Tag Archives: The Wall Street Journal

How This Presidential Campaign Will Be Unique

Posted on by

On Thursday, The Wall Street Journal posted a commentary on the role that President Obama is not playing in the current presidential campaign. The commentary is titled, “How Obama Gets Away With It.” The commentary notes that normally in a presidential campaign, the record of the sitting President is part of the campaign. In 2016 that does not seem to be the case.

The commentary observes:

Yet at the same time we were seeing those nice photos, videos and articles, a lot of other important stuff was going on where Mr. Obama was hardly mentioned, seen or questioned. For example, the U.S. economy grew at a meager 0.5% in the first quarter of 2016; Russian military planes lately have been buzzing U.S. Navy ships; and China is building its military forces and expanding their reach in the South China Sea. Early in May, a Navy SEAL was killed in Iraq (the president has assured the American public that U.S. troops there, increasing in numbers, are not in combat roles). Islamic State terrorist attacks in Baghdad in recent weeks have killed scores of civilians. The Taliban are on the march in Afghanistan. The vicious war in Syria continues. The Middle East refugee crisis shows no sign of diminishing. Military provocations by Iran and North Korea keep coming.

President Obama’s media handlers try to keep the president as far away from these crises as possible, leaving others in his administration such as Press Secretary Josh Earnest, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, Defense Secretary Ash Carter and Joint Chiefs Chairman Joseph Dunford to be their public face. That way the problems don’t appear to be Mr. Obama’s problem, and he is free to bask in the good news.

The mainstream media has worked very hard to avoid painting the true picture of the negative impact of President Obama’s foreign policy and his domestic policies. Most Americans may not even realize there is a problem until it directly impacts them.

The article concludes:

One of the news media’s main jobs is to hold public officials accountable, from the president on down. But Mr. Obama is the beneficiary of news-media managers and reporters who mostly like his style and agree with his policies, from his reluctance to make strong military commitments to his advocacy for LGBT rights, fighting climate change and supporting tougher gun-control laws. Case in point: The administration’s easy orchestration of the media story line about the Iranian nuclear deal, recently revealed by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, only scratches the surface of the White House’s skill at managing a media happy to be managed.

Given such a congruence of opinion, Mr. Obama’s policies don’t receive the scrutiny and analysis they should. Reporters who criticize or dig too deep are cast by the administration as spoilsports or, worse, cut off from sources.

With Donald Trump now the media obsession—and most in the media don’t like him—it is easy to see why Mr. Obama’s performance over the past seven-plus years is still not a major issue in the 2016 campaign. And that’s the way he likes it.

As the presidential campaign progresses, expect to see a focus on any mistakes Donald Trump has made since the age of three. Expect to see the misdeeds and lies of the Clinton’s swept under the rug as if they did not exist. As more information is discovered about the rather twisted finances of the Clinton Foundation, expect to find that information only in alternative media sources. Unfortunately, that is where we are at the present moment.

 

The Cost Of Over Regulation

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted a story today about Arch Coal. The company has filed for bankruptcy.

The article reports:

As President Obama prepares to deliver his final State of the Union address Tuesday, we wonder if he’ll take pride in the damage his policies have done to the coal industry. According to the National Mining Association, 40,000 coal jobs have been lost in the U.S. since 2008.

The wealth destruction has been equally dramatic. Peabody Energy is a going concern, but its shares have declined by roughly 95% in the last year. Investor Paul Tice recently wrote in these pages that since 2012 “27 coal-mining companies with core operations in Central Appalachia, a region roughly centered in southern West Virginia, have filed for bankruptcy protection.” We told you in November that coal production nationwide has declined by about 15% since 2008. Reasons include slowing global demand and competition from natural gas in electricity generation. But commodity prices are cyclical, while regulation is forever.

Unfortunately the coal companies are not the only casualties of President Obama’s energy policies. Future casualties include utility customers.

The article further reports:

Even after recent declines in market share, coal-fired plants still provide roughly a third or more of American electricity. So utility customers will notice the coal carnage when they see their monthly bills—or perhaps when the lights don’t go on. But for now the pain is concentrated among those who used to work in the coal fields. They are still waiting for all those new green jobs Mr. Obama has been promising since he arrived in Washington.

Elections have consequences. Eight years of an administration strongly influenced by radical environmentalists have created joblessness, higher energy prices, and no real alternative forms of energy. We can use carbon-based fuel in ways that do not harm the environment. Since our economy is based on carbon-based fuel, it would be a good idea to elect a President who understands the impact over regulation can have on the economy. Our current President obviously does not.

The Internal Revenue Service Backs Down

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an article yesterday about a proposed change to charitable donation reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The IRS had proposed a change to the law that would have given charities the ‘option’ of filing detailed reports on everyone who donates more than $250 to the charity. The detailed reports were going to be ‘voluntary’ (at least until the IRS was able to put them into law). The information reported would have included Social Security numbers. The Wall Street Journal is now reporting that the IRS has withdrawn the proposal.

The article reports:

Amazingly enough, in this case the IRS appears to have listened to concerns from the taxpayers who pay their salaries. On Thursday the IRS said it is withdrawing its proposal after receiving “a substantial number of public comments.” Many of the comments “questioned the need for donee reporting, and many comments expressed significant concerns about donee organizations collecting and maintaining taxpayer identification numbers for purposes of the specific-use information return,” said the IRS. The legitimate anger of average citizens was amplified by stalwart IRS watchdogs like Rep.Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) on Capitol Hill.

One year after Republicans took control of the Congress, and one year before President Obama leaves the White House, the pendulum is beginning to swing against IRS abuse of taxpayers. Coming on the heels of other reforms in the year-end tax and spending bills—including a ban on new IRS rules limiting political activity—Thursday’s news is reason to cheer.

Now if we could just get rid of the IRS, we would have something.

The infoplease website reminds us:

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

It is interesting to me that the American government was able to fulfill its Constitutional duties prior to 1913 without the billions of dollars they now collect and spend. What are they doing now that has changed that? Do we need to go back to a government that follows the instructions and limitations of our Constitution? I think that would be a really good idea.

 

Would You Buy A Used Car From These People?

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal printed an editorial today about the ongoing relationship between President Obama and Iran. President Obama has two things he wants to leave as a legacy–one is ObamaCare and the other is a nuclear deal with Iran that lasts at least until he is out of office. ObamaCare will collapse under its own weight within three years, so that leaves the deal with Iran. In the negotiations with Iran, America has pretty much negotiated with itself–making concession after concession until Iran had no choice but accept the deal. So where are we now?

The editorial reports:

The U.S. and United Nations both say Iran is already violating U.N. resolutions that bar Iran from testing ballistic missiles. Iran has conducted two ballistic-missile tests since the nuclear deal was signed in July, most recently in November. The missiles seem capable of delivering nuclear weapons with relatively small design changes.

The White House initially downplayed the missile tests, but this week it did an odd flip-flop on whether to impose new sanctions in response. On Wednesday it informed Congress that it would target a handful of Iranian companies and individuals responsible for the ballistic-missile program. Then it later said it would delay announcing the sanctions, which are barely a diplomatic rebuke in any case, much less a serious response to an arms-control violation.

So how did Iran respond? Last week Iran fired several rockets that landed within 1500 yards of the aircraft carrier Harry S. Truman. This incident occurred in the Strait of Hormuz. In October, the Iranians arrested Siamak Namazi, an Iranian-American businessman. He is being held without charges. The Iranians have held Washington Post reporter Jason-Rezaian for more than 500 days.

The editorial further reports:

The sages now blaming hard-liners for Iran’s nastiness are the same folks who told us that the nuclear accord would empower the “moderates” in Iran by showing America’s peaceful intentions. When will this crowd figure out that Iran’s rulers don’t want better relations with the U.S.? They want to become the dominant power in the Middle East while driving the U.S. out of the region.

Make no mistake–the religious leaders of Iran want a world-wide caliphate with Iran in charge. They need to get America and Israel out of the way in order to do this. The Islamic concept of ‘taqiyya’ is loosely defined as deceit or dissimulation toward infidels. The Iranians have used it masterfully in dealing with President Obama.

The editorial reminds us:

Under the nuclear accord, Iran will soon receive $100 billion in unfrozen assets as well as the ability to court investors who are already streaming to Tehran. Sanctioning a few names is feckless by comparison, and Iran is denouncing even this meager action as a U.S. violation of the nuclear deal. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani responded to the sanctions reports on Thursday by ordering his defense minister to accelerate Iran’s missile program. Your move, Mr. Obama.

Do we really want to do this?

More Questions Than Answers

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an editorial this morning about Hillary Clinton’s charges that Donald Trump is sexist. Excuse me for being cynical, but I suspect that if you questioned or listened to most men long enough, you could eventually find something to refer to as sexist. I wouldn’t use the word sexist to describe Donald Trump. I would be more inclined to use the words rude, crude, and blunt, and frankly, based on the persona he shows to the media, he is not someone I would be interested in hanging around with. However, that in itself does not disqualify him as a presidential candidate.

The Wall Street Journal points out that Hillary needs to be careful when charging people with sexism and conducting a ‘war on women.’ Her closet does not lack skeletons in this area due to the escapades of her husband, Bill.

The Wall Street Journal editorial reminds us:

Yet no one in American politics better personifies a war on women than Mrs. Clinton’s husband. For readers too young to recall the 1990s, we aren’t merely referring to Trumpian gibes about female looks or “Mad Men” condescension. Mr. Clinton was a genuine sexual harasser in the classic definition of exploiting his power as a workplace superior, and the Clinton entourage worked hard to smear and discredit his many women accusers.

Start with “bimbo eruptions,” the phrase that Mr. Clinton’s Arkansas fixer Betsey Wright used to describe the women who had affairs with Bill. Gennifer Flowers almost derailed his primary campaign in 1992, until Hillary stood by her man on CBS ’s “60 Minutes” and the media portrayed Ms. Flowers as a golddigger.

The article also quotes James Carville‘s statement about Paula Jones, “If you drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” Hardly an affirming statement. There were also the charges that Monica Lewinski was a stalker.

There have been various reports on the internet about Hillary Clinton being fired from the Watergate investigation for unethical behavior. When I checked out these stories, I found contradictory information. However, World Net Daily posted a story in 2008 that seems to verify that there were some problems with Mrs. Clinton’s conduct during the investigation. I have no idea if the story is true, but it is telling that Mrs. Clinton’s actions often seem right on the edge of honesty and ethics.

The Internal Revenue Service Has Become A Political Organization

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an opinion piece this morning about changes that the Treasury Department is proposing to current Internal Revenue Service (IRS) rules. The proposed rule gives 501(c)(3) charities the ‘option’ of filling out reports on every donor who contributes more than $250 to the organization. This ‘option’ would include name, address, and Social Security number. As of now the rule will be voluntary, but based on past experience (particularly with the IRS) voluntary will soon morph into required.

The article reports:

Under current law, nonprofits must report only donors who give more than $5,000 a year, and then only names and addresses. Donors who give less than $5,000 to (c)(3) charities, and who want to claim a tax deduction, must obtain a “receipt” from the charity—to furnish to the IRS if they are audited or examined. This process has been in place for years, and even Treasury and the IRS acknowledge in their new rule that it “works effectively, with the minimal burden on donors and donees.”

So why change it? The IRS is claiming this will aid in more “timely reporting” of tax-deductible donations, and no doubt the agency’s auditors would love more information to harass taxpayers.

Unfortunately, the IRS has used donation information to harass taxpayers before. After a list of supporters was made public a business that donated money to the Proposition 8 proposal in California was target by opponents of the proposal. I reported another example of IRS abuse in February of 2014 (rightwinggranny.com).

The Wall Street Journal reports another example of IRS abuse:

Frank VanderSloot, a Mitt Romney donor, was audited by the IRS and Labor Department after the Obama campaign singled him out for criticism. Catherine Engelbrecht, the head of the 501(c)(3) True the Vote, was publicly attacked by Democrats and then hit with personal and business audits from the IRS, OSHA and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The National Council of Nonprofits, which opposes the proposed rule, notes that the IRS routinely warns taxpayers not to give out their Social Security numbers unless “absolutely necessary.” Donors will be suspicious of charities that now ask for them.

Many taxpayers will also lack confidence that nonprofits, which are often small operations staffed by volunteers, can safeguard their information. The proposed regulation is an invitation to fraud and identity theft by creating an opportunity for scam artists to claim to be charities and solicit Social Security numbers.

It may be time to go to a tax system that does not involve the IRS. Unfortunately the IRS has shown itself to be an agency that cannot be trusted to be above politics. I realize that a lot of the politicization has been under the Obama Administration, but there are no guarantees that any future administrations will not use the agency in the same way.

 

Accountability?

Posted on by

Fox News posted a Wall Street Journal story today about a federal audit of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The article reports:

The Federal Emergency Management Agency can’t adequately account for more than 70 percent of the money spent on fuel for New York in the aftermath of superstorm Sandy, a federal audit released on Friday found.

FEMA spent $6.37 million for 1.7 million gallons of fuel as a gasoline shortage crippled the New York City area after the October 2012 storm, according to the audit from the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Homeland Security.

Has it occurred to Congress that this might be a part of the reason federal government spending is out of control?

It gets worse:

But the audit found “incomplete and questionable” documentation for $4.56 million of that spending. Additionally, $1.81 million worth of fuel went to recipients outside the scope of work that FEMA established for the crisis, the audit found. As a result, FEMA can’t be sure any of that fuel went to approved power restoration or emergency public transportation work in New York, the audit said.

…The unaccounted fuel deliveries occurred because FEMA didn’t comply with federal regulations requiring the agency provide proper documentation accounting for its work, the audit found.

There is a bit of irony here–a federal agency did not comply with excessive federal regulations.

Continually raising the debt limit is not a solution, because it does not address the actual problem–the spending.

 

I’m Sure There Is Another Side To This Story, But I Haven’t Heard It

Posted on by

On Friday, The Wall Street Journal posted an article about Medicare cutting back the work of the auditors that oversee the program.

The article reports:

Recovery audit contractors, as they are known, recouped $2.4 billion in improper payments in 2014, down from $3.7 billion in 2013 before the agency scaled back other audit activities and temporarily suspended the program for several months, according to a Medicare report.

Starting in January, the auditors will be able to review only 0.5% of the claims the agency pays to each hospital or provider every 45 days, according to an Oct. 28 letter to the contractors. That is a quarter of the prior threshold: 2% of claims.

The article concludes:

Those recoveries represent just a fraction of the total amount Medicare estimates it spends on incorrect payments. The Medicare program made $58 billion in improper payments to medical providers and health plans in 2014, according to PaymentAccuracy.gov, a federal website that tracks agencies’ estimates of waste.

Separate contractors and the Justice Department separately pursue fraudulent payments from the program.

I hate to be difficult here, but $58 billion is not pocket change. As federal budget deficits increase, we need to look at the places where we are spending money needlessly. Fraudulent claims made to various agencies might be a really good place to start.

Here is another thing to think about when you consider budget deficits. According to a Huffington Post article from 2013:

According to the U.S. Census about 57 million, or 1 in 5 Americans, live with disabilities, and about 38 million or 1 in 10 has a severe disability. The Social Security disability programs provide vital support only to those with the most significant disabilities — about 14 million children and working-age adults.

I am not ready to believe that 1 in 5 Americans is disabled or that 14 million Americans are disabled. That number seems extremely high to me. That might be another thing to look at when examining the budget.

Why Government Regulations Matter

Posted on by

Today’s Wall Street Journal featured a story by Rhea Lana Riner. Mrs. Riner founded Rhea Lana’s in 1997. It is a consignment company for secondhand children’s clothes. The company began in her living room and soon expanded. In 2008, the company converted to a franchise model and now has 80 locations across 24 states.

The article at The Wall Street Journal explains what has happened to the business in the past two years:

Rhea Lana’s operations are similar to more than a thousand other consignment event businesses in the country. Our locations host two sales a year, each running two to eight days. Before a sale, consignors list their clothes and toys on our website, along with their asking prices. On the day of the event, they bring the items to the location and set them up for display. Consignors keep 70% of the proceeds.

They can also volunteer before and during the event—doing everything from setting up display racks, to checking out customers, to helping buyers carry heavy purchases to their cars. As a perk, volunteers are allowed to shop before the general public, and they are sometimes given preferential treatment on display locations for their own items.

But such mutually beneficial exchange is apparently a foreign concept to the federal government. In January 2013 the Labor Department audited our employment practices. Four months later the bureaucracy concluded that our volunteers are actually “employees.” As such, we were told that we were in violation of Sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act regarding minimum wages and overtime pay. I was told this during a face-to-face meeting, without any accompanying written complaint or advance notice of allegations.

This is a business that helps mothers buy beautiful clothes for their children at reasonable prices. The business model includes volunteers. These volunteers are in no way coerced into volunteering–they are people who want to help who may not be able to commit to the regular hours of a job.

The article further explains:

The case raises questions about what it means to volunteer in the 21st-century economy. Some—including, apparently, the Labor Department—believe it is illegal for a private business to receive an ounce of help without providing financial compensation. But as our business model shows, there are situations in which volunteering is mutually beneficial, even without money changing hands. Besides, if someone wants to spend a weekend helping families find affordable clothes and toys, why on earth would the federal government stop them?

If a friend of mine opens a store and I volunteer to paint the walls for him, am I breaking a law? This is clearly an example of government overreach. Hopefully the courts will eventually decide this in the right way, but it is a shame that the government has chosen to harass  Mrs. Riner for her efforts to help make children’s clothes more affordable.

The Problem Is Not The Income

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an article yesterday about the amount of tax revenue the federal government collected for fiscal 2015. The good news is that the government collected a record amount of money–$3.249 trillion. That is an 8 percent increase in revenues for the year. The bad news is that the government still managed to spend more than it took in. The budget deficit was $435 billion–a decline of $48 billion. The article notes that although the decline is small, it is huge for the seventh year of what the government claims is an expansion. The article also notes that inflation is growing by less than 2 percent.

The article reports:

The reason for the small decline is that spending for the fiscal year climbed 5.2% to $3.685 trillion. That increase came even though defense spending fell $16 billion, or 2.7%, thanks to the drawdown in Afghanistan.

The spending burst included a 16.1%, or $49 billion, increase in Medicaid for the first full year of ObamaCare. Medicaid spending has climbed $85 billion to $350 billion in two years, and that’s with 19 states declining to join.

The Congressional Budget Office also cites a $30 billion, or 51%, spending increase for the Department of Education—“mostly because of an $18 billion upward revision in the estimated net subsidy costs of student loans and loan guarantees issued in past years.” Translation: Mr. Obama’s takeover of the student-loan business is costing far more money than advertised, probably due to growing defaults.

Let’s put these numbers together. Inflation is less than 2 percent. There was an 8 percent increase in revenues collected by the federal government. There was a $435 billion deficit. These numbers are unsustainable. They will assure the destruction of America. We need to elect people to Congress and the White House who will cut government spending. It is a national disgrace to have an 8 percent increase in revenues and still have a deficit. It is time for any rational members of Congress to demand a spending cut.

The Legal Double Standard

Posted on by

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal posted an article about Kim Davis, the county clerk for Kentucky’s Rowan Country.Ms. Davis is now in jail because she refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples because it was against her religious beliefs. There are some people who believe that because she is an elected official, her religious beliefs are not allowed to influence the way she does her job, but there is a bit of inconsistency here.

The article reports:

We don’t recall President Obama insisting on “the rule of law” when his then Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced in 2011 that he wouldn’t defend challenges to what was then the law—the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton—in the courts. Nor did we hear about upholding the law when mayors such as Gavin Newsom in San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state laws.

Officials such as Messrs. Holder and Newsom were as guilty as Ms. Davis of elevating personal preferences over the law. Yet they were lionized by those now holding up an obscure Kentucky clerk as a national villain. Meanwhile, five of Rowan County’s six deputy clerks say they will start processing licenses for same-sex couples Friday, but Miss Davis says she will not authorize them.

I don’t have the answer to this dilemma. I do believe religious beliefs should be protected, but I am not sure how that would play out in this situation. I suspect our Founding Fathers would come down on the side of Ms. Davis. However, the past behavior of the Obama Administration seems to indicate that if you disagree with a law, you don’t have to enforce (or follow) it. Obviously you can’t have it both ways.

When Government Gets Involved…

Posted on by

On a recent trip to a local restaurant where you order at the counter, my husband noticed the addition of about five or six order kiosks. They were sort of cute, and looked as if they might be fun to operate. I didn’t really think anything about it under I read an editorial in today’s Wall Street Journal.

The editorial is entitled, “Another Minimum Wage Backfire.” President Obama has supported raising the minimum wage, and a number of states have raised it on their own. Now we are beginning to see the impact of raising the minimum wage.

The editorial reports:

Last week the Wendy’s Company did a public service on its second-quarter earnings call by explaining how mandated wage hikes will lead to fewer jobs for the low-skill workers that progressives claim to be helping.

First, CFO Todd Penegor talked about the pressure to pay higher wages and said that “we continue to look at initiatives and how we work to offset any impacts of future wage inflation through technology initiatives, whether that’s customer self-order kiosks, whether that’s automating more in the back of the house in the restaurant. And you’ll see a lot more coming on that front later this year from us.”

Translated loosely, that says that Wendy’s is a business who does business to make a profit. The company will do whatever it has to do to keep making a profit and keep its stockholders happy. If people lose their jobs because of federal regulations, that is unfortunate, but the blame should be on the federal regulators–not the company.

I would like to note here that the reason the unions like higher wages is that they feel that if the minimum wage is higher, unions can ask for higher wages when they bargain. However, an increased minimum wage will have a strong impact on the food industry because that is the industry where many teenagers get their first jobs as busboys, kitchen workers, etc. More of these jobs will be replaced by machines, and less teenagers will have the experience of having a first job. An increased minimum wage will also cause an increase in prices in many of the restaurants that are still inexpensive enough to bring the whole family.

Raising the minimum wage is another idea that although it it well meaning, does not consider the law of unintended consequences. Very few people are supporting families on minimum wage jobs, generally these jobs are entry level jobs for people just entering the job market. Raising the minimum wage does not accomplish anything–it simply takes away the opportunity for teenagers to begin a working career.

Spending Money We Don’t Have On Something We Don’t Need To Do

Posted on by

On Monday The Wall Street Journal reported that President Obama plans to restore funds for prisoners to get Pell Grants for college.

The article reports:

The plan, set to be unveiled Friday by the secretary of education and the attorney general, would allow potentially thousands of inmates in the U.S. to gain access to Pell grants, the main form of federal aid for low-income college students. The grants cover up to $5,775 a year in tuition, fees, books and other education-related expenses.

Prisoners received $34 million in Pell grants in 1993, according to figures the Department of Education provided to Congress at the time. But a year later, Congress prohibited state and federal prison inmates from getting Pell grants as part of broad anticrime legislation, leading to a sharp drop in the number of in-prison college programs. Supporters of the ban contended federal aid should only go to law-abiding citizens.

Shouldn’t Congress be the group to make this decision? The goal is to educate prisoners so that they can get jobs when they leave prison. The theory is that an educated prisoner is less likely to return to prison. That is the theory, but it seems to me that this is another example of rewarding bad behavior. What about the middle-class families struggling to pay for their children’s education? Shouldn’t we make more money available to them rather than to prisoners?

The article reports:

Stephen Steurer, head of the Correctional Education Association, an advocacy group, said two Education Department officials told him at a conferenceearly this month the agency was moving to restore Pell grants for prisoners and allow many colleges and universities to participate. Money from the grants would directly reimburse institutions for the cost of delivering courses in prisons rather than go to prisoners, Mr. Steurer said.

“It will be substantial enough to create some data and to create enough information for some evaluation,” said Rep. Danny Davis (D., Ill.), who is co-sponsoring a bill with Rep. Donna Edwards (D., Md.) to permanently restore Pell grants for prisoners.

Let’s let Congress vote on this bill–it shouldn’t be done by the President.

Oh, What A Tangled Web We Weave…

Posted on by

The real advantage to telling the truth is that you don’t have to remember what you said. As you get older, that matters. Today The Wall Street Journal posted an story by Kimberley Strassel showing how lies about her emails are becoming a problem for former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ms. Strassel notes that nothing Mrs. Clinton has previously stated about her emails has turned out to be true.

The article cites a few problem areas:

The Democratic presidential aspirant on March 10 held a press conference pitched as her first and last word on the revelation that she’d used a private email server while secretary of state. She told reporters that she’d turned over to the State Department “all my emails that could possibly be work-related.” And she insisted that she “did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.”

Both of those statements have been proven to be false. Ms. Strassel points out that as a result the Benghazi probe, Sidney Blumenthal was forced to turn over his emails, which revealed work-related emails that had not been disclosed. Mr. Blumenthal’s emails also revealed that the emails Mrs. Clinton turned over had been altered–work related sentences and paragraphs had been removed.

Since Mrs. Clinton began turning over her emails, some of them have been designated ‘classified.’

The article points out:

We also know that the State Department has now upgraded at least 25 of Mrs. Clinton’s emails to “classified” status. State is suggesting this is no big deal, noting that it is “routine” to upgrade material during the public-disclosure process. But that’s beside the point. This isn’t about after-the-fact disclosure. It’s about security at the time—whether Mrs. Clinton was sending and storing sensitive government information on a hackable private email system. Turns out, she was. For the record, it is a federal crime to “knowingly” house classified information at an “unauthorized location.”

From what we know so far, Mrs. Clinton is guilty of a crime. However, because she is not Richard Nixon and there is no contemporary Woodward or Bernstein who are going to inform the general public as to what is going on, she is not at risk of being held accountable. This is another example of the American media choosing not to do its job. Our nation needs a media that holds our leaders accountable. Right now we don’t have one.

When State And Local Governments Are Totally Out Of Control

Posted on by

Yesterday Cindy Archer posted an article in the Wall Street Journal explaining why she has filed a civil-rights lawsuit against Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm.

This lawsuit is the result of serious abuses of power by the District Attorney in an effort to intimidate and silence supporters of Scott Walker as Governor. Please follow the link above to read the background on the story. I am going to focus on some of the abuses of power by the District Attorney and his political allies.

Ms. Archer chronicles some of the events:

Nothing could have prepared me for waking up to the shouts of men with battering rams announcing that they were about to break down my door on that morning in 2011. It was so unexpected and frightening that I ran down from my bedroom without clothes on. Panicked by the threatened show of force, I was then humiliated as officers outside the window yelled at me to get dressed and open up. I quickly retrieved clothing and dressed as I unlocked the door.

Agents with weapons drawn swarmed through every part of the house. They barged into the bathroom where my partner was showering. I was told to shut up and sit down. The officers rummaged through drawers, cabinets and closets. Their aggressive assault on my home seemed more appropriate for a dangerous criminal, not a longtime public servant with no criminal history.

After they left, I surveyed the damage. Drawers and closets had been ransacked. My deceased mother’s belongings were strewn across the floor. Neighbors gathered in small clusters at the end of their driveways and the press arrived in force.

What had prompted the raid? My guess: As an adviser to Gov. Walker, I had played a lead role in drafting and implementing public-employee labor reforms that would propel him to the national stage.

No American should be treated this way.

Unfortunately, that was not the end of her ordeal:

In the months following the raid, I was interrogated by the district attorney’s deputies numerous times on a variety of topics related to the governor’s tenure as Milwaukee county executive, but I was never charged with a crime. I faced seven grueling confrontations that seemed designed simply to intimidate and harass me into providing damaging information about Gov. Walker—though I had none.

I have also been subjected to derogatory headlines and made the butt of jokes on talk radio and anti-Walker websites about everything from my personal appearance to my sexual orientation and mental stability. Neighbors became distant and suspicious.

Ms. Archer concludes:

My reputation and career have been damaged beyond repair. But knowing what I now know, there is a clear legal path forward. There should be no place in America where powerful law-enforcement officials are allowed to misuse their offices for political purposes.

American voters need to wake up and see what is happening to our political system. It has been taken over by thugs and bullies who do not care about our representative republic–they care simply about their own power and preserving it. It is time to get out the broom and do a clean sweep of those local, state, and federal officials who do not understand that they are supposed to represent the people and serve at the will of the people.

Coming Down On The Wrong Side Of History

Posted on by

I don’t claim to be a historian,  but I believe in the Bible. Genesis 12:3 (and also a few other places) says in referring to Israel, “I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse; and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you.” I am not going to argue with something that is stated in the Bible more than once. Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court has made a decision that could easily be considered less than a blessing to Israel.

The Wall Street Journal reported today:

Liberals have spent four decades condemning the Imperial Presidency—and especially the depredations of the Bush-Cheney regime—but all of a sudden they are celebrating the Supreme Court for its Jerusalem passports decision on Monday. We guess the “unitary executive” is fine as long as he happens to be a Democrat.

Those of us with more respect for the Constitution’s separation of powers think Zivotofsky v. Kerry is a closer legal call. But the decision is still the right constitutional resolution to a long-running dispute between Congress and the executive branch about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

…This judicial outcome is highly unusual. For the first time in U.S. history the Court has sided with a President openly defying an act of Congress related to foreign affairs.

CBN News reported today:

Palestinian Authority leaders praised Monday’s Supreme Court ruling disallowing Americans born in Jerusalem to list Israel as the country of birth on their passports, saying it clarified that “Jerusalem is occupied territory.”

“It is a clear message to the Israeli government that its decisions and measures in occupying and annexing Jerusalem are illegal and void and that it should immediately stop these measures because it’s a clear violation of the international law,” P.A. chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said.

President Barack Obama also welcomed the decision as affirming his power to set the nation’s foreign policy, while demonstrating his neutrality in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

There is nothing neutral in refusing to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Last week I posted an article detailing the history of Israel beginning with the granting of the land of Israel (then called Palestine) to the Jews in 1921. The article included the following map:

The current demand for a Palestinian state is garbage. Transjordan (now Jordan) was set up to be a Palestinian state. That land was taken away from Israel (it was given to Israel in the original Balfour Declaration) in 1921.

The most telling quote in this whole distortion of history we are currently dealing with comes from Walid Shoebat, who stated, “One day during the 1960’s I went to bed a Jordanian Muslim, and when I woke up the next morning, I was informed that I was now a Palestinian Muslim, and that I was no longer a Jordanian Muslim”

The issue of a Palestinian state in land that belongs to Israel is nothing more than a plan on the part of the Arab nations to drive Israel into the sea.

As I have stated in previous articles:

Palestine was the name given to Israel at that time.  Transjordan was originally to be given to the Jewish state, but Britain reneged on its promise and gave the land to the Arabs instead.  In 1921, the Arab representative responsible for the above division of the land, Emir Feisal, agreed to abandon all claims of his father to Western Palelstine if he secured Iraq and Eastern Palestine as Arab terrorities.  We saw how well he kept this agreement. These are the borders set up for the nation of Israel.  The 1949 borders were simply an armistice.

After the nation of Israel was declared, the Arabs invaded and took control of the Old City of Jerusalem. During the time the Arabs controlled the Old City, Jews were barred from their holiest sites. Unfortunately, past behavior is often an indication of future behavior.

Why are we attempting to create another terrorist state? We are definitely on the wrong side of history with this decision.

Another Reason To Oppose An Increase In The Gasoline Tax

Posted on by

I have previously stated my objection to raising the tax on gasoline now that the price per gallon has dropped–the gas tax is much more of a burden on lower income people than on the upper middle class. As much as I do think tax burdens should be somewhat equal, I don’t like to see people spend a major portion of their income just getting to work. When the price of gasoline dropped, I think everyone breathed a sigh of relief–it was like getting a tax rebate. Now Congress is ready to mess that up.

The Wall Street Journal posted an article today explaining where the money paid in gasoline taxes has been spent. Because we are hearing cries about our crumbling infrastructure, you would think that the gasoline tax money would be spent on roads. Think again.

The article reports:

But before considering any policy that would raise additional revenue, Congress should first reform where the fund’s money goes. The Highway Trust Fund now pays for a plethora of projects that have little to do with highways. According to a 2013 analysis by the Heritage Foundation, at least 20% of gas-tax revenues in recent years went toward other programs, from light rail to bike lanes to landscaping projects. Some funds even went toward establishing transportation museums.

Hence the financial problems. According to an editorial in this newspaper, spending on non-highway projects has increased by nearly 40% since 2008, while highway-related spending has remained flat. If Congress directed the fund to spend its money only on highways and other road-related infrastructure—what it was initially created to do—it would be 98% solvent for the next decade.

This is the perfect picture of the problem with government spending–the problem is not lack of money–the problem is how the money they have is being spent.

The article concludes:

Higher gas prices, tax-induced or otherwise, also correspond with diminished economic growth. When you and I have more money to spend, we usually do so, benefiting the economy in the process. Financial analysts at Goldman Sachs predict that lower gas prices could add as much as half a percentage point to GDP growth this year. Some of this will be offset by corresponding declines in the oil and gas industry, but the overall effect on America’s economy is still expected to be positive in 2015.

This puts in perspective the first quarter’s lackluster 0.2% economic growth. Without the benefits of lower gas prices, growth could have been even slower, which is the last thing Americans need. When the Highway Trust Fund’s future comes up for congressional debate in the coming weeks, legislators should consider reforming it rather than simply demanding that you and I pay more at the pump.

There are Republicans and Democrats who have authored this bill. Every one of them should be voted out of office at the next opportunity. This is not the time to raise taxes–this is the time to begin to spend responsibly.

A Private State Department?

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an article today about the latest batch of Hillary Clinton’s emails released by the State Department. While there is no ‘smoking gun’ in the emails as such, the emails reveal a State Department that was not run according to the usual chain of command.

The article reports:

In the pre-Memorial Day weekend news dump, long-time Clinton plumber Sidney Blumenthal plays Maxwell Smart, passing along intel on Benghazi from half a world away. Secret Agent Blumenthal apparently derived this wisdom from his new business associates who were attempting to win contracts from Libyan nationals. Mrs. Clinton often circulates the memos among her top diplomats with comments like “useful insight” and “very interesting,” and they would often then push them down the chain of command, without identifying the source.

Mrs. Clinton was the Secretary of State, for heaven’s sake, one of the five most powerful national security positions in the U.S. government. She had the entire State Department intelligence division at her disposal, known as the Bureau of Intelligence and Research or INR, and presumably had access to the 16 other U.S. agencies that make up the intelligence community.

Yet she’s consuming and taking seriously information from an “analyst” who knows nothing about the subject. Mr. Blumenthal’s expertise is in political wet work and monetizing his connections to the Clintons. The imprimatur that Mrs. Clinton’s office put on Mr. Blumenthal’s outside improv offered him a way to influence policy even after the Obama White House had barred Mrs. Clinton from formally hiring him.

It is becoming very obvious that Mrs. Clinton ignored the advice of the White House and played by her own rules.

It is also interesting that the emails the State Department released had certain items redacted that were not redacted in the emails that the New York Times obtained. It is interesting to see what the State Department chose to redact. I strongly suggest following the link above to read the entire article in the Wall Street Journal.

It is obvious to me (and I suspect to any thinking person) that the Clinton emails had been well scrubbed before they were released. It is also obvious that they were released just before Memorial Day when the American public would be least likely to pay attention to them. This is typical of the past behavior of the Clintons and could be expected to be typical of any future behavior should Mrs. Clinton be successful in her bid for the presidency.

The article concludes:

The larger question isn’t Mr. Blumenthal’s faux life of danger. It’s why a potential Commander in Chief invested so much trust in such a figure. The Southern Gothic novel that is Clinton family political history—with its melodrama, betrayals and paranoia—has left them dependent on insular loyalists like Mr. Blumenthal whose opinions are never second-guessed. Voters should know they’d not only be electing Hillary, and Bill, and Chelsea, but this entire menagerie.

The Voters In Illinois Are Being Hoisted On Their Own Petard

Posted on by

Yesterday the Wall Street Journal posted an article about what is happening with public employee pension funds in Illinois. To quote a Chicago pastor, “The chickens are coming home to roost.”

The article reports:

The Constitution is not a suicide pact—except maybe in Illinois. On Friday the Illinois Supreme Court struck down modest pension reforms as a violation of the state constitution in a decision that tees up state taxpayers for years of tax increases.

The Court stated that the pensions were a contract “the benefits of which shall not be diminished or impaired.”

So where did this begin? It began with a very cozy relationship between unions and Democrat politicians. Politicians promised the unions benefits that could not be sustained in exchange for the support of the unions.

The article explains:

Less than 40% of the increase in the state’s unfunded liability since 1995 is due to inadequate payments. The rest is due mainly to benefit growth and faulty actuarial assumptions such as investment rate of return.

The 2013 reforms at issue capped salaries of current workers that are used to calculate pensions at $110,600 (with a carve-out for collectively bargained increases) and raised the retirement age for workers in their 20s to the ripe, old age of 60. Compounded 3% annual cost-of-living increases were also tweaked for younger workers, a modification that courts in nearly every other state have upheld.

The article concludes:

All of this means that Illinois and its municipalities may soon have little choice but to raise taxes or restructure debts to pay for pensions. Chicago, whose credit rating is two notches above junk, faces a $20 billion unfunded liability for pensions and $1.1 billion balloon payment next year. Unions (and perhaps investors) were counting on a state bailout, but now they will probably beg Washington for a rescue.

Republican Governor Bruce Rauner has floated an alternative: a state constitutional amendment allowing pension modifications, which would require a public referendum and two-thirds vote of the legislature. Barring that, Illinois taxpayers may want to start contemplating Indiana or Florida residency.

The voters of Illinois have brought this upon themselves. In case you are in another state and laughing at their plight, don’t laugh too hard–this may be coming to your city or state soon. Most states and cities have unfunded mandates involving pensions for public employees which were given in union negotiations with politicians in exchange for union support. There has been a very unhealthy alliance between public employee unions and Democrat politicians for years in many cities and states. Although the Democrats and unions share a good part of the blame for this mess, the ultimate responsibility rests with the voters.

A representative republic needs informed voters. If voters are not informed, they are at the mercy of alliances such as these.

The Jobs Report In Wisconsin

Posted on by

Right now, Scott Walker is the top Republican fund raiser in the Presidential primary. He is also a favorite of the conservatives, which makes him a prime target of attack for the Clinton machine and anyone out there on the liberal side of the spectrum that has designs on the presidency. Get ready for the attacks–here are some of the facts.

Today’s Wall Street Journal posted an article about his record on employment in Wisconsin. Scott Walker took office in 2011. He faced a recall almost immediately, which he won. Despite the opposition, he continued his policies of cutting spending and lowering taxes.

The article reports the results:

Yet Wisconsin’s employment-population ratio has jumped 2.5%—significantly more than the national improvement rate. Wisconsin is also gaining ground against other states. In February 2011 Wisconsin ranked 12th in employment-population ratio. It now ranks ninth.

…The U.S. employment-population ratio has grown 1.5% since Mr. Walker took charge.

The article further explains:

Some will rightly point out that the unemployment rate fails to account for people who can’t find a job and stop searching. And so a low unemployment rate is more meaningful if it is accompanied by high participation in the labor force. Since February 2011, the national labor-force participation rate has dropped to 62.7%, from 64.2%. Wisconsin’s rate, much healthier than the national average, has also declined but by significantly less, to 68.4% from 69.1%.

Wisconsin’s current 68.4% labor-force participation rate is particularly noteworthy because it represents an uptick over the past year from a low of 68.1%. Nationally, the average labor-force participation rate has declined to lows last seen during the Carter administration.

Given that Wisconsin’s unemployment has dropped to 4.6% from 5.6% in the past year, the state is in the enviable position of having lowered unemployment while increasing labor-force participation. Not surprisingly, this has helped Wisconsin move up to eighth place in state labor-force participation, from 12th in 2011.

Keep these figures in mind as you hear the attacks on Scott Walker that will be coming from the political left. I have not yet made up my mind as to whom I am supporting in the Republican presidential primary, but these are impressive statistics.

Losing Friends In The Middle East

Posted on by

Yesterday The Wall Street Journal posted an article about shifting alliances in the Middle East. The article pointed out that Israel and Saudi Arabia have both had strained relationships with America under President Obama.

The article comments on both of these relationships:

Each relationship would become special in its own way: one based on the need to protect access to Saudi oil and stability in the Persian Gulf; the other driven by support for a Jewish state in the wake of the Nazi genocide and what would increasingly be seen as shared values and interests with the region’s only democracy. Over the years there were significant tensions in both relationships, but more predictability and consistency were demonstrated than change.

Shifts in the Middle East have produced unprecedented stresses in both relationships. The Arab Spring, particularly the fall of Hosni Mubarak and perceptions that the Obama administration had facilitated his ouster, alienated the stability-driven Saudis. Growing tensions between the Netanyahu government and the Obama administration on settlements and the peace process strained U.S.-Israeli ties.

There are still read questions about the role President Obama played in the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and the support of the Muslim Brotherhood government that replaced him. When the government of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was ousted, Washington voiced its displeasure.

The article concludes:

The administration’s view that Iran may hold the key to stability on the nuclear issue, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen has opened a divide with traditional allies who see things quite differently. As the administration looks more and more toward Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia will look beyond Barack Obama–biding their time, furthering their own agendas, and hoping that the next president, regardless of party, will see Tehran in a different light.

Unfortunately it will take some time to repair the damage done both internationally and nationally by President Obama and his policies. Hopefully the next President will be up to the task and will bring change instead of more of the same.

The Neighborhood Bully Meets His Match

Posted on by

One of the unpleasant outcomes of the financial crisis of 2008 is the way the Obama Administration has treated many of the banks who wrote some of the bad mortgages. Never mind that many of the bad mortgages were required to be written because of government regulations regarding discrimination or that some of the leading Democrats in Congress were making sure that bad loans were continually being made, the Obama Administration is going to make the big banks pay for bad policy on the part of the government. Well, one bank has decided to stand up to the bully that the federal government has become.

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the Japanese bank Nomura is refusing to settle out of court in a case brought against them by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

The article reports:

The claim is that Fan and Fred—the government-created dominators of the mortgage market—were unwitting victims of the banks. To believe this fairy tale, you have to ignore the findings of a bipartisan congressional inquiry, as well as separate federal lawsuits in which the government is arguing that Fan and Fred did the misleading.

Yet regulators figured that the banks would probably cave to avoid unpleasant publicity and a juror pool angry about bank bailouts. And 17 banks did cave, paying the Beltway bandits nearly $18 billion to make these Little Orphan Fannie claims disappear. Firms like Bank of America , Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan all wrote checks to buy peace with the politicos.

Nomura did not settle out of court and the trial is set for March 16. This is causing the government lawyers to lose no small amount of sleep.

The article reports:

In January the feds dropped their claims for damages. The government claims it can recover as much or more from the “equitable” claims, in which Nomura would merely be required to buy back the securities it sold to Fan and Fred. But Nomura says the damage claims were the most lucrative part of the case.

Why would the government want to limit its potential winnings shortly before the trial? Well, because abandoning damage claims lets the government avoid a jury trial. That means leaving it all to federal Judge Denise Cote, who is well known for tilting toward the government against business and has been siding with the feds in pre-trial rulings.

FHFA’s lawyer explained in a recent filing that a “bench trial clearly would conserve time and assets.” That may be true. But when the defendant is a large multinational bank and the government doesn’t want to face a jury in this era of public anger at big banks, that tells you how much confidence the feds have in their case.

This trial could be very interesting. Last fall, Nomura Bank offered evidence to show that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac went shopping for sub-prime mortgages in order to align themselves with their political partners.

It would be nice to see this go before a jury that would get a chance to see the true facts of the case. The Obama Administration has engaged in shakedowns of anyone they think they can get money from or anyone they consider a political enemy. It would be nice to see that practice end.

Ethics Are Always A Bit Of A Challenge With The Clintons

Posted on by

After Bill Clinton left office, he set up the William J. Clinton Foundation, now called the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation. The Foundation, under whatever name, has had some interesting challenges along the way.

Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal posted an article which included the following:

The Clinton Foundation has dropped its self-imposed ban on collecting funds from foreign governments and is winning contributions at an accelerating rate, raising ethical questions as Hillary Clinton ramps up her expected bid for the presidency.

Recent donors include the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Australia, Germany and a Canadian government agency promoting the Keystone XL pipeline.

In 2009, the Clinton Foundation stopped raising money from foreign governments after Mrs. Clinton became secretary of state. Former President Bill Clinton, who ran the foundation while his wife was at the State Department, agreed to the gift ban at the behest of the Obama administration, which worried about a secretary of state’s husband raising millions while she represented U.S. interests abroad.

The ban wasn’t absolute; some foreign government donations were permitted for ongoing programs approved by State Department ethics officials.

As Mrs. Clinton prepares to run for President, foreign donations are again coming in.

The foundation did not announce the foreign donations, The Wall Street Journal had to look for them:

The donations weren’t announced by the foundation and were discovered by The Wall Street Journal during a search of donations of more than $50,000 posted on the foundation’s online database. Exactly when the website was updated isn’t clear. The foundation typically updates its website with the previous year’s donations near the beginning of the year. All 2014 donations were noted with asterisks.

The dangers here are obvious–if a country wanted to curry favor with President Hillary Clinton (or gain access to the President), all they would have to do would be make a large donation to the foundation. Whether it is decided that this is legal or not, it is another example of the Clinton family being involved in financial activities that are questionable at best. Do we really want these ethically challenged people back in the White House?

Overregulation And The Little Guy

Posted on by

The Wall Street Journal posted an editorial this morning about the 2010 Dodd Frank law. The law is a mass of overregulation put in place after the financial crisis of 2008 that actually does nothing related to the cause of the financial crisis of 2008. (If you still believe the mainstream media about the financial meltdown of 2008, I suggest you watch the this video.) Dodd Frank is sheer legislative mush that accomplished nothing, written and sponsored by some of the people who caused the problem in the first place. Well, wait a minute, it actually did accomplish something.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) are treating the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law as holy writ because she says it punishes the big banks. But then why is Lloyd Blankfein so content? On Tuesday at an investor conference, the Goldman Sachs CEO explained how higher regulatory costs are crushing the competition.

“More intense regulatory and technology requirements have raised the barriers to entry higher than at any other time in modern history,” said Mr. Blankfein. “This is an expensive business to be in, if you don’t have the market share in scale. Consider the numerous business exits that have been announced by our peers as they reassessed their competitive positioning and relative returns.”

The real problem with overregulation is that it leads to crony capitalism. Dodd Frank is another example of the government passing laws that make it harder for the average American to create and run a business.

Net Neutrality

Posted on by

I haven’t written much about net neutrality because I haven’t understood it, but last night Hugh Hewitt explained it in a way that made sense (Hugh Hewitt, Salem Radio, 6-9 pm on the east coast).

The bottom line is simple–because the government has not yet regulated the internet, it has been free to grow and prosper. If the government is successful in its effort to treat the internet as simply another utility, we will all suffer–higher prices, censorship, crony capitalism, etc.

The Wall Street Journal posted an article yesterday explaining what is going on:

Last week Washington abandoned open innovation when the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission yielded to President Obama ’s demands and moved to regulate the freewheeling Internet under the same laws that applied to the Ma Bell monopoly. Unless these reactionary regulations are stopped, they spell the end of the permissionless innovation that built today’s Internet.

Until now, anyone could launch new websites, apps and mobile devices without having to lobby a regulator for permission. That was thanks to a Clinton-era bipartisan consensus that the Internet shouldn’t be treated as a public utility. Congress and the White House under both parties kept the FCC from applying the hoary regulations that micromanaged the phone system, which would have frozen innovation online.

Last week’s announcement from FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler rejects 20 years of open innovation by submitting the Internet to Title II of the Communications Act of 1934. Once Mr. Wheeler and the commission’s Democratic majority vote this month to apply Title II, the regulations will give them staggering control. Any Internet “charges” and “practices” that the bureaucrats find “unjust or unreasonable is declared to be unlawful.”

So what would ‘net neutrality’ mean to you and me? It could mean regulators micromanaging Google searches, regulating blog content (I take that one personally), the government overseeing Facebook, etc. Sounds like fun, doesn’t it?

There is a way to stop this. As soon as the Republicans pass a budget, they can begin working on appropriations. They have the power to block the Net Neutrality power grab in the appropriations process. If you want to be part of stopping this nightmare, I suggest you call your Representative and Senator and recommend a speedy passage of the budget and appropriations.