Mediaboss Marketing

Dozens ofprogressive and libertarian-leaning lawmakers on Wednesday threw their support behind significantly revising a set of government surveillance authoritiesthat are set to expire within months.

Leaders of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and conservative House Freedom Caucus signed onto a letter calling for "meaningful, bipartisan surveillance reform" just as Congress voted to extend those controversial provisions for another three months.

At the last minute, lawmakers tucked the 90-day surveillance authority extensioninto the temporary government funding measure, which passed theHouse 231-192 onTuesday. Thecontinuing resolution (CR), which allowed Congress to avoid an immediate government shutdown, gavekey committees three more months to debate what they want to do about the set of controversial surveillance authorities.

The House Judiciary Committee and House Intelligence Committee have jurisdiction over the USA Freedom Act, the bill that isset to expire, which allows the government to comb through phone records on millions of Americans and tracktargets during terrorism investigations.

Its unfortunate that we still have no agreement on critical privacy and civil liberties provisions that must be included in any final reauthorization of the USA Freedom Act," Rep. Pramila JayapalPramila JayapalBicameral group of Democrats introduces bill to protect immigrant laborers Hillicon Valley: Google to limit political ad targeting | Senators scrutinize self-driving car safety | Trump to 'look at' Apple tariff exemption | Progressive lawmakers call for surveillance reforms | House panel advances telecom bills Dozens of lawmakers call for government surveillance reforms MORE (D-Wash.) said in a statement on Wednesday. "Ive been deeply engaged with my Judiciary and Intelligence colleagues to make significant changes to any reauthorization billwere making good progress and hope to complete our work before this 90-day extension period ends."

Jayapal said the short-term extension was necessary because without it, the Senate might have pushed a "full reauthorization through with no changes" ahead of the original Dec. 15 expiration date. Now, the provisions likely won't expire until March 15.

"Our goal now is to ensure the final reauthorization contains our critical limits and protections on surveillance and privacy," Jayapal said.

In the letter sent to the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees on Tuesday, a group of 49 lawmakers called for significant reforms. Theyasked for a total repeal of the call detail records program, whichallows the government toaccess phone records on millions of Americans every year during terrorism investigations, and strict restrictions on surveillance "that threatens First Amendment protected activities."

The lawmakers are asking to "prevent large-scale collection" of information on U.S. citizens and impose "strict limits" around how the government is allowed to use information obtained during criminal investigations.

"Disclosures over the past several years make clear that existing expansive surveillance powers pose an unacceptable threat to civil rights and civil liberties," the letter reads. "These laws contain numerous loopholes that can be exploited to improperly surveil people based on speech, race, religion, and other impermissible factors."

"Members should be given the opportunity to consider and vote on surveillance reform legislation as a standalone measure in the House, and not tucked into an expansive omnibus or budget bill," they wrote.

One of the expiring provisions, known as Section 215,is particularly contentious because it enables the phone records program, which was originally disclosed by whistleblower Edward Snowden. That program was pared down by the USA Freedom Act in 2015, and the National Security Agency (NSA) disclosed this year that it shuttered the effort entirely amid insurmountable technical difficulties.

Bipartisan lawmakers in both chambers have questioned whetherto extend the NSA's ability to reopen that program at any point, as the Trump administration has requested.

Under the CR,the provisions are set to expire on March 15 rather than next month.

Read the original here:
Dozens of lawmakers call for government surveillance reforms | TheHill - The Hill

Andrew Yang spoke during the NCAAP Economic Freedom Presidential Town Hall on November 2, 2019. (Reuters Pictures / Brian Powers/The Register, Des Moines Register)

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

The most striking moment so far in Andrew Yangs unlikely yet resilient presidential bid came in the fourth Democratic debate, when someone else was asked about Yangs signature issue. Addressing Elizabeth Warren, moderator Erin Burnett said, You wrote that blaming job loss on automation is a good story, except its not really true. So should workers here in Ohio not be worried about losing their jobs to automation? The candidates response was a slurry of by golly, gee, and I have a plan to fix that sloganeering that focused on legitimate concerns about trade policy as it has affected industrial workers but never got around to answering the question. Warren wasnt wrong to criticize the giant multinational corporations whove been calling the shots on trade. Its just that she seemed to be giving a 1993 answer to a question about 2023.Ad Policy

That gave Yang a narrow opening to plead with his fellow Democrats to start thinking about the future. Senator Warren, he said, Ive been talking to Americans around the country about automation. And theyre smart. They see whats happening around them. Their Main Street stores are closing. They see a self-serve kiosk in every McDonalds, every grocery store, every CVS. Driving a truck is the most common job in 29 states, including this one3.5 million truck drivers in this country. And my friends in California are piloting self-driving trucks. What is that going to mean for the 3.5 million truckers or the 7 million Americans who work in truck stops, motels, and diners that rely upon the truckers getting out and having a meal? Saying this is a rules problem is ignoring the reality that Americans see around us every single day.

So I understand that what were all looking for is how we strengthen Americas middle class, replied Warren, who then explained her plan to extend the solvency of Social Security. She never got to the automation question, except to say, I want to understand the data on this. That should have put the spotlight back on Yang, a 44-year-old entrepreneur who can point to so many studies on how automation already has displaced workers and will continue to do so that his campaign slogan is MATH. Instead, following the common practice of 2020 Democratic debate hosts, Burnett shut the conversation down just as it got interesting.

When I asked Yang a few weeks later about the exchange with Warren, he said, That was surprising to me, given that she is one of the better, I believe, thinkers in the Democratic Party on many of these types of issues. The moment when the themes of his campaign finally hit the national stage was very edifying and a little bit disappointing, frankly, he admitted. A first-time candidate running whats been described as a pirate ship campaign, Yang worries that our political process is not really well designed for us to get into the weeds on what the data look like in automation and many other subject areas. MORE FROM John Nichols

As someone who has written a great deal about the future of work, and about how automation influences politics, I share his frustration. Like Yang, I believe Donald Trumps reactionary politics fills a void created by the Democrats failure to wrestle with next-economy issues. Yet I dont believe Yang is wrestling with those issues as ably as tech-savvy members of Congress, like Representative Ro Khanna, or progressive leaders in the UK and Germany.

What worries me is that Yangs gimmicky campaignin the third Democratic debate, he announced a scheme to select 10 families at random and give each of them $1,000 a month over the course of a year to illustrate his flagship universal basic income (UBI) proposalis better at identifying problems than solving them. When I put this concern to him, he pushed back, arguing that his approach is showing results. Hes been on the cover of Newsweek. Polls put him in the middle of a crowded pack (and closer to the top among young voters), even if hes far behind the candidate he said he favored in 2016, Bernie Sanders. Yang raised $10 million in the last quarter, enough to staff up and launch a slick $1 million ad buy in Iowa, with commercials produced by the same consultants who aided Sanders in 2016. Andrew Yangs campaign, declares The Week, has gone mainstream.

But is Yang ready for prime time? He has staked his campaign on an old ideaproviding every adult American with that $1,000-per-month Freedom Dividendthat would cost a lot ($2.8trillion each year, according to the Tax Foundation) and would be offset by a potentially regressive value-added tax on consumption, a commendable financial transactions tax, and the hope that giving away money would stimulate economic growth. Great progressive thinkers like the late Erik Olin Wright have long argued for UBI as a response to automation-related displacement, but so, too, have government-hating libertarians. Yang identifies himself as a progressive and said he favors human-centered capitalism. But his plan sounds a little libertarian when his campaign website explains his UBI proposal this way: Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionallymost would prefer cash with no restriction. I asked Yang about the progressive-versus-libertarian debate. We can do a best-of-both-worlds approach, he replied. Im certainly not one of these ultraconservative types who wants to dismantle every social program on the books. I think that we need to lay a foundation in the form of those dividends and then see what the additional problems are and try to solve those as well.

Thats too vague and unsettling for those of us who believe that if UBI is tried in a big way, it must be associated with a muscular social welfare state. Also worrisome is the Yang campaigns argument that the Freedom Dividend fits seamlessly into capitalism and can support and preserve a robust consumer economy. Im not sure thats a worthy goal, but I am sure that this response to automation is too casual and ill-defined.

Yang has earned his moment. I agree with author Martin Ford when he says, Andrew Yang, and his warnings about the impact of AI and automation, should be taken seriously. But Yang still hasnt quite reached the solutions stage of the debate.

Read the rest here:
Yang Doesn't Add Up - The Nation

Libertarian Party, U.S. political party devoted to the principles of libertarianism. It supports the rights of individuals to exercise virtual sole authority over their lives and sets itself against the traditional services and regulatory and coercive powers of federal, state, and local governments.

The Libertarian Party was established in Westminster, Colorado, in 1971 and fielded its first candidate for the presidency in the next years elections. In 1980 it achieved its height of success when it was on the ballot in all 50 states, and its presidential candidate, Edward E. Clark, a California lawyer, received 921,199 votes. Although this vote represented only about 1 percent of the national total, it was enough to make the Libertarian Party the third largest political party in the United States. Libertarian candidates ran in every subsequent presidential election, and several of its members were elected to local and state office, particularly in the West. Though subsequently the party failed to match its 1980 total, its presidential candidates consistently attracted hundreds of thousands of votes, and from 1992 the party consistently secured ballot access in all 50 states. In 2000 the party contested a majority of seats in the House of Representatives, and though it captured no seats, its candidates combined to win 1.7 million votes. The party maintains a national office in Washington, D.C., and has affiliates in every state. The Cato Institute, a public-policy research organization, was founded in 1977 in part by prominent members of the Libertarian Party.

In opposing the purported right of the state to dispose of the lives of individuals and the fruits of their labour, the Libertarian Party contends that a completely free market is a necessary economic condition for prosperity and liberty. To this end most Libertarians call for the repeal of personal and corporate income taxes; the replacement of most government-provided services, including Social Security and the post office, with private and voluntary arrangements; the repeal of regulations, including minimum wage and gun-control laws; and the dismantling of all regulatory bodies that do not promote freely contracted trade. In supporting an individuals right to liberty of speech and action, the Libertarian Party opposes all forms of censorship, insists on the right to keep and bear firearms, and defends the choice of abortion. Noting that the initiation of force against others constitutes a violation of fundamental rights, the Libertarian Party supports the prosecution of criminal violence and fraud but also advocates the repeal of laws against such victimless crimes as gambling, drug use, and prostitution.

Libertarian Party principles are incorporated into its platforms, which are established at semiannual conventions of national party officers and delegates from state affiliates. To direct the ongoing functions of the party, convention delegates elect an 18-member Libertarian National Committee, composed of a chairperson and 3 other officers, 5 at-large members, and 9 regional representatives. Presidential candidates are elected by a simple majority of convention delegates. The party publishes a number of pamphlets and newsletters, including the Libertarian Party News (monthly).

Excerpt from:
Libertarian Party | History, Beliefs, & Facts | Britannica.com

In a political climate dominated by a two-party system, Libertarians are constantly confused as off-brand Republicans.

Although the two groups sometimes align on issues, there are stark ideological differences between them, particularly in this era of Trump. So lets, briefly, clear up anyconfusion over the difference between Libertarians and Republicans.

What is a Libertarian?

Libertarianism is a political philosophy centered around the rights of the individual or as the ole Declaration of Independence would say, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Like, literally.

"Libertarians strongly oppose government interference in their personal, family, and business decisions."

Libertarians strongly oppose government interference in their personal, family, and business decisions. They believe people should be free to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not harm anyone else.

The philosophy is bounded by the non-aggression principle (NAP). This means that no one may aggress with violence, coercion, or any use of force for any reason other than in defense of their rights. In other words, just dont start the fight.

Libertarians say you have the liberty to say, eat, smoke, buy, sell, learn, and do whatever you want with whomever you want, so long as you dont hurt anyone or take someone elses stuff along the way. Live and let live is the Libertarians motto.

Do I know any Libertarians?

While not as prevalent as the two major parties, there are still plenty of Libertarians. The party gained major exposure, especially within the younger crowd, when Ron Paul campaigned for the Republican nomination in 2008 and 2012.

Pauls son, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, recently campaigned for the Republican nod in 2016. This discrepancy a Libertarian running for the Republican platform is yet another reason people confuse the two groups.

Still, youll remember Rand chastising his fellow candidates in debates over things like military spending, foreign intervention and mass incarceration all long-held Libertarian causes.

The Pauls arent the only popular members of the Libertarian party. Penn Jillete, Joe Rogan, John Popper, Peter Thiel, Vince Vaughn, John Stossel, Big Boi (from OutKast), are just a handful of well-known Libs.

This year, Austin Peterson and John McAfee (yea, the virus-protection system creator and potential bath salts aficionado), were the serious contenders for the LP presidential nomination. However, Gary Johnson, the former two-term governor from New Mexico, won the nomination and will be on the ballot for this years presidential election.

Taxation is theft

When it comes to governance, Libertarians believe that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take everything away. Libertarians claim that by running the police, military and courts, governments have a monopoly on the use of force and violence. Through these entities, governments are able to enforce laws (whether we agree with them or not) and tax their citizens to run these and other programs.

They argue that the government is essentially an institutionalized version of the mafia that will take your money at gunpoint, but will offer services and security. According to Murray Rothbard, a well-known libertarian, taxation is theft, even though it is theft on a grand and colossal scale which no acknowledged criminals could hope to match.

Libertarians believe that governments should be so small they could manage solely off voluntary monetary contributions, similar to a country club or gym membership.

Republican vs. Libertarian

Republicans and Libertarians share ground on some policies. They are, generally, both in favor of economic freedom, national defense, respect of property rights, and the right to bear arms.

Clear issues of departure between the two groups arise when you begin discussing social issues, like drug legalization, abortion and same-sex marriage.Republicans will advocate for prohibition of these actions while Libertarians are in favor of a more you do you stance.

War! What is it good for?

As exemplified by Rand Paul in the debates, Republicans and the LP are at odds when it comes to foreign policy. Republicans see the importance of showing global military strength and agree that it is the moral duty of the United States to use that strength to maintain global order. This obviously is an expensive task, but one Republicans agree is worth the cheddar.

Libertarians are critical of this mentality and advocate for huge reductions in military size and spending. Bringing troops home to focus on national defense and leaving the rest of the world alone is much more in line with the NAP.

Pro-Market is not pro-business

Libertarians have a slight quibble with the GOPs claims of being free-market advocates. They find that the GOP is often in favor of policies that offer tax loopholes, subsidies and special privileges to large corporations. Libertarians will argue that this is not the free-market and is more like corporate welfare. If businesses cannot compete in the market without the help of government, it should fail. Libertarians are not pro-business, they are pro-markets.

In fact, Libertarians are so pro-market that they advocate for opening the border, which is definitely something we dont hear from Republicans today. They believe the free movement of labor across borders can allow people to be more productive and increase the wealth of the world by trillions of dollars.

In a nutshell

Libertarians feel government size and scope to be excessive and that the private sector can do most, if not all, of those things just as well. While total abolition of taxes is exceedingly unlikely, Libertarians still advocate for lower taxes through smaller government, and more social and economic freedom.

To be sure, the LP is trying to carve out its own space by welcoming the #NeverTrump and the #SlogansAgainstHillary folk, but it is important to note that the LP is distinctly different from the Republican Party. Their concern is that this vocal transition of a chunk GOP members may water down what the libertarianism is all about.

Have something to add to this story? Comment below or join the discussion onFacebook.

Header image:Getty

Read this article:
Explaining the Difference Between Libertarians and ...

LP in the News: International (5/15/2019)

Above: Former Assemblywoman Natalia Diaz, Costa Rica

May 15 has proven to be a great day for relishing the all the news about the Libertarian Party. It's not just the party of principle--it's a party of people and a party of action. The stories covering LP candidates and causes spilled over beyond today's edition of LP in the News. Then, even after a long edition of Even More LP in the News, we were still looking at a stack of stories about other countries' Libertarian Parties in the news, and what other countries' news media is saying about the LP of the USA.

The Libertarian Party of Nevada is pleased to inaugurate the first installment of LP in the News: International Edition. We'll start off with the international coverage. The Italian news station Sky 24 discussed career activist Adam Kokesh and comedian Vermin Supreme in an article about third party candidates in US presidential elections. It's cool that journalists abroad are interested in third party candidates.

The very Catholic, very conservative news site Hispanidad, based in Spain, published a brief article on Governor Bill Weld, 2016 Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate. The editorial staff rather scornfully points out in bold, enlarged text that Weld "supports abortion and gay marriage." Yahoo Noticias put out a much longer, more in-depth, and more upbeat article about Weld, his goals, and his chances of making an impact on the election.

Continue reading here:
The Libertarian Party of Nevada is the fastest growing ...