Another example of Republican abuse of power and cencorship

[PhillyKev 0]

The GOP led legilature in Missouri voted to cancel a tax exemption for newspapers in retaliation for the Post-Dispatch criticising their health care plans.

In today's WSJ.

[Gawain 0]

How does that equal censorship? Are the papers prevented from printing the news they want?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Nightingale 0]

why should newspapers be tax exempt? they're a business.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

How does that equal censorship? Are the papers prevented from printing the news they want?

They are intentionally making it harder for them to do business in retaliation for criticixing them. That's called cencorship.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

why should newspapers be tax exempt? they're a business.

There are literally hundreds of tax exemptions for different businesses. You're missing the point. I don't know what tax they were exempt from, probably sales tax on papers (which they don't have ni PA either), but the issue is the tax break being elliminated in direct retaliation for the paper criticising the republican leadership.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

How does that equal censorship? Are the papers prevented from printing the news they want?

They are intentionally making it harder for them to do business in retaliation for criticixing them. That's called cencorship.

As they are not prevented from doing business as a newspaper, I doubt it. In fact, the papers will likely make this a story of criticism in their own columns.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[PhillyKev 0]

So you see nothing wrong with the legislature passing laws to cost businesses money for the sole purpose of revenge?

[chuckbrown 0]

So I guess the old saying is true: don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Edited to add: I can't find any reference to this in the WSJ. Where did you see this?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The GOP led legilature in Missouri voted to cancel a tax exemption for newspapers in retaliation for the Post-Dispatch criticising their health care plans. In today's WSJ.

That's cute how you don't bother to provide a reference, so that no one can read the story for themself, to find out if your version of the facts is correct. Is this your idea of fair and open debate?

Here is the entire story, dear readers:

Missouri House Ends Newspaper Tax Breaks After Editorial

The Missouri House has voted to raise taxes on the state's two largest newspapers after an editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch branded the Republican-led chamber the "House of Hypocrites."

Democratic lawmakers decried the tax proposal as retaliation. But the Republican sponsor insisted he was simply "closing corporate tax loopholes."

Legislators in many states over the years have considered taxes on newspaper publishing, but the actions of the Missouri House could be cause for alarm, Paul McMasters, an ombudsman at the Arlington, Va.-based First Amendment Center, said Thursday.

"Usually the newspapers - and common sense - manage to fight them off," McMasters said. "But it is a very troubling situation if indeed the effort is linked to trying to punish newspapers who have expressed criticism of the legislature."

On Sunday, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch devoted an entire editorial page to criticism of the House of Representatives as the "House of Hypocrites." It included photos of 66 House Republicans who receive state-sponsored health insurance yet voted to approve legislation that would eliminate health coverage for thousands of poor Missourians on Medicaid.

While the House debated a tax-credit bill on Wednesday, Republican Rep. Richard Byrd of suburban St. Louis offered an amendment repealing a sales tax exemption for the state's two largest newspapers - the Post-Dispatch and The Kansas City Star. It passed 74-72.

House Democratic Leader Rick Johnson, also of suburban St. Louis, accused Byrd of trying to punish the Post-Dispatch.

"What we have here is a retaliatory tax increase...for revenge," Johnson said. "The other side of the aisle had some unfavorable press that was written about them over the weekend."

House Speaker Catherine Hanaway, another suburban St. Louis Republican, denied any vengeful motives, stressing that Byrd approached her about the amendment before the editorial ran.

But Hanaway said Thursday she couldn't recall whether the idea came up before or after the Post-Dispatch had contacted the House seeking information on lawmakers' health insurance plans.

Missouri law exempts all newspapers from state and local sales taxes on newsprint, ink, computers and other equipment. Byrd's amendment would remove the exemption for papers with at least $250 million in annual operating revenue and a Missouri-based average daily circulation of 200,000.

He said the law had allowed the Post-Dispatch, which is owned by Pulitzer Inc., and The Star, owned by Knight-Ridder Inc., to avoid $7 million in state sales taxes and $4 million in local sales taxes over the past decade.

Star publisher Art Brisbane had no comment Thursday. Nor did Pulitzer and Post-Dispatch officials. But Post-Dispatch general manager Matt Kraner said in Thursday's paper that he was surprised by the suddenness of the proposal.

The House gave the bill first-round approval on Wednesday. It needs another vote to advance to the Senate, where Majority Leader Michael Gibbons, a suburban St. Louis Republican, said its fate is uncertain.

"You wouldn't expect it to catch fire, but it could," he said.

* * *

Now everyone has the "facts" to decide for themselves.

Oh, and Phillykev's so-called Republican-controlled House, has 90 Republicans, and 73 Democrats, yet this Bill passed by a vote of only 74-72. So a two vote margin out of 163 members, doesn't exactly make it a Republican juggernaut.

Missouri House of Representatives

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

That's cute how you don't bother to provide a reference, so that no one can read the story for themself, to find out if your version of the facts is correct. Is this your idea of fair and open debate?

Real cute how you ignored where I said "In today's WSJ". Pssst...that's called a reference.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

That's cute how you don't bother to provide a reference, so that no one can read the story for themself, to find out if your version of the facts is correct. Is this your idea of fair and open debate?

Real cute how you ignored where I said "In today's WSJ". Pssst...that's called a reference.

Actually, it was in the April 15th edition, online. And it is available online (with registration), so you could have given a web address. You could have quoted the story, in whole or in part. So it looked like you were, maybe, trying to hide some things which weren't favorable to your view of the story. That may or may not be true, but by not citing the source where anyone can look at it, it can give the appearance of bias.

That's why I post a link to the source news stories when I cite something. That way no one can claim that I'm hiding anything, and they can see for themselves the original news story.

Do you think that newspapers should be exempt from paying business taxes like other businesses? If so, why?

[PhillyKev 0]

I read it in today's print copy of the WSJ, that's where I saw it. I wasn't trying to hide anything. I provided a reference to the source where I saw the information, It really isn't a conspiracy. As a matter of fact, you're violating the law with your entire quote of the article. If you don't like my reference don't say I didn't give one, that's a lie.

And actually, I thank you for your post, because it pretty much reiterates what I said.

EDIT:

Quote

by not citing the source where anyone can look at it, it can give the appearance of bias.

I am biased. I think the RNC is a bunch of slimy bitches who care only about retaining power. And I wasn't aware the WSJ was some obscure publication to which others didn't have access.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So I guess the old saying is true: don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Edited to add: I can't find any reference to this in the WSJ. Where did you see this?

Quote

Edited to add: I can't find any reference to this in the WSJ. Where did you see this?

Front page int he "What's News" column

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And actually, I thank you for your post, because it pretty much reiterates what I said.

I tend to agree. It certainly appears retaliatory.

From the initial description, I wasn't sure, but this removed most doubt. A lot of tax exempt organizations have to stay clear of politics or lose their status, but that wasn't the stated reason here.

But....you overstated with the headline, PhillyKev. This is just a small state legislature doing what politicians in charge do. It has little to do with the GOP. And it isn't censorship to remove preferred status.

[billvon 2,466]

>I think the RNC is a bunch of slimy bitches who care only about retaining power.

I think you might be making a mountain out of a molehill. This kind of thing goes on all the time, and it comes from both sides of the aisle.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I am biased. I think the RNC is a bunch of slimy bitches who care only about retaining power.

That's odd, I thought that's what most Democrats were like.

I noticed that you responded to all my comments, but ignored this question:

"Do you think that newspapers should be exempt from paying business taxes like other businesses? If so, why?"

Would you like to address that and give us your view?

It's not a trick question. I just want to know if you oppose the action they took, or only the timing of the action.

[Kennedy 0]

So what did they censor again?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I noticed that you responded to all my comments, but ignored this question:
"Do you think that newspapers should be exempt from paying business taxes like other businesses? If so, why?"
Would you like to address that and give us your view?

I answered that question to Nightingale above.

Quote

Oh, and Phillykev's so-called Republican-controlled House, has 90 Republicans, and 73 Democrats, yet this Bill passed by a vote of only 74-72.

Yeah....only a 2 vote margin. Coincidentally, 73 of the 74 ayes were Republicans.

Quote

It's not a trick question. I just want to know if you oppose the action they took, or only the timing of the action.

I oppose the motive.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

So what did they censor again?

You really know how to cut to the heart of the matter!

Yeah, I'm still wondering how a tax issue equals "censorship".

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Oh, and Phillykev's so-called Republican-controlled House, has 90 Republicans, and 73 Democrats, yet this Bill passed by a vote of only 74-72.

Yeah....only a 2 vote margin. Coincidentally, 73 of the 74 ayes were Republicans.

But there are 90 Republicans, so this means that 17 of the Republicans, or 19% of them, did not vote for this Bill.

And it also means that even if every one of the 72 votees against were Democrats, then the Republicans prevailed by only a single vote! Those brutes! That doesn't exactly sound like a "Republican-controlled" juggernaut.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

That doesn't exactly sound like a "Republican-controlled" juggernaut.

Are the quote marks supposed to indicate that I said that? Because I didn't. Where's your source? I said "GOP led legislature". Are you disputing that?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So what did they censor again?

You don't think a legislative body imposing additional costs on a publlication in retaliation for their comments constitutes censorship?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

That doesn't exactly sound like a "Republican-controlled" juggernaut.

Are the quote marks supposed to indicate that I said that? Because I didn't. Where's your source? I said "GOP led legislature". Are you disputing that?

Fair enough. So you said GOP "led" rather than GOP "controlled". That seems like a distinction without a difference.

Quote

You don't think a legislative body imposing additional costs on a publlication in retaliation for their comments constitutes censorship?

It's not clear that the action was retaliatory.

Even if it was, it doesn't stop the newspaper from saying anything they want.

Imposing additional costs by itself, absent retaliatory motive, is certainly not censorship. Government does that to businesses all the time.

So I still don't see the "censorship" connection.

[Michele 1]

Quote

You don't think a legislative body imposing additional costs on a publlication in retaliation for their comments constitutes censorship?

All of the publications, across the board? Nope.

So what exactly was censored again? I'm unclear.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[PhillyKev 0]

They didn't censor anything, obviously. They are trying to promote self censoring of remarks critical of their administration through the imposition of penalties for not doing so.

Is that better?