Mediaboss Marketing

Slide: 1 / of 1. Caption: Evan Mills/WIRED

The Affordable Care Act is far from the only Obama-era policy Republicans want to take down now that they control the government. A set of internet privacy rules passed by the Federal Communications Commission last year has also become a target. Though its received far less attention than healthcare or immigration, the rollback would affect millions of consumers and bring basic changes to how they use the internetthough they might not ever know it.

Companies like Google and Facebook can learn an awful lot about you based on what you search for, what pages you like, and who your friends are. But your wireless company and in-home broadband provider could learn much more. Although Google uses encryption to protect your searches from prying eyes, these companies can potentially see what sites you actually end up visiting and when you visit them. Mobile carriers track your location and could keep tabs on how much time you spend using different apps. And they can sell that information to the highest bidder.

It is unnecessary, confusing and adds yet another innovation-stifling regulation to the internet. Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ)

The current FCC rules ban internet service providers and wireless carriers from selling many types of customer dataincluding web browsing history, location, and health informationunless you explicitly opt in. The rules do allow providers to sell certain types of less sensitive data, such as what type of data plan subscribers have, on an opt-out basis. But these gatekeepers to the internet have long envied internet giants like Google and Facebook. These massively wealthy companies couldnt exist without internet infrastructure to deliver their services. But they face fewer restrictions on data collection.

Now Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona plans to introduce a resolution to overturn the FCC rules, enabling internet providers and wireless companies to sell your data unless you explicitly opt out. The FCCs midnight regulation does nothing to protect consumer privacy, Senator Flake said in a statement to WIRED. It is unnecessary, confusing and adds yet another innovation-stifling regulation to the internet.

Until last year, the broadband providers had to comply with a set of less stringent privacy rules imposed by the Federal Trade Commission, which allowed the companies to sell your browsing data. That changed in September when a federal court decided that because the FCC had reclassified broadband providers as utility-like common carriers in 2015, the FTC no longer had the authority to regulate them. The FCC quickly passed a new set of stricter privacy rules in October. The new rules took effect last month.

The broadband industry, unsurprisingly, never liked the new restrictions. Access providers have watched jealously as companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook used their pipes to reap enormous revenues and become some of the most valuable companies on the planet. Now the broadband industry is working to become a bit more Google-like. Comcast bought NBC Universal. Verizon bought AOL and will soon own Yahoo as well. AT&T is trying to buy Time-Warner. All of these new consumer-facing acquisitions could benefit from the gods-eye view the broadband industry has into their customers browsing habits. Verizon did exactly that with its controversial supercookies in 2012. These trackers collected all unencrypted web traffic on customers devices and used that data to target ads.

Verizon eventually pared back the practice to collecting only data on Verizon-owned sites. But the industry clearly wants to have the option of turning supercookies on by default in the future. Earlier this year several industry groups sent a letter to Congress arguing that the FCCs broadband privacy rules confuse consumers because they only apply to access providers and not the Googles of the world.

Flake appears to be taking the letter to heart. His plan, first reported by Politico, is to use a seldom used law called the Congressional Review Act that allows Congress to overturn federal regulations within 60 days of when they take effect. It would also effectively ban the FCC from passing similar rules in the future, meaning that even if the Democrats retake the Presidency in 2021, the FCC still wouldnt be able to reinstate the privacy restrictions.

Flake describes his plan as the first step towards returning control of broadband privacy rules to the FTC. The catch is that as long as broadband providers are considered common carriers, the FTC has no authority to regulate them. But there are some older FCC privacy protections that will remain in place. If Congress enacts a resolution disapproving of the FCCs broadband privacy rules, no enforcement gap will be created, says former FTC chairman Jon Leibowitz. As long as the FCC has authority, he argues that a rollback wouldnt leave consumers entirely without privacy protections. Thats because federal law allows the agency to fine companies that dont tell customers theyre being tracked.

Even the new GOP-led FCC would presumably work quickly to pass a new set of privacy rules to avoid privacy anarchy. These would probably be more in line with the FTCs less restrictive rules. But courts may interpret similar rules as too close to those that Congress plans to roll back and prevent from being re-implemented says Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In that case, the FCC may not be able to implement any new privacy rules at all, and it will be up to Congress to pass privacy protections. The Republicans have all the options, says Tien. The question is what they want. Just as with health care, it becomes incumbent on them to decide.

Either way, the FCC would not be able to re-introduce the stricter rules if Flakes rollback succeeds. Barring a major public backlash, internet providers could soon start selling your browsing data to advertisers without your express permission. With all that data-envy, we have little doubt that they will.

See the original post here:
Republicans Are Trying to Let Internet Providers Sell Your Data - WIRED

When President Trump tweeted that the news media is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People! the outrage on the left was palpable.

Thats how dictators speak, they cried, comparing Trump to everyone from Lenin and Stalin to Mao and Mussolini. Former Obama adviser David Axelrod declared, No other president would have described the media as the enemy of the people.

No, not the media, just his Republican political opponents.

Axelrod seems to have forgotten that, back in 2010, his former boss let slip this telling insight into how he viewed his political adversaries: Were gonna punish our enemies, and were gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.

Few on the left compared Barack Obama to Stalin or Mao when he declared his fellow Americans who disagree with him to be enemies. (Obama later apologized for his choice of words.)

There was also a notable absence of outrage when, during the first Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton was asked Which enemy are you most proud of? and she replied, Well, in addition to the NRA, the health insurance companies, the drug companies, the Iranians? Probably the Republicans.

Clinton didnt compare her Republican opponents to generic enemies, she compared them to an actual enemy. She compared them to the worlds leading state sponsor of terrorism, a regime that took scores of US diplomats hostage for 444 days and is responsible for countless terrorist attacks that have killed hundreds of Americans.

It was not the first time Clinton did it.

In August 2015, she compared pro-life Republicans to our terrorist enemies: Now, extreme views about women, we expect that from some of the terrorist groups, we expect that from people who dont want to live in the modern world, but its a little hard to take from Republicans who want to be the president of the United States.

She also compared Republicans to the Nazis, declaring that Trump and other GOP contenders wanted to go and literally pull [illegal immigrants] out of their homes and their workplaces ... Round them up, put them, I dont know, in buses, boxcars, in order to take them across our border.

I dont recall widespread revulsion on the left when a Democratic president and a Democratic presidential nominee made these repulsive remarks. Perhaps they didnt care, because the remarks were not targeted at the media, just Republicans.

To be clear, it was an outrage when Obama did it. It was an outrage when Clinton did it. And it is an outrage when Trump does it.

The Islamic State is an enemy. Iran is an enemy. North Korea is an enemy. Russia (yes, Russia, Mr. President) is an enemy. NBC News is not an enemy.

Members of the news media may be biased. They may even be an adversary, in the political sense of the word the opposition party, as Stephen K. Bannon calls them.

But our political opponents are not our enemies. They are our fellow Americans who disagree with us.

Our politics is increasingly filled not simply with anger but also contempt for those we see as our opponents. We saw this contempt in Obamas disdain for bitter Americans who cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who arent like them ... as a way to explain their frustrations.

We see it in Trumps crass comments about women and immigrants. We see it in the venom spewing from the left at anti-Trump rallies from riots on Inauguration Day to Madonna standing up before a cheering crowd on the Mall and declaring I have thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House.

And we see it in some of the press coverage of Trump, which even CBS Face the Nation host John Dickerson has called hysterical. Trump is not wrong when he complains that the press is seething with so much anger and hatred for him.

Trump was wrong to call reporters enemies. And, yes, the demonization of those who disagree with us is a deep problem in American politics. But it didnt start with Trump.

Perhaps its time for Trumps critics including those in the media to take a good, hard look in the mirror and ask themselves how they are contributing to our growing culture of political contempt.

Special To The Washington Post

See the article here:
Funny 'enemies' wasn't so offensive when it meant 'Republicans' - New York Post

With the new clout they acquired in the November election, Republicans at the state capital have taken aim at what they call judicial activism and incivility and, in a highly unusual move, held up the re-appointment of one of the state's best-known and longest-tenured jurists.

The target is Richard N. Palmer, senior associate justice of the state Supreme Court. He has joined - and in many cases written the volatile opinions for narrow court majorities that, among other things, abolished the death penalty, legalized gay marriage and permitted government to use eminent domain to seize private property for commercial development.

Republicans on the joint Judiciary Committee departed last week from the custom of routine reconfirmation of long-sitting judges and grilled Palmer for four hours. His legal conclusions on red meat, conservative issues made him an easy target. But there were times when he looked like a whipping boy for dissatisfaction with the broader court - for its claimed over-reaching and for acerbic sniping among justices that some fear threatens the court's collegiality.

With Republicans and Democrats now evenly matched with 18 members each in the Senate, the Republicans used their new muscle to delay a vote on Palmer. Several observers predicted he will face further Republican opposition, but will be returned to the court before his third, 8-year term expires on March 17. A vote could take place Friday.

"I think there are a lot of my caucus members who are not happy with Justice Palmer," Republican Senate leader Len Fasano, R-North Haven, said. "We are talking about a justice of the Supreme Court and I think that a lot of our members had a lot of questions and issues. So I think that the people on the committee wanted a little more time to vet through the information and see where they stood. And there is no real time pressure boiling."

If nothing else, the back and forth between legislators and Palmer was revealing. It demonstrated Republican disagreement with the court on big issues. And it gave a senior jurist an opportunity to defend those decisions to the public.

Palmer was pressed repeatedly about so-called judicial activism, in particular whether he substituted his judgment for that of the legislature when, in a 4-3 opinion he wrote, the court declared the legislature's most recent iteration of the death penalty unconstitutional. The 2015 case is known as Santiago.

The death statute at issue in Santiago was written by the legislature to replace an earlier law that withstood constitutional review. The Santiago law was written to be "prospective," meaning it banned executions in crimes committed after the effective date of the law. Sentences imposed on those previously convicted were to remain in effect.

Legal experts, including the state's chief prosecutor, warned the legislature that the bifurcated, or prospective nature of the Santiago law made it unconstitutional because it treated people charged with the same crime differently. In that sense, Palmer's majority opinion was predictable.

But Palmer and the majority went farther. He wrote that "in light of the governing constitutional principles and Connecticut's unique historical and legal landscape, we are persuaded that, following its prospective abolition, this state's death penalty no longer comports with contemporary standards of decency and no longer serves any legitimate penological purpose."

Some death penalty proponents feared the decision abolished capital punishment in Connecticut forever. Palmer told the committee he believes it did not.

Committee Republicans lectured Palmer that elected legislators are in closer to voters than judges and in better positions to measure "contemporary standards of decency." One lawmaker asked whether the Supreme Court commissioned a poll to chart shifting standards of decency. They accused Palmer of usurping their authority by substituting his judgment for theirs.

Palmer was relaxed and looked comfortable with the pointed questions that implied criticism of his judicial philosophy. He said he recognizes that "the legislature, along with the executive, is the policy-making branch of our government" and that his views on capital punishment had no bearing on the Santiago decision.

"I did not think it was the prerogative of the court to substitute our judgment for that of the legislature," he said

Since his appointment to the court by Gov. Lowell P. Weicker Jr. in 1993, Palmer said he has twice voted with court majorities to uphold the constitutionality of state death penalty statutes. He was the swing vote in the 4-3 majority opinion upholding execution in the court's 1996 Webb decision. He voted with the majority again in upholding the death penalty in the 2014 Rizzo decision.

"What changed between Rizzo and Santiago?" asked Sen. Michael A. McLachlan, a Danbury Republican

"The statute changed," said Palmer, who was at various times before joining the court Connecticut's chief federal and state prosecutor. "I have not changed by mind on the death penalty. It was only with the passage of a bifurcated statute that I ultimately concluded it was unconstitutional."

He said it was Santiago who, in his appeal, raised the issue of shifting standards of decency - not the court. Palmer told the committee that the state strengthened Santiago's evolving standards argument by carrying out only two executions in more than 60 years. And he said the legislature added more weight by trying to ban future executions.

The loudest complaints from Republican committee members were directed at what they characterized as a disturbing decline in collegiality among the court's justices. In some cases, the critics claimed, justices are not longer speaking to one another.

It was implied in some of the questions that sharp language used to dismiss dissenters in Palmer's majority opinions is responsible for ill will on the court. In subsequent interviews, Fasano and other Republicans said Palmer isn't the only judge with a sharp pen, but is on the firing line because his term is up.

McLachlan referred to a now infamous footnote in a 4-2 majority opinion by Palmer in 2015 that affirmed the reversal of a murder conviction against Richard LaPointe, a mentally handicapped man who a lower court said had been wrongly imprisoned for most of his life.

The footnote was sharply critical of Justice Carmen E. Espinosa, who, in the same case, blasted Palmer and the majority in a dissent.

Palmer's footnote said, in part: "Rather than support her opinion with legal analysis and authority, however, she chooses, for reasons we cannot fathom, to dress her argument in language so derisive that it is unbefitting an opinion of this state's highest court. Perhaps worse, her interest lies only in launching groundless ad hominem attacks and in claiming to be able to divine the (allegedly improper) personal motivations of the majority."

The footnote concluded by saying Espinosa "dishonors this court."

Espinosa had signed one LaPointe dissent with former Justice Peter Zarella that analyzed the law. She wrote a second by herself that attacked the motives of the majority, accusing it of operating outside the bounds of judicial propriety. She said the majority was guilty of "unfettered judicial activism" and "a complete misunderstanding of the proper role that this court should play within the rule of law."

"And justice is most certainly not attained by doffing one's judicial robe and donning an advocate's suit" Espinosa wrote.

McLachlan told Palmer, "You threw a grenade. Why did you do that?"

"We just felt the dissent in LaPointe was unfair and really accused us of engaging in conduct that is improper for judges," Palmer said.

Palmer said the footnote was meant to defend the court from what the majority believed to be a scurrilous attack. But he said sharp language is something of a tradition in appellate decisions and is far more pronounced at the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices who attack one another in writing have been close friends.

Palmer denied that there is hostility among Connecticut justices. He said he circulates his opinions among colleagues prior to publication with a standing offer to remove offensive language. Although he did not say so explicitly, his answer implies that the language in Espinosa's dissent and the responsive footnote were agreed upon in advance.

Sen. John A. Kissel, an Enfield Republican, complained that the sniping erodes public confidence in the court.

"I have heard on good authority from very good sources that it is a chilly atmosphere across the street, that people don't talk to one another," Kissel said, referring to Supreme Court chambers across Capitol Avenue from the Legislature.

"Knock it off," Kissel told Palmer. "Two wrongs don't make a right. If someone slaps you on the face, turn. Give them the other cheek. Gandhi. Kill them with kindness."

Palmer said he would carry the message across the street to his colleagues.

View post:
With New Clout At State Capitol, Republicans Hold Up Re-Appointment Of Supreme Court Justice - Hartford Courant

Kansas Gov. Sam Brownbacks ambitious tax overhaul which slashedtaxes for businesses and affluent households, leading to years of budget shortfalls narrowly survived a mutiny Wednesday afternoonwhen abouthalf ofRepublican lawmakers joined Democrats in an effort to overturn it.

Brownback, a Republican whoonce called his tax policy a real-live experiment with conservative principles, had vetoed a bill that would haverepealed the most important provisions of his overhaul. While the state House voted tooverride the veto earlier in the day,proponents of the billcame up three votesshyof the two-thirds majority neededin theSenate.Fifteen Republican senators voted to override the veto, while 16 voted to sustain it.

In the House, 45 GOP legislators voted in favor of the increase, while 40 voted to uphold the governors veto.

The stateis facing a $350 million budget shortfall.Brownbacks critics say the states persistent deficits are evidence that the economic benefits from reduced taxes are not always adequate to make up for reductions in revenue, as advocates of supply-side changes have sometimes claimed.

I'm disappointed in the actions of our Senate today, said state Rep. Melissa Rooker, a Republican from Fairway, Kansas, whosupported the bill. This was a balanced compromise that provided the revenue necessary to fund the basic needs of our budget and restore some semblance of solvency and sustainability.

For both Brownback and hiscritics, the changes are a model for thepolicies that Republicans in Washington, D.C., might pursue on a national level now that they are in control of the federal government.One ofPresident Trumps advisers on economic policy during the campaign, Stephen Moore, also helped Brownback develop the changes he enacted beginning in 2012. Rep. Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.), the speaker of the House, served as Brownbacks legislative director when Brownback was in Congress.

Gov. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) spoke at the 2017 Conservative Political Action Conference on Feb. 23, and pushed for less government regulations. "When have we added more government anywhere that's taken more taxes and you end up with a product that's more efficient that costs you less?" he asked. "What's your example?" (The Washington Post)

Ryans and Trumps proposals for tax reform have important features in common with Brownbacks policies. Bothreduce the number of income-taxbrackets. Brownbacks policies and Ryans proposal treat income from legal entities typically used by small businesses more favorably than ordinary income. Likewise, the plan Trump advanced as a candidate appeared to reduce the tax rate on such earnings, known as pass-through income, but hisproposal was ambiguous on this point.

In the case of Brownbacks overhaul, pass-through income has been completely exempt from taxation. In 2012, the state had projected that about 200,000 pass-through entities would take advantage of the exemption. In fact, about 330,000 ostensible small businesses profited from the rule. Thatdata suggests the reform encouraged tens of thousands of Kansans to claim their wages and salaries as income from a business rather than from employment.

That avoidance has contributed to repeated budget deficits, forcing state policymakers to take emergency measures, exhausting the states reserves and diverting money dedicated to maintaining highways to keep the states government operating.

The bill in Kansas would have eliminated the exemption for pass-through income and increased income taxes (although not to the rates that prevailed before Brownback took office), while eliminating tax reductions planned for the future. The state projected that the legislation would have increased revenue by $590 million in 2018.

Moore, the former adviser to Brownback and Trump, acknowledged that avoidance by residents claiming business income was an issue, one that he said the Trump campaign also debated.

That has been a problem, I agree, he said. One of the things were really struggling with is how to avoid that problem.

Experts on taxation said that Kansass experience with the exemption for pass-through income should be a source of caution for GOP lawmakers in Washington considering a similar approach.

Its very expensive, said Scott Drenkard, the director of state projects at the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. What weve seen in Kansas as a result of this is that the state has had a hard time making budget.

Yet Moore and other proponents of the policies say that reduced taxes, especially for small businesses, will help encourage economic growth. Kansass economic performance has been only middling over the past several years, but Moore argued that the states problems are a result of tepid growth nationally.

Its certainly not a very Republican idea to be raising income taxes, he said.

Identifying the precise effect of the tax overhaulon the economy is difficult. Overall, Kansass economy expanded by about 2.9 percent between 2011, when Brownback took office, and 2015, the latest year for which data are available. Over the same period, the gross domestic product increased 9.2 percent nationally, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Rooker noted that the coalition voting to override Brownbacks veto in her GOP-dominated chamber included more Republicans than Democrats. Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are also divided on how to approach the problem of tax reform, confronting similar disagreements on how drastically to reduce federal revenue.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the U.S. Senate majority leader, said in December that he would prefer tax reform that did not reduce federal revenue. Ryan's proposal would cost the government by about $2.5 trillion over a decade, according to an analysis from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center.

What we may be seeing here is the return of the fiscally moderate Republican, said Jared Bernstein, former chief economist to Vice President Joe Biden.

View original post here:
Republicans' 'real-live experiment' with Kansas's economy survives a revolt from their own party - Washington Post

(AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

There are only two certainties in life: death, and Republicans cutting taxes.

That, after all, is what Ronald Reagan did, it's what George W. Bush did, and it's what Donald Trump has promised to dowhich, with a Republican House and Senate, looks like as sure a bet as there is. What's less clear, though, is whether it will be a run-of-the-mill tax cut or a once-in-a-generation tax reform.

What's the difference? Well, tax cuts are just about lowering tax rates, while tax reform is usually about lowering tax rates even more and paying for it by getting rid of tax breaks. The problem, of course, is that some people wouldn't benefit as much from lower tax rates as they do now from the tax loopholes that would be closedso they'll fight it. In other words, tax cuts are easy because everyone is a winner, but tax reform is hard because there are losers. Still, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan thinks it's worth it since tax reform would let them cut rates lower and for longer than they otherwise could.

That second part is the most important. Republicans, you see, are only allowed to pass a tax cut with a simple Senate majoritywhich is all they're going to haveas long as it doesn't add to the deficit after 10 years. That's why the Bush tax cuts came included with an expiration date. So, as New York's Jonathan Chait explains in detail, if Republicans don't want their new tax cuts to come with a similar self-destruct, they'll have to come up with a way to pay for them.

Or, more accurately, appear to do so according to our budget rules. Although when we're talking about a $3 trillion tax cut like the one Republicans have proposed, 99.6 percent of which would go to the top 1 percent of households, even the most aggressive gimmicks wouldn't "cover" all thecosts. Only about 50 percentof them. Here's how. When Republicans say that their tax plan wouldn't lose any revenue, the question is compared to what. And the answer, at least the one they want, is a world without any Obamacare taxes. Think about it like this. If you got rid ofObamacare's $1.2 trillion worth of taxes before you did tax reform, that'd be $1.2 trillion less you'd need to come up with for your plan to be "revenue neutral." And voil, your $3 trillion tax cut would only look like a $1.8 trillion tax cut. (Ain't Washington grand: one tax cut would make another look more affordable). Add in Republicans' favorite assumption that tax cuts would in part pay for themselvesand you're about halfway to home to paying for your tax cuts without actually paying for anything.

There's a hitch, though. Even after seven years, Republicans are still struggling to come up with the "replace" part of "repeal and replace." Their healthcare plans would probably only make the things people don't like about Obamacarehigh deductibles and narrow networksworse without covering as many people. So instead, to paraphrase the President, they've said that they have something vague and terrific that's also terrific and vague coming any minute now. Even Godot didn't make people wait this long. But the point is that, unlike a few months ago, Republicans aren't willing to rush ahead with repealing Obamacare and the taxes that pay for it unless they have a real replacement on tap. They'd rather tell everyone how great their imaginaryplan is than have everyone tell them how much they hate their actual one.

Not that it matters as far as tax reform is concerned. That's because Republicans aren't any closer to coming to terms on the rest of their plan either. The centerpiece of that is supposed to be what's known as a border-adjustment tax. Put simply, it would start taxing imported goods but not exported ones as part of a greater overhaul of the corporate tax system to tax domestic consumption rather than global profits. Now, economic theorytell us that this should send the dollar up enough that importers wouldn't be any worse off than they are now. But CEOs aren't willing to gamble their stock prices (or their bonuses, for that matter) on economic theory, no matter how well-grounded it might be. So every company that depends on imported goods, which is to say every retailer from Walmart on down, is lobbying hard against this taxa tax, mind you, that Republicans are counting onto raise a trillion dollars over 10 years. Indeed, there are already enough Republican senators against it that the border-adjustment tax might not even be dead-on-arrival. It might be so dead that it never arrives.It's border adjustment tax or bust.

So it might just be bust. That's what happens when you can't agree on your real or fake pay-fors. What Republicans can always agree on, though, is just slashing the top tax rate and calling it a day. That's a lot more realistic than the legislative Rube Goldberg machine Paul Ryan has set up actually working.

The Trump tax cuts, then, might end up being a slightly classier version of the Bush tax cuts: more regressive, more red ink, and just as temporary. Sad!

Visit link:
Republicans' dream of tax reform is in big trouble - Washington Post