Omnibus Bill

[boutons_deux]

10+ Things Consumers Should Know About The New Federal Spending Bill

This morning, after months of slapping on, then removing, then replacing pork barrel riders on the federal Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, we finally know exactly which add-ons made it into the omnibus spending bill and which ones didn’t.#

1: Scuttling The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Lawmakers in both the House and Senate attempted to undermine the CFPB — a Bureau created by Congress itself only a few years ago — by eliminating its direct funding source and restructuring it as a commission. Those lawmakers failed and the CFPB will continue to exist as it is — at least until the next bank-funded attempt to scuttle it.

#2: Limiting Banks’ “Get Out Of Jail Free” Card

As we mentioned recently, certain riders sought to prevent the CFPB from implementing new rules that would limit the use of forced arbitration — which allows companies to effectively break the law by taking away consumers’ right to sue and to join together in class actions — by banks, credit card companies, and other creditors. These riders also failed to make the final cut.

#3: Neutering Net Neutrality

Riders intended to cir vent the legal system and preempt the FCC from enforcing the 2015 Open Internet Order (aka “net neutrality”) are not in the final omnibus.
The final spending bill also drops the rider that would have preempted the FCC from any sort of rate regulation on broadband services. While the FCC has said it will not set rates for these newly regulated services, it will allow consumers to challenge, on a case-by-case basis, allegedly unfair or unreasonable rates.

A number of high-profile Internet companies — both on the content and infrastructure sides of the business — recently called on Congress to drop this rider, even though some of them would benefit from a total lack of regulation on rates.

#4: Holding For-Profit Colleges Accountable

Lobbyists and lawyers representing the multibillion-dollar for-profit college industry — which produces a higher percentage of student loan defaulters and has a higher dropout rate than non-profit schools — have been fighting tooth-and-nail to stop the enforcement of the Dept. of Education’s new “gainful employment” rules, which require that schools demonstrate that a certain percentage of their students are able to obtain paying jobs in their trained fields.

Having failed to prevent the rules from being drafted (though it took two attempts by the DOE to get it sort-of right), and having failed in the courtroom, the for-profit industry helped introduce riders to the omnibus bill that would have blocked the DOE from implementing the gainful employment rules. But sanity won out over campaign funds, and no such riders made their way to the final bill.

#5: Airline Ticket Transparency:

The Dept. of Transportation is in the process of drafting rules that require companies to display any fees that would be added to the ticket price, and to explain how airline tickets are displayed when a customer searches for certain types of tickets online. But a Senate rider sought to undermine this rule by severely restricting the DOT’s ability to enforce it for most online ticketing sites. This rider did not make it to the gate on time and was left behind to wander the concourse.

#6: Super-Long Tractor-Trailers & Sleepy Drivers

You know those long trucks hauling two cargo trailers? A rider was attached to the omnibus with the intention of compelling all states to allow so-called “Double 33s” — trucks carrying two, 33-foot long trailers — on highways. Some believe that the existing double trailers on the road already pose enough of safety hazard, but the combined length of those trailers would exceed current limits for commercial trucks by 10 feet.
Following opposition from safety advocates and law enforcement groups, like the State Highway Patrol Association, the rider did not make it.

“Today, Congress put the safety of all motorists before the special interest agenda of a few select trucking and shipping companies,” says Jackie Gillan, President of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, one of the groups that argued against this rider.

However, Gillan notes that the omnibus bill include an extension of the “tired truckers” provision from last year’s spending bill.

“This provision takes away truck drivers ‘weekends off’ and pushes them to work up to 82 hours a week,” says Gillan. “Annually 4,000 people are killed and another 100,000 more are injured in crashes involving a large truck, and fatigue is a major factor and well-known crash cause.”

#7: Genetically Modified Food Labeling

A rider that would have pre-empted states from having laws that require the labeling of genetically engineered or genetically modified food did not make it into the spending bill.

In fact, the bill does include another rider that directs the FDA to come up with some sort of labeling for the recently approved, genetically engineered AquAdvantage salmon. When the FDA approved this product earlier this month (the first of its kind in the U.S.), it said that special labeling was not required because there was no significant nutritional difference between the GE salmon and traditional farmed salmon.

#8: Approval Of New Tobacco Products

One rider aimed to expedite the process for approving potentially thousands of new tobacco and nicotine-delivery products — everything from e-cigarettes to cigars — without FDA approval. This also failed to make the cut.

#9: Doing Business With Marijuana Sellers

In states where marijuana is legal and regulated, many federally insured banks are still reluctant to do business with these businesses because the product has not been legalized by the federal government. One rider explicitly tried to block banks from any commercial activities with a pot seller in these states, but the rider did not succeed.

#10: Providing Solid Financial Advice

The House version of the omnibus bill included a rider that blocked funding for a “fiduciary responsibility” rule drafted by the Dept. of Labor. This rule is designed to ensure that
financial advisers are providing advice in the best interests of their clients, rather than advice that is better for the adviser’s bottom line.

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America says this rider to block that rule was the result of one of the most aggressive lobbying campaigns in recent memory.

“Had they succeeded in getting a policy rider included in this must-pass bill, hopes that workers and retirees would finally get the protections they deserve when they turn to financial professionals for retirement investment advice would have been dashed,” says Roper.

#11: Where’s My Beef From?

One questionable rider that did make it into the omnibus bill repeals mandatory country-of-origin labeling (COOL) rules for beef and pork coming into the U.S. Supporters of this rider argue that the current rules are in violation of
World Trade Organization standards and could result in $1 billion or more in trade retaliations. Interestingly, it appears that this repeal does not apply to poultry.

Our colleagues at Consumers Union opposed this rider, saying that a response to the WTO’s decision shouldn’t be done through the hasty process of a must-pass spending bill.

“An increasing amount of our food supply comes from outside the United States — not just from Canada and Mexico, but from China, Chile and many other countries,” said Jean Halloran, director of food policy initiatives for Consumers Union, earlier this month. “These labels provide consumers with important information that allows them to make informed decisions about what they put on their plates.”

#12: Delayed Menu Labeling

Grocery stores and food retailers get a 1-year reprieve on the new mandatory menu labeling requirements, thanks to a rider that did make the cut.

http://consumerist.com/2015/12/16/10...spending-bill/

Govt and BigCorp can know everything about Human-Americans, tell us any kind and amount of lies with no accountability,

but Human-Americans are blocked from equally knowing about Govt and BigCorp, and get fine or jailed for lying to them or whisteblowing.

[boutons_deux]

Congress snuck a surveillance bill into the federal budget last night

After more than a year of stalemate, Congress has used an unconventional procedural measure to bring a controversial cybersurveillance bill to the floor. Late last night, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced a 2,000-page omnibus budget bill, a last-minute compromise necessary to prevent a government shutdown. But while the bulk of the bill concerns taxes and spending, it contains a surprise 1,729 pages in: the full text of the controversial Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, which passed the Senate in October.

CISA has been widely criticized since it was first introduced to congress in 2014, with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) calling it "a surveillance bill by another name." The bill would make it easier for private sector companies to share user information with the government and other companies, removing privacy and liability protections in the name of better cybersecurity. But critics like Wyden say removing those protections would turn internet backbone companies into de facto surveillance organs, with no incentive to protect users' privacy.

"A DISINGENUOUS ATTEMPT TO QUIETLY EXPAND THE US GOVERNMENT’S SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS."

In many ways, the bill currently facing the House is even more invasive than previous versions, stripping out crucial provisions that prevented direct information-sharing with the NSA and mandated that data be anonymized before being widely distributed. "It’s clear now that this bill was never intended to prevent cyber attacks," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, which has campaigned vigorously against the bill. "It’s a disingenuous attempt to quietly expand the US government’s surveillance programs." At the same time, a number of industry groups have applauded the bill, including the Financial Services Roundtable and Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Last night's proposal means CISA is more likely than ever to become law.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/16/1...udget-proposal

[boutons_deux]

Other elements of the two bills that are expected to move through Congress in coming days, according to Republican lawmakers, include:

• A $650 billion package extending a series of tax breaks over 10 years, with $560 billion of the total in permanent extensions, including for business research and development. Many Democrats are expected to oppose this measure, saying it costs too much and is too heavily skewed toward corporate interests;
• Changes to a visa waiver program that will tighten travel restrictions on those who have been in Iraq and Syria;
• No “bailout” for Puerto Rico, which is experiencing fiscal difficulties;
• A two-year delay in both a medical device and “Cadillac tax” on high-cost healthcare plans. Representative Tom Cole said the tax package also would include a one-year delay in a tax on health insurance providers. He said it also extends for another year a provision limiting how much the government can spend on “risk corridors” protecting insurers against financial losses under Obama’s landmark healthcare law.

http://www.nationalmemo.com/congress..._frequency_six

[boutons_deux]

Congress Is on the Verge of Passing Multi-Year Extensions for Solar and Wind Tax Credits

solar tax credits would likely be added to any deal around lifting the oil export ban.

lift the ban, while also extending solar and wind tax credits for two years.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/congress-is-on-the-verge-of-passing-a-5-year-extension-of-solars-investment

the renewables tax credits should not be temporary, but should last as long as crude oil export is permitted.

crude oil exports should have 25% tax per barrel, both for crude and refined products,and nat gas, so Human-Americans get something for BigOil selling off US's dwindling natural resources.

[boutons_deux]

As Predicted, Congress Turned CISA Into A Clear Surveillance Bill... And Put It Into The 'Must Pass' Gov't Funding Bill

it includes CISA and has been stripped of many of the key privacy protections (if you want to find it, it's buried on page 1728), while expanding how the information can be shared and used. In part, due to concerns raised yesterday, a few of the absolutely worst ideas didn't make it into the final bill, but it's still bad (and clearly worse than what had previously been voted on, which was already bad!).

The House Intelligence Community counters that the claims being made against CISA are inaccurate, but they're being incredibly misleading. While the reports yesterday indicated that the bill would directly allow its use in "surveillance," the list of approved uses was changed slightly to effectively hide this fact. Specifically it says that the information via CISA can be used to investigate a variety of crimes -- and doesn't say "surveillance."

But, obviously, surveillance isn't a "crime" that the government will be investigating. It's just the method that the government will use to investigate crimes... which is now allowed under CISA. In earlier versions, the information was only to be used for "cybersecurity." But now that list has been expanded to cover a wide variety of crimes: "a specific threat of death, a specific threat of serious bodily harm, or a specific threat of serious economic harm, including a terrorist act or a use of a weapon of mass destruction."

And how are those things going to be stopped? By ramping up surveillance, of course.

Also, yesterday we noted that the proposed change would "remove" the privacy scrub requirements. The final bill didn't completely do that, but basically changed the standard to pretend that it's in there.

Rather than demanding a full privacy scrub, the bill lets the Attorney General determine if DHS is doing a reasonable job with its privacy scrub. The same Attorney General who will now be using this same information to investigate all sorts of "criminal" activity. Guess what incentive the Attorney General has to make sure that privacy scrub is legit?

Finally, the revised bill tries to hide the fact that the NSA will get access to this data with some super crafty language. Section 105(c) of the bill notes that the President can designate any other agency to set up a portal to receive information, but explicitly says that cannot be the Defense Department or the NSA. That sounds good, but is there as a total red herring.

This is only about who runs the portal, not about who gets the information. So, DHS can still share the info with others and the President could still designate, say, the FBI to get a portal... or the Director of National Intelligence (which oversees the NSA). However, CISA's supporters are pointing to this sections as "proof" that it won't be used by the NSA.

Considering how much debate and concern there was over this bill, and the fact that basically all the major companies in Silicon Valley have come out against it -- and I still can't find a single computer security expert who thinks that this is needed for increasing our security, it's pretty obvious that this is not a cybersecurity bill. It's a surveillance bill that has no business being added to the omnibus bill.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ing-bill.shtml

again, govt can snoop us up our assholes, but a govt whistleblower will be ruined for life, if not jailed.

[boutons_deux]

Renewable Energy Tax Credits Extended 5 Years, But At What Cost?

The price: cutbacks to the IRS, Obamacare, the EPA, and lift the ban on the exporting of American crude oil that has been in place since 1976.

What The Republicans Want

The Republicans intend to exact a heavy price for their cooperation. On his website, Ryan boasts this omnibus bill has provisions to:

• increase funding to the military
• prohibit new funding for Obamacare
• “The bill contains no funding for new or expanded EPA programs, holding the agency to its lowest funding levels since 2008 and its lowest staffing levels since 1989.”
• “The bill maintains important pro-life provisions, including the Hyde Amendment, and prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion.”

Though Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s website claims, “Democrats did not allow 99% of the republican riders,” a quick perusal of the legislation reveals:

• 245 references to spending on the military
• references to restrictions on payments to medical insurance
• references to the amounts available and expiration dates for funding the EPA
• statements like, “None of the funds appropriated by this le shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or in the case of rape or incest.”

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/16/renewable-energy-tax-credits-extended-5-years-cost/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

to those goddam mother ing Repugs and their voters.

[Aztecfan03]

Renewable Energy Tax Credits Extended 5 Years, But At What Cost?

The price: cutbacks to the IRS, Obamacare, the EPA, and lift the ban on the exporting of American crude oil that has been in place since 1976.

What The Republicans Want

The Republicans intend to exact a heavy price for their cooperation. On his website, Ryan boasts this omnibus bill has provisions to:

• increase funding to the military
• prohibit new funding for Obamacare
• “The bill contains no funding for new or expanded EPA programs, holding the agency to its lowest funding levels since 2008 and its lowest staffing levels since 1989.”
• “The bill maintains important pro-life provisions, including the Hyde Amendment, and prohibits taxpayer funding for abortion.”

Though Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s website claims, “Democrats did not allow 99% of the republican riders,” a quick perusal of the legislation reveals:

• 245 references to spending on the military
• references to restrictions on payments to medical insurance
• references to the amounts available and expiration dates for funding the EPA
• statements like, “None of the funds appropriated by this le shall be available to pay for an abortion, except where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or in the case of rape or incest.”

http://cleantechnica.com/2015/12/16/renewable-energy-tax-credits-extended-5-years-cost/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaig n=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

to those goddam mother ing Repugs and their voters.

Yeah not paying for abortions that aren't necessary. Who do those bas s think they are!

The abortions that they are talking about are because people don't want a child. Why should others pay for their irresponsibility?
?

[Winehole23]

deficit hawks must've flown south for the winter:

Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan fiscal watchdog group, said “This may be the season for generosity, but not fiscal lunacy.”

“The $680 billion giveaway that would come from this legislation is money that Congress has counted on all year to make its budget numbers work,” he said. “Now, Congress seems poised to enlarge the debt while violating both its own budget and pay-as-you-go rules.”

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/poli...#storylink=cpy

[Winehole23]

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/...AMNT1final.pdf

[boutons_deux]

deficit hawks must've flown south for the winter:

Repugs LIE ALL THE TIME

(Obama's out-of-control spending) deficits gonna destroy America!

[Phenomanul]

Congress snuck a surveillance bill into the federal budget last night

After more than a year of stalemate, Congress has used an unconventional procedural measure to bring a controversial cybersurveillance bill to the floor. Late last night, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-WI) announced a 2,000-page omnibus budget bill, a last-minute compromise necessary to prevent a government shutdown. But while the bulk of the bill concerns taxes and spending, it contains a surprise 1,729 pages in: the full text of the controversial Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2015, which passed the Senate in October.

CISA has been widely criticized since it was first introduced to congress in 2014, with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) calling it "a surveillance bill by another name." The bill would make it easier for private sector companies to share user information with the government and other companies, removing privacy and liability protections in the name of better cybersecurity. But critics like Wyden say removing those protections would turn internet backbone companies into de facto surveillance organs, with no incentive to protect users' privacy.

"A DISINGENUOUS ATTEMPT TO QUIETLY EXPAND THE US GOVERNMENT’S SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS."

In many ways, the bill currently facing the House is even more invasive than previous versions, stripping out crucial provisions that prevented direct information-sharing with the NSA and mandated that data be anonymized before being widely distributed. "It’s clear now that this bill was never intended to prevent cyber attacks," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, which has campaigned vigorously against the bill. "It’s a disingenuous attempt to quietly expand the US government’s surveillance programs." At the same time, a number of industry groups have applauded the bill, including the Financial Services Roundtable and Retail Industry Leaders Association.

Last night's proposal means CISA is more likely than ever to become law.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/12/16/1...udget-proposal

Hey... You wanted bigger government.

[baseline bum]

Yeah not paying for abortions that aren't necessary. Who do those bas s think they are!

The abortions that they are talking about are because people don't want a child. Why should others pay for their irresponsibility?
?

The abortion would be cheaper than WIC & SNAP benefits tbh

[boutons_deux]

Hey... You wanted bigger government.

hey, you're full of

[Phenomanul]

Hey... You wanted bigger government.

hey, you're full of

bigger govt isn't BADDER govt, except to you simpletons sucking down the VRWC propaganda.

I much prefer the govt play big role in American life, than BigCorp, which is the only alternative in a vacuum left by a absent govt.

There's no power other than govt power to restrain the destructive, polluting, predatory, snooping, wealth-sucking BigCorp.

That's why BigCorp tricks you simpletons into "let's all hate and destroy govt"

NO...! YOU ARE! You're inconsistent as always... ONE of the major arguments against bigger government is their ever-expanding, ever-encroaching infringement over our personal rights. Internet spying falls in line with that. Predatory behavior... which you attributed only to "BigCorp"... BUT seems like the government can be as big a bully too.

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge such simple observations.

Your partisanship blinds you the most.

[boutons_deux]

NO...! YOU ARE! You're inconsistent as always... ONE of the major arguments against bigger government is their ever-expanding, ever-encroaching infringement over our personal rights. Internet spying falls in line with that. Predatory behavior... which you attributed only to "BigCorp"... BUT seems like the government can be as big a bully too.

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge such simple observations.

Your partisanship blinds you the most.

You're SO full of

[Phenomanul]

You're SO full of

DENIAL:

boutons_deux Exhibit A.

Clear as day and night.

[Phenomanul]

THEY WERE YOUR OWN FREAKING WORDS!!!! For crying out loud.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

[boutons_deux]

THEY WERE YOUR OWN FREAKING WORDS!!!! For crying out loud.

YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.

I can have it anyway I want.

you're full of , anklebiter. Go hump a Bible

[FuzzyLumpkins]

NO...! YOU ARE! You're inconsistent as always... ONE of the major arguments against bigger government is their ever-expanding, ever-encroaching infringement over our personal rights. Internet spying falls in line with that. Predatory behavior... which you attributed only to "BigCorp"... BUT seems like the government can be as big a bully too.

Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge such simple observations.

Your partisanship blinds you the most.

Not all government actions are not the same and the blind ideology where it's some moral spectrum of good and bad is just dumbing things down for the common man. Government is just government and what it intends and actually does defines it.

[boutons_deux]

It's going to be war between Paul Ryan and the Freedom Caucus Assholes

For the moment, the House Freedom Caucus guys arepretending they're still happy that they ousted John Boehner and got Paul Ryan for his replacement as House speaker, even after everything they wanted in a spending bill was rejected. They hate the spending bill, but aren't blaming Ryan. Yet. Here's Rep. David Brat (R-VA), the guy who took down former Majority Leader Eric Cantor.

"The end product here is just cleaning the barn; it’s a disaster," Brat said of the spending and tax deal. "We're breaking our pledge on the budget caps to the American people, we’ve lost fiscal discipline, and we’re throwing it all on the next generation."

But in the same breath, Brat praised Ryan: "Not only is he saying the right things, he is lining it up to do the right things … and then leadership can't hijack the budget at the end of the year and throw the kitchen sink, which we just did."

But how long can "leadership" be separated from Ryan, who Brat praised for being "credible on regular order" because he supposedly is talking to rank-and-file? Because in this spending bill, leadership shot down every effort from the Freedom Caucus to amend the spending bill. Every one, "from national security and abortion to environmental regulations." What's more, one of Ryan's team—Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-LA)—essentially attacked the maniacs in writing for not being team players.

"The vote that hurts our Conference is the no vote from a Member who hopes the bill passes, but relies on others to carry that load," Scalise wrote. "That vote isn't fair to the Members who shoulder the responsibility of voting yes, and it isn't fair to the Republican Conference as a whole."

That would be this spending bill, by the way, which the majority of the Freedom Caucus is going to vote against because they hate it. For now, they're saying this is still all Boehner's fault, despite the fact that Ryan and his team pretty much abandoned them and have put them on notice for being disloyal to their conference.

This honeymoon for Ryan isn't going to last a whole lot longer. The good news for the country is that it lasted long enough to do away with all of the opportunities the maniacs would have to shut down government for the next year.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/1...28Daily+Kos%29

[boutons_deux]

Congressman Who Supports Undermining Encryption Says We Need CISA (Which Undermines Privacy) To 'Protect Privacy'

from the up-is-down,-black-is-white,-day-is-night dept


Representative Adam Schiff, the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee (the Committee that has most strongly been pushing versions of cybersecurity bills that undermine privacy and provide more surveillance powers) apparently believes that as long as he says day is night and up is down, the world will believe him. In response to Speaker Paul Ryan's decision toshove CISA into the omnibus funding bill, Schiff insisted that this was necessary to protect our privacy:

“This is the most protective of privacy of any cyber bill that we have advanced and we need to keep in mind the overriding interest all Americans have in protecting their privacy from these innumerable hacks,” Intelligence Committee ranking member Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a cosponsor of his panel’s cyber bill, told The Hill. “Our privacy is being violated every day. And the longer we delay on measures like this, the more we subject ourselves to those kind of intrusions into our privacy.”

Nearly everything Schiff says here is complete hogwash. This bill is far from "the most protective of privacy of any cyber bill" that has advanced. Other versions clearly had more privacy protections (mainly the one advanced by the House Judiciary Committee). And, this latest one clearly strips out privacy provisions and makes it that much more difficult to protect our privacy.

And the fearmongering about "these innumerable hacks" and how "our privacy is being violated every day" is totally meaningless, because CISA does nothing to stop these hacks. We've asked many times before how would CISA have stopped a single hack and no one ever answers. We've looked hard and cannot find a single online security expert who thinks that CISA would be useful in preventing online hacks and attacks. Because it wouldn't.

There is nothing in there geared towards stopping attacks.

You know what would help in protecting our privacy and limiting the damage from hacks? Stronger encryption. I wonder what Rep. Adam Schiff thinks about that?

Take a wild... wild guess. Oh, you're right: He doesn't like encryption.

"While it remains too early to tell the role encrypted communications may have played in the devastating terrorist attacks in Paris, we do know that ISIS regularly instructs its operatives to use encrypted platforms precisely to help evade detection. These platforms are made overseas as well as in the U.S., and there are significant security, technological, economic and privacy issues involved in addressing the challenge posed to the intelligence community and law enforcement by encryption.

"That is why Chairman Nunes and I – months before these horrific attacks – requested that the National Academy of Sciences, an organization that two decades ago studied this very issue, produce an updated report that can help us to identify and design effective, technologically feasible and economically viable solutions to the increasingly dangerous problem known as 'going dark.' I am pleased that the Academy is proceeding with such a study, which will help inform policymakers and the public alike.

Yup.

If Rep. Schiff was truly worried about hacks and keeping Americans' data secure, he'd be supporting strong encryption. Instead, he's looking to undermine it, while at the same time supporting a separate bill which, under the false pretense of protecting us from cybersecurity attacks, actually undermines our privacy even further.

So here's a challenge to Rep. Adam Schiff: Can you find a single recognized cybersecurity expert who thinks that the way to protect against hacks is (1) found in this Cybersecurity Act and (2) involves figuring out ways to stop encryption from letting people "go dark"? If not, perhaps you should stop saying these things and stop legislating about it.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...-privacy.shtml

[boutons_deux]

GOP Riders Fuel Secret Spending

Secret political spending is playing an ever-larger role in the 2016 election, and Republicans on Capitol Hill have just closed off two important avenues to force disclosure.

Non-disclosing political groups have already spent close to $5 million in this election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a tenfold increase over the same point in the 2012 presidential contest. These include a secretive nonprofit backing Florida Senator Marco Rubio that, according the Wesleyan Media Project, is now the second-largest ad spender in the GOP presidential primary.

Disclosure advocates have tried multiple strategies in recent years to pull back the curtain on so-called dark money in elections. These include disclosure legislation, complaints to the Federal Election Commission and to the Justice Department, as well as calls for action at the Internal Revenue Service, the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The disclosure movement’s only modest success thus far has been to convince the FCC to require political advertisers to file their public disclosures electronically instead of on paper. Attempts to pressure the IRS to crack down on politically active nonprofits have yielded little, as have efforts to pressure the SEC to require campaign disclosure from corporations.

In this election, a growing number of politically active “social welfare” groups have popped up to support a single candidate, making it awfully hard to argue that such organizations exist to somehow promote the public good.

http://prospect.org/article/gop-ride...ecret-spending

The tax-free, and/or secret rightwing PACs are all tax-evading, lying frauds.

[boutons_deux]

Rush Limbaugh and conservatives revolt! Their hatred for House budget deal could hand Donald Trump nomination

Right-wing media is lashing out against GOP congressmen after the budget deal, which only helps Trump's chances

right-wing media is acting like a bunch of quisling Republicans bowed to President Barack Obama’s demands to ins ute sharia law while passing single-payer health care.

Republicans caved on a bunch of right-wing nut agenda items that they were never going to get in the first place, especially the

demand to ban Medicaid patients from going to Planned Parenthood or

making the visa process unnecessarily lengthy for Syrians refugees.

Nor did they go through the pointless government shutdown drama that has become nearly routine under the Obama administration.

The conservative base, which is swiftly abandoning any pretense of ideological motivation in favor of simply identifying as the asshole contingent, loves these shutdown dramas, possibly more than they love the idea of defunding Planned Parenthood or holding Syrian families in refugee camps indefinitely.

The idea of blackmailing the president with this threat in an effort to bully him into submission is so appealing that it hardly matters that it doesn’t work. But, as is increasingly true on a number of fronts, throwing red meat to the conservative base means alienating the entire rest of the country, and so Republican congressmen, who probably just want to go home and enjoy Christmas with their families, took a pass this time.

So now the right wing media is exploding in rage. Check out, for instance, the dog pile of outrage pouring out of Breitbart’s “Big Government” vertical:

The Washington Times posted a photo of Obama laughing, a huge red button for their conservative leadership, with the headline, “White House declares total victory over GOP in budget battle.”

On Thursday, Rush Limbaugh went off on a huge rant denouncing congressional Republicans:

There was never a battle. None of this was opposed. The Republican Party didn’t stand up to any of it, and the die has been cast for a long time on this. I know many of you are dispirited, depressed, angry, combination of all of that. But, folks, there was no other way this could go. Because two years ago when the Republican Party declared they would never do anything that would shut down the government and they would not impeach Obama, there were no obstacles in Obama’s way and there were no obstacles in the way of the Democrat Party.

“The reason they did that is because for some inexplicable reason,” he continues, “they are literally paranoid and scared to death of even being accused of doing something that would shut down the government.”

In their minds, this country belongs to them and any Democratic leadership is therefore, by definition, illegitimate. (Obama’s race isn’t helping things, but it’s important to remember they felt this way about Bill Clinton, too, which led to impeaching him under some flimsy pretense.)

They keep sending more Republicans — and more and more conservative Republicans — to Congress with the sole mission to destroy Obama and restore the “natural” order of things, where conservatives, predominantly white male conservatives, rule and everyone else is, at best, given token representation.

Republicans don’t actually have the power to do this, but that hardly matters to the conservative base. When you believe in your heart of hearts that the natural order is people like you on top and everyone else under the boot, it feels like it should be relatively easy to get things back to the way you think they should be.

So if it’s not getting done, it must be because of a lack of will. And if you have any doubts that it’s lack of will, here’s Rush Limbaugh, who seems like a smart guy who follows D.C. politics closely, telling you that’s exactly what it is. So they believe him.

Trump’s main talent is saying whatever his audience wants to hear, which he did, by telling Breitbart News that “elected Republicans in Congress threw in the towel.” He probably didn’t even need to know the specifics of what he was talking about, so long as he could imply that all you need is heavier balls and getting your way is a breeze.

There’s no easy way out of this dilemma for the Republicans.

The conservative base is completely out of step with the general public on all these major issues.

But it’s a minority who believes that their views should be triumphant over the majority’s, and that God agrees with them on this, to boot.

Compromise and you lose your base.

Give the base what they want and lose everyone else.

http://www.salon.com/2015/12/18/rush...mp_nomination/

[Winehole23]

I guess we're back to "deficits don't matter."

[Winehole23]

For the GOP presidential candidates, the $18 trillion national debt remains a central campaign talking point. But after years of relative fiscal austerity, including enactment of relatively modest spending rollbacks, GOP lawmakers are steaming toward passing a mammoth $680 billion tax package without offsets. It would make permanent a host of temporary tax breaks commonly called “extenders” — and is also chock-full of goodies for specific business interests and cons uents.

There’s something from everybody’s wish list: breaks for energy-efficient homes and commercial buildings; deductions for business office furniture, computers and machines; tax savings for the film and TV industries and rum producers in the Caribbean; and even tax perks for owning a racehorse or two-wheeled plug-in electric car.

The cost, combined with the interest the U.S. would pay after borrowing the money to pay for it, would rise to $830 billion and undo much of the savings squeezed from painful automatic spending cuts called the sequester, according to MacGuineas’ group. Republicans have ins uted rules that block such measures unless they’re paid for — restrictions they will waive for themselves on this particular occasion.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/1...#ixzz3usYiLbaB