From Lobbyist, Frank Losey:
THE SPEED OF THE IRS INVESTIGATION OF THE HSUS MAY BEGIN TO MOVE MORE QUICKLY!
A “Congressional Cavalry” of Six Members of Congress has now formally asked the Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury (IG) to “re-evaluate the tax-exempt status of the HSUS under the applicable legal standard” and to “investigate IRS’s potential failure to conduct a proper investigation.” These requests were included in the signed Joint Letter that was dated April 18, 2011.
The Six Members of Congress who signed the Joint Letter included Congresswomen Vicky Hartzler and Jo Ann Emerson from Missouri, Congressmen Blaine Luetkemeyer, Sam Graves and Billy Long from Missouri, and Congressman Don Young from Alaska. Significantly, Congressman Young issued a Press Release dated March 30, 2011 in which he refused to accept an Award from the HSUS, and went on to say: “HSUS are hypocrites, plain and simple, and I will not join them by accepting this award.”
In addition to attaching to the Joint Letter illustrative examples of documentation that showed the magnitude of the excessive lobbying by the HSUS, the Joint Letter also contained the two following, riveting quotes: “We believe that HSUS’s own public documents show beyond question that lobbying is a ‘substantial part’ of its activities, and feel that IRS’s failure to act is attributable to the politically sensitive nature of HSUS’s activities. Due to this, we write to request investigations by the Inspector General into HSUS’s apparent improper activities and its tax exempt status.” . . . “If the HSUS is not complying with the law, it should be investigated and disciplined just like any other organization, as taxpayers would be effectively subsidizing a political organization.” Not only is this letter “HUGE,” but it could “breed” supplemental letters being sent to the Treasury’s IG from other Members of Congress. The pressure on the IRS to investigate the HSUS has never been greater!!
When the Treasury’s IG is briefed by his Senior Staff about the April 18th Congressional Joint Letter - - SUCH BRIEFINGS OCCUR WHEN A JOINT CONGRESSIONAL LETTER IS RECEIVED - - and learns that several thousand concerned citizens have also contacted the OIG Hotline Office by email or Phone, the room temperature will rise in the Treasury’s IG Office!! And this BRIEFING is an additional reason for another wave of emails and Phone Calls to the OIG HOTLINE OFFICE to occur within the NEXT 30 DAYS. Even if you have already sent an email or Called, do it again. And encourage those who have not done so to email or Call. NUMBERS DO MATTER, especially when such a high level Senior Official in the Treasury Department begins asking hard questions and is briefed on the fact that the HSUS may have under-reported its revenue by over $500 Million; that over 6,000 tax-payers from all 50 States asked the IRS to investigate the HSUS; that a new wave of emails and Calls is being received by the OIG HOTLINE OFFICE; that the HSUS claims credit for the passage of over 550 Federal and State Statutes; and that the IRS assigned a Tax Fraud Case File Number (29-92012) to the HSUS in November 2008 -- 29 months ago!
EMAIL ADDRESS for OIG: Complaints@tigta.treas.gov (Subject: OIG Case File 55-1005-0025-C); OIG HOTLINE PHONE: 1-800-366-4484 (Press 5)
Suggested Short Message: “Would you please do what Six Members of Congress asked the Inspector General to do in their Joint Letter dated April 18th.”
Each Email or Call will make a difference!
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Governor names Rep. Heller to fill out Ensign’s term
By Sean Lengell - The Washington Times
Rep. Dean Heller, Nevada Republican, is jumping to the Senate, as Gov. Brian Sandoval on Wednesday named him to replace the retiring Sen. John Ensign, a move that had been widely anticipated.
The appointment is expected to help the GOP hang on to the Senate seat by giving Mr. Heller a leg up on any Democratic challengers next year.
Mr. Heller announced his candidacy last month for Mr. Ensign’s seat after the two-term Republican senator said he wasn’t running for re-election in 2012.
But when Mr. Ensign announced last week that he would step down, effective next Tuesday, because of an ongoing ethics investigation, Mr. Sandoval was tasked with picking a replacement to serve the senator’s remaining 20 months in office.
The governor said he chose Mr. Heller, a House member since 2007, because “the people of Nevada deserve a new senator who can begin work immediately.”
“Too many important issues face our state and our nation to name a caretaker to this important position,” Mr. Sandoval said. “Nevada needs an experienced voice in Washington.”
Full story at link
Rep. Dean Heller, Nevada Republican, is jumping to the Senate, as Gov. Brian Sandoval on Wednesday named him to replace the retiring Sen. John Ensign, a move that had been widely anticipated.
The appointment is expected to help the GOP hang on to the Senate seat by giving Mr. Heller a leg up on any Democratic challengers next year.
Mr. Heller announced his candidacy last month for Mr. Ensign’s seat after the two-term Republican senator said he wasn’t running for re-election in 2012.
But when Mr. Ensign announced last week that he would step down, effective next Tuesday, because of an ongoing ethics investigation, Mr. Sandoval was tasked with picking a replacement to serve the senator’s remaining 20 months in office.
The governor said he chose Mr. Heller, a House member since 2007, because “the people of Nevada deserve a new senator who can begin work immediately.”
“Too many important issues face our state and our nation to name a caretaker to this important position,” Mr. Sandoval said. “Nevada needs an experienced voice in Washington.”
Full story at link
Monday, April 25, 2011
Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act
Support S. 838 and H.R. 1558 - Help stop unreasonable bans on fishing tackle
Policy Alert from the American Sportfishing Association.
On April 14, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act (S. 838 and H.R. 1558), was introduced by the chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus - Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and John Thune (R-SD) and Representatives Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Mike Ross (D-AR). The Act will prevent a federal ban on lead in recreational fishing tackle and help to ensure that any future regulations on fishing tackle are established based on scientific data instead of unjustified petitions.
Due in large part to industry and angler response, last November the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a petition to ban lead fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Despite the EPA's ruling, this issue is not yet fully resolved. The groups who filed the petition are now turning to a lawsuit to force the EPA to ban lead fishing tackle and ammunition.
ASA is asking our members to rally behind legislation to ensure further bans are not possible. Please, contact your Members of Congress today urging them to co-sponsor S. 838 and H.R. 1558, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act.
Sample message and legislative action center can be accessed at the American Sportfishing Association website
Policy Alert from the American Sportfishing Association.
On April 14, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act (S. 838 and H.R. 1558), was introduced by the chairs of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus - Senators Jon Tester (D-MT) and John Thune (R-SD) and Representatives Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Mike Ross (D-AR). The Act will prevent a federal ban on lead in recreational fishing tackle and help to ensure that any future regulations on fishing tackle are established based on scientific data instead of unjustified petitions.
Due in large part to industry and angler response, last November the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) denied a petition to ban lead fishing tackle under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Despite the EPA's ruling, this issue is not yet fully resolved. The groups who filed the petition are now turning to a lawsuit to force the EPA to ban lead fishing tackle and ammunition.
ASA is asking our members to rally behind legislation to ensure further bans are not possible. Please, contact your Members of Congress today urging them to co-sponsor S. 838 and H.R. 1558, the Hunting, Fishing and Recreational Shooting Sports Protection Act.
Sample message and legislative action center can be accessed at the American Sportfishing Association website
$20 Million reasons to fix Prop B
By Representative Jay Barnes
The Missouri Record. April 22, 2011 10:30 AM
Barrels of ink have been spilt on the legislature’s efforts to fix problems with Prop B relating to the dog-breeding industry in Missouri. But little has been said about the unadvertised costs of the bill.
When Missourians took to the polls in November 2010, they were told by former State Auditor Susan Montee that the measure would only cost $650,000. Unfortunately, if not fixed, the true cost could be more than 30 times as expensive. The reason is the Fifth Amendment.
Under our federal Constitution, the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause provides a check on the actions of local, state, and the federal government to take private property without just compensation to the owner of that property. When people think of the Takings Clause, the usually think about eminent domain – where government takes someone’s home to build a new road – or, in some awful situations, to grow government revenue. But there’s also a strain of takings known as regulatory takings.
A regulatory taking occurs when a new government law or regulation prevents economically viable use of property or if its effect on a property owner’s ability to productive use is sufficiently severe.
When an alleged taking destroys most but not all viability, courts examine the claimed taking under a three-part test. A court must determine: (1) the economic impact of the regulation; (2) the interference with investment-backed expectations of the property owner; and (3) the character of the governmental action.
Prop B tells dog breeders around our state, the vast majority of which treat their animals with the utmost respect, that they can no long own more than 50 dogs – regardless of how well they treat their animals.
If challenged in court, Prop B could very well fail all three parts of the test. The economic impact of the regulation is to put many breeders out of business. The interference with investment-backed expectations is high because Missouri breeders invested in their facilities with the reasonable expectation that they’d be able to continue operating if they treated their dogs well. Finally, the character of the government action is arbitrary and capricious because it does not include any consideration of a breeder’s actual practices. The vast majority of dog breeders who treat their animals well are treated the same as abusive rogues regardless of their actual business practices.
If a court found that Prop B was a regulatory taking, the next question is how much it would cost the state. The industry has estimated that Prop B would destroy the value of 20,000 dogs in the state in facilities with more than 50 dogs. With an average value of $1,000 per dog, the easy math reveals that Prop B could cost Missouri taxpayers $20 million in lawsuits in its first year.
Would this knowledge have swayed enough Missourians to change the outcome of Prop B in November 2010? I believe it would have. The state of Missouri does not have $20 million lying around to pay the bill. Regardless of the merits of other parts of the legislation or the “Missouri Deal” that has been reached, the fiscally responsible thing for Gov. Nixon to do is to sign the fix passed last week in the Missouri legislature.
The Missouri Record. April 22, 2011 10:30 AM
Barrels of ink have been spilt on the legislature’s efforts to fix problems with Prop B relating to the dog-breeding industry in Missouri. But little has been said about the unadvertised costs of the bill.
When Missourians took to the polls in November 2010, they were told by former State Auditor Susan Montee that the measure would only cost $650,000. Unfortunately, if not fixed, the true cost could be more than 30 times as expensive. The reason is the Fifth Amendment.
Under our federal Constitution, the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause provides a check on the actions of local, state, and the federal government to take private property without just compensation to the owner of that property. When people think of the Takings Clause, the usually think about eminent domain – where government takes someone’s home to build a new road – or, in some awful situations, to grow government revenue. But there’s also a strain of takings known as regulatory takings.
A regulatory taking occurs when a new government law or regulation prevents economically viable use of property or if its effect on a property owner’s ability to productive use is sufficiently severe.
When an alleged taking destroys most but not all viability, courts examine the claimed taking under a three-part test. A court must determine: (1) the economic impact of the regulation; (2) the interference with investment-backed expectations of the property owner; and (3) the character of the governmental action.
Prop B tells dog breeders around our state, the vast majority of which treat their animals with the utmost respect, that they can no long own more than 50 dogs – regardless of how well they treat their animals.
If challenged in court, Prop B could very well fail all three parts of the test. The economic impact of the regulation is to put many breeders out of business. The interference with investment-backed expectations is high because Missouri breeders invested in their facilities with the reasonable expectation that they’d be able to continue operating if they treated their dogs well. Finally, the character of the government action is arbitrary and capricious because it does not include any consideration of a breeder’s actual practices. The vast majority of dog breeders who treat their animals well are treated the same as abusive rogues regardless of their actual business practices.
If a court found that Prop B was a regulatory taking, the next question is how much it would cost the state. The industry has estimated that Prop B would destroy the value of 20,000 dogs in the state in facilities with more than 50 dogs. With an average value of $1,000 per dog, the easy math reveals that Prop B could cost Missouri taxpayers $20 million in lawsuits in its first year.
Would this knowledge have swayed enough Missourians to change the outcome of Prop B in November 2010? I believe it would have. The state of Missouri does not have $20 million lying around to pay the bill. Regardless of the merits of other parts of the legislation or the “Missouri Deal” that has been reached, the fiscally responsible thing for Gov. Nixon to do is to sign the fix passed last week in the Missouri legislature.
TX: Bill targets 'puppy mills'
Rep. Thomson (D-Houston) continues to support her breeder-crushing bill with the big lie that hobby breeders would be excluded from regulation. "Show dogs, wildlife, herding dogs — it doesn't affect them at all," she said.
Yet under a recently amended section HB 1451 presumes all owned intact females are being bred. Owners of 11 intact females are "guilty until proven innocent" and must prove to the satisfaction of inspectors no breeding has taken place. Under HB 1451 the penalty for breeding even ONE at any time is qualification as a commercial breeder, licensing, regulation, and home inspections.
HB 1451 will pull conscientious hobby breeders and hunting dog owners into the definition of commercial breeder and subject them to the onerous provisions of this legislation even though they are not businesses in the true sense.
Legislation would set limits and require checks
By JOE HOLLEY, AUSTIN BUREAU, April 22, 2011
AUSTIN — So-called puppy mills and other dog and cat breeding operations would become regulated by the state, required to undergo annual inspections and criminal background checks under a bill that could come before the full House next week.
Rep. Senfronia Thomson's House Bill 1451 would classify dog and cat breeders who have 11 or more unspayed female animals as commercial breeders and require that they be licensed by the state. In addition to background checks and annual inspections, operators would be required to provide wholesome food and clean water, proper lighting and ventilation for animals confined indoors and adequate sanitation.
Supporters said current laws address only extreme cases and make it difficult for animal welfare workers to investigate puppy mills, especially if the operators bar them from their property.
Breeders criticize
Thompson's bill enjoys the support the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but breeders say it would go too far. At a committee hearing last month, dozens of witnesses, many of them breeders, testified that the measure would put them out of business while doing nothing to shut down inhumane operations.
Other breeders criticized the 11-female limit, and some argued that the annual examination and record-keeping requirements would be too expensive.
Hobby breeders would be excluded from regulation.
Thompson, D-Houston, said Thursday that she has continued to work with opponents of the bill during the past couple of months and believes she has addressed their concerns.
"Show dogs, wildlife, herding dogs — it doesn't affect them at all," she said. "If you have 11 intact females, and you're breeding them all at the same time, then you need to be licensed by the state. It's like when somebody cuts hair for free. We don't bother them. But when they start charging for their services, we need to make sure for the sake of public health that they know what they're doing."
Gib Lewis, the former House speaker who testified against the bill on behalf of the Responsible Pet Owners Association, the Texas Wildlife Association and himself, labeled the bill "extremely bad policy." He said Thursday he was opposed to it in part because PETA and other animal rights groups were pushing similar bills in state legislatures across the country.
Disagreements over cost
Lewis insisted the bill will cost taxpayers money.
"License fees won't cover what they want done," he said. "Anybody raising hunting dogs, show dogs, even cats, it will put them out of business."
Thompson's bill was sailing through the House on Thursday until state Rep. David Simpson, a freshman Republican from Longview, objected to it being a part of the local and consent calendar, which Thompson chairs. He also objected to the substance of the measure.
"Look, I'm all for enforcing animal cruelty laws," he said. "But these licensing and regulation requirements affects the law-abiding when what we need to do is punish the wrongdoers."
He also disagreed with Thompson's contention that the bill would have no financial implications for the state.
Yet under a recently amended section HB 1451 presumes all owned intact females are being bred. Owners of 11 intact females are "guilty until proven innocent" and must prove to the satisfaction of inspectors no breeding has taken place. Under HB 1451 the penalty for breeding even ONE at any time is qualification as a commercial breeder, licensing, regulation, and home inspections.
HB 1451 will pull conscientious hobby breeders and hunting dog owners into the definition of commercial breeder and subject them to the onerous provisions of this legislation even though they are not businesses in the true sense.
Legislation would set limits and require checks
By JOE HOLLEY, AUSTIN BUREAU, April 22, 2011
AUSTIN — So-called puppy mills and other dog and cat breeding operations would become regulated by the state, required to undergo annual inspections and criminal background checks under a bill that could come before the full House next week.
Rep. Senfronia Thomson's House Bill 1451 would classify dog and cat breeders who have 11 or more unspayed female animals as commercial breeders and require that they be licensed by the state. In addition to background checks and annual inspections, operators would be required to provide wholesome food and clean water, proper lighting and ventilation for animals confined indoors and adequate sanitation.
Supporters said current laws address only extreme cases and make it difficult for animal welfare workers to investigate puppy mills, especially if the operators bar them from their property.
Breeders criticize
Thompson's bill enjoys the support the Humane Society of the United States and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but breeders say it would go too far. At a committee hearing last month, dozens of witnesses, many of them breeders, testified that the measure would put them out of business while doing nothing to shut down inhumane operations.
Other breeders criticized the 11-female limit, and some argued that the annual examination and record-keeping requirements would be too expensive.
Hobby breeders would be excluded from regulation.
Thompson, D-Houston, said Thursday that she has continued to work with opponents of the bill during the past couple of months and believes she has addressed their concerns.
"Show dogs, wildlife, herding dogs — it doesn't affect them at all," she said. "If you have 11 intact females, and you're breeding them all at the same time, then you need to be licensed by the state. It's like when somebody cuts hair for free. We don't bother them. But when they start charging for their services, we need to make sure for the sake of public health that they know what they're doing."
Gib Lewis, the former House speaker who testified against the bill on behalf of the Responsible Pet Owners Association, the Texas Wildlife Association and himself, labeled the bill "extremely bad policy." He said Thursday he was opposed to it in part because PETA and other animal rights groups were pushing similar bills in state legislatures across the country.
Disagreements over cost
Lewis insisted the bill will cost taxpayers money.
"License fees won't cover what they want done," he said. "Anybody raising hunting dogs, show dogs, even cats, it will put them out of business."
Thompson's bill was sailing through the House on Thursday until state Rep. David Simpson, a freshman Republican from Longview, objected to it being a part of the local and consent calendar, which Thompson chairs. He also objected to the substance of the measure.
"Look, I'm all for enforcing animal cruelty laws," he said. "But these licensing and regulation requirements affects the law-abiding when what we need to do is punish the wrongdoers."
He also disagreed with Thompson's contention that the bill would have no financial implications for the state.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Farmers rally for, as HSUS protests, dog bill
April 21, 2011 by Tom Steever
Organizers say over 1,000 people gathered Wednesday on the Missouri Capitol lawn to show support for legislation making changes to the controversial Puppy Mill Cruelty Bill passed by voters last fall.
Flanked by Missouri House and Senate members favoring the changes, several spoke supporting Senate Bill 113 that’s been passed but is awaiting Governor Jay Nixon’s signature. Clarence, Missouri, pork producer Chris Chinn told the crowd she’s concerned that the Humane Society of United States, which supports and financed the ballot initiative, will not stop with limiting the number of dogs allowed in a breeding operation.
“They’re going to take our farms from us and they’re going to take our jobs and they are going to steal my children’s future,” said Chinn Wednesday, from the podium on the Capitol steps.
Rally organizer Don Nikodim, head of the Missouri Pork Producers Association and with the Missouri Farmers Care coalition says the turnout will help decision makers still on the fence about compromise legislation.
Full story at Brownfield Ag
Organizers say over 1,000 people gathered Wednesday on the Missouri Capitol lawn to show support for legislation making changes to the controversial Puppy Mill Cruelty Bill passed by voters last fall.
Flanked by Missouri House and Senate members favoring the changes, several spoke supporting Senate Bill 113 that’s been passed but is awaiting Governor Jay Nixon’s signature. Clarence, Missouri, pork producer Chris Chinn told the crowd she’s concerned that the Humane Society of United States, which supports and financed the ballot initiative, will not stop with limiting the number of dogs allowed in a breeding operation.
“They’re going to take our farms from us and they’re going to take our jobs and they are going to steal my children’s future,” said Chinn Wednesday, from the podium on the Capitol steps.
Rally organizer Don Nikodim, head of the Missouri Pork Producers Association and with the Missouri Farmers Care coalition says the turnout will help decision makers still on the fence about compromise legislation.
Full story at Brownfield Ag
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Oregon Cougar bill passes House
By Hasso Hering, Albany Democrat-Herald democratherald.com
April 20, 2011. The Oregon House Wednesday passed, 45-14, a bill allowing some hunting of cougars with hounds. The bill, HB 2337, now goes to the Senate.
The bill would direct the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to start a pilot program of hunting cougars with dogs in selected management areas. Counties could petition to become part of the pilot program, and Linn County likely would do so.
Rep. Sherrie Sprenger, R-Scio, who carried the bill on the floor, said it was intended to reduce the number of cougar conflicts in areas where the cats have killed livestock and were killing an unusual number of elk and deer calves.
Speaking on the floor, Sprenger cited the case of a mother and son near Brownsville who last year lost six sheep to confirmed cougar kills. That has an economic impact, she said.
Sprenger said that according to ODFW, the number of cougars had risen from about 3,000 in 1994, when voters banned hunting them with dogs, to an estimated 6,000 now.
The increase has come even though the cougar hunting season now is year-round and hunters who get one can turn around and get another tag.
The only legislator speaking against the bill was Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland. He questioned the validity of research done by the wildlife department, citing one reviewer who said there was no scientific basis for the conclusions in the department’s cougar management plan.
Sprenger said there are no practical nonlethal methods for reducing conflicts between cougars and livestock.
Cougars can’t be fenced out, and no barn is big enough to hold all the sheep on a ranch every night, as she said someone had suggested at a town hall meeting she held last summer.
The bill needed at least 40 votes to advance, though Democratic Rep. Brian Clem of Salem, one of its supporters, said the requirement was absurd.
According to lawyers for the legislature, by removing the crime of cougar hunting with dogs in some cases, the bill comes under the requirements of Measure 11, which set minimum prison sentences, and therefore it needed a two-thirds majority.
Clem said cougars were a hot topic in rural Oregon, though not perhaps in Portland, and passing the bill would help “heal the urban-rural divide.”
April 20, 2011. The Oregon House Wednesday passed, 45-14, a bill allowing some hunting of cougars with hounds. The bill, HB 2337, now goes to the Senate.
The bill would direct the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife to start a pilot program of hunting cougars with dogs in selected management areas. Counties could petition to become part of the pilot program, and Linn County likely would do so.
Rep. Sherrie Sprenger, R-Scio, who carried the bill on the floor, said it was intended to reduce the number of cougar conflicts in areas where the cats have killed livestock and were killing an unusual number of elk and deer calves.
Speaking on the floor, Sprenger cited the case of a mother and son near Brownsville who last year lost six sheep to confirmed cougar kills. That has an economic impact, she said.
Sprenger said that according to ODFW, the number of cougars had risen from about 3,000 in 1994, when voters banned hunting them with dogs, to an estimated 6,000 now.
The increase has come even though the cougar hunting season now is year-round and hunters who get one can turn around and get another tag.
The only legislator speaking against the bill was Rep. Peter Buckley, D-Ashland. He questioned the validity of research done by the wildlife department, citing one reviewer who said there was no scientific basis for the conclusions in the department’s cougar management plan.
Sprenger said there are no practical nonlethal methods for reducing conflicts between cougars and livestock.
Cougars can’t be fenced out, and no barn is big enough to hold all the sheep on a ranch every night, as she said someone had suggested at a town hall meeting she held last summer.
The bill needed at least 40 votes to advance, though Democratic Rep. Brian Clem of Salem, one of its supporters, said the requirement was absurd.
According to lawyers for the legislature, by removing the crime of cougar hunting with dogs in some cases, the bill comes under the requirements of Measure 11, which set minimum prison sentences, and therefore it needed a two-thirds majority.
Clem said cougars were a hot topic in rural Oregon, though not perhaps in Portland, and passing the bill would help “heal the urban-rural divide.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
