Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick last month announced plans to push an array of new taxes and tax hikes totaling $250 million.

But news this week indicates that it is a package so outlandish that even some Massachusetts Democrats are bailing on it.

Patrick wanted to subject soda and candy to state sales tax. In addition, he wanted the legislature to approve a 50-cent increase in Massachusetts’ cigarette tax, the revenue from which would reportedly have been used to ensure uniformity among taxpayer-subsidized health benefits that are made available to low-income resident immigrants.

These proposals came despite the fact that according to the Boston Herald, “revenue for the first half of [January] is up 3.1 percent (about $30 million) over January 2011.”

But House Speaker Robert DeLeo appeared to throw cold water on the idea this week, saying in prepared remarks “For the past two years, this House has rejected balancing the budget with new taxes and fees… Any changes to revenue policy should be approached with extreme caution and should never be done piecemeal. As such, we will release a budget from the House Committee on Ways & Means that does not rely on new taxes and fees.”

Senate President Therese Murray had previously failed to voice support for the proposed cigarette tax hike itself, beyond stating that “Stopping people from smoking appeals to me.”

One reason why the proposed tobacco tax increase may be dead on arrival is that neighboring New Hampshire– already a prime destination for Massachusetts residents looking to avoid the state’s high cigarette tax by purchasing across the border– last year cut its cigarette tax, making it a potentially even more attractive tobacco-buying destination should the tax increase go through. The Granite State last month saw its reduced tobacco tax result in $900,000 more revenue than had been estimated, potentially due to increased buying by out-of-state bargain-hunters.

Massachusetts last raised its cigarette tax, which sits at $2.51 per pack, in 2008.

As for the other tax increases proposed by Patrick, perhaps Massachusetts Democrats, despite their reputation, have seen sense and decided to avoid raising consumption taxes that tend to hit the poor harder than the rich while the economy remains in the doldrums.

Usually. Which is why the latest fiasco over the Agency’s proposed Boiler MACT rule is so noteworthy.

After writing new rules in mid-2011 that would require electricity-generating boilers to meet a shockingly high emissions standard – at a capital cost of $9.5 billion – a wide swath of industries, most notably the paper and wood business, pushed back. EPA was set to impose the rules anyway, risking hundreds of thousands of jobs, sky-high costs, and electrical production capacity.

Yet shockingly, EPA suddenly changed its mind in December, apparently having listened to the industries’ criticisms and deciding to stay any formal enactment of the proposed rules. EPA wanted more time to study the potential effects and revise the regulations.

But of course, the environmentalist left wouldn’t have that. From the PJ Tatler:

In December 2011, though, the EPA changed course and decided to delay implementing the rule. It actually appeared to be taking industry concerns into account, for once. The Sierra Club and others had filed suit to force the EPA to stick to its original timeline. The federal court in Washington, DC heard the case and sided with the Sierra Club in January. So now, the EPA is being forced by a judge to implement a rule that the EPA itself has acknowledged is problematic and requires more study.

The minute the EPA actually listens to industries’ concerns and decides it wants a more balanced approach, they get stuck with a federal court ruling requiring them to enforce the original rules they have already acknowledged are faulty.

Luckily, in order for sanity to prevail, Republicans are pushing legislation that will shield the EPA from the court’s ruling and give it the time it needs to draft new rules that lessen the burden on industry. The legislation, titled the EPA Regulatory Relief Act, has been bouncing around Congress. The House has already passed the bill as part of the payroll tax cut package passed in December. It’s the Senate’s turn now.

Even the EPA itself admits that too much is at stake.

Capital Confidential has in the past covered the saga of PharmAthene, a company that produces “medical countermeasures to biological and chemical weapons” and its great fortune to have been awarded the sole-source contract from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA). We have also learned that the firm has very close ties to Tara O’Toole, the Department of Homeland Security Under Secretary for Science and Technology, who, as it happens, was once a lobbyist for an industry association that is essentially funded and run by PharmAthene.

All this has been covered and, to be cynically frank, is somewhat familiar behavior from Washington, DC. But what is not so familiar (though it is becoming more so every week) is for well-heeled companies who essentially exist due only to government contracts, connections, loans or bailouts to play fast and loose with laws and regulations designed to protect taxpayers and investors. And here is where PharmAthene reenters the picture.

PharmAthene is publicly traded (NYSE amex: PIP) and therefore has an obligation to publicly disclose material events that might reasonably be expected to affect the company’s stock price. Nevertheless, important pieces of information are missing from recent press releases issued by PharmAthene and posted to the Investor Relations section of its website; information that the company had included in previous releases.

PharmAthene is developing a potential Anthrax therapy called Valortim. This experimental product has been funded by the U.S. government, as has its anthrax vaccine development program. As such, PharmAthene disclosed the following in an October press release: “PharmAthene’s rPA anthrax vaccine program has been funded in whole or in part with Federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institutes of Health and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority.”

That information is missing from a press release PharmAthene issued about Valortim less than two months later, though. If PharmAthene has lost federal funding for a major product, well, this constitutes a material event, and therefore is something it must disclose to its investors.

Has PharmAthene in fact lost funding for its Anthrax program? That’s unclear. Yet we know that a different company, Elusys, has been awarded funding for its rival product and, according to a recent presentation from BARDA that it has only “one enhanced monoclonal in development” to combat Anthrax, again suggesting the U.S. government is no longer interested in Valortim. The silence from PharmAthene is deafening.

Also, the National Defense Authorization Act signed by President Obama does in fact reduce funding for the Chemical and Biological Defense Program. According to Alex Philippidis, writing in Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News:

More quietly, however, NDAA also set levels of funding for several biodefense programs. The funding authorization for the Chemical and Biological Defense Program was reduced by 5%, or $67.5 million, to $1.14 billion from $1.2 billion. The reduction reflected delays in several programs. The largest cut was $50 million following a delay in issuing a request for proposals for the Medical Countermeasures Initiative (MCMI). Delays to the Bioscavenger program, designed to create MCMs that protect military members specifically from nerve agents, resulted in a $24 million reduction.

PharmAthene has also recently celebrated another of its products in a separate press release, a bioscavenger called Protexia, which purportedly combats injuries from chemical weapons. The release contains no information that it has lost government funding for the development and commercialization of this product. It would appear that Protexia, like Valortim, is out of the picture, though it would take a PharmAthene investor a good deal of research time to piece together the facts.

Has PharmAthene failed to disclose to its investors its loss of funding for two of its major products? And if so, will the SEC take appropriate action against this well connected drug company with close ties to the Obama administration?

From the Washington Post:

The Democrat outlined a $15.3 billion general fund budget plan that includes about $311 million in new revenue. About $182 million will come from capping income tax deductions and phasing out exemptions.

[...]

The governor’s plan would cap income tax deductions at 90 percent for incomes above $100,000 and 80 percent for incomes above $200,000.

It also would reduce exemptions from $2,400 to $1,200 per person for singles who make between $100,000 and $125,000 and couples who make between $150,000 and $175,000. Exemptions would be eliminated for singles who make more than $125,000 and couples with incomes above $175,000.

[...]

About $19 million will come from aligning the state’s cigarette tax with other tobacco products. Tax on cigars and smokeless tobacco is 15 percent of wholesale, which was comparable to the 36 cents per pack cigarette tax in 1999. The governor’s proposal would make it 66 percent of wholesale, which would make it comparable to the present $2 per pack cigarette tax.

The proposal also would require online sellers to begin collecting sales tax, which the governor projects would raise about $19 million, but there are questions about enforcement.

Republicans have ripped O’Malley, who earned an “F” for his fiscal stewardship from the CATO Institute back in 2008, for the proposal. “The governor is balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class and small businesses at a time when we should be looking for ways to make them thrive,” said House minority leader Del. Anthony O’Donnell, according to the Post.

However, the tobacco tax increase portion of O’Malley’s plans looks more likely to constitute a tax increase on lower income earners, who use products like smokeless tobacco more than wealthier Marylanders.

In 2007, O’Malley pushed a $1.4 billion tax increase plan that involved corporate, personal income, sales and cigarette tax hikes. He subsequently abandoned tax increases in favor of cutting spending, but critics charge he now seems to be going back to his old ways.

O’Malley is also borrowing more to spend on construction projects, so should he succeed in raising taxes, it may not be for the last time.

Many key journalists in the tech industry have already pointed out that SOPA and PIPA were, until the industry and American consumers got a hold of the bills, a “sure thing” set to pass without much, if any opposition from members of Congress. The indefinite delay, prompted by massive outrage and widespread protests last week, prompted a total reconsideration of the bill, with Marco Rubio and Congressional Republicans leading a firestorm of criticism and a mass exodus from the bill. Its worth noting, however, that one of the bill’s key sponsors, Democratic Senator Harry Reid, was quick to note that we haven’t seen the last of the bills.

“We live in a country where people rightfully expect to be fairly compensated for a day’s work, whether that person is a miner in the high desert of Nevada, an independent band in New York City, or a union worker on the back lots of a California movie studio,” he said in a statement posted by Games Industry (requires free account sign up.)

He went on to encourage other key senators to look into the proposed amendments to the bills, rehashing SOPA to make it more likely to pass if pushed through again.

Its worth noting that the bill’s backers – the MPAA, RIAA and a host of union thugs – are known for their persistence, whether its prosecuting unwitting grandmothers for Internet music “theft” or protesting Wisconsin governors who are trying to rescue their state’s financial well-being, and Americans should not expect them to back down any time soon. And with the amount of money and the future of Democratic party rule at stake in this next election, the MPAA’s, RIAA’s and unions’ deep pockets and ability to write huge campaign checks probably won’t be put at risk for something as silly as the rights of the American people.

And, in fact, if rumors are to believed – and in DC they often are – the SOPA and PIPA comeback might come sooner rather than later. Washington whispers say that the bills will likely come up under different names – not surprising – and that the bigwigs behind the SOPA and PIPA efforts have already hired DC communications powerhouse Hillary Rosen to lead the resurrection effort.

So, like a zombie rising up from its grave to wreak havoc over the American heartland in a low-budget Hollywood Halloween money-maker, SOPA and PIPA look to be rising again to attack your freedoms. Be vigilant.

Cordray is well aware that the Constitution provides the president with the power of appointment when the Congress is not in session.  But the Congress was not in recess when the President appointed Cordray.  Adding insult to injury, the 2010 law that created the CFPB included a section that says many of the bureau’s new powers are to be held by the secretary of the Treasury “until the Director of the Bureau is confirmed by the Senate.”  The Senate, obviously, never confirmed Cordray.

Despite these constitutional and legal roadblocks, Cordray has assumed the full power of the office and has started the process of regulating the economy in earnest.

In Birmingham, Alabama, Cordray held a field hearing laying the groundwork for a regulatory assault on the short-term lending industry, as well as, the mortgage and student loan industry.  Cordray seems unconcerned of the constitutional and legal challenges ahead.  He told the Hill newspaper, “I’m going to leave that to others … lawyers are digging into it,” when asked if his appointment would survive a legal challenge.  But he added that “the position was long overdue to be filled.” “We’ve got a lot of work to do for the public to make these markets function effectively,” he said.

Cordray, in a few sentences was able to articulate the president’s view of the Constitution and the economy.

With regard to the Constitution, Cordray is ill-concerned about whether his appointment is violative.  The man who swore an oath to the Constitution will “leave that to others.”  The fact that liberals felt the need to fill this new position is good enough.  With regard to the economy, they believe that only government intervention can allow markets to “function effectively.”

This thinking turns 236 years of American precedent on its head.  America was built upon a foundation of laws and freedom.  In one fell swoop, the president found the need to destroy both.  We are confident that a court will find that Cordray assumed office illegally and his actions will be nullified.  We hope that day comes sooner than later.

What’s interesting is that of the over 30 Members who have recently come out in opposition to the Senate’s Protect IP Act (PIPA) and the House’s Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the vast majority have been Republicans, who have long been considered the stodgy side of the aisle when compared to their tech-savvy Democratic counterparts. While the tech world, who Dems claim to support at every turn, aggressively protests SOPA and PIPA, the very officials they helped to elect – including Democratic party leaders – have abandoned them in the face of their most important issue: internet privacy.

The word on the Hill that in the past 24-hours alone Sens. Rubio, Cornyn, Hatch, DeMint, Kirk, Grassley, Blunt, Boozman, and Ayotte have all come out in opposition of PIPA, with several among them withdrawing their original co-sponsorship of the legislation. What do these nine Senators have in common? They’re all Republicans.

Even within individual states the divisions don’t make sense; New Hampshire’s junior Senator Kelly Ayotte withdrew her co-sponsorship and support for PIPA citing overwhelming constituent opposition, whereas Democratic senior Senator Jeanne Shaheen has remained on board. Did New Hampshire voters somehow reach out to Ayotte to register their disapproval but leave Shaheen out of the loop? Unlikely.

The tech industry has shown that they are united on the issue and won’t hesitate to take drastic action, including spending real money in 2012, but Democrats seem to feel no obligation to the industry. With big name unions like the Teamsters and AFL-CIO backing SOPA and PIPA, as well as the Hollywood elite, Democrats clearly understand the position they would be in if they somehow abandoned these most ardent financiers – enough even to abandon their most ardent supporters. Young voters and the tech industry, who hail Democrats as the Party of Tech would do well to stand up and take notice: they and their lifestyles are not anywhere near as important to their treasured liberal Congressmen as they think they are.

If Democrats – particularly vulnerable incumbents up for reelection, like Ohio’s Sherrod Brown and Florida’s Bill Nelson – don’t get with the message on the overreaching legislation, they’re liable to find themselves out in the cold when it comes time to collect those campaign checks.