Letter to John McHugh re: Cap’n'Tax
Dear Congressman,
Thank you for selling out your constituents, and your countrymen, by supporting the Cap & Trade bill. A bill which you, like your colleagues, could never have had the time to read before the vote. A bill which even 44 Democrats crossed the aisle to prevent because even they understood that the mandates contained in the bill would be disastrous for business, for our economy, and for both workers and consumers.
Congressman, this is the second letter I’ve written you inre your failure to read a bad bill, and your willingness to vote for it anyway.
Mr. Congressman, if I get a response, I suspect that response will be, much like the one I got for the above-mentioned letter, a form letter extolling what you view as the virtues of this legislation — or at least, the fact that they included your own amendment. Kindly allow me to rebut in advance:
So?
Mr. Congressman, if you’ll allow me to be so blunt, neither I, your constituents, nor indeed most thinking Americans, could give two shits whether your amendment prevents acid rain, saves the whales or turns corn starch into dandelion-excreting fuel alternatives. And why don’t we care? Because the REST of the bill, Mr. Congressman, presents us with far more pressing problems. Problems like how we plan on feeding our families, or driving to work.
There’s this thing that should be taken into account, sir, before agreeing to pass legislation. A thing upon which the lives and livelihoods of your countrymen depend far more than bad science and mandates. It’s called Economics. Perhaps, at some point during your career as a Legislator, you’ve heard of it?
As relates to the Cap & Trade bill you so cavalierly signed, it works like this:Producers’ costs go up, as demanded by following the C&T mandates. That cost is passed on to Consumers. (Consumers, just so we’re clear here, are your basic taxpayers. Folks, like those in your state of New York who have less money every year thanks to tax and fee increases). Consumers have to make choices about what they buy, because they can no longer afford to buy everything they otherwise would. Thanks to the price increases. So… producers must find ways to cut costs. How? By cutting production. Which means cutting personnel. Which means — have you figured it out yet? — unemployment goes up. And with Cap&Trade, we’re not talking about a percentage point here. We’re talking about an astronomic increase in good, taxpaying men and women who suddenly don’t have a means of supporting their families.
All thanks to you and seven other turncoat Republicans.
I hope the fact that those of your constituents you sold out don’t have the option of voting you out of office helps you sleep at night.
Yours, sincerely
Don’t let Congress tax local radio out of existence
A couple Bills were written in the House and Senate that not many people have heard about. Labeled the “Performance Rights Act,” H.R. 848 and S. 379 would impose a “performance fee” on stations for broadcasting music. Actually, this has been brewing since 2007, but the most recent incarnations of these bills were written this last February.
Though the proponants of the bill claim money taken through these fees will go to artists, the reality is that very few newer artists actually own the copyrights to their songs. The biggest group of artists to benefit from these bills will, in fact, be those with enough clout to own their own copyrights — most of whom are already filthy rich. The main copyright holders in this industry are, in fact, record labels. And, of those new artists who do own their own copyrights, such a fee would actually be a detriment — if broadcasters have to pay for the “privelidge” of promoting these bands and songs on air, we’re certainly not very likely to waste that time on untried artists.
So what these bills will actually do is keep money in the hands of the rich, by taking it out of the pockets of radio broadcasters, including small, local and independent stations. In other words, we would be looking at a situation where large corporations prosper at the expense of small business — by federal law. And let’s face it, local radio is already in some trouble. Year after year it becomes harder for independent stations to compete with large corporate entities like Citadel or Radio 1. Under a free market system, these smaller stations find ways to keep operating. They make cuts where necessary, they gain favor of local businesses… and those that don’t exactly thrive are at least surviving. These bills would be inconvenient for corporate radio. They could very well spell the end for many smaller stations.
But, the arguement goes, don’t these artists and copyright holders deserve to be paid? After all, the songwriters are being paid by the stations, so why not the other copyright owners? Well, because, put simply, artists and record companies are being paid because of what the stations do. They are paid in sales. Songwriters, many of whom do not enjoy the noteriety of recording artists, don’t get concert receipts, or promotion deals. They get paid primarily through the airplay and performance of their songs. Recording artists, on the other hand, get paid for showing up and smiling at the camera. These “other” copyright holders get paid through merchandise and other things. All of which is made possible by the songwriters, but are peripheral to specific songs. And, of course, you have the fact that many artists write their own songs, which means they are already paid for them through the current system.
But back to the value of radio to the industry, for a minute. As I said above, in a sense, these other copyright holders are indeed paid by radio stations, through free publicity. It’s true, a radio station benefits financially through playing these songs. I would argue, artists and record companies benefit even more. In fact, as a broadcaster, allow me this moment to address the artists and companies pushing for this legislation:
We give you free publicity. We do interviews with you, and specials about your upcoming releases. If it wasn’t for radio, nobody would care who you are — and they certainly wouldn’t pay obscene amounts of their hard-earned cash for your concert tickets and CDs. You would be a random name on a random CD cover (if you were lucky) that might sell a few thousand copies. You are rich because we play your music. Playing your music gets the public interested in your CDs, and in your concert tickets. That gigantic house? The limos and car collections? The throngs of screaming fans? Yeah. We did that. You’re welcome.
Now that that’s out of my system, a final thought on the proposed legislation: why is Government even being involved? This is a symbiotic market relationship. Now government has to tell us what we have to pay for, who we have to pay, and how much? Where is that responsibility in the Constitution? Not only does the government not have the responsibility to make these kinds of decisions regarding the free market, I would argue, they don’t have the right.
So, what can be done? first, go to noperformancetax.org and learn more about this legislation, and the efforts to stop it. Call your local legislature to tell them not to destroy local radio by imposing this fee. And, fellow North Country residents, call or write Rep. John McHugh to thank him personally for co-sponsoring H. Con. Res 49, a Congressional resolution committing them to the opposition of this so-called “Performance Rights Act.”
John McHugh nearly almost responds, sort of.
Okay, I know the Congressman is busy and all that, and certainly wasn’t surprised that it took a couple days for an official response to come in from his office re: the letter I sent him a few days ago. And indeed, it is a lengthy and well-written response. Unfortunately, it doesn’t really address the issues I brought up.
Okay, that’s not completely true. There is a single paragraph regarding the offending bill about which I wrote the letter. It would appear that, on the Congressman’s hard drive (but I flatter myself; more likely, it is on the hard drive of an assistant), there is a folder of pat responses, labled “AIG complaints, general.” From this folder, I theorize, somebody must simply have picked the response which best fit my own letter. At least that means somebody read it, I guess.
So, out of fairness, since I published my own letter, I will also publish the official response from the McHugh office. It’s pretty lengthy, so I’ve highlighted the part of the response which corrosponds to my own letter. Read the whole thing if you want, though. And after that, my own response to that response, which I may or may not take the time out of my day to send to McHugh’s office.
Dear Mr. Streu: [that's me]
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the recent news that American International Group (AIG) will be paying some executives nearly $165 million dollars in bonuses after receiving over $170 billion from a federal rescue package. I appreciate your reaching out to me on this very serious matter, and I sincerely share your frustrations with this troubling development.
At a time when our country is facing unprecedented economic challenges, it is unconscionable to me that American taxpayers have been asked to put their money on the line only to reward the failures of financial executives on Wall Street who took enormous risks and continue to operate as if it were business as usual. I continue to be outraged by these irresponsible, and potentially criminal, actions of many in the financial industry who operated out of the sight of federal regulators and bear much of the blame for our nation’s current economic struggles. American taxpayers deserve to know that a thorough review and investigation will be conducted and those who violated the law held accountable.
To that end, I have sponsored legislation and written letters to the appropriate government officials calling for accountability for corporate executives. Moreover, I will continue to aggressively press for increasing scrutiny and investigations into any and all related criminal behavior. For example, I recently sent a bipartisan letter with thirty other Members of Congress calling for the U.S. Attorney General to conduct a criminal investigation of any financial institution, corporation, or individual that is suspected of criminal action relating to this circumstance. I have also sent a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury and Federal Reserve Chairman asking that they investigate how taxpayer dollars are being used by AIG. In addition, I have sponsored legislation that would ensure that no taxpayer dollars could be used to pay for executive “golden parachutes” for companies that receive direct assistance from the Federal government. I believe Congress needs to do more to protect those who have made the right decisions – everyday Americans – and not the irresponsible actors on Wall Street.
Thus, on March 19, 2009, the House passed legislation (H.R. 1586) that would impose a 90% tax on bonuses paid to employees who earn more than $250,000 and whose companies have received more than $5 billion in TARP funds. This legislation first must be passed by the Senate before it can be presented to President Obama. Although the bill was less than ideal, I made the decision to vote for it, in part because I believe that bonuses paid with taxpayer funds that are in no way linked to the performance of a company are abusive and excessive. Thus, I supported this legislation in an effort to retrieve the American taxpayers’ money.
That said, I continue to have serious reservations regarding the manner in which Congress is considering such legislation. For example, Members of Congress learned recently that a provision in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) that would have lawfully prevented such bonuses from being paid was removed and, instead, replaced with language that specifically protected such bonuses. I voted against that hastily developed legislation in part because the 1,073 page long authorization spending $787 billion of taxpayer money was only released 16 hours prior to its vote. Had Members of Congress actually had the time to read the legislation they were voting on, such mistakes could have been avoided. Conversely, few, if any, Members of Congress actually reviewed the bill in its entirety and could not reasonably understand its provisions in such a short time, thus requiring Congress to take corrective measures like H.R. 1586.
I also believe that these actions alone to deal with the outrage at hand are not enough. We need to undertake a comprehensive change, and in that regard, I also support legislation that would establish a National Commission on the Financial Crisis. If enacted, H.R. 74 would be modeled after the 9/11 Commission and would create a bipartisan commission to determine the causes of the financial crisis and make recommendations to Congress and the President. I believe that such a commission would give the American people an objective and credible assessment of the causes and handling of the financial crisis and would be conducted by a bipartisan panel of experts. As with the 9/11 Commission, this report will be free of accusations of political showmanship and a partisan slant that has limited any current Congressional investigation.
Lastly, I believe it is absolutely critical that the Federal government act now to apply newer, more flexible tools that will effectively update our nation’s regulatory system. I was pleased to learn that the House Financial Services Committee is considering plans to establish a Select Committee to review and rewrite the regulatory structure currently governing the financial industry. I applaud these efforts to apply smarter modern regulations to improve our nation’s regulatory system and will work for their implementation.
As the 111th Congress moves forward, please know that I will carry on fighting for accountability and proper oversight by the Congress. Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this critically important matter. I appreciate having the benefit of your views and trust you will not hesitate to contact me in the future with any matter of interest to you before the Federal government.
With best wishes, I amSincerely yours,
John M. McHugh
Member of Congress
My Response:
Dear Congressman,
What?!!?
“The bill was less than ideal?” Sir, the bill was, and is, unconstitutional. That is not a simple matter of it being a little bit inconvenient. Saying such a thing was “less than ideal” is like saying the nuking of Hiroshima “annoyed” the Japanese.
What is troubling, sir, is that you seem not to have a problem with legislating the breaking of a negotiated contract between two entities — and worse , with the idea of passing what amounts to a “bill of attainder,” expressly forbidden by our Founding Fathers in the Constitution of the United States. A document, sir, which you swore an oath to defend.
Congressman McHugh, I respect and honor the many correct decisions you’ve made in your tenure in the Legislature. But if a bit of panicked public outcry is all it takes for you to abandon the single most important promise of your carreer — to uphold the Constitution — and then to waive off that offense by admitting it was “less than ideal,” than you, sir, are a man not to be trusted.