Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Consumer protection confermation
President Barack Obama isn't backing down from demanding that Republicans confirm his pick to head a new consumer watchdog office, saying GOP lawmakers are depriving middle-class Americans of better protection against the kind of deceptive business practices that contributed to the financial meltdown.
Every day that the country must wait for a director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board "is another day that dishonest businesses can target and take advantage of students, seniors and service members," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.
"So I refuse to take `no' for an answer. Financial institutions have plenty of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them. It's time consumers had someone on their side."
Senate Republicans this past week blocked Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, to lead an agency they said had been given too much power and too little accountability.
Without a director, the office designed to shield consumers from the excesses behind the 2008 financial crisis is unable to operate at full strength.
With voters set to begin selecting a Republican presidential nominee in less than a month, Obama suggested the disagreement is another example of two parties who see fairness very differently. He said a consumer watchdog agency is critical to protecting ordinary Americans from the greed of the financial sector.
Every day that the country must wait for a director of the Consumer Financial Protection Board "is another day that dishonest businesses can target and take advantage of students, seniors and service members," Obama said Saturday in his weekly radio and Internet address.
"So I refuse to take `no' for an answer. Financial institutions have plenty of high-powered lawyers and lobbyists looking out for them. It's time consumers had someone on their side."
Senate Republicans this past week blocked Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, to lead an agency they said had been given too much power and too little accountability.
Without a director, the office designed to shield consumers from the excesses behind the 2008 financial crisis is unable to operate at full strength.
With voters set to begin selecting a Republican presidential nominee in less than a month, Obama suggested the disagreement is another example of two parties who see fairness very differently. He said a consumer watchdog agency is critical to protecting ordinary Americans from the greed of the financial sector.
Monday, December 5, 2011
The internet as we know it is under attack
Not just from SOPA the sweeping bill in congress that would limit what you can and cannot see on the internet but also from COICA a bill Republicans and Democrats alike -- have signed onto. It would vastly expand the government's power to censor the Internet.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.
COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.
The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.
One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.
But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.
Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.)
COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship.
The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act. If people don't speak out, US citizens could soon find themselves joining Iranians and Chinese in being blocked from accessing broad chunks of the public Internet.
COICA creates two blacklists of Internet domain names. Courts could add sites to the first list; the Attorney General would have control over the second. Internet service providers and others (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the good favor of the government) if they block domains on the second list.
The lists are for sites "dedicated to infringing activity," but that's defined very broadly -- any domain name where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are "central to the activity of the Internet site" could be blocked.
One example of what this means in practice: sites like YouTube could be censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom often argue copyrighted material is central to the activity of YouTube, but under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost to YouTube in court.
But if COICA passes, Viacom wouldn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal to get it shut down -- as long as they can persuade the courts that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, the whole site could be censored.
Perhaps even more disturbing: Even if Viacom couldn't get a court to compel censorship of a YouTube or a similar site, the DOJ could put it on the second blacklist and encourage ISPs to block it even without a court order. (ISPs have ample reason to abide the will of the powerful DOJ, even if the law doesn't formally require them to do so.)
COICA's passage would be a tremendous blow to free speech on the Internet -- and likely a first step towards much broader online censorship.
Why cutting federal jobs is a bad idea
Earlier this week, Senate Republicans rolled out their proposal for financing an extension of the Social Security payroll tax cut scheduled to expire at the end of December. Disappointingly, the conservative counteroffer is to pay for this job creation measure by cutting federal employees' jobs and wages. The "pay-for" proposed by Senate Democrats -- a 3.25 percent surtax on the 1-in-500 households earning over $1 million -- for an expansion of the payroll tax cut is anathema to conservatives; Senate Republicans have already filibustered a litany of job-creation proposals that would be financed by varying millionaire surtaxes. Last night, the Senate Republicans filibustered yet another such jobs package -- both the proposed extension and expansion were rejected in the Senate.
The Senate Republican proposal would limit federal agencies to hiring only one replacement employee for every three full-time employees leaving the agency until employment has fallen by 10 percent. This would result in roughly 280,000 job losses -- ironic, given that the purpose of the payroll tax cut is to create jobs. Someone should remind the GOP that the purpose of a pay-for is to offset the cost of a policy, not its impact.
Laying off hundreds of thousands of federal workers is terrible policy for reasons beyond causing job loss during a jobs crisis. First, it ignores the need to keep up with a growing population. These civil service jobs deemed unnecessary by Senate Republicans include one out of 10 federal judges, FBI agents, Veterans Affairs doctors, National Institutes of Health cancer researchers, food safety inspectors, and air traffic controllers, to name just a few.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Republicans again back the rich against the middle class
The Senate failed Thursday to pass an extension of a payroll tax cut, leaving in limbo a break that saved working class households about $1,000 apiece this year.
Democrats sought to extend and expand the break, while paying for it with a 3.25 percent surtax on incomes over $1 million. Just one Senate Republican, Maine's Susan Collins, voted for the middle class break, which died 51 to 49 in an unsuccessful effort to end a Republican filibuster. Three Democrats opposed the bill.
"I am extremely disappointed that Republicans' insistence on protecting millionaires from paying a penny more in taxes has blocked our effort to extend and expand the payroll tax cut for millions of middle class families and small business owners," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.).
Minutes later, a Republican version of the measure was blocked by Democrats and a majority of the GOP senators.
Democrats had complained that it was too small of a break -- and that it was paid for by cutting 200,000 federal workers.
"Tonight's votes highlight a sharp contrast between the two parties: Democrats voted to put more money in the pockets of the middle class families who need it most, while Republicans would only support a bill that exacts a price from middle class workers while protecting the wealthiest Americans," Murray, the fourth-ranking Democrat, said.
Democrats pointed to the defection of Republicans from the GOP bill as an embarrassment for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who had predicted there would be support for some sort of payroll tax cut extension.
Friday, December 2, 2011
More US Soldiers Committed Suicide Than Died in Combat
re-posted from projectcensored.org
For the second year (2010) in a row, more US soldiers killed themselves (468) than died in combat (462). “If you… know the one thing that causes people to commit suicide, please let us know,” General Peter Chiarelli told the Army Times, “because we don’t know.” Suicide is a tragic but predictable human reaction to being asked to kill – and watch your friends be killed – for a war based on lies. Perhaps being forced to bag the mangled flesh of fellow soldiers could be another reason why some are committing suicide.
Read the full article here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)