Saturday, September 7, 2024
More
    Home Blog Page 84

    The Left’s ‘White Nationalist’ Fraud

    Frank Salvato
    -
    0
    The Left’s ‘White Nationalist’ Fraud

    Progressive presidential candidate Kamala Harris has suggested that if elected President of the United States she would propose and support “red flag law” legislation that would create “domestic terrorism prevention orders”; allowing law enforcement to temporarily restrict a person’s access to legally owned weapons should they feel the person is a danger. Aside from the obvious Second Amendment issue, there is another disturbing thing happening here.

    According to USA Today, Harris proposes to create:

    “…‘domestic terrorism prevention orders’ that would give law enforcement and family members of suspected white nationalists or domestic terrorists the ability to petition a federal court to temporarily restrict a person’s access to guns if the person exhibits clear evidence of being a danger.” (Emphasis mine)

    As an aside, the “red-flag law” proposals – as well as those in existence – targeting legal gun ownership are tantamount to redundant where mental capacity is concerned. Many states have enacted legislation that mirrors Florida’s Mental Health Act, or Baker Act, allowing for the involuntary institutionalization and examination of an individual by judges, law enforcement officials, physicians, and/or mental health professionals. The person must satisfy two requirements: 1) be suspected of having a mental illness; 2) present as a danger of becoming a harm to self, harm to others, or is self-neglectful.

    Florida’s Baker Act, and similar laws in other states, already provides the mechanism for authorities to intervene when an individual is a threat to themselves or society. These newly proposed and enacted “red-flag laws” are nothing more than emotionally-charged attempts to manipulate the public into believing that typically do-nothing politicians are “getting it done.”

    That said, the more devious act put into motion by Ms. Harris is this: the ideologically motivated and purposefully inappropriate use of the descriptor “white nationalist.”

    The Left and we see a perfect example of it here, is attempting to obfuscate the meaning of “nationalist” with “supremacist”.

    A “nationalist” practices and/or believes in “nationalism”, which is defined as:

    “…an ideology and movement characterized by the promotion of the interests of a particular nation, especially with the aim of gaining and maintaining the nation’s sovereignty over its homeland.”

    A “supremacist” is defined as:

    “…a person who promotes or advocates the supremacy of any particular group.”

    And by using the racist descriptor “white” in conjunction with “nationalist” the Left is attempting to marry the word “nationalist” with a negative connotation, i.e. skinheads, Nazis, anarchists, etc.

    So, if you are white and you are proud to be American and believe in American sovereignty, by Ms. Harris’s definition – whether you are a man, woman, or child, you are a “white nationalist” (read: white supremacist).

    And Ms. Harris is – by literal definition – stating (and this is the narrative being floated by each and every Democrat and Democrat presidential candidate who agrees with her) that since you are a “white nationalist” you should be denied your Second Amendment rights and subject to psychological evaluation; you are “a danger” to society.

    Today’s Progressive-Fascist Left is attempting to redefine the public’s idea of “nationalism” for two reasons: 1) President Trump called himself a nationalist and they want to use that soundbite in the upcoming election; and 2) they truly, in their heart of hearts, believe that the United States is the cause of the majority of the wrongs in the world.

    It’s hard to imagine Ronald Reagan, the man who brought down the Wall and the USSR; the man who literally liberated those who were oppressed under Soviet rule, as a neo-Nazi skinhead, but because he identified as an America First kinda guy, well, he is a “white nationalist”, don’t you know…

    “I was born an American, I live like an American, I will die an American.” ~ John F. Kennedy, President & White Nationalist

    Soft on Crime – Because of the Money

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    Soft on Crime – Because of the Money

    In the news recently was a stunning announcement by Justin Kollar, who is the Kauai County Prosecutor.  State law says that for folks driving without a license or driving without insurance, heavier fines and more jail time apply to repeat offenders.  He said that he has decided to prosecute all cases under his watch as first-time offender cases, no matter how many prior convictions the defendant may have or how quickly those priors were accumulated.

    Why?  He said in a recent interview that the repeat offender penalties do nothing to make the roads safer, add more people to crowded jails, and trap the working poor in a cycle they can’t get out of.  They can’t pay the fine and must work to earn the money to pay it, they need to drive to get to work, they get pulled over, and then they owe more money they can’t pay.

    Prosecutors traditionally have had wide discretion in deciding what kind of criminal charges to bring against a person, or whether to bring charges at all.  For instance, a prosecutor might not charge motor vehicle drivers going 60 mph in a 55-mph zone, but may go to court when the driver has gone over 70 mph. 

    Consider this actual example:  a Delaware grandmother sent her granddaughter to her third-grade class with a birthday cake (hers) and a knife so it could be shared.  The teacher used the knife to cut the cake but had to report the girl for bringing a weapon to school.  The school district, which had a zero-tolerance policy on weapons, felt it had no choice but to follow that policy to the letter and expel the girl for a year. 

    So yes, it is important that there be prosecutorial discretion.  Prosecutors need it to refrain from charging cases that aren’t supported by the evidence, or to refrain from punishing people who, although violating the literal terms of the law, really haven’t done anything that the law was designed to prevent.

    At the same time, discretion can mask more insidious behavior such as racial discrimination (prosecuting all speeders if they are black, for example, while exercising more restraint on others) or graft (a defendant can skate, for example, if he knows the right people to pay off).

    This case seems to be about another issue:  infringement upon the kuleana of other institutions.  Mr. Kollar is an elected Kauai County official.  The laws of which he is complaining are state laws.  They were put into place by our state legislators and governor, who had the interests of the entire state at heart when they enacted the enhanced penalties for repeat offenders.  If he has a problem with how these laws are applied to the working poor, shouldn’t he go to the Legislature and suggest appropriate amendments?  Apparently, he prefers to take the matter into his own hands.  Maybe he thinks that this grandstanding will help him get re-elected.

    But what about the plight of the working poor?  The Hawaii ACLU is quoted as saying that driving without a license or insurance is only about inability to afford paying premium payments or fines, which doesn’t make you more dangerous on the road.  I respectfully disagree.  The ability to drive a car is a privilege, not a right.  Taking away the privilege is a possible consequence of doing something unlawful.  Is it fair?  The folks who get whacked for driving without a license or insurance the second or third time intentionally got behind the wheel without appreciating the responsibility.  Is it fair to the other drivers who must bear more costs of car-related injuries, deaths, and property damage because these folks won’t?  I, for one, would rather not be on the road with people who reject the responsibility that comes with a motor vehicle.

    It’s High Noon for the American Justice System

    Frank Salvato
    -
    0
    It’s High Noon for the American Justice System

    The death of pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein puts two very real facts into play. One, his death never should have happened, and two, it is insanely obvious that his death came by nefarious means. But a third and more important fact is staring the American people in the face and there is no arguing it away.

    Almost immediately after Epstein’s death was announced, social media exploded with comments and memes intimating that he had been “suicided” at the hands of Bill and Hillary Clinton. It is true that there is a list comprising the questionable deaths of Clinton associated and business partners that reaches from California to Maine. But where Epsteins’ death is concerned there are a number of high value individuals who have just as much to lose as the Clinton’s were Epstein to have testified in a cooperative manner.

    Among those implicated in wrong-doing in documents unsealed in the case against Epstein are: Bill Clinton, Les Wexner (Vitoria’s Secret), Prince Andrew, James E. Staley (JPMorgan Chase), Leon D. Black (Apollo Global Management) Glenn Dubin (Highbridge Capital Management), Daniel Zwirn (hedge fund manager), Mort Zuckerman (publisher NY Daily News), Ehud Barak (former Israeli prime minister), Tony Blair (former British prime minister), David Koch and the late Salomon Brothers chief executive officer John Gutfreund, to name just a few.

    If Epstein’s death comes at the hand of nefarious means, one of the above mentioned may – may – very well be the owner of that hand. So, this is one serious game of high-stakes, high-profile “Clue”.

    Now, take into consideration some indisputable facts about Epstein’s existence while in incarceration.

    When a prisoner is processed into the system they are fingerprinted and pictures are taken including those of any identifying marks. The prisoner is ordered to strip down, squat and cough to make sure no contraband is being brought into the prison. They are ordered to shower and receive clothes and shower shoes devoid of belts, laces, etc. If bail is denied (as in Epstein’s case) they take all your items including your clothing and hold it until you are released. The prisoner is left with no objects or possessions that can be used to inflict any bodily harm to him or anyone else.

    Epstein was being held as a high-profile prisoner who less than two weeks before his death was placed on suicide watch. He had, at that time, been found semi-unconscious in his cell with injuries to his neck. It is important to understand that Epstein was not sharing a cell with any other inmate, and because he had been properly processed into the facility he would have had no instruments with which to apply injury to himself.

    Here is where it gets interesting, if it isn’t interesting enough already. FOX News reports:

    “He had been taken off suicide watch before he killed himself, a person familiar with the matter told the AP. It wasn’t immediately clear when he was taken off suicide watch.”

    Some questions that come to mind:

    1. Why would someone who was found semi-conscious, presumably by his own hand, less than two weeks earlier in his cell be removed from suicide watch?
    2. If it was determined that his state of semi-consciousness was not a result of his own hand – and being such a high-profile inmate – why was he not placed in solitary confinement and under 24-hour watch to assure his own survival?
    3. Who ordered that Epstein be removed from suicide watch?

    Attorney General William Barr has stated that he is appalled that this event could have taken place. He is correct to be appalled and I applaud him for ordering the Inspector General and the FBI to investigate the circumstances of Epstein’s death. In fact, he would be wise to immediately impound Epstein’s body and sequester it at Quantico – or maybe even the highest security facility the military has to offer him – under the tightest security until a full forensic analysis can be completed, including examining the body for proof it is Epstein as well as evidence proving murder.

    But that third and more important fact staring the American people in the face, which I alluded to in the opening paragraph, is this. If – and it would take a willing suspension of the rules of probability to believe it otherwise – Epstein’s death is, in fact, a murder and no one is held accountable for it’s manufacture, the American Justice system is broken beyond repair.

    If the mega-wealthy and high-tier politically connected can override one of the most secure prison scenarios to assassinate an individual who has the wherewithal to implicate them in crimes; who threatens their elite lifestyle, then there is indeed an unrepairable two-tier justice system in the United States that allows the elitist class to murder and get away with it.

    The credibility of the American Justice system rides on this singular case. Unless Attorney General Barr brings those who orchestrated the assassination of Jeffrey Epstein to justice – from the financier to the lowest-level prison officials who allowed it to happen under their watch – we can no longer claim blind justice in the United States. We will have inarguably devolved into a despotism that favors the elitists. It is high noon and the very idea of American justice hangs in the balance. The Constitution is under attack. Let’s hope nothing happens to Attorney General Barr as we move forward.

    Withholding, the Root of All Evil?

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    Withholding, the Root of All Evil?

    Withholding is making someone who isn’t liable for tax, but who pays money to someone who is, responsible for collecting and paying the tax to the government.  Employers, for example, must withhold federal and state income taxes out of wages paid to their employees. 

    The government also makes the buyer withhold taxes on big property sales. The federal government requires withholding when property is sold by a foreigner.  Our state government also requires withholding when property is sold by a nonresident. 

    This year, we took withholding one step further by enacting Act 232, a law that requires partnerships, estates, and trusts to withhold on income distributed to nonresidents.  That law went into effect at the beginning of this year, but the Department of Taxation has come out with Announcement 2019-08 saying that they won’t be ready to enforce that law until the beginning of next year.

    Interestingly, the law does not apply to “publicly traded partnerships,” which are partnerships with so many partners that their partnership interests can be bought and sold on a stock exchange just like shares of stock.  Under federal law, these partnerships are treated the same as corporations.  The PTPs complained in testimony that it’s such a bother to make them withhold:

    [T]he requirement to withhold tax on behalf of nonresidents would be an extremely burdensome requirement for PTPs.  Federal law does require brokers to report to PTPs specific ownership information on units held in street name, including name and address.  However, this information is provided only once a year….

    In other words, enough information goes to the PTPs so that they can send out federal Forms 1099-DIV to their unit holders so they can include that information in their respective federal tax returns.  In the same testimony, furthermore, the PTPs offered to file an annual information return reporting name, address, taxpayer ID number, and income sourced to the state for each unit holder. That offer got written into the law.  So, the PTPs can send out information returns to everyone but it’s too much humbug to cut the State a check?  Forgive me for laughing.

    There was one more bill to require withholding – the so-called “AirBnB Bill,” which was vetoed.  The bill would have required transient vacation rental platforms such as AirBnB, HomeAway, and Flipkey to withhold general excise and transient accommodations taxes on transient vacation rental units booked through those platforms.  Tax compliance is the responsibility of the unit owners, but not everyone knows about or pays the taxes, so withholding would increase compliance.

    The Governor’s veto message says, “While requiring the hosting platforms to collect and pay the taxes on illegal transient accommodation uses would not legalize these operations, there is concern that it could be viewed as legitimizing these operations.” This message sounds like he is trying to talk out of both sides of his mouth.

    Withholding has nothing to do with legitimizing illegal activity.  If business is being conducted, tax is owed and should be collected whether the business is legal or not.  Remember, the tax laws didn’t legitimize Al Capone’s activity; instead, they put him behind bars. 

    Rather, the real issue seemed to be that the county passed zoning laws but wasn’t enforcing them, and the prospect of State withholding seemed to be a convenient way for the counties to put the issue on the State’s back.  But, counties, how about this for a solution?  Find advertisements for illegal vacation rentals, confirm by online search that they aren’t registered for tax, and then rat them out to the State Tax Office!  Then you can use your people to enforce your laws against other illegal rentals.

    The Two Things That Raise Eyebrows About the El Paso Shooting

    Frank Salvato
    -
    0
    The Two Things That Raise Eyebrows About the El Paso Shooting

    There is no question that the recent shootings in Dayton, Ohio and El Paso, Texas were a tragedy for those affected. As well, these shootings can be seen as nothing less than acts of domestic terrorism (they fit the basic definition of terrorism, and they were domestic at their core). But the El Paso shooting stands out as a hand over-played by the Progressive-Fascist Left, both domestically and internationally.

    As usual, the mainstream media is committing sins of omission are a fast and furious rate, pun intended. Even as they paint the societally dysfunctional shooter, Patrick Crusius, as a “white nationalist”, they are conveniently leaving out his self-declaration as a neo-Progressive; a self-declaration proven by his own hand in his “manifesto”.

    Gateway Pundit points out that Crusius was a proponent of both basic universal income and universal healthcare, two goals only valued by the Progressive-Fascist Left:

    “In the near future, America will have to initiate a basic universal income to prevent widespread poverty and civil unrest as people lose their jobs (to automation). Joblessness is in itself a source of civil unrest…Achieving ambitious social projects like universal healthcare and UBI would become far more likely to succeed if tens of millions of defendants are removed.”

    He also comments on his environmental leanings to include blame for any and all environmental decline resting with Capitalism:

    “The decimation of our environment is creating a massive burden for future generations. Corporations are heading the destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources.”

    These are hardly the words of a Capitalist, a Conservative, a Libertarian, or a devotee of the President’s. In fact, these are the words of the Ocasio-Cortez Left; the Progressive-Fascist Left. So it is that once again the mainstream media is executing ideological and political dishonesty in its overt activism. Where they are making Crusius sound like a Trump supporter, he is actually a supporter of the fringe Left, although one could hardly deduce that from their coverage.

    Then we have the international one-world, Progressive-Fascist disingenuousness. Mexico’s Foreign Minister, Marcelo Ebrard, as much as said his government was going to hold the United States legally responsible for the endangerment of Mexican nationals in El Paso.

    FOX News reports Ebrard as saying:

    “The president of the Republic has instructed me so that this posture and indignation from Mexico is translated, first in protecting affected families, and then in legal actions, efficient and prompt, quick and convincing so that Mexico can demand the conditions to protect to the Mexican-American community and Mexicans in the United States,” (emphasis mine).

    Excuse me?!

    While not every Mexican national who illegally crosses into the United States is a violent criminal or a drug cartel-related operative, there is a good percentage who are. There are reports daily of lives ended tragically, senselessly, and unnecessarily by illegal immigrants who have often been ordered deported and who disappeared into the sanctuary city mist. These Mexican nationals have committed crimes against American citizens; citizens the United States government has a duty to protect from “enemies foreign and domestic” – like illegal immigrants from Mexico who would even be considered criminals in their own country.

    It takes a real set of cojones for Ebrard and his government to even suggest legal action against the United States in the wake of this senseless tragedy. It is an international insult to the United States and President Trump would be well within his moral and ethical right to shut the Mexican border completely citing their exact demand in reverse: we demand the conditions to protect American citizens from criminals who choose to violate our immigration laws to affect violent crime in our country.

    As the mainstream media, the Democrats, and the Progressive-Fascists play politics with this heart-wrenching act of violence keep in mind that they are advancing a false narrative even as they try to emotionalize the event for their own ideological purposes. Repulsive doesn’t even begin to summarize their intents, words, and actions.

    My sincere condolences and prayers to all who are affected by this event.

    A Veil of Secrecy Around Revenue Estimates

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    A Veil of Secrecy Around Revenue Estimates

    In this week’s article, we spotlight yet another attempt by a government agency to shroud its operations in the shadows.

    During any legislative session, our Department of Taxation furnishes a very important service to our legislators. It provides revenue estimates on various bills going through the legislative process. Sometimes it includes in its public testimony the end result—the bill will result in the State gaining $x million per year, for example—but it doesn’t disclose how it got to that number.

    A local tax attorney asked for the Department’s revenue estimates on a particular bill, including the underlying assumptions, source data and documents, and computations it uses to create those estimates.  After the Department refused to turn them over, he went to the state’s Office of Information Practices, or OIP.  In May, OIP issued Formal Opinion F19-05, ruling against the Department and ordering the revenue estimate materials turned over.

    In early July, the Department appealed OIP’s decision to First Circuit Court.  It won’t turn over the revenue estimates while the appeal works its way through the court system…which could take years.

    Under the law, an agency may withhold information if disclosing it would frustrate an important government function. The Department argues that one of its tasks is to produce objective, independent revenue estimates; that task, it argues, is frustrated when it needs to bare its soul to the public.

    Also, the law permits withholding of “inchoate and draft working papers of legislative committees.”  The Department urges that its revenue estimates are provided for the benefit and use of legislative committees and that no other staff or agency is able to perform this function.

    So, I have a few questions here:

    Since when is the Department “objective” or “independent”?  It takes positions supporting or opposing several bills each session.  It’s part of the Executive Branch of government.  If the Executive Branch likes or doesn’t like a particular bill, wouldn’t it be natural for the Department’s testimony on the bill, including any revenue estimate, to be colored accordingly? 

    If a revenue estimate is “objective and independent,” what’s the harm in disclosing it to the public?  According to a 2015 study published by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, thirty-eight states routinely prepare publicly available “fiscal notes” to accompany legislation that would have a significant fiscal impact.  Why are we so different from them? 

    Revenue estimation isn’t an exact science.  It depends heavily on the underlying assumptions.  So, why shouldn’t those assumptions be debated and analyzed like any other opinion from any other legislative testifier?

    Finally, how could revenue estimates be considered the work product or work papers of a legislative committee?  The Department is an Executive Branch agency.  If its testimony finds its way into a legislative committee’s work papers, fine, the work papers are entitled to protection, but the source of the information, namely the revenue estimate and Department work papers, isn’t. 

    Folks, taxpayer money paid for these revenue estimates.  Shouldn’t we taxpayers at least be able to see what we paid for?

    This veil of secrecy needs to be lifted.  We should be able to make better laws if it is.

    Some in Congress Want You to Subsidize Their DC Housing

    Frank Salvato
    -
    0
    Some in Congress Want You to Subsidize Their DC Housing

    It was only a matter of time I suppose. Some Progressive-Democrats in Congress are floating a bill to make the taxpayers pay for their housing in Washington, DC, even as they receive over $170,000 a year in salary. Keep in mind this excludes what they get to spend on travel and expenses related to their campaigns.

    In a measure that would ban members of Congress from sleeping in their offices, Rep. Bennie Thompson (P-MS) has introduced legislation that we should all hope fails miserably. In addition to the ban, HR5845 proposes to allow Congress creatures to write-off up to $3,000 on their taxes toward their Washington, DC living expenses, even as it calls for taxpayer subsidized housing – dormitory-style (actually it would be closer to condominium-style) for all members of the US House of Representatives.

    Citizens Against Government Waste, a taxpayer watchdog group, points out that the average cost of a studio apartment in Washington, DC clocks in at about $1,602, which would be roughly 10 percent of any member of Congress’s taxpayer-funded salary. The common percentage the average American plays out of his or her salary for housing is closer to 30 percent.

    Where to begin.

    My initial response is to suggest that If they want subsidized government housing they should be obligated to live in the same subsidized housing in which those on welfare live. It would give them first-hand knowledge of the horror associated with living in these complexes; the violence, the lawlessness, the drug culture, etc.

    But then I immediately focused on the obvious. If someone can’t make it on $174,000 in annual salary – in addition to the amount of monies they get to pull from their never-ending, bottomless campaign coffers – then they shouldn’t be charged with spending and budgeting for the country. How are we to trust our elected officials to negotiate pharmaceutical prices or wrestle with reforming the tax code when they can’t even manage a $174,000 paycheck to include $19,224 for housing?

    This financially bloated mentality is the stuff of $554.78 toilet seats, a 13-foot-long, $3.4 million turtle tunnel in Florida,  that cost the taxpayers $3.4 million, and millionaire House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s $22,000 per-hour-to-operate government jet, costing taxpayers about $480,000 per month for her back-and-forth flights to California each weekend (a commercial jet would cost around $2,000 per month).

    Those signing on to this spendthrift legislation are all Progressives and Democrats: James Clyburn (D-SC), Hank Johnson (P-GA), Elijah Cummings (P-MD), and Marcia Fudge (P-OH). The infuriating thing about Cummings is that he can easily take a commuter train from his primary residence in Baltimore to DC when he needs to be in DC. In fact, may people commute, workweek, between the two destinations.

    In addition to this insanely extravagant piece of elitist legislation, the idea of getting all of the Congress swamp creatures in one location in extension of the time they already spend in the fraternal halls on Capitol Hill together would be to permanently engrain elitist factionalism into the Legislative Branch of our government, even more so than it is already.

    In the beginning, the Framers insisted that those elected to Congress and appointed to the Senate receive only a per diem. They made no provisions for a “salary” for these public servants. Since those days, political opportunists have created the “professional politician”; societal panderers who never stop campaigning, never stop manipulating the emotions of their constituents for their own professional gain; and who carve out perks and premiums for themselves and their brethren; all of whom feed from the publicly funded government trough.

    Here’s a thought. Instead of making it easier for elected officials to stay in Washington, DC, why don’t we make it harder for them to do so? Let’s make it harder for them to live in the swamp; to cavort with other swamp creatures; to facilitate the back-patting, smoky backroom DC deals that now make Chicago politics look responsible.

    Making these swamp creatures spend more time in their home districts and less time with the national party leaders would not only make them more accessible to their constituents (the people they are elected to serve) but it would make it harder for the political and lobby factions in Washington, DC (read: the national political parties) to pressure and own them, respectfully.

    This would be a great thing for out country…a great thing, indeed.

    The Special Land and Development Fund

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    The Special Land and Development Fund

    In this week’s spotlight is the Special Land and Development Fund or SLDF, which is administered by the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR).  Into that fund goes all land rents the State receives for land that is either leased or used under a revocable permit (such as those used by airport or harbor-based businesses). 

    The fund is also fed by earmarks on two taxes.  HRS section 248-8 gives it 0.3% of the highway fuel tax up to $250,000, and HRS section 237D-6.5(b)(5) gives it $3 million of the transient accommodations tax, each year.

    Recently, the State Auditor came out with Report No. 19-12 concentrating on this fund.  The Auditor raised some questions about the way the fund and some of the underlying state lands were managed, and the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) took umbrage with quite a few of the Auditor’s findings.

    Just to give you a flavor of the underlying mentality, the first page of DLNR’s response to the audit findings touted “the Land Division’s planning, implementing and accounting efforts [such that] the annual revenues for the SLDF increased exponentially from $6.3 million in 2010, to over $20 million in 2018.”

    In response, the Auditor thought it interesting to use 2010 as the starting point because it was a tremendous drop from the prior three fiscal years, where revenues averaged $8.4 million.  Also, part of the increase was due to the $3 million from the TAT earmark, which took effect in 2016 (Act 117 of 2015), so how could DNLR’s Land Division take credit for that?

    Also, there seemed to be some problems with basic math.  In 2018, DLNR told the Auditor that the SLDF consists of a parent account and 24 subaccounts.  That information was used to create Report No. 18-19.  This time, the Auditor pointed out that 23 subaccounts weren’t reported to the Legislature.  DLNR’s response was that the SLDF has only one subaccount, and that the 23 other subaccounts, which together contained over $1 million, were sent to other divisions within DLNR.

    Huh?  Even if the 23 other subaccounts were being managed by different divisions within DLNR, the subaccounts are still under the SLDF as the parent account and are still within DLNR. 

    Apparently, DLNR’s Land Division apparently has a “silo mentality” that is so strong that “we don’t manage it” means “it doesn’t exist.”  But the response to the Auditor isn’t supposed to be Land Division’s response, it’s DLNR’s response.  The response was on DLNR letterhead and signed by its chairperson, so why doesn’t it contain input from the other affected divisions?

    Finally, let’s focus on another statistic the Auditor pointed out:  the delinquency rate on State lands rented out.  As of the end of June 2017, DLNR had $7.3 million in accounts receivable.  $2.1 million of that, or 29%, was more than 60 days unpaid.  Of the $2.1 million, DLNR determined that $1.6 million, or 75%, was uncollectible.

    DLNR’s response:  “However, the Auditor’s report fails to cite to comparable delinquency rates from other State or County landlords … or the private sector.  Therefore, the Department believes this criticism lacks support and is unwarranted.”

    Excuse me?  Rent is being charged for state lands (less than market rate in many instances), the rent isn’t being paid on time 70% of the time, and it will never be paid more than 20% of the time.  True, those statistics apply to just one point in time, but if you were the landlord and those statistics came from your property management company, wouldn’t you at least be asking questions?  Would you even care about “comparable delinquency rates”?  By the way, you’re a taxpayer so you ARE the landlord.

    Stop shooting the messenger and concentrate on cleaning house!

    So What Really Is a Resort Fee?

    Tom Yamachika
    -
    0
    So What Really Is a Resort Fee?

    It’s July 2019, and already we are starting to see laws passed in the 2019 Legislature take effect. 

    One of these laws concerns “resort fees” that hotels both here and in other states and countries have been charging their guests.  A resort fee is supposed to be a payment for amenities provided to guests of the hotel.  But some hotels made it so difficult to decline the fee that tax authorities, including ours, concluded that such a fee could be a disguised part of the room rate. 

    Here, the reason why it matters is that we impose the Transient Accommodations Tax (TAT), a 10.25% tax on transient accommodation rentals, but the tax doesn’t apply to charges for Internet, laundry, meals, or other amenities.  (The General Excise Tax, however, applies to both.)

    Last year, the Legislature concluded that the State was getting shorted because it wasn’t getting the appropriate taxes on resort fees.  It passed a bill to fix the issue but ran into problems by saying that EVERYTHING charged to a tourist is a resort fee.  Clearly that wasn’t the right answer, and the bill was vetoed.

    This year, the bill clarified that “mandatory” resort fees are subject to the TAT. The word “mandatory” is supposed to mean that if the charge can’t be avoided when a person stays at the resort, then the charge is part of the room rate and should be taxed accordingly. That bill was signed into law (Act 20 of 2019) and took effect on July 1st. 

    The Department of Taxation recently came out with a tax information release and proposed rules to implement this new law.  That guidance was the first tax information release published on any 2019 law.

    In it, the Department concluded that it must be possible for a guest to decline a resort fee just by asking; if not, it’s mandatory and needs to be taxed. 

    One example in the proposed rules discusses a hotel guest who wants to decline the resort fee and is told that the fee will be charged but may be removed if the guest calls the hotel’s customer complaint line later.  Too much work!  It’s a mandatory fee and will be subject to TAT.

    Or, suppose the guest is told that the fee may be removed if the guest goes online and fully completes a customer satisfaction survey.  The conclusion is the same – the fee is subject to TAT.

    The proposed rules also try to tackle one other topic:  whether GET and TAT are “visibly passed on.”  TAT is not imposed on taxes that are visibly passed on, and GET is not imposed on TAT visibly passed on.  On a $100 room where $10.25 TAT and $4.71 GET are charged and the tourist pays $114.96, the hotel would need to pay $16.38 (10.25% of $114.96 + 4% of $114.96) if the taxes are not visibly passed on and $14.96 (10.25% of $100.00 + 4% of $104.71) if they are.

    The proposed rules say that the taxes are visibly passed on if (1) there are separate line items in the hotel folio for GET and TAT; (2) there is one line item for tax but the rates of GET and TAT passed on are separately stated; or (3) there is one line item for tax, the taxpayer passes on both taxes at the maximum rate allowed, and there are no charges on the folio subject to GET only.

    These, of course, are still proposed rules, and the Department is welcoming public comment on them before finalizing them.  The Tax Information Release includes the full text of the proposed rules and contact information for those who would like to make their views known.

    When the Media Embraces a Talent-Less Know-Nothing Has-Been

    Frank Salvato
    -
    0
    When the Media Embraces a Talent-Less Know-Nothing Has-Been

    People are waking up to the fact that the political opinions of the Hollywood and coastal elites are about as worthless as DeLorean stock. Yet the mainstream media – including FOX News – continues to grant them access to their airwaves and a presence on their webpages. In an age when their Fascist vitriol is increasingly off the rails we all need to exact pain from them for the time of ours they waste.

    A perfect example of the worst of these Fascist pig-ignorant elitists comes in the form of Alyssa Milano, famous for being cast as a cute kid in Who’s the Boss and then playing characters a bit more true to her nature in Melrose Place (a spoiled rich kid) and Charmed (a witch).

    Recently Milano, an unbridled, foaming-at-the-mouth critic of the Trump administration, inferred that Vice President Pence’s visit to a migrant detention center in Texas was akin to Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler visiting a World War II concentration (read: extermination) camp. She tweeted side-by-side images (in black-and-white for effect) showing a photo of Pence below a photo of Himmler, the main architect of the Holocaust. Both are pictured standing behind gates separating them from detainees; illegal immigrants in Pence’s case and prisoners soon to be murdered in Himmler’s.

    To borrow and paraphrase from Monty Python’s Flying Circus, this is the kind of philistine pig-ignorance we have come to expect from these pieces of ideologically opportunistic garbage. But, to be sure, the only reason the less-than independently thinking among us follow these abusive elitists is because the media gives them a bully pulpit. The blame is equal to bear.

    Milano’s unscrupulous use of Himmler and the Holocaust in her jaded and snobbish political screed not only dilutes the atrocities that comprised the whole of the Holocaust (which in itself should earn her an additional circle all her own in Dante’s Inferno), it advances a lie about the reason behind the crisis at the border for the sole purpose of hate. As for FOX News (We’ve given up on the other media outlets), how about getting away from this shallow sensationalism and getting back to hard news 24/7/365? Knock it off with the stories about bikini pictures and Hollywood gossip and get back to what made you in the first place: unadulterated straight news.

    1...838485...2,035Page 84 of 2,035

    Recent

    Most Commented

    Popular

    Contact us