September 12th, 2019 at 9:59 am
First Amendment Rights: Good News from the IRS on Donor Privacy
Posted by Print

In this era of increased harassment and persecution of people on the basis of political viewpoints and First Amendment expression, there’s actually good news to report.

In fact, that positive development comes from none other than the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), which few people typically consider a font of good news.

Specifically, the IRS just announced a proposed rule to stop requiring nonprofit organizations to file what’s known as a Form 990 Schedule B, which exposes sensitive donor information not only to the federal government and potential rogues like former IRS official Lois Lerner, but also people who seek to access and use that information to target people on the basis of political belief.

As we at CFIF have long asserted, this welcome move will help protect the privacy of American citizens, which the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in NAACP v. Alabama (1958) is critical to preservation and exercise of the First Amendment’s rights to free speech, freedom of association and freedom to petition government:

Effective advocacy of both public and private points of view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by group association, as this Court has more than once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the freedoms of speech and assembly.  It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ‘liberty’ assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech…  This Court has recognized the vital relationship between freedom to associate and privacy in one’s associations…

The Supreme Court in that seminal ruling rightly drew a straight-line connection between privacy of one’s associations and donations and the ability to exercise one’s First Amendment freedoms:

[R]evelation of the identity of its rank-and-file members has exposed these members to economic reprisal, loss of employment, threat of physical coercion, and other manifestations of public hostility.  Under these circumstances, we think it apparent that compelled disclosure of petitioner’s Alabama membership is likely to affect adversely the ability of petitioner and its members to pursue their collective effort to foster beliefs which they admittedly have the right to advocate, in that it may induce members to withdraw from the Association and dissuade others from joining it because of fear of exposure of their beliefs shown through their associations and of the consequences of this exposure. 

That logic applies with even greater force today, as we’ve witnessed time after time, because of the modern ability to instantly identify, locate and stalk people whose political views one finds disagreeable.

As we’ve further noted, the IRS acknowledges that it doesn’t even use the collected information for any substantive purpose in enforcing the nation’s tax laws, and the IRS isn’t even the agency in charge of enforcing so-called “campaign finance reform” laws in any case.  Accordingly, the information only serves to expose people to potential targeting.

CFIF enthusiastically supports this IRS decision, which will help protect the right of American citizens to exercise their First Amendment rights.


September 3rd, 2019 at 10:01 am
Image of the Day: Freedom = Prosperity, 2019 Edition
Posted by Print

As the 2020 election gets closer and calls for more and more government intervention increase, a handy visual reminder from Heritage that freedom, not intervention, means prosperity:

Freedom = Prosperity

Freedom = Prosperity


August 19th, 2019 at 10:09 am
Image of the Day: Middle Class Shrinking… In a Good Way
Posted by Print

From AEI, something to remember when we’re told that the middle class in America is disappearing.  It’s disappearing because people are moving upward:

.

 

Middle Class Disappearing... Upward

Middle Class Disappearing… Upward

 

.

 


August 9th, 2019 at 1:22 pm
Image of the Day: If Too Many Guns Is the Problem, Explain This
Posted by Print

If the problem is too many guns, explain this…

More Guns, Less Murder

 

 


August 2nd, 2019 at 1:33 pm
Texas A.G. Paxton Irrationally Joins Leftist A.G. Colleagues in Multistate Lawsuit Opposing T-Mobile/Sprint Merger
Posted by Print

Inexplicably, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has elected to join leftist state attorneys general in their multistate lawsuit opposing a T-Mobile/Sprint merger that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has approved, and a majority of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) commissioners support.

That lawsuit took the unprecedented step of challenging the proposed merger before the federal agencies had even completed their review process, demonstrating that their opposition had less to do with the facts and market realities of the case than political grandstanding.  Clearly, their state-level lawsuit centers not on the merits of the merger, especially in light of the DOJ’s announcement this week, which would introduce even greater network capacity and competition to the telecom marketplace.

By indefensibly choosing to join that lawsuit, Paxton now seeks to halt an extraordinary opportunity to accelerate innovation and 5G deployment in the U.S., bridge the digital divide in rural and urban communities and boost high-paying American jobs.

We at CFIF have long supported the proposed merger for all of these reasons and more, and we hope that Paxton and anyone else considering such a needlessly unwise position reconsider.


August 1st, 2019 at 4:29 pm
Drug Importation: An Inexplicably Bad New Proposal from the Trump Administration
Posted by Print

Yesterday, the Trump Administration through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) inexplicably introduced a proposal to begin drug importation from other countries.

Currently, Americans enjoy the safest medicine market in the entire world under the system monitored by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  According to FDA estimates, over 99% of drugs making their way into the U.S. via international mail failed to comply with its standards, and the United Nations World Health Organization estimates that fully 10% of all medicines worldwide are actually counterfeit.  That’s an enormous and unacceptable threat.

It’s therefore no surprise that a bipartisan array of experts and officials, including Trump Administration officials, have long panned the drug importation idea.  Just last year, for instance, HHS Secretary Alex Azar labeled drug importation a “gimmick,” emphasizing that, “the last thing we need is open borders for unsafe drugs.”  Recent FDA Commissioner similarly lambasted the idea and detailed the numerous threats that it entails.  A collection of FDA Commissioners spanning the years 2002 through 2016 went so far as to write an open letter to Congress in 2017, explaining how drug importation, “could lead to a host of unintended consequences and undesirable effects, including serious harm stemming from the use of adulterated, substandard or counterfeit drugs.”

Safety concerns, however, aren’t the only problem with the drug importation idea.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has studied the issue and concluded that drug importation would have little to no impact on actually lowering prices.  Former FDA Commissioner Gottleib concurred that the plan “would have added so much cost to the imported drugs; they wouldn’t be much cheaper than drugs sold inside our closed American system.”  Part of the problem, according to a Canadian Pharmacists Association (CPhA) statement released just yesterday, is that Canada’s market couldn’t handle the sudden onslaught of American demand, and importation would crash their market on which the U.S. drug importation plan would rely.

Additionally, as we at CFIF have long emphasized, importing other nations’ pharmaceutical policies and pricing would reduce drug innovation and availability to American consumers.  Even highly developed nations enjoy far fewer new life-saving and life-improving pharmaceuticals than the U.S., which should trigger alarm for every American.

This constitutes a rare unforced error, as drug importation violates free market principles, in addition to the fact that imported drugs meet neither safety nor dependability standards.

How else can we be certain that this is a terrible idea?  Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (D – Vermont) advocates it.  That says all we need to know.

 


July 31st, 2019 at 5:26 pm
Regulations Need to Stabilize, Not Stifle, Cryptocurrency
Posted by Print

In an op-ed published last week in The Columbus Dispatch, CFIF’s Timothy Lee argues that regulatory clarity for the cryptocurrency industry is necessary to prevent the United States from losing our losing our leadership position in the technology.

Lee writes:

The growing implementation of digital assets to enable faster payments provides insight into cryptocurrencies and the advantages they offer. The technology holds a range of potential benefits — from speeding up the processing of global remittances to providing financial infrastructure for traditionally unbanked communities. Add to these applications of blockchain technologies the fact that U.S. exchanges handle about 29 percent of global Bitcoin trading, and it’s increasingly clear that the U.S. is poised to be an epicenter for innovation and investment in the cryptocurrency industry.

Before those effects can be fully realized, it’s critical that the U.S. develop a comprehensive regulatory approach to cryptocurrencies. Importantly, any such regulation must include guidance as to how these new digital assets are classified. Legislation is an important start, as are regulatory guidelines like the framework recently released by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Read the entire op-ed here.

July 29th, 2019 at 5:11 pm
This Week’s “Your Turn” Radio Lineup
Posted by Print

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Phil Kerpen, President of American Commitment – Puerto Rico and Energy;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Tracy Beanz, Investigative Journalist with Undercoverdc.com – Jeffrey Epstein Case;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Mary Clare Amselem, Policy Analyst in Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation – Josh Hawley and the College Monopoly;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT:  Quin Hillyer, American Newspaper Columnist and Writer – Mueller Hearings, Now What?;

5:00 CDT/6:00 pm EDT:  Ashton Hayward, Andrews Research and Education Foundation President – AREF and IHMC Project;

5:15 CDT/6:25 pm EDT:  Anastasia Boden, Senior Attorney in Pacific Legal Foundation’s Economic Liberty Project – Setting Quotas on Women in the Boardroom; and

5:30 CDT/6:30 pm EDT:  Timothy Lee, CFIF’s Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs – TV Blackouts and Regulating Cryptocurrency.

Listen live on the Internet here. Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

Tags: ,

July 22nd, 2019 at 1:09 pm
Budget Negotiations: CFIF Opposes Use of Drug Price Controls via “Mandatory Inflation Rebates”
Posted by Print

In ongoing negotiations, it’s reported that some are proposing to employ destructive drug price controls as a mechanism to reach a budget agreement.  For multiple reasons that CFIF has highlighted, that poses a potentially catastrophic idea.

Specifically, it appears that debt ceiling negotiations may include a destructive proposal to reduce federal spending levels by targeting $115 billion from Medicare, which would derive largely from alleged “Medicare savings” through instituting a government-imposed mandatory “inflation rebates.”  As we’ve explained, inflation rebate proposals work by penalizing drug innovators with higher taxes whenever their products exceed an arbitrary inflation mark.  Currently, Medicare Part D’s structure works by employing market-based competition to mitigate drug costs via privately-negotiated rebates, meaning that no specific “price” reliably represents that drug’s underlying price.  Accordingly, the proposal would inherently undermine privately-negotiated Part D plan rebates, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said “appear to make the net prices approach the lowest prices obtained in the private sector.”  Indeed, as the Altarum Institute has highlighted, those Part D plans currently achieve greater brand medicine rebates than private insurers.

Critically, it must also be noted that inflation rebate proposals would violate non-interference clauses that facilitate competition among Part D plans, which provide a critical part of Part D’s success in mitigating costs since its inception.  They would also arbitrarily apply to new pharmaceuticals while bypassing generic brands, which now constitute approximately 90% of Part D prescriptions.  The proposal would also inescapably weaken incentives on the part of Part D plan sponsors to negotiate with drug manufacturers and minimize drug spending under a regime of statutorily-imposed rebates, thereby setting a negative precedent for those sponsors.  It also bears emphasis that private-sector limits on drug cost increases already exist via “price protection rebates” that Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) negotiate with manufacturers.

Accordingly, imposing price controls in Medicare Part D would fundamentally undermine its entire market-based model, which would in turn reduce research and development and slow progress toward new and improved medicines.

Adding insult to injury, such a proposal would constitute a raid on Medicare for the benefit of other government spending pork.  During this era of budgetary waste, the last thing that Congress should consider doing is sacrificing Medicare, particularly when affordability and access to pharmaceutical innovations remains such a top public priority.  Budgetary discipline and access to medicines remains a priority of the highest order, but market-oriented solutions, not destructive gimmicks, offer the optimal solution.  Any proposal to target Medicare Part D for mandatory inflation rebates has not been subjected to full review, committee research, hearings or debate.

American citizens, particularly seniors, should not be subjected to that danger.

 


July 18th, 2019 at 8:56 pm
TV Blackouts Reconfirm Need for Free Market Regulatory Reform
Posted by Print

For over two weeks now, failed retransmission negotiations between AT&T and Nexstar Media Group have deprived customers across the United States of 120 Nexstar television stations in 97 markets.

That’s unfortunately something to which far too many Americans have become accustomed recently, as 2019 has already witnessed more TV blackouts than any year in history.  And the news only gets worse:  CBS is now warning that stations in numerous major markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Dallas and others, could be blacked out as this week concludes.

Here’s the overarching problem.  Current laws dating all the way back to 1992 empower the federal government to pick TV market winners and losers by tipping the scales during negotiations.  Those laws governing what’s known as “retransmission consent,” “must-carry” obligations and “compulsory copyright” all derive from a bygone era, when most markets were served by a solitary cable provider.  But today, almost 30 years later, we obviously live in a drastically different consumer marketplace.  Specifically, alternative services like satellite, internet and other cable providers provide an expansive array of consumer options in the TV marketplace.

Yet here we are in 2019, with applicable federal regulations that remain unchanged, and fail to accommodate the fundamental video market evolution that has occurred.  Consequently, broadcasters today possess an unfair regulatory advantage in negotiations with providers, which in turn empowers them to insist upon excessive retransmission consent fees while retaining the alternative option of invoking must-carry rules.  In that manner, outdated laws inhibit free market principles from functioning in what should be an ever-evolving consumer marketplace.

And who pays the steepest price of all?  Consumers.  Including in the form of blackouts like we’re witnessing.

To finally put an end to these increasing blackouts, and spare consumers the headaches, we must reduce the federal government’s interference in the nationwide video marketplace.  That will allow broadcasters and video programming distributors to negotiate in a more even, market-centered environment.  An optimal scenario would be to enact the Next Generation Television Marketplace Act proposed earlier by Congressman Steve Scalise (R – Louisiana).  But in any event, consumers should demand that the federal bureaucracy remove its metaphorical finger from the scale, and instead finally allow all parties to negotiate in a free market, one in which neither side enjoys an inherent regulatory advantage.  Eliminate the outdated regulations, and allow the free market to work.

In a video market otherwise defined by rapid evolution and ever-greater choices, consumers deserve relief at long last.

 


July 15th, 2019 at 2:22 pm
CFIF to U.S. Senate: On Drug Prices, Say “NO” to Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals
Posted by Print

On behalf of over 300,000 of our supporters and activists across the nation, CFIF has written the following letter opposing any use of Mandatory Inflation Rebate Proposals when it comes to the issue of addressing drug prices:

We believe that market-oriented solutions offer the optimal solution, and resolutely oppose any use of mandatory inflation rebate proposals – which would unfairly penalize a drug’s manufacturer with higher taxes whenever that drug’s price rises faster than inflation – that will make matters worse, not better. Among other defects, such a government-imposed penalty would undermine Medicare Part D’s current structure, which uses market-based competition to mitigate drug costs. Part D currently works via privately-negotiated rebates, meaning that no specific price reliably represents a drug’s underlying price. Accordingly, the proposal would inherently undermine privately-negotiated Part D plan rebates, which the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has said “appear to make the net prices approach the lowest prices obtained in the private sector.” Indeed, as the Altarum Institute has highlighted, those Part D plans currently achieve greater brand medicine rebates than private insurers.

Additionally, inflation rebate proposals would violate non-interference clauses that facilitate competition among Part D plans, which provide a critical part of Part D’s success in mitigating costs since its inception. They would also arbitrarily apply to new pharmaceuticals while bypassing generic brands, which now constitute approximately 90% of Part D prescriptions. The proposal would also inescapably weaken incentives on the part of Part D plan sponsors to negotiate with drug manufacturers and minimize drug spending under a regime of statutorily-imposed rebates, thereby setting a negative precedent for those sponsors. It also bears emphasis that private-sector limits on drug cost increases already exist via “price protection rebates” that Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) negotiate with manufacturers.”

The issue of reducing drug prices remains an important one, but it’s just as important that we pursue policies that make the situation better, not those that would make the situation far worse.


July 15th, 2019 at 12:46 pm
CFIF Applauds the FCC for Acting to Stop the Local Internet Power Grab
Posted by Print

More than thirty years ago, Congress gave local governments the power to impose “franchise fees” and other regulations on cable television service. It was part of a broad framework for shared national and local authority over cable television in the 1984 “Cable Act,” which laid the foundation for the cable (and eventually satellite) TV boom of the 1980s and beyond.

By contrast, local governments have very limited power to tax or regulate the internet. Unlike television, which has a long tradition of serving independent local markets with discrete programming, options and infrastructure, from the beginning it’s been clear that the internet is inherently national and interstate and can only be effectively regulated at the federal level. That has been core federal policy for decades, as most recently expressed in the 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which concluded that, “regulation of broadband Internet access service should be governed principally by a uniform set of federal regulations, rather than by a patchwork that includes separate state and local requirements.”

Recently, however, a number of local franchising authorities have tried to upend that federal policy and claim the right to impose local taxes and regulations on the internet by seizing on the fact that some broadband providers also offer cable television services. Now, the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is rightly working to put a stop to this local government internet power grab – moving to make clear that the Cable Act only allows local franchising boards to tax and regulate cable companies based on their cable television operations.

If every local franchising board in the country can impose its own rules and fees on internet providers, the freewheeling and open internet we all enjoy today will slowly grind to a halt. The resulting cacophony of regulation will overwhelm operators, slowing down cyberspace and making it less reliable and less secure. It will drive away new investment needed to continue to achieve ever-increasing speeds users have come to take for granted. And it will confuse consumers who expect the internet to be a consistent experience everywhere they go.

This is the exact harm federal policy strives to avoid. As the FCC explained, “allowing state or local regulation of broadband internet access service could impair the provision of such service by requiring each ISP to comply with a patchwork of separate and potentially conflicting requirements across all of the different jurisdictions in which it operates.”

For that reason, CFIF encourages the FCC to vote to shut down the local power grab by making clear that neither the Cable Act nor any other source of local regulatory power authorizes franchise boards to tax or regulate the internet or any other non-cable-television businesses.

The future of the internet and our unfettered access depend on it.

Tags: ,

July 15th, 2019 at 12:18 pm
This Week’s “Your Turn” Radio Show Lineup
Posted by Print

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT: Phil Kerpen, President of American Commitment: Obamacare, Government Run Healthcare and Health Care Choices;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT: Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute: SCOTUS Wrap-Up;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT: Beth Akers, Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute: June 2019 Jobs Report and Student Debt;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT: Rachel Greszler, Research Fellow in Economics, Budge and Entitlements at The Heritage Foundation: $15 Federal Minimum Wage and Salary Gaps in Soccer;

5:00 CDT/6:00 pm EDT: John Strand, CEO of Strand Consult and Co-Creator of ChinaTechThreat.com: Trade Deal with China;

5:15 CDT/6:25 pm EDT: Lance Izumi, Senior Director of the Center for Education at the Pacific Research Institute: Breaking the Liberal Monopoly on College Faculties; and

5:30 CDT/6:30 pm EDT: William J. Conti, Attorney at Baker & Hostetler in Washington, DC: Politics Today.

Listen live on the Internet here. Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

Tags:

July 9th, 2019 at 5:48 pm
Patent Protection at a Critical Juncture
Posted by Print

At CFIF, we’ve consistently and unapologetically celebrated the central role of intellectual property (IP) rights – patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets – in making America the most innovative, prosperous and powerful nation in human history.

Recent legal developments domestically, as well as growing focus upon Chinese IP malfeasance internationally, provide new emphasis on the importance of strong U.S. patent protections for American inventors, and highlight some increasingly obvious concerns regarding patent infringers exploiting the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) for nefarious and selfish purposes.

A couple of weeks ago, patent holder plaintiff TQ Delta won on all eight counts in its first case in a series against 2Wire, Inc. over digital communication technology patents.  The win thereby sets a strong precedent of IP enforcement in what will be the first trial over its DSL patent porfolio.

In another recent example that will instantly resonate with parents as their children splash amid water balloons in their backyards this summer, a federal judge in Texas went to the rare extreme of actually doubling a multimillion-dollar jury award in favor of toy company Tinnus Enterprises, maker of “Bunch O Balloons” water balloon devices, in its patent infringement case against Telebrands.  More often, judges reduce jury awards that they consider excessive.  In this case, however, U.S. District Judge Robert Schroeder III held that the “serial infringement” of Tinnus’s patents and “flagrant” litigation misconduct merited more than doubling the original damages assessment.

The ongoing case of EagleView v. Verisk offers another salient example, a proverbial David innovator versus a Goliath infringer.  It also presents a perfect opportunity to correct a patent infringement injustice and offer a deterrent lesson to other potential patent violators of the consequences they will face.  In a nutshell, the plaintiff EagleView develops products that create 3-D models from aerial images of rooftops, from which insurers and construction companies can more accurately reach repair cost estimates.  After defendant Verisk unsuccessfully attempted to purchase EagleView in 2014, it allegedly shifted to using its subsidiary Xactware Solutions to infringing EagleView’s patented technology, triggering EagleView’s lawsuit for willful patent infringement.

Since that date, Verisk has employed an array of tactics to prevent EagleView’s lawsuit from reaching a jury, such as filing multiple petitions at the PTAB to invalidate EagleView’s underlying patents, which a federal Court of Appeals found “unpersuasive.”  Verisk has also petitioned the District Court multiple times to invalidate EagleView’s underlying patents, which the Court rejected similarly.  Now, Verisk has even resorted to joining the LOT Network, an openly anti-IP group that includes Google and other titans.  Hopefully, those tactics will be put to an end at long last.

All of this serves to highlight once again the need to protect IP, and patent rights specifically, at the legislative, executive and judicial levels.  At the Congressional and executive levels, legislation to address patent eligibility and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) reform are critical, as CFIF has previously emphasized.  Additionally, abuse at the PTAB level must not be tolerated.  And at the judicial level, courts must hold patent infringers accountable, and grant injunctive relief to patent holders to halt violations.  By holding violators accountable, we can not only deter other potential violators, but also provide the incentive to innovators by creating greater assurance that their work will be rewarded and protected.

America’s tradition of leading the world in innovation and IP protection is ultimately at stake.


July 1st, 2019 at 12:13 pm
This Week’s “Your Turn” Radio Lineup
Posted by Print

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.”  Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT:  Lee Casey, Partner at Baker & Hostetler – Return to the Constitution’s Original Meaning;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT:  Ilya Shapiro, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute – SCOTUS Wrap-Up;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT:  Tzvi Kahn, Senior Iran Analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies – Iran;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT:  Justin Bogie, Senior Policy Analyst at The Heritage Foundation – Withhold Congress’ Pay;

5:00 CDT/6:00 pm EDT:  Sally Pipes, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Pacific Research Foundation and Thomas W. Smith Fellow in Health Care Policy – Medicare-for-All;and

5:30 CDT/6:30 pm EDT:  Timothy Lee, CFIF’s Senior Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs – The Latest News from Capitol Hill and the Supreme Court.

Listen live on the Internet here. Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

Tags:

June 28th, 2019 at 10:10 am
Image of the Day: Disposable Income in U.S. Versus Elsewhere
Posted by Print

We’ve regularly highlighted the folly of leftist American politicians suggesting that Europeans somehow enjoy higher living standards than supposedly backward Americans.  This OECD data punctures that myth nicely:

.

Disposable Income Comparison

Disposable Income Comparison

.

 


June 24th, 2019 at 1:32 pm
Notable Quote: Trump Beats the “Experts” Again
Posted by Print

Today’s Wall Street Journal commentary “Take the Palestinians’ ‘No’ for an Answer” offers the choice quote of the day today, highlighting the way in which President Trump’s decision to finally (and rightfully) relocate the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem has once again proved him more prescient than the foreign policy “experts” who predicted dire consequences:

This week’s U.S.-led Peace to Prosperity conference in Bahrain on the Palestinian economy will likely be attended by seven Arab states – a clear rebuke to foreign-policy experts who said that recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the Golan Heights as Israeli territory would alienate the Arab world.”

The piece also highlights how the Palestinians stand alone among nations who somehow claim entitlement to 100% satisfaction of their demands before accepting a generous offer of independence.  Pakistan, Ireland, India and even Israel never made such demands in their independence movements, yet somehow Israel is a malign force for not granting Palestinians every one of their demands?  The double-standard as applied to Israel is obvious.


June 24th, 2019 at 10:39 am
Speaking of Drones…
Posted by Print

Below is one of the latest cartoons from two-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Michael Ramirez…


June 17th, 2019 at 12:45 pm
This Week’s “Your Turn” Radio Show Linup
Posted by Print

Join CFIF Corporate Counsel and Senior Vice President Renee Giachino today from 4:00 p.m. CDT to 6:00 p.m. CDT (that’s 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. EDT) on Northwest Florida’s 1330 AM/99.1FM WEBY, as she hosts her radio show, “Your Turn: Meeting Nonsense with Commonsense.” Today’s guest lineup includes:

4:00 CDT/5:00 pm EDT: Kay S. Hymowitz, William E. Simon Fellow at the Manhattan Institute: An Epidemic of Loneliness;

4:15 CDT/5:15 pm EDT: Ross Marchand, Director of Policy for Taxpayers Protection Alliance: Unwarranted Carcinogenic Classifications and How the US Government is About to Drive Up the Cost of Videogames;

4:30 CDT/5:30 pm EDT: Tom Schatz, President of Citizens Against Government Waste: 2019 Congressional Pig Book;

4:45 CDT/5:45 pm EDT: Marlo Lewis, Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute: Alarmists’ Agenda on Climate Change;

5:00 CDT/6:00 pm EDT: James S. Burling, Vice President of Legal Affairs for Pacific Legal Foundation: End of Current SCOTUS Term;

5:15 CDT/6:15 pm EDT: Rachel Greszler, Research Fellow in Economics, Budget and Entitlements at The Heritage Foundation: Unions and VW; and

5:30 CDT/6:30 pm EDT: William J. Conti, Partner at Baker & Hostetler: 2020 Presidential Candidates and Debates.

Listen live on the Internet here. Call in to share your comments or ask questions of today’s guests at (850) 623-1330.

Tags:

June 14th, 2019 at 2:30 pm
Image of the Day: Gallup Poll on Americans’ View of Job Market Hits All-Time Record
Posted by Print

In our Liberty Update commentary entitled “No, Scandinavia Doesn’t Vindicate Socialism” this week, we rightly ridicule admitted socialist Bernie Sanders, including his odd claim that “we now have an economy that is fundamentally broke and grotesquely unfair.”  Well, as this Gallup survey illustrates, he’s swimming upstream against American public opinion.  Specifically, in a survey that Gallup has conducted periodically since 2001, the public’s view of the job market has now hit an all-time record high:

Sorry, Socialists

Sorry, Socialists

 

Perhaps this helps explain why Sanders has suddenly plummeted in 2020 Democratic candidate surveys, although one wonders how long people like Elizabeth Warren can avoid the same fate.