"A guy like Bob Bennett, who is a right-wing conservative, is being driven out because he's not sufficiently conservative?"

"This is a damn outrage."

Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

In a live interview on CNBC today, Warren Buffett said there has been little progress over the past few months in the "economic war" being fought by the country.  "We haven't got the economy moving yet."

. . .

Buffett repeated his criticism of "cap and trade" as a method to control pollution, saying it would be a huge, regressive tax.

Thank you, and thanks to all of those who have been involved in putting this great event together.

You know, this is the real thing. There are all sorts of demonstrations and actions that are artificially created echo chambers, and people paid to show up and carry signs, but this is the real thing. I’ll bet none of you are being paid to be here tonight.

My name is Tom Giovanetti, and I’m the President of the Institute for Policy Innovation, a free-market think tank in Lewisville.

Don’t you suppose there are a bunch of people at tea parties tonight who voted for change, but didn’t know they were voting for tripling the national debt! It felt all enlightened and holistic to vote for the young progressive guy who was so well spoken, instead of voting for the old guy. But did they know they were voting for “change their grandchildren will still be paying for?”

Did they know that when they voted against George Bush’s third term they’d end up with George McGovern’s first term. Did they know after they voted for change they’d end up with nothing but change left in their pockets?

(There’s a bumper sticker business in there somewhere)

Don’t you suppose the Founders have been rolling over in their graves over what’s been happening in this country for the past 9 months or so, and I don’t mean just since January 20th. But I suspect if the Founders could see what is going on this evening around the country, it would cheer them a little.

The Founders had an ornery streak. They would have made good Texans. They believed that a little rebellion every now and again was necessary to preserve freedom and restrain tyranny. Because freedom was their primary aim. And they knew the biggest threat to freedom was from government.

The Founders understood that government was necessary, but that it was a necessary evil. They knew that government was necessary to restrain evil, but they also understood that government itself had to be restrained.

Take 45 minutes sometime and read the Constitution. The Constitution is almost nothing other than a limit on government power. It says very little about things like national defense, or health care, but it goes on and on about what government cannot do. It’s a very negative document.

That’s why the Constitution mandates a divided, federalist system of government. The Founders divided up government into as many parts as possible because they didn’t trust government. Then they took all the little parts and spread them out on the ground and jumped up and down on them until they pulverized the pieces as small as possible. They didn’t trust government. And we shouldn’t, either.

A guy back in 1651 wrote a book about government called “Leviathan,” named after the sea monster. Leviathan a good image of government--greedy, growing, insatiable for control and digging its tentacles into every possible nook and cranny of the country.

When you read the Constitution, you can almost picture in your mind the Leviathan of big government getting shackled. The monster lurches to its left and the Constitution slaps a shackle on it. It lunges to the right and the Constitution shackles another tentacle.

Over and over again, our Constitution says to government “this you may do, but no more.”

Remember, for government, it’s all about control. You do know that the government is making it difficult for the banks and insurance companies to pay back the bailout money? The government doesn’t care about money, because the government cares about control. They like telling companies how much they can pay, and who gets hired, and what kinds of products companies should make, and how they should be investing their money. It’s all about control.

Please don’t fall for the idea that our problems are so big that only government spending can solve them. The other day, someone gave me this Talking Ronald Reagan as a gift, and it couldn’t have come at a better time. I just love pushing the button on the back and listening to Reagan’s voice, even though it isn’t exactly in digital surround sound.

To the youngsters in the crowd I say, please don’t get annoyed at us older folks talking about Ronald Reagan like he was some kind of saint. Because politically speaking, he was like some kind of saint.

In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan drove the big government liberal Keynesians into hiding under rocks, and they stayed there for almost 30 years. For 30 years a politician has not been able to win an election as a liberal. But now they are poking their heads out from under the rocks, blinking their eyes at the sunshine and thinking it’s safe now to come out of hiding. They think the election welcomed big spending liberalism back into the sunshine. Well, I think they’ve misread the election.

Things were worse than this when Ronald Reagan took office.

When Ronald Reagan took office inflation and unemployment were in the double-digits, and mortgage rates were 13.5%. The economy was in the ditch, and we were viewed very negatively internationally. We were humiliated with hostages in Iran, and historians were writing books about America’s decline.

It was in his first inaugural speech that he made the famous line “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem.”

But there’s another bit from Reagan’s first inaugural speech that is perhaps even more appropriate for us at this time. Reagan said “We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”

Reagan said “It is my intention to curb the size and influence of the Federal establishment and to demand recognition of the distinction between the powers granted to the Federal Government and those reserved to the States or to the people. All of us need to be reminded that the Federal Government did not create the States; the States created the Federal Government.”

It’s really important to understand what Reagan said “we are a nation that has a government, not the other way around.” All of this debate about whether or not people should want the President or the current Congress to succeed or fail need to remember that the government isn’t the country. What’s good for the government isn’t necessarily good for the country. It may very well be necessary for a particular Congress or a particular President to fail in order for the country to succeed.

Now, some people might say “you know, you’re really overdoing it with all this talk about losing our freedom. We’re all still free and you’re just inciting people.”

But are we still free? And are we heading in a direction of more freedom, or less freedom?

When you add up all the taxes we pay to government, when you add up federal income taxes, payroll taxes, state income taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, and even local income taxes in some places like New York City, when for some people those taxes add up to more than half of a person’s income, it’s fair to ask whether we’re still free, or whether we’re just sharecroppers working on the government’s farm.

And how about our children and grandchildren? Will they be free, when the current Congress will triple the national debt over the next ten years to $17.3 trillion dollars? Or will they just be a revenue source to feed the federal government?

Remember the Matrix movie? You don’t want to be just a power source serving the Matrix, and you don’t want to be just a revenue source serving Leviathan, either. But that’s where you’re heading.

The Obama budget deficit will total an astounding 13.1 percent of GDP. Now, just for comparison sake, under George Bush, the federal deficit for 2008 was 3.2 percent of GDP. The deficit for fiscal year 2007, in the last budget adopted when Congress was controlled by Republican majorities, was 1.2 percent of GDP.

So tonight you look around and you feel good because you say “You know, I’m not alone. There are a whole lot of people who share my frustration.” But that’s not enough. You can’t just go home and be done. You have to stay involved. You can’t stop now.

Because THEY’RE not going to stop. THEY’RE just getting started. They’re coming after your health care, and they won’t be content until they control the health care industry.

Now, you may not be thrilled about your health insurance company. But just wait until you’re been in national health care for a couple of years. Just wait until they ration care like every other national health care system does.

Just wait until you find out you’re going blind, and they tell you that you can’t have the miracle drug that prevents blindness until after you’ve already lost one eye. Because the drug is expensive and, besides, you only really need one eye. That’s a true story—it happened in England. They denied a guy who was going blind the drug that would stop his blindness, and they told him they couldn’t approve the drug for him until he was down to his last eye.

And they’re going to make the price of everything much more expensive with their cap and trade system, which is a solution for a problem that probably doesn’t exist. Every single thing that uses energy will become much more expensive under cap and trade, and that’s the express purpose of the plan—to make you buy less so you’ll consume less energy.

Can you imagine a government that PURPOSELY raises prices on Americans? The cap and trade system will raise taxes across the entire economy by $645 billion!

So what is happening tonight all around the country needs to continue. You can’t stop here, because THEY’RE not stopping. But what can you do?

Get to know your elected Representative and Senators. Write them letters, send them faxes, and call their offices. It really does matter. And you should not only rail at them when you don’t like what they’re doing, but you should praise them when they do the right thing.

Now, in Denton County, we’re blessed by the fact that most if not all of us have elected representatives and Senators who are fiscally conservative. And that’s a good thing, but when you’re frustrated about what’s going on in the country, you feel kinda powerless because you’ve already elected someone you’re generally pleased with. So what more can you do?

Well, you can adopt a candidate. Find a challenger somewhere else in the country who’s running against one of the bad guys, and support that candidate. Send them some money every once in a while, and maybe even go work for a week in their district during the campaign. Pick out a conservative challenger in some nice place like Hawaii or Lake Tahoe and go do some campaign work for them and work on your tan at the same time.

You can also support organizations that work on these kinds of issues all the time, but that’s as much of a sale pitch as I’m going to do tonight.

I’ll leave you with this: More important than whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, a Libertarian, or whatever, is the question of whether we still believe in limited, restrained government, or whether we should essentially scrap the Constitution and support unlimited government power to do pretty much whatever it wants. In other words, do we want to become France, or do we want to remain America?

It’s time to say once again to our government, “this you may do, but no more.”

Thank you. ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/my-tea-party-speech.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/my-tea-party-speech.htm?opendocument&comments Mon, 6 Apr 2009 15:11:32 -0500
Accordingly, about a month ago it occurred to me that the feds were going to quickly come to enjoy all the control they had gained over banks and financial institutions as a result of the bailouts, the TARP money, etc., and that they weren't going to want to give it up. It occurred to me that they were going to make it as difficult as possible for financial institutions to pay back the money, because they want to maintain control. They like being able to fire CEOs, replace boards, set salaries and compensation policies, etc. I'm sure they've already got plans about dictating lending practices to an even greater degree than they already do through existing legislation. And so it occurred to me that we we ... ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=ultimately-government-is-always-about-control.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/ultimately-government-is-always-about-control.htm Government Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/ultimately-government-is-always-about-control.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/ultimately-government-is-always-about-control.htm
Accordingly, about a month ago it occurred to me that the feds were going to quickly come to enjoy all the control they had gained over banks and financial institutions as a result of the bailouts, the TARP money, etc., and that they weren't going to want to give it up. It occurred to me that they were going to make it as difficult as possible for financial institutions to pay back the money, because they want to maintain control. They like being able to fire CEOs, replace boards, set salaries and compensation policies, etc.  I'm sure they've already got plans about dictating lending practices to an even greater degree than they already do through existing legislation. And so it occurred to me that we were going to start hearing stories about banks having a hard time getting government to take the money back.

I should have blogged something about it at the time, just to show you all how smart and prescient I am, but it's too late now, because it's already happening.

In an op/ed in Saturday's Wall Street Journal, Stuart Varney relates how banks that are ready, now, to pay the money back with interest are being refused that possibility by the feds. Read the whole article, but here's the key section:

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money.

. . .

Here's a true story first reported by my Fox News colleague Andrew Napolitano (with the names and some details obscured to prevent retaliation). Under the Bush team a prominent and profitable bank, under threat of a damaging public audit, was forced to accept less than $1 billion of TARP money. The government insisted on buying a new class of preferred stock which gave it a tiny, minority position. The money flowed to the bank. Arguably, back then, the Bush administration was acting for purely economic reasons. It wanted to recapitalize the banks to halt a financial panic.

Fast forward to today, and that same bank is begging to give the money back. The chairman offers to write a check, now, with interest. He's been sitting on the cash for months and has felt the dead hand of government threatening to run his business and dictate pay scales. He sees the writing on the wall and he wants out. But the Obama team says no, since unlike the smaller banks that gave their TARP money back, this bank is far more prominent. The bank has also been threatened with "adverse" consequences if its chairman persists. That's politics talking, not economics.

This is no shock at all to me, of course, given my (and the Founder's) assumptions about government.

When government becomes accustomed to control, its appetite only grows larger. Just today there is a story in the Wall Street Journal about the IRS warning nonprofit organizations about their compensation packages. Why non-profits? Because, since their funds are tax-deductible, they're" kinda, quasi-government supported institutions," goes the logic. It's not a big leap, in the logic of government, that if it can control organizations that receive direct government money, it can also control organizations that receive a "subsidy" in the form of tax exemption.

Now, I don't believe for a minute that the absence of taxation is the same as government subsidy. Such logic would indicate that any non-taxed activity is actually government subsidized. In other words, every possible economic activity is part of the tax base, and if it's not taxed, that means the government is subsidizing it. Nonsense.

We're seeing a case study in why socialism doesn't work, or in why socialism results in much less economic efficiency. What government funds, government controls, and government will direct the things it controls toward political ends, rather than toward economic ends. ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/ultimately-government-is-always-about-control.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/ultimately-government-is-always-about-control.htm?opendocument&comments Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:42:19 -0500
... ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=change-our-grandkids-will-be-paying-for.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/change-our-grandkids-will-be-paying-for.htm Deficits/Surpluses Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/change-our-grandkids-will-be-paying-for.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/change-our-grandkids-will-be-paying-for.htm
]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/change-our-grandkids-will-be-paying-for.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/change-our-grandkids-will-be-paying-for.htm?opendocument&comments Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:44:29 -0500 In a blog post today on the Huffington Post, we have an admission today that net neutrality and limits on media ownership are really about the political Left trying to lock in a political advantage.

I would think articles like this would be very damaging to those who are trying to argue for net netrality for reasons related to "the nature of networks" or "the nature of the Internet." No, it turns out this is really what it's about.

I'll be surprised if this blog entry isn't pulled down, so I'm going to quote it in its entirety.

Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer and other right-wing mouthpieces are trying to frame future debates while they reinvent the George W. Bush years. Their eerie falsehoods, half-truths, revisions, and lies are given added weight because they sit atop a bed of chatter and static, ... ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=admission-that-net-neutrality-is-about-gaining-political-advantage-for-the-left.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/admission-that-net-neutrality-is-about-gaining-political-advantage-for-the-left.htm Network Neutrality Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/admission-that-net-neutrality-is-about-gaining-political-advantage-for-the-left.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/admission-that-net-neutrality-is-about-gaining-political-advantage-for-the-left.htm In a blog post today on the Huffington Post, we have an admission today that net neutrality and limits on media ownership are really about the political Left trying to lock in a political advantage.

I would think articles like this would be very damaging to those who are trying to argue for net netrality for reasons related to "the nature of networks" or "the nature of the Internet." No, it turns out this is really what it's about.

I'll be surprised if this blog entry isn't pulled down, so I'm going to quote it in its entirety. I'll try to highlight the really juicy parts for you.

Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Ari Fleischer and other right-wing mouthpieces are trying to frame future debates while they reinvent the George W. Bush years. Their eerie falsehoods, half-truths, revisions, and lies are given added weight because they sit atop a bed of chatter and static, often called the "echo chamber," of Fox News and right-wing talk radio. Everything that comes out of Cheney's mouth (or Rove's or Fleischer's) is carefully calculated and designed to cast doubt about the current president while whitewashing the disasters of the previous one. Their dire warnings about how President Barack Obama is not "keeping us safe" from terrorists, and their repeated claim that Bush "kept us safe," starkly reveal their propaganda goals. Cheney's take on 9-11, Hurricane Katrina, and the budget deficits of the Bush years should send shivers up any rational observer's spine.

In 2004, Cheney said the same thing about John Kerry: a vote for Kerry meant a vote for a heightened chance of terrorist attack and more dead Americans. Disgusting. It is even more sickening since Cheney is the one with the blood of 4,500 Americans and 200,000 Iraqi civilians on his hands. He's in no position to lecture us on how to prevent American deaths. Yet there is CNN's John King or NBC's David Gregory or ABC's George Stephanopoulos sitting across a table nodding and giving these monsters a platform to shamelessly propagandize the American people.

Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer (the same people who lied us into going to war in Iraq) appear on our television screens with two principal aims: 1). To lay down a base of rhetorical fire, through repetition, that might frame the larger political debate as the Obama Administration moves forward and unexpected events challenge the Democratic leadership; and 2). To re-write the legacy of the George W. Bush years.

Back in the 1980s, the Republican Party had the upper hand with the first computerized donor lists, "soft money" (a Reagan campaign creation), and "direct mail" operations (where Karl Rove got his start), while the left and the progressives were still relying largely on 19th century techniques such as distributing leaflets and organizing demonstrations. During the Clinton years it looked like the GOP might control the Internet when the Drudge Report dominated the 24-hour news cycle and right-wing websites had astounding "synergies" with talk radio, cable news, and whatever party line the Newt Gingrich Congress was pushing. One of the greatest achievements of Barack Obama's presidential campaign was its domination of Internet communications, which fused Netroots connectivity with Grassroots political organizing. The Huffington Post and other progressive news and information sites, along with MoveOn.org and other Internet organizing networks, played a key role in this dramatic shift in communications technology away from the Right and toward progressive social change.

We need to lock in this advantage.

Here comes the juicy part.

A chunk of the Obama Administration's stimulus money is aimed at laying down Internet connections in areas that are underserved. This expansion and upgrading of the nation's Internet cable system should make it possible for millions of people to by-pass the filter of giant media corporations and access alternative information that undermines the Cheney-Rove-Fleischer revisionist narrative of the George W. Bush legacy. We have a very rare opportunity right now to lock in a progressive advantage in Internet communications, information sharing, and Netroots mobilizing.

With Democratic majorities in Congress and a liberal Democratic administration we can blunt the political influence of media conglomerates and the Right. That is why the Republicans and their corporate media sponsors want to destroy Net Neutrality. They know from their experience with talk radio and the creation of Fox News that corporate absorption of the Internet and ending net neutrality would be a propaganda coup.

The Obama Administration's Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and a revivified Anti-Trust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice could pursue all sorts of reforms that would open up the nation's political discourse. A few minor changes in the rules and regulations governing the public airwaves and corporate media consolidation could transform the political economy of the media sector. Such reforms would make it more difficult for networks to shove people like Cheney, Rove, and Fleischer down our throats because enhanced competition would mean that rivals might be broadcasting more attractive fare. Breaking up Rupert Murdoch's empire (starting with revoking the waiver that allows him to own the New York Post), and busting up Clear Channel's monopoly of radio would be a good place to start. Congress, working with the Obama Administration, could then revisit the odious Telecommunications Act of 1996 and remove or rework its worst provisions. Look at what the media monopolies did during the Bush years. The Bush Administration never could have lied us into going to war in Iraq if it were not for the duplicity of the corporate media.

Without some fundamental changes to our media environment the Cheneys and Roves and Fleischers (or their trained cadres) will be back in power. These calculating neo-cons want to claw their way back into power because they believe they're entitled to hold power. Forever. I thought I had seen the last of unelected hacks like Richard Perle and Elliot Abrams after their disgraceful exits from the Reagan Administration but they came roaring back as soon as W. was in power. They don't need any new ideas because the "ideas" they promulgate serve power. We need as many non-elite, outside the Beltway voices as possible. We don't need to hear more aristocratic propaganda about the benefits of unfettered capitalism; we don't need to hear more authoritarian scare tactics that justify torture, false imprisonment, and war; we don't need to hear more Kulturkampf designed to divide working people through exploiting wedge issues and to control women's bodies and lay claim to the flag, the military, mom and apple pie. It's time to take steps to open up our media system.

]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/admission-that-net-neutrality-is-about-gaining-political-advantage-for-the-left.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/admission-that-net-neutrality-is-about-gaining-political-advantage-for-the-left.htm?opendocument&comments Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:21:37 -0500 Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today about the latest dispute within the CopyLeft community on fair use.

It's not big surprise that the CopyLefties would be arguing that it's perfectly fine for an artist to find a licensed photo on the Internet and use it without paying or even acknowledging the owner of the photo. That's pretty much standard for the CopyLeft. They feel free to take what they want, because, you see, that's really what creativity is. Creativity isn't the hours of work and the years of experience that go into creating the original creative work. Creativity is taking someone's creation and splashing a little yellow paint on it. THAT's creativity. You call it a mash-up, and you're on the cutting edge of creativity, and you are so much more creative than the person who did the original work that they aren't even worth mentioning, unless they have agreed to abandon all their rights and use the borrower's licensing system, Creative Commons. ... ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=more-moral-confusion-on-the-copyleft.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/more-moral-confusion-on-the-copyleft.htm Copyright Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/more-moral-confusion-on-the-copyleft.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/more-moral-confusion-on-the-copyleft.htm Interesting article in the Wall Street Journal today about the latest dispute within the CopyLeft community on fair use.

It's not big surprise that the CopyLefties would be arguing that it's perfectly fine for an artist to find a licensed photo on the Internet and use it without paying or even acknowledging the owner of the photo. That's pretty much standard for the CopyLeft. They feel free to take what they want, because, you see, that's really what creativity is. Creativity isn't the hours of work and the years of experience that go into creating the original creative work. Creativity is taking someone's creation and splashing a little yellow paint on it. THAT's creativity. You call it a mash-up, and you're on the cutting edge of creativity, and you are so much more creative than the person who did the original work that they aren't even worth mentioning, unless they have agreed to abandon all their rights and use the borrower's licensing system, Creative Commons.

Okay, I admit that turned into a little rant. Sorry.

Anyway, this time some artist took a photo of Obama from the Internet, disregarded the photographer and owner of the photo, and Andy Warhol-ized it.

It became an iconic image of the Obama campaign. And since I guarantee you that 99% of the CopyLeft were rabid Obama supporters, they all thought this was just great.

But this time it isn't the rights of some corporation that are being trampled on, but rather the rights of a photographer. The artist has made a bundle on the alterations he made to the original photo, but instead of sharing even a fraction of the profits with the guy who made it possible, or even acknowledging him, the artist is suing the photographer with the help of Larry Lessig.

I have argued before about the moral confusion of the IP thieves, who have gone so overboard with their opposition to IP that they actually condone counterfeiting of pharmaceuticals, and in this case condone trampling all over the work and the rights of the photographer who captured the image of Obama that was altered by the artist.

It is nothing short of moral confusion for the CopyLeft to justify defrauding the photographer of his work and then suing him. ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/more-moral-confusion-on-the-copyleft.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/more-moral-confusion-on-the-copyleft.htm?opendocument&comments Wed, 4 Mar 2009 18:56:20 -0500 Kudlow, and Larry is talking with a screen full of people about some of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's recent moves and statements. (this is the video)

Kudlow says something like this to Don Luskin (who is a fellow supply-sider but with whom I've had a minor run-in in the past): "I don't understand how this guy [Geithner] thinks. He's a bright guy. He's not stupid, right?"

To which Don Luskin replies "I don't think we can rule out that he's [Geithner] stupid."

Funny line, but tragic if true.

... ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=does-geithner-have-a-clue.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/does-geithner-have-a-clue.htm Tax Increases Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/does-geithner-have-a-clue.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/does-geithner-have-a-clue.htm Kudlow, and Larry is talking with a screen full of people about some of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's recent moves and statements. (this is the video)

Kudlow says something like this to Don Luskin (who is a fellow supply-sider but with whom I've had a minor run-in in the past): "I don't understand how this guy [Geithner] thinks. He's a bright guy. He's not stupid, right?"

To which Don Luskin replies "I don't think we can rule out that he's [Geithner] stupid."

Funny line, but tragic if true.

Problem is, Geithner said something today that makes me think he IS stupid. Or evil.

Today I saw a bit of Geithner testifying before a Senate committee, and he was being grilled about the administration's proposal to limit the tax deductibility of charitable contributions for high-income taxpayers. I'll reconstruct the dialog from memory as best I can.

Senator: "I just don't understand why you would push a policy that will result in less philanthropy."

Geithner: "Senator, according to our estimates, the impact on philanthropy will be minimal."

Senator: "I've seen studies that suggest that philanthropy will be reduced by as much as 40% among the wealthy if they aren't permitted a tax-deduction. But in a slow economy, nonprofits are already struggling, and you are going to do something to limit philanthropy? I just don't understand it."

Geithner: "Senator, what nonprofits need is a growing economy, and this policy will result in a growing economy which will help non-profits."

Did you catch that? Geithner is asserting that the administration's budget, with its tax INCREASES, is going to boost economic growth!

There are three terribly important points to make here.

1. The right kind of tax CUTS usually increase economic growth, but I can't imagine anyone asserting that tax INCREASES stimulate economic growth. Geithner is either confused, dishonest, or stupid on this point.

2. What's good for government is not the same as what is good for the economy. And Geithner seems confused about this, too.

3. Obama is raising taxes on the wealthy and providing tax rebates to the poor in order to REDISTRIBUTE INCOME and RESTRUCTURE THE ECONOMY. It has nothing to do with macroeconomics, or "getting the economy going again." Geithner either doesn't get this, or has bought in to the deception in exchange for getting his Treasury Secretary gig.

Let's think carefully here. It's possible (but not a certainty) that higher tax rates will increase government revenue. So, higher taxes might be good for the GOVERNMENT, in that it might make the government's financial statements look better.

But what is good for the government's financial statements isn't necessarily good for the economy, or for the country. You see, THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T THE COUNTRY. The government is various things (including a parasite on the economy much of the time). But the government isn't the country, and the government isn't the economy.

Often we confuse what is good for the government with what is good for the country. They aren't the same thing.

The primary concern in policy should be to make sure the COUNTRY is in good shape, not the government. Higher taxes might be good for government revenue, and redistribution of wealth might be good for the recipients, but let's not fool ourselves: Higher taxes for purposes of redistribution are about POLITICS, not growing the economy.

We get in trouble in the policy world when we assume that "we" are the same thing as the government, and when we assume that what is good for government is good for us. Read the Constitution sometime. Read the Federalist Papers. The most pressing concern of the Founders was to LIMIT government. They did not see government as a proxy for the country. The government is OF the people, but it ISN'T the people.

The Obama administration is either confused or is being purposefully cagey on this point. Everything they propose, everything they want to do, is being sold as designed to "fix the economy." But everything they are doing is actually designed to redistribute wealth and to restructure the economy so that government has a much greater role in running and regulating major sectors of the economy.

Be wise. ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/does-geithner-have-a-clue.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/does-geithner-have-a-clue.htm?opendocument&comments Wed, 4 Mar 2009 09:57:43 -0500 a good piece in today's European Voice on the importance of not letting the piracy lobby determine copyright policy.

The economic consequences of sites such as the Pirate Bay, which attempt to find loopholes in the existing intellectual-property system, will be dire – and even more so in a downturn. The knowledge economy is based on a trade-off in which the investments and time put into the creation of new content allow their owners to sell it for a price, not least in order to recover their own costs. But when this side of the equation is not respected then the entire rationale of the system is lost.

... ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=keeping-pirates-at-bay.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/keeping-pirates-at-bay.htm Piracy and Counterfeiting Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/keeping-pirates-at-bay.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/keeping-pirates-at-bay.htm a good piece in today's European Voice on the importance of not letting the piracy lobby determine copyright policy.

The economic consequences of sites such as the Pirate Bay, which attempt to find loopholes in the existing intellectual-property system, will be dire – and even more so in a downturn. The knowledge economy is based on a trade-off in which the investments and time put into the creation of new content allow their owners to sell it for a price, not least in order to recover their own costs. But when this side of the equation is not respected then the entire rationale of the system is lost.

The debate here is not really about price, however. There is no evidence to suggest that if a company reduces the price of its album by 50% it also halves the volume of illegal downloading. The question is deeper – it is about resisting the natural temptation to free-ride on other people's work, especially when the cost is nil.

]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/keeping-pirates-at-bay.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/keeping-pirates-at-bay.htm?opendocument&comments Sun, 8 Feb 2009 17:00:09 -0500 http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=ebays-self-inflicted-wounds.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/ebays-self-inflicted-wounds.htm Current Events Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/ebays-self-inflicted-wounds.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/ebays-self-inflicted-wounds.htm Ebay is having problems. And I may have some idea why.

Several years ago, when eBay was young, I bought a lot of stereo equipment, speakers, etc. on eBay, and I also bought a few electronic odds and ends as well.

I thought I had a very good experience with eBay. Generally, I got exactly what I expected. There were two specific instances where I was actually cheated by a seller, who sold me defective equipment. But, of course, I was able to give negative feedback, and when you average it all out, I still got good value despite a couple of specific losses.

The feedback system was genius, and while I'm sure there were abuses, over a period of transactions it became clear who were reliable buyers and sellers, and who were not.

Now, fast forward several years. My wife has boxes of homeschool curriculum materials, books, DVDs, etc. that she no longer needs. I suggested that she sell them on eBay.

One Sunday evening she listed her first three or four items. All were promptly sold, packaged and shipped.

Now, you don't know my wife, but she is fastidious about things, and she's not going to try to sell you a damaged book. If the spine on a book is broken, or if a DVD is scratched, she isn't going to try to get money for it.

So a few days after she ships her books, a purchaser writes back and says that the book was falling apart when she received it. She said that the spine was broken and that pages were falling out.

Now, this simply was not true. It was not possible.

So my wife responds with puzzlement, saying to the purchase that she can't understand how that could be.

The next thing my wife knows, the purchaser has filed a complaint with eBay, and eBay has pulled the money back out of my wife's bank account.

That's right--eBay yanks the money out of the seller's account simply on the basis of a purchaser's claim, without investigation, and without determining what actually happened.

When my wife looked into what her options were, she found out that she had none. She could not tell her side of the story, and she could not even leave feedback on the purchaser. My wife's options were, literally, either let the woman keep the book and also refund her money, or refund her money and get the book back less additional shipping.

On point of principle, my wife asked for the book back and was willing to pay additional shipping, but she wasn't going to let the woman take her for both the book and the money. Of course, the woman didn't return the book. Why would she? She gets to keep the book AND gets her money back, and my wife the seller is absolutely powerless. Not only can my wife not get justice, but she can't even publically complain by leaving negative feedback about having been ripped off by the purchaser.

The point is, the purchaser knew that eBay had tilted the rules so much in favor of buyers that sellers can be taken advantage of, and purposely took advantage of the system to defraud my wife.

Now, this all happened over like a $4.50 transaction.

And while some larger volume sellers may just write this off as part of the cost of doing business on eBay, not my wife, and not people like my wife upon whom eBay built their business.

I think this is what people mean when they say that eBay has "lost affiliates." My wife will never use eBay again. ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/ebays-self-inflicted-wounds.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/ebays-self-inflicted-wounds.htm?opendocument&comments Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:45:58 -0500 http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=obama-is-the-anti-reagan.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/obama-is-the-anti-reagan.htm Current Events Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/obama-is-the-anti-reagan.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/obama-is-the-anti-reagan.htm
In Reagan's first inaugural address, Reagan said:

“In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

Look at these excerpts from Obama's inaugural address:

"For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.  The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth.  We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.  We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost.  We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.  And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.  All this we can do.  And all this we will do. "

"Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. "

"What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works . . . . "

"For as much as government can do and must do . . . . "

When Obama talk about "stale political arguments" about "whether our government is too big or too small" I think he's talking about Reagan, and the Reagan attitude toward government. And when he talks about everything that "we" will do, he's talking about what government will do.

Obama is the Anti-Reagan.

That may not matter to you. But it matters to me, especially since Reagan's approach demonstrably worked. ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/obama-is-the-anti-reagan.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/obama-is-the-anti-reagan.htm?opendocument&comments Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:02:23 -0500 http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/trackback?open&id=memo-to-broadband-companies-dont-take-the-money.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/memo-to-broadband-companies-dont-take-the-money.htm Public Policy (my profession) Tom Giovanetti http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/memo-to-broadband-companies-dont-take-the-money.htm?opendocument&comments http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/memo-to-broadband-companies-dont-take-the-money.htm
Many of these companies are salivating at the prospects of these subsidies, and many of these companies are my friends. I like companies that are in the business of providing broadband access, and are constantly rolling out new products and services, higher speeds, and doing it all through market processes and with their own money. These are the champions of the information age, in my opinion, and I vigorously defend them against government and activist attempts to regulate their businesses and dictate their business models.

One of our strongest arguments in favor of protecting the broadband industry from regulation is that the networks are private property, that they belong to the companies who have built them, and that they were built with private risk capital. It weakens the assertion of pro-regulatory activists when you can assert that the networks are privately owned and privately built with private capital.

I have a big concern that these companies are getting ready to make a big mistake by accessing these new government subsidies. It's their business, but I hope they think twice about it.

Remember UNE-P? Remember pricing regulation? Remember the bad old days when your businesses were highly regulated at the federal, state and even local level? Remember when you were the most heavily regulated industry in the country? Remember when you couldn't do anything, even reduce prices, without getting the government's approval? Remember the onerous reporting requirements?

What was the justification for such a level of regulation? That your network had been built with "taxpayer dollars."

Now, of course, we all know that your old voice networks were NOT built by taxpayer dollars. It was your own money, but because your customers were essentially captive ratepayers, people felt that somehow you were able to simply extract fees from everyone, and that your customers had not real choice in the matter. Hence your networks were built with "non-discretionary" (taxpayer) dollars.

So, if you were the most heavily regulated industry in the country when you were UNFAIRLY accused of building your networks with taxpayer dollars, what's it going to be like when you ACTUALLY DO build your networks with taxpayer dollars?

The price you will pay for accessing those funds will far exceed whatever specific conditions and strings Congress puts on the money. For the remainder of the lifespans of your networks, it will be said that your broadband networks were all, every bit of them, every fiber, switch, router and trench, built with taxpayer dollars, and it will be used as justification for any nutroots regulation anyone wants to propose.

I wouldn't touch that money if I were you. Just something to think about. ]]> http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dxcomments/memo-to-broadband-companies-dont-take-the-money.htm http://www.ipi.org/Blog/GioBlog.nsf/dx/memo-to-broadband-companies-dont-take-the-money.htm?opendocument&comments