Tag Archives: political economy

Blowing Up Settlements

Posted on by
Reply

The one being sabotaged here is between Facebook and the FTC over the FTC’s proposed settlement of Facebook’s “mishandling” of consumer privacy data, including surrendering millions of consumers’ personal information to Cambridge Analytica.

FTC Chairman Joseph Simons has the (Republican) votes he need to impose the settlement, from the FTC’s perspective, on a 3-2 partisan vote.  He’s quite rightly trying to get at least one of the Progressive-Democrats on the board to vote with him, but they’re bleating that a $5 billion fine and other controls don’t go far enough.

This is naked obstruction, though, based on a cynically manufactured beef.

Another impediment to the settlement is a textbook example of why Federal agencies ought not be spring-loaded to settle cases with miscreants.  “Settlements,” should be vanishingly rare, and they should occur only after the teeth from a history of court cases have been manifested.  This time, the block is whether

to name Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg as a respondent in the complaint that would be filed by the agency as part of the settlement. Naming Mr Zuckerberg as a respondent could make him liable for future privacy missteps—and give the FTC leverage if it should seek to remove Mr Zuckerberg from the company’s management in the future.

Whichever party wants this included, it’s an entirely legitimate inclusion.

“Facebook representatives,” though, object, and they say Facebook will not accept a settlement that includes this.

There’s nothing here for Facebook to accept or reject, though. Facebook screwed up with consumers’ private, personal information, and the screwups identified in this putative settlement are just the latest in a long string of such…errors.  That those prior misbehaviors are not part of this case does matter in determining the price to be paid in this instance, but they should inform the FTC’s willingness to go to court rather than itself settle for a settlement.

There should be no settlement on the table or on offer in any guise.  The case should be in the courts, moving apace—the FTC should not allow Facebook’s lawyers to drag things out, and neither should the courts—with a court judgment sought. That judgment should include, at minimum, a company fine of $5 billion or more, Zuckerberg named as correspondent, and Zuckerberg personally fined for his role as the MFWIC condoning, if not actively authorizing, such privacy invasions and sales.

Charging Assange

Posted on by
Reply

Julian Assange, of Manning and Wikileaks infamy, has been indicted on violations of the Espionage Act in addition to the existing charges pending against him.

Naturally, the NLMSM is in an uproar over this putative attack on a free press.

…reignited debate over whether pursuing Mr. Assange for publishing classified information could lead to other cases against journalists who receive government secrets.

There are a couple of things on the NLMSM’s artificial dudgeon, though.  One is that a free press also has to be a responsible press—which includes respect for the law and acceptance of the consequences where the press engages in civil disobedience.  We’re all big boys and girls, though, the press’ and the Left’s contempt for us notwithstanding.  We’re fully capable of recognizing irresponsibility when we see it and disdaining pseudo-journalism when it’s presented.

The larger thing, though, is the role of law in our nation.  We’re either a nation of laws, or we are not.  We’re all equal under law, or some of us get special treatment—descending us into rule by law instead of rule of law.

The laws regarding receiving stolen goods are quite clear: that’s a crime, and the recipient(s) on conviction go to jail.  Except when it’s a journalist who receives the stolen property.  See, for instance, the news outlet that received and published the stolen Ellsberg papers, along with the hue and cry over holding Julian Assange—who’s not even a journalist, for all that he pretends to be—to the consequences from his having received the documents Manning had stolen and sent to him.

A free press requires journalists be allowed to break the same laws the rest of us must obey?  What’s the value of a press that cannot be trusted, that demonstrates its lawlessness by freely receiving stolen goods and profiting from the receipt by publishing the stolen material?

Here’s an alternative—a bare minimum of movement of the NLMSM back within the reach of the same laws the rest of us must obey.

Upon receipt of the stolen material, the news outlet and the receiving journalist must immediately return the originals of the material to the robbed entity and identify to law enforcement the person(s) and/or entity from which the material was received.  Upon return, the news outlet would be free to publish based on its copies of the stolen material.

Should the journalist or news outlet refuse, the journalist (or the news outlet’s chief editor, if the receiving journalist cannot be clearly identified) should be jailed until the originals are returned and the delivering person/entity identified.

Of course, overriding the above is whether the stolen material is classified (the Manning theft, for instance).  In this instance, the material and the receiving news outlet and its personnel would be subject to laws pertaining to (mis)handling classified material.

Lies of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example.  Senator and Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris (D, CA) claims President Donald Trump is holding our nation’s infrastructure rebuild/expansion hostage against the Progressive-Democratic Party’s “investigations” being ended.

So he’s gonna hold America’s infrastructure hostage, right, over the issue of investigations[.]

What’s being held hostage, exactly?  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), just minutes before a scheduled meeting in which Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), and Republican leadership were to negotiate infrastructure projects, Pelosi, with Schumer’s prior agreement and support, accused Trump of impeachable behavior.  The only plausible reason for the timing of Pelosi’s accusation was to blow up those negotiations.  Progressive-Democrats didn’t want those negotiations to go forward; they didn’t want Trump to look good against the backdrop of election season and their efforts to make him look bad during this season with their faux investigations.

What’s being held hostage, exactly?  What infrastructure-related legislation do the House Progressive-Democrats have on the floor to vote up and pass to the Senate?  What infrastructure-related legislation do the House Progressive-Democrats have in committee being worked up?  What infrastructure-related legislation do the House Progressive-Democrats have under discussion in outline form to be brought forward to committee consideration?

What’s being held hostage, exactly?  Infrastructure-related legislation isn’t revenue legislation; it can originate in the Senate.  What infrastructure-related legislation do the Senate Progressive-Democrats have under discussion with their Republican colleagues?  Infrastructure has, after all, strong bipartisan support.  Or so the Progressive-Democrats claim.

There’s this, too: Progressive-Democrats in Congress insist that they can walk and chew gum at the same time, but their metaphor seems limited: they’re showing themselves incapable of “investigating” and legislating at the same time.

Infrastructure, Investigations, and Agendas

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump has said that he’ll do infrastructure negotiations and legislation after the Progressive-Democrats end their investigations of his administration, not before. Pointing out House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D, CA) bad faith approach (my term, not Trump’s) to any such negotiations, he said that

he had watched House Speaker Nancy Pelosi…accuse him of a “coverup” in remarks to reporters shortly before their scheduled infrastructure meeting at the White House.

Never mind that Trump has completely cooperated with the Mueller investigation throughout the 2+ years of that effort, and that Mueller found that there was no collusion between Trump’s administration or his campaign and the Russian effort to interfere in our elections.  Never mind that Mueller also found no obstruction (in the expanded portion of his authorized investigation), only embarrassing instances of loud venting of his frustration.

When Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) arrived for that meeting following their press op, a meeting at which Republican leadership also was present, Trump advised them

I want to do infrastructure. I want to do it more than you want to do it. But you know what, you can’t do it under these circumstances.

Indeed. The Progressive-Democrats are so intent on their several inquisitions that they have no time for serious matters, no energy left for serving their employing constituencies.

Which brings me to a strange remark by the WSJ piece’s authors.

The president’s declaration raises questions about how he would pass any of his legislative agenda in the remaining year and a half of his first term.

There are no questions here.  The Progressive-Democratic caucus in the House has been intent on blocking his agenda since they took office last January.  The Progressive-Democrat caucus in the Senate has been intent on using their filibuster powers to try to block all of Trump’s agenda, with considerable success (and a couple of notable failures) on legislative matters, since Trump’s term began two and a half years ago.

Union “Dues”

Posted on by
Reply

Now the taxpayer looks to be on the hook.  At least in New York.

[O]n May 1, New York’s state Senate voted to let strikers get benefits one week after walking off the job—essentially putting them on equal footing with those who are laid off.
If Governor Andrew Cuomo signs this bill, he’ll effectively be using New York’s unemployment-insurance program to subsidize union strikes, upending the balance of power between workers and management.

Union strikes are little indistinguishable from extortion, except that they’re legal. They’re used to threaten a company’s ability to function—to survive—unless they surrender to union demands.  “Nice little business you got here. Be too bad if something was to happen to it.”

In a way, though, Cuomo’s pandering makes sense. Since unions can’t commandeer pieces of the paychecks of non-union workers anymore, they have to make up the money loss from somewhere.

Enter the victim-taxpayer.