Mention: "In California, the State Board of Equalization estimates annual tax revenue losses of $1.085 billion from unpaid 'use taxes,' which are supposed to be paid for out-of-state purchases."
But you're right, he spends very little text on this idea.
He might as well be angry at rainclouds.
Tax policy is often designed to allocate tax burdens where they are easy to measure and enforce, rather than where they 'theoretically' should be triggered. Requiring millions of shoppers to record and pay their 'Use Taxes' would be an onerous requirement; requiring merchants to collect 'Sales Taxes' is relatively easy and indeed already traditionally done, even by Amazon.
So it makes perfect sense to focus on bringing cross-state retailing into the sales tax regime, rather than scolding shoppers about use taxes.
My point is that he's using vitriolic language to accuse Amazon unfairly (who are abiding by the current commerce laws) when the same could be said about the shoppers (who are not). Attacking either won't lead to an acceptable solution.
I don't think we should interfere in interstate commerce at a federal level. Rather the states that care will need to form a solution for all out-of-state commerce taxes, something that's happening anyways.
What I don't get is why he's angry at Amazon. Sales tax is levied against consumption on a buyer. It's just that states can force sellers in their own jurisdiction to collect it at the point of sale. For purchases made out-of-state, states already have a mechanism for collection: use tax. I find it a bit disingenuous that he doesn't even mention this. Why force the burden on companies when it's a tax against people that they're not paying.
Shouldn't he be angry at all the shoppers who aren't helping "avert layoffs of schoolteachers and firefighters and, yes, professors at state universities" by not filing their use taxes?