Current events in Wisconsin, several other states, and Washington have me thinking about democracy and majority rule. Just because some group is in the majority does that make anything they do right? Is strict majority rule just? Is it fair? Is it acceptable?
Common Sense thinks not!
Consider is it OK to kill Jews just because they are a minority? The obvious and generally accepted answer is no. We regard human life as sacred regardless of the minority status of some group. While that's an extreme example it does demonstrate the proposition that pure majority action is definitely not acceptable.
Lets try something less extreme, say is it OK to subject a group of employees to special treatment? Suppose Ford or GM decided to unilaterally take the actions the Wisconsin governor proposes. How would we feel about that? Would it be OK or would it be seen as a breach of contract and possibly a violation of the laws governing unions? The short version is that it wouldn't be OK and likely would breach law.
Is it OK then to apply those measures to Wisconsin teachers? Is it OK since the Republicans are in the majority to pass a union busting law? Common Sense thinks it's not.
Democracy works only when those governed see it as reasonably fair. Majority rule in the absence of fairness is just another form of tyranny. Consider that in our federal government we have a Senate with each state represented by two Senators regardless of the state's population. This organization reflects the founders fear of pure majority rule by the most populous states in the House. Consider as well that even within the Senate certain things require not a simple majority but a super majority to pass. Clearly some things are so important, so central to fairness, that majority rule is not fair and a broader consensus is needed.
Common Sense is no great fan of unions given their rather spotty history. But, and it's a very important but, when faced with big business or big government Common Sense recognizes that unions are one of the few mechanisms available to working men and women to achieve some measure of equitable negotiation. Common Sense thus believes that the proposed Wisconsin actions are grossly unjust. It is union busting plain and simple. Moreover, it is a case study in what is wrong with majority mob rule.
With a nod to Thomas Paine, Baron d'Holbach, and "Captain Obvious" perspectives on what should be, but remarkably often isn't, obvious common sense.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Eric Cantor at Harvard: America 'at a crossroads' on spending
Eric Cantor at Harvard: America 'at a crossroads' on spending
By Felicia Sonmez
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) outlined Republicans' economic vision on Thursday evening, saying in a speech at Harvard University that Washington must reduce the role of government in order to preserve America's role as the "crucible of innovation."
...
Cantor said that the key to American innovation lies in the success of the private sector, pointing to Republicans' emphasis on cutting spending, reducing federal regulations, replacing the national health care law and reforming the tax code. Those efforts, Cantor said, will "make it easier for intellectual capital and innovation to flourish again."
Mr Cantor has identified a key issue in the United States body politic; what is the role of the Federal Government? Much of what he argues favors government support of business particularly big business. Common Sense wonders though, is the proper role of government support of business, most particularly big business or is the proper role of government as outlined in the United States founding documents providing for defense of the country and promoting the general welfare of its citizens?
Common Sense believes that in recent years government has to often put the welfare of big business above the welfare of the governed. One need only look at tax codes that in the last 50 years have shifted the cost of government to private citizens and away from business. Consider that according to a recent GAO study two-thirds of all large U.S.- and foreign-controlled business operating in the U.S. managed to pay no (zero) federal income tax on a combined $2.5 trillion in sales from 1998 to 2005. Giving big business a free ride doesn't support innovation. Indeed study after study supports the notion that innovation comes from small businesses, particularly startups and venture funded efforts.
Common Sense wonders then if we're trying to improve the economy and reduce Federal deficits why do we continue to allow big business to pay no taxes? Are we at a crossroads? Certainly, but not the one Mr Cantor sees. Rather we need to get Congress to return to the welfare of the citizens and stop providing principally for the welfare of big business.
By Felicia Sonmez
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) outlined Republicans' economic vision on Thursday evening, saying in a speech at Harvard University that Washington must reduce the role of government in order to preserve America's role as the "crucible of innovation."
...
Cantor said that the key to American innovation lies in the success of the private sector, pointing to Republicans' emphasis on cutting spending, reducing federal regulations, replacing the national health care law and reforming the tax code. Those efforts, Cantor said, will "make it easier for intellectual capital and innovation to flourish again."
Mr Cantor has identified a key issue in the United States body politic; what is the role of the Federal Government? Much of what he argues favors government support of business particularly big business. Common Sense wonders though, is the proper role of government support of business, most particularly big business or is the proper role of government as outlined in the United States founding documents providing for defense of the country and promoting the general welfare of its citizens?
Common Sense believes that in recent years government has to often put the welfare of big business above the welfare of the governed. One need only look at tax codes that in the last 50 years have shifted the cost of government to private citizens and away from business. Consider that according to a recent GAO study two-thirds of all large U.S.- and foreign-controlled business operating in the U.S. managed to pay no (zero) federal income tax on a combined $2.5 trillion in sales from 1998 to 2005. Giving big business a free ride doesn't support innovation. Indeed study after study supports the notion that innovation comes from small businesses, particularly startups and venture funded efforts.
Common Sense wonders then if we're trying to improve the economy and reduce Federal deficits why do we continue to allow big business to pay no taxes? Are we at a crossroads? Certainly, but not the one Mr Cantor sees. Rather we need to get Congress to return to the welfare of the citizens and stop providing principally for the welfare of big business.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
EARTH COULD BE 'UNRECOGNIZABLE' BY 2050 - Really?
Recently the Discovery Channel had a show and post titled EARTH COULD BE 'UNRECOGNIZABLE' BY 2050. Some comment on it showed up in my Facebook page. So I thought I'd take a look and see what had caused the comment, always a good idea when trying to apply common sense. Herewith a Common Sense perspective.
First Common Sense notes that this is from the Discovery Channel a pseudo/pop science commercial endeavor. That's not to say that I don't watch it or that its content is suspect. Rather one needs to note that it is not so much about science as about selling commercial time. Common Sense has a considerable education in hard science and engineering and finds that while there is considerable truth and fact in the Discovery Channel presentations it is often framed to sensationalize for emphasis.
Consider first the show's title, EARTH COULD BE 'UNRECOGNIZABLE' BY 2050. Could it be? Common Sense says of course, how could it not be. Humanity has seen more change in the last 200 years than in all of human history! Will this change continue for the next 39 years? Of course! The title is catchy, but it doesn't argue fact.
The article goes on noting "more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources" is a root cause and poses a serious threat to human wellbeing. But is the world actually becoming more affluent - a base assumption for the argument - in the sense that the developed economies are currently affluent? While it depends on how one measures affluence as opposed to money the short common sense answer is debatable. Indeed it seems highly likely that what is actually happening is that worldwide expectations are growing particularly among the poor. Expectations, desire for affluence, for the good life, is NOT the same as actual affluence. Common Sense notes that desire for affluence in the context of enormous disparity between rich and poor may well be far more dangerous than actual affluence to humanity as a whole and certainly to the haves in a world of haves and have-nots.
The article notes that population is growing and is expected to reach some nine billion by 2050 from some seven billion today. It notes that we'll need to product as much food in the next 40 years as in the last 8000. But is that a problem? Indeed Common Sense wonders if that is even a reasonable question! Common Sense notes that the 8000 year number is just a scare number. Don't think so, consider the facts. In 1950, some 60 years ago, human population was about 2.5 billion. Explosive human population growth is a very recent phenomena starting more or less coincidentally with the industrial revolution and it's enormous creation of broad based wealth and modern medicine with it's impact on fertility rates and longevity. These latter two factors have been key drivers in both population growth in the less developed world particularly among the young.
Common Sense notes that in the last 60 years as worldwide population has almost tripled worldwide food production has more than tripled and indeed worldwide consumption of luxury foods such as meat has grown enormously! Unfortunately, while that is true it is also true that the variability of food production has increased with increasing climate variability and that net worldwide food reserves to address regional shortages has shrunk alarmingly. The issue here isn't so much one of actual production but of stability and reserves. Common Sense notes that if you want to actually solve problems the first requirement is that you get the problem itself right.
If the problem is food stability and reserves then one needs to consider our food production system. The current system is largely based on an industrial mass production model. That this model is wasteful and subject to instability is undeniable. Don't think so, try to buy a can of pumpkin, yes pumpkin, and do a bit of research to find out why you can't. While the current system has served humanity generally well it can be substantially improved. Indeed, the growth of the 'local food' phenomena speaks to that. Unfortunately, issues of stability and reserves are most serious in those areas with the largest population pressures. Common Sense notes that the issue is stability and reserves generally with particular emphesis on poor and emerging economies..
That said, Common Sense notes that population growth such we have seen in the last few hundred years is very likely unsustainable IF we continue to support worldwide population as we do today. That's a very big IF. If we continue to follow wasteful policies then things will certainly be very bad indeed. On the other hand, if we follow even slightly more reasonable policies then the future need not be bad. Consider that current population growth is about 1.3% per year down from a peak of around 2.1%. If as a species we improve our resource use efficiency by only a little then population growth need not be a problem as such, at least not until humanity reaches some more fundamental limit.
Common Sense notes that this is not to say that 1.3% growth is a good idea. It's not as evidenced by the increasing worldwide misery. Population growth is a central issue that needs to be addressed everywhere, including the developed countries. While we may not like China's one child policy it is in fact rational in the face of unsustainable population levels. Likewise, social justice and the disparity between the haves and have-nots. Failing that Common Sense notes that both history and, indeed, current events shows that societies become unstable.
Common Sense believes that the world will certainly be different by 2050 but it need not be worse if humanity and societies, particularly governments, act.
First Common Sense notes that this is from the Discovery Channel a pseudo/pop science commercial endeavor. That's not to say that I don't watch it or that its content is suspect. Rather one needs to note that it is not so much about science as about selling commercial time. Common Sense has a considerable education in hard science and engineering and finds that while there is considerable truth and fact in the Discovery Channel presentations it is often framed to sensationalize for emphasis.
Consider first the show's title, EARTH COULD BE 'UNRECOGNIZABLE' BY 2050. Could it be? Common Sense says of course, how could it not be. Humanity has seen more change in the last 200 years than in all of human history! Will this change continue for the next 39 years? Of course! The title is catchy, but it doesn't argue fact.
The article goes on noting "more affluent population competing for ever scarcer resources" is a root cause and poses a serious threat to human wellbeing. But is the world actually becoming more affluent - a base assumption for the argument - in the sense that the developed economies are currently affluent? While it depends on how one measures affluence as opposed to money the short common sense answer is debatable. Indeed it seems highly likely that what is actually happening is that worldwide expectations are growing particularly among the poor. Expectations, desire for affluence, for the good life, is NOT the same as actual affluence. Common Sense notes that desire for affluence in the context of enormous disparity between rich and poor may well be far more dangerous than actual affluence to humanity as a whole and certainly to the haves in a world of haves and have-nots.
The article notes that population is growing and is expected to reach some nine billion by 2050 from some seven billion today. It notes that we'll need to product as much food in the next 40 years as in the last 8000. But is that a problem? Indeed Common Sense wonders if that is even a reasonable question! Common Sense notes that the 8000 year number is just a scare number. Don't think so, consider the facts. In 1950, some 60 years ago, human population was about 2.5 billion. Explosive human population growth is a very recent phenomena starting more or less coincidentally with the industrial revolution and it's enormous creation of broad based wealth and modern medicine with it's impact on fertility rates and longevity. These latter two factors have been key drivers in both population growth in the less developed world particularly among the young.
Common Sense notes that in the last 60 years as worldwide population has almost tripled worldwide food production has more than tripled and indeed worldwide consumption of luxury foods such as meat has grown enormously! Unfortunately, while that is true it is also true that the variability of food production has increased with increasing climate variability and that net worldwide food reserves to address regional shortages has shrunk alarmingly. The issue here isn't so much one of actual production but of stability and reserves. Common Sense notes that if you want to actually solve problems the first requirement is that you get the problem itself right.
If the problem is food stability and reserves then one needs to consider our food production system. The current system is largely based on an industrial mass production model. That this model is wasteful and subject to instability is undeniable. Don't think so, try to buy a can of pumpkin, yes pumpkin, and do a bit of research to find out why you can't. While the current system has served humanity generally well it can be substantially improved. Indeed, the growth of the 'local food' phenomena speaks to that. Unfortunately, issues of stability and reserves are most serious in those areas with the largest population pressures. Common Sense notes that the issue is stability and reserves generally with particular emphesis on poor and emerging economies..
That said, Common Sense notes that population growth such we have seen in the last few hundred years is very likely unsustainable IF we continue to support worldwide population as we do today. That's a very big IF. If we continue to follow wasteful policies then things will certainly be very bad indeed. On the other hand, if we follow even slightly more reasonable policies then the future need not be bad. Consider that current population growth is about 1.3% per year down from a peak of around 2.1%. If as a species we improve our resource use efficiency by only a little then population growth need not be a problem as such, at least not until humanity reaches some more fundamental limit.
Common Sense notes that this is not to say that 1.3% growth is a good idea. It's not as evidenced by the increasing worldwide misery. Population growth is a central issue that needs to be addressed everywhere, including the developed countries. While we may not like China's one child policy it is in fact rational in the face of unsustainable population levels. Likewise, social justice and the disparity between the haves and have-nots. Failing that Common Sense notes that both history and, indeed, current events shows that societies become unstable.
Common Sense believes that the world will certainly be different by 2050 but it need not be worse if humanity and societies, particularly governments, act.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
How to alienate the center in one easy lesson
It seems that the radical Republicans in Wisconsin have perfected alienation of the political center. Here's how:
On balance Common Sense thinks that what Wisconsin Republicans are doing will so alienate the political center that they can be sure that the next election cycle will not favor Republicans. Common Sense notes that it is the political center that determines election outcomes.
- Give 117 million in tax breaks to big business contributing to or causing (depending on who's version of the news you like) a budget crisis.
- Deal with the budget crisis by proposing a bill that:
- Requires that public employees pay more of their retirement and medical insurance expenses. Common Sense notes that this is in fact a matter of money and thus reasonably associated with addressing the budget crisis.
- No longer deducts union dues from unionized employee pay. Common Sense notes that it is a) common practice to deduct such dues, and b) arguably not entirely reasonable to do so.
- Require the union to re-certify every year. Common Sense notes that periodic recertification might well be reasonable perhaps on the same schedule as, oh say, the governor election.
- Prohibit all union negotiations except salary above cost of living increases. Common Sense notes that employment is about rather more than salary including, for example, working conditions, seniority, medical coverage, time off, etc.
- When you get Wisconsin protesters demonstrating angrily cut off access to one of the protester web sites from inside the state house and then issue a statement that says "we didn't do it". Common Sense finds this parallel with dictatorships in the Middle East a sad parallel.
On balance Common Sense thinks that what Wisconsin Republicans are doing will so alienate the political center that they can be sure that the next election cycle will not favor Republicans. Common Sense notes that it is the political center that determines election outcomes.
Interesting 10'th amendment case
The Supreme Court is always interesting. Recently they agreed to hear a 10th amendment case. For those not familiar with the 10th amendment it reserves to the states all powers not specifically enumerated as federal. Mind you, it's not often applied as witnessed by a long history of federalization of crime. But that may be about to change.
The case, Bond v. U.S. (09-1227), has an interesting fact pattern. Briefly Mrs Bond, a chemist and native of Barbados, became enraged when she learned that her best friend was pregnant by her husband. Seeking revenge she used chemicals to attempt to harm her friend. The friend noticed the chemicals and involved the police. After the police failed to be involved, the friend reported the matter to the postal service. Subsequently, the postal service photographed Mrs Bond putting chemicals on the friend's mail box. Mrs Bond was charged with mail fraud and use of terrorist (chemical) weapons in Federal court. Her attorneys offered a guilty plea in State court arguing that this was a domestic crime and thus a State matter. Federal prosecutors declined the offer and Mrs Bond subsequently pleaded guilty in Federal court and appealed on the grounds that this was a State not Federal crime. The appeal was denied on the grounds that Mrs Bond had no standing in a State v. Federal matter. The Supreme court chose to hear the case not to simply force the case into State court. Interestingly the Justice Department initially supported the standing argument but has subsequently reversed itself and will support Mrs Bond's position so the Federal Government's case will be argued by outside counsel not the Justice Department.
Common Sense notes the following:
The case, Bond v. U.S. (09-1227), has an interesting fact pattern. Briefly Mrs Bond, a chemist and native of Barbados, became enraged when she learned that her best friend was pregnant by her husband. Seeking revenge she used chemicals to attempt to harm her friend. The friend noticed the chemicals and involved the police. After the police failed to be involved, the friend reported the matter to the postal service. Subsequently, the postal service photographed Mrs Bond putting chemicals on the friend's mail box. Mrs Bond was charged with mail fraud and use of terrorist (chemical) weapons in Federal court. Her attorneys offered a guilty plea in State court arguing that this was a domestic crime and thus a State matter. Federal prosecutors declined the offer and Mrs Bond subsequently pleaded guilty in Federal court and appealed on the grounds that this was a State not Federal crime. The appeal was denied on the grounds that Mrs Bond had no standing in a State v. Federal matter. The Supreme court chose to hear the case not to simply force the case into State court. Interestingly the Justice Department initially supported the standing argument but has subsequently reversed itself and will support Mrs Bond's position so the Federal Government's case will be argued by outside counsel not the Justice Department.
Common Sense notes the following:
- Clearly Mrs Bond was overcharged. The facts argue a domestic matter not a terrorist act. That said, Mrs Bond is clearly by her own admission, guilty of violation of Federal postal laws.
- To argue that a citizen does not have standing when a constitutional issue is in play is clearly not constitutional. The Constitution is not simply an agreement between State and Federal Government, it is an agreement between citizens and the Federal government.
Common Sense wonders why the Justice department ever chose to prosecute in Federal court?
The 10th amendment was a key matter when the Constitution was ratified. It provides a fundamental bulwark limiting Federal powers. While it has, over the years, been largely ignored as Federalism has crept ever more into everyday life, it remains an important principal. Common Sense thinks this case provides an opportunity to reinforce the notion that the Federal government has limited power and rights.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Reid to Obama: 'Back off' on earmarks' - common sense, NOT
Mr Obama, in his state of the union speech said: “Because the American people deserve to know that special interests aren't larding up legislation with pet projects, both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks inside, I will veto it.”
Harry Reid, Senate majority Leader, said: “This is an applause line,” the Nevada Democrat told NBC News Wednesday regarding Obama’s pledge not to sign a bill with earmark spending in it. “It’s an effort by the White House to get more power. They have enough power as it is.” He went on to remark: “The money is going to be spent anyway,” said Reid. “The difference is the White House is going to be directed where its spent, not us. That’s our obligation. This does not save any money.”
Lets try some common sense. There are three branches of government, judiciary, legislative, and executive. The executive is responsible for executing the laws passed by the legislative branch. Mr Reid wants to argue that this is a power grab by the executive, when in fact it's an inherent responsibility of the executive branch. Mr Reid wants Congress to direct spending. Common Sense thinks that rimes with using money to buy influence, pay back contributors, and insure reelection! Common Sense thinks it's time for Congress to focus on their job, passing laws that set policy and address the needs US citizens.
Harry Reid, Senate majority Leader, said: “This is an applause line,” the Nevada Democrat told NBC News Wednesday regarding Obama’s pledge not to sign a bill with earmark spending in it. “It’s an effort by the White House to get more power. They have enough power as it is.” He went on to remark: “The money is going to be spent anyway,” said Reid. “The difference is the White House is going to be directed where its spent, not us. That’s our obligation. This does not save any money.”
Lets try some common sense. There are three branches of government, judiciary, legislative, and executive. The executive is responsible for executing the laws passed by the legislative branch. Mr Reid wants to argue that this is a power grab by the executive, when in fact it's an inherent responsibility of the executive branch. Mr Reid wants Congress to direct spending. Common Sense thinks that rimes with using money to buy influence, pay back contributors, and insure reelection! Common Sense thinks it's time for Congress to focus on their job, passing laws that set policy and address the needs US citizens.
Financial crisis was avoidable: FCIC
Financial crisis was avoidable: FCIC
The full report
Common Sense thinks this is well worth reading. While there may be disagreement, overall the report is thoughtful and well researched. Herewith some key findings:
Big finance, lack of regulation, and unethical behavior are responsible for the largest economic recession since the great depression. Common Sense wonders what then should we do? Does it make sense to buy into the anti regulation pro-business theories currently in vogue in the House? Common Sense thinks not.
xxx
The full report
Common Sense thinks this is well worth reading. While there may be disagreement, overall the report is thoughtful and well researched. Herewith some key findings:
- Big finance, government regulators, and congress share blame. You and I not so much!
- Financial regulation and supervision failed. Self regulation pushed by big finance didn't and doesn't work.
- Big finance corporate governance and risk management failed miserably. Big finance acted recklessly.
- Excessive borrowing, risky investments, and lack of transparency at big finance was a particularly noteworthy cause.
- Government was ill prepared for the crisis, and its inconsistent response added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.
- There was a systemic breakdown in accountability and ethics in big finance.
- Poor mortgage-lending standards and the mortgage securitization are a particularly noteworthy cause. We conclude over-the-counter derivatives contributed significantly to this crisis. The enactment of legislation in 2000 to ban the regulation by both the federal and state governments of over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives was a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.
- Credit rating agencies were failed and are key factors.
Big finance, lack of regulation, and unethical behavior are responsible for the largest economic recession since the great depression. Common Sense wonders what then should we do? Does it make sense to buy into the anti regulation pro-business theories currently in vogue in the House? Common Sense thinks not.
xxx
Saturday, February 19, 2011
ideology run amok - the ultra right just can't help itself
It seems that Rep. Bachmann’s thinks that Ms Obama's support for the IRS's decision to classify breast pumps as medical devices encourages a "nanny state." Now for some common sense. First Ms Obama didn't make the decision that breast pumps were medical devices the IRS did! If the issue is whether or not breast pumps are medical devices then Common Sense would note that many many similar devices are treated as medical devices. If Rep. Bachmann is concerned that they shouldn't be then she is entitled to file a bill to declare that they are not. If Rep. Bachmann is concerned about a "nanny state" then she can file bills to eliminate the FDA, remove labeling on tobacco products, or any other federal health and safety regulations she wishes. If Rep. Bachmann's concern is using the tax code to promote social engineering she could file a bill to eliminate all tax deductions. She's chosen not to do any of these things but to instead mouth off about Ms Obama.
While we're in the neighborhood it should be noted that Sarah Palin had this to say “It’s no wonder Michelle Obama is telling everybody you need to breastfeed your babies … the price of milk is so high.” Good job Sarah, but what have you actually done to reduce the price of milk? Comes to it, what have you done to actually govern other than a very brief stint as Governor of Alaska, a job you quit?
When ideology runs amok, as it has here, Common Sense thinks it's time to call ideologues to task.
While we're in the neighborhood it should be noted that Sarah Palin had this to say “It’s no wonder Michelle Obama is telling everybody you need to breastfeed your babies … the price of milk is so high.” Good job Sarah, but what have you actually done to reduce the price of milk? Comes to it, what have you done to actually govern other than a very brief stint as Governor of Alaska, a job you quit?
When ideology runs amok, as it has here, Common Sense thinks it's time to call ideologues to task.
House Republicans Continue Vendetta Against Common Sense
The title is bold and perhaps inflammatory but consider the following week's news:
Consider Planned Parenthood. They support family planning particularly focused on low income Americans a group of Americans that are suffering disproportionately in almost any measure of wellbeing including both health and jobs. Among Planned Parenthood's activities is support of legal abortions. Many Republican ultra conservatives are staunchly opposed to abortion. Despite 30 years of legal challenges and attacks the Supreme Court decision on Row v. Wade remains the law of the land. Ultra conservative Republicans don't like this law. Faced with a failure to change the law they decide to put Planned Parenthood out of business. Never mind that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's activities are family planning not abortion related. Never mind that Congress is supposed to be about law not using funding to bludgeon those that disagree with you out of existence. Never mind common sense.
Consider the FCC Internet rules. These support net neutrality and require that broadband providers not restrict access to legal internet sites. House Republicans think that this limits broadband providers ability to make a reasonable profit. What this really amounts to is to provide a mechanism by which a broadband provider and gain a monopoly in the most profitable internet services. To achieve this the House decided to forbid the FCC from using Federal funds to implement it's recent net neutrality rules. Never mind that these rules are well within the FCC's charter. Never mind that this is once again about using funding to bludgeon the FCC when Congress hasn't passed a law to block the actual FCC rules. Never mind common sense.
Consider NPR/PBS funding. It is arguably true that NPR and PBS are left of center politically though many note that they are also rather attached to fact and balance. NPR and PBS offend the ultraconservative Republicans. So since facts and balance are in the way, lets just censor them by using funding to put them out of business. Never mind that most of what NPR/PBS does is not about politics but about education. Never mind common sense.
Common Sense hopes that when this and other assaults gets to the Senate that these and several other bits of outrageous defunding will be undone. Common Sense also thinks that the next house election can't come soon enough.
- House Republicans see timely target in Planned Parenthood
- House Republicans seek to block FCC Internet rules
- Killing Big Bird: GOP budget would end PBS / NPR funding
Consider Planned Parenthood. They support family planning particularly focused on low income Americans a group of Americans that are suffering disproportionately in almost any measure of wellbeing including both health and jobs. Among Planned Parenthood's activities is support of legal abortions. Many Republican ultra conservatives are staunchly opposed to abortion. Despite 30 years of legal challenges and attacks the Supreme Court decision on Row v. Wade remains the law of the land. Ultra conservative Republicans don't like this law. Faced with a failure to change the law they decide to put Planned Parenthood out of business. Never mind that the vast majority of Planned Parenthood's activities are family planning not abortion related. Never mind that Congress is supposed to be about law not using funding to bludgeon those that disagree with you out of existence. Never mind common sense.
Consider the FCC Internet rules. These support net neutrality and require that broadband providers not restrict access to legal internet sites. House Republicans think that this limits broadband providers ability to make a reasonable profit. What this really amounts to is to provide a mechanism by which a broadband provider and gain a monopoly in the most profitable internet services. To achieve this the House decided to forbid the FCC from using Federal funds to implement it's recent net neutrality rules. Never mind that these rules are well within the FCC's charter. Never mind that this is once again about using funding to bludgeon the FCC when Congress hasn't passed a law to block the actual FCC rules. Never mind common sense.
Consider NPR/PBS funding. It is arguably true that NPR and PBS are left of center politically though many note that they are also rather attached to fact and balance. NPR and PBS offend the ultraconservative Republicans. So since facts and balance are in the way, lets just censor them by using funding to put them out of business. Never mind that most of what NPR/PBS does is not about politics but about education. Never mind common sense.
Common Sense hopes that when this and other assaults gets to the Senate that these and several other bits of outrageous defunding will be undone. Common Sense also thinks that the next house election can't come soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)