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 --