Pilot suicides

Yesterday’s revelation that the recent crash of Germanwings Flight 9525 was caused by an apparent pilot suicide shocked the world. First Officer Andreus Lubitz reportedly locked the captain out of the cockpit and calmly flew the airplane with its 150 passengers into the side of a French mountain, killing everyone on board.

The act of suicide by an airline pilot while flying is not common, but has happened more than most people think. The most well-known suicide pilots, the Japanese kamikazes of World War II, carried no passengers, although the September 11 suicide hijackers did. The Aviation Safety Network lists nine crashes dating back to 1976 that were confirmed to be suicides. Additionally, ABC News notes that a Japan Air Lines pilot crashed his DC-8 in 1982, killing 24 people, but surviving the crash himself. Last year’s disappearance of Malaysia Flight 370 is widely believed to have been due to a pilot suicide as well.

Airline suicide crashes are usually not well known because they have primarily occurred in the third world. The sole suicide crash before Germanwings that affected a Western country was EgyptAir 990, which crashed off the island of Nantucket, Mass. in 1999. The American NTSB determined that a relief first officer crashed the plane into the ocean, killing all 217 people on board, but Egypt disputed the conclusion.

For most people, there are strong psychological barriers against killing oneself or others. A pilot who intentionally crashes his plane has obviously overcome these strong taboos against killing and suicide. While pilots are normal people with normal problems, few people who commit suicide do so while taking hundreds of other lives at the same time. Nevertheless, one study cited by Air & Space Magazine found that suicide was suspected in .33 percent of fatal crashes over 20 years. This is slightly more than one crash per year, mostly involving small airplanes.

Flying is a high stress occupation. Being an airline pilot involves long periods of time away from home and family, which leads to a high divorce rate. The airline industry is often unstable and furloughs (layoffs) or demotions can come suddenly and last years, leading to financial problems. Add to that a grueling schedule with irregular work hours, regular flight tests and medical exams that can quickly end a career, and the knowledge that a momentary lapse can kill or lead to a violation by regulatory authorities and it is easy to understand how a pilot could suffer from depression or substance abuse. In spite of the stress, suicide is not demonstrably higher for pilots according to most studies.

“It's a special job. You are working at irregular times; if you have a family, you are often not there [or] may be at home when everyone is at work,” said Dr. Andre Droog, president of the European Association for Aviation Psychology on Voice of America. “If you are flying intercontinental flights, you may build up jet lag and fatigue and of course you have to manage your life very well.”

In spite of policies at many airlines that encourage pilots to self-report addiction or mental health issues, many pilots are fearful that doing so will cost them their jobs. In 2010, the FAA changed its policy to allow pilots to take antidepressants for mild to moderate depression, but the current policy stipulates that approval is on a case-by-case basis and requires successful treatment for six months, during which time they would not be legal to fly. This effectively means that pilots have to either forgo treatment, fly illegally, or take a six month leave of absence.

In Asia, where several suicide crashes have taken place, many airlines now subject their pilots to psychological testing. “They ask about your mental health, about events that could affect you psychologically,” one captain from an Asian airline told CNBC. “But who willingly admits to anything that could lead to a suspension of their license? I won't. I need my job.”

Since airline crewmembers know each other best, flight crews are encouraged to report any potential problems that they observe. In the United States, many pilot unions have professional standards committees to help resolve interpersonal conflicts. Concerned crewmembers can talk to representatives on these committees without involving company representatives and threatening jobs.

“Never leave a person alone - that's probably the most effective suicide prevention technique there is," said Tony Catanese, a clinical psychologist at Glen Iris Psychology in Melbourne on CNBC.

Federal aviation regulations already require that both pilots remain in the cockpit, but contains an exception for “physiological needs.” For flights lasting from six to eight hours, it is unrealistic to assume that neither pilot would ever have to visit the lavatory. On most flights, there are no relief crews to fill the empty seat for a few minutes. Cockpit doors have been strengthened since the September 11 attacks to resist forcible entry, making it difficult for the second pilot to break back in.

One solution might be for a flight attendant enter the cockpit when one pilot leaves. The Flight Attendant would probably not be able to wrestle the controls from a suicidal pilot, but might be able to at least prevent him from locking the other pilot out.

Ultimately, there is no way to effectively prevent any possibility of future airline pilot suicides. At present, even though the shock of the Germanwings crash is still fresh, the problem of suicides by pilots is a tiny statistical blip. The vast majority of airline pilots around the world are professionals who have learned to cope with life’s problems and keep them out of the cockpit.

 

Read the full article on Aviation Examiner

Reasons to NOT vote for Obama

Early voting has already started in many states for this year’s elections. In the rest, Election Day is now only two weeks away. The number of undecided voters is dwindling as most have already decided on which presidential candidate to vote for. This column is directed toward these undecided voters as well those who lean toward President Obama.

The most obvious reason not to vote for President Obama’s reelection is the economy. Even though the economy has officially been recovering for the recession for more than three years, most Americans still do not feel the recovery. Unemployment remains high. The poverty level is higher than it was when President Obama took office. Despite an increase in the U.S. population, fewer Americans are working today than when President Obama was inaugurated. In August, twice as many Americans went on food stamps as found jobs according to Forbes.

Much of the blame for the lagging recovery belongs to President Obama. In spite of his 2008 campaign promises, President Obama has passed a bundle of tax increases for the middle class as well as the wealthy. The most infamous of these is the individual mandate, which was ruled by the Supreme Court to be a tax, but Forbes lists seven additional taxes that hit the middle class. Obamacare itself contains a bevy of new taxes in addition to the individual mandate. Investor’s Business Daily found 20 more taxes totaling more than $675 billion.

In addition to taxes, President Obama has also dramatically increased the number of expensive regulations with which businesses must comply. The American Action Forum estimates that Obama’s regulations, including Obamacare and the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law, cost the economy more than $488 billion. The paperwork required to comply with these regulations is equal to what it would take to build 220 Empire State Buildings.

These factors combine with the federal debt that has increased by more than 40 percent under President Obama and the looming fiscal cliff, which is comprised of even more tax increases coming at the end of this year, to create uncertainty for businesses. This uncertainty and the cost of the tax increases that Obama has promised if he is reelected make businesses hesitant to expand and hire and consumers reluctant to spend.

An additional factor in the country’s economic difficulty is President Obama’s hostility to oil-based energy. As Examiner noted last spring, approvals for drilling permits under President Obama have fallen from 73 percent to 23 percent. Time for approving a permit has increased from 60 days to more than 90. Obama has canceled oil leases issued by the Bush Administration, issued new regulations to discourage fracking, and rejected the Keystone XL pipeline that would bring Canadian oil to U.S. refineries. The cumulative effect of these policies is to drive up the prices of oil and gasoline. High energy prices contribute to the poor state of the economy.

On foreign policy, Obama has had one big success, the killing of Osama bin Laden. His failures are only now becoming apparent. The fiasco and subsequent cover-up surrounding the al Qaeda attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is only the tip of the iceberg. More serious and far-reaching are Obama’s policies regarding Israel and Iran.

President Obama claims to be a friend of Israel, but his actions tell a different story. President Obama seems to see a moral equivalence between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian terrorists. He is the only president to ever propose that Israel go back to its pre-1967 borders. This would leave Israel with an indefensible and narrow frontier. More recently Obama declined to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, and his administration has reportedly pressured Israel not to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.

With respect to Iran, President Obama is fond of pointing to the tough sanctions in place on the rogue regime. What he fails to mention is that congress passed those sanctions over his objection. President Obama also issued 20 waivers to the sanctions. Countries receiving waivers include China, Iran’s largest trading partner. Yahoo News notes that Obama will have to decide whether to renew the sanctions after the election.

Iran is not intimidated by President Obama and or the sanctions. It has scarcely been a year since Iranian agents attempted to assassinate the Saudi ambassador with a terrorist attack in Washington, D.C. In the Jerusalem Post, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is gleeful that America’s debt is weakening the country. “How long can a government with a $16 trillion foreign debt remain a world power?” he asks.

President Obama’s term has also seen the erosion of personal freedom. The freedom not to buy a government mandated product is only the most obvious loss. Freedom of religion has also been disregarded by the administration, most notably in the Health and Human Services mandate that requires all insurance policies to cover contraceptive and abortifacient drugs.

Most disturbing, during and after the September 11 attacks on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the Middle East, the Obama Administration was openly critical of the freedom of speech. Even before the Benghazi consulate was attacked, the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, Egypt released a statement condemning the anti-Islamic film that allegedly sparked the attacks. The text of the statement, available on Politifact, says, “We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.” Fox News reports that when he spoke to the United Nations later in the month, President Obama said that the “future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.” The man responsible for the film was arrested in California on charges that he violated his probation.

If Obama’s record so far is disturbing, even scarier is what might lie ahead. Reuters reported last March that President Obama told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that “This is my last election ... After my election I have more flexibility.” The exchange evidently related to missile defense, but the same logic applies to every controversial issue from abortion to gun control to taxes.

Given that Obama has shown that he is willing to circumvent congress with executive orders, there is no practical limit to what he can do as long as congress does not override his veto. The president has used executive orders or rulemaking by executive branch agencies to change U.S. immigration law, implement net neutrality, and implement a cap-and-trade carbon regulation system. Further, the president unilaterally launched a war in Libya without informing congress and made several recess appointments while congress was still in session.

Some leftists have opined that a benevolent dictator might be what the United States needs to break the gridlock in Washington and get things done. Such an executive, who does not blanch at using his autocratic powers, might very well be what we get in a second Obama term. The problem with this idea is that the American economy is simply too complex to be micromanaged. And a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

Next:  Reasons to vote FOR Mitt Romney

This article was first published on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/article/reasons-to-not-vote-for-obama

Obama and Romney are not the same

(Malwack/Wikimedia)

A common theme heard in the wake of Mitt Romney’s primary victories is that the former Massachusetts governor’s platform is almost indistinguishable from President Obama.  Even a cursory examination of the two men shows that the charge is manifestly untrue. 

Perhaps the most obvious area of apparent similarity is health care reform.  While governor of Massachusetts, Romney presided over the enactment of an individual mandate to purchase health insurance that President Obama has claimed as the inspiration for his own landmark legislation. 

There are important key differences between the Romney and Obama laws.  Not the least of these is the fact that Massachusetts did not face the same limits that the federal government faces under the Constitution.  The federal government is granted certain powers under the Constitution.  The rest are reserved to the states and the people.  The federal government does not have the right to force people to engage in commerce, but the state of Massachusetts may have that power under its state constitution.

The Constitution notwithstanding, many Americans believe that the states should not have the right to mandate the purchase of health insurance or other products.  In Massachusetts however, the reform plan was popular when it passed and remains so.  A poll last year reported by Reuters found that 84 percent of Massachusetts residents are satisfied with the state’s health care reform.  Nevertheless, Romney has repeatedly pledged to repeal Obamacare if elected and block its implementation with an executive order on his first day in office.  Of course, President Obama would block any attempts to repeal his signature achievement and would try to pass a new version if it is struck down by the Supreme Court.

Another obvious difference is in the types of judges that President Romney would appoint.  Because judges serve for life, the impact of judicial appointments will last far beyond the four-year presidential term.  Under Barack Obama’s judicial philosophy, judges should have “empathy” for the poor and be “sensitive to issues of social justice” says the New York Times.  In contrast, GOPprimary2012.com reports that Romney has said that he has a “strict constructionist judicial philosophy.”  As governor of Massachusetts, he appointed lower court judges that were tough on crime.  He reformed the judicial nominating process to make it easier for conservatives to be appointed and named a conservative to the chair of the Judicial Nominating Commission. 

Judge Robert Bork, quoted by GOPprimary2012.com, said in 2008, “No other candidate will do more to advance the conservative judicial movement than Governor Mitt Romney…  [He] is committed to nominating judges who take their oath of office seriously and respect the rule of law in our nation.”

Two of the most pressing issues faced by our country today are the skyrocketing federal debt and the prospect of an Iranian nuclear weapon.  With respect to Iran and its rush to obtain a nuclear weapon, Obama has dragged his feet since his election.  He failed to support the Iranian uprising in 2009 and continued to make diplomatic overtures to the Iranian government.  The president resisted tightening sanctions until pressed by Congress.  President Obama did, however, call an Iranian nuclear weapon “unacceptable” in an interview with The Atlantic and said that a “military component” would be the last option.

In a Republican presidential debate last January, excerpted on 2012.republican-candidates.org, Romney said, “…  If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon.  And if we elect Mitt Romney, if you elect me as the next president, they will not have a nuclear weapon....”  He continued, “I will make sure that the sanctions, diplomatic pressure, economic pressure and support of insurgents within the country help them become dissuaded to get away from their nuclear ambition.”

 

Under President Obama, the federal debt has risen sharply, both in real dollars and as a percentage of GDP.  The president has resisted almost all spending cuts.  His proposed budget for 2013 was a $3.8 trillion package that did not get a single vote, Republican or Democrat, in the House of Representatives. 

Mitt Romney has promised to immediately cut non-defense discretionary spending by five percent across the board.  He supports Rep. Paul Ryan’s budget plan that would reform Medicare while preserving benefits for current retirees, create a simplified income tax system, and reduce non-defense discretionary spending below 2008 levels.  Romney’s goal would be to reduce federal spending below 20 percent of GDP. His campaign website provides a roadmap of cuts to achieve that goal.

Closely related to the issues of spending and debt are taxes and regulation.  President Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal regulation and has made no secret of his desire to raise taxes.  A report by the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee cited by the Washington Examiner states that the Obama Administration has “imposed 75 new major regulations costing more than $380 billion over ten years” and another 219 regulations that will cost $100 million or more. 

 

According to MSNBC, Romney told supporters that he would consolidate or eliminate some departments and agencies of the federal government.  Specifically, he said that he would “either consolidate [the Department of Education] with another agency, or perhaps make it a heck of a lot smaller,” but that he would not eliminate it entirely.  He also hinted that “things like Housing and Urban Development…  might not be around later.”  Romney said that he would “send a lot of what happens in Washington back to the states."

 

Romney also proposes regulatory reform.  His proposal would work to repeal regulations that “unduly burden the economy or job creation.”  He would also require the cost of new regulations to be offset by reducing the regulatory burden elsewhere.  Romney would also propose a law that would require major rules to be approved by both houses of Congress, not delegated to federal bureaucrats via the administrative rulemaking process.

 

Even on social issues there are vast differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney.  Barack Obama has unquestionably been a pro-abortion president and has worked to expand federal funding for abortion.  In contrast, Mitt Romney, who admittedly favored abortion earlier in his career, has converted to the pro-life viewpoint.  NARAL Pro-Choice America notes that Romney supports a constitutional amendment defining that life begins at conception and would defund Planned Parenthood.  Romney also opposes Obama’s contraception and abortifacient mandate.  Romney is endorsed by pro-life groups like the National Right to Life Committee and the Susan B. Anthony List.

 

Similarly, Barack Obama is a strong supporter of same-sex marriage and in 2011 announced his decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court on the grounds that he believed it to be unconstitutional.  Vice President Biden’s recent comments about same-sex marriage may signal that repealing the DOMA will be a priority in Obama’s second term. In contrast, Mitt Romney has made clear that he supports traditional marriage.  He opposed the 2003 decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Court while he was governor and supported a constitutional amendment to preserve traditional marriage there.  In a November 2011 interview linked on 2012.republican-candidates.org, Romney says that he believes that “the Defense of Marriage Act was well constructed and should be maintained.”

Mitt Romney may not be the first choice of many conservatives, but even a cursory example of his platform reveals that his plans for the country are not the same as President Obama’s.  In many policy areas, the two men could not be more different.  For the 62 percent of Americans who believe the country is on the wrong track (according to Rasmussen), the choice should be clear.

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-romney-platforms-could-not-be-more-different

The George Costanza plan to save the economy

A Facebook friend recently objected to my criticisms of President Obama and the Democrat’s handling of the economy. Over the past years and months I have written about many possible solutions to the economic and debt crises that threaten to send the United States into a second recession or worse, a depression.

In a memorable episode of “Seinfeld,” George Costanza decides that since his every instinct is wrong, he should do the opposite of what he would normally do. As Jerry put it, “If every instinct that you have is wrong, then opposite would have to be right.” President Obama has had similar bad instincts on the economy and should adopt a similar strategy. Since President Obama’s fiscal policies have hastened the crisis and dramatically increased the federal debt while at the same time slowing the normal recovery cycle, a good start would be to do the opposite of what he has been doing for the past three years. The opposite of Obama’s past policies would be policies that have worked previously in U.S. history, notably under Presidents Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush.

To this point, President Obama has focused on top-down solutions. These programs have been expensive and ineffective. The opposite would be a new focus on free market solutions in which the government empowers business rather than targeted initiatives and government spending. There are currently 6.2 million people unemployed in the United States according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Another 8.4 million are underemployed because their hours have been cut back or they cannot find a full time job. In Georgia, an estimated 467,000 people are unemployed. Even spending trillions of federal dollars cannot provide jobs for all these people.

Alternatively, history has shown that if the government cuts spending, tax rates, and regulation then the economy will rebound. As the economy grows, demand for products will rise, businesses will expand and hire new workers. The unemployment rate will decline at no cost to the government.

President Obama should avoid his instincts that lead him to look at government spending as a solution to every problem. The federal deficit was a problem long before President Obama took office, but his spending has made it dramatically worse. The U.S. recently received an unprecedented downgrade of its credit rating from Standard and Poors. Downgrades from other rating agencies are likely if the country continues on its current course.

It is time for President Obama to keep his campaign promise to “go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less.” The president should start by eliminating government programs that duplicate the same role or provide the same service. Programs that compete with private businesses or which could be accomplished more efficiently by private business should be cut.

The remaining programs should be examined in light of the government’s Constitutional role. If a program is extra-constitutional (i.e. not mentioned in the Constitution), its existence should be closely examined. Extra-constitutional programs are not necessarily unconstitutional (prohibited to the federal government or reserved to the states), but they are likely a distraction from the government’s primary roles and a cost that the U.S. can no longer afford. There are many good and worthwhile programs that there the U.S. simply does not have the money to pay for any longer.

Any debt reduction must include reform of entitlements. While these programs were originally well-intentioned, they have grown to unmanageable proportions and threaten to bankrupt the federal government. A Wall Street Journal article lists Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the federal debt as the four largest expenditures of the federal government. These four items are more expensive that the combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan or foreign aid to other countries.

Entitlement reform should include making these programs true safety nets rather universal entitlements. People who can afford to pay for their own retirement or health care should be encouraged to do so. For others, the government should implement cost-sharing to encourage price-shopping and reduce consumption. As life expectancies increase, the retirement age must be increased. The programs should be closely policed for fraud and abusers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Thus far, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin is the only politician of either party to submit a detailed plan for entitlement reform. Ryan’s plan would not affect benefits for current retirees. Vouchers for private insurance would be phased in over time and would give seniors a choice in the health insurance. Medicaid would be transformed into block grants that would encourage states to find savings and efficiencies. Younger workers would be given the option to place part of their Social Security tax into a private retirement account, rather than depending on the soon-to-be-bankrupt Social Security program.

President Obama should resist his impulse to call for higher taxes and more shared sacrifice. In a fragile economy such as this, raising taxes will guarantee another recession. Ironically, as the economy shrinks from the recession, federal tax revenues will actually decline even with higher tax rates.

The best way to boost tax revenues is through reform of the tax system to grow the economy. When state and local taxes are included with federal taxes, the U.S. tax burden is higher than many other countries. The U.S. corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world. Reforming the tax system with lower rates and fewer deductions would make the U.S. more competitive internationally while simultaneously lowering the cost of compliance. This would help to jumpstart the economy and grow tax revenues. Even better would be a flat tax or the Fair Tax, a consumption tax that would replace the income tax entirely, but politically these are not yet workable.

The president should also declare a moratorium on new federal regulations. The Obama Administration has introduced a plethora of new regulations that both stifle business creativity and make it more expensive for companies to do business. The Dodd-Frank financial reform added substantially to costs of financial businesses while completely ignoring Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored entities that were the end purchaser of the subprime loans that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Some banks are choosing to go out of business rather than operate at a loss in the current regulatory environment. Obamacare added multiple costly layers of regulation to the health insurance industry. The Obama Administration was sued and lost over its offshore oil drilling ban. When the government still refused to issue drilling permits, a judge found Obama’s Interior Department in contempt.

More recently, the Obama Administration mandated an increase in the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standard to 54 miles per gallon by 2025. This change will hurt American car companies and consumers by increasing the price of cars and making it more likely that they will be built from lighter, less crashworthy, materials. This may eventually cost Georgia jobs from its automotive industry, including the new Kia plant in West Point.

In some cases, when Congress rejected its regulatory proposals, the Obama Administration enacted them unilaterally through federal agencies in the executive branch. When Congress voted down net neutrality, the FCC announced rules that would enact it anyway. When Congress could not pass cap-and-trade of carbon, the EPC decided to regulate it under the Clean Air Act. There have threats that the National Labor Relations Board could make a similar move to enact Card Check with congressional approval. The NLRB has already decreed that Boeing, a unionized company, cannot build a new factory in South Carolina, a right-to-work state.

There is little wonder that the business investment is stalled when federal regulations are issued so often and arbitrarily. Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform estimates the cost of complying with federal regulations at $2.8 trillion annually. If the government enacted a moratorium on new regulations and comprehensive review of existing ones, that money could be spent much more productively.

The Affordable Care Act should be repealed. This law, often called “Obamacare,” is an example of all that is wrong with the government. The law costs trillions of dollars according to the Congressional Budget Office, while at the same time making health insurance and health care more expensive for consumers. Obamacare includes a host of new taxes and expensive regulations that make it less likely that businesses will hire. Obamacare was poorly conceived and executed and is a drag on the economy. It has already been ruled unconstitutional by a federal appeals court in Atlanta. The lawsuit brought by more than half of the states, including Georgia, will soon be heard by the Supreme Court.

As he has frequently reminded us, President Obama did inherit a tough economy from President Bush. However, what makes a president is rising up to handle the hand that has been dealt. Now three years into his presidency, it is the results of President Obama’s decisions that are haunting the nation. If he persists in following the same course, he will continue to get the same dismal results and in January 2013 will leave a worse mess for his successor than he himself inherited.

Photo credit:antisocialtory/Wikimedia

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/the-george-costanza-plan-to-save-the-economy

What is net neutrality?

jscreationzs

Georgians by now realize that the fancy, technical names given by politicians to laws and policies are often misleading. The Democrats seem especially guilty of this tactic since so many of their ideas would be unpopular if the people knew their details. After all, if the people of Georgia and America knew that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act would actually drive up prices and lead to shortages of health insurance, it would have been even more unpopular than it already was.

Such is the case with net neutrality. If Georgians knew that it was going to result in more government regulation of the internet and higher costs to access the web, while at the same time discouraging investment and stifling innovation, they would have strongly opposed the policy. Instead, almost nobody noticed the bland-sounding policy.

The term “net neutrality” evokes images of protecting the internet from undue political or corporate influence, yet in reality the opposite is true. Net neutrality was a call from leftists groups for increased government regulation and oversight of the internet.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, John Fund describes the backers of net neutrality. The concept began as a media reform campaign by Robert McChesney’s Free Press organization. McChesney wrote that “the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies… but the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control.”

Fund goes on to describe how a confederation that included most of the same groups that created the “Astroturf” movement demanding campaign finance reform has pushed net neutrality. Campaign finance reform resulted in the McCain-Feingold law, which was ultimately ruled to be an unconstitutional limit on free speech. These leftist groups, including Free Press and the Pew Charitable Trusts, sponsored studies backing net neutrality. These studies were prominently cited in the FCC’s “National Broadband Plan.”

The FCC originally tried to impose net neutrality in a ruling against Comcast in August 2008. However, in April 2010, a federal appeals court in Washington, DC decided that Congress had not given the FCC legal authority to regulate the internet.

The following month, a bipartisan group of congressmen sent letters to FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski stating in no uncertain terms that his plans for net neutrality were a bad idea. A letter by seventy-four Democrats stated that it would “jeopardize jobs" and "should not be done without additional direction from Congress.” Thirty-seven Republicans wrote that Genachowski’s planned rules were “heavy-handed 19th century regulations" that are "inconceivable" and illegal.


In response, the FCC unilaterally decided to reinterpret its jurisdiction over telephones to include the authority to regulate the internet. This week’s vote to impose net neutrality rules in a party line vote among the FCC’s five-member board. Chairman Genachowski and two Democratic members of the board voted for net neutrality, while the two Republican members opposed it. The FCC essentially extended government control over the internet after being told by both Congress and the courts that it did not have that authority. President Obama appointed Chairman Genachowski and the FCC answers to the President.

What does net neutrality mean for you?

The new net neutrality regulations will prohibit internet service providers (ISPs) from blocking access to legal websites and allow the FCC to determine if ISPs are “unreasonable” in prioritizing internet traffic on its network.

However, there has been no history of companies blocking access to websites. This was a manufactured crisis (a la Rahm Emanuel) in order to justify increased regulation. In reality, ISPs have voluntarily refrained from blocking web access. In contrast, the federal government has been shutting down websites without due process.

The use of the word “unreasonable” is ambiguous. As Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell said, it is “perhaps the most litigated word in American history.” The wording leaves the enforcement of the regulations open to arbitrary interpretation. This means that, not only will there be legal challenges, but internet companies will be forced to lobby FCC and other government officials to gain approval for their business plans. As Woodrow Wilson said, “If the government is to tell big business men how to run their business, then don't you see that big business men have to get closer to the government even than they are now? Don't you see that they must capture the government, in order not to be restrained too much by it?”

Additionally, the new rules say that ISPs can charge more to customers who use more bandwidth. This means that, where most internet users now pay roughly the same, if you watch a lot of online videos or movies or play memory-intensive games, you might have to pay more for your internet access in the near future.

Finally, the new rules will likely inhibit investment and innovation. New regulations will likely make it harder for new companies to enter the web marketplace. In the past few years, new internet companies have risen from inception to multi-billion dollar firms in a few short years. Google and Facebook are both ubiquitous but less than fifteen years old. New hardware, software and websites are being introduced constantly. Government interference can only slow and hamper this process.

In summary, everyone is unhappy with the FCC’s net neutrality rules. Leftists who fear corporations and embrace government control want harsher rules. Conservatives and libertarians who believe in limited government feel that the FCC should stay out of the internet, especially since Congress has not extended the agency authority to regulate it. There will almost certainly be legal challenges due the vague and arbitrary nature of the law. Equally certain is that the Republicans will seek to rein in President Obama and his rogue agency when they take control of the House of Representatives next year.

Photo:  
http://www.freedigitalphotos.net/images/view_photog.php?photogid=1152

Election myth: Does the GOP want to ship jobs overseas?

The third common myth being spread by Democrats this election season is that Republicans want to send American jobs to other countries. This is an obvious exaggeration. No politician of either party would want to send his or her constituents’ jobs out of their district and to another country. You don’t get re-elected that way and, above all else, most politicians want to get re-elected.

The question then becomes how best to preserve American jobs. President Obama and the Democrats believe that companies who move jobs to other countries should be punished through higher taxes or the elimination of tax breaks. A bill currently stalled in the senate purports to do just that.

However, it isn’t only Republicans that oppose this bill. At this point, Republicans don’t have the numbers to prevent passage of legislation by themselves. Some Democrats, including Max Baucus, chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, have joined the Republicans and business groups in opposing the bill on the grounds that it will make US companies less competitive.

On the other hand, conservatives believe that American companies will create jobs in the US if the government makes it cost effective for them to do so. There are many reasons that companies outsource jobs, but one of the biggest is labor costs. American workers are highly compensated, especially when non-salary benefits such as health insurance are considered. Workers in less developed nations are willing to do the same work for much less money.

Regulation is also a factor. The US has a dizzying array of complex regulations governing everything from environmental concerns to zoning. Some of these regulations are needed and some are not. Good or not, the cost of complying with government regulations can be significant. Other countries may have a regulatory environment that is easier to navigate.

Obamacare provides a good example of both employment costs and regulation. First, the mandates for increased coverage in the health care law are increasing the cost of health insurance coverage for companies. There will also be penalties if employers do not provide coverage for their employees. Second, there are new regulatory requirements in the health care law as well. One of the most well known is a requirement that companies issue 1099s to any company or individual with which they do more than $600 of business. The massive new costs associated with hiring and providing insurance for American workers may prove to be a powerful incentive for companies to move operations to other countries.

Add to this that the United States has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, even before state and local taxes are considered. When all these factors are considered, the US appears to have a somewhat unfriendly business climate.

The news is not all bad though. The stability of the United States and its status as a large consumer nation do help to attract foreign businesses to our shores. The Kia factory in West Point, Georgia is one example of the “insourcing” of foreign businesses to our state.

There are answers to many of these problems. A true reform of health care with an eye toward lowering costs would be a major step forward. Easing the grip of unions so that wages can be determined by the market would also help. Lowering taxes would give companies much needed capital to grow their businesses. Finally, streamlining bureaucracy and eliminating the regulations that don’t make sense would also help.