Regulation Archives - Page 81 of 156

VIDEO: Growing Number of Obama DOJ/FBI Anti-Trump Abuses

December 16, 2017/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Video, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Judicial Watch

Judicial Watch Sues FBI for Records About Removal of Alleged Anti-Trump FBI Official From Mueller Team

The FBI and Justice Department are engulfed in a rule of law crisis because of new revelations of evident bias among FBI officials and key DOJ prosecutors. Recently, we exposed how Andrew Weissmann, a top Mueller special counsel deputy has anti-Trump bias. And this week, we’re in the forefront of a related scandal about an anti-Trump bias infecting the top echelons of the FBI.

Just yesterday, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FBI for records about the removal and reassignment of Peter Strzok, a former deputy to the assistant director for counterintelligence at the FBI, from the special counsel’s investigative team led by former FBI director Robert Mueller. Strzok also was the FBI’s chief of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s illicit email server, interviewing Hillary Clinton himself on July 2, 2016.

We filed the suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia after the FBI failed to respond to an August 17, 2017, FOIA request (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation (No. 1:17-cv-02682)). Judicial Watch seeks:

All records regarding the assignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok to the special counsel’s investigation led by former Director Robert Mueller.
All records related to the reassignment of FBI Supervisor Peter Strzok from the special counsel’s investigation to another position within the FBI.
All SF-50 and/or SF-52 employment forms, as well as all related records of communication between any official, employee, or representative of the FBI and any other individual or entity.

According to reports (here and here) Strzok was reportedly removed from the Mueller investigative team in August and reassigned to a human resources position after it was discovered that he and an FBI lawyer, Lisa Page, who worked for FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and with whom Strzok was allegedly carrying on an extramarital affair, “exchanged text messages during the Clinton investigation and campaign season in which they expressed anti-Trump sentiments and other comments that appeared to favor Clinton.”

Strzok reportedly oversaw the FBI’s interviews of former National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn; changed former FBI Director James Comey’s language about Hillary Clinton’s actions regarding her illicit email server from “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless;” played a lead role in the FBI’s interview of Clinton and is suspected of being responsible for using the unverified dossier to obtain a FISA warrant in order to spy on President Trump’s campaign.

It is disturbing the FBI has stonewalled our request about Mr. Strzok’s demotion for four months. One can only conclude the FBI and Justice Department, including Mr. Mueller’s operation, wanted to hide the truth about how Strzok’s and Page’s political biases and misconduct have compromised both the Clinton email and Russia collusion investigations.

Agent Strzok’s texts about Hillary Clinton and President Trump are responsive to another Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit but have not yet been produced by the FBI.

We worked the airwaves hard this week to educate Americans on the anti-Trump rule of law crisis. You can view our important Fox hits here and here. We also have been highlighting our battles on OANN here and here.

Obama State Department Cut Deal with Hillary to Keep Call Log, Schedules Secret

It has been clear all along that Hillary Clinton was doing things at the State Department that she doesn’t want anyone to know about. Judicial Watch already exposed her email scandal, but the secrecy went beyond emails.

Judicial Watch just released Obama State Department documents showing former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her then-Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin were permitted to remove electronic and physical records under a claim they were “personal” materials and “unclassified, non-record materials,” including files of Clinton’s calls and schedules, which were not to be made public. Outrageously, the documents show the Obama State Department records would not be “released to the general public under FOIA.”

Curiously, the new records also show that Huma Abedin was allowed to take five boxes of “physical files” out of the State Department that include records described as “Muslim Engagement Documents.” (We recently found how Abedin’s controversial Islamist activist mother advised Clinton speechwriter to exclude references to “democracy/elections/freedom” and “empowerment of women” for Clinton speech in Saudi Arabia.)

We found the info about the secret Clinton-State Department deal thanks to our two-year-old Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for:

Any and all DS-1904 (Authorization for the Removal of Personal Papers and Non-Record Materials) forms completed by, or on behalf of, any of the following individuals:

Former Secretary Hillary Clinton
Former Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills
Former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin
Former Deputy Chief of Staff Jacob Sullivan

The documents include a list of official and personal calls and schedules that Clinton removed, which carry a special notation that the documents were not to be made public records. The notation is on an addendum to a DS-1904 signed by Clarence N. Finney Jr., then-director of the Office of Correspondence and Records, who was the reviewing officer:

NOTE: The Secretary’s call log, grid and schedules are not classified, however, they would not be released to the general public under FOIA. They are being released to the Secretary with this understanding. [Emphasis in original]

Electronic copy of “daily files” – which are word versions of public documents and non-records: speeches/press statements/photos from the website, a non-record copy of the schedule, a non record copy of the call log, press clips, and agenda of daily activities
Electronic copy of a log of calls the Secretary made since 2004, it is a non-record, since her official calls are logged elsewhere (official schedule and official call log)
Electronic copy of the Secretary’s “call grid” which is a running list of calls she wants to make (both personal and official)
16 boxes: Personal Schedules (1993 thru 2008-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State.
29 boxes: Miscellaneous Public Schedules during her tenure as FLOTUS and Senator-prior to the Secretary’s tenure at the Department of State
1 box: Personal Reimbursable receipts (6/25/2009 thru 1/14/2013)
1 box: Personal Photos
1 box: Personal schedule (2009-2013)

(JW has a pending request for the deposition of Finney in separate litigation concerning Clinton emails and the Benghazi terrorist attack.)

The originals of some Clinton documents were retained, such as the call logs and schedules. For other records, including material that predates Clinton’s tenure, there is no indication that a copy was made. The most significant of these are her personal correspondence and gift binders, which could reflect Clinton Foundation and Clinton Global Initiative ties.

Through our previous investigations we made public numerous examples of Clinton’s schedule being broadcast via email through her unsecure, non-government server (for example, see here, here, hereand here).

The records also contain a list of materials removed by Clinton accumulated by Robert Russo, Clinton’s then-special assistant, including PDFs of Clinton’s “correspondence in response to gifts … thank you and acknowledgements,” as well as other records.

The documents indicate that Clinton removed a physical file of “the log of the Secretary’s gifts with pictures of gifts.”

The receipt of gifts by federal employees in the Executive Branch is regulated:

A “prohibited source” [of gifts] under the regulations is one who seeks official action from the employee’s agency; one who does business or seeks to do business with the agency; one whose activities are regulated by the employee’s agency; one whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties; or an organization a majority of whose members fit any of the above categories.

A gift is given “because of” the employee’s official position if it would not have been offered “had the employee not held the status, authority or duties associated with his Federal position.” Gifts that are “motivated by a family relationship or personal friendship” may therefore be accepted without limitation.

We already know the Obama State Department let Hillary Clinton steal and then delete her government emails, which included classified information. But these new records show that was only part of the scandal. They show that the Obama State Department had a deal with Hillary Clinton to hide her call logs and schedules, which would be contrary to FOIA and other laws. When are the American people going to get an honest investigation of the Clinton crimes?

Judicial Watch Sues California and Los Angeles Over Dirty Voter Registration Rolls

Judicial Watch is the nation’s leader in the legal effort to ensure the integrity of our elections.

To that end, we took a big step forward with the filing of a federal lawsuit against Los Angeles County and the State of California over their failure to clean their voter rolls and to produce election-related records as required by the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Judicial Watch, Inc.et al. v. Dean C. Logan, et al. (No. 2:17-cv-08948)).

We filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California’s Western Division on behalf of Judicial Watch, Election Integrity Project California Inc., and Wolfgang Kupka, Rhue Guyant, Jerry Griffin, and Delores M. Mars, who are lawfully registered voters in Los Angeles County.

We argue that the State of California and a number of its counties, including the county of Los Angeles, have registration rates exceeding 100%:

Eleven of California’s 58 counties have registration rates exceeding 100% of the age-eligible citizenry.

Los Angeles County has more voter registrations on its voter rolls than it has citizens who are old enough to register. Specifically, according to data provided to and published by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Los Angeles County has a registration rate of 112% of its adult citizen population.

The entire State of California has a registration rate of about 101% of its age-eligible citizenry.

We point out that this is due in part to the high numbers of inactive registrations that are still carried on California’s voter rolls:

About 21% of California’s voter registrations, or more than one in five, are designated as inactive.

California has the highest rate of inactive registrations of any state in the country…. Los Angeles County has the highest number of inactive registrations of any single county in the country.

Although these inactive registrations should be removed after a statutory waiting period consisting of two general federal elections, California officials are simply refusing to do so.

We explain that, even though a registration is officially designated as “inactive,” it may still be voted on election day and is still on the official voter registration list. The inactive registrations of voters who have moved to a different state “are particularly vulnerable to fraudulent abuse by a third party” because the voter who has moved “is unlikely to monitor the use of or communications concerning an old registration.” Inactive registrations “are also inherently vulnerable to abuse by voters who plan to fraudulently double-vote in two different jurisdictions on the same election day.”

We sent a written request for public records on November 16, 2017, and another on November 29, 2017, seeking information about “the number of inactive registrations on the voter rolls in Los Angeles County,” but we were told each time that there were no responsive records.

Last summer, we sent a broader request for voter roll records that Los Angeles County and the State of California are required by the NVRA to keep and to make publicly available. Nothing was produced in response to this request. We point out that it is impossible to believe that there were no responsive records:

Los Angeles County, with over five million active voters and massive list maintenance responsibilities, and the Secretary of State of California [must] have exchanged emails responsive to [Judicial Watch’s] request for “all email or other communications between the Secretary’s Office and all California County voter registration officials concerning . . . [i]nstructions to the counties concerning their general list maintenance practices and obligations” and “[n]otices to the counties concerning any failure to comply with their voter list maintenance obligations.” Such emails should have been produced.

Federal law is clear. Section 8(a)(4) of the NVRA requires states to implement a program to remove ineligible registrants; and to turn over relevant records and information. We argue:

Los Angeles County is failing to properly conduct the list maintenance required by the NVRA by failing to properly train employees, failing to require and enter registrants’ birthdates, and failing to timely process reports that registrants have died, have committed disqualifying felonies, are mentally incompetent, or have registered twice.

Our lawsuit asks the court to enjoin Los Angeles County and the state of California from further violating the NRVA and to compel them to “develop and implement a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove from Los Angeles County’s rolls the registrations of ineligible registrants.” We also want to inspect and copy the requested voter roll records.

We sent a notice-of-violation letter in August 2017 threatening to sue California and certain of its counties over their violations of the NVRA. California was one of 12 states to receive such letters from Judicial Watch.

Bottom line is that California may have the dirtiest election rolls in the country. Federal law requires states to take reasonable steps to clean up their voting rolls. Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. This lawsuit aims to ensure that citizens of California can have more confidence that their elections are fair and honest.

Judicial Watch Senior Attorney and Director of its Election Integrity Project Robert Popper recently provided testimony to the Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity concerning the NVRA. Popper was formerly Deputy Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department.

We sent notice-of-violation letters threatening to sue 11 other states having counties in which the number of registered voters exceeds the number of voting-age citizens, as calculated by the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011-2015 American Community Survey: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Tennessee. Judicial Watch informed the states that should they fail to take action to correct violations of Section 8 of the NVRA, it would file suit.

We previously filed successful lawsuits under the NVRA against Ohio and Indiana that resulted in those states taking several actions to clean up their voting rolls. We are currently suing Kentucky over its failure to remove ineligible voters as required by the NVRA, and we are suing the State of Maryland and Montgomery County over their failure to release voting-related records.

We are being assisted by Charles H. Bell Jr., of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, LLP; and H. Christopher Coates of Law Office of H. Christopher Coates.

Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court to Restrain FCC Ability to Impose Government Control Over the Internet Through “Net Neutrality”

President Obama and his minions spent eight years illicitly drawing as much power as they could to Washington D.C., and we’re doing our part to rectify that.

We have joined the Allied Educational Foundation (AEF) in submitting an amici curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, urging the court to hear the appeal of the 2015 case regarding an Obama-era FCC decision that reclassified broadband Internet as a public utility so that it could impose its restrictive net neutrality rules (United States Telecom Association, et al. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America (No. 15-1063)).

We argue that the circuit court’s decision “undermined the constitutional separation of powers” by allowing the FCC to directly intervene in the broadband Internet economy.

Our amici brief also argues that the lower court’s ruling will expose the FCC to undue influence from politicians and lobbyists now and in the future:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave an administrative agency like the Federal Communications Commission extended future powers to destroy enormous amounts of national wealth by reclassifying and regulating broadband Internet service… The result will be constant risk of damage to a major portion of the American economy and a simultaneous increase in wasteful rent-seeking behavior and agency lobbying. Amici are additionally concerned that unless this Court acts to rein in an unchecked administrative state, federal separation of powers doctrine will be badly undermined.

Additionally, we and AEF argue that the D.C. Circuit’s decision “is blessing Congress’ evasion of its constitutional responsibility to make laws. This will lead the executive branch to continue to usurp this authority with bolder and more inventive interpretations of decades-old statutes until eventually all real lawmaking power will lie in the executive and the judiciary.”

In May 2017, we filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the FCC seeking records of the Obama White House’s influence in the FCC’s decision to reclassify broadband Internet as a public utility so that it could impose its restrictive net neutrality regulatory rules (Judicial Watch v. Federal Communications Commission (No. 1:17-cv-00933)).

On May 18, 2017, the FCC voted to propose a new review of the Obama-era net neutrality regulations passed in 2015 on Internet service, which greatly increased the FCC’s management of Internet content delivery and operations. In July, we and AEF submitted comments to the FCC:

[T]he prior FCC was not content to merely protect Internet openness. Rather than adopt simple rules toward that end, the prior FCC adopted a raft of economic regulations that serve little purpose other than to bring a thriving and successful industry to heel, placing it under the control of federal regulators. This was a simple power grab, taking decision-making authority away from entrepreneurial businesses and putting it in the hands of the FCC.

Judicial Watch/AEF also highlighted the political motivation behind the Obama FCC “power grab” that produced this “politically corrupted decision” to regulate the Internet:

The prior FCC’s adoption of the net neutrality regulations was a politically corrupted decision, which will do far more to increase the wealth of Washington DC power-brokers and lobbyists than it will to protect consumers… These net neutrality rules are a far-left, base-appeasing federal power grab. The regulations as written are certain to increase the amount of rent-seeking behavior already present in a usually smoothly functioning industry. As industry players position themselves to curry favor with federal bureaucrats possessed of far-reaching adjudicatory powers, Internet innovation, investment and consumers all will suffer.

The Judicial Watch/AEF comments were quoted twice in the FCC’s recent order:

Should the hypothetical harms that proponents of Title II imagine eventually come to pass, application of the antitrust laws would address those harms. fn. 517 … Judicial Watch Comments at 12 (asserting that “most of the potential or imagined future violations of net neutrality principles are already illegal under antitrust laws, including acts like website blocking, charging monopoly rents, collusion between industry players, and unfair competition. The existing antitrust laws can already be enforced against broadband providers by the Justice Department, the Federal Trade Commission, and the 50 State Attorneys General.”)

And to the extent an ISP has market power, antitrust law would only allow such ISPs to engage in pro-competitive paid prioritization practices. fn. 910 Judicial Watch Comments at 9-10 (“Allowing a two-sided market to flourish is more effective than regulation for keeping consumer prices low even in true monopoly provider cases, which broadband Internet is likely not, given the ubiquity of wireless broadband.”)

The Obama FCC’s attempted takeover of the Internet under the fake guise of “net neutrality,” which was blessed by the D.C. Court of Appeals, must be stopped and not allowed to serve as a precedent for further expansion of unconstitutional actions by the federal bureaucracy.

The Trump-controlled FCC just voted this week to undo Obama’s Internet takeover. But this court battle could determine whether a future administration could come back with another government power grab of our Internet freedoms.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Did the FBI Conspire to Stop Trump?

Report: How Fusion GPS and the Obama Administration Weaponized the Trump Dossier

Nellie Ohr, Wife of Demoted Justice Official in Trump Dossier Case Who Worked for Fusion GPS, Also Worked for CIA

The Washington Post Exposes Pelosi Lie on National Reciprocity

December 16, 2017/in Culture War, Gun Rights, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by NRA Institute for Legislative Action

As the saying goes, even a broken clock is right twice a day. Of course, such a record would be an improvement for the Washington Post’s gun coverage. However, over the past year, the Post’s Fact Checker column has provided readers with a handful of well-researched pieces challenging the ridiculous assertions made by some gun control advocates. This week brought their latest, where writer Glenn Kessler admonished House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) for her recent comments on H.R. 38, or the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017.

Specifically, the article targeted a December 6 tweet from the former House speaker, where she stated,

Inviting violent criminals to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives

Inviting domestic abusers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives

Inviting convicted stalkers to carry concealed weapons doesn’t save lives

Yet the @HouseGOP just voted to do exactly that #StopCCR

Earlier that day, the House passed H.R. 38 with bipartisan support by a 231-198 vote. The legislation would require states that issue Right-to-Carry permits to recognize the Right-to-Carry permits of all other states. Under the House legislation, law-abiding individuals from states where a permit is not required would also be able to carry in other states so long as they carry valid photo identification.

In relation to the tweet, a Pelosi spokesman told Kessler that the “information [was] provided by Everytown for Gun Safety.” Pelosi’s office also told Kessler that “the bill is terrible.”

Going to the heart of the matter, Kessler pointed out that the categories of individuals Pelosi listed are already prohibited from possessing firearms under federal law. Specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) prohibits possession by any person,

who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year

who is subject to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and

(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

States have small variations on the scope of individuals they prohibit from carrying firearms, but federal law targets the broad categories Pelosi mentioned. Explaining this fact, Kessler noted, “the differences among most states may loom larger in the gun debate than in reality.” Moreover, Pelosi should be well aware of the federal prohibition concerning those convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence; in 1996 she voted to approve the final version of H.R.3610, which contained this restriction.

Kessler went on to note that some form of Right-to-Carry reciprocity is already the law for the vast majority of states. In fact, a majority of states already either recognize carry permits from all other states, or recognize the permits of any state where their permit is recognized – without any further conditions.

Pelosi’s dishonest tweet earned her a well-deserved three out of four Pinocchios from the Post. However, there is a solid case for a fourth.

It is Pelosi’s central thesis that H.R. 38 poses a public safety risk. Kessler addressed this by pointing to a letter to congressional leadership in support of H.R. 38 from Missouri Attorney General Joshua D. Hawley and signed by 23 other state attorneys general. Kessler cited a passage that stated, “Concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding members of society, and those States that allow for reciprocal concealed-carry permits have not encountered any significant safety issues.” However, other information in the letter and data and research on Right-to-Carry further refute Pelosi’s contention.

Elsewhere in the letter, Hawley, citing a law review article on the subject, explained,

In Texas, for example, state data on permit holders shows that, compared to the general public, they are “ten times less likely to commit a crime, eleven times less likely to commit an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and seven times less likely to commit deadly conduct with a firearm.”

A similar scenario has played out in Florida. As of June 30, 2017, there were 1,784,395 valid Concealed Weapon Licenses in the state. From July 1, 2016, to June 30, 2017, the state revoked or suspended 6,739 permits for any reason; a rate of 377.6 per 100,000. If limited to just license revocations, the rate is 83.6 per 100,000. FBI data shows that there were 726,396 arrests in Florida 2016, which is 3,524 arrests per 100,000 in population. Clearly, permit holders are far more law-abiding than the general public.

Moreover, violent crime has fallen by half since the early nineties, and at the same time, the popularity of Right-to-Carry has exploded. Since hitting an all-time high violent crime rate in 1991, 26 states have enacted “shall-issue” Right-to-Carry laws. In addition to this simple analysis, the vast majority of social science research on Right-to-Carry laws has found that these laws either have no effect on crime or have caused a modest decrease.

Throughout 2017 there has been mounting pressure among Democrats for Pelosi to relinquish her role as House minority leader. The concern is understandable. For years Pelosi has had poor favorability numbers, but now it appears she can’t even rely on the Democrat-friendly Post for fawning coverage. At least four times this year the Post has highlighted Pelosi’s lies about major legislation or the Trump administration. We’ll leave it to House Democrats whether they are comfortable being led by a politician who tells lies the left-wing media won’t even tolerate.

On Net Neutrality: Do You Trust Government or the Private Sector?

December 15, 2017/in Culture War, Must Read, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Dr. Rich Swier

By Doug Logan

Net Neutrality is aflame again as the FCC voted today to repeal Obama-era net neutrality regulations. This decision was heavily opposed from such internet giants as Facebook, Google and Twitter, causing the internet to be chock full of statements opposing the FCC’s decision.

However, what really is Net Neutrality, and is this reversal of the decision really the “End of the Internet” as many of these sites are claiming?

In the end, the answer to that question will depend on whether you believe government regulation of the internet is the best solution to keeping it open, innovating and competitive — as was the philosophy behind the Obama regulations — or whether you believe that private enterprise responding to market demands is best situated for accomplishing that — as had been the case the previous 20 years.

It’s worth understanding both sides to really grasp what is at stake.

At its core net neutrality means that your Internet Service Provider (ISP), should not be able to filter or give preference to any website or content on the internet and should remain “neutral” to whatever is passing over its network. This means that regardless of the ISP’s business, political or religious leanings; the content to a conservative news site, a porn site, the ISP’s own services, or a competitor’s services; all content should be treated exactly the same.

This idealistic viewpoint is not one that most people disagree with. Just like most people agree with the idealist comment that we should “Save the environment”, most people believe that the internet should remain as neutral as possible. The disagreements center around how this should best be accomplished, and what should be required to make it happen. Essentially, these debates center around a couple of big questions.

Who do you trust more, the government or private telecommunication companies?
Who do you think should have to pay for faster access to a service; the consumer of the service or everyone who has internet access?

Trust of the government vs. private telecommunications companies

On February 26, 2015, under the leadership of Obama-appointed Chairman Tom Wheeler, the FCC reclassified broadband Internet providers as “Common Carriers” as designated in Title II of the Telecommunications Act as amended in 1996 and stated they would be selectively applying the Title II provisions to allow the promotion of an “Open Internet”. This Title outlines everything from the required licensing for broadcasting, to provisions that require a telecommunications provider to provider access to their networks to competing entities in order to lower the barrier of entry and encourage innovation. The administration never stated which provisions of Title II would be enforced, and which would not be enforced; which leads to a lot of questions. Google is hopeful that some provisions could increase broadband availability, but other areas such as licensing, if applied; could very much stifle its growth.

Both Wheeler’s majority statement at the time, and dissenting opinion of Commissioner Ajit Pai, and now Chairman, support the concept of an Open Internet. The difference in their opinion’s is how they think an Open Internet is achieved.

Chairman Wheeler believes that an Open Internet must be obtained by government regulation, and states that ISP’s cannot be trusted:

“We know from the history of previous networks that both human nature and economic opportunism act to encourage network owners to become gatekeepers that prioritize their interests above the interests of their users.”

Ajit Pai on the other hand believes that the private sector has been doing a good job from 1995 to 2015 of providing an Open Internet, and it is in fact government regulation that will prevent this from continuing to happen:

“For twenty years, there’s been a bipartisan consensus in favor of a free and Open Internet… today, the FCC abandons those policies. It reclassifies broadband Internet access service as a Title II telecommunications service. It seizes unilateral authority to regulate Internet conduct, to direct where Internet service providers put their investments, and to determine what service plans will be available to the American public. This is … a radical departure from the bipartisan, market-oriented policies that have served us so well for the last two decades. “

If you follow former Wheeler’s train of thought, the private sector is always going to make decisions in its own self-interest and we need a larger government control of the internet to protect the consumer and make sure everything is dealt with fairly. The best way to support an Open Internet is to have the FCC regulate it.

If you follow current Pai’s train of thought, the government consistently stifles innovation and growth with regulation, and this should never be applied to the internet. The best way to support an Open Internet is to require the private sector to disclose anything they might do to prioritize, or inhibit traffic to individuals; and let the consumer enforce an open internet with where they buy internet access.

There is a lot of data that can go into supporting either of these viewpoints, but this all boils down to; which do you trust more to do the right thing, the government or the private sector?

Who should pay for faster access to a service?

Stating that the internet should be neutral to the content it is delivering sounds great in concept, but depending on how you interpret what this can create some pretty large technical hurdles to overcome. Internet speeds can be impacted by how far away the server is from your physical location, how many connections to the internet backbone your ISP has, where those connections are, how big those connections are, the amount of traffic flowing on each one of these connections, which traffic is prioritized, and even which traffic is completely blocked. These all come at a cost, and there is a big question on who should pay for this cost, and what is actually required for a “neutral internet”.

Pro-FCC Regulated Net Neutrality advocates state that there should not be “Fast Lanes” or “Pay-To-Play” allowed by ISP’s. Essentially what they’re saying is that if Netflix wants its content to reach Comcast subscribers faster, Netflix shouldn’t be able to pay Comcast for their content to arrive faster than competitor Amazon Video; and likewise, Comcast can’t require Netflix to pay in order for their content to be delivered to their users. Doing so, supporters state, would be anti-competitive since it would give one provider an upper hand over another provider.

Anti-Regulation individuals would argue, however, that it costs Comcast quite a bit of money to expand their network in order to handle the bandwidth-intensive requirements of Netflix or any video provider, and so who should bear the cost of that? If they charge Netflix reasonable fees for Netflix to put a server on the Comcast network, Comcast subscribers can get Netflix much faster and at a lower cost to Comcast and only Netflix users will pay for it via possible increases in Netflix dues. If they expand their network so that every single plan they have can benefit, they have to increase the prices for every single subscriber across the board to cover the costs, both video and non-video users; or they need to start filtering plans so that only higher costs plans get the higher speeds; delivering the Netflix speeds to only a certain class of user. Requiring Netflix to pay would be considered “Fast Lanes”, and filtering traffic to video on some plans would definitely be considered not net neutral.

As a result, based on these viewpoints; supporters of FCC regulated Net Neutrality tend to support the concept that every single end-user of a service should help pay the costs of everyone having a neutral internet, regardless of how much of the internet an individual actually consumes.

Anti-FCC regulation individuals on the other hand tend to believe that those individuals who consume a service should have to pay the costs associated with delivering that service. This either means that the service, like Netflix, may need to pay for their content to be put in a place where it can be delivered faster; or there may need to be special plans that allows access to certain content while other plans do not. This creates the most fair and Open Internet as costs are more user-based, and some are not subsidizing others.

Net neutrality conclusion

The American public generally agrees that we should have an open, and neutral internet, where no provider should be able to filter or block content in order to promote their own financial gain or ideological viewpoints.

The question is: Should government regulate the internet to maintain innovation, growth or creativity? Should the cost of this free and Open Internet be distributed among all who use it? Would failure to have the government step in now result in an internet that ISPs take advantage of for their own financial gain at the expense of competition and freedom of ideas?

Or would government’s involvement stifle innovation and limit competition, and risk someday the government filtering internet content like it now does TV content. Is the best way to promote a free and Open Internet to require ISP’s to disclose how they filter/prioritize their networks; and let the demands of the consumer force the internet to remain open? This means that the consumers of the services will be the direct individuals responsible for the costs of obtaining those services.

ABOUT DOUG LOGAN

Doug Logan is a long-time cyber security expert and Founder and CEO of Cyber Ninjas. He is also the Chief Technologist at U.S. Cyber Challenge.

RELATED VIDEO: PSA from Chairman of the FCC Ajit Pai.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

5 Myths About Tax Reform, and Why They’re Wrong

December 15, 2017/in Culture War, Economy, Healthcare, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Taxes, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

Next week, the House and Senate will take their final votes on tax reform. The president’s goal is to sign the legislation into law before Christmas.

Although there are still some unknown details, the important parts of the bill for most Americans are already known and would greatly improve our current, woefully out-of-date tax code.

The bottom line is that taxpayers across America can expect a tax cut. The bill would lower tax rates for individuals and businesses, double the standard deduction, and significantly increase the child tax credit.

The bill is also pro-growth and pro-American worker. The economy could grow to be almost 3 percent larger at the end of 10 years. That translates to more than $4,000 dollars per household, per year. American families could finally get a real raise.

Americans deserve to know the truth about the proposed tax reform packages. There are several myths going around about what the proposed plan would do.

Here are a few of them, and why they’re wrong.

Myth 1: This is just a tax cut for the rich, and it will actually raise taxes for everyone else.

The truth is in fact the opposite. The Senate tax bill increases the amount of taxes paid by the rich and, according to the liberal Tax Policy Center, 93 percent of taxpayers would see a tax cut or no change in 2019. It found similar results for the House bill.

Both tax bills would actually increase the progressivity of the U.S. tax code. That means fewer people at the bottom will pay income taxes, and people at the top will see their share of taxes paid increase.

The Cato Institute’s Chris Edwards notes that the Senate tax bill cuts income taxes for people making $40,000 to $75,000 a year by about 37 percent. People making over $1 million see a cut of only 6 percent.

In two recent Daily Signal pieces, we calculated how 12 different taxpayers would fare under each of the tax plans. The results show that almost everyone will see a tax cut, and only the wealthiest families are at risk of their taxes going up.

Under the current tax code, the top 10 percent of income earners earn about 45 percent of all income and pay 70 percent of all federal income taxes. The U.S. tax code is already highly progressive, and these tax reforms will only increase the trend of the wealthy paying more than their share of income earned.

Myth 2: Repealing the individual mandate will raise taxes on the poor, raise insurance premiums, and kill 10,000 people a year.

Only in Washington can removing a tax penalty be considered a tax increase.

Tax reform will likely repeal Obamacare’s individual mandate, which imposes a tax penalty anywhere from $695 to upward of $10,000 for not purchasing the type of health insurance mandated by the federal government.

Depending on income and available health insurance options, the federally mandated health insurance comes with subsidies paid to the insurance company that can range from no more than a few dollars to over $12,000 a year per individual, and upward of $20,000 per year for families.

Repealing the mandate would not force anyone to give up their coverage or forego their current tax credits. It would just make the Obamacare insurance optional, and thus increase health care choices.

Eliminating the Obamacare individual mandate will not reduce any taxpayer’s income by a single cent. It will, however, reduce the tax bills of many individuals and families—based on their own choices—by hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars.

The individual mandate with its penalties is also not the “glue” that holds Obamacare together, as some have claimed. It never was.

“The lifeblood of the law is the generous taxpayer insurance subsidies, which attract and maintain the historically sluggish enrollment,” explains senior Heritage Foundation senior fellow Robert Moffit. Repealing the mandate will not precipitate doomsday for insurance premiums.

While it is extremely difficult to predict how insurance premiums would change without the individual mandate penalty, we do know that eliminating the penalty will prevent low- and middle-income individuals and families from having to subsidize the high medical costs of others.

One particularly outrageous claim is that due to people voluntarily choosing alternative health care solutions, 10,000 people will die each year because the government is no longer forcing Americans to buy health insurance.

Two economists reviewed these claims and found the exact opposite. They found that there is “poor evidence linking insurance coverage to mortality” and that “the mandate may in fact be elevating death rates in some populations.”

When you factor in the economic growth and higher wages from tax reform, the tax bill could actually save lives.

Myth 3: Corporations and their rich owners will receive a huge windfall.

Politicians who don’t want tax reform claim that cutting taxes for business will only help the rich.

Despite the name—“corporate” tax reform—the burden of the corporate income tax falls almost entirely on workers in the form of lower wages. Americans are undoubtedly skeptical about this claim, but the realities on the ground are actually quite simple.

When business taxes go down, workers’ wages go up.

That’s not just the result of corporate benevolence. Rather, wages rise because higher profits translate to additional investments that make workers more productive, and businesses that don’t pay workers what they are worth will lose them to competitors who do.

American corporations pay a federal income tax rate of 35 percent—one of the highest in the world. If tax reform can lower that rate to 21 percent, American businesses and the workers they employ will be globally competitive again. Businesses will invest more, hire more workers, and be forced by the laws of supply and demand to raise wages.

This is exactly what happened over the past decade and a half in neighboring Canada. In 2007, Canada began lowering its corporate tax rate. And guess what? Wages grew significantly faster in Canada than other comparable countries.

Most economic researchers agree. A recent review of 10 separate studies published between 2007 and 2015 concluded that when governments cut corporate taxes, workers receive almost all of the benefit through higher wages.

Myth 4: Tax reform will be bad for seniors.

Retirees may be the most concerned about what tax reform will mean for them, as most rely on relatively fixed incomes.

But, the proposed reforms are good news for retirees. For the most part, they would be less affected than other Americans, as the proposed reforms would not change the way Social Security and investment income are taxed.

Many retirees would in fact benefit from the tax bills’ doubling the size of the standard deduction.

While seniors’ earnings and pension income would be subject to new individual income tax brackets and rates, those changes would actually mean tax cuts—not increases—for an overwhelming majority of seniors and retirees.

Myth 5: Tax reform won’t grow the economy, it will only add to the debt.

Congress rightly allowed the tax reform bill to decrease revenues over 10 years by $1.5 trillion—about 3.5 percent of projected revenue. But such “static” budget scores provide zero useful information about how the reform will actually affect the deficit.

Properly designed tax reform will lead to a larger economy and higher wages. Each of these economic benefits can result in more tax revenue.

A recent Heritage Foundation analysis shows that the Senate tax reform bill could boost the size of the U.S. economy by almost 3 percent over the long run.

Other estimates are even more optimistic. Nine leading economists recently described how the economy could see a boost of up to 4 percent due to tax reform. The President’s Council of Economic Advisers believes the economy could grow between 3 and 5 percent, a range that was independently verified by three economists from Boston University.

Tax reform that grows the economy could result in more than $130 billion of new federal revenue in every year outside the current budget window. And that’s using the most conservative of the estimates above.

More optimistic estimates would bring in well north of $200 billion, making up most—if not all—of the static tax cut once the economy reaches its new larger potential.

Congress’ spending addiction shouldn’t stop tax reform, but the tax cuts will be short lived if Congress continues to increase spending every year.

The fact remains that our deficit cannot be eliminated with tax increases. Believing it can denies the fundamental problem: The deficit is driven by out-of-control spending. Spending is where congressional deficit hawks should turn their attention.

It is true that the proposed tax reform packages would mean big changes for individuals, families, and businesses across the United States. Overwhelmingly, however, these changes would be resoundingly positive.

Lower- and middle-income families would receive the largest tax cuts, and they would be the primary beneficiaries of business tax reforms that would generate higher wages and more job opportunities across America.

COMMENTARY BY

Adam Michel

Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @adamnmichel.

Rachel Greszler

Rachel Greszler is a senior policy analyst in economics and entitlements at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis. Read her research.

RELATED ARTICLES:

U.S. factories closed out 2017 with a boom.

GOP Lawmakers Target Another Obamacare Mandate in States

Immigrant Businessman Talks America’s Need for Tax Reform

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

People of Florida 2, Lobbyists 0. School Board Term Limits Advance Again!

December 14, 2017/in Culture War, Education, Elections, Politics, Regulation/by Philip Blumel

Today we learned once again that the power of the grassroots here in Florida can overcome any special interest, no matter how entrenched.

The Local Government Committee of the Constitutional Revision Commission just passed School Board Term Limits by a 5-1 vote, meaning we are one step closer to letting Florida voters decide in 2018 whether eight years is enough for all school board politicians.

The School Board remains one of few areas in Florida government where there are no term limits yet, except for a single county (Duval).

I have to tell you, the way we passed the committee today was great. First, our sponsor — Collier School Board member Erika Donalds — gave an awesome pitch for term limits. Then, like clockwork, the biggest and most powerful lobbyists in Tallahassee got up one by one to bash term limits. These guys were angry. They know they stand to lose a lot of influence over incumbents if we succeed.

Erika handled their flimsy objections with no problems. Then, one commissioner, Bob Solari of Indian River, announced he would oppose term limits. At this moment, the gallery full of lobbyists and special interests gave Solari an ovation! They were so proud that someone stood up for their swamp.

However, one minute later, the committee voted and term limits WON, 5-1. Solari and his influence-peddling friends were crushed.

So how did the lobbyists lose? It’s simple. For the last few weeks, you and people like you have been making calls and sending emails nonstop to this Commission to let them know the people want term limits. Lobbyists have no such army behind them. They have deep pockets, sure, but they lack real citizens taking action to get things done.

Citizen energy is term limits’ secret weapon.

We’ve come a long way, but School Board term limits still aren’t on the 2018 ballot yet. This measure has to pass a drafting committee and then be elevated to the full Commission level for a final vote. But today’s action brings us one big step closer.

The Commission will even be touring Florida before taking a final vote, so you’ll have an opportunity to appear in person and make the case. I’ll email you when it comes to your town.

Thanks for your continued support,

Nick Tomboulides
Executive Director
U.S. Term Limits

Libs on Speech: Succumb, All Ye Faithful

December 12, 2017/in Culture War, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Religion/by Dr. Rich Swier

Churches used to be where people went to escape the turmoil of the world. Now, with an outbreak of violence, the turmoil is coming to them. A wave of radicalism is boiling over, and America’s houses of worship are bearing the brunt. In the three months between January and March, there were more than 100 bomb threats called into Jewish community centers. Arsonists are attacking mosques at a furious rate. And I don’t have to tell you what happened at First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs.

“Unfortunately, our society no longer seems to place the same value on religious belief,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said somberly.

“In fact, it often feels that in this modern society, religion is met with disdain and an attitude of militant secularization. We live in a time where violence and threats of violence are routinely used to scare people from practicing their religious beliefs.” As a culture, he went on, “we must make clear that we value this vital right to exercise religious freedom, and do what we can to encourage and foster this faith, for the good of the country. That’s why it is important we make clear that threatening places of worship, threatening religious institutions, and deterring good people from practicing their faith and exercising their right to do so, will not be tolerated.”

This week, members of Congress put their full force behind his words, passing — almost unanimously — a bill called the Protecting Religiously Affiliated Institutions Act of 2017. By a vote of 402-2, leaders from both parties are sending a powerful warning to anyone targeting men and women of faith: you will pay. Specifically, the law would give faith leaders more tools to fight this outbreak of violence, vandalism, and harassment. Threats to property, like bomb threats or anything else that keeps Americans from worshipping, will be severely punished. Congress wants to clamp down on the extremists putting faith in the crosshairs, upping the penalties to three years in jail and thousands of dollars in fines. It’s an important policy, but an even more significant message that this Congress won’t stand by while evil men try to shake the faith of our country.

We applaud the House for protecting the churches physically — now it’s time to protect their freedom to speak. The secular Left is doing everything it can to keep that from happening, including an impressive takeover of the mainstream media’s talking points on the Johnson Amendment. For the last couple of weeks, while Congress deals with the snags in the two tax bills, liberals have ramped up their misinformation machine — spitting out dire warnings about the supposed effects of letting religious groups speak openly.

Their predictions, that churches will become underground PACs which funnel “dark money” through the process, is being passed off as legitimate journalism in places like CNN (which is apparently less concerned about fact-checking than it is about keeping Christians from engaging in the political process). Liberals scream that this is campaign finance law in disguise, another ridiculous talking point that the authors of the legislation have repeatedly debunked. Under the language of the House’s tax bill, nonprofits can use political speech only in the ordinary course of business and with very limited money.

As Senator James Lankford (R-Okla.), House Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Rep. Jody Hice (R-Ga.) and Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) have explained until they’re blue in the face that there is absolutely no way under this bill that churches are suddenly going to become underground party operatives. This is just about leveling the playing field that was tipped more than 60 years ago — and interpreted by liberal administrations like Obama’s as an excuse to go after religious groups with the full weight of the IRS behind them.

If the Senate agrees to the House language, Lankford, Scalise, Hice and Johnson explain, this is what will happen (hardly the stuff of nightmares): “An environmental nonprofit that sends out an e-newsletter educating its readers about the climate positions of candidates wouldn’t have to fear an audit. A church employee who distributes election voter guides (for which her church did not incur any cost for distribution) could not be punished by the IRS.” Besides, the trio continues:

“The bill also requires that any expenditure related to these activities are de minimis — that is, only minimal and not outside the usual expenses of the organization — to ensure that the organization’s primary function remains charitable or religious in nature… The criticism that our legislation would subsidize religious organizations’ politics demonstrates a double standard for faith-based entities. Leaders and employees of other entities that receive federal funding — such as hospitals and universities — are welcome to advocate for political causes and contribute to them. The IRS does not threaten to punish them when they engage in political speech.”

Liberals are scared all right — but not of churches becoming political PACs (a claim even they can’t substantiate). What they’re terrified of is greater engagement from the Christian community. After last year’s election, they understand how influential evangelicals can be, and they’ll do anything to keep history from repeating itself. If they can keep pastors from firing up their congregations on moral issues, they think they can limit the churches’ influence in the culture. The Framers, John Daniel Davidson points out in the Federalist, would have found this whole idea absurd. “Certainly, the idea that pastors and other clergy aren’t allowed to weigh in on elections or political issues from the pulpit would have struck the Founding Fathers as not only strange but inimical to the idea of a constitutional republic (especially since one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon, was a Presbyterian minster).”

“Pastors, rabbis, and imams can’t be expected to stay silent on social matters like abortion, gay marriage, and transgenderism — or, more to the point, stay silent about candidates who espouse views of those matters that are hostile to the teachings of their faith. The same goes for more conventional political matters, such as war, immigration, and welfare. Religion has a lot to say about all those things, and religious leaders have a First Amendment right to speak to their congregations candidly about them — and about the candidates and officeholders who will make laws pertaining to them,” Davidson argues.

This is a priority of the president, as he reiterated to me again yesterday at a meeting with evangelical leaders in the Oval Office — and it should continue to be a priority of this Congress as it finishes up its work on tax reform.

Contact your leaders and remind them that free speech is for everyone.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

D.C. Metro Tries to Derail Speech

A New Year’s Revolution for the Military?

GUILTY: Planned Parenthood Baby Parts Company Surrenders In First Successful Prosecution [+video]

December 12, 2017/in Courts & Law, Featured, Healthcare, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by Center For American Progress

In the first successful prosecution of Planned Parenthood’s baby body parts trafficking network, the companies DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics have admitted guilt in a $7.8 million settlement with the Orange County District Attorney’s office for selling baby body parts for profit.

The DaVinci companies harvested and sold late-term aborted fetal parts from Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties for 7 years, and made kickback payments to Planned Parenthood. The OCDA credited CMP’s investigative journalism reporting with prompting their investigation.

This news comes right after the U.S. Department of Justice has announced their own investigation of Planned Parenthood’s sale of aborted baby body parts in violation of federal law, which David Daleiden discussed on December 11th on Fox News Channel with Tucker Carlson:

CMP’s statement is available here:

Two of Planned Parenthood’s business partners, DaVinci Biosciences and DV Biologics, have admitted guilt in a $7.8 million settlement with the Orange County District Attorney for selling aborted baby body parts from Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties for profit in violation of federal and California law. The OCDA’s press release credits citizen journalism reporting from The Center for Medical Progress for prompting the investigation of baby body parts trafficking in Orange County.

“The DaVinci companies’ admission of guilt for selling baby parts from Planned Parenthood is a ringing vindication of CMP’s citizen journalism methods and accuracy,” says CMP Project Lead David Daleiden. “In light of the news that Planned Parenthood is now under federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice for the sale of fetal body parts, the next step is for Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties to be held accountable under the law for their 7-year-long aiding, abetting, and profiting in DaVinci’s criminal scheme to sell baby parts for profit.”

You can watch CMP’s previous undercover journalism about Planned Parenthood of Orange & San Bernardino Counties and their relationship with the DaVinci companies here.

Planned Parenthood and their business partners’ commodification of our unborn brothers and sisters is an atrocity against humanity that deserves the full attention of the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice.

4 Highlights From Christian Baker’s Wedding Cake Case at Supreme Court

December 7, 2017/in Commentary, Courts & Law, Culture War, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday [November 5, 2017] in a closely watched case dealing with free speech, religious liberty, and same-sex marriage.

Specifically, the justices considered whether the state of Colorado can force Jack Phillips, a Christian baker, to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding against his deeply held religious beliefs.

Attorneys for Phillips clearly explained that he seeks to exercise his freedom only to speak messages that he agrees with, while still welcoming all customers into his store. The First Amendment’s free speech and religious liberty clauses protect his freedoms to do just that.

In a lengthy and charged oral argument, the nine justices wrestled with how Americans who hold different views on marriage in our post-Obergefell society can continue to live with each other in mutual respect.

Here are some highlights of the argument.

1. Mutual Tolerance Is Essential in a Free Society

In one of the most charged exchanges of the day, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger about whether a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who compared Phillips to a racist and a Nazi demonstrated anti-religious bias—and that, if he did so, whether the judgment against Masterpiece should stand.

After disavowing the commissioner’s comments, Yarger argued that the ruling should still stand. But Kennedy returned to the issue again, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

Kennedy also pointed out there were other cake shops that would have accommodated Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding.

In a similar line of questioning, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the state of Colorado had failed to demonstrate mutual tolerance when it only protected the freedom of cake artists who landed on one side of the gay marriage debate—namely, the state’s side.

When three religious customers went to cake artists to request cakes that were critical of same-sex marriage, those cake artists declined—yet Colorado did not apply its anti-discrimination statute to punish the artists. But when Phillips declined to create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage, Colorado imposed a three-pronged penalty that drove him out of the wedding cake business, causing him to lose 40 percent of his business.

2. Compelled Speech for Everyone

The irony of the comparison of Phillips to a Nazi is that both the ACLU lawyer representing the gay couple (David Cole) and the Colorado solicitor general admitted the state could rightfully force cake artists to celebrate the racist ideals of white supremacy, or one of the most infamous events in world history, the Holocaust.

At one point, Justice Stephen Breyer followed up on a question from Justice Neil Gorsuch about whether a cake artist could be forced to create a cross-shaped cake for a religious group that shared the beliefs of the KKK. Cole responded that if the cake artist did so for the Red Cross, then yes, the artist would have to do so for the religious group as well.

Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito asked Colorado if a cake artist who created a cake with words celebrating Nov. 9 for someone’s anniversary could also be forced to create the same cake to celebrate Nov. 9, 1938.

On that infamous night, known as “Kristallnacht,” the Nazis launched their pogrom against Jews by burning over 1,000 synagogues and damaging more than 7,000 Jewish businesses.

In the exchange with Alito, the Colorado solicitor general said that cake artists could not discriminate on the basis of identity, but could discriminate on the basis of messages. Gorsuch later responded, saying that’s exactly what Phillips has argued.

Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom argued Jack Phillips’ case before the Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet/The Heritage Foundation)

3. Disagreement Does Not Equal Discrimination

Kennedy also challenged Colorado and the ACLU on their argument that Phillips discriminates on the basis of identity, rather than his idea of what constitutes a marriage. In an exchange with the ACLU attorney, Kennedy called the repeated attempts to characterize Phillips as discriminating on the basis of identity “too facile.”

During the oral arguments, the court appeared to recognize what is patently obvious from the facts. Phillips welcomes all people into his store, encourages them to buy off-the-shelf items, and will make custom-designed cakes for them provided they don’t ask for items that violate his beliefs.

He has served gays for the 24 years his store has been in operation and welcomes their business to this day. He does not discriminate against anybody because of their identity.

So comparisons to shopkeepers in the Jim Crow South who sought to keep the races “separate but equal” are a smear that divert attention from the real issue: Phillips simply disagrees with the state on the issue of marriage.

Roberts appeared to recognize this when chiding the ACLU for lumping in supporters of traditional marriage with racists, noting that in Obergefell, the court had said support for traditional marriage is rooted in “decent and honorable” premises.

Jennifer Marshall of The Heritage Foundation holds a sign outside the Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet/The Heritage Foundation)

4. Orthodoxy Determined by the State

Finally, the oral arguments revealed the scope of how far the state of Colorado is willing to go to impose its views of marriage on citizens. In one line of questioning from Roberts, Colorado admitted that it would force Catholic Legal Services to provide a same-sex couple with legal services related to their wedding even if it violates Catholic teachings on marriage.

And in questioning from Alito, the ACLU answered that the state could force a Christian college whose creed opposes same-sex marriage to perform a same-sex wedding in its chapel.

Like many Americans, Phillips seeks to work in a manner consistent with his deeply held religious beliefs, including on marriage. In order to follow his conscience, he has turned down requests for cakes that contain messages expressing certain ideas: Halloween and divorce, anti-American themes, and even anti-gay messages.

What he has never done is turn away anyone because of who they are.

The Supreme Court should uphold the rights of all Americans to work according to their religious beliefs and to be free from government intrusion that would force them to speak messages in violation of their deeply held beliefs.

After its decision in Roe v. Wade, the court respected the freedoms of Americans on both sides of the abortion debate. It rejected the argument that opposition to abortion is rooted in animus toward women because it recognized that there are many other rational reasons why people oppose abortion.

This is no different. There are many Americans who support traditional marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with animus toward gays. All Americans will benefit when free speech and religious liberty are robustly protected.

The court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop can help foster more civil dialogue on marriage so that we can all live according to our consciences and in peace with one another.

COMMENTARY BY

Emilie Kao

Emilie Kao is director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion & Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @EmilieTHF.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

In 1 Chart, the Differences Between the House and Senate Tax Reform Bills

December 4, 2017/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Policy, Regulation, Taxes/by The Daily Signal

The House and Senate have now each passed different versions of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Both bills are a big improvement to America’s out-of-date tax code and could boost the economy by almost 3 percent, leading to more jobs and higher wages for working Americans.

Both bills cut taxes for individuals and businesses, largely repeal the state and local tax deduction, and allow businesses to invest more in the American economy through temporary expensing.

The bills now head to a conference committee where a unified bill will be crafted. Here are some of the major differences you need to know about:

In addition to these differences, the House bill repeals or scales back many credits and deductions that are largely left intact by the Senate.

For example, the House bill caps the mortgage interest deduction for future home buyers; repeals the deductions for medical expenses, private activity bonds, and student loan interest; and eliminates credits for historic rehabilitation, energy production, and orphan drugs. The Senate largely leaves each of these provisions intact.

The conference committee has a tough, but doable, job ahead of it. It has the opportunity to borrow the best components of each bill to further enhance the proposed reforms’ benefits for all Americans.

COMMENTARY BY

Adam Michel

Adam Michel focuses on tax policy and the federal budget as a policy analyst in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: @adamnmichel.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Dramatic drop in number of refugees entering the U.S. in first 2 months of fiscal year

December 3, 2017/in Culture War, Immigration, Must Read, National Security, Policy, Regulation/by Ann Corcoran

The President now has completed the first two months of what will be his first full year in admitting refugees to the US and we see numbers are dramatically lower.

In fact they are so low that if the present pace continues until the end of the fiscal year, September 30th, less than 20,000 could be the final tally.

As readers know the Trump Administration set the CEILING for this fiscal year at 45,000, but that is a ceiling, not a target!

Doing okay, but I continue to argue that simply dropping numbers isn’t enough because the next Prez could raise the numbers higher to make up for lost time. The entire program should be abolished and if the President and Congress want a program they need to work on it. Removing the middlemen contractors should be the first order of business when (if!) they put America First!

I caution readers to not get too excited by the dramatic downward (so far) trend because if past years are any indication there is usually a lull in the first few months followed by a summer uptick then a huge flood comes in in September because everyone is pushing to reach the ceiling (with the exception being the year Obama and Trump shared the fiscal year).

In FY 17 Obama was pouring them in in the first months while in the closing months Trump was slowing the flow.

(See chart below through October 31 to see monthly admissions. Note the ceiling numbers and the ultimate admissions numbers.) And, do you see that dip in the middle of FY11, that is when those Iraqi refugee terrorists were arrested in Bowling Green, KY and caused the whole huge Iraqi flow to America to grind to a halt as they needed to be rescreened.

Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart had a look at the numbers here yesterday, however he concentrated on the November numbers which were available yesterday at Wrapsnet.

I’ll focus my attention on the numbers in this fiscal year which includes the months of October and November combined.

For the first two months of FY18 we admitted 3,108 refugees. If that pace continued for the year the total would be less than 20,000 (again 45,000 is the ceiling).

The resettlement contractors*** must be having hissy-fits as they ‘bid for bodies’ (aka paying refugee clients) as each must fight to keep its taxpayer-funded budget from imploding.

***Update*** The wailing began yesterday as Jewish and Lutheran refugee contractors saw the numbers, see here. The Lutherans esp. need the cold hard cash refugees represent because they have some funny-money problems going on there, here.

So what do the Muslim numbers look like?

There is no question that the Muslim percentage of refugees has dropped precipitously this fiscal year, again see Leahy for November.

Muslim refugees account for 16% of the flow this fiscal year which is way down from nearly 50% during some of Obama’s years in office.

My calculations indicate that of the 3,108 total refugee admissions for those two months, 487 are Muslim. That works out to about 16% for the two months. Wrapsnet has the various Muslim sects designated like this:

Amadiyya: 7 total, all from Pakistan

Moslem: total 362

Tops in that category: Burma 111, DR Congo 35, Eritrea 50, Ethiopia 23, and Somalia 107 plus smaller numbers from other countries (Those from Burma are Rohingya)

Moslem Shiite: total 45

Tops in that category: Afghanistan 13, Iraq 29

Moslem Suni: total 73

Tops in that category: Iraq 27, Somalia 19, Syria 22

It makes me laugh to see those Iraqi numbers. We have the Sunnis and Shiites fighting each other in Iraq and then we bring in the two opposing sides! Will they continue their centuries of quarreling in your city?

By the way, if you run your own numbers at Wrapsnet I encourage you to use the fiscal year numbers instead of annual year because this whole program is run on a fiscal year basis.

Have a look at the entry numbers for each month since FY2008 (a Bush year) below:

Screenshot (55)_LI.jpg

Notice what the tricksters at the DOS have done here. Obama set the FY17 ceiling as he was walking out the door at 110,000. Note that he had 7 previous years where he could have done the same. Why didn’t he? Trump legally reset it at 50,000, but the DOS left the 110,000 there because they want to make Trump look as mean as they possibly can compared to their dear leader Obama, and so that their media lackeys can continue to write about Obama’s 110,000 level that was really pie in the sky. 110,000 could never have been accomplished.

***And here for new readers are the nine federal resettlement contractors paid by you to place refugees in your towns and cities. These middlemen get paid by the head for their ‘charitable good works,’ so they have no incentive to ever see a reduction in numbers.

RELATED ARTICLES:

The Atlantic contributing editor, Peter Beinart, wants taxpayers to fund special cemeteries for Muslims

Tyson Foods changing America one town at a time; up next Humboldt, TN

Did you know that Church World Service is helping to replace American doctors with Cuban ones?

Find out who is in charge of refugee resettlement in your state…

VIDEO: At the Crossroads IV — Energy & Climate Policy Summit

December 1, 2017/in Energy, Environment, Policy, Politics, Regulation/by Alex Epstein

I just got back to California last night after a packed week in our nation’s capital. Happily, it was by far the most impactful week I’ve ever spent in DC.

The most exciting development during the trip is something I can’t talk about yet, unfortunately–and its outcome is uncertain–but there is a real chance I will help shape a new project that will give tens of millions of people access to energy for the first time. I should know within six months.

Now, what I can talk about.

Yesterday I spoke at the “Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit” hosted by the Heritage Foundation and the Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF). I gave the latest version of my “Moral Case for Fossil Fuels” talk. (Starts about 2:14:00 in.) If you haven’t heard me speak in a while make sure to check it out as I’ve added some new content, particularly about how to properly frame the discussion.

Also, make sure to watch the appearance by EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. I was very impressed by him; he clearly cares and thinks carefully about both industrial progress and environmental quality. (One interesting point he made is that previous EPAs didn’t care about environmental quality because they were on their anti-carbon crusades.) I didn’t get to meet him this time around because he left immediately for a flight, but I will make sure to in the future. I would certainly like to help his efforts in any way that I can.

Thanks to the TPPF, especially Brooke Rollins and Chip Roy, for inviting me. Also thanks to the Heritage Foundation, who sponsored one of the first Moral Case for Fossil Fuels launch events back in 2014.

On Wednesday morning I spoke to the Congressional Coal Caucus. Congressman Andy Barr of Kentucky invited me and he was joined by about seven other Congressmen, including Congressman Kevin Cramer of North Dakota. I discussed how coal supporters have failed by “arguing to 0” (including defending coal primarily based on jobs) and outlined how they could “argue to 100” that coal is good because it is so often the best form of energy for human flourishing.

I also had some meetings with major thought leaders and political officials. It’s very gratifying that The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels has given me the opportunity to have a real influence on energy policy.

You can also check out two of my recent recent interviews. In my appearance on the Wealth Formula Podcast, we delved deep into how to have constructive conversations about fossil fuels (and controversial issues in general). You can listen to that here.

I also had a fun interview with the Renegade Report about my debate at Africa Oil Week, where I got to discuss some of the things I learned during my trip to Africa. You can listen to that here.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

2. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

The Secretive, Taxpayer-Financed Settlement Fund Used by Lawmakers Accused of Sexual Harassment

November 29, 2017/in Courts & Law, Culture War, Featured, Policy, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Daily Signal

Staffers who are the targets of unwanted sexual advances on Capitol Hill should not have to endure a lengthy mediation process and pay the legal bills as lawmakers secretly draw on a mysterious slush fund to settle the accusations against them, an advocate for taxpayers argues.

In the event of a monetary settlement of sexual harassment complaints, members of Congress can draw on a taxpayer-funded account set up within the Treasury Department to cover their legal expenses and settle cases.

The account has paid out $17 million in the past 10 years, public records show, although it is not clear how much of that was for cases of sexual harassment.

“Right now, it’s very unclear to the taxpayer where this money is going,” Grace Morgan, director of external affairs for the Washington-based Taxpayers Protection Alliance, told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

“We don’t know who is getting paid the settlements and why they are getting paid the settlements,” Morgan said Monday. “The $17 million figure does not distinguish between sexual harassment claims and other general workplace claims. There is no information and no transparency.”

The spotlight fell on the question of sexual harassment on Capitol Hill after the scandal that brought down Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein prompted dozens of women, and men, to blow the whistle on the sexually predatory practices of major business, entertainment, and media figures ranging from actor Kevin Spacey to news anchor Charlie Rose.

Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., the longest-serving member of Congress, has been accused of sexual harassment by two former staffers. Several women, although none of them staffers, also accuse Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., of groping them.

When a congressional staffer decides to press ahead with allegations of sexual harassment, he or she must navigate a four-step process administered through an agency called the Office of Compliance. The steps: counseling, mediation, administrative hearing or civil action, and appeals.

“This turns out to be a 180-day process, and it’s not very fair or just to the victims,” Morgan said.

Nor is the amount paid out as the result of sexual harassment accusations against lawmakers currently public information, she said.

“We also need a full investigation into the $17 million and what has been paid to victims, how much involves sexual harassment claims and how this impacts taxpayers,” Morgan said.

‘Initial Spike’

For starters, the Senate passed a resolution requiring training on sexual harassment for senators and their staff. The House was expected to follow suit Wednesday.

Although an “initial spike” in sexual harassment complaints is likely to occur when new procedures go into effect, congressional employees will benefit over the long term from a healthier workplace, Rep. Barbara Comstock, R-Va., told The Daily Signal in a phone interview Monday.

Comstock, sponsor of a resolution targeting sexual harassment and discrimination that has attracted broad, bipartisan support, said she expects the House to adopt it.

The resolution would require “all House members, officers, employees, including interns, detailees, and fellows” to complete “anti-harassment and anti-discrimination training” during each annual session of Congress.

Comstock said she also will explore a legislative fix aimed at preventing the use of taxpayers’ money to cover settlement expenses when employees accuse lawmakers of sexual harassment.

Meanwhile, the resolution stipulates that lawmakers and employees complete training regarding sexual harassment within 90 days of the start of a one-year session. New employees must complete the training within 90 days of their hire date.

Where the current, 115th Congress is concerned, individual lawmakers and staffers must complete training no later than 180 days after its second one-year session begins in January.

‘A Changed Culture’

The House vote Wednesday marks a “watershed moment” of bipartisan support for a resolution that will begin a step-by-step process for implementing “fundamental reforms that change how [sexual] harassment is detected and prevented,” Comstock told The Daily Signal.

“We are looking at what can be done by resolution and what needs to be done legislatively,” the Virginia Republican said:

What we want is a zero-tolerance policy for this kind of behavior and a changed culture so that people can be free from this kind of harassment. We would also like to streamline the process for victims to come forward with any complaints so that it is not so long and drawn out. It should be a victim-friendly process.

BuzzFeed first reported that Conyers, the senior Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, reached a settlement in 2015 with a former staffer in a wrongful dismissal complaint. She alleged that she was the victim of unwanted sexual advances from Conyers, now 88.

Conyers “repeatedly made sexual advances to female staff that included requests for sex acts, contacting and transporting other women with whom they believed Conyers was having affairs, caressing their hands sexually, and rubbing their legs and backs in public,” BuzzFeed reported.

Tuesday morning, news broke that another former staff member had leveled accusations against the congressman.

The accuser, Deanna Maher, said Conyers made unwanted sexual advances toward her on three different occasions while she ran his district office in Michigan between 1997 and 2005, according to the Detroit News and other media reports.

Four women have come forward to accuse Franken, 66, of sexual harassment, beginning with Leeann Tweeden, a radio talk show host who described his behavior during a USO tour in 2006, two years before he was elected senator. Another woman, Lindsay Menz, said Franken groped her while having his photo taken with her at the 2010 Minnesota State Fair.

Legislation Possible

Co-sponsors of Comstock’s resolution include fellow members of the House Administration Committee: Chairman Gregg Harper, R-Miss.; ranking member Robert Brady, D-Pa.; and Rep. Jackie Speier, D-Calif.

Looking ahead, Comstock said she would like to see additional steps taken to ensure taxpayers would not be on the hook to cover legal settlements following allegations of sexual harassment.

“For that, we would need new legislation,” she said.

The House Administration Committee scheduled a hearing for Dec. 7 to review possible actions under the Congressional Accountability Act, the 1995 law specifying that certain civil rights, labor, workplace, and health care laws must apply to Congress.

That law also created an independent agency, the Office of Compliance, which is led by a five-member, nonpartisan board of directors and four executive staff members appointed by the board.

The Office of Compliance is charged with advising members of Congress, congressional staff, and visiting members of the public on their rights and their responsibilities in the workplace setting.

The office also offers advice on potential changes to the Congressional Accountability Act. Its general counsel has independent investigatory and enforcement authority for certain violations of the law.

‘Needs to Be Reformed’

After receiving multiple media inquiries about taxpayers’ money being used to cover the costs of settling sexual harassment allegations against lawmakers or legislative branch employees, Susan Tsui Grundmann, executive director of the Office of Compliance, released figures showing more than $17 million has been spent since 1997 to cover the settlements.

Not all of the complaints covered by the $17 million involved sexual harassment. Some were allegations made under the Americans with Disabilities Act, while others involved potential civil rights infractions.

Neither Grundmann nor other officials have made public a detailed breakdown of how and why the $17 million was spent.

The idea behind the Congressional Accountability Act was to apply the same set of anti-discrimination and civil rights laws governing other Americans to members of Congress and their staffs. But the 1995 law created a taxpayer-financed “Awards and Settlements” account in the Treasury Department to cover the cost of legal settlements.

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance, which is nonpartisan, focuses on educating the public about the effects of excessive taxation and spending at all levels of government.

Morgan, the organization’s director of external affairs, said the settlements fund appears to be used to insulate Congress from much-needed accountability and transparency.

“I would like to see a system where members of Congress themselves have to pay the settlement, or they have to go through the dispute process,” Morgan said in the interview, adding:

As it stands now, the victim has to pay for her own legal fees, where the member of Congress gets the federal funding for their lawyer. It’s a very long, drawn-out process that needs to be reformed.

The Office of Compliance would be responsible for administering the training created by the House resolution.

Aggressive Action

Comstock said she anticipates more complaints will be filed against members of both the House and Senate as employees become more familiar with what sexual harassment is.

“We might see an initial spike in the number of complaints as people develop a better understanding of what constitutes harassment,” the Virginia Republican said. “But the end result will be a more positive, healthy work environment.”

Congress could learn from how corporate America and the military moved to address questions of sexual harassment, she said. Both institutions have wrestled with similar issues for many years and their procedural changes could be instructive, she said.

“They have addressed this problem very aggressively,” Comstock said, and she believes in-person training is more effective than online sessions.

In a change long familiar to many other workplaces, the House resolution would require every lawmaker’s office to post “a statement of the rights and protections provided to employees of the House of Representatives under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.”

What happens next, assuming the House adopts the resolution Wednesday, will become more clear after the Administration Committee’s Dec. 7 hearing.

While it may be challenging for Americans inside and outside Congress to come to terms with misconduct that involves public officials who agree with their political views, Comstock said, the safety and well-being of employees should be paramount.

“I think it’s best to stay out of the team politics and instead focus on the right policies,” she said.

Ken McIntyre contributed to this report.

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

The Iron Cage of Educational Bureaucracy

November 22, 2017/in Culture War, Education, Politics, Regulation, Waste, Fraud and Abuse/by The Catholic Thing

It is the nature of bureaucracy to get caught up in processes rather than persons; to focus on means and lose sight of the ends to be served by those means.

It was the nineteenth century “father of sociology” Max Weber who warned that bureaucracy would become an “iron cage,” a translation of the original German stahlhartes Gehäuse made popular by Talcott Parsons in the 1930s, but which more literally means a “steel-hard housing,” suggesting something that cannot be broken into.

Bureaucracies depend upon rigid rules to which all human affairs, no matter how complex, must be fitted. This can cause them to de-humanize persons into categories. Bureaucracies also tend to have a narrow focus, which can cause them to fail to see the good of the whole. This can put them in a perpetual trouble spot: too large to deal with individual needs and problems, and too narrow to serve the interests of the whole. With neither a vision broad enough to serve the common good nor a system flexible enough to provide for the individual, what do bureaucracies do well? Their claim is that they are “effective.”

But effective at what?

Alasdair MacIntyre in his groundbreaking book After Virtue describes the modern moral character he calls “the Manager” whose position is justified by the claim that he or she can coordinate materials and human resources most effectively to realize the goals of the corporation, whatever they are, which “the Manager” never questions. This is true enough, but MacIntyre’s description is too optimistic.

It often happens that the processes developed by mid-level managers become more important than the goals of the corporation. Requests that don’t fit into the current categories employed by the bureaucracy are taken to be “disruptive,” as are changes in the goals of the organization that disturb the mechanism of the bureaucratic process.

In a university, this can result in the needs and requests of students becoming an annoyance, even though the institution exists to serve them. And it can cause resistance to rededication to the mission of the institution when that mission has not been the animating principle for years. Such institutions are like the driver who, upon being told by his passenger consulting a map that they are going the wrong direction, responds: “Shut up, we’re making great time.” Too often, bureaucratic processes, created to serve an end, become the end to be served, and the tail begins to wag the dog.

It makes sense for leaders to delegate tasks to bureaucracies, but only if they understand their inherent weaknesses. A group involved with Catholic classical education told me a story of their appeal to the charismatic director of a major Catholic educational outreach program. “We need to be doing this!” he declared. “Let me put you in touch with my associate director.” After making the same impassioned appeal to the lower-level functionary, the response was: “We already do that,” which is the verbal equivalent of: “There is no problem.” Because, of course, if there were, they would have already fixed it. The processes work fine. End of discussion. This is the way to stifle innovation.

The claim isn’t that their current processes don’t work. No one would approach a broken institution with a new idea; you go to a working, dynamic one. The issue is whether a new approach might serve the students even better. But this is unthinkable to many mid-level bureaucrats. Their “effectiveness” is not measured by how well they foster new goals, but by how well they coordinate resources to meet current ones. Innovative ideas are a threat to a manager’s job security in one of two ways: because (a) they presume the current staff is not entirely self-sufficient and (b) they represent possible new priorities that, without new staff, will mean less efficiency at current priorities.

I once heard a prelate ask an assembled audience of academics to produce a resource to help his deacons understand the basic ideas of metaphysics. I spoke to him afterward and told him that the International Catholic University has a superb series of lectures on metaphysics by the late, great Ralph McInerny; that we could have them downloaded on each deacon’s computer for a minimal cost to each man; and that I could arrange on-line quizzes and tests if needed. “Wonderful!” he exclaimed, “Would you please contact Monsignor so-and-so.” I did, got a polite reply explaining they were “examining possibilities,” and then nary a word in response to any of my next five messages. I would be very surprised if the bishop ever got anything on metaphysics.

If leaders don’t know what ideas, facts, and potential innovations their staff is keeping from them, then they are like a mind floating in the mist without a body. We are an incarnational Church. It’s not enough to want good education for young people; you have to pry open the bureaucratic cage to make sure it happens.

If you really want something, you have to empower its implementation, saying: “I will send a note to my associate directing that this must be done, and I want a report in two weeks.” Anything less is an abdication of responsibility and simply an invitation for outsiders to beat their heads against the hard steel casing of the bureaucracy.

Pope St. John XXIII spoke about aggiornamento, about letting fresh air blow through the stuffy corridors of Church bureaucracy. If you hired someone from a mediocre school district to run yours simply because he or she had “experience,” what makes you think the results will be better? Maybe you should take a risk on some fresh blood.

If a person has been running a chancery office since the 1970s or 80s, he or she may not be innovating. Have things been good for the past 35 years or decaying? Someone should let that fresh breeze of the authentic Spirit blow, because the definition of insanity is doing the same things over and over and expecting different results.

Randall Smith

Randall B. Smith is the Scanlan Professor of Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston. His most recent book, Reading the Sermons of Thomas Aquinas: A Beginner’s Guide, is now available at Amazon and from Emmaus Academic Press.

Democrats in Meltdown Mode as Obamacare Individual Mandate Moves Toward Extinction

November 21, 2017/in Budget and Finance, Culture War, Economy, Healthcare, Regulation, Taxes/by The Daily Signal

Democrats, of course, oppose the tax cuts moving through Congress. They believe government knows how to spend your money better than you do.

But what has really got their goat is eliminating the Obamacare tax—known as the individual mandate—that Americans have to pay to the IRS for simply choosing not to buy health insurance. This has thrown them into a tailspin of despair.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said eliminating the individual mandate would amount to the “destruction of the Affordable Care Act.” She said it would create no less than a “life-or-death struggle for millions of American families.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on the floor Thursday that “[t]he number of middle-class families who would lose money from this bill may be even higher now considering the 10 percent increase in premiums that will occur as a result of the Republican plan to repeal the individual mandate.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., was asked by Anderson Cooper on CNN about cutting the individual mandate. “It’s a bad idea,” replied the former Democratic presidential candidate. “This is going to throw 13 million Americans off the health insurance they currently have.”

No doubt the talking points that flew around Democratic offices on Capitol Hill were written to scare people into thinking the tax cut forces people off all health care. But it’s a big stretch to state that as fact.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing the individual mandate would decrease the number of people with health insurance by 4 million in 2019 and 13 million in 2027. It also predicted average premiums in the individual market would increase by about 10 percent per year.

However, the Congressional Budget Office was extremely careful to explain the inexact science of its analysis. A whole section of the report is titled “Uncertainty Surrounding the Estimates.” To put it simply, economists can’t predict human behavior.

I don’t even know what health insurance I will pick to get the best bang for my buck in 2019. How would bureaucrats in D.C. know?

Nevertheless, Democrats grabbed that report and ran with it, trying to put on a horror movie through the halls of Congress.

Pelosi threatened that as the bill moves toward final passage in the Senate and a reconciled bill through both chambers, “outside mobilization” will be activated to stop it. She said the Senate Finance Committee’s decision to include repeal of the individual mandate “really electrified, energized the base even further … .”

Sen. Al Franken, D-Minn., tweeted on Tuesday: “RED ALERT: Senate GOP just added provision to their tax plan that would gut ACA & kick 13M ppl off insurance.”

(Yes, Franken tweets blatant falsehoods when he’s not groping women.)

Schumer took to Twitter to put the blame on the White House: “.@POTUS’s absurd idea to repeal the individual mandate as a part of the #GOPTaxPlan would boot 13M ppl from the health insurance rolls and cause premiums to skyrocket – all to pay for an even bigger tax cut for the very rich, those who pay the top rate. What a toxic idea!”

President Donald Trump, however, is quite enthusiastic about taking a big whack at Obamacare through the tax bill. Reportedly, Trump encouraged Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., to get repeal into the committee bill text. This is what also infuriated the Democrats.

You can’t help but smile that Republicans are now using a 2015 ruling by the Supreme Court—which let the individual mandate stay in law, with the rationale that it was a tax and not a fine—as a way to ultimately kill the key provision that keeps Obamacare on life support.

Since the mandate is now considered a tax, its repeal will fit perfectly into the GOP tax reform plan.

Last week, a reporter asked White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders if the individual mandate repeal is a priority for the president. “That’s something the president obviously would love to see happen,” she responded.

The Obamacare mandate tax was always more of a “nanny tax” than a way to raise government funding. Democrats included it in the law in order to force the young and healthy to buy into the government-run health exchanges so as to offset the high cost of the old and very sick.

But the tax has ended up hitting lower-income and working-class families the hardest because it is much cheaper to pay the tax than to buy insurance on the Obamacare exchanges and pay the absurdly high insurance premiums and deductibles.

The hardest thing to do in Washington is to reduce the size and scope of the federal government. If the Obamacare tax can be repealed in the final bill that lands on Trump’s desk, Americans will get back a key individual liberty—the right to choose whether or not to buy government health insurance.

This would be the perfect early Christmas gift for hard-working families. Democrats should think twice before standing in the way of it.

COMMENTARY BY

Emily Miller

Emily Miller is an award-winning journalist and the author of the book “Emily Gets Her Gun” about gun control policies. Twitter: @EmilyMiller.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

Senate Tax Force Aims for Obamacare

November 16, 2017/in Budget and Finance, Economy, Policy, Politics, Regulation, Taxes/by Family Research Council

“I don’t know if I can live on my income or not,” comic strip writer Bob Thaves joked. “The government won’t let me try it.” But Republicans might, if their twin tax plans can survive the twists and turns of a House and Senate debate. A good House plan got even better, thanks to House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady (R-Texas), who heeded conservatives’ concerns and honed the language on the Johnson Amendment, adoption tax credit, and marriage penalties. After some thoughtful revisions, his bill, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is headed to the floor as early as tomorrow.If there’s trouble ahead, House leaders are confident it won’t be on their side of the Capitol. “It’s probably the most unified we’ve been in a while,” Rep. Doug Collins (R-Ga.) told reporters about Thursday’s vote. “We all have our issues, and we know the Senate is going to do something different. But I think everyone is very focused, and we know we need to get this thing done.”

Collins was right about the Senate doing something different. Late yesterday, Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) announced that Republicans were tweaking their bill to take on an old foe: the Obamacare individual mandate. In a major departure from their first draft (and the House plan), GOP leaders decided this was the perfect time to attack the IRS’s punishment for Americans who refuse to buy insurance. In doing so, Hatch argued, “We not only ease the financial burdens already associated with the mandate, but also generate additional revenue to provide more tax relief to [middle-class] individuals.” The benefits are two-fold: taxpayers aren’t fined for making a personal decision about health care, and the Senate has more money to offset other tax reforms.

That’s key for Republicans, who unlike the House, are working under much stricter budget rules. Under the reconciliation process (which lets them pass the bill with a simple majority instead of the regular 60), GOP leaders have to find a way to “pay for” their plan, and zapping the individual mandate would free up about $338 billion over the next 10 years. Senator Hatch knows that if fewer people are forced to buy insurance, then fewer people will be applying for federal subsidies to pay for it. That saves GOP leaders a lot of money, which it’s decided to use for an even better causes: like the child tax credit.

Thanks to the persistence of Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the modified Senate bill doubles the child tax credit to $2,000 from the initial $1,650. FRC, along with other conservatives, had been pushing for this increase for months. Now, that work is paying off. “Good news for working families,” Rubio tweeted. “The Senate #TaxCut bill now has #ChildTaxCredit at 2K. We are making progress.” Hopefully, the GOP finds a way to make the change permanent, since the text, as it’s currently written under reconciliation rules, would expire in 2025.

The Left’s pro-abortion crowd has gone hysterical over an education tax deduction, the ability of expectant parents’ to contribute to their future children’s education. The Left insists that this is some radical new way of undermining abortion, which is interesting since it has nothing to do with it. Yet still, NARAL calls it “dangerous” to let families save for college early. Affirming this language, claims Ilyse Hogue would “lay the foundation for ‘personhood,’ the idea that life begins at conception thus granting a fetus in utero legal rights.” But guess what? That foundation was already laid in the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which, Hogue may be interested to know, uses the same terminology.

As most people know, the real debate on these provisions will be in three weeks or so, when the two chambers conference together and hash out their differences. Until then, Americans will watch and wait — hoping, as we all do, that Republicans can finally offer families some much-needed relief from Uncle Sam.

Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.

Also in the November 15 Washington Update:

U.S. Strayed by USAID

Bible Speeches Make the Week Strong