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.
Home Press Room CFIF Joins Coalition Reiterating Opposition to Dubiously Named "Internet Radio Fairness Act"
CFIF Joins Coalition Reiterating Opposition to Dubiously Named "Internet Radio Fairness Act" Print
Thursday, August 01 2013

August 1, 2013

Dear Representative:

The undersigned organizations wish to reiterate our opposition to the so-called “Internet Radio Fairness Act,” which would require the government to grant subsidized, below-market rates to Internet radio companies for their input costs. This approach moves in the wrong direction by rejecting free-market based rates and involving the government more subjectively in the compensation paid to property owners.

While consumers have more choices than ever before in how, where and when they listen to music services, many of which are licensed in the free marketplace, artists and recording companies are still subject to government compulsory licensing with respect to digital radio services that compete with the market services, with rates set by the government. In other words, digital radio services get special favored treatment compared with their competitors. Currently, Internet radio companies at least must pay a government rate that is based on the rate paid by their competitors in the marketplace. The “Internet Radio Fairness Act” would instead have the government subjectively set a rate that would protect entrenched incumbent services. The proposed standard, created in the 1970s, is intended to prevent disruption of established services, according to supporters of the legislation. Therefore, the bill would deliberately keep new, young, innovative services from replacing current industry leaders.

As long as the government is involved in setting rates, a truly free market cannot exist in compensating music owners and creators for their work. The best way to achieve parity among music distributors is to get the government out of the rate-setting business, rather than to further involve government by granting below-market rates to favored entities. Competitive companies can flourish under a rate set by a true free market because successful on-demand music services such as iTunes, Spotify, Rhapsody, and Rdio already pay rates set by the marketplace. At the very least, the current system of setting rates based on market indicators is certainly better than government-forced below-market prices to benefit a particular company or service type.

There is nothing fair about government picking winners and losers in the music industry or any other marketplace. Therefore, we urge you to oppose the “Internet Radio Fairness Act.”

Sincerely,

Al Cardenas
American Conservative Union

Duane Parde
National Taxpayers Union

Tom Schatz
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Phil Kerpen
American Commitment

Jeff Mazzella
Center for Individual Freedom

David Williams
Taxpayers Protection Alliance

Related Articles :
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 IRS's inspector general confirmed Thursday it is conducting a criminal investigation into how Lois G. Lerner's emails disappeared, saying it took only two weeks for investigators to find hundreds of tapes the agency's chief had told Congress were irretrievably destroyed. Investigators have already scoured 744 backup tapes and gleaned 32,774 unique emails, but just two weeks ago they found an…[more]
 
 
—Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times
— Stephen Dinan, The Washington Times
 
Liberty Poll   

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