When you think of “fakes”, you think of a stroll down Canal Street in New York City, where street hustlers attempt to appeal to the public by yelling “Louis, Gucci, Rolex” at passersby, scooting potential buyers into side alleys or hidden upstairs rooms. Counterfeiting is not a recent problem, but rather has been a long-standing trend that has plagued corporations endlessly. The fashion industry specifically has taken big hits due to the legal problems of counterfeiting. A fashion law professional recently described counterfeiting efforts as “fighting a losing war,” because a fashion brand’s name is diluted once the counterfeits are accessible to the public. However it is not only on the street, but now also online where the counterfeit market rages. E-Commerce and online counterfeiting has been the major focus of corporations, which have been fighting counterfeiters through the courts with “take down” orders and threatening cease-and-desist letters.

Although E-Commerce has been the recent focus of counterfeiting, the rise of 3D printing has brought unanswered questions. At Fashion Law Week 2013 in Washington, DC, Keynote Speaker Mr. Harley Lewin strongly expressed that 3D printing would be the upcoming “new front” focus in terms of anti-counterfeiting. 3D printing is a technology that allows one to “print out” 3D objects from computers.[1] These printers can now output plastic materials, semi-liquids, cheese, chocolates, concrete, and, most recently, titanium.[2] Experts have been calling 3D printing the “Third Industrial Revolution” because now consumers can choose the color, texture, and design to custom make their items.[3] The average consumer can hit “make” instead of “print” to create their new products.[4] Terry Wohlers, an independent analyst of the 3D printing sector and expert in the field,  stated, “You are almost unlimited as to the geometric complexity.”[5] Although in its infancy, 3D printing will soon be available for printing in homes, according to Massive Dynamics President Oscar Hines.[6]

The fashion industry has been quick to take up 3D printing. At the Mercedes-Benz New York Fashion Week, designer Kimberley Ovitz partnered with Shapeways to send 3D printed jewelry looks down the runway for her Fall 2013 collection.[7] This year, 3D printed garments hit the runways in both New York and Paris.[8] According to Michael Schmidt, one of the designers of a 3D printed dress, Dita Von Teese wore an entire dress designed on an iPad, refined over Skype, rendered digitally by Francis Bitonti, and printed by Shapeways for a private runway event.[9] The entire dress was printed in 17 parts on a 3D printer EOS P350.[10] This concept demonstrates that 3D printers can make garments as well.[11] Also, New Balance has been quick to the 3D printing game in customizing running shoes for athletes.[12] New Balance’s manager of studio innovations, Katherine Petrecca, stated in an email that “printing will allow us to be incredibly efficient by making products on-demand and eliminating large chunks of a traditional supply chain…we will see significant opportunities to expand our usage and the scale of production.”[13] 3D printing stores are scheduled to launch in Russia, Ukraine, and Kazakhstan, bringing upscale shopping experiences to these places.[14]

If used properly, 3D printing could revolutionize garment making. Customized clothes could be easily made and sent quickly to the consumer. Factories and manual labor could be eliminated. But if 3D printing falls into the wrong hands, counterfeiting can quickly develop into a big problem. 3D printing can open up an entire can of worms and even completely undermine the entire trademark registration and protection system. 3D printing is predicted to become available for consumer purchase soon.  If the common consumer desires, he or she can print a pair of red bottom heels quickly, infringing on the Christian Louboutin design. In fact, it would be extremely difficult to enforce trademarks if the consumer had the capability to custom design any clothing, jewelry, or item he or she wanted. What measures of accountability can be taken when the consumer can quickly design, print out, and go off with the 3D printed item? A potential solution would be to keep the 3D printing technologies at a higher cost, limiting those capable of purchasing the machines to corporations. The corporations could then customize merchandise consumers wanted at an agreed upon cost.

However, this would undermine the very notion of allowing the public access to 3D printing technologies. What then would be an appropriate measure to take to allow the public access to 3D printing and attempting to prevent abuse? Monitors on 3D printers to prevent printing of trademarks registered with the trademark office could potentially be effective. Perhaps with the development of advanced technology to match 3D printing, methods of enforcement will be available to protect fashion corporations’ intellectual property rights.

Overall, anti-counterfeiting is an up-and-coming legal niche that is rapidly developing. Counterfeiting stretches over fashion, transportation, food, pharmaceuticals, and many other industries. But the new trend of 3D printing raises new trends in intellectual property infringement and counterfeiting. Although some may argue that counterfeiters will always have the newest technology to sell counterfeit goods, 3D printing is said to be the “Third Industrial Revolution” and able to change the entire garment manufacturing and textile industry. If 3D printing is abused to a great extent, infringement and counterfeit issues may unravel the entire trademark system. Therefore, with the new 3D printing technology, new methods of enforcement and accountability must be established.

The post Anti-Counterfeiting, the Fashion Industry, and the Rise of 3-D Printing appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

On March 19, 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided that the “first sale” doctrine applies to copies of a copyrighted work made abroad in its Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley and Sons Inc. opinion.  This holding allows a person to buy authentic luxury goods made abroad and ship them back to the United States to resell.  This article briefly discusses the case law history of the “first sale” doctrine for luxury goods, effects of the Kirtsaeng decision, and proposes a solution to deter adverse results on the luxury goods industry.

The question of whether the “first sale” doctrine applies to a luxury good was addressed in 2010 by Omega SA v. Costco Wholesale Corporation.  In Costco Wholesale, the Supreme Court remained split on the applicability of the first sale doctrine to imported luxury goods.  At issue was whether Costco could buy Omega watches abroad from a middleman and sell the watches at a substantially lower price without Omega’s authorization in the U.S. Omega claimed that Costco infringed on Omega’s copyrighted globe on the back of each Omega watch and violated Omega’s right to distribute under the Copyright Act.  The Court found Costco liable for infringement in that case, but now, with the decision from Kirtsaeng, the decision would have been in Costco’s favor.

Omega watch featuring its globe

The Kirtsaeng decision, applying the “first sale” doctrine to copies of copyrighted work made abroad, strongly impacts companies with copyrights of luxury goods. A substantial amount of goods are imported into the United States each year. In the Kirtsaeng decision, Justice Breyer explains, “over $2.3 trillion worth of foreign goods were imported in 2011… [and] American retailers buy many of these goods after a first sale abroad.”  To prevent importation of luxury goods without authorization, companies are heavily dependent upon asserting copyright protection.  In a statement given by Ariel Lavinbuk of Robbins Russell, Counsel for amicus Costco, Inc., in support of Petitioner, explains further:

“The luxury-goods industry has an interesting relationship with copyright law.  Whereas some segments of that industry – watches, for example – are able to avail themselves of copyright protection, other segments – such as fashion designs – typically have not.  One effect of this dichotomy has been that certain types of luxury goods have had more weapons at their disposal to prevent parallel importation.  The Kirtsaeng decision effectively ends that disparity.”

Omega’s copyrighted globe

Lavinbuk emphasizes the importance of the Kirtsaeng decision. Now, companies can no longer depend on their copyrights to prevent importation of luxury goods without authorization.  Instead, companies will have to adapt to the changes after Kirtsaeng.

Post-Kirtsaeng, companies will likely begin implementing a more standard international price to maintain a competitive edge.  Lavinbuk commented on this prediction by saying:

“Now, neither watches nor fashion designs nor any other type of luxury good can use copyright law to enforce territorial price discrimination as between the U.S. and other countries.”

Agreeing with Lavinbuk, we see the benefits of the Kirtsaeng decision.  Consumers of different countries can benefit from a common pricing standard.  Comparatively, the companies producing luxury goods must also be considered. The luxury goods industry already has little copyright protection and has been forced to endure near exact replicas of its goods.  Now with the Supreme Court Kirtsaeng decision, the fashion industry is faced with a slew of other issues.

Allowing the reselling of imported goods without authorization creates problems in brand protection, distribution and licensing. Luxury goods are likely to be sold below the standards that the original copyright owner would implement. Corporations may no longer be able to track where their copyrighted goods end up, which leads to the risk of brand dilution. Licensees carrying brands’ authentic products at a standard price are likely to be put out of business with redistributors buying goods from those who import from abroad and selling similar products at a lower price.

Many of these concerns Kirtsaeng raises were reflected in the Costco Wholesale decision. Omega was displeased that its luxury watches were sold at Costco. Having its watches sold at a wholesale store diluted the high-end brand. Omega was also unaware that Costco would end up with its watches, which created concern for Omega’s distribution lines. Lastly, Costco was not even a licensed retailer of Omega products, but a consumer could get authentic and cheaper Omega products at Costco. Now with the Kirtsaeng decision, the concerns of Costco Wholesale have resurfaced.

Due in part to concerns of luxury goods manufacturers, Congress may take action to protect manufacturers and overrule the Kirtsaeng decision. On March 21, 2013, Maria Pallante, the 12^th U.S. Register of Copyrights, testified before the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet Committee on the Judiciary, for a substantial revision of the Copyright Act that is “more forward thinking and flexible.” She argued the current Copyright Act is dated and unclear, which creates difficulty for the courts. Many analysts support amendments, and predict they will take place soon with final revisions implemented by the end of four years. Considering the affects of the Kirtsaeng decision, we propose an amendment to be included in the probable revision to deter its negative effects.

Resellers of parallel import luxury goods should make royalty-like payments to the copyright owners. Royalties are usage-based payments made by the licensee to the licensor for the right to use an asset. The royalty amounts are typically an agreed upon percentage of the profit derived from the asset. The proposed solution is somewhat analogous to the process of library lending.  Generally, libraries charge for borrowing a copy of a digital book. The reason for this charge is that the library has to pay the publisher for a license to use and distribute the book. Here, the reseller of the luxury goods will be paying the copyright owner for reselling its goods.

Royalties in lending books are different for obvious reasons. The most significant differences are that the luxury good is sold to the owner permanently and no licensee-licensor relationship exists between the seller and consumer.  However, these differences should have no affect on the payments made to the copyright owner. The copyright owner’s energy and resources devoted to the copyright must be compensated, and royalty-like payments made to the copyright owner will offset the effects of the Kirtsaeng decision while encouraging the copyright owner to continue production.

A royalty-like payment would also keep the public interest at the forefront.  If percentage based payments were implemented, it is less likely that the luxury good industry would pull out of the foreign market, where these items are manufactured at a lower cost.  Goods manufactured cheaper should result in cheaper priced goods for the public.  However, if the luxury goods industry pulls out of the foreign market that provides cheaper manufacturing costs, the result is likely to be higher priced goods, due to high production costs in the United States.  The benefit of the goods being produced in the United States does not outweigh the manufacturing costs that could be saved overseas.

Resale royalties are already successful. Extending its application to the luxury goods industry would benefit the copyright owner and the public. Congress should amend the arcane and complex copyright rules accordingly. The result would be a more balanced approach towards production and resale of luxury goods.

Sources:

http://www.wwd.com/business-news/legal/off-pricers-prevail-as-supreme-court-rules-in-copyright-case-6855254?module=business-news-legal-page-1

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kirtsaeng-v-john-wiley-sons-inc/

http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/register-to-call-for-major-revision-to-copyright-law-1200326105/

http://www.copyright.gov/regstat/2013/regstat03202013.html

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-697_d1o2.pdf

The post The Kirtsaeng Decision’s Effect on Luxury Goods and a Proposed Solution appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

You may have cut the cord with mommy, but the broadcasters are still holding on tight to wired technology. The latest cord-cutting television streaming service provider, Aereo, just defeated network broadcasters’ (including over-the-air networks ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS and Fox) preliminary injunction motion in the compiled Second Circuit case WNET v. Aereo.

Photo: Aereo

Aereo’s service, currently only available in the New York metro area, relies on data centers full of small antennae to provide television streams wirelessly. Upon logging into the service from either their internet browser or mobile application, each user is dynamically assigned to an antenna which they, and they alone, can control. Even if multiple users are viewing the same program simultaneously, they each receive different transmissions from different antennae. Users then can browse channels and choose what to view. Aereo also offers a recording service, in which a particular user’s antenna records a program to the user’s unique section of Aereo’s centrally-located storage device. Because each user has a unique storage section, there are multiple copies of the same program on the central storage device. Only the user who recorded a particular copy can view it. The Second Circuit found that this carefully designed service model avoids violating copyright laws by following its precedent in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings (holding that Cablevision’s Remote Service Digital Video Recording service (RS-DVR) did not constitute an infringement of Cartoon Network and other content providers’ public performance rights because only the account holder could access his or her copy of the recording, rendering any “performances” non-public).

In its April 1, 2013 decision in WNET v. Aereo, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a district court ruling denying a preliminary injunction against Aereo. Networks sued for copyright infringement on a number of different theories, including infringement of reproduction and public performance rights. In their injunction application, though, plaintiffs, including broadcasters such as Fox, PBS, CBS and ABC, only pursued the public performance issue.

The Second Circuit’s decision ultimately turned on whether Aereo’s service constitutes an infringement of the public performance right. The public performance right, one of the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders, prohibits the “performance” of copyrighted material beyond a typical circle of family and friends without a license. Because this decision was made at the preliminary injunction phase, and not at a full hearing on the merits, the question at issue was whether the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on the merits in light of the Court’s previous Cartoon Network decision. Because Aereo’s service is consistent with the model from the Cartoon Network case in that each user is dynamically assigned his or her own antenna and storage partition to use exclusively and that the particular signal or recorded copy is only transmitted to that specific user, the Second Circuit Court held that this was comparable technology, and thus could not be an infringement of the public performance right.

This issue was also addressed by a federal district court in California in the case of a similar service, Aereokiller. In that case, Fox Television Stations v. BarryDriller Content Systems, Judge Wu granted networks a preliminary injunction on the grounds that, contrary to the Second Circuit’s holding in Cartoon Network, this television streaming constitutes a public performance regardless of the individualized transmissions. The case is currently being appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit affirms the district court’s holding, the circuit split could push this case before the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, broadcasters are threatening to pull their programming off the airwaves and relegate it to cable networks only if services like Aereo remain operational. Because Aereo doesn’t pay retransmission fees to the networks like cable and satellite providers do, broadcasters consider these services to be stealing money out of their pockets. They claim that their traditional financial model, surviving solely on advertising revenue, cannot sustain their activities in this economy.

John Bergmayer of Public Knowledge, has expressed support to the networks in their endeavors to move to a subscription-based model like cable. Bergmayer notes that broadcasters currently have licenses for “prime spectrum,” which could be put to better use, since a majority of people watch broadcast programming via cable providers or online. While Bergmayer also acknowledges that these threats seem empty and merely aimed at achieving a political goal, not serving as an announcement of future business plans, this suggestion has merit.

The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) is responsible for licensing spectrum, the range of electromagnetic frequencies used to convey communications, something it notes is in high demand (in part due to its limited supply) for a number of purposes, including mobile wireless services, broadcast television and radio, and satellite services. Because a broadcast license does not vest a property right, but rather is a license to use a public resource (per section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 301), the FCC could revoke the licenses of broadcasters who fail to meet their obligations under the license (per section 312 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 312). This would free up spectrum to be used elsewhere.

It appears as though this battle is going to work its way through the judicial and political system for some time, with final results too far away to speculate. It is likely that any resolution would require careful consideration of the technology involved. Whatever the result, lawmakers should not disregard the strong public interests at play.

Sources:

[1] The full text of the Second Circuit’s decision can be read at: http://nysbar.com/blogs/EASL/WNET%20v%20Aereo%20Opinion-2d%20Cir%2012-2786.pdf

[2] https://aereo.com/how-it-works

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/business/media/aereo-wins-in-appeals-court-setting-stage-for-trial-on-streaming-broadcast-tv.html?_r=0

[4] For a list of the exclusive rights granted to copyright holders, see 17 U.S.C. § 106: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/106

[5] Cartoon Network LP v. CSC Holdings, Inc.,  536 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2008). https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/studios_v_cablevision/cablevision-decision.pdf

[6] http://www.ipbrief.net/2013/01/18/splitting-decision-central-district-of-california-grants-preliminary-injunction-against-aereokillers-tv-streaming-service/

[7] Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. BarryDriller Content Systems PLC, 2012 WL 6784498 (C.D. Cali. Dec. 27 2012).

[8] http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/197828/#axzz2QV3h6BQ8

[9] http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/chase-carey-threatens-to-yank-fox-from-broadcast-tv-over-aereo-1200334235/

[10] http://readwrite.com/2013/04/02/aereo-legal-victory-means-disruption-for-more-than-broadcasters

[11] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/10/business/media/aereo-has-tv-networks-circling-the-wagons.html?_r=3&

[12] http://www.publicknowledge.org/not-the-reaction

[13] http://www.fcc.gov/topic/licensing

[14] http://www.fcc.gov/blog/spectrum-supply-and-demand

[15] http://www.fcc.gov/guides/public-and-broadcasting-july-2008

[16] The entire Communications Act of 1934 (as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996) can be read at: http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf

[17] http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/tv-broadcasters-petition-aereo-rehearing-440428

[18] http://www.invention-protection.com/ip/publications/docs/Public_Performance_of_Copyrighted_Material.html

[19] For more on what wireless spectrum is: http://www.techopedia.com/definition/27409/wireless-spectrum

The post Broadcasters Holding On Tight as Cord-Cutting Service Aereo Wins in Court appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

Is the President’s budget boldly moving him toward the center of the aisle?  It may appear to be the case but a much broader strategy is at play.  Next week President Barack Obama will announce his budget plan that many expect to include cuts to entitlements such as social security and a modest hike in taxes.  This plan is sure to make many Democrats cringe and have Republicans continue playing devil’s advocate.

Specifically, the plan will include a roughly $1.8 trillion dollar deficit reduction over the next ten years. $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction will come from entitlement reforms and spending cuts.  About $400 billion of the cuts would come from health care savings such as Medicare and Social Security.  Another $200 billion would allegedly come from federal employee retirement programs, farm subsidies, and the unemployment compensation system.  An increase to the tobacco tax will help to fund expanded access to pre-K.  Limits would be set on tax-preferred retirement accounts to prohibit wealthy people from putting more than $3 million into retirement accounts that are tax-preferred.  The proposed plan would also prevent individuals from collecting both full disability and unemployment benefits for the same period.

The AFL-CIO, which is one of the President’s biggest supporters, came out strongly against his new budget.  They have started a petition against cuts to Social Security and Medicare.  One of the biggest issues in the plan regards the use of a different inflation measure called the Chain CPI, which affects Social Security benefits. The AFL-CIO argues that this inflationary measure is based on a premise that the CPI is increasing at a pace that is faster than the actual cost of living for many elderly and many other at risk citizens living on low incomes.  Most seniors have a fixed income while spending a disproportionate amount of their income on health care.  This tends to lead to a more rapid inflation than the general population experiences.

The formula change will be a breaking point between the President and House and Senate Democrats as well. Many have recently expressed their opposition to the idea.  The Administration argues that the change in Social Security benefits will have an effect on the annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) and not the seniors and poverty stricken.  The reasoning being that the changing of the inflation calculation will better align with the behavior of substitution.  Many consumers who are on fixed incomes generally don’t buy as many expensive products when prices rise.  Instead, they purchase cheaper substitute products and thus can maintain an adequate standard of living even though their annual COLA is lower.

Republicans want a different approach to entitlement reduction and will likely fight any revenue increases from tax hikes.  Republicans want to reduce the amount of benefits received by recipients for Medicare and attain savings for Medicaid through the transferring of block grant funds to States.  Republicans will most likely paint the President as trying to cut entitlements for those most in need.

There is no question that this is a risky if not bold move by the President.  A poll that was recently administered by the Pew Research Center found that 41% of those that responded want Social Security spending increased.  Only a meager 10% wanted to see a decrease in Social Security.  The truth of the matter is that our Country is at a crossroads.  We have an ever growing deficit that we must deal with in order to secure our future generations.  We have a health-care system that is unsustainable and a huge amount of debt that is owned by China.  A balance needs to be found to take care of our older citizens while also looking out for our younger ones.  Tough decisions have to be made.  The President has to make many of them.  During President Obama’s first term there was nothing but partisan posturing by both sides of the aisle.  Little got accomplished.  Both the Democrats and Republicans played their part in the circus called Congress.  Our nation became splintered with divisive rhetoric, anger, and hate.

The President is looking to make compromise in his budget, to begin to bring the Country back together and to provide economic stability.  It seems the President is willing to consider certain reductions to entitlements only with agreed upon revenue increases (taxes hikes).   The President’s proposed budget is attempting to have a balanced approach of spending cuts in conjunction with tax revenue increases from the wealthiest Americans to reduce the Country’s deficit.  The President’s budget plan includes many tough decisions that will affect the entitlements and taxes of the country’s citizens.  Making the tough decisions now, will spare this country dire ones later.

Sources:

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-budget-boehner-response-chained-cpi-social-security-entitlements-2013-4

http://www.people-press.org/2013/02/22/as-sequester-deadline-looms-little-support-for-cutting-most-programs/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/05/obama-budget_n_3019281.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/05/us/social-programs-face-cutback-in-obama-budget.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-budget-chained-cpi-afl-cio-social-security-cuts-2013-4

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57578083/obama-to-propose-entitlement-cuts-tax-hikes/

The post Move to the Center or Strategic Positioning?: Obama’s Budget, Entitlement Cuts, and Tax Hikes appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

To protect and serve – and apparently violate the law. New York may want to consider adding the latter portion to its police force motto, as every officer in the state is currently in violation of the state’s new gun control statute. New York hastily passed through the NY SAFE Act in the wake of the tragedies in Newtown and Aurora. The Act prohibits the sale of large capacity magazines, and bans the use of magazines with more than seven bullets. In its rush to push the bill through, the state legislature failed to include exceptions for law enforcement officials. Though no one is likely to enforce this restriction against police officers carrying larger magazines, it highlights some of the larger issues currently being voiced regarding the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

More than one hundred days have passed since the Newtown tragedy in which twenty children and six teachers were killed by a crazed gunman who ended his killing spree by taking his own life. President Obama promised swift action in gun control legislation, appointing committees of Senators and Representatives to “deal with” the gun control issues. His message was clear and resolute: change is coming. Yet, one hundred days have passed, and nothing has come from the federal government. The key tenets of Obama’s original plan were to ban high capacity ammunition magazines, to ban the sale and possession of assault weapons, to increase the penalties for gun trafficking, to require background checks on the sale of all firearms, and require more stringent mental health evaluations for possessors of firearms. Persuading this deeply divided congress to agree on anything is a feat; getting them to agree on gun control legislation would be a miracle.

State governments, on the other hand, have had marked success in passing gun control legislation. Last week Connecticut passed the nation’s strictest gun control legislation to date. The legislation bans the sale of magazines with a capacity of more than ten rounds, extends the ban on assault weapons to more than 100 models, including the weapon used by gunman Adam Lanza in the Newtown tragedy, and requires background checks on the sale of all weapons. This adds Connecticut to a short list of states that have enacted new gun control legislation after Newtown, including New York, Maryland, and Colorado. While many believe that these states may serve as a model for the rest of the nation mark  a substantial step in the right direction for gun control, others argue that state legislation  is simply not enough. The ban restricts the sale of large capacity magazines, but does not restrict their possession or use. The compromise on this point is that current owners must register their high capacity magazines. There is also an issue of whether these restrictions address the real issue: the mental health and wellness of the individuals in possession of the firearms.

The NRA has not been silent on this matter. In an unusual move for the Association, they have worked jointly with legislators on a bill strengthening mental fitness requirements for gun owners. Their position remains  that guns don’t kill people, people kill people, and thus the NRA have focused on the root issue of mental illness. They believe taking guns from the unfit, while supporting the Second Amendment rights of others is the appropriate manner for gun control moving forward. This NRA supported bill would generally defeat the Obama administration’s desire for universal background checks, but would meet the goal of more stringent mental health evaluations.

One area in which the NRA and federal government actually concur is the imposition of harsher sanctions for firearm violations. The NRA has always been a supporter of the use of firearms for recreation and self-defense. The imposition of harsher penalties for the illegal use of firearms serves association’s goals of keeping lawful possession and use of firearms unencumbered for law-abiding citizens. Harsher penalties would serve the federal government’s ultimate goal of deterring criminals from using firearms in the commission of crime. Surprisingly little has been resolved on this point of agreement in the current drafting of legislation, and appears unlikely to change in this session of Congress.

The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is likely going to be greatly affected by the choices of this legislature. The real question is whether the outcome will be what Congress intends. The United Kingdom attempted gun control legislation by banning all handguns, believing that violent crime would decrease. Law-abiding citizens turned in their handguns, while criminals did not. The result was a forty percent increase in violent crimes committed while in possession of a handgun. The prior deterrent of a victim being armed as well disappeared, resulting in a better armed and less fearful criminal population preying on the people the legislation was enacted to protect. Restricting access to large capacity magazines, requiring stringent background checks, and banning particular weapons will simply drive criminals to use black market weapons and deter law-abiding citizens from gun ownership. Instead, the legislation should focus on the mental health of individuals at risk for committing these tragedies, and coming up with alternative means of preventing another massacre.

Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:S.649:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/04/connecticut-gun-control-sandy-hook-law_n_3011625.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/06/sandy-hook-families_n_3028137.html?utm_hp_ref=parents&ir=Parents

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/17/cuomos-new-gun-law-does-not-exempt-new-york-cops-could-prevent-police-from-responding-to-school-shootings/

http://www.denverpost.com/nationworld/ci_22969908/nra-tactics-erode-post-newtown-support-gun-control

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/03/us-usa-guns-connecticut-idUSBRE9320TS20130403

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1440764.stm

The post GUN CONTROL: State Legislation Aims More at Guns, Less at Control appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

For the first time in over forty years, the majority of Americans are now in favor of legalizing marijuana (according to a poll conducted by Pew Research Center – released on April 4, 2013). While support for marijuana legalization has slowly and steadily increased over the past twenty some odd years, the Pew poll revealed a huge surge in marijuana support recently. Most notably, over half of all Baby Boomers are now in favor of legalization, nearly doubling since 1994. These numbers are among the highest percentages ever recorded, and this dramatic change may be an indication of the preferences of society as a whole. Has the time come for the federal legalization of marijuana?

Several factors play into the push for the legalization of marijuana. Many argue it is not logical to prohibit marijuana when legal substances such as alcohol or tobacco are much more harmful and addicting than the use of marijuana. Additionally, with Oregon and Washington passing legislation allowing for the recreational use of marijuana in November of 2012, other states are beginning to look to legalization and potential taxes as a solution to their financial woes. Enticed by the promise of increased tax revenue, ten states currently have pending legislation to legalize marijuana. Opponents argue that the estimated income generated from impending marijuana taxes are grossly overestimated, and in actuality would not generate enough revenue for adequate regulation of the market. Despite the fact that the empirical data that does exist on marijuana sales is only loosely estimated because the majority of sales are illegal and unaccounted for, the idea of legalizing marijuana in order to impose taxes is gaining support throughout the United States.

On February 4, 2013, Congressman Polis (D-CO) and Congressman Blumenauer (D-OR) introduced two pieces of legislation which would provide the framework for the eventual legalization of medical marijuana. Congressman Polis’ Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act (H.R. 499) would remove the Drug Enforcement Agency’s authority over marijuana and allow states to choose whether to allow marijuana for medicinal or recreational use without fear of federal action. While Congressman Blumenauer’s Marijuana Tax Equity Act (H.R. 501) aims to create a federal excise tax on marijuana. Although the two bills would effectively end federal prohibition of marijuana, they do not automatically legalize marijuana in all 50 states. Rather, the bills would only block federal interference and establish a system of regulation and taxation in places, eighteen states and the District of Columbia, that have legalized marijuana. According to Polis, “this legislation doesn’t force any state to legalize marijuana, but Colorado and the 18 other jurisdictions that have chosen to allow marijuana for medical or recreational use deserve the certainty of knowing that federal agents won’t raid state-legal businesses.”

In its entirety, Congressman Polis’ Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act emulates Colorado’s model of marijuana regulation which regulates marijuana like it regulates alcohol. First, the bill would remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, and transfer it from the regulation authority of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s to a newly renamed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Marijuana and Firearms. Similar to commercial alcohol producers, marijuana producers would be required to purchase a permit. In theory, the permit proceeds would offset the cost of federal oversight. The bill also distinguishes between individuals who grow marijuana for personal use and those involved in commercial sale and distribution. And lastly, it allows States to choose whether to continue prohibiting marijuana production or use within the state and it would remain illegal to transport marijuana to a state where it is prohibited. (http://polis.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=318723)  

If passed, Congressman Blumenauer’s Marijuana Tax Equity Act would create a framework, which imposes a 50% excise tax on the first sale of marijuana, from the producer to the next stage of production, usually the processor. Similar to the alcohol and tobacco tax provisions, the marijuana tax would impose an occupational tax of $1,000 per year on producers, importers and manufacturers, and an annual tax of $500 per year on any other person engaged in the business. Failure to comply with taxing duties would result in civil penalties, while intentional efforts to defraud the taxing authorities would be assessed for criminal penalties. Lastly, after two years the IRS would be required to produce a study of the industry, and every five years after that it would issue recommendations to Congress to continue improving the administration of the tax. (http://polis.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=318723; http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2165)

These two bills are part of a greater five-part agenda Congressman Polis advocates in the report, “A Path Forward: Rethinking Federal Marijuana Policy.” The agenda entails: “Removing the federal ban on marijuana and taxing the drug the same way Congress regulates and taxes alcohol; allowing states to offer medical marijuana without federal interference; ending the ban on industrial hemp; eliminating tax and banking barriers that prevent marijuana businesses from operating legally and creating a “Sensible Drug Policy Working Group” in Congress to push the other four ideas.” (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/pot-plan-pols-legalization-on-horizon-87227.html#ixzz2Pvk3VvQ7; http://blumenauer.house.gov/images/stories/2013/The_Path_Forward.pdf)

Are the policies advocated by Congressmen Polis and Blumenauer an accurate reflection of America’s opinion on marijuana? Is the time ripe for the federal legalization of marijuana? According to popular polls and the current trend towards state-by-state legalization of the use of marijuana, federal legalization of medical marijuana may be sooner than you think.

Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:2:./temp/~bdrmhi::|/bss/|

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bdtcD7::|/bss/|

http://www.people-press.org/2013/04/04/majority-now-supports-legalizing-marijuana/

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/marijuana-legalization-poll-89638.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/pot-plan-pols-legalization-on-horizon-87227.html#ixzz2Pvk3VvQ7

http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2165

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/bill-unveiled-to-legalize-medical-pot-88031.html

http://polis.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=318723

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/buzzkill-cash-strapped-states-eye-pot-tax-89412.html?hp=t1_3

http://blumenauer.house.gov/images/stories/2013/The_Path_Forward.pdf

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/08/marijuana-and-federalism/

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=002481

http://blumenauer.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2160

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/04/president-obamas-marijuana-problem-2.php

http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/09/opinion/nathan-legal-marijuana

http://prospect.org/article/prospects-legal-marijuana-higher-and-higher 

The post Is the Time Ripe for Federal Legalization of Marijuana? appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

The United States Senate will soon vote on new gun control legislation but the gun control bill may not pass because of a divided Congress. In preparation for this event, President Obama, Vice President Biden, and first lady Michelle Obama will try to develop support for the gun package. This package includes background checks on firearm purchases, creates new penalties on “straw” purchases, and includes new funding for school security. Unfortunately, the legislation will not include an expanded ban on assault weapons or a ban on high-capacity ammunition, which President Obama proposed immediately after the Sandy Hook Massacre.  That precipitous event coupled with the Aurora massacre has led to bold new Connecticut and Colorado legislation that offer landmark examples of potentially effective gun control legislation that specifically ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. Simultaneously, the National Rifle Association has objected to these legislative initiatives and advocated armed citizens in all schools as a solution. Some states including Texas have even considered laws that require all citizens to own guns. Citing our Second Amendment right to bear arms, the highly financed resistance to gun control policy ignores both the nature of modern weapons and their intended use within arguments that ignore practical public safety consequences as evidenced in Connecticut, Colorado and elsewhere across America.

Many gun control advocates raise concerns because this legislation lacks these key assault weapon and high capacity magazine components. It leaves us to wonder if the legislation will actually provide any true benefit. Common sense dictates that assault weapons enable mass killing by design, not self-defense as intended by the Second Amendment.  Senate majority leader Harry Reid has indicated that he will allow the vote to occur as an amendment if senators want to place that condition within the legislation. On the other hand, gun owners applaud the fact that the existing legislation does not force them to give up any existing weapons or magazines. Sales at gun shows across America set records weekly in anticipation of the new law “grandfathering” ownership of such devices.

The NRA has made their case one of basic constitutional rights and freedoms. The NRA exists to build lucrative markets for companies that sell these guns and unfortunately public safety suffers in favor of private profits. The NRA opposes even to the idea of sensible legislation, limits, and precautions such as those currently proposed in the Senate. This moderate legislation offers a watered down compromise that President Obama has been criticized for accepting.  Education of the masses holds the key to the success of this gun regulation legislation passing. Our right to bear arms originated from a need for us to protect us from British soldiers who could also occupy our homes and take other liberties. Today, these purposes do not extend to assault weapons that our founding fathers could not envision. Public awareness of these facts must overcome private marketing propaganda to gain support for this and state level gun control laws. However, the public campaign for gun control has so far paled in comparison to the Second Amendment – rooted NRA case against it.

America needs gun control evidenced by the Aurora movie theater massacre, the Sikh temple massacre, and the Sandy Hook massacre—all taking place in one year.  After these massacres, the NRA focused instead on mental illness and stress and argues that people kill people, not guns. That valid point only causes us to consider background checks and other controls before on people buy guns.  However, the NRA even opposes practical background checks and restrictions on marketing of weapons simply because they impact profits.  The NRA offers no public policy or program solutions to reduce the number of insane potential mass murderers in America. This amounts to proposing to end drunken driving accidents by ending public drunkenness with no practical way to end such behavior.  The lack of realistic alternatives to the proposed legislation emphasizes America’s need for it.

With the NRA’s effective public scare tactics and President Obama’s so far ineffective support for it, this legislation might not actually pass.  Sadly, President Obama has always been known as a compromiser.  The legislation that President Obama presents would not have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting.  Nothing may have, but this event presented a perfect opportunity to gain public consensus.  Yet, these tragedies seem to galvanize the opposition to justify more gun ownership and armed civilian presence in schools and public places.  The opposite result has occurred in several states as the issue polarized America.

However, President Obama supports this legislation because he campaigned for it and views some progress as superior to the status quo. He failed to produce gun control in his last term, so this represents his last chance.  He may fail because Republicans in the Senate do not fear him and their constituents have the NRA working on their behalf.  A public grass-roots mobilization of support may save this legislation and lead to effective public gun control policy.  Such support must focus on educating the public on the true intent and impact of the Second Amendment as it applies to modern weapons. Given that interpretation, public safety will emerge as a priority as opposed to gun industry profits and common sense may prevail against fear, uncertainty and doubt underlying the current resistance to gun control legislation in our senate.

Update: This post originally referred to the Second Amendment as the Third. This has been fixed. Thanks go to commenter David Straub for the catch!

Sources:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/292097-white-house-plans-blitz-on-gun-control-next-week#ixzz2PguRUrqr

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/02/what-are-the-states-doing-about-gun-control/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/nyregion/even-in-shadow-of-massacre-connecticuts-gun-law-faced-uphill-fight.html?nl=nyregion&emc=edit_ur_20130405

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

The post Moderate Gun Control Legislation Pleasing No One appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

Kentucky, like many states, suffers from an outdated tax code that fails to keep pace with the modern economy.  In addition to slow economic growth, the state consistently fails to raise enough revenue to adequately fund vital services such as education and investment in healthcare.  The lack of updates to the tax code is not the result of a lack of planning.  Since 1982, Kentucky has undergone twelve tax reform studies, yet the tax code has still not been changed in a meaningful way.  Political battles in the state legislature have prevented the passage of various proposals for the past twelve years since the state Senate became controlled by Republicans, while the House is controlled by Democrats.  There has yet to be a proposal that could pass both houses, and finding one is likely the biggest challenge on the path to tax reform.  Furthermore, the electorate looks skeptically at tax reform proposals that aim to increase revenue, and have a generally hostile attitude towards higher taxes.  As Tom Eblen, a journalist for the Lexington Herald-Leader aptly described the situation:  “tax reform in Kentucky has always reminded me of that old quip about the weather: Everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it.”  http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/10/2438142/tom-eblen-tax-reform-commission.html.

In 2012, Kentucky Governor Steve Beshear followed in the footsteps of his predecessors and formed the Blue Ribbon Commission on Tax Reform to study what changes should be made to the tax code, hoping to have more success than past Kentucky governors.  The commission was composed of twenty-three Kentuckians with a wide range of experiences in both the public and private sector, and was headed by Lieutenant Governor Jerry Abramson.  The commission studied past efforts at tax reform, and articulated five guiding principles for Kentucky’s tax reform:  fairness, competitiveness, simplicity and compliance, elasticity, and adequacy.  In the Commission’s final report to the Governor, issued on December 15, 2012, each of the recommendations was rated for how well it achieved each of the principles.

The recommendations made by the commission were somewhat bold, and if implemented would be a huge step forward for the state.  The commission’s plan would add $690 million in revenue during the first year, though the state’s pension obligations would consume at least $350 million.  The first recommendation is to raise the cigarette tax to $1.00 a pack, up from 60 cents.  If necessary, this tax could still reasonably be raised even higher, given the health care costs that smoking causes in Kentucky; and raising this tax to $1.00 makes it compatible with other state cigarette taxes in the region.  Another good recommendation is to amend the state constitution to allow for local-option sales taxes.  A local-option sales tax is a small tax that is added to the sales tax in a particular locality, and is used as a means to raise funds for specific local or area projects.  This would help the larger cities of Louisville and Lexington to raise desperately needed additional revenue to meet the needs of their populations specifically in their localities.

The Commission also proposed making the state income tax more progressive, which would ease the tax burden on low-income wage-earners and put more of it on high-income tax payers, by limiting deductions and exemptions.  Finally, one of the most important and easiest to implement recommendations is to expand the six percent sales tax on goods to include some services such as those related to luxury goods, home-based consumption goods, and services that have a clear nexus to Kentucky.  This would broaden Kentucky’s tax base as the U.S. economy shifts from goods to services.  As Tom Eblen, a journalist for the Lexington Herald-Leader explained, “it is essential that Kentucky tax revenues grow with the economy, and this is one way to do it.”  .  http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/10/2438142/tom-eblen-tax-reform-commission.html.

The recommendations listed here are only a few of the ones proposed by the Commission in its over four hundred page report.  The latest report is a great start to implementing meaningful tax reform, but it can only be actualized if Kentucky’s political leaders make the reforms a priority, agree to work together and compromise, and then have the political courage to try to convince the public that these reforms are needed.  Though all of these have been very difficult for Kentucky’s legislators and political leaders to do in the past, it is the only way that Kentucky can improve its economic standing.

While this report has offered some fresh ideas for how to update the state tax code, it appears as though no action will be taken by the state legislature this year, as the 2013 legislative session concluded this week.  Both the Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives and the President of the Kentucky senate said this week that there was not enough will among the members of the legislature to take on tax reform at this time, and that there should be no special session to deal specifically with tax reform, which the Governor has suggested.  The two leaders went on to say that for tax reform to actually happen, it must take a lot of convincing by the Governor’s administration.  It looks as though tax reform will once again be put on the backburner.

Sources:

Tom Eblen, Tax-reform Commission Showed Courage in Many Recommendations.  Lexington Herald-Leader.  December 10, 2012.  http://www.kentucky.com/2012/12/10/2438142/tom-eblen-tax-reform-commission.html.

Report by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Tax Reform to Governor Steve Beshear.  December 17, 2012. http://ltgovernor.ky.gov/taxreform/Documents/Report/TaxReformCommissionReportFinal.pdf

Editorial, What Happened to KY Tax Reform? Lexington Herald-Leader.  March 10, 2013. http://www.kentucky.com/2013/03/10/2550765/what-happened-to-ky-tax-reform.html.

Ronnie Ellis, Tax Reform to be Looked at During Special Session:  Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission has Made 92 Recommendations to Alter Code. McCreary Record.  February 5, 2013.  http://mccrearyrecord.com/ky_statehouse_feed/x2056606096/Tax-reform-to-be-looked-at-during-special-session.

Josh Goodman, Kentucky Debating a Tax Overhaul – Again.  The Pew Charitable Trusts – State and Consumer Initiatives.  Accessed March 16, 2013 at http://www.pewstates.org/projects/stateline/headlines/kentucky-debating-a-tax-overhaul-again-85899405022#.

Tax Reform Panel Says Rate Trim, Cap of Deductions, Broader Base Would Generate $659 Million in New Revenue:  Recommends 54 Proposals to Governor.  The Lane Report.  December 17, 2012.  http://www.lanereport.com/16853/2012/12/governors-blue-ribbon-tax-code-commission-files-its-report/.

Tom Loftus, Kentucky Tax Reform Will Likely Wait Until Special Session.  The Courier-Journal.  March 14, 2013.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20130128/NEWS010101/301280064/Kentucky-tax-reform-will-likely-wait-until-sp

House Speaker:  No Kentucky Tax Reform Package Coming This Session.  Courierpress.com.  February 19, 2013.  http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/feb/19/house-speaker-no-kentucky-tax-reform-package/?print=1.

Beth Musgrave, Jack Brammer, Legislature dropped tax reform, killed telephone, scholarship bills.  The Lexington Herald-leader.  http://www.kentucky.com/2013/03/27/2576164/military-voting-hotel-tax-bills.html#storylink=rss.

The post Kentucky’s Efforts at Tax Reform: State Legislature is Unable to Enact Meaningful Change to the Tax Code appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

The issue of cyber security is quickly becoming a major talking point as more and more people recognize its importance in preserving Unites States’ national security.  The need to protect the public and private sectors from cyber threats was even mentioned in this year’s State of the Union Address.  However, the way the United States should address the threat of cyber attacks has been very controversial with many people criticizing the proposed methods for comprising personal privacy.

One of the most controversial proposals to address cyber security is the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA).  CISPA was first introduced in the 112^th Congress by Congressman Mike Rogers on November 30, 2011.  While the bill passed through the house by a 248-168 vote in April 2012, it died in the Senate where it was never debated after being referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence.  One of the reasons the bill never saw the light of day in the Senate was because President Obama threatened to veto the bill.  The reason for this is because the president believed the bill did not effectively address the nation’s cyber security needs and unduly infringed upon citizens’ personal privacy.  However, while many believed that CISPA would die with the 112^th Congress, Mike Rogers reintroduced the bill in the 113^th Congress on February 13, 2013.

In order to understand why CISPA is controversial it is important to understand what exactly CISPA proposes.  CISPA would amend the National Security Act of 1947 so that it would address cyber attacks through provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.  The bill first defines what cyber intelligence is and then requires the Director of National Intelligence to establish procedures and encourage the sharing of cyber intelligence among the government and private sector entities.  The bill then permits approximately 600 federal agencies to use the information gathered for four uses:  (1) cyber security purposes including ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, availability, or safeguarding of a system or network; (2) to investigate cyber security crimes; (3) to protect individuals from danger of death or serious bodily harm including protection of minors from child pornography, sexual assault, and human trafficking; and (4) to protect United States national security.  The bill also grants broad protections from liability to private companies for abusing or mishandling personal information when providing the government with data it collects as potential cyber intelligence.  It is the combination of the broad amount of data that CISPA allows the government to collect from private entities with the vagueness of when the government may prosecute individuals based on the information gathered that makes CISPA so controversial.

While many understand the importance of protecting government and private enterprises from cyber attacks, they also believe the CISPA can be too easily abused and will be used as a tool to prosecute individuals for crimes other than cyber attacks.  Some have drawn comparisons between CISPA and the PATRIOT Act noting that the PATRIOT Act was passed as a tool to combat terrorism, but due to its vague language, has been expanded and used as a tool to monitor individuals and prosecute them for other crimes.  The fact that CISPA allows private data to be reported to federal agencies and used to prosecute those who may commit bodily harm to others, as well as those who fall into the vague category of threat to national security, suggests that CISPA may be used in a much broader manner, much like the Patriot Act.  However, while CISPA is perhaps too broad, that does not mean that no cyber security bill should be passed.  Because of the seriousness of potential cyber attacks to the US economy and national security, a better solution should be to reform CISPA and fix the language that makes the bill so over reaching.

There are a number of ways that CISPA could be reformed to make a better tool for fighting the threat of cyber attacks.  One way to reform CISPA is to reduce the invasion of personal privacy by requiring private companies to remove personal identifiable information from the data they share with government agencies.  Since such personal information is not related to cyber security, CISPA’s stated goal of combating cyber attacks would not be reduced, but the risk to an individual’s privacy would be greatly reduced.  Another potential revision would be to limit the federal agencies that initially receive data.  If only non-law enforcement agencies initially received the shared information, and only pertinent data was passed to law enforcement agencies, then CISPA might not have the same risks of use for non cyber security purposes.  Finally, the broad immunity granted to private entities for mishandling data in CISPA should be removed.  If private entitles were held accountable for transmitting excess personal information to federal agencies, then it is less likely that they would forward non-cyber security related data.  Cyber Security is and will continue to be a major part of ensuring American’s national security, but it is important to balance this need with an individual’s right to privacy.

Sources:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:1:./temp/~bd2iqA:@@@X|/home/LegislativeData.php?n=BSS;c=112|

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-25/politics/35451302_1_cispa-rogers-and-ruppersberger-privacy-concerns

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d113:1:./temp/~bdsjqQ:@@@D&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

http://www.infoworld.com/t/cringely/cispas-second-serving-even-worse-the-first-215192?page=0,1

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/cybersecurity-cispa-privacy-panic-premature-89096.html

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/03/dont-hate-cispa-fix-it/

http://www.informationweek.com/security/cybercrime/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-reborn-6-key-fa/240148600

The post CISPA and the Need to Increase Cyber Security Without Infringing on Personal Privacy appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.

It is a familiar scenario: Republicans and Democrats cannot seem to agree on a basic operating budget to keep our government running, and while they go back and forth, the small amount of progress we have been able to make is jeopardized. This same scenario caused the United States’ credit rating to downgrade back in September, and similar events caused the government sequestration.  Americans have been here before, just last year in 2012, and will be there again at the end of the month of March, unless something changes. Already the effects of the sequester have taken an effect on our nation’s recovery; anytime eighty five billion dollars is cut from the government there are ripples and effects throughout the nation. Aside from all the governmental employees being furloughed and sent home without possible pay as they try to raise their families, air traffic controllers being shut down, funding to public schools being cut, our Defense Department canceling contracts, the White House is no longer offers tours! Something must be done; to arms I say!

Despite all the pessimism around Washington, a slight glimmer of hope, or at the least of functionality, may be brewing.  A bipartisan bill providing full government funding for a year passed the Senate with a 63-35 vote, and passed the house with 318-109.  Ten Republicans voted with the majority of Senate Democrats to pass the 2013 Fiscal Funding Bill. The bill lays out a framework for navigating last month’s sequester, to the best it can. This bill attempts to addresses the already in effect sequestration and prevent the government shutdown set to happen at the end of this month.

The bill essentially allows for the moving around of funds to prevent looming furloughs for government employees in several departments, including the Department of Defense and Department of Agriculture. Although the effects of the sequester will still be very real, the bill seeks to allow some of the brunt of the cuts to be diverted and reallocated, at least in certain areas.

An amendment proposed by Sens. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. and Roy Blunt, R-Mo. would shift fifty-five million dollars from lower-priority Agriculture Department accounts to prevent furloughs of thousands of food inspectors. The move is necessary to prevent intermittent closure of 6,300 food inspection plants, threatening more than 500,000 workers with almost $400 million in lost wages.

Additionally, the legislation pieces together the detailed budgets for the Pentagon and several domestic cabinet agencies, including the Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security and Justice. Although these agencies will still be subject to across-the-board spending cuts, they will maintain their full budget bills in place to help them cope with the cuts.

However, despite all the cuts, furloughs, and layoffs from the existing sequester, the repetitious budget bickering continues in Congress, Even Paul Ryan, failed GOP Vice Presidential nominee and House Budget Committee Chairperson, has returned to the Hill with his rhetoric of how to decrease the budget. Ryan’s latest plan? It relies on higher tax revenues enacted in January and improved Medicare cost estimates – along with $4.6 trillion in spending cuts over a decade – to promise a balanced budget in 10 years.

Senate Democrats, on the other hand would repeal the sequester cuts at a cost of $1.2 trillion over a decade, and blend about $1 trillion in modest cuts to health care providers, the Pentagon, domestic agencies, and interest payments on the debt with an equal amount in new revenue claimed by closing tax breaks. The net result would cut about $600 billion from the deficit over 10 years.

All the while the sequester is endangering an already precarious economy. It is true that progress has been made to revitalize American economic interests, but this progress could be hindered by or even halted by the cuts set up by the sequester. For example, if the sequester cuts remain in effect, the Federal Airline Administration will have to close one hundred and forty nine air traffic towers. Although this will not shut down airports entirely, pilots will be left to coordinate their take offs and landings amongst themselves using a shared radio frequency. These cuts would come from smaller airports but would cause potential delays at the larger hubs.

If unchanged, the sequester cuts would also drastically affect other areas of our infrastructure: it would cut defense spending, canceling defense contracts and reducing the size of our military; it would cut our ability to respond to natural disasters and impede our ability to provide aid to those in dangerous areas due to inclement weather; 100,000 formerly homeless people would lose their housing, becoming homeless again; 373,000 seriously mentally ill patients would lose care; 70,000 children would lose the ability to enroll in head start programs for early education; and the government’s small business loan fund would will be slashed by 1 billion dollars.

All of these cuts will affect the welfare and effective functioning of our nation, especially one that is still feebly recovering. Congress should be concerned more with these potential steps backwards rather than the cancellation of the White House tours, so prominent in the press. This bill is the first step towards a sustainable budget that seeks to bolster our economy; amounting to more than mere bickering over partisan issues, this could be the first step (one of many) that needs to come before we are back on track to effective governance.

Sources:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/24/budget-cuts-federal-defenders_n_2944109.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/18/government-funding-bill_n_2903799.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/22/faa-closing-air-traffic-towers_n_2934601.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/20/the-sequester-absolutely-everything-you-could-possibly-need-to-know-in-one-faq/

The post Shutdown, Sequester, and Sustainability appeared first on Legislation & Policy Brief Blog.