First Hand Account: Dem Dirty Tricks

In related news to the October Surprise post below, let me recount standard operating procedure in illegal campaigning. I taught in public schools in California for ten years. Everyone knows that teachers unions (and most unions in general) vote Democratic and then count on their elected favorites to lavish pay and benefits on them.

So far, nothing shocking, I know.

But in 1992 when George H.W. Bush was running against Bill Clinton for President, the union pulled a blatantly illegal stunt that did shock and surprise me. (Now I wouldn't be at all surprised. It happens all the time.) Against public law and school regulations the district I worked for copied and distributed a fax sent from California Teachers Association headquarters in Sacramento. They used school equipment, school time and school supplies -- not to teach -- to campaign for Clinton.

The fax was in Spanish and was distributed to all Hispanic children at my school. (I have no reason to believe that, having gone this far, the union didn't do this at other sites in the district.) The fax made three simple points:

• Tell your parents to vote for Bill Clinton
  
• If Bush is elected you will be kicked out of school
• If Bush is elected your parents will be deported

Nothing like some good clean campaigning is there? That's what your children are exposed to, whether it's this blatant or not, in the public schools.This is what your tax dollars pay for. This is what the "education establishment" would rather do than teach Johnny to read.

October Surprise

So Hugh Hewitt asked for our best ideas about October Surpises that the Obama administration may attempt, in an effort to affect the election this November. Hugh mentioned this in the coarse of reading a Jim Geraghty post from Obi Wan Kenobi.

Yesterday and today bring articles on the administration floating a payroll tax holiday. That is my pick for a likely October Surprise. I also don't think it will, though it has some advantages and disadvantages for the Obama regime.

ADVANTAGES

• BHO can finally finally do something that isn't radical far left in nature thereby distancing himself from the Harry & Nancy Show on the Hill
• As in item above, he finally does something to help the economy instead of damage it
  
• It could be highly beneficial for the economy, freeing up income that could be spent on things people have been putting off
  
• People who work would realize gain immediately, on their next paycheck
• Politically it frees Barry up to ignore the looming expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts, as people would have an immediate "tax cut" in their hand
• It would serve to assuage the horrific changes (higher deductibles, higher employee contributions, higher co-pays) that people will begin hearing about very soon as "open enrollment" season opens
  

DISADVANTAGES

• It will come too late to help Democrats this cycle (but then does BHO really care about them anyway?)
• People may squirrel the savings away, continuing behavior noticed throughout the last 18 months, which would reduce the consumer effect such a move would "normally" result in
• Public reaction might not credit Obama with much, because of the looming medical insurance changes noted under Advantages above
• Public reaction would likely include, "See how reducing taxes helps? Now make the Bush tax cuts permanent, you idiot!"

Of all the scenarios that militate against this tax holiday are the administrations inherent antipathy to any tax cuts. Therefore, the largest danger is in the last bullet point. If people see immediate relief and the economy rebounds, then there will be great public and policy pressure to continue tax relief in some way or another. Thus, sadly, the best hope we have for a payroll tax holiday is if Obama thinks it will not work, or they find a way to do it in such a way as to actually prevent the benefits they nominally claim to be for (i.e. see health care and wall street "reform" packages). For example, they could say that the Bush tax cuts will definitely expire in January when they announce this tax holiday. But who knows?

The fact the idea has been floated on two successive days in two different venues by two different sources may indicate the White House is seriously considering it. I'm all for it, short or long term. The more money in the hands of consumers the better, now matter who benefits politically.

U.S. Ends Private Talks on Web Rules

[excerpted from Wall Street Journal August 6, 2010]

By AMY SCHATZ

WASHINGTON—U.S. officials called off closed-door talks with lobbyists aimed at reaching a compromise on ways to regulate Internet traffic, saying they couldn't reach a solution.

The meetings, which involved Internet and telecommunications giants, sought to give the Federal Communications Commission authority to act as an Internet traffic cop without the need to adopt controversial wholesale changes to the law.

The agency abandoned the talks a day after news reports that two participants, Verizon Communications Inc. and Google Inc., had reached a separate agreement on Internet traffic rules that would allow the phone giant to carry some broadband traffic at faster speeds.

People familiar with the situation said the talks were cut off abruptly. These people said FCC officials felt the Verizon-Google deal undermined their broader talks. The companies haven't publicly released the agreement.

At stake is how far the government can go to dictate the way Internet providers manage traffic on networks they have spent billions of dollars rolling out. The FCC has proposed s0-called net neutrality rules that would ensure carriers treat all content equally, and not slow or block access to websites.

...

For the past six weeks, a small group of lobbyists for both sides had been meeting privately at the FCC trying to hammer out a compromise. Consumer groups have taken to Twitter and blogs in recent weeks to blast the FCC's chairman, Julius Genachowski, for sponsoring private meetings with industry lobbyists. They argued the meetings violated the spirit of the Obama administration's pledge to open up government to more transparency.

A group of angry representatives of public interest groups were meeting with Mr. Genachowski about the issue in an FCC conference room Thursday afternoon when his chief of staff entered and announced that they'd pulled the plug on the lobbyists' negotiations, according to people familiar with the situation.

FCC officials declined to comment on the Verizon-Google agreement but had signaled their displeasure. On Thursday morning, Mr. Genachowski told reporters that any deal on net neutrality "that does not preserve the freedom and openness of the Internet for consumers and entrepreneurs would be unacceptable."

While Verizon and Google designed their agreement as a model for lawmakers and regulators on net neutrality, it includes several provisions that Web start-ups and Internet activists might find unacceptable, including one that would let companies pay a premium for faster delivery speeds to consumers, according to people briefed on the plan.

The Verizon-Google deal also wouldn't apply to wireless networks, according to these people.

Net neutrality proponents blasted the Verizon-Google agreement, saying reports of its contents point to it undermining the concept of net neutrality.

"The potential deal between two broadband behemoths underscores the need for the FCC to act quickly to protect the free and open Internet," said Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. "In the absence of such action, it's increasingly clear that cozy cooperation between communications colossi will reign on the Internet."

Google and Verizon denied a news report that suggested their agreement represented a business deal in which Google would pay Verizon for faster delivery of its online content to Internet users.

The companies didn't deny that they have reached an agreement on net neutrality which they hope could be used as a model for future legislation or FCC rules.

"We remain as committed as we always have been to an open Internet," said Google spokeswoman Mistique Cano. "We have not had any conversations with Verizon about paying for carriage of Google or YouTube traffic." Google owns the Internet video site YouTube.

In a statement, Verizon didn't provide details but said the agreement aimed to create "an Internet policy framework that ensures openness and accountability, and incorporates specific FCC authority, while maintaining investment and innovation."
—Scott Morrison contributed to this article.

Write to Amy Schatz at Amy.Schatz@wsj.com

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703748904575411632530886558.html?KEYWORDS=net+neutrality#ixzz0wuJQYSWu