The Democratic-majority Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is on the cusp of a vote that could revolutionize the open Internet by placing pricing, products, services and future innovation under government control — all over the objections of the panel’s Republican minority membership.
FCC chairman Tom Wheeler has refused to release the content of the new proposals — all 332 pages’ worth — for public scrutiny. The FCC has to pass it, of course, so we can know what’s in it. Ajit Pai, the more vocal of the five-member panel’s two GOP commissioners, was unrestrained in highlighting the urgency of stopping Thursday’s planned vote on the new regulations in a passionately argued Chicago Tribune column he co-authored with Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman Monday.
The Internet is an unparalleled success story. It is a free, open and thriving platform for civic and political engagement, economic growth, educational opportunity, entertainment and much more. It has made the United States the epicenter of innovation. It is why Internet entrepreneur Mark Cuban has observed, “There is no better platform in the world to start a new business than the Internet in the United States.”
… But regulating broadband service like a public utility denies the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] these powers and denies consumers the protections that come with them. That’s because the law makes clear that the FTC doesn’t have jurisdiction over “common carriers,” which is what broadband providers would become under the president’s plan.
Why would we want to neuter the FTC when the Internet has flourished under the current regulatory model?
If all of this comes as a surprise, you’re not alone. The plan has not been made public. And the FCC has made it clear that it won’t be released until after the agency’s commissioners vote on it. This is not right. We should have an open, transparent debate about whether the president’s plan for Internet regulation is right for America’s consumers. In our view, it most certainly is not.
The 2007 version of Barack Obama would agree with this, as House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) pointed out in a letter to Wheeler Monday.
Notwithstanding these efforts, many Members of Congress argued the Commission should be even more transparent. At a September 2007 public hearing in Chicago, Senator Obama submitted a statement that he “strongly requested” the FCC “put out any changes that they intend to vote on in a new notice of proposed rulemaking.” A month later, in a letter to Chairman Martin, Senator Obama argued that both the “proposed timeline and process are irresponsible.” He specifically noted while a certain proposal “may pass the muster of a federal court, Congress and the public have the right to review any specific proposal and decide whether or not it constitutes sound policy. And the commission has the responsibility to defend any new proposal in public discourse and debate. The following month Senator Obama cosponsored bipartisan legislation to block the Commission’s vote on the rulemaking, pursuant to a 90-day comment period.
Would President Obama veto such legislation in 2015? Effectively, his complicity in the FCC’s regulatory scheme amounts to the same thing.
A new Congress has been seated, and it brings the prospect of perhaps, maybe, potentially, in a possible way doing something about the runaway federal deficits. And in other news, several New York area bridges are for sale, which you can acquire at a bargain price.
Excessive Spending Destroys!
Feds Have a Spending Problem — DO NOT RAISE THE CEILING!
Becky Gerritson: "...government is out of control!" and "...our representative government has failed us."
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the IRS to detail under oath how some of former agency official Lois Lerner’s emails went missing, as well as any potential methods for recovering them.
Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court in Washington gave the Internal Revenue Service exactly a month — until Aug. 10 — to file a report, which he demanded as part of a lawsuit from a conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch, against the agency.
Judicial Watch is seeking a wide range of documents from the IRS, including Lerner’s emails, as part of a Freedom of Information Act request. It has complained that the IRS didn’t tell it that the agency couldn’t recover all of Lerner’s emails from 2009 to 2011.
Sullivan cast his ruling as a compromise, and a potential way for Judicial Watch to get answers without the court wading any deeper into the matter. Judicial Watch had asked the court to potentially compel IRS officials to testify about the lost emails, through a process called limited discovery.
The FairTax is a consumption tax unilaterally applied to all Americans at the same rate. For businesses, payroll taxes would no longer exist. Our exports would include a heavy tax for overseas buyers purchasing our products, while our imports would be cheaper for us to purchase. I'm not sure how this would affect GDP, as more information is necessary.
According to the FairTax website, "Under the FairTax, every person living in the United States pays a sales tax on purchases of new goods and services, excluding necessities due to the prebate." The prebate gives every legal resident household an "advance refund" at the beginning of each month so that purchases made up to the poverty level are tax-free.
So a family of four making something like $50,000/year should not have to pay taxes, thus preventing an unfair burden on low-income families. Since the FairTax eliminates both federal and payroll taxes, you get to keep your gross pay amount of each paycheck earned.
John Adams said, “Without [term limits] every man in power becomes a ravenous beast of prey”. That being said, here are some of the reasons we believe our country needs Term Limits.
Term Limits can help break the cycle of corruption in Congress. Case studies show that the longer an individual stays in office, the more likely they are to stop serving the public and begin serving their own interests.
Term Limits will encourage regular citizens to run for office. Presently, there is a 94% re-election rate in the House and 83% in the Senate. Because of name recognition, and usually the advantage of money, it can be easy to stay in office. Without legitimate competition, what is the incentive for a member of Congress to serve the public? Furthermore, it is almost a lost cause for the average citizen to try to campaign against current members of Congress.
Term Limits will break the power special interest groups have in Congress.
Term Limits will force politicians to think about the impact of their legislation because they will be returning to their communities shortly to live under the laws they enacted.
Term Limits will bring diversity of people and fresh ideas to Congress.
[Editor's Note: If you want to get rich, i.e. advance from a low paying government bureaucrat job on the local or state level, THEN GET ELECTED TO THE US CONGRESS (House or Senate). Once you're elected, it's easy to steal from your campaign contributions or the Congressional budget allocated to your seat and staff. You can go on a government-funded junket with 'lavishly' paid expenses. The list of ways to steal from the government while in office is inexhaustible. There are only a few Congressmen who left Congress just wealthy instead of a multi-millionaire. Of course, there are several who arrived in Congress as multi-millionaires and don't need to steal from the government.]
