Category Archives: regulation

Rule of Law

Posted on by
Reply

Earlier I wrote about government and free speech regarding a Wall Street Journal op-ed about the FCC’s proposed interference with the business of the Internet.

Buried near the end of the op-ed, though, was a remark that needs greater notice than was present in the piece.

Mr Wheeler’s FCC claims “there are no rules on the books to prevent broadband providers from limiting Internet openness by blocking content or discriminating against consumers and entrepreneurs online.”

The WSJ denied the charge,

But this is false. …the Federal Trade Commission already has ample authority to go after businesses that mistreat customers, online or off[]

but that’s beside the point.

We’re not Europeans. Neither are we, generally, Progressives. We have no need of a government’s rule to tell us every jot or tittle of what we are permitted or not permitted to do. We are American citizens; we are fully capable of deciding for ourselves, in the absence of the “guidance” of our Betters, what we might do or not do.

Government and Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

This time in the milieu of the Internet. And it’s not good, if the FCC’s latest “rule” proposal is allowed to stand.

Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler went ahead with his proposal on Thursday to give his agency the power to decide whether the terms and prices of broadband Internet services are “reasonable.” That’s bad enough as political discretion, but according to dissenting Commissioner Ajit Pai, regulators from every state will also be able to get into the act.

Government, once again, is deciding that it’s better suited to determine what a proper business arrangement is than the participants in the business. Only this time, since it’s the Internet that’s at stake, and the Internet plays such an enormous role, not only in business per se, but in speech of all forms—political, business, communication of innovations, the list goes on—the FCC is plainly inserting itself into the business of government determiner of what appropriate speech is.

If this rule stands, government will be able to pass on the Internet-based “business arrangements” regarding, oh let’s say, a documentary called Hillary: The Movie. Worse, it’ll be able to do this, not overtly because it objects to the politics of the movie, but more sotto voce, under the guise of objecting to the appropriateness of the business arrangements surrounding its Internet distribution. And by allowing the States to get in on the censorship, the FCC is looking to broaden government…management…of permissible speech.

The Wall Street Journal‘s op-ed points out a myriad of other objections to this harebrained scheme of the FCC, but this will do for this post.

Another Correct Court Ruling

Posted on by
Reply

And, again, it comes in the area of free speech.

The 7th Circuit has ruled in Wisconsin Right to Life State v Timothy Vocke, a Wisconsin case concerning the permissible State government-imposed limits on political speech that Wisconsin’s law and a host of implementing rules are unconstitutional.

The Court’s unanimous ruling held, among other things, that

  • the state’s corporate-speech ban is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling
  • the cap on the amount a corporation may spend on fundraising for an affiliated political committee is unconstitutional
  • the lengthy disclaimer requirement under state Government Accountability Board’s regulation is unconstitutional as applied to 30-second radio ads and ads of shorter duration
  • the statutory definition of “political purposes,” section 11.01(16), and the regulatory definition of “political committee,” GAB § 1.28(1)(a), are unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in the sense meant by federal court precedent.

This also is likely to cut the underpinnings out from beneath the Democrats’ secret John Doe investigations of exactly these sorts of organizations, which Star Chamber “investigations” are centered on exactly these now acknowledged to be unconstitutional grounds.

The ruling can be seen here.

Taxing False Premise, Second Round

Posted on by
Reply

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Senator Ron Wyden (D, OR), Senate Finance Committee Chairman, labored under the same false premise as the international collaboration effort.

While decrying the loss of US companies as they move overseas to avoid the US’ highest in the world corporate tax rate, he insisted

America’s tax base erodes at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, increasing the burden on other companies and individuals. America also loses good jobs, talent, investment, and the ability to compete on a global stage.

Legal or not, this loophole must be plugged.

Once again: it isn’t possible for government to incur a “cost of hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue” when it isn’t government’s…revenue…in the first place. Certainly, government sees a reduction of “millions of dollars” from these moves, if we elide—as Wyden does—the dynamic effects of real tax reform.

However, the right answer isn’t Wyden’s, who demanded

Current law requires that US companies reincorporating overseas must ensure that at least 20% of their stock is owned by their new, foreign partner. As chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, I am committed to raising this floor to at least 50% for all inversions taking place from May 8, 2014, on.

This move is—how shall I put this delicately—brain-dead. Just as companies have found and are finding legal ways around existing tax law, and by the way, leaving profits earned overseas overseas due to our usurious corporate tax rates, they’ll find ways around Wyden’s 50% threshold, too. All Wyden will get out of this is feel-good and frustration, if he’s sincere in his effort, and open-ended political gain from his base if he’s not.

Wyden will not get anything material done regarding his concern for “increasing the burden on other companies and individuals.” Nor will he accomplish anything meaningful for his loss of “good jobs, talent, investment, and the ability to compete on a global stage.”

No, what’s needed is what is the first step in any recovery program: recognize and acknowledge that he has a problem. His notion that taxes are government’s money has to go, to be replaced by recognition that it’s our money, granted to government only for purposes that suit us, not that suit government.

The next step is to lower US corporate tax rates (eliminate corporate taxes altogether, say I, but a sharp reduction is a good early step), and then to make it easier (not harder) to partner with overseas companies (including in those companies’ taxing jurisdictions) and cheaper (free would be good) to repatriate profits earned overseas to the US.

Wyden thought he was addressing tax rates, too, in his op-ed.

A [lower] corporate tax rate that creates a favorable investment climate and reduces the incentive to game the system is critical to successful reform. … Where the rate ends up depends almost entirely on the American business community’s willingness to pitch in by closing loopholes.

There’s that false assumption that it’s the government’s money, again. This time it leads to the false conclusion that tax reform must, somehow, be revenue neutral. That may be useful politically, but it’s useless to true tax reform. There’s no need to “close loopholes” in return for lower tax rates. Loopholes need to be closed, certainly, but in order to reduce government social engineering through our tax code, not in order to preserve revenue that isn’t government’s to begin with. Of course, eliminating corporate taxes altogether would close all those loopholes….

Wyden wants global competition? Let other nations compete with us, beginning with lowering their business tax rates in their resulting newfound need to keep their companies from relocating to the US. With foreign talent coming here, while ours stays here. For good jobs in the US, for investment in the US.

Oh, and the lower tax rates also will decrease “the burden on other companies and individuals.”

There’s competition. It can come only from correcting that premise, though.

Responsibility—Another Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Failure on both sides of the question.

A southern California city aims to fight back at bullies by making it a crime to pick on others, in a measure that would protect not only school children but anyone up to age 25 who is targeted for harassment.

“We’re not talking about putting a 5-year-old in jail, we’re talking about intervening in both the bully’s life, who is a person who is hurting too, and the victim’s life,” [Carson Mayor Jim ] Dear said.

But of course. Dealing with bullies is a task for government, not for parents, not for responsible adults. Because 25-yr-old American citizens aren’t adults. After all, they’re still on mumsy’s and pop-pop’s health plan….

The ACLU, though, doesn’t think the proposed law goes far enough.

Brendan Hamme, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, said the measure is too vague and does not even spell out how much jail time an offender could potentially face.

Naturally. Adult judgment mustn’t be allowed. That would place responsibility on the citizens, and not on government, or on the ACLU. After all, there’s that whole we’re not adults thing, again. To say nothing about how our taking care of ourselves would put a lot of self-important government officials and lawyers out of jobs.

Finally, there’s this, which makes explicit government’s intent to enter private homes:

“We are going to protect not only the kid that is bothered in school, but when you leave school and go home, we’re going to protect you as a city,” said Carson City Councilman Mike Gipson, who co-sponsored the law.

Because the business of parenting—of teaching the kid who’s a bully not to be one, and of teaching the bullied kid how to deal with bullies—is too important to be left to actual parents. Government has to do it, instead. Since parents aren’t responsible adults, you see.