Heads Up
A Weekly edition of News from around our country
January 31, 1997 #20
by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
----------------------------------------------------------
Previous Editions at: http://mmc.cns.net/headsup.html
----------------------------------------------------------
WELFARE
Liberals are coming out against welfare.
Well, sort of, anyway. And, talk about a strange
alliance, Ohio Rep. John Kasich, a Republican, is leading
the movement. Even consumer buttinsky Ralph Nader is in
on this one.
Their target is corporate welfare.
The coalition identified a few hundred million dollars
in odds and ends that could be "saved" annually by
plugging loopholes in the current tax and redistribution
of wealth laws. As they count it, proposed changes would
eliminate subsidies to big corporations worth
$11.5-billion over five years.
Of course, some in Congress have tried for
years to end blatant giveaways like the Agriculture
Department's Market Access Program. That program uses
taxpayer money to promote the products of major
corporations overseas. Many of us believe that
multi-million dollar corporations can well afford to use
their own funds to advertise.
Not wanting to be outdone -- and obviously
not wanting to do the work themselves -- Senators John
McCain of Arizona and Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts
announced they will introduce a bill setting up an
"independent commission" to review corporate welfare.
The senators say they intend to go after tax
breaks for big corporations, too. Kennedy even laid out
a long list of business tax breaks that should be killed,
complaining the federal government will lose
$4.5-trillion due to tax subsidies over the next seven
years. (No telling where he went to drink lunch that
day!) So OK, if they save $4.5 trillion maybe they could
knock off income tax for a few years for us
non-incorporated citizens.
Obviously that part is a bit silly. But who
knows; at least on the House side, something may come of
this. On the other hand, don't bet on it. Kasich's news
conference was packed with lobbyists.
TAX AND REGULATE THE NET
We on the Internet are getting to do
something that is not taxed and regulated. Can't have
that in this "land of the free" say the bureaucrats in
Washington. That's a "loophole" in the law. It would be
"unfair" to have something that is not taxed and
regulated, bureaucrats imply. So the Federal
Communications Commission plans to fix the inconsistency.
A few days ago, they held a forum on
how we citizens out in the states should be "allowed" to
connect to the Internet. Currently, we just dial up an
Internet service provider for the cost of a local call.
From there, we connect to anywhere we wish in the world,
with no long distance charges. Which, in the purview of
Washington bureaucrat-speak, means no long distance
taxes paid.
So, some at FCC suggest that our Internet
servers be forced to pay an access charge to the local
and long-distance telephone companies, just the way
long-distance callers do. And hence, taxes to Uncle Sam.
Telephone companies, of course, are not
complaining. Many local phone companies are reporting
record profits from installing all those second lines
used for fax and computers. They would make even more
money on this deal. So, why not go along?
To find out what's happening with this
on a day to day basis, meander over to the FCC Web site
at: http://www.fcc.gov/
You might want to contact your Members
of Congress and have them tell FCC to knock it off, too.
Because folks, you know who always pays through the nose
anytime government interferes in business. If we don't
make FCC dummy up, look for the cost of your Internet
access to increase soon.
PHYSICIANS FOR POT
There was good news for many people with
chronic medical problems this week. The very prestigious
"New England Journal of Medicine" came out in favor of
allowing physicians to prescribe marijuana for medical
problems. Better yet, a Journal editorial called the
threat of government interference with physicians who
wish to prescribe the drug "misguided, heavy-handed and
inhumane."
Heads Up would like to add oppressive,
bull-headed, vulgar, unresponsive and ignorant to that
list, too. That's because it is not the business of
government to legislate on what happens between a patient
and his or her physician.
Marijuana is, of course, very safe for all
but a select few -- such as cardiac arrhythmia patients.
And, it is certainly safer than many prescription drugs
used legally. That some in government do not want it
used is . . . well . . . immaterial. Unless the
bureaucrats can learn to do the necessary research to
invent a better replacement, they should butt out.
Barry McCaffrey, the so called "Drug Czar,"
still says that, "Other treatments have been deemed safer
and more effective." How would he know? Army generals
are about as far from being medical experts as you can
get.
As an Army general, by the way, McCaffrey's
last duty was to command the troops interdicting drugs
at our southern border. On his tenure, the amount of
illegal drugs entering the country doubled, and maybe
even tripled.
If McCaffrey couldn't even figure out
how to slow down the drug smugglers while he commanded
the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, and Coast Guard, what
would make any of us believe he knows what he is talking
about now?
The fact is, he doesn't!
"Whatever their reasons, federal officials
are out of step with the public," Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer
wrote in the Journal's editorial.
Yeah. That's a very nice way of putting it.
FINANCE FRAUD
We wonder about ourselves here at
"Heads Up" when even the "New York Times" agrees with
us. But agree they did, in a Jan. 28 editorial. The
opening paragraph is reprinted below:
"Give the two major parties this much.
They both have the faith of a misbehaving child in the
everybody-does-it defense, and indeed, in today's
Washington, Democrats and Republicans alike are slopping
like hogs at the corporate trough."
Not much for us to disagree with there.
Except that we might add that all of the potential for
felony convictions are with the Clinton, Gore and Dodd
fund-raising team. Those of you who follow such things
may remember that the one person who violated the law in
the Dole campaign admitted it right away, pled guilty in
court, and took his lumps like a man.
Not so with the Democrats. Don't look
for anyone ever taking responsibility for anything in the
Clinton, Clinton & Gore team. Never! Ever! Bart
Simpson's "Didn't do it. Didn't see me do it. Can't
prove anything." line fits that White House group
perfectly!
That is one very important distinction in
this campaign finance mess. Both sides admit the
laws -- "loopholes" again -- are written very badly. Our
point is that they wrote them to suit themselves. But,
even as loose as the campaign finance laws are, Slick
Willie's team intentionally violated them anyway.
They're getting away with it, too.
Then there's the Congressional bozos
like Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle out telling the
press he wants to ban donations from political action
committees. What a hypocrite! Because, at the very same
time he was sending out invitations to lobbyists for a
$5,000 a head (or more) fund-raising party for himself in
Napa Valley, CA. The invitations even suggest that if
lobbyists have "maxed out" in the amount they can legally
contribute to him, he will show how "other arrangements
can be made." Uh huh. . . .
Will any of Daschle's constituents be at
this fund-raiser? Yeah, sure. His wife.
Also, when Senator Fred Thompson
announced that his Government Affairs Committee will be
holding hearings on campaign finance irregularities,
guess who was there to muddy up the waters? Yup,
Daschle! Daschle said that the Democratic leadership
will not approve funds for the committee unless Thompson
first specifies exactly, the scope, duration and ground
rules for the hearings. In other words, the Democrats
plan to muck up these hearings just as they did the
hearings on Waco and Ruby Ridge.
The only thing that can end this foolishness
is real, common sense, campaign finance reform. First,
lawmakers should only be able to accept donations from
registered voters in their respective districts. Second,
there should be a cap on campaign spending equal to one
dollar per vote cast for that office in the previous
election.
These changes will keep the lawmakers
in their districts more often, talking with
constituents. And, the changes will make it easier for
challengers. Both of these side effects will be very
helpful in the preservation of our rights.
STUPID LAWS
This one is such a blatant misuse of
federal lawmaking power that it would probably make
George Washington want to reach for his sword!
One would expect a senator who has
been in Congress since 1974 to understand that the
Constitution limits the authority of the federal
government. Or, maybe it is because he has been there so
long that he believes Congress shall cure all social ills
in the country.
Regardless, saying it would reduce
waste and encourage recycling, Vermont Sen. James
Jeffords introduced a bill that would impose a
nation-wide 10-cent deposit fee on beverage bottles and
cans last Tuesday.
"I firmly believe that deposit laws are a
common sense, proven method to increase recycling, save
energy, create jobs and decrease the generation of waste
and proliferation of overflowing landfills," Jeffords
said as he introduced the bill.
This is interesting, actually. The
unalienable rights and liberties of American citizens are
being usurped with each session of Congress. The
financial state of the union is so bad that they have
already assessed our as yet unborn great-grandchildren a
tax debt of about $50,000 each. We have the IRS, EPA,
and other regulatory agencies running totally out of
control. And we have an administration that is so
crooked that they may all end up in prison. So, the
senator from Vermont ignores all this and submits an
un-Constitutional bill to collect a deposit on bottles!
Then, they wonder why they don't
get any respect.
We've got some work to do people.
We've got a big job in front of us.
SELF PROTECTION
Back in Detroit in the 1950's, we called it
"self defense." It seemed as though there was always one
or two unions raising hell back then. And, if you were
in the way, likely as not you could get hurt. It didn't
help if you were also a union member, either. Anyone not
part of that particular protest was seen by the
protesting mob as part of the "other side."
And it hasn't gotten any better lately.
In fact, it can even get worse. Because in 1973, the
Supreme Court in the Enmons decision ruled against the
1946 Hobbs Anti-Extortion Act. The court ruled that
union officials were exempt from prosecution for acts of
violence "used to gain legitimate union objectives, such
as service or higher wages." Therefore, it sometimes
became common practice for the police to just disappear
and let the union mob burn itself out.
So it should be understandable that it also
became common for people not associated with the matter
under protest to feel the need to keep a certain amount
of "sporting goods" with them for protection just in
case. Because people did, after all, have to move around
the neighborhoods for their daily chores.
Now comes Sen. Strom Thurmond of
South Carolina with what looks like what may be a fix
for the legalized union violence. Thurmond introduced
the Freedom From Union Violence Act, which if passed
would close that stupid violence loophole in federal
anti-extortion law. Then, the incitement of violence by
union officials would again be a prosecutable offense.
Take it from someone who lived fifty
years in a union town: This is a necessary bill. Union
members have the right to protest. But, they do not have
the right to hurt people and destroy property. This
bill is Constitutional because every American has a right
to protect their person, family and property against
harm. The Supreme Court removed that right from some
Americans in 1973. That is what was un-Constitutional!
THEY SHOULD OBEY THE LAW
Two years ago, Congress passed a bill
requiring them to obey all laws, rules and regulations,
just like normal citizens. Therefore, we offer a few
selected excerpts from Title 48, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 51
of the Code of Federal Regulations, Revised as of
October 1, 1996, for your reading enjoyment.
This is good stuff, folks. Because, if
Congress (and the White House) is legally bound to obey
each and every one of their petty little laws, rules and
regulations, our question is this: Where do we go to
file charges!?
Everyone in Congress is in violation of
these "Standards of Conduct." So too are their staffs.
On the slim chance this regulation could be enforced, the
halls of the Capitol Building would be cleared of all but
secretaries.
Of course, those elected to federal office are
above all this. They give lip-service to obeying all
laws, then totally disregard anything too restrictive.
Nevertheless, it is fun to wave this stuff in their
faces, if only just to tell them we notice the violation.
We might also add that, since elected
Americans can pick and choose which laws they wish to
obey, why shouldn't ALL Americans do the same? On that
note, you may wish to send a copy of the following to
your Members of Congress. Their reply should be
interesting.
................................
Title 48, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 51 of the Code of
Federal Regulations
"This part prescribes policies and
procedures for avoiding improper business practices
and personal conflicts of interest and for dealing with
their apparent or actual occurrence."
3.101 Standards of conduct.
"Government business shall be conducted
in a manner above reproach and, except as authorized by
statute or regulation, with complete impartiality and
with preferential treatment for none. Transactions
relating to the expenditure of public funds require the
highest degree of public trust and an impeccable standard
of conduct. The general rule is to avoid strictly any
conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict
of interest in Government-contractor relationships.
"As a rule, no Government employee
may solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any
gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything
of monetary value from anyone who (a) has or is seeking
to obtain Government business with the employee's agency,
(b) conducts activities that are regulated by the
employee's agency, or (c) has interests that may be
substantially affected by the performance or
nonperformance of the employee's official duties."
. . .
"Gratuity or other thing of value includes
any gift, favor, entertainment, or other item having
monetary value. The phrase includes services, conference
fees, vendor promotional training, transportation,
lodgings and meals, as well as discounts not available to
the general public and loans extended by anyone other
than a bank or financial institution.
"Influencing or attempting to influence,
as used in this section, means making, with the intent
to influence, any communication to or appearance before
an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of
Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an
employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any
covered Federal action.
"Person, as used in this section, means
an individual, corporation, company, association,
authority, firm, partnership, society, State, and local
government, regardless of whether such entity is operated
for profit or not for profit."
-- End --