enemy, just as we did consistently during
the Obama Administration. Doing so puts our military personnel in theater in harm’s
way.
In the end, the pushing of this irrelevant resolution by Pelosi,
Schumer, and the Democrats is both whorish for their need to be included in an
issue that doesn’t involve them and serving to maintain an unconstitutional
power grab that sees the Legislative Branch encroach on the Executive Branch; a
continuation of the clear violation of Separation of Powers brought into being
by the codifying of the War Powers Resolution.
The American people – and even a few politicians – have made it clear that politicians have no place on the battlefield. Korea, Vietnam, and every protracted military engagement since has proven beyond doubt that politicians armchair quarterbacking the battlefield costs American lives. Of course, our enemies would more than welcome Pelosi, Schumer, and the America-hating Progressives onto the battlefield.
That said, pay no attention that little man – or in this case, woman – behind the curtain, she is definitely not the great and powerful Oz…
It wasn’t long
ago that, in response to numerous complaints of students sweltering in their
classrooms, Governor Ige proclaimed that he would commit $100 million to cool
1,000 classrooms. At the end of the 2016
legislative session, he signed Act 47 of 2016 appropriating
the funds to the Department of Education (DOE), and in 2018 he trumpeted this accomplishment during his
re-election campaign.
As KHON2 reported
in November, the $100 million covered only about one-tenth of public school classrooms
in Hawaii. Those classrooms received
solar powered systems costing an average of $40,000 per classroom. Fast forward a little, and we see that some
schools that received the units found that they either have started breaking
down or will only work for a short time every day.
KITV, in a more
recent newscast this year, reported that one school, Niu Valley Middle School in east
Honolulu, reported more than 300 heat-related visits to the school nurse’s
office over the course of four months (August through November). That’s between 3 and 4 kids per school day
needing medical attention. Ouch.
One teacher,
writing about his experience on the “Cool Our Keiki” Facebook group, said that his
school administration tried to fix the situation. “The DOE brought in a team of state workers
to evaluat[e], and their recommendation? Wait for a sunny day so the batteries
can charge.” In the six weeks that
followed, he reports, there were plenty of sunny days but the air conditioners
in his classroom and his neighbor’s classroom still don’t work.
Not only that,
air conditioning upgrades may make matters worse at times. When some companies install the upgrades,
they fix the windows so they can’t be opened, as KHON2 reported. If the unit fails for whatever reason, using
the trade winds is no longer an option.
Why solar
powered air conditioning? Because the
DOE is under a mandate to have net zero electrical consumption to meet Hawaii
green energy goals.
Is there a way
out of this mess? The DOE thinks so, as
it has rolled out a “School Directed
A/C” program that
allows basic, affordable window units if the DOE staff verities that the
school’s electrical system can handle the extra load. It turns out that the DOE recently completed
a large project to replace 700,000 light bulbs at Oahu schools with more
efficient LED bulbs, reducing electric usage and creating the capacity to
install air conditioning while still being “net zero.”
In a press release, DOE’s
assistant superintendent for facilities and operations describes the window
units: “These are less complex units
from installation to maintenance, where we’re not having to tear down walls or
install solar panels or battery systems. It will be easier for our schools to
maintain these units rather than having to contract out for maintenance
service,” she said.
“Things can be
done much, much cheaper,” KHON2 quotes HSTA President Corey Rosenlee as saying.
“You can probably do a classroom for $2,000 where before it cost $100,000. If a
wall unit falls apart after 10 years, then you can replace it. It’s easy to
look back now and say we should have done this 5 years ago.”
Okay, so where
does that leave us? We spent a massive
amount of money on our schools a few years ago and have gotten questionable
results. We have since identified a much
cheaper and more efficient path toward addressing the health and safety issue
that still plagues our keiki. Educators,
are there lessons to be learned from all of this? If so, tell your administrators! Let’s learn from this debacle and use our
public money more efficiently next time.
More Special Funds?!
After going through the hundreds of bills introduced in the 2020 Legislature, a few themes appear to be emerging.
One of them is that there are a plethora of requests for “special funds.” Special funds are pots of money that exist for a specific purpose, and largely bypass the legislative appropriation process. The existence of hundreds of these special funds has often confounded those who seek answers to simple questions like “How much money does the State have?”
This year, for example, bills have been introduced to establish:
There are many others. A number of these measures involve tax increases or revenue diversion (which probably would lead to tax increases after the agency or agencies whose revenue was diverted figures it out and screams bloody murder).
Our Legislature is supposed to be the steward of all state moneys, but special funds make it very easy to lose track of where the money is and how it is being spent. Departments are supposed to tell the Legislature if they have special funds and how much is in them, but they don’t always. Recently, in Report No. 20-01, the State Auditor took DBEDT to task for failing to report $6.5 million in non-general fund moneys. DBEDT’s response? Just that they’ll “take corrective action.” Not even a “Whoops! We screwed up and promise to do better next time!” This followed closely on the heels of Report No. 19-16, where the Auditor found that $1.04 million in non-general fund moneys administered by the Attorney General wasn’t reported. That department responded that they “shall establish procedures to assure required reports are issued.” Is it any wonder that it’s getting harder and harder to follow the money and rein in government spending?
Another tactic that appears to be gaining traction among special fund supporters is “scope creep.” It involves expanding the scope of what the special fund moneys may be spent on. If special fund moneys can be spent on more and more things, then there tends to be more spending, and then the funds need to be fed more and more to stay afloat. Then who is going to do the feeding? Probably we, the taxpayers.
The moral of the story is that special funds are often used to obfuscate and confuse, to put a smokescreen between those who spend the money and those who are charged with making sure the money is well spent. Let’s do all of ourselves a favor and get rid of the special funds we don’t really need, and make sure that the operations of the ones we do need are transparent and accountable.