Archive
GOP Chooses Big Business Over Free Markets
I don’t link to other articles and blog posts on here enough. I’m trying to do it more. So here’s a piece by Ezra Klein on former Republican Study Committee staffer Derek Khanna and his support for more relaxed intellectual property laws, starting with allowing consumers to legally unlock their cell phones and to create a backup of legally purchased DVDs. In November, Khanna wrote a memo for the RSC on how to reform copyright law. It was filled with great ideas and received widespread praise across the blogosphere. Unfortunately, Republican congressmen immediately faced significant pushback from Big Business, which is very happy with the current restrictive copyright regime. The RSC pulled the memo after a few hours and informed Khanna a few weeks later that he would not be retained at the start of the new Congress. Big Business had won.
Here’s Klein:
There’s a difference between being the party of free markets and the party of existing businesses. Excessively tough copyright law is good for big businesses with large legal departments but bad for new businesses that can’t afford a lawyer. And while Khanna, like many young conservative thinkers, believes in free markets, the Republican Party is heavily funded by big businesses.
If Republicans really were for free markets, they would openly embrace Khanna’s reforms, such as stricter term limits on copyright, expanded fair use and reduced statutory damages. These policy ideas push government policy towards free markets and less regulation. As Khanna writes at the end of his memo, “[c]urrent copyright law does not merely distort some markets – rather it destroys entire markets.”
By ignoring and refuting Khanna’s ideas, Republicans are confirming what many Americans already believe: the GOP is the party of the rich and Big Business. Republicans cannot claim to be in favor of free markets and small government when they oppose such sensible reforms that would reduce government overreach in intellectual property law. It’s hypocritical to claim otherwise. At the same time, this is the perfect opportunity for Republicans to improve their image. Supporting copyright reform would prove to Americans that they are still the party of free markets.
Alas, there have been no sign that the GOP will embrace Khanna’s ideas. As for the young Republican, he’s pushing ahead promoting intellectual property reform and just earned White House support for allowing consumers to unlock their cell phones. That’s a big victory for Khanna, but there is lots more work to be done. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like he’ll have Republican support in his pursuit of freer markets.
Liberals Overestimate Obama’s Leverage on the Fiscal Cliff
The Fiscal Cliff is still unresolved.
Over the past couple of days, the White House has taken a lot of heat from liberals for agreeing to using chained-CPI in Social Security. Different writers have lashed out at such a deal and argued that the President is back to “negotiating with himself.” Many of these liberals see going over the fiscal cliff as better than the deal Obama is currently offering. They believe that going over the cliff will give Obama more leverage in the negotiations and allow him to extract a better deal from Republicans. However, I’m very skeptical of this for three reasons:
First, the President is in such a great position now because Republicans really don’t want the Bush tax cuts to expire for anyone. The President wants to extend the tax cuts as well, just not for those making $250,000 a year or more (his most recent offer upped this amount to $400,000). In his counteroffer, House speaker John Boehner agreed to raise rates on those making more than a $1,000,000.
But the rates on everyone automatically rise on January 1st (though its effects don’t occur for a few months). This where the President’s leverage comes from. He would sign a bill extending the tax cuts for the middle class, but Republicans won’t because they want to extend rates for the upper class (and small businesses) as well. That’s why the President can say:
It’s unacceptable for some Republicans in Congress to hold middle class tax cuts hostage simply because they refuse to let tax rates go up on the wealthiest Americans
The polling has largely backed up the President, with the American people blaming Republicans for not compromising.
The thing that many liberals have overlooked is that this can change quickly. Boehner’s offer to raise rates on those making over a $1,000,000 may not be much substantively, but it represents a big shift in the Republican party. For years now, the Republicans have adamantly refused to raise taxes. Period. End of question.
Now, the Speaker is finally offering to let taxes rise on the wealthiest Americans. The American people may see this as a major compromise for Republicans and believe that the President is now holding the middle tax cuts hostage. I haven’t seen any polling since Boehner submitted this offer to the President, but I’d be very interested in it. If we go over the fiscal cliff, it’s possible that Obama could receive much of the blame. That would certainly put him in a much worse bargaining position. Read more…
Legalize Online Gambling
Image via dupo-x-y
The New York Times reported today that Pokerstars and Full Tilt Poker have come to an agreement with the U.S. government to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for illegal online gambling and fraud. Now, Full Tilt Poker had effectively set up a ponzi scheme, taking money from players and putting it in their pockets. Players saw the money in their accounts and Full Tilt said that they could withdraw it at any time, but it seems that was not the case.
These settlements seem fair since both companies certainly broke the law, but there is a bigger question lurking beneath them: what exactly is the problem with online gambling?
I know opponents of it point to the ease of access and the social problems it could create. But not just do I not think that is a valid reason for banning it, I don’t even think the reason holds up under scrutiny.
Opponents to online gambling are generally the same opponents of gambling in general. They have a strong dislike for it, believing it causes a vast array of social problems including the destruction of family values. This may well be the case, but it is also an extremely paternalistic point of view. Many Americans enjoy gambling and do so responsibly. Ever since the rise of Las Vegas in the early 1930s, gambling has been an accepted, if sometimes looked down upon, part of life.
The question then becomes whether online gambling poses such a greater risk to society than in-person gambling that it should be banned. On this, the answer is unequivocally no: online gambling may in fact pose less of a risk to society than its brick-and-mortar counterpart. Read more…
