Wyoming State Senate
Wyoming State Senate
Remove the penalty that prevents people with disabilities from marrying!
When we think of marriage equality, we think about the ongoing fight LGBT couples face, but another minority group must deal with the stark reality that they are better off living in long-term committed relationships, without marriage. Like LGBT couples, these couples are denied the right to over 1,100 rights afforded to married couples. They have been denied access into their loved ones hospital rooms, faced family disputes over wills and have been denied spousal benefits from their partners workplace or the government in the event of their partners death. These are people with disabilities. Many people rely on the government for medical and financial assistance. Without medical insurance they would have no way to live independently. They would be forced into nursing homes (some already are), which would cost the government significantly more than getting Medicare and/or Medicaid does. At the same time, this assistance comes with a price. The government expects married couples to share income and that affects any assistance the couple receives. For many, their spouse makes too much (even if they make meager SSDI payments). This cuts into the healthcare services these couples receive. For some, their able-bodied partners make too much to allow them to qualify for medical assistance, if married, but not enough to pay out of pocket for costly medical equipment, medicine, or any other needs the disabled partner has. Add in the fact that even when a person with a disability can work, the opportunity for quality medical insurance is hard to find, due to their pre-existing condition and you will understand why many couples with disabilities are forced to live in domestic partnerships. Also, if two people with disabilities marry and they are on SSI or SSDI, their payments are CUT significantly, making it hard for them to maintain independence and afford their own food, shelter, clothing or other necessities. The time to stand up is now!! Let your Senators and Representatives know you want to remove the income caps placed on individuals with disabilities, so they can keep the government assistance and still be able to get married. Every loving couple deserves the right to marry. No one should have to choose between their wheelchair and their love, their therapy and their love, their medication and their love, their ability to eat or have a roof over their head and their love!! Those are not choices!! Help make it possible for those with disabilities to share their love without being penalized!Join our fight for marriage equality for people with disabilities:https://www.facebook.com/MarriageEqualityForPeopleWithDisabilities
Require Amazon to Collect and Remit Sales Tax For All FBA (Fulfilled By Amazon) Sales
Please require Amazon to collect and remit sales tax for all FBA (fulfilled by Amazon) purchases. Requiring the hundreds of thousands of small businesses to register in every state and collect and remit in all applicable states is not practical -- it is a complex, heavy financial burden on small businesses and it is causing states to lose billions of dollars in tax revenue each year. With E-commerce now playing such a big role in the local economies, and with Amazon being THE major player, it is time for new legislation to be passed so that these matters can be properly addressed, removing any doubt regarding State sales tax liability and nexus -- especially as it relates to Amazon FBA and similar programs. If Amazon FBA was recognized as consignment, from a sales tax perspective, as it should be, then this would solve a lot of the associated issues that we are currently seeing. Laws vary from state-to-state, but most states require that the consignee (the store, or, Amazon in this case) should collect and remit sales tax. Arguments regarding consignment, who the seller really is and who the 'supplier' is: 1. FBA 'Suppliers' (as they should be called, and not FBA 'sellers') do not choose how/where their products are stored/shipped. 2. Commission is paid to Amazon on each unit sold. 3. FBA 'suppliers' must adhere to Amazon policy. Suppliers do not have the right to refuse sale/shipment without consequence and do not collect any money on transactions (all transactions are handled and controlled by Amazon, the store owner, with the supplier having no participation in said transactions). 4. FBA 'suppliers' have no real relationship with the customer as nearly all communication is prohibited as per Amazon (this relationship is owned and controlled by Amazon, the real seller). 5. Amazon provides advertising for products that they sell, including FBA products. Suppliers have no say in that message or how it's presented. 6. Amazon charges a 'monthly, rental fee' (FBA subscription fee) to display FBA products at their property, as well as additional fees for special exposure (e.g. special ad types or brand page vs. window or end-cap at front of store), as well as additional fees for how the product may be presented (e.g. videos on listing vs. in-store display). 7. Product ownership does not transfer to Amazon (the store owner), but sits on Amazon's shelves until a buyer is found...at which point, the buyer should pay the appropriate sales tax (Amazon/the store owner, is responsible for collecting and remitting this, as they handle all transactions with the end-buyer and own the property where all merchandise is stored and sold). 8. et al. Amazon should be charging and then remitting the sales tax to all applicable states -- not the FBA seller. Not only would this eliminate any argument about complexity or what constitutes nexus amid the varying, questionable and ever-changing interpretations that each state has established, but convincing the States to get behind it should be easy if they only had to pursue one entity (Amazon), in lieu of the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that currently operate within the US marketplace. It is estimated that the majority of the FBA sellers that sell on the Amazon-US marketplace are operating on foreign soil, and do not have a legal entity that is locally established inside of the United States. How are the states going to force compliance if a foreign seller, using a foreign bank account, is operating outside of the jurisdiction of local law? This poses serious problems and creates an environment of unfair competition if foreign sellers can offer products 10% cheaper due to not having to collect and remit sales tax. If Amazon were required to collect and remit on all FBA sales, not only would this reduce costs, man hours and complexity etc., but it would be a lot easier to ensure compliance and remittance. States could get the tax dollars that they desperately need, instead of missing out as they do now. If things continue as they are, States will waste tons of money auditing individual sellers and pursuing legal action, all, unnecessarily. Since Amazon has decided to take full custody of its customer base and is essentially acting as consignment, this should put sales tax liability on Amazon's shoulders, not on FBA sellers. Since FBA sellers are currently required to collect and remit for all states where they are deemed to have a substantial nexus, then, in order to do that, they must first register their business in that State, apply for permits etc., and admit to having a substantial nexus. Just having a single box of inventory in one of Amazon's warehouses will be sufficient for establishing nexus for most applicable states. Amazon may move inventory around, however they see fit, and in doing so, will force FBA sellers to have nexus in those states, oftentimes, unknowingly. Once nexus is established for a particular state, it applies to ALL subsequent sales to that State -- so, if a seller wants to sell something on Ebay, and the buyer is located in the nexus state, then that seller would need to collect and remit sales tax, even if that inventory was stored in and shipped from their home. If FBA sellers are required to register in all of the applicable states and admit that they have a substantial nexus, they would then potentially be subject to Corporate/State income taxes for that state, use-tax for all products/services, franchise taxes, non-resident taxes, opportunity taxes and other, associated fees/taxes etc.. If non-local businesses have to admit that they have substantial nexus due to a single box of inventory, and if they have to remit in the same way (or worse) as a local business that is actually operating out of that state, then what other tax implications and responsibilities will they be subjecting themselves to? And wouldn't this put undue burden on FBA sellers? And isn't that illegal? Please require Amazon to collect and remit sales tax for all FBA (fulfilled by Amazon) purchases. Thank you.
Pass House Bill 85 - Give Cyclists Three Feet of Room on the Road
Good day, House Bill 85 just passed the Wyoming House of Representatives and is being debated in the Senate. This bill would require motor vehicles to give three feet of room when passing bicyclists on Wyoming roadways. 24 states have already enacted similar legislation. In September of 2014, my daughter Amy Bennett was commuting on her bicycle on a bike route to her summer job in Jackson Hole. She was killed when a tractor trailer passed too closely, after they had stopped at a four way stop and she fell underneath its rear wheels as the 18 wheeler pinched her out on the road. Had this law been in place we believe Amy would be here with us today; passing this legislation can save many lives in the future. Amy was a beautiful 23 year old who had just graduated from Northern Colorado University's prestigious musical theater school and was an up and coming Broadway performer in NYC . She had a lead role in Jackson Hole's playhouse for its Broadway caliber summer production. FIVE bicyclists were killed in 2014 when struck by passing motor vehicles in the state of Wyoming. As her father, along with friends and Amy Bennett Foundation supporters, we have started this petition to help draw attention to this bill. While it passed the House, it faces an uphill battle in the Senate and needs your support. Three feet is not a lot to ask. And yet, three feet has the potential to help save lives, as well as honor the lives of those already lost. Please consider taking the 30 seconds required to sign the petition and show your support. Thank you. Terry Bennett - Amy's father Support and subscribe to the Amy Bennett Foundation here: http://amybennettfoundation.com Read the letter written by Christopher Bennett (Amy's brother) that helped get this bill passed in the House: http://iamchristopher.com/2015/01/22/a-letter-to-the-wyoming-house-of-representatives/
Justice For Jholie! Jholie's Law
The AMBER ALERT originated in the United States in 1996. AMBER is officially a contrived acronym for America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response, but was named after Amber Hagerman, a 9-year-old abducted and murdered in Arlington, Texas in 1996. A brief description would be something to the effect of: AMBER (America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) Alerts are emergency messages broadcasted when a law enforcement agency determines that a child has been abducted and is in imminent danger. The broadcasts include information about the child and the abductor, including physical descriptions as well as information about the abductor's vehicle - which could lead to the child's recovery An AMBER Alert is actually defined as " an emergency response system that disseminates information about a missing child, by media broadcasting or electronic roadway signs." The AMBER Alert™ Program is a voluntary partnership between law-enforcement agencies, broadcasters, transportation agencies, and the wireless industry, to activate an urgent bulletin in the most serious child-abduction cases. There are certain requirements known as "Activation Criteria" that are requested to be met before an AMBER Alert will be issued. These requirements are as follows: 1) There is reasonable belief by law enforcement that an abduction has occurred. 2) The law enforcement agency believes that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death. 3) There is enough descriptive information about the victim and the abduction for law enforcement to issue an AMBER Alert to assist in the recovery of the child. 4) The child’s name and other critical data elements, including the Child Abduction flag, have been entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system AMBER Alerts are approved by law enforcement and issued by broadcasting companies. The key to an AMBER Alert is that it is proven, an ABDUCTION has taken place. The AMBER Alert Initiative is a great system to have in place. However, this Alert does nothing to help children when it can not be proven they were abducted. So what happens when a child is presumed a runaway, when really they were abducted? We do not currently have any Alert System that will notify the general public in situations such as these. JHOLIE'S STORY Jholie Moussa was a sixteen year old female from Alexandria, Virginia, who went missing January 12, 2018, at approximately 1615, after telling her twin sister she would be right back, and walking out of her front door. When Jholie did not return the family got worried, it was not like Jholie to do this kind of thing. The family contacted the police, and after an initial investigation the police department determined that Jholie had ran away willingly, due to the fact that the home security camera caught her walking out the front door on her own. Because she was considered a "runaway" police refused to issue an AMBER Alert for this young lady, because the "ABDUCTION" requirement had not been met even though all other requirements were met, no matter how much the family pleaded with them to issue the alert. They continued their investigation, but not for a missing "endangered" child per say, but for a runaway, which isn't taken no where near as serious, and is not put out to the public. Jholie's family and friends continued searching for her for the next two weeks. Then Jholie's body was found dead in a park less than a mile from her home, behind a tennis court on January, 26th, 2018. The family and friends truly believe that Jholie's life could have been saved, had an AMBER ALERT, or a SIMILAR ALERT been issued the first day to the public. Due to the failure of the system, because of a technical requirement, a beautiful, sweet, intelligent young woman with her whole life ahead of her was taken from this earth and her family WAY TOO SOON! This family is devastated. This young lady could have been found alive! I'm proposing a new law in the United States of America to bring our missing babies home, not just abducted children, but children presumed to be runaways as well. "Jholie's Law." This new law would provide a system of issuing an alert for ALL MISSING CHILDREN UNDER THE AGE OF 18. Not just children in cases where it has to be PROVEN they were abducted. Because in many cases such a Jholie's case, it can not be proven that an abduction happened, when it reality the child was really abducted. Now you have a helpless child who everyone believes it's a runaway, in danger with no one except family and friends looking for them. This does not normally have a good outcome. In these situations if an Alert was established and issued, these children would have a better chance of being found, alive and brought back home to their families. Even though no abduction may have taken place, these children are still at risk. Even runaways are under age, unprotected, unsupervised and their whereabouts are unknown. PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND LET THE LAW MAKERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA KNOW WE REFUSE TO CONTINUE LOSING OUR BABIES DUE TO A TECHNICAL REQUIREMENT IN THE SYSTEM! EVERY CHILD'S LIFE IS IMPORTANT, NOT JUST THE ONES WHO MEET CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS! HOW DO YOU PUT REQUIREMENTS ON SAVING A CHILD'S LIFE! THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT, AND FOR SUPPORTING THIS FAMILY! GOD BLESS YOU!