Fw: Blocking Netflix

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

---

From: "Josh Levy, FreePress.net" <info@freepress.net>

Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 14:59:36 +0000

To: Mark Rauterkus<mark@rauterkus.com>

ReplyTo: info@freepress.net

Subject: Blocking Netflix

Dear Mark, Tell the FCC: Stand Up for Mobile Internet Users When we access the Internet on our phones — as more of us do every day — we expect to be able to go wherever we want, whenever we want. But a terrible new service plan from MetroPCS — the fifth-largest U.S. mobile phone carrier — is the latest phone industry attack on Net Neutrality. The company is limiting users' ability to access certain websites and services, unless they pay extra for the privilege. Free Press just alerted the FCC to this blatant violation of Net Neutrality.1 Please click here to tell the FCC to launch an investigation. Here's what MetroPCS’s new pricing scheme looks like: Customers purchasing the most expensive plan will have to pay extra to access Netflix, Skype or any website using “advanced HTML” on their phones.  Those with the cheapest data option won't be able to access any of these online services, except for YouTube -- despite its similar data usage. It gets worse. MetroPCS’s plans disproportionately affect people of color and urban communities, whom the company recognizes as a major portion of its customer base, and who largely depend on mobile phones to access the Internet.2 There is a way that we can stop MetroPCS's discriminatory practices. Last month, the FCC adopted weak rules that leave mobile Internet users virtually unprotected from these types of abuses, with two big exceptions: They prohibit the blocking of websites and competing video and voice communication applications on mobile phones. Yet that’s exactly what MetroPCS is doing. The FCC must now take action to protect the public and enforce these new rules. If the agency does nothing, we could see a domino effect in which larger carriers like AT&T and Verizon introduce their own forms of mobile blocking and discrimination. We can’t let that happen. The FCC must take MetroPCS to task before other carriers follow suit. Tell the FCC: Enforce your new rules. Investigate MetroPCS’s outrageous, anti-Net Neutrality practices. Mobile Internet users should have the freedom to access any sites or services they want. The FCC must respond to our concerns3, protect our online rights and investigate MetroPCS now. Thanks, Josh Levy Online Campaign Manager Free Press P.S. Have friends with MetroPCS service? Forward this e-mail to them and make sure they sign our letter as well. 1. "Groups Ask FCC to Investigate MetroPCS for Violating Net Neutrality Rules," National Journal, 1/11/11: http://act2.freepress.net/go/1717?akid=2221.8833392.bGM5Sb&t=6 2. "For minorities, New 'Digital Divide' Seen," USA Today, 1/11/11: http://act2.freepress.net/go/1720?akid=2221.8833392.bGM5Sb&t=8 2. "Letter Urging the FCC to Investigate MetroPCS," Free Press, 1/11/11: http://act2.freepress.net/go/1722?akid=2221.8833392.bGM5Sb&t=10

Fw: PA Economic Boost Awaits Action

Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

---

From: "Bob Logue" <ucblogue@verizon.net>

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:16:26 -0500

To: <Undisclosed-Recipient>

Subject: PA Economic Boost Awaits Action

Would a $24 Billion Dollar infusion of economic activity (at NO COST to government on any level) boost Pennsylvania's stagnant economy?

   

• There is $8 Billion sitting idly in tax escrow accounts in banks all over Pennsylvania.  Banks pay NO interest on the $8 Billion they hold so this idle money gains the depositor (home owner with a mortgage) absolutely nothing.  Banks cannot lend the money, so it generates NO economic activity in the market place; and banks don't benefit either. It just idly sits there waiting until yearly property taxes are due on homes, and then the banks forward the money to the counties, school districts and municipal governments. 
• Economists say money reverberates through our economy multiple times.  We used three times (a very conservative estimate) to arrive at the $24 Billion in economic activity that would be occur if the $8 billion in tax escrow accounts was no longer required from those with home mortgages.
•   IF THERE WERE NO PROPERTY TAX ESCROW ACCOUNTS:
• Homeowners with mortgages would pay only the principal and interest on their mortgage plus homeowners insurance; cutting their monthly 'house' payment by multiple hundreds of dollars. 
• More people could keep their homes.
• More people could buy homes greatly boosting the housing market.
• More people would improve their homes.
• More young people would establish their home for their families in Pennsylvania rather than some other state
• More seniors (retirees) would remain here, keeping their accumulated wealth here, too.
• Greater population would attract more businesses to serve them.
• Tens of thousands of PERMANENT jobs would be created IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR with no need for governmentally funded so called 'job creation' programs.                Make-work governmentally induced jobs are often temporary—lasting only until the federal or state funding is no longer forthcoming. 
• More people working + more businesses equals more tax revenue for schools, counties and municipalities.
• More people able to purchase homes means revitalization of our suffering municipalities.
• No more sheriff sales for 'delinquent' property taxes currently based on phony, corrupt assessment figures stealing the homes and most, or all of the equity of 30,000+ Pennsylvania homeowners EVERY YEAR.
• No more countywide reassessments which cost Pennsylvania taxpayers tens of millions of dollars.
• Smaller government since every county's property tax assessment offices, could be cut dramatically, saving taxpayers tens of millions across the state.
• No more harassment of homeowners since there would be no more reassessment hearings.
• The Lottery-Funded Property Tax Rebate program could be abolished, saving the lottery over $60 million per year, which could be used to provide more seniors with PACE coverage, or expanded Rent Rebates.
• True home ownership would come to Pennsylvanians for the first time in our history—since we currently in effect only 'rent' our homes from the counties, municipalities and school districts.  Private property ownership rights is a basic component of our freedom. 

How could this dream become a reality?  First, if anyone tells you it can't work...they are either misinformed or lying.  They need only to check with the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee which studied the STOP Primary Residence Protection plan and found abolishing all three property taxes on primary residences (homesteads\farmsteads) is fiscally sound and economically viable.  The schools, counties and municipalities would be fully funded with replacement revenue for the lost property tax revenue.  Increased economic activity would mean even more revenue for the county and municipal governments and school districts than they are currently receiving.

     During the 8 years of Governor Ed Rendell's reign of error, 240,000+ Pennsylvania families lost their homes and equity and he couldn't have cared less.  Will Governor Corbett be any better?  Let's hope and pray he will.  Do whatever you can to spread this message to Governor Corbett, the newly elected or re-elected legislative leaders and YOUR state reps and senators.  Print this out and mail it to them...or if you can find e-mail addresses for them...send it by E-mail. 

     I welcome their response at ucblogue@verizon.net    or to Box 306, Fairbank, PA 15435-0306.  Happy New Year to you and your family.  It won't be a happy new year for the 30,000+ homeowners who will have their homes and equity stolen this year due to the corrupt Pennsylvania property tax system.  Bob Logue, STOP Primary Residence Protection Plan.  Learn more at www.grandoldusa.com   and www.spedunkie.com  hit on the STOP page. 

Division III athletes doing well at colleges

Latest News - NCAA.org

Data from the first year of a two-year pilot program in Division III to assess student-athlete academic performance reveals that student-athletes are graduating at rates comparable with or higher than those of their student body counterparts.

A total of 115 Division III schools voluntarily submitted graduation-rates data in the first year of the pilot. Results from this representative, division-wide sample showed that 66 percent of student-athletes who enrolled as freshmen in 2003 graduated within six years (the same methodology used to calculate federal graduation rates in Divisions I and II). That compares favorably with the 65 percent graduation rate for the general student body at the 444 active and provisional Division III member schools.

300 turn out to meet new city school chief

300 turn out to meet new city school chief

Dr. Lane said she believed that it was important for teachers to know their craft but added, "In the heart of it, you've got to love the kids. They know."

I have a lot to say about this event. I took notes, not my video camera. I expect that it will be on the TV on the city station or PPS Tube soon.

Stay tuned.

Bill would make council members resign to run for other office

Rev. Burgess is making himself a real outcast in council now. Way to go.

I like the spirit of this bill. But, a few points. First, this bill is most needed at present within the Pgh Public School's BOARD. That is where I have pushed for it for the longest time. We don't want the volunteer, elected board positions to turn into opportunities to step upon the backs of the students for personal gain so that runs for other office can be launched from the school board. That is a long-standing suggestion of mine that is less of a factor in 2011 than it has been in the past. But still, the suggestion holds.

Furthermore, in Allegheny County Council where such a law exists, it is not really followed, as per PA Senator Wayne Fontana. He said he was going to run for office while on council and only quit council after he voted as he wanted in some tight decisions. Then he quit. The P-G editorial flamed him for breaking the rules of the county charter too. So, some of these political jerks are too big for their deeds to follow the established mandates (i.e., Wayne Fontana) -- hence -- the policy needs to be iron clad and with teeth should they go their own way. Guillotines would provide ample satisfaction and fear.

Bill would make council members resign to run for other office
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
By Joe Smydo, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Pittsburgh City Councilman Ricky Burgess today proposed legislation that would require City Council members to resign if they wanted to campaign for another office.

Mr. Burgess said the legislation, which he's entitled "Resign to Run," is designed to ensure city officials focus on the city's business, not the next political opportunity.

"The public should not pay for the ambitions of elected officials, he said.

Read more: http://post-gazette.com/pg/11011/1117138-100.stm#ixzz1Ak6EgoTN

Open Letter to PPS Superintendent, Linda Lane

Chelsa Wagner announces controller bid

Chelsa Wagner announces controller bid: "Chelsa Wagner announces controller bid"

I think someone wants to stay close to home and going to Harrisburg is too much work.

But, in my humble opinion, she would be way better than either Nick Kotik or else George Matta. They want jobs and have done nothing to light my fire while in office in the past.

The job of controller is a place were we want and need real fire lighters. Not much of that has happened in recent decades.

Let's vote.

Try these words on for size when in a sticky situation, "Let's vote." It could be at a community meeting, a meeting with school administrators, or even in City Council Chambers -- and you'll get quick push-back.

When the voting process gets opened, a big can of worms is revealed. Who votes? Who gets to craft the question? Who gets to count the votes? Can we do 'elimination voting' or 'percentage votes?' When do we vote? When do we vote again if the one's in power don't like the outcome?

Policy Brief
An electronic publication of
The Allegheny Institute for Public Policy

January 13, 2011 Volume 11, Number 2

Is Taxpayer Referendum on Its Way to Pittsburgh?

Pittsburgh Councilman Burgess has introduced a measure to give City voters the power to approve or reject property tax increases. The proposed ordinance calls for a referendum asking voters if they want to change the City charter to require a referendum on all property tax increases. As Reverend Burgess notes, “this is about giving the people the power to fight a tax increase.” The Councilman should be congratulated for this bold initiative.

We have been a strong and consistent advocate of voter referenda for tax hikes for over a decade. It is a public policy which could hold great promise for Pittsburgh’s future. Of course there are elected officials who are very opposed to giving voters approval power over taxes. Responding to Reverend Burgess’s proposal, a member on Pittsburgh City Council said, “you elect people, and they make those decisions.” Granted, that is the way it is supposed to work. Sadly, Council’s long running inability to hold expenses down has necessitated ever increasing tax revenues to fund spending growth.

Others on Council view the ability to tax as “an important tool” in governing the City. But their power to tax has led to the profligate spending that has put the City in the bind it now finds itself in. Misuse and abuse of this “important tool” lie at the heart of Pittsburgh’s financial nightmare. Arguing for continued unrestrained authority to set tax rates is illogical and specious as well as incredibly self-serving.

Finally, there are those who worry voters will never approve a tax increase. They have every reason to be worried about that in light of taxpayers’ disgust with the inability of government to rein in spending. Still, there may be cases where voters can be convinced a legitimate need exists for additional revenue.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR for short) movement has been around for quite some time. Colorado was one of the first states to implement fully the concept. All tax increases at all levels of government in the state are subject to referendum approval and government expenditure growth is strictly limited to the inflation rate and population growth. After implementation in the early 1990s Colorado became one of the fastest growing states in the country.

TABOR’s rationale is quite simple and straightforward. Over time elected officials almost inevitably find it easier—for various reasons—to bend to the entreaties, or threats, of powerful interest groups to spend money that redounds to the benefit of these groups. Such interest groups represent sources of campaign financing and reliable voters on election day and whose wishes dare not be ignored. On the other hand, taxpayers are a disparate population with many allegiances and political views. Their broad interest in having government be as effective and low cost as possible is rarely the foremost concern of elected officials. Typically taxpayers as a whole do not march as an interest group or testify on spending measures or new programs. Then too, taxpayers are often conflicted because not only do they pay taxes they are members of interest groups that benefit from government largesse.

Taxpayers who do not work for government or who are not part of a favored interest group are at a disadvantage compared to the aggregation of special interests who tend to get what they want. This is especially true in an environment where strong public sector unions are present.

Greater economic prosperity in communities with TABOR is easy to understand. Businesses like a low tax environment. And they also like having the assurance that government spending will be constrained so that tax rates are not under continual threat of being raised. Government in a TABOR community must work hard to be lean and efficient including adopting cost saving measures such as outsourcing non-core functions. New programs requiring big spending increases are much less likely to get off the ground. Government instead is forced to focus on its core functions, something it should be doing without being forced. Finally, a very salutary result of TABOR is that government’s burden on taxpayers is far less likely to increase over time and can actually be lowered.

Politicians who fight voter approval of tax increases are saying, “trust us to do what is best.” The problem is their track record is beyond deplorable and there is little or no taxpayer trust in them. Government exists for the benefit of all citizens including taxpayers and their input on momentous decisions is crucial. And while voter approval of every governmental decision is not possible or desirable, on the biggest decision of all—the amount of resources government will have to spend—voters should have the ultimate say.

No system is perfect nor can any system solve every problem or anticipate every adverse situation. But voter approval of taxes, accompanied by strict spending limits, offers a far better approach to fiscal matters than the irresponsible government behavior that has driven Pittsburgh into the financial ditch it finds itself stuck in.

So, Reverend Burgess is to be commended for proposing this first important step of referendum for tax hikes. It would be very positive for the future of the City and the way it is perceived by the business community if Council would approve the Reverend’s proposal and allow the citizens to vote on whether they want tax increases to be subject to referendum.

Surely, in light of the government’s litany of financial management failures, Council and the Mayor should grasp this opportunity to show a little humility and demonstrate some faith in the good sense of the people of Pittsburgh—and a lot less deference to political power players.

Jake Haulk, Ph.D., President Frank Gamrat. Ph.D., Sr. Research Assoc.

For updates and commentary on daily issues please visit our blog at http://alleghenyinstitute.org/blog.

If you have enjoyed reading this Policy Brief and would like to send it to a friend, please feel free to forward it to them.

For more information on this and other topics, please visit our web site: http://alleghenyinstitute.org

If you wish to support our efforts please consider becoming a donor to the Allegheny Institute. The Allegheny Institute is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and all contributions are tax deductible. Please mail your contribution to:

The Allegheny Institute, 305 Mt. Lebanon Boulevard, Suite 208, Pittsburgh, PA 15234

Thank you for your support.

How pension bailout came in a frenzy at 11th hour

How pension bailout came in a frenzy at 11th hour

Ms. Doven said. "It really was a three-ring circus."

Read more: http://post-gazette.com/pg/11009/1116783-53.stm#ixzz1AXLp9dj8

And the mayor says it is not his fault. So there.