If elected U.S. President, Jeb Bush would push to eliminate so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulations

31 Comments

“Saying the U.S. economy is ‘buried under the weight of rulebooks,’ Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush on Tuesday proposed cutting federal regulations that he said would increase growth 3 percent in 10 years and help increase wages by 6 percent,” Michael C. Bender reports for Bloomberg. “Bush’s plan would freeze any remaining regulations proposed by the Obama administration, require regulatory costs to be offset during his first year in office, and push for legislation that would require Congress to approve major rules. He would push to repeal five regulations, including the Dodd-Frank Act approved after the 2008 financial crisis, according to his website.”

“‘Regulation accumulates, like sediments in a harbor, building up over time, and ensuring that Americans must consult a rulebook or hire a lobbyist to accomplish basic tasks,’ said a Bush campaign summary of the proposed changes,” Bender reports. “Bush has made 4 percent economic growth, a rate the country hasn’t reached for two decades, the central thrust of his campaign. Earlier this month, Bush unveiled an overhaul of the U.S. tax code, estimated to cost $3.4 trillion over a decade, which he sees as the engine of his plan to double gross domestic product. Bush’s campaign said regulations are an “invisible tax” and pointed to a report from Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute that showed federal rules cost the economy $1.9 trillion per year.”

“In addition to repealing Dodd-Frank, Bush said he’d also push to eliminate regulations on broadband Internet providers known as net neutrality, and three environmental rules, including one that defines which bodies of water can be regulated under the Clean Water Act,” Bender reports. “Bush would also cut President Obama’s clean power plan, and abolish the recent attempt by the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate coal ash—the nation’s second-largest industrial waste.”

“Bush’s regulation plan, combined with his proposed tax changes, will help increase wages so that by 2020 a family of four earning $50,000 will have an after-tax income that is about $3,100 higher, according to a summary provided by the campaign,” Bender reports. “Bush’s campaign also promised the changes would increase GDP by 3 percent in 10 years.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote back in August 2006:

We don’t presume to know the best way to get there, but we support the concept of “Net Neutrality” especially as it pertains to preventing the idea of ISP’s blocking or otherwise impeding sites that don’t pay the ISP to ensure equal access. That said, we usually prefer the government to be hands-off wherever possible, Laissez-faire, except in cases where the free market obviously cannot adequately self-regulate (antitrust, for example). Regulations are static and the marketplace is fluid, so such regulation can often have unintended, unforeseen results down the road. We sincerely hope that there are enough forces in place and/or that the balances adjust in such a manner as to keep the ‘Net as neutral as it is today.

And as we followed up in September 2009:

That we have the same Take over three years later should be telling. Government regulations are not a panacea, neither are the lack thereof. It’s all about striking a proper balance where innovation can thrive while abuses are prevented.

Make that “the same Take over nine years later.”

SEE ALSO:
Jeb Bush on FCC and so-called ‘net neutrality’ regulation: ‘One of the craziest ideas I’ve ever heard’ – March 8, 2015
Who loves the FCC’s overreach on so-called ‘net neutrality?’ Telecom lawyers – March 5, 2015
Legal battles loom over FCC’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC OKs so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules on party-line vote – February 26, 2015
U.S. FCC’s rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ expected to unleash slew of court challenges – February 26, 2015
EFF: ‘We are deeply concerned; FCC’s new rules include provision that sounds like a recipe for overreach’ – February 25, 2015
The U.S. FCC’s Orwellian Internet policy – February 25, 2015
Democratic FCC commissioner balks at so-called ‘net neutrality’ rules – February 24, 2015
FCC chief pressed to release proposed regulations governing so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 23, 2015
FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai: Obama’s plan a monumental shift toward government control of the Internet – February 10, 2015
Congress launches investigation as Republicans claim Obama had ‘improper influence’ over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – February 7, 2015
FCC chairman proposes to regulate ISP’s under Title II – February 4, 2015
U.S. congressional Republicans’ bill aims to head off Obama’s so-called ‘net neutrality’ plan – January 17, 2015
U.S. Congressional proposal offers Internet rules of the road – January 15, 2015
U.S. FCC says it will vote on so-called ‘net neutrality’ in February – January 3, 2015
FCC hopes its rules for so-called ‘net neutrality’ survive inevitable litigation – November 22, 2014
Obama-appointed FCC chairman distances himself from Obama on so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 12, 2014
What does so-called ‘net neutrality’ mean for Apple? – November 12, 2014
AT&T to pause fiber investment until net neutrality rules are decided – November 12, 2014
There’s no one to root for in the debate over so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. FCC plays Russian Roulette with so-called ‘net neutrality’ – November 11, 2014
U.S. House Speaker John Boehner: Republicans will continue efforts to stop misguided scheme to regulate the Internet – November 10, 2014
Tech Freedom: Obama cynically exploits confusion over Title II, misses opportunity to lead on legislative deal – November 10, 2014
Obama want FCC to regulate the Internet; Cruz calls it ‘Obamacare for the Internet’ – November 10, 2014

[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]

31 Comments

  2. You get richer from people willingly parting with their hard earned money, not at the expense of people.

    If eliminating net neutrality is a way for well placed buddies to charge more at the expense of the common man, then no. Comcast makes BILLIONS of dollars already.

    Reply

  7. My only question is:

    Can’t the Republican party do better than this?

    My point is, Carly Fiorina is so far the most mentally balanced of all the candidates. And Carly Fiorina is a terrible choice!

    I’m worried about the future of America.

    Reply

  10. Let’s be worried about the GOP, before being worried about America. The GOP tends to paint a worst case scenario. We are not as bad off as they make it seem. I suggest, let’s get the crackpots out and put some level headed people in.

    On the other side, who in the world is going to take America seriously? We have no one who deserves any real respect on the international scene. That’s a real shame.

    Reply

  11. So just to be clear, Clinton supports what you guys want also? Using insecure private email servers for government business and lying about it. America in general is hurting, as was said previously, but by both the Democrats and Republicans. Good luck to us all in 2016 and beyond.

    Reply

    1. From Politifact:
      In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

      Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, “she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time,” said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

      “Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation,” said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. “There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area.”

      I’m not sure what lies you think she told about it.

      Remember that she did what Colin Powell and people before him had done. Powell has deleted every single one of his emails from his time as Secretary of State. No-one is trying to cause a fuss over that despite the fact that he either lied, or was fed false information and duped into misleading the UN to justify starting a war that killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

      Reply

  12. His ideas are so stale. No wonder he is sliding in the polls. 4 percent growth by cutting regulations? Dream on.

    Eliminate regulations? You’ll need that extra $3k a year to cover your health costs from eating and breathing mercury, dioxins and whatever other crap will be released.

    Reply

  13. Corporations exist and profit because of government regulations (ie less competition).

    As MDN tried to say but “failed to see how we get there”, let the free market be free.

    We don’t have a free market. One could argue the free market in America existed only during the Revolutionary War when there was no govt (British or otherwise). After that it was nothing but regulations and that provided fertile ground for corporations.

    Go ahead and believe what your favorite candidate will promise. They are all puppets.

    In the meantime: The clever get rich and the rich get richer.

    Reply

    1. First, let me state I’m a capitalist. I own a company, I like to make a profit, and I like government our of my plate as much as possible.

      Having said that, “free enterprise” has to do with “same rules to everybody” than “no regulation”.

      If you leave the market 100% free, what will end up happening is, monopolies will take over, sooner or later. Why? Because people still believe the biggest lie: The market size is infinite, and so is the amount of money to be made.

      Reality check: The market is NOT infinite. And the amount of money to be made has a roof. That’s why, whether we like it or not, a level of regulation should be in place, so ALL companies have the same rights and privileges.

      Not having regulations and expect the market to regulate itself is the same as not having laws and expect people to be civilized.

      By the way, the second idea has a name: anarchism. Anarchists believe that society can regulate itself without any authority role. While it can be chaotic at the beginning, eventually, it will balance itself.

      It’s the same with companies. Those who cry for “no regulation” and claim “the market will take care of itself” live the same delusion as anarchists:

      Regulation must be in place for the market to function, the same way laws must be in place for society to work.

      Another completely different question is: Is the regulation in place right?

      Well, look at the financial crisis of 2007-2008. The main reason behind that was LACK of regulation to the banks and financial institutions. They ran amock doing questionnable businesses, where their own people made money, but the market suffered. They weakened the American economical foundation.

      Reply

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,