A letter from House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) demands an explanation from the Treasury…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Treasury Dept. Approves $3 Billion Transfer to Insurance Companies that Congress Denied

A letter from House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) demands an explanation from the Treasury Department on why it allowed $3 billion in payments to ObamaCare insurance companies that Congress never approved.

In a well-documented piece, Philip Klein gives a disturbing summary of the Obama administration deliberately refusing to follow the law.

“At issue are payments to insurers known as cost-sharing subsidies,” writes Klein. “These payments come about because President Obama’s healthcare law forces insurers to limit out-of-pocket costs for certain low income individuals by capping consumer expenses, such as deductibles and co-payments, in insurance plans. In exchange for capping these charges, insurers are supposed to receive compensation.”

Here’s the rub.

“…[more]

February 26, 2015 • 08:23 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
National Academy of Sciences Appoints Itself… Copyright Authority? Print
By Timothy H. Lee
Thursday, May 02 2013
Not content with its own venture into intellectual property policy, the NAS advocates “more ambitious” involvement from an array of federal bureaucracies...

When seeking expert opinion on matters of science, engineering or medicine, does one consult… musicians?  No disrespect intended toward Thomas Dolby, who gifted the world with “She Blinded Me with Science,” but probably not. 

In similar vein, when seeking expert opinion on music business models, the entertainment industry or copyright policy generally, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) isn’t your go-to source.  This week, however, the NAS unleashed a massive 102-page review entitled “Copyright in the Digital Era.” 

You’d presume that NAS would be particularly chastened against venturing into unfamiliar territory after its recent global warming policy debacle.  In 2005, the NAS signed a statement citing the United Nations as authority that, “there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring.”  It further asserted, “most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities,” and “[t]his warming has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.” 

Fast-forward eight years, when Reuters reported last month that, “Scientists are struggling to explain a slowdown in climate change that has exposed gaps in their understanding and defies a rise in global greenhouse gas emissions.”  Or, in the words of The Economist, “Over the past 15 years, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat, while greenhouse-gas emissions have continued to soar.”  And according to none other than scientists at Russia’s own Academy of Sciences, we are now on the brink of a global cooling period.  According to the Voice of Russia, “in the near future, of course measured on geological timescales, we are at the threshold of an ice age.” 

Regardless, one would expect greater modesty from the NAS, whose 1863 charter signed by Abraham Lincoln granted it the modest role of “advisers to the nation on science, engineering, and medicine.” 

Such modesty is particularly appropriate at a time when President Obama claims that the federal budget sequester threatens doom to the scientific community.  “Instead of racing ahead,” Obama said, “our scientists are left wondering if they’ll be able to start any new research projects at all, which means we could lose a year, two years, of scientific research.” 

If that’s true, then why is the NAS steering its precious resources toward copyright policy considerations beyond its proper purview? 

Heedless of such modesty, the NAS seeks to expand its activity to “identify both the costs and benefits of different types and levels of copyright and other forms of intellectual property.” 

It gets even worse. 

Not content with its own venture into intellectual property policy, the NAS advocates “more ambitious” involvement from an array of federal bureaucracies: 

“The federal government can incrementally improve data collection from business and consumers by adding copyright-related questions to the regular surveys conducted by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau and by encouraging donations, for example to the Bureau of Economic Affairs, of private sector business data.  But the committee recommends consideration of a more ambitious approach.  These agencies, together with the National Science Foundation, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Copyright Office should study the advisability and feasibility of a regular systematic survey of businesses’ acquisition and use of intellectual property of all types – copyrights, patents, and trademarks.”  (Emphasis added.) 

From there, the NAS appoints itself rightful surveyor and authority for the music, film, publishing and software industries. 

Taking the music industry example alone, we have witnessed the transition in one generation from vinyl records to cassette tapes to compact disks to iTunes and streaming audio.  According to the NAS, however, “It could be the case that artists’ incomes and consumer welfare could rise under a better functioning music copyright system, particularly one more accommodating of innovation enabled by technological change.” 

So the federal government can’t run an efficient post office, but it presumes to ascertain a more optimal innovation and technological model for one of the most dynamic industries in modern society? 

In customary bureaucratic fashion, the 102-page report ultimately concludes by calling for more reports

The better approach would be more modesty.  Over the past three decades, our system of robust intellectual property rights has triggered the most innovative and prosperous period in human history.  What we don’t need is more bureaucratic intrusion under a benevolent guise.  

Question of the Week   
FDR issued 635 vetoes over the course of his three terms in office, more than any other President in U.S. history. Which one of the following issued the second greatest number of presidential vetoes?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"The Federal Communications Commission is expected to approve so-called 'net neutrality' Thursday, but the fight over sweeping new regulation of the Internet may be just beginning. The vote represents the culmination of an unprecedented clash in Washington over the future of the Internet -- and the beginning of an onslaught of legal challenges to treating the technology like a public utility. After…[more]
 
 
—Brian Hughes, Washington Examiner White House Correspondent
— Brian Hughes, Washington Examiner White House Correspondent
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you approve or disapprove of the FCC decision to reclassify the Internet and expose it to public utlity-style federal regulations?