legislation

The bill being considered in both chambers of Congress that will fundamentally change the internet and make it a felony if you even share a video from a friend of a friend of a friend (etc., etc.,) that might have copyright material in it is really pissing people off. How pissed you ask? Well so pissed that some of the internet giants are considering a drastic extreme to send Congress a message:

With debate over SOPA’s future tabled until Congress reconvenes, you might think the issue would have entered a similar lull, but that’s not happened. According to Markham Erickson, head of the NetCoalition trade association, there’s been talk of a so-called “nuclear option,” in which the likes of Google, Amazon, eBay, and Yahoo! would go simultaneously dark to protest the legislation to highlight the fundamental danger the legislation poses to the function of the internet.

There’s been no formal decision on the matter, and the companies in question obviously risk consumer anger and backlash over any suspension of services. There is, however, safety in numbers — and a few simple sentences identifying why the blackout is in place will ensure that the majority of the rage flows in the proper direction.

Even EBay is considering to join in the blackout. Imagine the news if online retailer sales were near nil for a single day because of this? Would Congress wake up then and remember that they represent the people, not the lobbyists? I highly doubt it.

This would be a big blow to one of D.C.’s biggest lobbying group and could open the flood gates on other tech related businesses to exit the organization:

Google is considering ditching the U.S. Chamber of Commerce out of frustration with its support for legislation that would force Internet companies to police websites that peddle pirated movies and fake Viagra.

The rumblings of a defection — a potentially serious blow to one of Washington’s most powerful lobbies — come weeks after Yahoo left the Chamber in October, largely over its support of Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-Vt.) online piracy bill, the PROTECT IP Act.

A source close to Google said the company is “frustrated” about paying dues to an organization promoting legislation that would “impose new liabilities” on Google. A second source close to the company confirmed that thinking.

Of course this highlights the problem with these types of organizations in they never listen to their members but only their own special interests. It’s kind of funny though when you think about the Chamber. Shouldn’t we consider them a union for corporations? If we could get that to stick then I wonder how quick the right would turn on them.

While corporations are sitting on records amount of cash and still refusing to hire we have the reality absent GOP pushing for more tax cuts for these people. They consider to insist that their almost 30 year old failed experiment in economics is the way to go, that some how corporations will create supply without any demand. It's enough to make your head explode. 

Today Think Progress posted this chart. I have seen it before but always forgot to share it. It's a striking tell of what the Bush tax cuts did for the jobs market:

I know many on the right will be quick to dismiss this chart as some form of partisan hackery, compiled using fake numbers. To those people I ask you to look at the data source. This data comes straight from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and at the time of the data, George Bush was President. So if you honestly believe that the Bush administration would alter data to make it look like one of his keystone pieces of legislation was a failure then I'm amazed you even have the common sense to turn on a computer.

For those that do accept this data and realize it is true, especially given the fact that it was produced by the Bush administration, thank you. We can get beyond the partisan rhetoric and talk like grown ups, which is something greatly amiss in our country today.

The fringe elements of America’s right continues to show it’s ugly head:

Georgia state Rep. Bobby Franklin (R) has made a name for himself by introducing far-right extremist bills. He has introduced legislation barring the state from requiring vaccinations, eliminating income taxes and replacing them with nothing, and requiring state taxpayers to only pay in gold or silver.

Now, he has introduced what may be his most offensive and extreme bill yet. Last week he unveiled HB 1, which would, as the parenting blog Babble explains, “require proof that a miscarriage occurred naturally.” If proof could not be provided, the mother could face “felony charges”:

State Rep. Bobby Franklin of Georgia introduced a bill in his state last week that, if enacted, would require proof that a miscarriage occurred naturally. If a woman can’t prove that her miscarriage–or spontaneous abortion–occurred without intervention, she could face felony charges.

This week the House will vote on repealing healthcare reform, the first big legislative move of the new Congress. Perhaps the GOP leadership in the House wants to rethink this, since they are “listening to the people” and all:

As for repeal, only about one in four say they want to do away with the law completely. Among Republicans support for repeal has dropped sharply, from 61 percent after the elections to 49 percent now.

But what people need to realize is that they were sold a big lie from the GOP. The talking point of the last election cycle was “repeal and replace”. Well they are trying to do the first one, but the second is non-existent. The Republicans have absolutely nothing to replace it with, meaning we will go back to the same old broken system. That’s something else the people don’t want:

Also, 43 percent say they want the law changed so it does more to re-engineer the health care system. Fewer than one in five say it should be left as it is.

So what should the GOP do? For starters, scrap the vote this week. Instead of repealing everything, work to fix it. Let’s start with getting rid of the mandate, which seems like a very popular idea:

Nearly six in 10 oppose the law's requirement that people carry health insurance except in cases of financial hardship. Starting in 2014, people will have to show that they're covered either through an employer, a government program, or under their own plan.

From Politico:

Alaska’s senior senator blocked legislation Thursday that would have dramatically increased liability caps on oil companies, in the wake of one of the industry’s biggest disasters.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) objected to a voice vote request by Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) on the bill, which would have spiked the maximum liability for oil companies after an oil spill from $75 million to $10 billion. The legislation has significant support from Democrats, and the White House has indicated it backs an increase in liability caps.

But Murkowski said the legislation is “not where we need to be right now” and would unfairly advantage large oil companies by pricing the small companies out of the market. Murkowski did signal that she would be open to "look at the liability cap and consider raising it.” Just not at this moment.

Murkowski isn’t worried about smaller oil companies, she’s worried about the big ones – the ones that do things like offshore drilling.

First off, these liabilities are never levied in full. The fact that the maximum liability would only amount to two quarters of profits from BP should also say enough. Imagine some company in another industry causing some disaster on such a scale as the oil spill in the Gulf. It would spell a most likely doom to that company. Instead, this oil spill will cost BP, but not to the point that their future is in question.

The reconciliation bill will be heading back to the House for another vote:

Senate Republicans succeeded early Thursday morning in finding two flaws in the House-passed health care reconciliation package. Neither is of any substance, but the Senate parliamentarian informed Democratic leaders that both are in violation of the Byrd Rule.

One is related to Pell Grants and the other makes small technical corrections. Why they're in violation of the Byrd Rule doesn't matter; the upshot is that Republicans will succeed in at least slightly altering the legislation, which means that the House is once again required to vote on it. With no substantial changes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should have little problem assembling the same coalition of 220 Democrats who passed the measure Sunday night. That's already four more than the minimum 216 required for passage.

No biggie. The only problem I see is that it gives Republicans in the House another chance to take to the floor and try to incite the dangerous backlash from their followers we have been seeing.

But I do wonder how many left wing blogs will accuse the parliamentarian of being some right wing plant over this. My guess is none, unlike the Republicans who attacked him for making decisions they didn’t like.

The Republicans are going on the warpath today with the “give to us and help us win this year so we can repeal health care”. How? How can they come up with enough votes to repeal health care. This wouldn’t be a simple “oh we got a majority and we repeal it”. It would take legislation to overcome it and for that legislation to be enacted the President must sign it. Do you think President Obama is going to sign a bill overturning his legacy?

Will the Republicans can 67 votes in the Senate to override a Presidential veto?

Will they get 290 votes in the House to override it?

No.

So all the Republicans are doing is feeding their followers another pipe dream. This time though the math is simple – they are promising something they absolutely can not deliver on. I wonder if anyone from the media will call them out on it?