February, 25 2015, 08:45am EDT

Congressional Hearing a Last-Ditch Effort to Derail Net Neutrality
Free Press sets the record straight on impact of FCC rules
WASHINGTON
On Wednesday, the House Communications and Technology Subcommittee will convene a hearing to discuss the FCC's Feb. 26 Net Neutrality vote. The majority of the witnesses are phone and cable industry-funded spokespeople and pundits, called to appear at another hearing designed to spread fear about Net Neutrality and stop the FCC from protecting the rights of Internet users.
Earlier this month, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler announced his intention to reclassify broadband Internet access as a "telecommunications service" under Title II of the Communications Act. Using Title II would restore basic protections against blocking and unreasonable discrimination by broadband providers, grounding those protections in the proper part of the law for the first time in more than a decade.
In response, phone and cable lobbyists along with their allies at the FCC and in Congress have ratcheted up the rhetoric against Net Neutrality, going so far as to claim that the FCC action would embolden the world's dictators to crack down on free speech online.
To set the record straight, Free Press Policy Director Matt Wood made the following statements:
"Some of the most outrageous lies about Net Neutrality will be repeated at today's hearing. This overheated rhetoric can't withstand scrutiny, and bears no resemblance to the law and the facts. Title II isn't Internet regulation or 'Obamacare for the Internet,' and it won't turn the Internet into a weapon of mass destruction. Big cable and telecom companies have paid their lobbyists and public relations firms to deceive the public with these claims. But the public isn't buying it. That's why millions of people have urged the FCC to make strong rules and protect our rights to connect and communicate online. And it's why Chairman Wheeler has proposed protections built on Title II's solid legal footing."
On Internet Regulation
"One of Title II's many benefits is that it draws a bright line between our common-carrier communications networks and the speech that flows over them. Those who conflate the two are either confused or dead set on confusing others. Net Neutrality rules don't regulate what's on the Internet, just as the FCC's rules for phone networks don't regulate what people say on phone calls. We've always had these kinds of protections in place for our communications networks, and we still have them today for essential services like wireless voice and business-grade broadband services."
On Taxes
"Those who are in the pocket of the cable industry keep insisting that Title II will lead to billions in new Internet taxes. These claims have been thoroughly and repeatedly debunked. Senator Wyden, author of the Internet Tax Freedom Act, called the notion of billions in new taxes 'baloney.' The Washington Post said that the so-called research behind these claims is riddled with significant factual errors and obvious contradictions. A Free Press filing demolished these unsubstantiated arguments nearly two months ago."
On Investment
"Claims that Title II harms broadband investment have also been repeatedly debunked -- not just by independent advocates like Free Press, but by the CEOs and chief financial officers of Verizon, Comcast, Charter, Time Warner Cable and Sprint in their presentations to investors and, in the case of Sprint, to the FCC itself. And just last week T-Mobile's COO told the Wall Street Journal that he wasn't worried about rules based on Title II. No independent investment analyst gives any credence to these supposed harms, and neither does Wall Street. And as Free Press explained on Monday, U.S. wireless carriers invested more of their earnings back into their networks during the Title II era than they have since the FCC classified mobile broadband as a Title I service."
On Global Comparisons
"Industry representatives are sure to repeat their recent claims that Title II-style policies have hurt broadband investment overseas, or that U.S. wireless investment supposedly boomed after the FCC put mobile broadband outside of Title II. These claims are false and are based on shoddy analysis. A recent Free Press filing to the FCC reveals that despite the European Union's lower average standard of living, E.U. carriers on average reinvest the same amount of their earnings back into the network as U.S. companies do. The deployment, quality and adoption of broadband are virtually the same in Europe as they are in the United States. But there's actual competition in much of Europe, which is why consumers there spend half as much per capita on communications as U.S. consumers do, and why broadband prices are falling in Europe and rising here."
On the FCC Process
"Real open Internet protections must be based on Title II, which was updated with overwhelming bipartisan support in the 1996 Telecom Act. This wasn't a partisan issue then, and it shouldn't be one today. Support for real Net Neutrality is present across the political spectrum, and more than 80 percent of self-identified conservatives want strong rules. In fact, the reason the court twice overturned the FCC's previous open Internet protections is because the agency failed to root them in Title II. The threat of endless litigation is a red herring. Some broadband providers may still sue the FCC, but the agency has the best chance of winning on the rock-solid authority of Title II. The FCC is nearing the end of a year-long process that invited and attracted unprecedented public input. The claim that this process lacked all transparency is another ploy calculated to delay the FCC from making the decision that the public overwhelmingly supports."
Free Press was created to give people a voice in the crucial decisions that shape our media. We believe that positive social change, racial justice and meaningful engagement in public life require equitable access to technology, diverse and independent ownership of media platforms, and journalism that holds leaders accountable and tells people what's actually happening in their communities.
(202) 265-1490LATEST NEWS
Poll Shows 3 in 4 Oppose Medicaid Cuts as GOP Targets Program to Fund Tax Breaks for Rich
A majority also said the the Trump administration "is recklessly making broad cuts to programs and staff, including some that are necessary for agencies to function."
May 01, 2025
As congressional Republicans consider slashing the federal safety net to fund tax giveaways for the wealthy, polling published Thursday by KFF shows that a large majority of Americans oppose cuts to health programs, including Medicaid.
The research group asked respondents about potential funding cuts for various programs, and found that 84% oppose cuts to Social Security, 79% oppose cuts to Medicare, and 76% oppose cuts to Medicaid, a key target for the GOP's tax ambitions.
There is also strong opposition to slashing funds for mental health and addiction prevention services, tracking infectious disease outbreaks, medical research, HIV prevention, and helping people with Affordable Care Act premiums.
KFF found that 61% generally oppose "major cuts to staff and spending at federal government health agencies," a figure that rose to 72% after respondents heard arguments that the reductions "would negatively impact these agencies' abilities to serve the public."
Pollsters also asked about actions by President Donald Trump's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire Elon Musk. A majority (54%) said the administration and DOGE had gone "too far" with cuts at federal health agencies.
Similarly, 59% of respondents—including 92% of Democrats, 65% of Independents, and 18% of Republicans—agreed that "the administration is recklessly making broad cuts to programs and staff, including some that are necessary for agencies to function."
Majorities said they oppose staffing cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Social Security Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy.
Sharing the poll on social media, KFF CEO and president Drew Altman said: "Everyone—Dems, R's, Independents—are against big Medicaid cuts. Not really surprising. What is: MAGA supporters are divided on cutting Medicaid."
"As Steve Bannon said: 'lots of MAGAs on Medicaid,'" Altman added, referring to the far-right media executive and former Trump adviser.
The fact that so many residents of "red states" rely on Medicaid could be a problem for GOP leaders attacking the program that provides healthcare for low-income Americans in hopes of lowering taxes for the rich. Some Republicans in both chambers have expressed concern about how major cuts would impact their constituents—and, as a result, their reelection chances.
Congressman Don Bacon (R-Neb.), a critical swing vote in the House of Representatives, said Tuesday that his "red line" for Medicaid cuts in the GOP's reconciliation package is $500 billion—a figure that, as Families USA executive director Anthony Wright noted, would be "the biggest cut in the history of Medicaid, one that would force millions of Americans to lose coverage."
Bacon also expressed support for adding work requirements to Medicaid, despite evidence that they strip coverage from people in need. A Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) analysis from February found that imposing such mandates for Medicaid recipients could put 36 million Americans, or 44% of the program's enrollees, at risk of losing their health insurance.
"Senate Republicans are closely watching how their House colleagues restructure federal funding for Medicaid, and will likely propose changes when the entire 11-bill package comes over from the House later this year," States Newsroom reported Thursday. "Several GOP senators told reporters at the Capitol on Wednesday they will judge the package based on how changes to Medicaid will impact their constituents."
States Newsroom shared remarks from Republican Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Josh Hawley (Mo.), Jerry Moran (Kan.), and John Hoeven (N.D.), who said that said "the challenge is going to be to find savings in line with what the president has described."
"He said he doesn't want any cuts to Medicaid," Hoeven continued. "But how do you make sure that you eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse? And that the folks that should be getting it are getting it, rather than an able-bodied person who should be out there working and is able to do that and take care of themselves."
Politico similarly reported Wednesday that "while Trump has agreed to target waste, fraud and abuse, he remains profoundly wary about pursuing anything that might be construed as 'cuts' to a program he has vowed over and over again to protect, according to six White House officials and top allies of the president."
Medicaid isn't the only program for the poor in the GOP's crosshairs. Republicans are also considering cuts to and work requirements for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
CBPP said Wednesday that "nearly 11 million people—about 1 in 4 SNAP participants, including more than 4 million children and more than half a million adults aged 65 or older and adults with disabilities—live in households that would be at risk of losing at least some of their food assistance" under Congressman Dusty Johnson's (R-S.D.) proposal.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Grotesque Spectacle' on May Day: CEO Pay Up 50% Since 2019 Compared to 0.9% for Workers
"This isn't a glitch in the system—it's the system working exactly as designed, funneling wealth ever upwards while millions of working people struggle to afford rent, food, and healthcare."
May 01, 2025
As people worldwide filled the streets Thursday to celebrate International Workers' Day and mobilize against attacks on the working class, a new analysis showed that average global CEO pay has surged 50% since 2019—56 times more than the pay of ordinary employees.
The Oxfam International analysis examined figures from nearly 2,000 corporations across 35 countries where CEOs were paid more than $1 million on average last year, including bonuses and stock options. Across those companies, the average pay of chief executives reached $4.3 million in 2024, up from $2.9 million just five years ago.
By contrast, average worker pay in those 35 nations rose just 0.9% between 2019 and 2024.
"Year after year, we see the same grotesque spectacle: CEO pay explodes while workers' wages barely budge," said Amitabh Behar, Oxfam's executive director. "This isn't a glitch in the system—it's the system working exactly as designed, funneling wealth ever upwards while millions of working people struggle to afford rent, food, and healthcare."
According to Oxfam, global billionaires "pocketed on average $206 billion in new wealth over the last year," or $23,500 an hour. That's more than the average annual income globally—$21,000—in 2023.
To begin redressing global economic inequality, Oxfam called for top marginal tax rates of at least 75% on the highest earners and wage increases to ensure worker pay keeps up with inflation.
"It's time to end the billionaire coup against democracy and put people and planet first."
Luc Triangle, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, said in a statement that the "outrageous pay inequality between CEOs and workers confirms that we lack democracy where it is needed most: at work."
"Around the world, workers are being denied the basics of life while corporations pocket record profits, dodge taxes, and lobby to evade responsibility," Triangle added. "Workers are demanding a New Social Contract that works for them—not the billionaires undermining democracy. Fair taxation, strong public services, living wages, and a just transition are not radical demands—they are the foundation of a just society."
"It's time to end the billionaire coup against democracy and put people and planet first," he added.
In addition to spotlighting the growing chasm between CEO and worker pay, the Oxfam analysis warned that the global working class "is now facing a new threat" in the form of U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff regime. The humanitarian group argued that "these policies pose significant risks for workers worldwide, including job losses and rising costs for basic goods that would stoke extreme inequality everywhere."
"For so many workers worldwide, President Trump's reckless use of tariffs means a push from one cruel order to another: from the frying pan of destructive neoliberal trade policy to the fire of weaponized tariffs," said Behar. "These policies will not only hurt working families in the U.S., but especially harm workers trying to escape poverty in some of the world's poorest countries."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wyden Decries 'New Low' as GOP Senators Shield Trump's Massive Tax on Working Class
"In any sane world, it would be a scandal that the vast majority of one political party would vote for a pointless tax on the American people, one that is hiking prices and destroying jobs, all to please one man."
May 01, 2025
Nearly every Senate Republican on Wednesday voted against a resolution aimed at terminating the national emergency that U.S. President Donald Trumpdeclared last month to impose his sweeping tariffs, which are wreaking economic havoc across the globe.
Just three Republicans—Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Susan Collins (R-Maine), and Rand Paul (R-Ky.)—joined every voting Democrat in supporting the resolution led by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The measure deadlocked at 49 in favor and 49 against, and U.S. Vice President JD Vance subsequently cast a tie-breaking vote to table the resolution—which Trump had threatened to veto.
"In any sane world, it would be a scandal that the vast majority of one political party would vote for a pointless tax on the American people, one that is hiking prices and destroying jobs, all to please one man," Wyden said in a statement following the votes. "The only winner from Donald Trump's trade chaos is China, which is scooping up markets and trading partners that Trump has driven away. This vote represents a new low for the Republican Party."
Wyden said in a floor speech Wednesday that Trump's "senseless global tariffs" are "a major culprit" in the first U.S. economic contraction since 2022, as shown in a Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) report published earlier in the day.
"If this continues to be our tariff policy," the Oregon senator warned, "every major economist and forecaster is unfortunately predicting recession, job losses, and the misery that was all over our news feeds this morning."
Trump's tariffs currently stand at 10% on imports from most U.S. trading partners, and 145% on Chinese imports, as the White House negotiates bilateral deals behind closed doors.
Melinda St. Louis, Global Trade Watch director at Public Citizen, said Wednesday that "while strategic tariffs can be an important tool to support domestic manufacturing, Trump's inappropriate use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to push through sweeping and reckless tariffs actually has nothing to do with protecting U.S. workers."
"He's rolling back investments and support for domestic businesses and undermining workers' rights at home and likely pushing the agenda of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and other billionaire buddies in his secretive trade talks," St. Louis added.
The progressive advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) said Wednesday that Trump's tariffs have already hit U.S. households with a "$14 billion price hike," pointing to BEA data showing that "taxes on foreign imports spiked to $96.3 billion just in the first quarter of 2025, up $14 billion, or 17%, from the same period in 2024." Corporations often pass import tax costs to consumers in the form of price increases.
"Lower and middle-income households will bear a disproportionate share of the Trump Tariff Tax," ATF said. "While the bottom 60% of households take home roughly one-fifth of national income, they will pay nearly one-third of the price of Trump's tariff regime. Meanwhile, the top 1% highest-income households—those that take in over $940,000 a year—will pay only one-tenth of the Trump Tariff Tax, even though they get well over one-fifth of national income."
"This is all part of Trump and congressional Republicans' radical agenda to rig the tax code further in favor of the wealthy while sticking low- and middle-income families with the bill," the group added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular