Congressional impasse on the payroll tax cut extension. Why do some Americans wear religion on their sleeves? Lookup Tinseltown vs. Silicon Valley over policing cyberspace. Fixing online reputations, is it doable?
Congressional impasse on the payroll tax cut extension
The deadlock that continues to hurt an already badly-battered Congress remains. The House Republicans’ decision to reject a bipartisan deal to extend a payroll tax cut has left the party divided and politically bolstered the Democrats. Regardless, if the payroll tax cut expires, the risk to both parties is arguably equal.
A failure to pass the payroll tax cut extension implies a tax increase on 160 million American workers, expiring unemployment benefits for millions more, in addition to a loss of $40 per week for the average American household.
So why won’t Republicans, the party that consistently advocates for lower taxes, refuse to pass a two-month extension of the tax cut? House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) argues their stand is one of principle; Republicans want a year-long extension, not a two-month one as a way to buy time. But many Republicans are now questioning their leadership.
In a year of harsh legislative standoffs, the political repercussions are immense for the party whose plan is to make Barack Obama a one-term president. Today, Boehner called Obama to summon the Senate back and renegotiate, but his offer was rejected by Mr. Obama and Democrats from the House and Senate. Now, Republicans are urging Boehner and other Republican leaders to vote for the Senate bill, saying the ugly clash is damaging their party and Congress.
WEIGH IN:
Will Republican leadership give in? How does this legislative impasse differ from others in the past year? Why won’t Republicans budge and what makes Democrats refuse to come back to the table? What will happen if Congress allows the payroll tax cuts to expire?
Guest:
David Mark, Senior Editor at Politico and author of "Going Dirty: The Art of Negative Campaigning" (Rowman & Littlefield Publishers)
Congressman Xavier Becerra, (D-CA’s 31st District), is the Vice Chair of the House Democratic Caucus and Ranking Member of the Social Security Subcommittee. He was a member of President Obama’s Fiscal Responsibility Commission (aka Simpson/Bowles) and more recently served on the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (aka the Super Committee).
Congressman Dan Lungren, (R-CA’s 3rd District) is Chair of the House Administration Committee; he also sits on Homeland Security and Judiciary Committees
Why do Americans wear religion on their sleeves?
This past weekend, “Saturday Night Live” aired a sketch referencing the Denver Broncos’ win over the Chicago Bears in overtime on December 11. Denver’s quarterback, Tim Tebow, led his team to a miraculous victory, which he credited to God.
In the sketch, Jesus, played by cast member Jason Sudeikis, comes to the Denver locker room after the game to have a meeting with Tebow and the team. He asks the team to begin “pulling their weight,” as he is tired of winning all the games for them. He then turns specifically to Tebow and asks him to “take it down a notch,” in a reference to the quarterback’s religious zealotry.
Some commentators are pointing to the sketch as an example of negative bias towards Christians. In specific, televangelist Pat Robertson referred to the sketch as “anti-Christian bigotry,” and said that if the sketch had featured Muhammed and aired in a Muslim country, that “you would find bombs being thrown off and bodies in the street.”
WEIGH IN:
Is a popular figure’s religion off limits as a source for humor? Is it OK to do, but just tacky? Why is this causing so much ire in the Christian community? What’s better: to wear your religion on your sleeve, or keep it and your opinions to yourself? Why?
Guest:
Dr. Clayton Schmit, Professor at Fuller Seminary; Academic Director of Fuller’s Brehm Center for Worship, Theology and the Arts
Tinseltown vs. Silicon Valley over policing cyberspace
California's heavy-hitter industries are duking it out over a controversial bill in Congress.
As Hollywood stakeholders see it, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) would aggressively protect copyrighted content on the Internet – stopping bootlegged movies online, for instance. But as the tech giants argue, including Google and Twitter, SOPA is too far-reaching and burdensome to fairly police online activity. They also worry about excessive regulations hindering start-ups and innovation. Of course, it is already illegal to sell or share pirated movies, fake pills and counterfeit fashion on the street or online.
SOPA would add greater empowerment for law enforcement to shut down websites and block access to foreign sites suspected of copyright violations. Michael O'Leary of the Motion Picture Association of America said he's glad to see Congress clamp down on piracy. "Right now the creative community all across the United States is suffering because thieves are hiding overseas, and using websites to steal and profit from American products," he said. According to O'Leary, the bill would also protect consumers that purchase things like prescription medications, "who need to know that they're buying a legitimate, safe product," he added.
Markham Erickson of The Net Coalition said that Congress' bold legislation move has become a farce because of its harshness. He added that the rush to pass a solution to the problem of piracy has been lamented by many on the web.
According to Erickson, no one has suggested support for piracy. However, "there is a way to do better here and I think we can," he said. "The collateral damage that this legislation would impose on internet infrastructure and innovation is not worth the effort that is being proposed in Congress right now."
Erickson said that creating technologies to block user access to foreign sites that have been deemed harmful goes too far. Instead, he suggests that the real solution would be cutting off funds to these illegal offshore sites, rendering them unable to continue service.
"U.S. citizens are going to get a different version of the Internet just like Chinese citizens do," warns Corynne McSherry of the Electronic Frontier Foundation. In short, opponents of SOPA say it would kill the Net as we know it.
The entertainment industry, including unions and companies, call that an exaggeration. Their intent for SOPA is not censorship, rather to target foreign sites that steal content. The list of supporters is long, mighty and motley: ABC, AFL-CIO, American Society of Composers, Comcast, Copyright Alliance, Major League Baseball, the NFL, Motion Picture Association of America, National Association of Manufacturers, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, Pfizer Inc, Revlon, Visa Inc. and more. The opponents are no slouches either: Google, eBay, PayPal, Facebook,Yahoo!, Amazon.com, Bloomberg LP, Expedia, Wikipedia, the Electronic Frontier Foundation and more.
WEIGH IN:
Does SOPA go too far? Are there any alternatives? What are the practical implications of blocking Internet sites? Would this unfairly direct Internet search traffic to some sites over others? Is it possible to “break” the World Wide Web?
Guests:
Michael O'Leary, Senior Executive Vice President, Motion Picture Association of America
Markham Erickson, Executive Director, The Net Coalition representing leading global Internet and technology companies, including Google, Yahoo!, Amazon.com, eBay, IAC, Bloomberg LP, Expedia and Wikipedia.
Fixing online reputations, is it doable?
The last time you applied for a job, you probably made sure that your Facebook profile was viewable only to your friends. You most likely “detagged” any unflattering pictures of you doing anything that could be seen as wild, such as drinking or even just being at a bar. You probably aren’t even a party animal or a raging alcoholic, but you still feel the need to protect your online image as much as possible.
But just how possible is it? As we have seen in recent years, social media is proving to be quite the curveball for public relations firms that focus on crisis management. The BP oil spill permanently tarnished the company’s reputation, Toyota’s recall shook the auto maker to its core and Herman Cain’s promising run for the Republican presidential nomination was completely dashed due to his handling of accusations leveled against him.
If corporations and politicians are suspect to such failure, what hope does the regular person have? Services are popping up which claim to adequately control one’s digital reputation. How do they work? Once something is on the Internet, isn’t it there for good?
WEIGH IN:
What’s an effective strategy to combat negative information or raunchy photographs? How do you control your portrayal online? Do you worry about this sort of thing, or is it just a trend? Has your opinion of anyone you personally know changed because of something you saw on the Internet?
Guests:
Matt DeBord, Senior Reporter and Business Blogger for KPCC; he writes The DeBord Report for KPCC.org
Michael Fertik, CEO and Founder of Reputation.com