Press Releases



CEI Weekly: CEI at Copenhagen 

>>Accounts from "Hopenchangen"

CEI's William Yeatman, after attending COP-15, wrote an account of the COP-15 which was published in the Washington Times. He describes in detail in his article, A Green Woodstock, the motivations behind "generation greens" gathering at Copenhagen.

Myron Ebell, who also went to Copenhagen, wrote a blog post reflecting on his trip and what he believed to be "the crackup of the global warming establishment." 

Fran Smith also wrote an account of how world leaders, such as Hugo Chavez, have used the summit as an opportunity to deliver unfounded critiques on capitalism.

>>Shaping the Debate

Microsoft Agrees to Help Europeans Pick a Browser

Wayne Crew's citation in ECommerce Times

Intel and FTC Trade Punches While Rivals Cheer

Ryan Radia's citation in the San Francisco Business Times

>>Best of the Blogs 

What Nanny Doesn't Want You to Know

by Angela Logomasini

Federal health officials have long warned us all to cut back on salt because they say it might contribute to heart disease. Most people trust this advice, but it’s most likely not true for everyone. Salt appears to be a problem largely for individuals with hypertension, but not so much for the rest of us. Those of us who like salting our veggies and other things to make them more palatable, probably would like to know the whole story.

Comprehensive Immigration Reform Helps Highly Skilled Immigrants

by Alex Nowrasteh   

Section 320 of the The Comprehensive Immigration Reform for America’s Security and Prosperity Act of 2009 H.R. 4321 (CIR ASAP) is fantastic.  It exempts from numerical caps on employment based green cards those aliens who have earned a master’s or higher from an accredited university in the U.S., those who received postdoctoral and medical training in the U.S., and those who earned a master’s in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. Currently, the H-1B visa allows 20,000 such graduates annually to work in the U.S. temporarily.

It’s Curtains on Free Speech in Colorado

by Michelle Minton

Maybe the air is a little too thin out in Colorado and the supreme court justices aren’t getting enough oxygen to their brains. Perhaps that is why they made the inexplicable decision to uphold a ban on smoking in stage-performances based on the premise that promotion of public health comes before an individual’s right to free expression.

"Six justices found that regardless of whether onstage smoking is a form of expression, the ban on smoking in public places is constitutional because it aims to promote public health rather than stifle free speech."

>>LibertyWeek Podcast

Episode 73: Understanding 'Obamanomincs'

We start with the climate crisis in Copenhagen, the legislative tightrope on health care legislation in the Senate and the passing and legacy of economist Paul Samuelson. We continue with the latest pork-filled spending bill and conclude with an interview with Tim Carney, author of the new book Obamanomics: How Barack Obama Is Bankrupting You and Enriching His Wall Street Friends, Corporate Lobbyists, and Union Bosses (available online and at fine booksellers everywhere).

>>Support CEI

Like what you read?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s 25-year record of success is made possible by our over 3,000 supporters. Make sure to stop by and make a donation to continue your support or become a supporter.



News from the NHGOP 


Over 200 people turned out this week to protest Governor Lynch's job-killing LLC tax at a public hearing hosted by the Department of Revenue Administration.

"John Lynch broke his pledge when he signed a budget that imposes this job-killing income tax on New Hampshire’s small business owners," said Governor Sununu. "Governor Lynch saw the outrage produced by his failure to keep that commitment."
“This LLC tax reminds voters that John Lynch is unwilling to stand up for the small business owners who create jobs and drive New Hampshire’s economy.”

On Monday, December 21, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Governor Lynch will participate in an online town hall hosted by the Live Free or Die Alliance. This is your chance to let the Governor know that you oppose his job-killing small business income tax! Sign up today to make sure your voice is heard.

Paul Hodes Won't Take a Stand on the Afghan War

Congressman Paul Hodes is still refusing to tell New Hampshire voters if he supports President Obama’s decision to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan. He is the only member of the New Hampshire delegation to refuse to take a position on President Obama’s Afghan War strategy.

“Since President Obama announced his plan to deploy 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, Congressman Hodes has come up with excuse after excuse to avoid taking a position on this issue. Mr. Hodes is deliberately refusing to take a stand on the President’s war strategy because he is afraid of the political ramifications caused by any decision,” said NHGOP Communications Director Ryan Williams. “New Hampshire voters want a Senator who has the courage to take a stand on the difficult issues instead of a politically calculating politician like Paul Hodes.”
Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter finally admitted that she was flip-flopping her position on the Afghan war by announcing her opposition to the President’s troop surge.

She also stated that anybody who supports the President’s troop surge is “irresponsible.”

During his 2006 and 2008 campaigns, Congressman Hodes consistently supported the War in Afghanistan and repeatedly called for a troop surge.
“On the military front, the nation should be focusing on combating the existing terrorists in Afghanistan,” Congressman Hodes told the Concord Monitor (10/18/08.) “Our resources, effort and attention were recklessly diverted from the war in Afghanistan, which I supported and which continues to require our vigilance and commitment,” said Hodes (Concord Monitor, 2/16/07.)

Upcoming Events



NHDP - ICYMI: Correcting Misunderstandings About Closing the LLC Loophole

Below you will find an article by Richard A. Samuels, the chair elect of the Business and Industry Association, correcting misunderstandings about the new LLC Interest and Dividends Tax.

By Richard A. Samuels

In the waning moments of the 2009 New Hampshire legislative session, the legislature adopted a new revenue generation measure, providing for taxation of certain distributions from limited liability companies to New Hampshire owners.  The law will subject the recipient of the distribution to reporting it as a dividend under the New Hampshire
Interest and Dividends Tax.  Although it may well be that not all legislators fully understood the tax, and the Department of Revenue Administration rules are only now being issued and finalized, it is clear that significant misunderstandings and even misinformation about the tax has been receiving a lot of play in the media.

Prior to the adoption of the new tax law, the New Hampshire Business and Industries Association and the New Hampshire Society of Certificate Public Accountants requested clarification from the Department of Revenue Administration as to what the tax would and would not reach.  The Department, which had been the source of the legislature's inclusion of the tax, provided clarification in the form of detailed letters to the BIA and the CPA Society.  Having been involved in that clarification process, it is clear to us that the following statement of what the tax was and was not intended to reach accurately reflects the intent of the legislature and the Department:

The law is not a new tax.  Rather, the change is intended to subject "distribution income" that resembles dividend income to an existing tax, New Hampshire's Interest and Dividends Tax. As the Governor has recently stated, the tax is intended to place businesses that operate as corporations on a par with businesses that operate as limited liability companies.  More precisely, the objective of the law was to tax distributions made by limited liability companies and partnerships to their owners to the same degree-and only to the same degree-that dividends paid by corporations to shareholders are taxed as dividends.

The tax will apply to recipients of LLC or partnership distributions, regardless of where the LLCs or partnerships making the distributions are located or under which state's laws they are formed. Payments made to owner-employees of LLCs and partnerships that constitute compensation for the services of the owner-employees of the business are not intended to be taxed, any more than compensation paid to shareholder-owners is taxed.

We believe that the majority of New Hampshire LLCs, as well as the majority of New Hampshire corporations, are small businesses that do not make distributions to owners in the nature of taxable dividends, so those businesses simply will not be affected by the tax.

Much of the confusion surrounding the new tax is understandable.  It is easy to say that LLCs and partnerships should be placed on the same footing as corporations and that distributions or dividends to owners of both should be subject to equivalent taxation under the New Hampshire Interest and Dividends Tax.  However, because partnership
accounting and partnership tax (LLCs are taxed as partnerships) is very complicated and differs significantly from corporate taxation, figuring out how to treat distributions made by those entities in the same manner as dividends paid by corporations is very complex.  Our hope is that the Department of Revenue Administration rule-making process will sort that out, and the Department is working hard to achieve that goal.  In the meantime, it can fairly be stated that the tax does not spell an end to New Hampshire LLCs, it is not unfair, and it will not put New Hampshire LLCs at a competitive disadvantage to LLCs operating in other states.


NRCC - Carol Shea-Porter Stimulus Still Not Working as NH's Unemployment Remains Stagnant

Despite Reckless Spending, Economy Remains Sluggish

Washington – Carol Shea-Porter' vote for the Democrats’ job killing ‘stimulus’ package is looking worse by the month. After spending a trillion dollars yielding little to no results, today’s release by the Bureau of Labor Statistics projecting November unemployment in New Hampshire at 11.5 percent leaves voters across the state rightfully asking: Where are the jobs?

Despite the dismal failure of the first stimulus boondoggle, Democrats have continued to reach deep into taxpayers’ pockets by increasing the debt ceiling by billions and signing off on another wasteful ‘stimulus’ spending spree.

 “‘In a world of alternatives, that's the one we have,’ said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., acknowledging that the need to revisit so many controversial items early next year will be a huge headache for Democrats, who control Congress.”

 “ Particularly troublesome is must-pass legislation to make sure the government doesn't default on its obligations when it hits its $12.1 trillion limit on borrowing in the coming days. The bill would boost the ceiling by $290 billion, giving the Treasury another six weeks of borrowing power before Congress will have to act again.” (Andrew Taylor, “House Passes Defense Bill, Rushes Toward Recess,” Associated Press, 12/16/09)

 “Lawmakers, with one eye on the door, plan to conclude the day with a vote on a $174 billion jobs bill combining help for state and local governments with spending on infrastructure and extended benefits for the jobless. Half of that comes from diverting money from the Wall Street bailout fund.” (Taylor, 12/16/09)

“It is time for Carol Shea-Porter to finally admit that her vote for the failed ‘stimulus’ bill has accomplished nothing more than saddling New Hampshire's middle-class families with crushing debt,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “While the economy tumbles and Main Street America continues to suffer, Carol Shea-Porter continues to support her party’s runaway spending spree. If Democrats like Shea-Porter would bother listening, they would hear New Hampshire folks asking only one thing: Where are the jobs?”



GMU - Twice as Much Stimulus Money Going to Democrat Districts than Republican and the Washington Examiner ran stories this morning on a new study from Mercatus Center scholars Veronique de Rugy and Jerry Brito that reveals the straight facts about stimulus spending:

  • Stimulus spending in Democrat districts is almost twice that of Republican districts
  • Majority of stimulus spending is not going to the states with the highest unemployment rates

Statistics to support these findings were taken from government data, such as, economic and political data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau &

You can find the study, including charts/graphs, here: