If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you
Rudyard Kipling
So-called “intelligent people” are continuing to call shots and give advice to the US President and Congress that is leading us straight over the financial cliff.
Obama claims that the root causes of our financial crisis are: a) Bush, b) Wall Street, c) Banks, and d) Republicans.
Paul Krugman, like Obama, a Nobel-prize winner (which should say something about his credibility) is a perma-Keynesian who writes for the NY Times. I noted recently that he has been one of the prime proponents of MASSIVE borrowing and spending by the Federal government.
Now on Sunday the 27th, he warned we are entering a Depression. He whines about the lack of spending from government:
“you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy.”
Gee Paul, what part of reckless spending don’t you understand? He says that not spending is a deliberate mean-spirited act:
“the victory of an orthodoxy that has little to do with rational analysis, whose main tenet is that imposing suffering on other people is how you show leadership in tough times.”
It now seems that Krugman, Obama and his merry men are becoming a smaller and smaller voice, as governments all over the world wobble with crushing debts and deficits. Obama encouraged the G20 in Toronto to spend; they told him to pound sand.
Rebuffed, Obama still cannot bring himself to reduce government spending — rather we will see some wild-ass tax proposals. As far as he is concerned, though federal expenditures are up 21% in the last 2 years, spending isn’t the problem. He wants to hike taxes, but knows he hasn’t got a chance before the November elections, so he sent a veiled warning from Toronto:
“I hope some of these folks who are hollering about deficits and debt step up, because I’m calling their bluff, And we’ll see how much of the political arguments they’re making right now are real, and how much of it was just politics.”
Why wait? Well, he has to wait for his blue-ribbon debt commission to come back (after the election), so he can propose taxes, taxes, taxes .. to save us. But that committee looks like there are some no-nonsense members, like Alan Simpson, who aren’t going to pussy foot around — so that may blow up on Obama.
Of course, the root causes of the financial crises are not, according to the government:
- Reckless government spending
- Unfunded programs: social security, medicare, prescription drugs
- Unfunded government union pensions
- A non-transparent and reckless Fed, who is trying experiments never tried before
- Freddie and Fannie, encouraged by Congress, backing ridiculous loans to anyone with a dog
- And did I mention? reckless government spending
The reality is that we cannot spending our way out of an over-spending problem, regardless of what Nobel-prize winning economists say.
Allan Meltzer writes in today’s WSJ: “Why Obamanomics Has Failed:
“Almost daily, Mr. Obama uses his rhetorical skill to castigate businessmen who have the audacity to hope for profitable opportunities. No president since Franklin Roosevelt has taken that route. President Roosevelt slowed recovery in 1938-40 until the war by creating uncertainty about his objectives. It was harmful then, and it’s harmful now.”
The solution? Reganomics anyone?
“The contrast with President Reagan’s antirecession and pro-growth measures in 1981 is striking. Reagan reduced marginal and corporate tax rates and slowed the growth of nondefense spending. Recovery began about a year later. After 18 months, the economy grew more than 9% and it continued to expand above trend rates.”
Are we too late to following recovery plans like Prices’s “Stop Reckless Spending” plan, or Paul Ryan’s “Roadmap for America’s Future“?
I’m afraid we will suffer a lot of pain before then. Mish Sherlock wrote this week that “An Economic Depression is Here“. Congress and The Fed are to blame.
Hold tight … this won’t be fun.
Today we take a detailed look at a recent FTC proposal that effectively regulates the news. You can get it here.
Hold onto your copy of the US constitution, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The FTC, packed with Obama socialists, has just published a Discussion Draft on “Potential Policy Recommendations to Support the Reinvention of Journalism“. These proposals seek to regulate the Internet — not just access speeds and bandwidth, but the information itself!
Proposal 1: Control the Utterance of Facts
The FTC deplores the fact that copyright does not protect “facts” in news stories, that other organizations can “free-ride” by repeating the facts gathered by newspapers.
Advocates argue “the copyright act allows parasitic aggregators to ‘free ride’ on others’ substantial journalistic investments,” by protecting only expression and not the underlying facts, which are often gathered at great expense. They define parasitic aggregators as those that, without permission, post enough material to render the original news stories redundant. This free-riding undercuts revenue for those who make investments in journalism and undermines their incentive to do so, according to advocates. They suggest that federal hot news legislation could help address revenue problems facing newspapers by preventing this free-riding.
So the first point is : why does the FTC think they have to intervene to help one type of competitor in the media?
They go on to discuss what the moratorium period might be under federalized “hot news” rules — rules that would prohibit, it would seem, you from tweeting information published by, say, the White House news team. While they discuss a “2 hour” ban — what would stop politicians and liberal courts from a 2-month ban?? … making the only facts available from White House trusted sources.
Proposal 2: Limit Search Engine Fair Use of News
To be fair, this argument is balanced, but consider this — that obscure blog that breaks embarrassing news might not be indexed by the search engine, ensuring that popular sites (Time, Newsweek, New York Time and other left-leaning sites) are the only ones with the “facts”.
Proposal 3: License News
Getting a chill yet. They go on to say:
governments have considered how to provide adequate incentives and funding for the news and are exploring, for example, the creation of government-fostered pilot programs to investigate new business models for IP [Intellectual Property] and discourage free-riding.
The notion: If you want to tweet a story, you pay a “micro-payment” back to the originator: the NYT, the White House news machine, etc.
They acknowledge:
A compulsory license places an effective tax on certain conduct.
So yes, the FTC proposes we tax the dissemination of FACTS, clearly abridging the freedom of speech and the free press.
Proposal 4: Drop Anti-Trust Rule for Newspapers So They Can Collude to Force Consumers to Pay for News
Another chilling concept. So let me count it up so far (and I am only on page 13 of the 47 page report) … you can’t repeat facts, you can’t search news, and you have to pay to find news facts … all under government licence. Now, big news can syndicate their news and prevent anyone from uttering the facts they find!!!
Proposal 5: Provide Government Subsidies to Some News Organizations
Yikes! The FTC comments:
Many people, including journalists, recoil at the thought of government assistance to sustain journalism.
(Me too!) Yet it justifies subsidies with a comment that it has been done and:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting has received direct support for over 40 years.
The FTC report waxes on for pages on the glories and success of Public Broadcasting.
“the fundamental purpose of public service media is to provide programs and services that inform, enlighten and enrich the public… CPB invests in programs and services that are educational, innovative, locally relevant and reflect America’s common values and cultural diversity.”
Can you hear the choirs singing the praises to the glories of PBS, comrade? The FTC moans on …
The U.S. government’s support for public broadcasting is very small compared to other democratic countries. For example, “if the United States spent at the same per capita level as Canada, our federal commitment would be $7.5 billion.” Per capita spending by Finland and Denmark is approximately 75 times greater.
So the proposal is to provide subsidies (i.e. Place more news organizations under government funding = control).
Subsidies
- Fund AmeriCorps Journalism Division. Can anyone say “Socialism youth camp and ministry of information”?
- Direct more funds to Public Broadcasting.
- Directly fund local news. Now who would hand out the money? Would a non-government supporting blog get funded?
- Provide tax credits for hiring reporters.
- Provide citizens with a voucher to buy non-profit news! You have to read the entire text to grasp the Orwellian nature of this proposal.
- Establish Citizenship News Vouchers. Citizenship news vouchers would allow every American tax payer to allocate some amount of government funds to the non-profit media organization of their choice. People could indicate on their tax return whether and to which nonprofit organization they want a specific amount (perhaps up to $200) to be donated, but they would not be required to designate a donation. They could split their “federal funds” donation among several different qualifying nonprofit media . Proponents of this approach suggest it would create a funding mechanism to encourage viable independent Internet journalism while avoiding government control or the creation of a bureaucracy that could influence the recipients of the money based on politics. This proposal also could give foundations a role to play. Foundations could provide start-up funding for 3 to 5 years to help new ventures, “and then see if there is popular support for the venture in the form of Citizenship News Vouchers.” If desired, this proposal could be structured to apply to commercial, as well as non-profit, news entities.
- Provide grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism. Has anyone seen a journalism school in America that is not far left-of-center?
- Provide SBA funds to nonprofit journalism organizations. Can you spell “ACORN”?
- Point the Voice Of America at America.
- Increase postal subsidies for newspapers.
New Taxes
The FTC paper then rambles into a long discussion of how to tax to pay for “better news”.
- 7% tax on radio and TV revenues! (Watch your cable bill folks!)
- 5% tax on TVs and radios!
- Tax on spectrum auction prices.
- 2% tax on all advertising!
- Another federal 3% tax on cell phone bills!
A Better Society for All
The FTC then waxes on about the best organization structure for news so that it serves
social purposes, such as economic redevelopment or environmental protection.
Some news entities may wish to explore hybrid organizational structures that integrate the pursuit of social purposes with business activities. These organizational designs include, among others, “Flexible Purpose” and “Benefit” corporations and low-profit limited liability companies (L3Cs). These hybrid designs may make sense for news entities, because journalism can fit a “social purpose” paradigm – that is, good journalism improves social welfare by educating the public through truthful and insightful reporting.
The report suggests government make Freedom of Information Act data (and most government information) more readily available, indexable and available (to select new organizations) for a reduced-fee.
Summary
In a nutshell, the FTC proposal suggests we:
- Abridge the freedom of speech and the press by restricting the utterance of facts reported in the news.
- Limit the ability of search engines to search news.
- License news so you pay when you repeat a fact.
- Allow news organizations to collude.
- Subsidize some news organizations, and promote non-profit news organizations for good social purposes.
- Provide you with a voucher so you can buy non-profit news.
- Tax TV, radio, TVs, radios, spectrum, advertising and cell phones.
CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW. If any one of these proposals gets into any bill, it is a clear and blatant abridgment of the First Amendment.
Citizens: beware!
News Reaction:
Even the Huffington Post says to the FTC: Get off our lawn!
The LA Times ridicules it in a story: Obama’s FTC plan to reinvent America’s news media.
The Washington Examiner asks: Will journalists wake up in time to save journalism from Obama’s FTC?
Quote of the Day: "Under civil forfeiture, police and prosecutors can seize your car or other property, sell it and use the proceeds to fund agency budgets, all without so much as charging you with a crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture, where property is taken after its owner has been found guilty in a court of law, with civil forfeiture, owners need not be charged with or convicted of a crime to lose homes, cars, cash or other property. Americans are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but civil forfeiture turns that principle on its head." – The Institute For Justice, "Policing For Profits"
Civil asset forfeiture is the practice of seizing and keeping property that police claim was used in a crime.
* The government does not have to prove their claim in court under the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt"
* Instead of "innocent until proven guilty" the property owner must prove innocence at his or her own expense
* Incredibly, the funds necessary to pay for that defense are often also confiscated
Police departments are growing more dependent on forfeitures to pay for their budgets. This means no one is safe . . .
* Instead of "protecting and serving" the people, police are pressured to investigate "crimes" which provide the best opportunity to seize property and cash,
* You can lose your car, your cash, or other property through a simple misunderstanding, or because you "look" suspicious
* And even where there are state laws protecting the innocent against abuses, the federal government rewards local police departments for evading state law!
Civil asset forfeiture is a moral and constitutional outrage. Yet the courts permit it. Only public pressure will bring this corrupt and barbaric practice to an end, so we’re asking you to tell Congress to End Asset Forfeiture.
You may borrow from or copy this letter . . .
The Institute for Justice report "Policing For Profit," offers a sobering look at asset forfeiture in the United States today. Local law enforcement have used asset forfeiture proceeds to . . . http://tinyurl.com/22p2oop
* purchase football tickets for the district attorney’s office
* purchase TV ads for the district attorney’s re-election campaign;
* fund a "training seminar" in Hawaii for the staff of the district attorney’s office
In one instance, $250,000 was donated to the sheriff’s alma mater for a scholarship!
Amazingly, most of this money was taken from people who were never even charged with a crime, let alone convicted. It was stolen money.
"Policing For Profits" also reveals that . . .
* A survey of 770 law enforcement executives found that nearly 40% viewed civil forfeiture as a necessary budget supplement
* A sample of 52 police departments in Texas found that forfeiture proceeds accounted for 14% of their budgets
* There is very little accountability or oversight on how the money is spentThere are a few states with reasonable safeguards designed to protect the innocent against asset forfeiture abuse, but the federal government circumvents these state laws through a program called "equitable sharing." Local police can seize property and hand it over to the federal government in order to bypass state controls.
* The local police agency can get as much as 80% of the proceeds back from the Federal government
* The true owner must fight in federal court for the return of his or her property
* Instead of the government proving guilt, the owner must prove innocence
* The costs of challenging forfeiture is often so great that many forfeitures go unchallengedIn addition, the federal government itself has cleared a $1 billion profit from civil forfeiture. And yet, 80% of the property owners are never even charged with a crime. They are victims of government theft!
I have no problem with laws that require individuals convicted of heinous crimes to forfeit criminal profits and the property they used in the crime. But taking property without even pressing criminal charges is naked theft AND YOU KNOW IT.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments say that no person can lose his of her property without due process of law. Honor your oath of office. Repeal the federal forfeiture laws and end equitable sharing.
END LETTER
You can send your letter through DownsizeDC.org’s Educate the Powerful System.
If you are as outraged at civil asset forfeiture as we are, we encourage you to forward this message to your friends and share this on Facebook.
Thanks for taking action!
James Wilson
Assistant Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org
D o w n s i z e r – D i s p a t c h
Official email newsletter of DownsizeDC.org, Inc. & Downsize DC Foundation.
SUPPORT the "Educate the Powerful System".
Feel Free to Forward or Reprint, as long as attribution and action links are retained/included. But we recommend you delete everything in this footer, i.e., below the words "Downsizer-Dispatch".
Your subscription comes to this email address: libertyyes@cooperusa.net.
If you have difficulties or inquiries, simply hit reply to this message. We’re eager to help, including with requests to unsubscribe.
If you do not want to receive any more newsletters (to unsubscribe), click this link.
To update your newsletter preferences visit this link.
Sponsored by DownsizeDC.org, Inc. — a non-profit educational organization promoting the ideas of individual liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and small government. Operations office: 1931 15th St. Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44223, 202.521.1200. Normally published 3-6 times per week. The Downsize DC Team would like to thank you for subscribing to the Downsizer-Dispatch, which you did by going to http://www.downsizedc.org/newsletter
I can’t add anything more than the following video. Christie for President!!!
| Gov Christie calls S-L columnist thin-skinned for inquiring about his 'confrontational tone' |
Under the cover of “net Neutrality”, the Obama administration has moved closer to regulating free speech on the internet.
Vis:
- In April, the Supreme Court threw out the FCC rule that dictated whether or not internet providers could throttle users of programs like BitTorrent.
- Not happy with the SCOTUS affront to POTUS, last week, the FCC declared that the Internet is a public utility. if this stands, the government can control content — your free speech, your RIGHT to disagree with the policies of this (or any) government. It makes, as Pamela Geller writes, Obama the Julius Caesar of the Internet.
- Should you worry? Hell yes!
On Saturday in Virginia, Obama gave a speech where he said:
And meanwhile, you’re coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don’t always rank that high on the truth meter. And with iPods and iPads; and Xboxes and PlayStations — none of which I know how to work — (laughter) — information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment, rather than the means of emancipation. So all of this is not only putting pressure on you; it’s putting new pressure on our country and on our democracy.
What the hey ?! Free flow of “information” is putting pressure on our democracy?
This is a very disturbing set of events.
