Freedom Line Blog

Various groups that favor such things as making the Internet a public utility have declared today “Internet Freedom Day.”  That’s a euphemism, unfortunately, meant to disguise a deeper animosity toward property rights.  What they falsely label “freedom of expression” is often a transparent aversion to straightforward intellectual property rights.

Intellectual property, or IP, simply refers to the legal protection accorded to creators in the same way that someone possesses a natural physical property right.  The only distinction is that IP protects inventions, artistic expressions and distinguishing trademarks.  Although opponents of IP falsely attempt to distinguish it from physical property by, among other things, asserting that physical property is finite whereas IP is infinite, that’s a sloppy distinction without a difference.  After all, if your automobile sits unused in a garage as you read this, then according to their logic its social utility would be increased by allowing someone who doesn’t own your car to use it while you are not.  Try telling a recording artist that after investing effort and financial resources in securing costly studio time and top-quality backup singers and band members, he or she has no right to the creation or to enjoy the fruits of his or her labor.

Protection of IP is necessary to not only secure for innovators the just fruits of their labor, but also to provide societal incentive for innovation.  No reasonable person opposes Internet freedom, but nor should that concept be used to disguise animosity toward property rights.

Today, IP remains under threat from foreign piracy, costing hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

Businesses reliant upon IP account for more than 60% of American exports, which are by nature more vulnerable to foreign piracy.  Those businesses also employ almost 55 million workers, pay their employees an average wage 30% higher than non-IP counterparts and account for $5.7 trillion of the nation’s GDP. Meanwhile, parasitic overseas websites continue to threaten that IP wellspring of innovation, jobs and prosperity.  Although estimates vary, foreign IP piracy now amounts to a cumulative enterprise that inflicts at least $500 billion in loss annually and now accounts for approximately 25% of all Internet traffic.

Each moment, rogue sites across the world seek to make an easy and illegal profit by selling things they had no hand in creating.  That has to stop.  Although many proponents of today’s so-called “Internet Freedom Day” will falsely demonize future efforts to curtail IP theft, they must be recognized as apologists for illegality.  Just something to bear in mind amidst the synthetic hoopla.

On this date in 1919, Prohibition became the law of the land via the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  We all know how wise and effective that proved.

Today, Barack Obama unveils his new gun control agenda to the nation, using an audience of children as props.  Even had they realized the coincidence, we suspect that the White House wouldn’t recognize the irony.

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

4:00 (CST)/5:00 pm (EST):  William Yeatman – Assistant Director, Center for Energy and Environment, Competitive Enterprise Institute:  Global Warming;

4:30 (CST)/5:30 pm (EST):  Pete Sepp –  Executive Vice President, National Taxpayers Union:  Tax Increases without Spending Cuts;

5:00 (CST)/6:00 pm (EST):  Bob Norton – Vice President for External Relations, Bradley Foundation:  Our Cars’ Weight Problem; and

5:30 (CST)/6:30 pm (EST):  Gregory Gwyn-Williams, Jr. – Blogger, CNSnews.com: Armed Neighborhood Fortress and Gun Control.

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

We at CFIF have filed an official public comment with the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), opposing imposition of an economically-destructive and scientifically-dubious monopolistic LEED certification standard:

On behalf of 300,000 supporters and activists throughout the nation, the Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) respectfully but firmly exhorts the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) against monopolistic LEED certification standards, including many of its proposed LEED v4 standards, that rely on biased and scientifically-dubious policies, raise prices, reduce consumer choice, cost American jobs and harm domestic industry in favor of overseas competitors.  American consumers and businesses are entitled to make informed choices, and to act upon them in purchasing decisions.  Free and open certification processes that allow businesses to choose the system that best fits their profile, and allows consumers choice in the marketplace, will increase ‘green’ products available in consumer and building markets.”

As we point out, environmental ideologues seek to impose a Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification monopoly.  As part of that campaign, they’ve pressured Fortune 500 companies, as well as federal, state and municipal governments to satisfy their agenda.   As a consequence, the market has become increasingly distorted, with real costs for domestic producers of wood products and fewer affordable choices for consumers,  but no measurable environmental benefit.  That policy also penalizes businesses that invested in alternative certification systems; favors foreign competitors in places like Russia, China and Brazil; discourages use of common building materials and products regularly found in construction projects like PVC piping, foam insulation, heat-reflective roofing and LED lighting; and jeopardizes American jobs, which explains why the International Association of Machinists and other unions whose rank-and-file members’ jobs are at risk favor recognition of other certifications than solely FSC to ensure the viability of tree farms in rural communities.

Fortunately, many in Congress agree with CFIF.  A bipartisan group of 74 legislators wrote the GSA and objected to the proposed changes.  Another letter from 56 members of the House to GSA Administrator Dan Tangherlini objected to the changes, and stated the agency should reconsider the USGBC’s LEED rating system should the proposed changes occur.  In addition, at a July 19 House Government and Oversight Committee hearing, Congressional leaders raised concerns over the restrictive and arbitrary LEED process and the high costs the proposed changes will impose on American manufacturing and other sectors vital to U.S. economic recovery.

Additionally, a new USA Today special report found little link between “green buildings” and learning or energy use:

The green-school boom, a powerful and often costly phenomenon, is being driven largely by the Green Building Council, whose promise of student improvement and long-term cost savings has support from environmental and health advocates, teachers unions, school designers and the Department of Education. …  But a USA TODAY review of school-test records, LEED-certification documents and research reports shows little correlation between “green schools” and student performance or energy use.”

Although the objective of constructing more energy-efficient buildings may be a laudable goal, the closed process by which LEED standards are determined exacerbates the potential adverse economic effects listed above.  Meanwhile, other, alternative green building ratings systems place greater reliance on data, science and a consensus from various stakeholders.  Therefore, the better policy is to encourage sustainable development by recognizing all credible certification program options.

The unemployment rate when Barack Obama became President was 7.8%.  Four years, four trillion wasted deficit dollars and thousands of federal regulatory pages later, the unemployment rate remains… 7.8%.

Moreover, the Labor Department reported this morning that we added a lackluster 155,000 new jobs last month, and the labor participation rate (the percentage of Americans actually in the workforce) showed no improvement and remains at a generational low of 63.6%.  In fact, considering that the number of women working outside the home has increased during the past three decades, workforce participation is in that sense even more depressing.

By way of perspective, through good times and bad since World War II, unemployment has averaged 5%.  And facing an even deeper recession, Ronald Reagan’s agenda of lower taxes and smaller government saw unemployment plummet from 10.4% on the date his tax cuts took effect to 7.0% two short years later, and continued its steady decline to 5% during his administration.

Accordingly, this morning’s unemployment report confirms the “New Normal” under Obama and his wasteful policies.

Earlier this year, we examined how land management regulations for our forests significantly alter economic activity in timber markets.  Since that time, more recent reports and studies underscore the importance of maintaining a level regulatory playing field, and how policies based on faulty assumptions can have economic and environmental consequences.

Specifically, forest certification programs like the American Tree Farm System (ATFS), Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) recognize when a landowner or business complies with benchmarks that signify responsible forest management.  Tree farmers and businesses seek “certification” from these groups to preserve their property and sell “green” goods in the market.  Numerous studies and testimony from land managers and conservationists support all three systems as beneficial to the environment.  However, environmental activists continue to pressure private companies and government officials nationwide to favor FSC over the other two programs, which themselves certify tens of millions more acres of forests in America than FSC.

Specifically, the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED system only defines FSC-certified wood as sustainable.  As a result, SFI or ATFS timber cannot enter LEED projects, of which there are more than 13,000 nationwide.  The USGBC is nominally a nonprofit organization, but local, state and federal agencies accept its guidelines without question, and mandate them in building projects.

The National Legal Policy Center underscored the wrongheadedness of that framework in a recent white paper entitled “The Ethics of Forest Certification: When Unintended Consequences Result.” The paper explains the anti-competitive nature of the LEED system, and how it forces taxpayer dollars to finance projects to benefit a private organization – FSC – over its competitors.  Additionally, the paper questions whether consumers get a “bang for their buck” when they pay price premiums in excess of 15% for FSC wood.  These questions occur due to documentation of “clear-cuts” of forests on FSC-certified land overseas, and the fact that FSC recognizes 90% of its forests in countries outside the U.S. – many of them with lower environmental standards.

The American Consumer Institute published another study, “Comparing Forest Certification Standards in the U.S.,” which highlights how the actual practices of certification programs in the U.S. do not always match public perceptions.  The study shows auditors for FSC readily acknowledging discrepancies between FSC’s implementation on the ground, and how land managers and FSC differ on common definitions for forestry terms.   This confusion leads to companies “leaving clumps of unmerchantable trees in scattered areas, usually in riparian areas, draws and inaccessible corners” on FSC property in the southern U.S.”

Given the anti-competitive nature of the current LEED rating system, the negligible environmental benefits of an FSC-only regime and the misinformation resulting from these frameworks, the time is long overdue to support a level playing field that allows all certification programs to compete equally among consumers, businesses and foresters.

A freer market would be a better market.

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

4:00 (CST)/5:00 pm (EST):  Alex Cortes, Director of Let Freedom Ring:  Spending Cuts and Ongoing Fiscal Cliff Discussions;

4:30 (CST)/5:30 pm (EST):  Brad Bailey, Founder, Texas Immigration Solution:  Immigration and Texas as the GOP model;

5:00 (CST)/6:00 pm (EST):  Robert Knight, Senior Fellow for the American Civil Rights Union: ACLU’s war on Christmas and other religious observances;  and

5:30 (CST)/6:30 pm (EST):  Timothy Lee, Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs at CFIF:  Intellectual Property, counterfeit goods, and generics.

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

Last week, RealClearPolicy.com graciously ran our commentary “End the USGBC Green Certification Monopoly,” in which we asserted that adopting the proposed LEEDv4 standard in its current incarnation as the new government-approved rule is unacceptable, and called for the era of the USGBC’s taxpayer-subsidized monopoly to come to an end.

Now, a damning USA Today analysis concludes that the certification regime allows thousands of “green” builders win tax breaks, exceed local restrictions and win expedited permits with meaningless, easy and low-cost steps:

Across the United States, the Green Building Council has helped thousands of developers win tax breaks and grants, charge higher rents, exceed local building restrictions and get expedited permitting by certifying them as ‘green’ under a system that often rewards minor, low-cost steps that have little or no proven environmental benefit, a USA TODAY analysis has found.

The council has certified 13,500 commercial buildings in the U.S. as green and become one of the most influential forces in building design by helping persuade public officials and private builders to follow its rating system, known as LEED.  More than 200 states, cities and federal agencies now require LEED certification for new public buildings, even though they have done little independent and meaningful research into LEED’s effectiveness. LEED can add millions to construction costs while promising to cut utility bills and other expenses.”

Importantly, the analysis also highlights the self-interest that often underlies such LEED advocacy:

There are now LEED-certified breweries, stadiums, dormitories, bus depots, parking garages, shopping malls, libraries, fire stations, warehouses, boathouses, locker rooms and prison buildings.  LEED’s growth has been driven partly by the building council itself, a 13,000-member non-profit chiefly run by architects, builders and building suppliers. Many specialize in — and profit from — the type of design the council certifies and promotes. The council collects up to $35,000 in fees for each LEED certification.  Building council members have boosted their own LEED-related businesses by helping persuade officials to require or reward LEED certification.  LEED also helps developers market buildings to tenants and investors and collect higher rents and sales prices, University of California economist Nils Kok said.

‘A lot of the fuel for LEED, to be honest, is marketing advantage,’ said Bill Walsh, executive director of the Healthy Building Network, which promotes non-toxic building materials. ‘People are interested in how they get the (LEED) credits, not in thinking deeply about it.'”

As one illustration, the study notes, “The most popular LEED option – earned in 99.7% of the buildings – has no direct environmental benefit but generates millions of dollars for the building council by giving one point if a design team has a LEED expert.”

In other words, government-facilitated, make-work cronyism at its worst.

This report merely confirms CFIF’s point:  LEEDv4 is an unacceptable government-imposed standard, the USGBC’s monopoly must end, the core mission of LEED must be reformed and the federal government must allow greater flexibility and the use of alternative green building certification systems.

Understandably, “forest certification” remains a rather obscure issue to most Americans.  Its regulation, however, significantly impacts the price consumers pay for wood products, not to mention the struggling domestic timber industry.

So what is “forest certification?”  It simply refers to formal recognition from organizations like the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), the American Tree Farming System (ATFS) or the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) that a particular business responsibly manages its property in a way that promotes sustainability.  Those three certification groups set different benchmarks, some more achievable for various landowners than others.  A free and open certification market that allows businesses to choose the system that best fits their profile, and allows consumers to choose, has resulted in a larger amount of “green” products in consumer and building markets.  Additionally, the number of acres of certified land grows by millions of acres each year.

A vocal group of environmental activists, however, only endorses FSC certification and seeks to make it a monopoly while demonizing the competing forest certification systems.  Those activists successfully bullied Fortune 500 companies into accepting the exclusive use of FSC-certified products, and many government and rating agencies only recognize and award green “credits” to forest products recognized by FSC.  As a result, the market becomes distorted, with real costs for producers of wood and the environment, and fewer choices for consumers.  And in an unfortunate turn of events, recent government overreach prevents a majority of American businesses who took the time and invested their resources to achieve certification from entering green markets.  The U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC) LEED rating system only recognizes FSC-certified wood as sustainable, which means SFI or ATFS timber cannot enter LEED projects.  Even though the USGBC is a nonprofit group, many government agencies now accept its word as gospel, and make its standards binding for receiving contracts.

That weakens the incentives for landowners to certify their land, because if they cannot market their goods in LEED markets, why bother to absorb the real costs (financial, time, compliance) associated with certification?  If SFI and ATFS goods are blocked from green markets, and the cost of FSC-certification is too steep, many businesses will opt out altogether.

The better policy is to encourage sustainable development of our nation’s forests by recognizing all credible forest certification program options.

Whether having arrived at these policies out of ignorance or simply succumbing to outside pressure, policymakers should accordingly reverse the policy that amounts to a de facto FSC monopoly in certain markets.  A recent study by the American Consumer Institute estimated the costs of carrying that policy to its endpoint.  Namely, if FSC-certification was made a binding requirement for American forests, consumer welfare losses would occur in a number of markets, totaling $10 billion for wood products and $24 billion for paper products markets each year.

It is therefore incumbent that the government stop picking certification monopoly winners and losers in this market.  The timber industry, small businesses and consumers deserve much better.

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 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):  Ryan Wiggins, Field Director for American Majority Action’s Pensacola Liberty Headquarters:  Engaging Citizens in the Political Process;

4:30 (CDT)/5:30 pm (EDT):  Stephen Pociask, President, American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research:  Cost of Going Green and LEED;

5:00 (CDT)/6:00 pm (EDT):  Bay Buchanan, Political Strategist, Pundit and Author:  Election 2012;  and

5:30 (CDT)/6:30 pm (EDT):  Timothy Lee, CFIF:  TalktoYourPilot.com and SCOTUS Affirmative Action Case.

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

We at CFIF have highlighted labor union leaders’  destructive efforts to force a merger between American Airlines and US Air.  We’ve also launched TalktoYourPilot.com for weary passengers to tweet or post their disgust toward the Allied Pilots Association (APA) union whose sabotage has caused massive inconvenience for innocent American Airlines travelers.  And just last week, the Washington Times ran our commentary detailing APA’s behavior within the larger context of a history of labor union malfeasance.

In those commentaries, we noted the irony of the unions’ merger-mania, considering the fact that US Air has yet to fully integrate the new employees it acquired with its 2005 takeover of America West Airlines, including an ongoing seven-year dispute with pilots over seniority and pay scales.

Now we’re witnessing further confirmation of our point.  Leaders of the US Air flight attendants’ union plan a strike vote beginning October 31, just the latest example of the company’s poor labor relations.   For the second time this year, US Air’s flight attendants rejected a contract offer  that would have at long last placed pre-merger America West members under the same agreement as US Air’s.  Meanwhile, Laura Glading, the leader of American’s flight attendant union, maintains her support of an American-US Air merger.  Disgusted with a leader who pushes a merger with an airline that can’t even resolve its own labor ills, American flight attendants have created a Recall Laura Glading page.

Once again, this illustrates the illogic and abuse that characterizes modern unions’ overreach and destructive behavior.  That behavior continues to threaten consumers, the industry and – as demonstrated by the American flight attendants’ recall effort – union members themselves.

Before Barack Obama, America had never seen a trillion-dollar deficit.  Under Obama, we have now endured four in a row.

Today, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced that the deficit for fiscal 2012 totaled $1.1 trillion, after trillion-plus deficits for 2009 (which Obama falsely attributes to Bush), 2010 and 2011.  Keep in mind that Obama originally promised that the deficit would be down to $557 billion this year, in addition to his infamous promise to “cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term.”   Moreover, the expiration date on his all-purpose alibi of the last recession has long since passed, since that recession ended over three years ago in June 2009.

Obama and his media apologists will naturally trumpet this morning’s lackluster jobs report, yet today’s deficit announcement by the CBO provides a broader perspective on his utter, unprecedented failure as president.

Enough is enough.  It’s time to shine a brighter spotlight on pilot union attempts to sabotage American Airlines.  That’s why CFIF is launching TalktoYourPilot.com – to ensure that travelers know who’s to blame for their frustrations.  No surprise – it’s the pilots’ union, the Allied Pilots Association (APA).

From time to time over the last five months, Jeff Mazzella, Renee Giachino and I have written about the APA’s antics.  You can read most of those things here or read my op-ed in the Washington Times.  In those commentaries we’ve made each of the following points:

–          The airline industry has changed dramatically over the last couple of decades, forcing every single legacy carrier to reorganize under bankruptcy.  American was the last to do so, holding out until last year.  The cause was simple: With the highest labor costs in the industry (bar far), American needed to do something to become more competitive.

–          Accordingly, American went about negotiating with each of their nine separate labor unions, representing flight attendants, mechanics and pilots. Eight of those nine unions ratified new contracts to help their employer and provide stability for their members.

–          The lone exception of those nine unions?  It was the APA – the primary pilots’ union. The APA rejected a generous offer that included pay raises and an equity stake valued at $187,500 for each of the 8,000 union pilots (13.5% of the company’s value).

–          At the same time, the APA used US Airway’s CEO, Doug Parker, to improve their leverage with American.  The APA cut a deal with Parker in case American and US Airways were to merge – even though Parker’s own US Airways pilots have gone seven years without a contract. (Parker has said that everyone will have their cake and eat it too if he combines the airlines.  That’s unrealistic and disingenuous, but it’s a matter for a different day.)  For more on this, read my interview in the Phoenix Business Journal.

–          Ultimately, if American’s pilots stubbornly refuse to accept a new contract, they could effectively send their employer, or perhaps the entire airline industry, the way of the auto industry.  The difference this time would be that taxpayers won’t be so enthusiastic about bailing them out.

Words are no longer enough. Thousands of travelers have been disrupted by the holdout pilots’ union, and we want to afford those inconvenienced travelers an opportunity to give the pilots a piece of their mind.  That’s why we built TalktoYourPilot.com – to give consumers a chance to tell the pilots to settle their disputes without inconveniencing the rest of us.

A new study confirms something we’ve highlighted here at CFIF in recent weeks:   The environmental activist campaign to grant the Forestry Stewardship Council (FSC) a monopoly over forestry certification standards in the United States would (1) substantially raise costs for American consumers, (2) threaten domestic jobs, (3) disproportionately punish American producers, (4) increase importation of foreign wood and (5) paradoxically incentivize use of less environmentally-friendly materials.

A little background: The clear majority of certified timber in North America is not certified by FSC.  Instead, it is certified by credible certification programs, such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI) and American Tree Farm System (ATFS).   Some environmentalist groups, however, have commenced a campaign to strongarm U.S.  businesses into only using wood and paper products that satisfy the FSC’s preferred standard.

The problem?  As confirmed by the new study, an FSC certification monopoly would threaten domestic industry, cost American jobs and raise prices for consumers.  Entitled The Monopolization of Forest Certification:  Do Disparate Standards Increase Consumer Costs and Undermine Sustainability?, the study vividly and alarmingly summarizes its findings:

• The FSC certification seems to be significantly more costly than other standards, thereby raising producer costs and consumer prices in the range of 15% to 20%, as well as upsetting the balance between sustainability and economic viability;
• The FSC standard in the US appears to be stricter, and therefore more costly, than standards applied overseas, thereby disadvantaging US producers and raising retail prices for American consumers; and
• If a FSC standard becomes a regulatory requirement for US forests (through edict or non-market pressures from outside groups), consumer welfare losses would occur in a number of markets, including an estimated loss of $10 billion per year for wood products and $24 billion per year for paper products markets.”

Rather than subject ourselves to a foreign monopoly with such destructive consequences, the preferable alternative is to continue competition between certification programs – which will spur economic and consumer benefits.

This new study substantiates that and comes at an opportune time as the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has just opened up their discriminatory LEED process for public comment.

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 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):  Megan Brown, Partner, Wiley Rein:  2012 Supreme Court Term Preview;

4:30 (CDT)/5:30 pm (EDT):  Michael Reagan, Talk Radio Host and Townhall Columnist:  Election 2012

5:00 (CDT)/6:00 pm (EDT):  Christopher Horner, CEI Senior Fellow:  “The Liberal War on Transparency;” and

5:30 (CDT)/6:30 pm (EDT):  Kristina Rasmussen, Executive Vice President, Illinois Policy Institute:  Unfunded Pensions.

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

“Employer voices are all in opposition to this bill.”

That was Kathy Wylde, President of the Partnership for New York City, on a proposed regulation that would force city employers to offer up to nine days each year of paid sick leave.

Almost all employers already offer sick leave, with Ernst & Young reporting that only 12% of all city employees lack it.  Further illustrating the unnecessary nature of the proposed law, the E&Y study reports that small businesses (defined as those with fewer than 20 employees) already offer an average of 7.7 days of paid sick days per year, with larger businesses already offering 8.7. The study further concludes that the proposed new burden would cost private-sector employers an astounding $789 million annually, with nonprofits and small businesses carrying $189 million of that burden.  Providing another metric, the report calculates that implementing the regulation would cost businesses 48 cents per hour, per employee.  The struggling construction, utility, hospitality and restaurant sectors would be particularly hard-hit by the proposed rule.

Proponents of the entitlement offer their own study, but their report sampled only 1,200 people in comparison to the 414,000 sampled by E&Y.  The analysis concludes, “There is a growing sentiment among employers that paid sick leave is the ‘straw’ that will break their will to continue to grow or even to operate here.”  In an economy and job market that continue to struggle, how does that serve the interests of employers, employees or city residents generally?

Fortunately, Council Speaker Christine Quinn remains strong against the potential job-killing regulation, despite pressure from labor organizations and activists detached from the everyday realities of hiring workers and keeping a business above water.   New York business owners and residents interested in the city’s economic vitality should call Speaker Quinn and tell her, “keep up the good work.”

This is why we do what we do, and why CFIF’s mission is important.

Today, in conjunction with the Hispanic Leadership Fund, CFIF secured a critical victory on behalf of the First Amendment rights to free speech and free association.  In a unanimous decision that arrived just four days following oral argument on the issue, a notably quick turnaround time when rulings typically arrive months later, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, vacated and remanded a recent lower court decision infringing upon the right of the people to engage in protected speech and associate in privacy.  The case was initiated by Representative Chris Van Hollen (D – Maryland), who apparently never internalized the First Amendment’s explicit provision that, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Vindicating the Supreme Court’s Citizens United and Wisconsin Right to Life decisions, the Court of Appeals noted the muddled nature of campaign finance regulations generally:

After reviewing the record with care, we conclude that the District Court erred in holding that Congress spoke plainly when it enacted 2 U.S.C. § 434(f), thus foreclosing any regulatory construction of the statute by the FEC.  The statute is anything but clear, especially when viewed in the light of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc. (“WRTL II”), 551 U.S. 449 (2007).”

This constitutes an enormous and welcome win for the freedoms of speech and association, one that all who value the First Amendment can celebrate.

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 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):  Jason Richwine, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst at Heritage Foundation – Chicago Teachers Strike;

4:30 (CDT)/5:30 pm (EDT):  Michelle Minton, Fellow in Consumer Policy Studies at the Competitive Enterprise Institute –  NYC’s Sugary Drink Ban;

5:00 (CDT)/6:00 pm (EDT): Greg Brown, Santa Rosa County Property Appraiser –  Trim Notices and Proposed Constitutional Amendments in Florida; and

5:30 (CDT)/6:30 pm (EDT):  Timothy Lee, Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs at CFIF – Libya and Domestic Political Developments.

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

Is this what our Internet sector and economy need?  More uncertainty from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and Obama Administration?  The tech sector remains a positive outlier in terms of job creation, innovation, new networks and private investment, but regulatory misdirection threatens all of that.

The latest affront involves usage-based pricing for Internet service.  In order to facilitate Internet growth and accommodate ever-increasing consumer demand, service providers must be granted flexibility to at least explore alternative pricing models.  The outdated, flat-rate, all-you-can-eat model increasingly threatens service quality, as a small number of Internet users sap capacity through data-heavy applications like videogames and online video.  To illustrate, viewing a single streamed high-definition film consumes approximately four gigabytes of data.  Utilities aren’t forced to charge a flat rate regardless of electricity use, so why should Internet service providers be straightjacketed in that way?  It’s not fair, and it’s not effective.

Enter FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, who just four months ago explicitly praised pricing flexibility and experimentation in the name of fairness and efficiency:

Business model innovation is very important particularly in new areas like broadband.  There was a point of view that said a couple of years ago that really there was only one permissible pricing model for broadband, and I didn’t agree with that and the Commission didn’t agree with that.  And we said that business model experimentation and usage-based pricing could be a healthy and beneficial part of the ecosystem that could help drive efficiency in networks, increase consumer choice and competition and increase fairness, because it can we said result in lower prices for people who consume less broadband.  So experimentation in this area with those goals in mind is something that’s completely appropriate.”

Other voices on the political left actually concurred, including Tim Wu, the man who coined the deceptive term “Net Neutrality.”

Speaking to a different audience last week, however, Genachowski appeared to reverse himself.  “Anything that depresses broadband usage,” Genachowski claimed, “is something that we need to be really concerned about.”  He added, “We should all be concerned with anything that is incompatible with the psychology of abundance.”

A “psychology of abundance?”  Easy to say when you’re not the once providing that so-called “abundance.”  Perhaps Genachowski is unfamiliar with the timeless economic adage, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.”  Or perhaps he simply says whatever he thinks his present audience wants to hear.

Regardless, Genachowski’s latest comments only add regulatory uncertainty to an atmosphere that already faces too much of it.

Conventional wisdom (pardon the pun) holds that presidential election season doesn’t begin in earnest until the conventions conclude.

If that’s the case, Barack Obama begins his job extension tour with a faceplant.

Economists expected our economy to add 135,000 new jobs in August, but today’s unemployment report shows just 96,000.  Not only is that a steep decline from last month’s already-lackluster 141,000 number, it’s significantly below the 200,000 per month we must see to keep pace with population growth and substantively reduce the festering unemployment rate.  Moreover, another 368,000 Americans simply dropped out of the workforce altogether in August, nearly four times the number of new jobs.  Finally, the unemployment rate remained above the 8% level that the Obama Administration promised in January 2009 we would never reach in the first place, establishing a new record 43rd consecutive month.  In fact, it promised that we would be down to approximately 5% by now.

“Four more years?”  Today’s news makes that an increasingly difficult sell.

No president in modern history has been reelected with unemployment above 7.2%, and even that occurred in 1984 when the rate had plummeted in just a few months from over 10%.  Accordingly, today’s unemployment report makes for an ugly hangover for Obama and his fellow Democratic conventioneers as they board their planes for home.