The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time
by Al Franken
U.S. Senator, Minnesota: December 20, 2010
This Tuesday is an important day in the fight to save the Internet.
As a source of innovation, an engine of our economy, and a forum for our
political discourse, the Internet can only work if it's a truly level
playing field. Small businesses should have the same ability to reach
customers as powerful corporations. A blogger should have the same ability
to find an audience as a media conglomerate.
This principle is called "net neutrality" -- and it's under attack. Internet
service giants like Comcast and Verizon want to offer premium and privileged
access to the Internet for corporations who can afford to pay for it.
The good news is that the Federal Communications Commission has the power to
issue regulations that protect net neutrality. The bad news is that draft
regulations written by FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski don't do that at all.
They're worse than nothing.
That's why Tuesday is such an important day. The FCC will be meeting to
discuss those regulations, and we must make sure that its members understand
that allowing corporations to control the Internet is simply unacceptable.
Although Chairman Genachowski's draft Order has not been made public, early
reports make clear that it falls far short of protecting net neutrality.
For many Americans -- particularly those who live in rural areas -- the
future of the Internet lies in mobile services. But the draft Order would
effectively permit Internet providers to block lawful content, applications,
and devices on mobile Internet connections.
Mobile networks like AT&T and Verizon Wireless would be able to shut off
your access to content or applications for any reason. For instance, Verizon
could prevent you from accessing Google Maps on your phone, forcing you to
use their own mapping program, Verizon Navigator, even if it costs money to
use and isn't nearly as good. Or a mobile provider with a political agenda
could prevent you from downloading an app that connects you with the Obama
campaign (or, for that matter, a Tea Party group in your area).
It gets worse. The FCC has never before explicitly allowed discrimination on
the Internet -- but the draft Order takes a step backwards, merely stating
that so-called "paid prioritization" (the creation of a "fast lane" for big
corporations who can afford to pay for it) is cause for concern.
It sure is -- but that's exactly why the FCC should ban it. Instead, the
draft Order would have the effect of actually relaxing restrictions on this
kind of discrimination.
What's more, even the protections that are established in the draft Order
would be weak because it defines "broadband Internet access service" too
narrowly, making it easy for powerful corporations to get around the rules.
Here's what's most troubling of all. Chairman Genachowski and President
Obama -- who nominated him -- have argued convincingly that they support net
neutrality.
But grassroots supporters of net neutrality are beginning to wonder if we've
been had. Instead of proposing regulations that would truly protect net
neutrality, reports indicate that Chairman Genachowski has been calling the
CEOs of major Internet corporations seeking their public endorsement of this
draft proposal, which would destroy it.
No chairman should be soliciting sign-off from the corporations that his
agency is supposed to regulate -- and no true advocate of a free and open
Internet should be seeking the permission of large media conglomerates
before issuing new rules.
After all, just look at Comcast -- this Internet monolith has reportedly
imposed a new, recurring fee on Level 3 Communications, the company slated
to be the primary online delivery provider for Netflix. That's the same
Netflix that represents Comcast's biggest competition in video services.
Imagine if Comcast customers couldn't watch Netflix, but were limited only
to Comcast's Video On Demand service. Imagine if a cable news network could
get its website to load faster on your computer than your favorite local
political blog. Imagine if big corporations with their own agenda could
decide who wins or loses online. The Internet as we know it would cease to
exist.
That's why net neutrality is the most important free speech issue of our
time. And that's why, this Tuesday, when the FCC meets to discuss this badly
flawed proposal, I'll be watching. If they approve it as is, I'll be
outraged. And you should be, too.
***
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec/18/opinion/la-oe-1218-rutten-20101218
And the rich get richer
Today's Republicans might want to remember that the estate tax's modern
champion was a president they used to regard as among the greatest the party
has produced - Theodore Roosevelt.
by Tim Rutten
LA Times Op-Ed: December 18, 2010|
Of the several objectionable provisions included in the tax compromise that
congressional Republicans extorted from the Obama administration, none is
more noxious than the one that all but guts the estate tax.
Even the needless and unfair continuation of tax reductions for families
making more than a quarter of a million dollars a year merely extends a
benefit already enjoyed by affluent households. Estate tax cuts, by
contrast, create a whole new windfall for those who already enjoy privileges
and security undreamed of by the vast majority of Americans.
The provision is the work of Arizona's John Kyl, the Senate's second-ranking
Republican and a longtime advocate of abolishing the estate tax. To most
eyes, the former estate levy didn't look like much of a burden; it allowed
couples to leave their heirs?$7 million tax free and taxed any additional
inheritance at 45%. Kyl's plan, which he has crowed is as good as abolition,
increases the exemption to $10 million for couples and reduces the tax rate
on the rest to just 35%. The average windfall for the approximately 6,600
wealthy taxpayers annually affected by the estate duty will top? $1.5
million.
Abolishing the estate tax has been a goal of some conservative Republicans
since the 1940s, so it's easy to forget that its modern champion was a
president the GOP used to regard as among the greatest the party has
produced - Theodore Roosevelt. Like many thoughtful Americans of his era, he
believed the disproportionate accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few
would make a mockery of our meritocracy and, ultimately, of our democracy.
In 1910, he summed up those feelings. "We grudge no man a fortune in civil
life if it is honorably obtained and well used," Roosevelt said. "It is not
even enough that it should have been gained without doing damage to the
community. We should permit it to be gained only so long as the gaining
represents benefit to the community.... The really big fortune, the swollen
fortune, by the mere fact of its size, acquires qualities which
differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men
of relatively small means.
Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and . a
graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against
evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate."
In 1916, eight years after Roosevelt left office, Congress finally
recognized the justice of his case and incorporated a levy on estates into
the tax code.
In fact, American governments have taxed estates, at least on a temporary
basis, since the founding. The first estate duty was imposed by the
Federalists to finance the undeclared war with France; Abraham Lincoln
imposed a temporary inheritance tax during the Civil War. It clearly is a
pillar of any rationally progressive tax system, and it is no accident that
it's under assault in what amounts to a new Gilded Age in which wealth is
accumulating with ever-greater rapidity in a smaller and smaller number of
hands. The hereditary advantage such unchecked concentration confers
undermines our notions of equal opportunity and turns the American dream
into little more than a genetic lottery.
Arguments that the existing estate tax frustrates initiative simply are
nonsense. Has anybody noticed a shortage of rich people lately?
It's also no mystery how such advantages are obtained. Again, Roosevelt's
appraisal of the first Gilded Age is sadly resonant. "The man of great
wealth owes a particular obligation to the state," he said, "because he
derives special advantages from the mere existence of government."
It is particularly grotesque that, in this instance, those who derive their
special advantage from the government by reason of the wealth they've
amassed have secured this benefit by holding hostage the meager assistance
Washington affords the one in 10 Americans who currently are jobless. In
California, 12.4% of the workers are unemployed; in L.A. County, where
bankruptcies have risen by 30% over the last year, nearly 13% are jobless.
Of the 15 million Americans who are without work, 42% have been looking for
a job for more than five months. An additional 9 million have been forced to
accept part-time work, though they'd like full-time employment.
Those are the people the Republicans held hostage, so that the children of
the rich might grow fatter still.
No comments:
Post a Comment