Muni tax break under threat from bipartisan scrutiny in congress

 The tax break that U.S. states, cities and counties get on the bonds they issue is in growing jeopardy now that Republicans, in addition to Democrats, are considering limits on the exemption.
As part of the "fiscal cliff" negotiations to raise more federal government tax revenue, Republican lawmakers have joined Democrats in reevaluating the costly tax break, said Republican congressional aides and lobbyists.
Municipal bonds issued by states and localities are a $3.7 trillion U.S. market underpinned by a law that exempts their interest income from taxation. This allows states and localities to tap capital markets more cheaply than private-sector borrowers such as banks and corporations.
"The muni bond exemption is on the table, not only during tax reform, but also during the 'fiscal cliff,'" said Mike Nicholas of the Bond Dealers of America, a lobbying group for fixed-income securities dealers and banks.
That the tax break - deeply embedded in the economy and vital to state and local governments - would draw the interest of Republicans shows how far Washington has come in a short time in considering potentially dramatic tax-and-spending changes.
As the United States grapples with a huge budget deficit and a complex tax code that has not been revamped in 26 years, even once politically untouchable tax breaks are being questioned.
The "fiscal cliff" refers to sharp tax increases and spending cuts that take effect in 18 days unless Congress intervenes soon.
Some lawmakers from both parties are calling for a comprehensive tax code overhaul in 2013 and groups concerned with the muni bond exemption are worried.
"We have not felt this threat level being this real in a long time," said David Parkhurst, legislative director with the National Governors Association, which represents the leaders of U.S. states that rely heavily on the muni bond tax exemption.
SUBSIDIZING STATES, LOCALITIES
The exemption benefits bond investors on one side of the market and state and local governments on the other. Effectively a subsidy for states and localities, the muni exemption cost U.S. taxpayers about $26.2 billion in 2011.
President Barack Obama in 2011 included the exemption among items subject to his proposed 28-percent cap on deductions and other tax breaks for individuals earning more than $200,000.
That proposal alarmed muni bond issuers and investors, who were already on edge because of a proposal to kill the exemption entirely in 2010's Simpson-Bowles deficit reduction plan.
Now, Republicans are rethinking their traditional reluctance to tinker with muni bonds, largely because they want to find ways to increase federal revenues without raising tax rates.
Phasing out the muni bond tax break for individual taxpayers earning more than $200,000 could raise about $10 billion a year - or about $100 billion over a decade - Republican aides said.
In the fight over the "fiscal cliff," Republicans hope to refute Obama's argument that real deficit reduction cannot be achieved without raising tax rates on high-income Americans.
Senator Orrin Hatch, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, said tax breaks of all sorts need to be weighed in the effort to raise revenue and cut the deficit, but that "they are not easy to get rid of."
FROM STATES TO SCHOOLS
New issuance of tax-exempt bonds is expected to hit about $400 billion in 2013, up from about $370 billion this year, according to investment bank Loop Capital Markets LLC.
Jurisdictions that issue tax-exempt bonds range from states to cities, counties and school districts. They defend the bonds as vital to transportation, infrastructure and other public projects, which would be threatened by an exemption roll-back.
"It certainly couldn't come at a worse time," New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli told Reuters last week, referring to the devastation the region suffered during Hurricane Sandy.
"Even before the storm, we had tremendous infrastructure needs that localities were trying to address and now we're going to have even more."
It is unclear exactly what sort of limitations Republicans have in mind. The Obama proposal would apply to all bond issues.
Citigroup Inc muni bond strategist George Friedlander has estimated that Obama's cap, if enacted, would raise state and local government borrowing costs.
The "fiscal cliff" talks and a possible tax code overhaul next year pose "a clear and present danger" for muni bond issuers and investors, Friedlander said in a recent research report.
Read More..

Boehner plan would bring top U.S. income tax rate to 39.6 percent: source

 House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner's latest "fiscal cliff" proposal to President Barack Obama would see the top income tax rates rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent for those with net incomes above $1 million a year, according to a source familiar with the talks.
The source, who asked not to be identified, emphasized that the income tax rate increase would be in exchange for "significant entitlement reforms/spending cuts." Entitlement programs include Medicare and Medicaid healthcare for the elderly and poor and Social Security retirement benefits.
The White House has not accepted Boehner's proposal, according to another source. Under current law, the top tax rate is scheduled to rise to 39.6 percent on January 1, unless Congress extends the current 35 percent, as Republicans had been urging.
Read More..

House Republicans eye limited fiscal cliff bill

With time running short before a Dec. 31 deadline, House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner will begin work on legislation that simply would extend current low income tax rates for all families with incomes below $1 million a year, according to an aide.
Negotiations will continue with the White House on a broader tax and spending deal, the Boehner aide said.
Boehner is presenting the plan to rank-and-file Republicans in a closed-door session.
On January 1, income tax increases for most Americans will begin unless Congress acts.
Last July, the Democratic-controlled Senate passed a bill to extend the current low rates for all families with net incomes below $250,000 a year. The House Republican proposal, if passed by the House, would require agreement by the Senate or force a round of negotiations on a compromise between the two chambers.
In excerpts of remarks Boehner was delivering to his Republican members Tuesday morning, the speaker complained that "the White House just can't seem to bring itself to agree to a 'balanced' approach" to deficit-reduction in negotiations. At the same time, Boehner said Republicans were "leaving the door wide open for something better" than just the limited extension of current low tax rates for most Americans.
"Current law has tax rates going up on everyone January 1. The question for us is real simple: How do we stop as many of those rate hikes as possible?" Boehner said.
For months, Democrats have been urging House Republicans to pass a bill protecting middle-class taxpayers from a January 1 rate increase.
Read More..

Senator Reid rejects Boehner "fiscal cliff" backup plan

- House Speaker John Boehner's backup plan that would simply extend low income tax rates for households with incomes below $1 million a year "cannot pass both houses of Congress," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on Tuesday.
Reid, a Democrat, said Boehner instead should focus on reaching a broad deficit-reduction deal with President Barack Obama. "Now is the time to show leadership, not kick the can down the road," Reid said.
Last July, Reid's Democrats passed a bill in the Senate that would have continued low tax rates, which are set to expire on December 31, for families with net incomes below $250,000.
Read More..

White House defends offer as 'good faith effort'

 The White House is defending President Barack Obama's proposal to set a higher threshold for tax increases than what he vowed to do during his presidential campaign. The White House says Obama has moved halfway to meet House Speaker John Boehner on a "fiscal cliff" deal that raises $1.2 trillion in tax revenue, down from the $1.6 trillion Obama had initially requested.
White House spokesman Jay Carney says that offering to raise taxes on taxpayers earning more than $400,000 rather than the $200,000 he ran on demonstrates, in Carney's words, Obama's good faith effort to reach a compromise.
The new tax proposal is contained in a broader plan that Obama gave Boehner Monday that would cut spending further and lower cost-of-living increases for most Social Security beneficiaries.
Read More..

Selling flak jackets in the cyberwars

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - When the Israeli army and Hamas trade virtual blows in cyberspace, or when hacker groups like Anonymous rise from the digital ether, or when WikiLeaks dumps a trove of classified documents, some see a lawless Internet.
But Matthew Prince, chief executive at CloudFlare, a little-known Internet start-up that serves some of the Web's most controversial characters, sees a business opportunity.
Founded in 2010, CloudFlare markets itself as an Internet intermediary that shields websites from distributed denial-of-service, or DDoS, attacks, the crude but effective weapon that hackers use to bludgeon websites until they go dark. The 40-person company claims to route up to 5 percent of all Internet traffic through its global network.
Prince calls his company the "Switzerland" of cyberspace - assiduously neutral and open to all comers. But just as companies like Twitter, YouTube and Facebook have faced profound questions about the balance between free speech and openness on the Internet and national security and law enforcement concerns, CloudFlare's business has posed another thorny question: what kinds of services, if any, should an American company be allowed to offer designated terrorists and cyber criminals?
CloudFlare's unusual position at the heart of this debate came to the fore last month, when the Israel Defense Forces sought help from CloudFlare after its website was struck by attackers based in Gaza. The IDF was turning to the same company that provides those services to Hamas and the al-Quds Brigades, according to publicly searchable domain information. Both Hamas and al-Quds, the military wing of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, are designated by the United States as terrorist groups.
Under the USA Patriot Act, U.S. firms are forbidden from providing "material support" to groups deemed foreign terrorist organizations. But what constitutes material support - like many other facets of the law itself - has been subject to intense debate.
CloudFlare's dealings have attracted heated criticism in the blogosphere from both Israelis and Palestinians, but Prince defended his company as a champion of free speech.
"Both sides have an absolute right to tell their story," said Prince, a 38-year old former lawyer. "We're not providing material support for anybody. We're not sending money, or helping people arm themselves."
Prince noted that his company only provides defensive capabilities that enable websites to stay online.
"We can't be sitting in a role where we decide what is good or what is bad based on our own personal biases," he said. "That's a huge slippery slope."
Many U.S. agencies are customers, but so is WikiLeaks, the whistle-blowing organization. CloudFlare has consulted for many Wall Street institutions, yet also protects Anonymous, the "hacktivist" group associated with the Occupy movement.
Prince's stance could be tested at a time when some lawmakers in the United States and Europe, armed with evidence that militant groups rely on the Web for critical operations and recruitment purposes, have pressured Internet companies to censor content or cut off customers.
Last month, conservative political lobbies, as well as seven lawmakers led by Ted Poe, a Republican from Texas, urged the FBI to shut down the Hamas Twitter account. The account remains active; Twitter declined to comment.
MATERIAL SUPPORT
Although it has never prosecuted an Internet company under the Patriot Act, the government's use of the material support argument has steadily risen since 2006. Since September 11, 2001, more than 260 cases have been charged under the provision, according to Fordham Law School's Terrorism Trends database.
Catherine Lotrionte, the director of Georgetown University's Institute for Law, Science and Global Security and a former Central Intelligence Agency lawyer, argued that Internet companies should be more closely regulated.
"Material support includes web services," Lotrionte said. "Denying them services makes it more costly for the terrorists. You're cornering them."
But others have warned that an aggressive government approach would have a chilling effect on free speech.
"We're resurrecting the kind of broad-brush approaches we used in the McCarthy era," said David Cole, who represented the Humanitarian Law Project, a non-profit organization that was charged by the Justice Department for teaching law to the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which is designated by the United States as a terrorist group. The group took its case to the Supreme Court but lost in 2010.
The material support law is vague and ill-crafted, to the point where basic telecom providers, for instance, could be found guilty by association if a terrorist logs onto the Web to plot an attack, Cole said.
In that case, he asked, "Do we really think that AT&T or Google should be held accountable?"
CloudFlare said it has not been contacted about its services by the U.S. government. Spokespeople for Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, told Reuters they contracted a cyber-security company in Gaza that out-sources work to foreign companies, but declined to comment further. The IDF confirmed it had hired CloudFlare, but declined to discuss "internal security" matters.
CloudFlare offers many of its services for free, but the company says websites seeking advanced protection and features can see their bill rise to more than $3,000 a month. Prince declined to discuss the business arrangements with specific customers.
While not yet profitable, CloudFlare has more than doubled its revenue in the past four months, according to Prince, and is picking up 3,000 new customers a day. The company has raked in more than $22 million from venture capital firms including New Enterprise Associates, Venrock and Pelion Venture Partners.
Prince, a Midwestern native with mussed brown hair who holds a law degree from the University of Chicago, said he has a track record of working on the right side of the law.
A decade ago, Prince provided free legal aid to Spamhaus, an international group that tracked email spammers and identity thieves. He went on to create Project Honey Pot, an open source spam-tracking endeavor that turned over findings to police.
Prince's latest company, CloudFlare, has been hailed by groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists for protecting speech. Another client, the World Economic Forum, named CloudFlare among its 2012 "technology pioneers" for its work. But it also owes its profile to its most controversial customers.
CloudFlare has served 4Chan, the online messaging community that spawned Anonymous. LulzSec, the hacker group best known for targeting Sony Corp, is another customer. And since last May, the company has propped up WikiLeaks after a vigilante hacker group crashed the document repository.
Last year, members of the hacker collective UgNazi, whose exploits include pilfering user account information from eBay and crashing the CIA.gov website, broke into Prince's cell phone and email accounts.
"It was a personal affront," Prince said. "But we never kicked them off either."
Prince said CloudFlare would comply with a valid court order to remove a customer, but that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has never requested a takedown. The company has agreed to turn over information to authorities on "exceedingly rare" occasions, he acknowledged, declining to elaborate.
"Any company that doesn't do that won't be in business long," Prince said. But in an email, he added: "We have a deep and abiding respect for our users' privacy, disclose to our users whenever possible if we are ordered to turn over information and would fight an order that we believed was not proper."
Juliannne Sohn, an FBI spokeswoman, declined to comment.
Michael Sussmann, a former Justice Department lawyer who prosecuted computer crimes, said U.S. law enforcement agencies may in fact prefer that the Web's most wanted are parked behind CloudFlare rather than a foreign service over which they have no jurisdiction.
Federal investigators "want to gather information from as many sources as they can, and they're happy to get it," Sussmann said.
In an era of rampant cyber warfare, Prince acknowledged he is something of a war profiteer, but with a wrinkle.
Read More..

Samsung Smart TVs: The next frontier for data theft and hacking [video]

Smart TVs, particularly Samsung’s (005930) last few generations of flat screens, can be hacked to give attackers remote access according to a security startup called ReVuln. The company says it discovered a “zero-day exploit” that hackers could potentially use to perform malicious activities that range from stealing accounts linked through apps to using built-in webcams and microphones to spy on unsuspecting couch potatoes. Don’t panic just yet, though. In order for the exploit to be activated, a hacker needs to plug a USB drive loaded with malicious software into the actual TV to bypass the Linux-based OS/firmware on Samsung’s Smart TVs. But, if a hacker were to pull that off, every piece of data stored on a Smart TV could theoretically be retrieved.
[More from BGR: Has the iPhone peaked? Apple’s iPhone 4S seen outselling iPhone 5]
[More from BGR: Dell confirms it will exit smartphone business, drop Android]
As if the possibility of someone stealing your information and spying on you isn’t scary enough, according to ComputerWorld, “it is also possible to copy the configuration of a TV’s remote control, which would allow a hacker to copy the remote control’s settings, and remotely change the channel.”
ReVuln told The Register it hasn’t informed Samsung of the vulnerability and plans to sell the details of in hopes of “speeding up” development of a fix. A video of the exploit as proof from ReVuln follows below.
Read More..

92K Missourians affected by insurance data breach

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) -- State officials say the personal information of more than 92,000 Missourians was accessed by potential identity thieves who hacked the computer systems of Nationwide Insurance, which also does business as Allied Insurance.
Missouri's insurance department said Friday the Oct. 3 data breach could affect more than 1.1 million people across the country who did business with Nationwide or Allied.
Missouri's insurance director says the breach affected the records of people who got quotes for auto insurance after August 2011. The department says Nationwide believes the hackers accessed names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and birth dates, among other things.
Nationwide is offering free credit monitoring and identity theft protection to people affected by the data breach. The insurer says it's not aware that the information has been misused.
Read More..

18 million Android devices could get whacked with malware in 2013

One security firm on Thursday claimed that 2013 will be the year of mobile malware for Android users, however no specific numbers had been given. The team at Lookout Mobile Security has painted a similar picture for Google’s (GOOG) operating system. The firm notes that more than 1.2 billion mobile devices are expected to be purchased in 2013 and in the following year users are forecasted to download over 70 billion mobile apps. Due to Android’s popularity, it is estimated that 18 million devices running the operating system may encounter some form of mobile malware. The likelihood that users will encounter malware or spyware, however, is heavily dependent on geographical location and behavior. Research from the security firm reveals that users in the U.S. have a 0.40% chance of seeing malware, compared those in Russia with a 34.7% chance.
Read More..

PUC approves writing rules for smart meter opt-out

EL PASO, Texas (AP) -- The Public Utility Commission has decided to develop a set of rules so consumers can opt out of the smart meters installed in millions of Texas homes and businesses.
Consumers have opposed the new meters, citing possible health hazards and privacy concerns. Some have installed steel cages around their analog meters to prevent utility workers from replacing them with the new digital units and one Houston woman held a gun to impede a utility worker from replacing her meter.
PUC spokesman Terry Hadley said Friday that an opt-out would leave already-installed smart meters in place but disable the devices' radio frequency capabilities.
A draft of the new rules will be written and submitted for public comment, Hadley said. After that, the PUC will vote again on whether to adopt them, which means there's still a chance the opt-out will fail. But, he said, "at this point the Commission is leaning toward an opt-out."
It will take several months until the new proposal is drafted and voted, Hadley said.
Smart meters allow for remote metering via radio frequency and are make the billing process cheaper since there is no need to send utility workers to read them. The meters also provide real-time information on energy consumption and help utilities prevent grid overloads during peak times. They also report to the utility when there is a power outage, making reconnection faster.
In websites and meetings organized by PUC, those against smart meters have spoken of possible government snooping and violations of the Fourth Amendment —unreasonable search and seizure — as well as the chance that hackers could access people's information from the meters.
On a petition template that's posted on www.bantexassmartmeters.com , meters are called "surveillance devices" because they record the household occupants' activities and can be used to "gain a highly invasive and detailed view" of their lives. Smart meters record consumption in 15-minute intervals.
Health hazards from the radio frequencies emitted by the meters have also been cited. The Public Utilities Commission says the meters have a lower impact than cellphones and microwave ovens and are well within Federal Communications Commission's standards for radio frequency devices.
It's likely that consumers who opt out will have to pay to have their meters read. As part of the rule-writing process, the Commission will gather information on how much it costs to send employees to read the meters and what disabling the radio frequency device would cost.
Users in California and Nevada pay between $75 and $107 to have the devices replaced along with monthly fees ranging from $8 to $10 to have the meters read. Meanwhile, Vermont legislators decided in May that utilities cannot charge users that opt out.
About 93 percent of the nearly 7 million smart meters in Texas' competitive markets for electricity, mainly in Houston and the Dallas-Fort Worth area, have been deployed, Hadley said.
Read More..