PolicyBytes

PolicyBytes News, Notes, and Opinions From the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) http://www.policybytes.org/blog/policybytes.nsf/ en-us Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:25:21 -0500 Have Republicans "overplayed their hand"? Thu, 14 Jul 2011 00:25:21 -0500
I have to admit that, while I've been on record urging the Republicans to stand firm, you first have to decide where the firm footing is before you commit to standing firm.

It's always been true that Republicans, in control of only a single House of Congress, had a fairly weak hand. In our bicameral legislative system they could stop something bad from happening, but they can't really force through major changes.

Given that, my expectation was that Republicans would demand something substantial in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, which would accomplish three things:
1. They would get something substantial,
2. They would set a precedent that you don't get any more debt ceiling extensions unless you're prepared to give something. No more automatic extensions ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/have-republicans-overplayed-their-hand.htm Tom Giovanetti http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/have-republicans-overplayed-their-hand.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/have-republicans-overplayed-their-hand.htm
I have to admit that, while I've been on record urging the Republicans to stand firm, you first have to decide where the firm footing is before you commit to standing firm.

It's always been true that Republicans, in control of only a single House of Congress, had a fairly weak hand. In our bicameral legislative system they could stop something bad from happening, but they can't really force through major changes.

Given that, my expectation was that Republicans would demand something substantial in exchange for an increase in the debt ceiling, which would accomplish three things:
1. They would get something substantial,
2. They would set a precedent that you don't get any more debt ceiling extensions unless you're prepared to give something. No more automatic extensions, and
3. They would prevent market uncertainty by increasing the debt ceiling. I never believed that not increasing the debt ceiling was a rational alternative.

The "something substantial" I was hoping for could have been immediate spending cuts in this fiscal year, or dramatic spending cuts next fiscal year (the appropriations to be passed by Congress this year). It could have been much needed reform of the Budget Act, or it could have been something else, like a cut in the corporate tax rate. Or a first installment on something like Paul Ryan's long-term budget plan.

When I started hearing "balanced budget amendment" my first thought was "oh, no, they've overplayed their hand." They've asked for too much, and set an unattainably high bar for success of this bit of brinksmanship.

Truth is, I don't know what they've asked for, since I've not been in the room. But I thought Republicans could and should come away with something real and substantial in exchange for the debt ceiling increase.

I still think they can, if their demands are proportionate. But you have to accurately appraise the strength of your position, and not overplay your hand.

Senator McConnell has pretty much come out today and admitted the weakness of the Republican hand. I've never been a particular fan of Senator McConnell, but some of his comments in particular today show his grasp of the situation. He understands that the Republican hand allows them to extract some concessions but not drive major reforms. That will have to wait until after the 2012 election. McConnell further correctly understands that to die on this bridge may endanger the likely gains of 2012. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/have-republicans-overplayed-their-hand.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/have-republicans-overplayed-their-hand.htm?opendocument&comments Netflix enters the real world. Will you? Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:00:34 -0500 people complaining about Netflix's announcement that it is changing its pricing models.

Of course, this move follows closely on the heel of Netflix's CEO trying to pass the blame onto broadband companies for the fact that he can't dominate the market for streaming movies at almost no cost and at fantasy pricing levels.

Which is, of course, as one commentator put it, a load of hooey.

... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/netflix-exits-the-real-world.htm Broadband Tom Giovanetti http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/netflix-exits-the-real-world.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/netflix-exits-the-real-world.htm people complaining about Netflix's announcement that it is changing its pricing models.

Of course, this move follows closely on the heel of Netflix's CEO trying to pass the blame onto broadband companies for the fact that he can't dominate the market for streaming movies at almost no cost and at fantasy pricing levels.

Which is, of course, as one commentator put it, a load of hooey.

Given the costs of licensing legitimate content and of occupying a significant amount of the available bandwidth in the nation, there was never any chance that Netflix was going to be able to continue to offer its service at such a ridiculously low price. It was great while it lasted, but it couldn't last.

This is all somewhat amusing to me, of course. I know better than to think

That quality content is inexpensive, and that people will invest enormous amounts of capital and creativity into content and then give it away for free, so that others can build businesses off of the free content,
That it's effortless and inexpensive to build, maintain and expand broadband networks,
That the single easiest thing on earth is to bring more bandwidth on line,
That the Internet somehow magically allows you to have something for nothing.

But apparently the idea that there is something magical about the Internet that will give us abundance for nothing has infected a sizeable portion of the population--or at least that of the Internet population. Hence tonight's whining.

I blame three different sources for this stupid idea. First, of course, is my nemesis the free culture movement, which overtly proclaims that information products "want to be free," proudly defends online piracy, and opposes the protection of knowledge products through intellectual property rights. What they really are are parasites, only they have deluded themselves into thinking they are symbionts or even the truly creative.

Second is the David Isenberg "just bring tons more bandwidth on line. It's easy and cheap!" crowd. (in fairness, he doesn't like me, either. Though some others had some nice things to say about my op/ed.) It actually takes a ton of innovation, a lot of engineering, and a lot of expense to add more bandwidth.

And third is the techno-utopian crowd, among which are some right-leaning, market-oriented folks who should know better. Notice the subtitle of this book, by George Gilder whom I largely respect. "Infinite bandwidth"? Give me a break. There is no such thing as infinite bandwidth. I knew it then, and Gilder should have known it as well.

Gilder's book was written before YouTube, before Netflix, before Facebook, before streaming video. Before IPTV.

Gilder's economics should have trumped his techno-utopianism. Gilder is very familiar with Say's Law, which states that supply creates its own demand. The Internet is not somehow magically immune from the laws of economics, and if you give free people an abundant supply of something like bandwidth, they will find all sorts of interesting ways to use it up.

So bandwidth will never be infinite, it will always be scarce (in the economic sense of the word), it will always have to be managed for its most efficient use (hence network management and hence anti-net neutrality mandates), and desirable, quality products and services will always cost something, even over the Internet.

Sorry. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/netflix-exits-the-real-world.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/netflix-exits-the-real-world.htm?opendocument&comments TaxBytes 7.27: Christmas Surprise Tue, 13 Jul 2010 16:01:12 -0500
The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund recently explained that Democrats are considering an ambitious lame-duck session when Congress returns after the November elections.

If Democrats lose control of the House and maybe even the Senate, their congressional leaders could return in early December with plans to tax and spend like there’s no tomorrow -- which, for them, there wouldn’t be.

If a number of Democratic incumbents has been defeated, why not “go for the gold” -- your gold, that is -- and ram through their Christmas wish list? New taxes, new spending, maybe “card check” for the unions.
... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm TaxBytes Merrill Matthews Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm
The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund recently explained that Democrats are considering an ambitious lame-duck session when Congress returns after the November elections.

If Democrats lose control of the House and maybe even the Senate, their congressional leaders could return in early December with plans to tax and spend like there’s no tomorrow -- which, for them, there wouldn’t be.

If a number of Democratic incumbents has been defeated, why not “go for the gold” -- your gold, that is -- and ram through their Christmas wish list? New taxes, new spending, maybe “card check” for the unions.

But it may not be that easy.

The most vulnerable Democratic seats are in red-leaning or “purple” districts. Democrats who campaigned as fiscal conservatives, like the Blue Dogs, may see this election as a temporary correction, with a strong possibility of recapturing their seats in 2012, when President Obama will almost certainly be on the ticket again.

Breaking every campaign pledge of fiscal responsibility in a lame-duck session could come back to bite them in two years.

The second reason a tax-and-spend spree could be thwarted is that some of the so-called moderate Democrats may actually be moderate. They may really be concerned about the current levels of debt and don’t want to double down. And since they’re on their way out, the leadership couldn’t hurt them.

Finally, a Christmas Surprise could be stopped if Republicans, who hold a filibuster-proof 41 seats in the Senate, stick together. And they might get a little help from a few Democratic senators like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, who is still trying to live down his Christmas Surprise from last year, when he traded his vote for Obamacare for the now-infamous “Cornhusker kickback.”

But just because the free-spenders can’t push through a Christmas Surprise doesn’t mean the fiscally responsible should let down their guard. Because there’s one thing every fiscally responsible person knows: Christmas spending sprees are always followed by January bills. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.27-christmas-surprise.htm?opendocument&comments TechBytes 7.26: A Pathway to Safety Thu, 8 Jul 2010 10:18:36 -0500
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act finally established a much-needed regulatory pathway for “biosimilars.” Those are the generic versions of “biologics,” complex drugs made from living (or products of living) organisms, such as vaccines, insulin, human growth hormones and many others.

Innovator companies will get:

12 years of data exclusivity for their products, providing reasonable intellectual property protection;

An arbitration mechanism to settle patent disputes; and

A transition pathway to approve biosimilars, which have been regulated like traditional drugs despite their greater complexity.

That’s all good as far as it goes, but the legislation doesn’t address a number of issues. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.26-a-pathway-to-safety.htm Biodiversity Merrill Matthew Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.26-a-pathway-to-safety.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.26-a-pathway-to-safety.htm
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act finally established a much-needed regulatory pathway for “biosimilars.” Those are the generic versions of “biologics,” complex drugs made from living (or products of living) organisms, such as vaccines, insulin, human growth hormones and many others.

Innovator companies will get:

12 years of data exclusivity for their products, providing reasonable intellectual property protection;

An arbitration mechanism to settle patent disputes; and

A transition pathway to approve biosimilars, which have been regulated like traditional drugs despite their greater complexity.

That’s all good as far as it goes, but the legislation doesn’t address a number of issues. For example, the legislation did very little to address safety concerns in the approval of the biosimilars, leaving much of that up to the discretion of the Food and Drug Administration.

And the question is, will the FDA require clinical trials for biosimilars?

For a traditional drug, generic versions have to demonstrate “bioequivalence” with the drug they are copying, meaning they will have a similar therapeutic effect. That’s a relatively easy process given the simple molecules used in traditional drugs.

Not so with biologics. Thus, in order to assure the safety of biosimilars, some level of clinical trials should be required. Those trials can be smaller than the original trials sponsored by the innovator company, and that means less time consuming and expensive -- an important factor since the whole point of allowing a generic version of a drug or a biologic is to provide patients with a much-less expensive alternative.

That’s what the European Medicines Agency does, and it’s what the U.S. should do.

Biologics are the next wave of medical miracles -- and they are at our doorstep. Ensuring innovator companies have the necessary intellectual property protection to encourage them to invest in new biologic products was a major step forward.

Now let’s hope the FDA takes the necessary steps to ensure that biosimilars will be as safe as the medical miracles they are copying. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/techbytes-7.26-a-pathway-to-safety.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.26-a-pathway-to-safety.htm?opendocument&comments TaxBytes 7.26: When Flips Don’t Flop Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:06:10 -0500
Politico quotes Howard Gleckman of the Urban Institute as saying, “The question is, can [Democrats] create the perception that they have done all these things to create jobs, or that they tried but the dastardly Republicans prevented them from creating jobs?”

Rather than blaming Republicans, Democrats ought to thank them. Had Republicans been able to stop the Democrats’ uber-spending spree even earlier, the economy might have come back quicker and unemployment might be trending down.
... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm TaxBytes Merrill Matthews Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm
Politico quotes Howard Gleckman of the Urban Institute as saying, “The question is, can [Democrats] create the perception that they have done all these things to create jobs, or that they tried but the dastardly Republicans prevented them from creating jobs?”

Rather than blaming Republicans, Democrats ought to thank them. Had Republicans been able to stop the Democrats’ uber-spending spree even earlier, the economy might have come back quicker and unemployment might be trending down.

According to the government’s website that tracks stimulus spending, Recovery.gov, the government has spent $417 billion in tax benefits, contracts, grants, loans and entitlements. Mind you, that’s just the stimulus money. Others estimate that the administration has added about $1 trillion in debt in the past 18 months.

And yet unemployment has actually gone up since Obama made this his economy, from 13 million to 15 million Americans, for a net loss of 2 million jobs. So, just counting stimulus money, we’ve spent about $208,000 per job lost.

Maybe that’s why a new Rasmussen poll says that only 25 percent of voters nationwide believe the stimulus package created jobs. And 43 percent say it hurt the economy.

Now, seeing inverse relationships is always tricky in economics. But if Democrats have spent so much money with only increasing unemployment to show for it, why not try the opposite approach: Stop spending money and see what happens.

Or go one step further: If government spending can be positively correlated with lost jobs, maybe cutting spending would result in more jobs.

Since it doesn’t look like Democrats can get more stimulus spending passed, why not flip and embrace the alternative? They can still blame Republicans for stopping more stimulus spending—a criticism I suspect most Republicans would be happy to accept. And if cutting spending begins perking up the economy, the president and his party could truthfully, and finally, claim his policies worked. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.26-when-flips-dont-flop.htm?opendocument&comments TaxBytes 7.25: Making European Socialists Blush Tue, 29 Jun 2010 07:44:58 -0500
A mere 18 months later not even the European socialists want to go where the president wants to lead—ever more government spending. Indeed, most of Europe is headed in the opposite direction.

The U.K. has announced new austerity measures, including 25 percent budget cuts and a two-year public-sector pay freeze. Even the queen’s allotment will be frozen next year.

Germany has said it will cut its budget by nearly $100 billion over the next four years.

And France wants to cut its budget deficit from 8 percent of GDP this year to 3 percent by 2013.

By contrast, Obama tried to convince countries at the G-20 meeting to, lemming like, follow us off the economic cliff. They declined en masse. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm TaxBytes Merrill Matthews Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm
A mere 18 months later not even the European socialists want to go where the president wants to lead—ever more government spending. Indeed, most of Europe is headed in the opposite direction.

The U.K. has announced new austerity measures, including 25 percent budget cuts and a two-year public-sector pay freeze. Even the queen’s allotment will be frozen next year.

Germany has said it will cut its budget by nearly $100 billion over the next four years.

And France wants to cut its budget deficit from 8 percent of GDP this year to 3 percent by 2013.

By contrast, Obama tried to convince countries at the G-20 meeting to, lemming like, follow us off the economic cliff. They declined en masse. Many of them may be European socialists, but they aren’t fiscal idiots. The U.S. will have that “honor” all to ourselves.

Yes, the U.S. agreed to go along with the other countries in stressing deficit reduction. But that’s a sop to give the appearance of unity.

There will be no budget this year because a budget requires deficit projections, and deficit projections like those facing the U.S. produce headlines. And headlines would force—finally—the administration to explain why spending even more money the country doesn’t have will create prosperity.

This may be the most deluded fiscal-policy administration we’ve ever witnessed. Everyone knew ObamaCare was going to cost significantly more than what the Congressional Budget Office predicted. And yet the Obama administration persevered.

Most economists knew the Obama stimulus bill would do little to reduce unemployment or increase economic growth. And yet that hasn’t stopped the president from asking for even more stimulus spending—and encouraging other countries to follow our misguided lead.

But when even the European socialists blush at our overspending, you know the American people see through the nonsense. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.25-making-european-socialists-blush.htm?opendocument&comments TechBytes 7.25: A Strategic Plan for IP Enforcement Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:08:23 -0500 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement to the President and to Congress (PDF, 65 pages).

Intellectual property (IP) has become a controversial topic in the past few years, but thankfully there was very little controversy in the Joint Strategic Plan. It seems that one of the few truly non-partisan policy issues today is the recognition of the importance of intellectual property protection to our nation’s economy.
... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.25-a-strategic-plan-for-ip-enforcement.htm TechBytes Tom Giovanetti http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.25-a-strategic-plan-for-ip-enforcement.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.25-a-strategic-plan-for-ip-enforcement.htm 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement to the President and to Congress (PDF, 65 pages).

Intellectual property (IP) has become a controversial topic in the past few years, but thankfully there was very little controversy in the Joint Strategic Plan. It seems that one of the few truly non-partisan policy issues today is the recognition of the importance of intellectual property protection to our nation’s economy.

The job of enforcement of IP laws rightly falls to government. It’s not really the job of government to “protect” intellectual property products—under the law the owner of the work has to protect his own property rights. But it’s the government’s job to create a legal environment that makes it possible for rights holders to protect their property, and it’s the government’s job to enforce the law.

And enforcement ends up cutting across a surprisingly wide swath of government. Agencies involved in IP enforcement include not only the obvious ones, like the United States Patent Office (USPTO), but also the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the United States Trade Representative, and the Copyright Office. You can see why a “coordinator” is necessary!

IPI long ago realized the importance of IP to the continued and expanded growth of the U.S. economy, which is why intellectual property policy is one of our key areas of policy concentration. And we were delighted to see our research on the impact of piracy and counterfeiting on the U.S. economy referenced several times in the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan.

In fact, according to the Plan: “The most frequently cited studies [on the loss of jobs and revenue to the U.S. economy due to intellectual property theft] were those from the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) . . .” (p. 52).

It’s important work, and it’s a not-terribly sexy way of defending jobs and economic growth in the U.S. economy. In fact, that’s why earlier this year IPI co-sponsored a conference in (of all places) Tanzania on counterfeiting, and will be co-sponsoring similar conferences later this year in the Caribbean and in Indonesia.

You can access IPI’s work on intellectual property policy through this link, or simply by going to www.ipi.org. Your job may depend on it—IP intensive industries account for nearly 60 percent of total U.S. exports. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/techbytes-7.25-a-strategic-plan-for-ip-enforcement.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.25-a-strategic-plan-for-ip-enforcement.htm?opendocument&comments TaxBytes 7.23: A Penny Saved Is a Penny Not Spent—on Politics Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:58:48 -0500
Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has introduced the “Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act,” otherwise known as the “Buy Union Votes and Boost My 2012 Reelection Chances” bill. In essence, the bill would transfer billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities from mostly union-managed multi-employer pension plans to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which is backed by taxpayers.

But even as unions push for taxpayers to fill the gap in their underfunded and mismanaged pension plans, they drop millions of dollars in union dues on political causes.
... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.23-a-penny-saved-is-a-penny-not-spent—on-politics.htm Government Merrill Matthews Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.23-a-penny-saved-is-a-penny-not-spent—on-politics.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.23-a-penny-saved-is-a-penny-not-spent—on-politics.htm
Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey has introduced the “Create Jobs and Save Benefits Act,” otherwise known as the “Buy Union Votes and Boost My 2012 Reelection Chances” bill. In essence, the bill would transfer billions of dollars in unfunded pension liabilities from mostly union-managed multi-employer pension plans to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which is backed by taxpayers.

But even as unions push for taxpayers to fill the gap in their underfunded and mismanaged pension plans, they drop millions of dollars in union dues on political causes.

Just last week we learned that unions spent $10 million trying to defeat incumbent Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln in the state’s Democratic primary. The White House apparently thought the money was wasted; the unions responded that even though they lost the money was well spent.

In addition, several groups, including unions, are contributing to a $125 million, five-year White House project to convince Americans they really do want ObamaCare.

How much money do unions spend on political activities? No one knows for sure because the unions do their best to mislead or hide it. UnionFacts.com reports, “[T]he National Institute for Labor Relations Research estimated that total union political expenditures reached $925 million in the 2004 cycle.” It has surely gone up significantly in the last few cycles.

Of course, union members have a constitutional right to support the candidates of their choice. But when union pensions are underfunded, then dues money should be diverted to the pensions first, not political activities.

True, redirecting roughly $1 billion from political activities to shoring up their pensions may not be enough. Senator Casey estimates that about $8 billion would do the trick; Moody’s puts it around $165 billon, according to the Wall Street Journal.

But it would be a start, and a better economy could help fill the gaps. Just like that foolish, wasteful child, when unions waste their money and then beg for bailouts somebody has to act like the wise and prudent adults. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.23-a-penny-saved-is-a-penny-not-spent—on-politics.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.23-a-penny-saved-is-a-penny-not-spent—on-politics.htm?opendocument&comments TechBytes 7.23: Speed Track Thu, 10 Jun 2010 14:27:44 -0500
Really?

Can most people rattle off the horsepower of their car or their lawnmower? Can most people even tell you what “horsepower” means? (Horsepower is a measurement of work over time. Move 33,000 pounds one foot in a minute and that is one horsepower). What about their furnace? Can they opine on how many BTUs it produces? (BTU stands for British thermal unit. Heat one pound of 60 degree water by one degree at a pressure equal to one atmosphere and you have one BTU).

Most people can tell you whether their vehicle can pull their trailer effectively or accelerate fast enough when needed. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.23-speed-track.htm TechBytes Bartlett Cleland http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.23-speed-track.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.23-speed-track.htm
Really?

Can most people rattle off the horsepower of their car or their lawnmower? Can most people even tell you what “horsepower” means? (Horsepower is a measurement of work over time. Move 33,000 pounds one foot in a minute and that is one horsepower). What about their furnace? Can they opine on how many BTUs it produces? (BTU stands for British thermal unit. Heat one pound of 60 degree water by one degree at a pressure equal to one atmosphere and you have one BTU).

Most people can tell you whether their vehicle can pull their trailer effectively or accelerate fast enough when needed. They know whether their riding mower can pair back the spring thickets or whether the family room is warm enough in January.

The FCC should not have been the least bit surprised by the results, much less now trying to make such technical knowledge, or lack thereof, proof of some failing of US broadband. What the FCC should do is learn the obvious lesson—consumers are not interested in speed as a number, they are interested in whether they can do online what they need to do.

A year ago IPI made this point to the FCC directly. “Defining a broadband goal in terms of a numerical standard may be interesting for international data compilation, and perhaps appealing to those who think that Americans want to emulate Korea and live in tiny apartments in what are little more than giant concrete bunkers with government broadband pipes on which they can play computer games and otherwise interact with ‘real life.’

“But measuring speed is simply the wrong approach. The question that needs to be asked is not ‘How fast is it?’ but rather ‘Does the system perform to meet the needs of users/consumers/taxpayers in this case?,’ or ‘Are we meeting the goals and vision as laid out by our public officials—have we made it to the Moon?’”

Now having been told by IPI and 91 percent of the public, maybe the FCC will get off the speed track. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/techbytes-7.23-speed-track.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.23-speed-track.htm?opendocument&comments TaxBytes 7.22: Obama and Musgrave’s Iron Law of Economics Tue, 8 Jun 2010 15:21:00 -0500
Anyone who knows Washington knows there is a fundamental flaw in the budget process. If an agency or department doesn’t spend all of its budget, the excess funds go back to the federal government.

Moreover, that agency may see its future budget cut by a similar amount, as the money gets redirected in the next budget cycle to the squeakier wheels. So agencies, reacting to the established economic incentives, routinely find ways to spend their allotments, whether they really need the funds or not.

Back in the 1990s, stories emerged that one of the defense department agencies found it had some $900,000 left at the end of the year and wasted it all on magazine subscriptions. That problem was fixed; the Pentagon can now shift leftover dollars around to other agencies.
... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.22-obama-and-musgrave’s-iron-law-of-economics.htm TaxBytes Merrill Matthews, Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.22-obama-and-musgrave’s-iron-law-of-economics.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.22-obama-and-musgrave’s-iron-law-of-economics.htm
Anyone who knows Washington knows there is a fundamental flaw in the budget process. If an agency or department doesn’t spend all of its budget, the excess funds go back to the federal government.

Moreover, that agency may see its future budget cut by a similar amount, as the money gets redirected in the next budget cycle to the squeakier wheels. So agencies, reacting to the established economic incentives, routinely find ways to spend their allotments, whether they really need the funds or not.

Back in the 1990s, stories emerged that one of the defense department agencies found it had some $900,000 left at the end of the year and wasted it all on magazine subscriptions. That problem was fixed; the Pentagon can now shift leftover dollars around to other agencies.

The White House is proposing a similar measure for the rest of the federal government. Departments that don’t spend all of their funds would be able to redirect up to half of the excess to other departments. The rest would go back to the budget for deficit reduction.

White House officials think the change might save $25 billion, which it laments isn’t big. Of course, old-timers may recall when Washington considered $25 billion a lot of money—like back in 2008.

But if the government really wants federal employees to cut back on spending, then it needs to create the right economic incentives by letting employees benefit from those reductions—personally.

If money is left over at year’s end, let the employees who had a hand (broadly construed) in controlling costs get a bonus from the leftover funds, with the rest going to deficit reduction.

The bonus can’t be so big that it becomes detrimental or corrupting—i.e., people refusing to spend needed funds just to get a bigger bonus. But it should be big enough so that employees make rational economic tradeoffs.

Of course, the best approach for reducing the budget deficit is greatly reduced spending. This approach simply recognizes economist Gerald Musgrave’s Iron Law of Economics: if you want people to economize, then the economizer must benefit from the economizing. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.22-obama-and-musgrave’s-iron-law-of-economics.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.22-obama-and-musgrave’s-iron-law-of-economics.htm?opendocument&comments TechBytes 7.22: Why Should I Care about Piracy and Counterfeits? Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:35:16 -0500
On piracy, there’s a new round of lawsuits against people who have been illegally sharing copyright-protected materials, although this time it’s movies, including the Oscar-winning film “The Hurt Locker.”

And on counterfeits, a cache of over seven million counterfeit pills, including counterfeit Viagra and other common prescription drugs, was just seized in Dubai, a central distribution port for destinations all over the world.

Two weeks ago, a Canadian man was arrested for selling counterfeit cancer medication through his Canadian Internet pharmacy website.

Oh, and the same guy was selling pirated business software. So he’s adept at both piracy AND counterfeiting.
... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.22-why-should-i-care-about-piracy-and-counterfeits.htm Intellectual Property Tom Giovanetti http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.22-why-should-i-care-about-piracy-and-counterfeits.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.22-why-should-i-care-about-piracy-and-counterfeits.htm
On piracy, there’s a new round of lawsuits against people who have been illegally sharing copyright-protected materials, although this time it’s movies, including the Oscar-winning film “The Hurt Locker.”

And on counterfeits, a cache of over seven million counterfeit pills, including counterfeit Viagra and other common prescription drugs, was just seized in Dubai, a central distribution port for destinations all over the world.

Two weeks ago, a Canadian man was arrested for selling counterfeit cancer medication through his Canadian Internet pharmacy website.

Oh, and the same guy was selling pirated business software. So he’s adept at both piracy AND counterfeiting.

How inhumane is it for someone to be selling supposed cancer drugs over the Internet that turn out to be "a white, powdery substance that was later determined through laboratory tests to contain starch, dextrin, dextrose or lactose!”

But while health and safety concerns about counterfeits are primary, not to be overlooked are the economic impacts of piracy and counterfeiting.

The creative industries—in other words, the industries that depend on intellectual property creation and protection—create exactly the kind of high-paying, information-age jobs our economy so desperately needs right now. Everyone understands that the way forward for the U.S. economy is not in our cheap labor or our raw materials. Rather, our economic growth increasingly depends on creation and innovation, and it is through our ability to create things that people want and export them around the world that real, sustainable job creation will occur.

So everyone has a stake in making sure that creativity and innovation are valued in our society—not just the creators and innovators themselves, but all the industries and jobs that flow downstream from innovation and creation.

Piracy and counterfeiting, especially the large scale criminal enterprises are responsible for the majority of violations, are a cancer on innovation, not only eating into the value that should naturally accrue to those who create and innovate, but also eroding all the economic activity and job creation that depends on the innovation economy.

So, while we’re among the first to criticize government for its intrusions into the private economy, and think we’d be better off if government simply stopped doing about half the things it tries to do, there’s an obvious and legitimate role for government here. We’re glad to see the feds stepping up efforts to protect U.S. citizens and the U.S. economy against the ravages of counterfeit and pirated goods, and you should be, too. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/techbytes-7.22-why-should-i-care-about-piracy-and-counterfeits.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.22-why-should-i-care-about-piracy-and-counterfeits.htm?opendocument&comments TaxBytes 7.21: Debunk and Defund Tue, 1 Jun 2010 16:32:45 -0500
Reduce Medicaid eligibility. Historically, states have varied widely on Medicaid eligibility, with some setting the threshold significantly below the federal poverty level (FPL). ObamaCare sets a nationwide eligibility threshold at 133 percent, which increases the number of people in the government-run program by an additional estimated 15 million by 2019. Funding Medicaid eligibility only up to 100 percent of FPL would dramatically lower its cost. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm TaxBytes Merrill Matthews, Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm
Reduce Medicaid eligibility. Historically, states have varied widely on Medicaid eligibility, with some setting the threshold significantly below the federal poverty level (FPL). ObamaCare sets a nationwide eligibility threshold at 133 percent, which increases the number of people in the government-run program by an additional estimated 15 million by 2019. Funding Medicaid eligibility only up to 100 percent of FPL would dramatically lower its cost. Medicaid was created for the poor (i.e., those under the poverty level) and it should remain that way.

Reduce the subsidy level. For those with incomes above 133 percent of FPL, ObamaCare provides a sliding-scale subsidy for purchasing health insurance for up to 400 percent of FPL. That’s a whopping $88,000 a year for a family of four today, and may be nudging 100 grand by 2014 when the subsidy goes into effect. Many of these families can easily afford at least basic coverage. Setting subsidies at that level is more about making most Americans dependent on government than improving access to affordable coverage. The level should be reduced to a maximum of 200 percent or 250 percent of FPL.

Defund new agencies and commissions. The legislation creates more than 100 new agencies and boards and commissions. Most of these efforts will prove fertile ground for mischief making — especially the new Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), which has significant new powers to impose price controls on Medicare. Congress can refuse to fund most or all of these new boards. No money, no mischief.

None of these proposals fixes ObamaCare. And there are lots of other options that would make the system better, but would likely be vetoed by the president. But resistance provides opponents an opportunity to continue to explain all the problems with ObamaCare.

While “repeal and replace” is a very politically appealing mantra, “debunk and defund” may be the best short-term option. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.21-debunk-and-defund.htm?opendocument&comments Techbytes 7.21: Prove It! Thu, 27 May 2010 15:44:42 -0500
Obviously we are supporters of the First Amendment and are cheered when the public speaks up, telling government what they think. It’s all part of our right to petition the government, including regulatory agencies. However, we also think that government agencies need to especially consider data and substantive facts and information, rather than just policy pressure.

We’re concerned that these days the FCC seems to be in the thrall of one or two left-leaning groups and is following ideology rather than working from easily observable business and market reality. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.21-prove-it.htm Communications Bartlett Cleland http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.21-prove-it.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.21-prove-it.htm
Obviously we are supporters of the First Amendment and are cheered when the public speaks up, telling government what they think. It’s all part of our right to petition the government, including regulatory agencies. However, we also think that government agencies need to especially consider data and substantive facts and information, rather than just policy pressure.

We’re concerned that these days the FCC seems to be in the thrall of one or two left-leaning groups and is following ideology rather than working from easily observable business and market reality. What is the indication that these groups are being followed so closely while others are seemingly ignored or rejected? The same assertions made by these groups show up as justifications for policy making.

One example from just last week – the FCC in its own wireless report has refused (for the first time in a decade) to state the conclusion that the wireless industry is “effectively competitive,” despite the evidence being right there in its own report. How anyone with access to a TV or radio, much less reams of data, could not think that the wireless market is very competitive, is beyond us.

But if you’re out to implement predetermined ideological goals, such as the FCC seems to be, it’s crucial to not undermine that effort by stating that the status quo is competitive, even if the facts demonstrate that it is.

But wireless markets are not the only example of ignoring marketplace facts and data in order to implement a predetermined policy. The entire so-called “network neutrality” imperative is based on imagined harm.

It seems to us that the proper response to what we’re seeing out of the FCC these days is, simply, “prove it.” If you’re going to advocate new government regulation in the broadband and wireless markets, it’s time to prove that more government is necessary. In a free market economy, the burden of proof is on government to justify increased intrusion. So, “prove it.” ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/techbytes-7.21-prove-it.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.21-prove-it.htm?opendocument&comments Free Press doesn’t think the peoples’ elected representatives should determine the nation’s policy Wed, 26 May 2010 18:00:34 -0400 I blogged the other day about bipartisan Congressional opposition to the FCC's attempt to expand their regulation of the Internet in the form of letters from 74 House Democrats and 37 Senate Republicans.

Well, today, the radical leftwing group Free Press that is agitating for more government regulation of the Internet put up a temper tantrum on their website. It musthave really knocked them for a loop to find out that not every Democrat on the Hill is smoking what Free Press is dealing. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/free-press-doesnt-think-the-peoples-elected-representatives-should-determine-the-nations-policy.htm Network Neutrality Tom Giovanetti http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/free-press-doesnt-think-the-peoples-elected-representatives-should-determine-the-nations-policy.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/free-press-doesnt-think-the-peoples-elected-representatives-should-determine-the-nations-policy.htm I blogged the other day about bipartisan Congressional opposition to the FCC's attempt to expand their regulation of the Internet in the form of letters from 74 House Democrats and 37 Senate Republicans.

Well, today, the radical leftwing group Free Press that is agitating for more government regulation of the Internet put up a temper tantrum on their website. It must have really knocked them for a loop to find out that not every Democrat on the Hill is smoking what Free Press is dealing.

Let me get this straight: Free Press thinks the FCC has the right to do whatever it wants to do with the Internet, and it's the elected representatives of the people who should stay out of the way? Policy should be set by appointed bureaucrats and not the elected representatives of the people?

So much for "democratization."

We're about to find out if the FCC is responsive to the people's elected representatives, or whether they've become a wholly owned subsidiary of Free Press. Will the FCC go slow on Internet regulation, or will they plunge full-speed ahead despite concrete evidence of bipartisan opposition? ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/free-press-doesnt-think-the-peoples-elected-representatives-should-determine-the-nations-policy.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/free-press-doesnt-think-the-peoples-elected-representatives-should-determine-the-nations-policy.htm?opendocument&comments TaxBytes 7.20: How Washington Hammers Early Retirees Tue, 25 May 2010 10:23:44 -0500
In a word: fugetaboutit!

That’s because Social Security will withhold one dollar for every two you make above $14,160 this year. It’s called the Social Security earnings limit, and it exists to discourage older Americans from taking early retirement under Social Security.

The original earnings limit was created with the passage of Social Security in 1935 to fulfill social policy, not economic policy. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm TaxBytes Merrill Matthews, Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm
In a word: fugetaboutit!

That’s because Social Security will withhold one dollar for every two you make above $14,160 this year. It’s called the Social Security earnings limit, and it exists to discourage older Americans from taking early retirement under Social Security.

The original earnings limit was created with the passage of Social Security in 1935 to fulfill social policy, not economic policy. Jobs were scarce during the Great Depression; and the earnings limit was intended to encourage retirees to leave the workforce to open up jobs for younger workers.

Initially the penalty applied to all seniors. Then:

· In 1950 Congress exempted retirees age 75 and older.

· That threshold was lowered to age 72 in 1954 and 70 in 1983.

· And it was eliminated for seniors age 65 and over in 2000.

Thus, seniors older than the threshold, which is now at 66 (and rising), can earn as much as they want without a penalty.

But not early retirees. If you are between the ages of 62 and 66 and you want to take early retirement under Social Security, you can—but your income is limited to $14,160. Make more than that and you will face in essence a 50 percent marginal tax rate on your Social Security benefits.

Defenders of the earnings penalty—which historically included AARP—claim it encourages people to stay in the workforce. Nonsense, the average retirement age is 63.6; and the large majority of Americans formally retire—though they might still work some—before the age of 66.

What the earnings limit does is penalize productive older workers who may need additional income to make ends meet. The Obama administration did not create this problem—though its economic policies arguably have made it worse—but it can end this penalty, and end it now. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.20-how-washington-hammers-early-retirees.htm?opendocument&comments Strong bipartisan opposition to FCC’s attempt to regulate the Internet Mon, 24 May 2010 14:58:55 -0500 a letter released today in which 73 elected Democratic Members of Congress oppose the FCC's actions.

As the letter notes,

We are writing to reinforce the strong bipartisan consensus among policymakers, industry participants, and analysts that the success of the broadband marketplace stems from policies that encourage competition, private investment, and legal certainty. The regulatory framework first adopted in 1998 by the Clinton administration's FCC has resulted in broadband industry infrastructure investment of approximately $60 billion per year.[italics mine]

... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/strong-bipartisan-opposition-to-fccs-attempt-to-regulate-the-internet.htm Network Neutrality Tom Giovanetti http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/strong-bipartisan-opposition-to-fccs-attempt-to-regulate-the-internet.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/strong-bipartisan-opposition-to-fccs-attempt-to-regulate-the-internet.htm a letter released today in which 73 elected Democratic Members of Congress oppose the FCC's actions.

As the letter notes,

We are writing to reinforce the strong bipartisan consensus among policymakers, industry participants, and analysts that the success of the broadband marketplace stems from policies that encourage competition, private investment, and legal certainty. The regulatory framework first adopted in 1998 by the Clinton administration's FCC has resulted in broadband industry infrastructure investment of approximately $60 billion per year. [italics mine]

Importantly, the letter states (and don't forget it's from 73 Members of Congress):

The significant regulatory impact of reclassifying broadband service is not something that should be taken lightly and should not be done without additional direction from Congress. [italics mine]

Now, here is a letter also released today from Senate Republicans.

See? Bipartisan.

The narrative that is emerging here is pretty clear: This is a radical-leaning administration that doesn't even reflect its own Congressional majority, much less the American people. In seeking to expand its regulatory control over the Internet, the FCC is responding to the demands of a small handful of far-Left advocacy organizations, rather than to the demands of the American people or even the demands of Congress.

This is Regulators-Gone-Wild, and it's precisely the danger of giving authority to unelected bureaucrats. They always seek greater and greater power over the economy, and it's why Chairman Genchowski's promises to forebear to fully exercise the powers that would accrue to the FCC under Title II should be completely discounted. Whatever power you give them, they will use all of it, and seek even more. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/strong-bipartisan-opposition-to-fccs-attempt-to-regulate-the-internet.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/strong-bipartisan-opposition-to-fccs-attempt-to-regulate-the-internet.htm?opendocument&comments TechBytes 7.20: When Markets Change, Rules Should, Too Fri, 21 May 2010 10:25:34 -0500
Retransmission rules were adopted in 1992. They allowed US television stations to force video service providers, such as cable or satellite, to carry “local content” provided by the local television station (called “must carry”), or to negotiate with the video service provider for carriage of its broadcast programming.

But today, the rules need an update. Continuing the threat of “must carry” distorts price mechanisms and thus distorts negotiations—a short-sighted government construct rather than a true marketplace negotiation.
... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.20-when-markets-change-rules-should-too.htm TechBytes Bartlett Cleland http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.20-when-markets-change-rules-should-too.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.20-when-markets-change-rules-should-too.htm
Retransmission rules were adopted in 1992. They allowed US television stations to force video service providers, such as cable or satellite, to carry “local content” provided by the local television station (called “must carry”), or to negotiate with the video service provider for carriage of its broadcast programming.

But today, the rules need an update. Continuing the threat of “must carry” distorts price mechanisms and thus distorts negotiations—a short-sighted government construct rather than a true marketplace negotiation.

And the retransmission rules were written in a time before consumers had access to so many video and information choices—during a time that was nothing like today’s vibrant, competitive video service marketplace.

But the damage this system wreaks goes further. The broadcasters should receive fair value for the use of their content. However, in writing the current retransmission rules Congress second-guessed the market, believing that “many broadcasters may determine that the benefits of carriage are themselves sufficient compensation for the use of their signal by a cable system.” The rationale lacks the understanding that entire business models may change or that content may increase in value. Government should not be in the business of setting or regulating prices or even influencing prices.

In view of the changes that have occurred since the current rules were put in place, including both market and technological changes, it is appropriate for the commission to consider improvements in the retransmission rules. The appropriate changes would facilitate market-based negotiations so that content is appropriately valued while restoring balance, which would minimize consumer anxiety and provider uncertainty. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/techbytes-7.20-when-markets-change-rules-should-too.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.20-when-markets-change-rules-should-too.htm?opendocument&comments TaxBytes 7.19: Cut to the Revolution Tue, 18 May 2010 16:21:19 -0500 (http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/) where, along with a greeting by House Republican Whip Eric Cantor explaining the need to get federal spending under control, the public can “vote” on several potential cuts in the federal budget. Votes can be rendered either on the website or from a cell phone.

This week’s choices include, among other options:

$260 million for the presidential election fund. After singing the praises of government-financed elections, President Obama refused to take federal money because it would limit what he could raise. Eliminating this program would mean all presidential elections would be funded by private contributions.

$600 million for taxpayer subsidized union activities. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm TaxBytes Merrill Matthews, Jr. http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm
(http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/) where, along with a greeting by House Republican Whip Eric Cantor explaining the need to get federal spending under control, the public can “vote” on several potential cuts in the federal budget. Votes can be rendered either on the website or from a cell phone.

This week’s choices include, among other options:
- $260 million for the presidential election fund. After singing the praises of government-financed elections, President Obama refused to take federal money because it would limit what he could raise. Eliminating this program would mean all presidential elections would be funded by private contributions.
- $600 million for taxpayer subsidized union activities. This change would prohibit federal employees from doing union work while they’re being paid to work for us.
- $2.5 billion undermining the welfare reform legislation of the 1990s. The 1996 welfare reform bill tied welfare payments to work and was a huge success. President Obama’s stimulus bill undermines that legislation, and this proposed change would help return welfare to workfare.
Once you’ve voted on your choices you can make suggestions for other spending cuts.

It’s a brilliant way to encourage interested Americans to be part of the solution to our fiscal challenges.

And it rejects the culture of arrogance that pervades Washington these days, a culture that believes the public is too stupid to understand the intricacies of major public policy debates—like health care reform—and thus must accept whatever the politicians can scheme up in backroom deals.

You Cut begins the transition to the next generation of public discourse. In 1994, the House Republican leadership developed the Contract with America, which said if the voters put Republicans in charge they would implement 10 specific changes.

You Cut, by contrast, says that Republicans will let the public decide what needs to be done. This approach relies on the voters rather than dismisses them, and it tries to capture that energy expressed last summer by millions of Americans who wanted, many for the first time, to become part of the political process.

That’s more than a political change; it’s a political revolution. ]]>
http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/taxbytes-7.19-cut-to-the-revolution.htm?opendocument&comments Ignorant and Arrogant Fri, 14 May 2010 15:54:33 -0500 without having read it is something that's even more astonishing (and arrogant) to me.

He also showed up at a Congressional hearing without adequately prepping for the hearing.

Holder had to know he'd be asked about the Arizona law, and especially about the fact that he hadn't yet read the law when he made his comments over the weekend. But, knowing this, he still hadn't bothered to read the law in preparation for Thursday's hearing?

This is just astonishing to me, insulting to Congress, and indicative, I think, of the arrogance of this administration. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/ignorant-and-arrogant.htm Politics Tom Giovanetti http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/ignorant-and-arrogant.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/ignorant-and-arrogant.htm without having read it is something that's even more astonishing (and arrogant) to me.

He also showed up at a Congressional hearing without adequately prepping for the hearing.

Holder had to know he'd be asked about the Arizona law, and especially about the fact that he hadn't yet read the law when he made his comments over the weekend. But, knowing this, he still hadn't bothered to read the law in preparation for Thursday's hearing?

This is just astonishing to me, insulting to Congress, and indicative, I think, of the arrogance of this administration. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/ignorant-and-arrogant.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/ignorant-and-arrogant.htm?opendocument&comments TechBytes 7.19: All I Really Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten Thu, 13 May 2010 15:59:33 -0500 All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Watching the FCC’s reaction to losing the Comcast case, we’re beginning to wonder if maybe some higher-ups at the FCC weren’t paying attention in Kindergarten.

Don’t Throw a Tantrum
Perhaps you remember the days when being told “no” was really hard to handle. Sooner or later, for the most part, people learn that being told “no” is simply part of life and that “no” is far from the worst thing that can happen, and is actually often the catalyst to other opportunity.

Some, however, do not learn to handle “no” well. ... ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.19-all-i-really-need-to-know-i-learned-in-kindergarten.htm TechBytes Bartlett Cleland http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.19-all-i-really-need-to-know-i-learned-in-kindergarten.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.19-all-i-really-need-to-know-i-learned-in-kindergarten.htm All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten. Watching the FCC’s reaction to losing the Comcast case, we’re beginning to wonder if maybe some higher-ups at the FCC weren’t paying attention in Kindergarten.

Don’t Throw a Tantrum
Perhaps you remember the days when being told “no” was really hard to handle. Sooner or later, for the most part, people learn that being told “no” is simply part of life and that “no” is far from the worst thing that can happen, and is actually often the catalyst to other opportunity.

Some, however, do not learn to handle “no” well. The FCC, when told it had little statutory authority over broadband, instead of focusing on the many areas where it does have authority, threw a tantrum and is now determined to impose itself on broadband by reversing previous FCC decisions, policies, and court decisions. It doesn’t matter how much it costs and how much time it takes away from other pressing matters, the FCC is going to get it’s way. Someone doesn’t know how to handle “no” very well.

Always Tell the Truth
The tale being told by the Commission is that the broadband communications marketplace, including wireless, is somehow a failure. But as we have many times pointed out to the FCC, all market analysis defies this assertion. The Internet has been in robust growth mode and now has reached a true mark of success -- high-speed broadband access for 95% of U.S. consumers.

Moreover, in his recent rhetoric, FCC Chairman Genakowski is turning history on its head, asserting that somehow previous to the court’s decision in Comcast, the FCC had authority over broadband, but now that the court has disagreed, the court has somehow caused a crisis that can only be solved through new FCC authority.

This simply isn’t true. By asserting authority it didn’t possess and assessing fines it had no authority to assess, it’s the FCC that caused the problem, not the courts. When courts tell you that you have done wrong, the courts aren’t causing a problem--they’re identifying a problem that YOU caused.

Don’t Be a Bully
Coincidentally, the FCC also has before it for consideration Comcast’s purchase of NBC-Universal. It’s unfortunately become commonplace in merger reviews for regulatory agencies to set policy by fiat while they’re holding companies hostage through the merger review. Will a grudge-holding FCC try to bully Comcast into accepting terms related to network neutrality or to accept the FCC’s authority over its broadband networks? We’ll be watching. ]]> http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dxcomments/techbytes-7.19-all-i-really-need-to-know-i-learned-in-kindergarten.htm http://www.policybytes.org/Blog/PolicyBytes.nsf/dx/techbytes-7.19-all-i-really-need-to-know-i-learned-in-kindergarten.htm?opendocument&comments