Wednesday Open Thread

Filed in National by on June 29, 2011

Welcome to your Wednesday open thread. Things are happening somewhere and we want to hear about them. Share your thoughts below.

Fox News – not intended to be factual.

The newest episode of Bloomberg TV’s Game Changers, slated for 9 p.m. ET Tuesday, profiles News Corp. Chairman Murdoch, whose media empire includes Fox News, and interviews several former News Corp. employees. Promotional material for the program quotes Chernin as saying of Fox News:

“There’s news on Fox News, which I happen to believe is very neutral and moderate and presented fairly. And then there’s the talk and opinion shows which no one ever pretends are news and factual. And Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity are clearly people on the right side of the spectrum but they are always presented as such.”

I don’t know, do they run a disclaimer? Both O’Reilly and Hannity take themselves pretty darn seriously. Chernin is wrong about the news portion as moderate and fair, but at least he recognizes he has a fiction-based primetime line-up.

An anonymous tipster sent us this story of one of Mike Castle’s legacy – $1B in unused $1 coins sitting in vaults at the U.S. Mint.

In 2005, Congress decided that a new series of dollar coins should be minted to engage the public. These coins would bear the likeness of every former president, starting with George Washington. There would be a new one every quarter. So, far, the Mint has produced coins through the 18th president, Ulysses S. Grant.

Members of Congress reasoned that a coin series that changed frequently and had educational appeal would make dollar coins more popular. The idea came from the successful program that put each of the 50 states on the backs of quarters.

But as the new presidential dollar coins rolled out, the greenback lost none of its dominance in Americans’ hearts and wallets.

If the mandate to make presidential coins wasn’t enough to generate a growing heap of unwanted coins, a political deal ensured that even more unwanted coins would be produced.

It was easier for the bill’s sponsor, then-Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE), to move the presidential coin bill forward if it didn’t displace other dollar coins honoring Sacagawea, the teenage Native American guide to Lewis and Clark.

The deal: The mint would be required to make a quota of Sacagawea coins. Currently, the law says 20 percent of dollar coins made must have Sacagawea on them.

I don’t know – it doesn’t sound like a bad idea. I used $1 and $2 coins frequently in Canada with no problem. The problem in the U.S. is that we still make the paper money – why would you switch? It’s a bizarre story, but it seems like something that would be easy to fix, if Washington Republicans were interested in fixing anything.

Tags:

About the Author ()

Opinionated chemist, troublemaker, blogger on national and Delaware politics.

Comments (19)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. cassandra_m says:

    Too bad Chuck Todd didn’t ask if President Obama thinks that Clarence Thomas should resign.

  2. fightingbluehen says:

    I just happened to be listening to Bob Shieffer’s analyses of Obama’s speech and he said something to the effect that congress better act on the budget or Obama will order them to hold session over the holiday. Can you believe they let that guy stay on TV?

  3. flutecake says:

    UI, I like dollar coins. Thanks for the reminder. I’ll see if my bank will sell me some! Surely…

  4. Atlas says:

    Amazon Shrugged.

    Amazon terminates deal with 25,000 Calif. affiliates
    The Orange County Register 6/30/2011 Jan Norman

    Gov. Jerry Brown has signed into law California’s tax on Internet sales through affiliate advertising which will immediately cut small-business website revenue 20% to 30%, experts say.

    The bill, AB 28X, takes effect immediately. The state Board of Equalization says the tax will raise $200 million a year, but critics claim it will raise nothing because online retailers will end their affiliate programs rather than collect the tax.

    Amazon has already emailed its termination of its affiliate advertising program with 25,000 websites

  5. puck says:

    WTF is an Amazon “affiliate” and why can’t California do without them?

  6. cassandra m says:

    I think that most of the states that implement an e-commerce tax Amazon has cancelled its affiliate program in that state.

  7. Miscreant says:

    “…state Board of Equalization…”

    Sounds like something out of a futuristic dystopian society, or another victory for liberalism.

  8. Atlas says:

    Puck, Cali legislators thought “affiliates” were a cash cow they could milk for $200 million a year.

    Turns out they were wrong.

  9. cassandra m says:

    That’s not quite right.

    The tax is imposed on *all* out-of-state retailers selling online to CA residents. Amazon is the face of this thing because they are a big player. But there are people in this space bigger than Amazon’s affiliate program — like Drugstore.com.

  10. Atlas says:

    it is not all online retailers.
    Amazon is not blocking sales to people in California. They are ending their relations ships with affiliates in CA because the CA legislation attempted to use the affiliates as justification to tax Amazon.
    If Drugstore.com has no “affiliates” (no physical presence in CA) they will remain un-taxed by the state.

  11. cassandra m says:

    It is all on-line retailers with affiliate programs. That would include Drugstore.com and Overstock, who have bigger affiliate programs than Amazon.

    The CA law is an attempt to capture tax revenues of people selling stuff in CA, even though they are selling that stuff via a large retailer with no physical presence in the state. Amazon is mainly ending its affiliate programs in states who tax them this way (and it is more than CA, you know). No idea what the others are doing.

  12. puck says:

    OK, so I looked it up. “Affiliates” are web site owners who put Amazon links on their web sites. When somebody clicks through and buys something, the affiliate gets up to 15%.

    In other words, affiliates are responsible for Amazon products costing up to 15% more. Good riddance.

    If I want something from Amazon, I’ll look it up myself and buy it from a clean link straight to Amazon.

  13. Miscreant says:

    “If I want something from Amazon, I’ll look it up myself and buy it from a clean link straight to Amazon.”

    The affiliates were earning a commission on sales. Chances are Amazon will charge the same as the affiliates did. Nobody wins.

  14. puck says:

    The affiliates were earning a commission on sales.

    … funded by a premium built into the price. Otherwise Amazon wouldn’t pay it.

    Sure, Amazon will just keep the extra 15% at first, but eventually they will face price competition and lower the price.

  15. cassandra m says:

    And some of those affiliates were selling stuff that amazon didn’t. Which isn’t to say that you can’t find it someplace else online, but not everything sold by an affiliate has an counterpart sold by amazon itself.

  16. Miscreant says:

    Of course prices will ‘equalize’ eventually. because of competition. The question remains whether this is a really good move for California, or any state. Ultimately, many small businesses will move out, costing CA significant tax dollars. I think it may appear to be a good move at first, but will eventually backfire.

  17. puck says:

    Twice I submitted posts that contained a link to Amazon’s program description, and it didn’t post. I guess WordPress filters it out as spam.