Yes, the name is clunky but so is their website. If you don’t believe it, see for yourself. The website’s search function leaves much to be desired. Also, as Cynthia Brumfield of IP Democracy has noted, everything on the website is published as a separate file (Word documents, pdf, etc…) to be downloaded by the user.

The agency that is responsible for the nation-wide broadband strategy ought to be a model, rather than a blight on the digital highway. On Wednesday, Vice President Biden, Secretaries Vilsack and Locke, and newly-installed FCC Chairman Genachowski gathered to announce the “availability of $4 billion…to increase broadband access”. Given the amount of money being spent, shouldn’t the FCC bring itself into the 21st century?

For too long businessmen and policy wonks alike have been frustrated, searching in vain for the information they seek. The solution seems clear make a website that is easily accessible and functional for the user.

This issue is not new and not ideological. Heritage’s James Gattuso wrote about this problem almost two years ago. The Benton Foundation (located on the left side of the spectrum) has raised many of the same complaints. The technology blog Ars Technica said that fcc.gov “still looks like it was thrown together six weeks after Netscape went public over a decade ago.”

These individuals and groups are not alone in their complaints. During the recent Senate confirmation hearings for Chairman Genachowski several senators raised this very issue. Senator Klobuchar suggested updating the website more frequently. Senator Rockefeller cited a GAO report that criticized the lack of transparency on the website. The full hearing can be viewed here. Genachowski has indicated that fixing the FCC website is a priority for him.

During the confirmation hearing Senator Rockefeller laid down the gauntlet “fix [the FCC]…or we will fix it for you.” Hopefully the folks at the FCC can fix their own website before the senator is forced to program it himself. We wish them well in this endeavor, and hope that the FCC website will soon no longer be a WASTE.

Tuesday morning, Congress met and took their seats in order, all covered. At twelve o’clock the General was introduced by the secretary, and seated opposite to the president, until the throng, that filled all the avenues, were so disposed of as to behold the solemnity. The ladies occupied the gallery as full as it would hold, the Gentlemen crowded below stairs. Silence ordered, by the Secretary, the General rose and bowed to congress, who uncovered, but did not bow. He then delivered his speech, and at the close of it drew his commission from his bosom and handed it to the president. The president replied in a set speech. The General bowed again to Congress. They uncovered and the General retired. After a little pause until the company withdrew, Congress adjourned. The General then stepped into the room again, bid every member farewell and rode off from the door, intent upon eating his Christmas dinner at home. Many of the spectators particularly the fair ones, shed tears on this solemn and affecting occasion.

So affecting was the occasion that, at the ceremonial dinner the previous night, Tilton reported, “Every man seemed to be in heaven or so absorbed in the pleasures of imagination, as to neglect the more sordid appetites, for not a soul got drunk, though there was wine in plenty.” The guests were right to anticipate the next day’s ceremony would be special: not only did Washington’s speech provoke tears, but the General’s hands shook so badly as he read that he had to take the paper in both hands to steady himself. For Washington, who prided himself on his discipline, this was a rare display of profound emotion.

And his words were great ones, worthy of appreciation then, and of remembrance now. Washington’s text was remarkably short – only 339 words. In them, he resigned his commission, twice expressed his gratitude to Providence (or “Almighty God”), and commended the officers on his staff and the Army as a whole to the care of Congress. But his central concern, as so often before and after 1783, was that the U.S. become a “respectable” nation. Victory in the War of Independence was not the end of the struggle: that “momentous Contest” had only created the opportunity to achieve respectability. In Washington’s words:

Happy in the confirmation of our Independence and Sovereignty, and pleased with the opportunity afforded the United States of becoming a respectable Nation, I resign with satisfaction the Appointment I accepted with diffidence. A diffidence in my abilities to accomplish so arduous a task, which however was superseded by a confidence in the rectitude of our Cause, the support of the Supreme Power of the Union, and the patronage of Heaven.

For Washington, respectability was based on confirmed “independence and sovereignty.” That was not all that was needed: he was already concerned  that the Union would not be respectable “unless adequate Powers are given to Congress for the general purposes of the Federal Union.” But independence and sovereignty were the indispensable beginning, for without them, the United States would be unable to undertake all the other necessary measures. It would be dependent, even divided, and likely to revert to European control. Independence was essential to liberty; sovereignty was essential to well-ordered liberty.

In our era, sovereignty is far too often a dirty word. Washington was wiser. The Heritage Foundation believes that the values and ideas that motivated our Founding Fathers are worth conserving. George Washington’s speech at Annapolis expresses those values and ideas with unrivaled clarity. In celebrating the 4th of July, we pay tribute not only to his achievements as a great American, but to his insight as a friend of true liberty.

What unites these policies and their sweeping designs is the progressive aim of “remaking America”—as President Obama said in his Inaugural Address—into a country much more like the highly regulated, secular, and pacifist nations of Europe.

The view of America that dominates the academy, journalism, major foundations, and most segments of the American intellectual community was marked out at the start of the last century by progressive thinkers (learn more about them here) when they launched their grand project for America. They repudiated the Founders’ principles, holding that there are no self-evident truths—in the Declaration of Independence or elsewhere—only change in the constant search for progress without final goals. There are no permanent rights with which man is endowed, but endlessly evolving rights that develop and grow based on new demands. Our fidelity must be to a “living” Constitution that adapts to fit the demands of the times. The way forward is to control social conditions and engineer a better society, redistributing wealth through a distant and patronizing welfare state that regulates more and more of the American economy, politics and society.

Over the course of the twentieth century—as America’s principles were assaulted, undermined, and redefined in our culture, in our universities, and in our politics—we have taken significant steps down this path. The Progressive Movement laid the intellectual groundwork, but the basic infrastructure of the modern welfare state established under the New Deal has expanded in regulatory scope and social purpose under the Great Society and its progeny in both political parties. We are in the beginning of a new and perhaps decisive move in this direction.

Now, more than ever, is the time to relearn the meaning and contemporary significance of the Declaration of Independence and recognize that modern liberalism has explicitly rejected the truths it proclaims.

Woodrow Wilson, one of the most famous early progressives, argued during the 1912 presidential campaign that “all that Progressives ask or desire is permission…to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle,” meaning that it should promote an ever-expanding set of powers for an ever-expanding government. The problem, he declared, was that pesky Declaration of Independence: “some citizens of this country have never got beyond the Declaration of Independence,” he remarked with astonishment; “The Declaration of Independence did not mention the questions of our day.”

The progressive view rejects outright the very idea, at the heart of the Founders’ way of thinking, of being guided by permanent or fixed principles. As the prominent progressive historian Carl Becker put it in 1922, “to ask whether the natural rights philosophy of the Declaration of Independence is true or false, is essentially a meaningless question.” Such relativism renders meaningless the whole American experiment in self-government.

But denying the truth of America’s principles for the sake of “change” can make no claim to progress at all—a point made with unsurpassed clarity by Calvin Coolidge (learn more here) on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence in 1926: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.”

We don’t need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles. The change we need is not the rejection of America’s principles but a great renewal of these permanent truths about man, politics, and liberty—the foundational principles and constitutional wisdom that are the true roots of our country’s greatness.

As we celebrate the blessings of liberty that America’s Founders made possible and the sacrifices of succeeding generations have enabled us to enjoy, let us also rededicate ourselves, and strive to rededicate our nation, to the Declaration of Independence.

The issue originated with a claim on cereal boxes that says Cheerios will “lower your cholesterol 4% in six weeks.” The FDA said in a letter to General Mills that the company’s advertising makes “unauthorized health claims.” Apparently, General Mills would not have been in violation of FDA rules had they left out a specific degree of cholesterol reduction. That pesky little four percent is enough deem Cheerios a drug, and have the FDA “consider the cereal a new drug at that, which cannot be marketed at all without being submitted first for approval.”

The fact that the FDA is involved at all is curious. After all, it’s the Federal Trade Commission, not the Food and Drug Administration, that normally handles questions of false or misleading claims. There seem to be two reasons why this issue is with the FDA. The first is a distinction only lawyers could love: while the FTC generally handles questions of product advertising, the FDA handles food “labeling”, and it was the label that the FDA focused on.

The second reason is more telling. Apparently, virtually no one is claiming that the Cheerio’s claim is wrong. Everyone seems to agree that cereals like Cheerios are good for you, and even the precise four percent claim is not being specifically disputed. The FDA basically is going after General Mills not because it deceived consumers, but because it didn’t do the required paperwork before telling consumers the truth.

This action illustrates just how out of touch with America regulators can become. The good news is that the American people recognize that this as nonsense: Last week, a Rasmussen poll showed only four percent of the public agreeing that Cheerios should be regulated.

The FDA, and the Administration at large, needs to get back in touch with reality. America wants its Cheerios in the grocery store, not the pharmacy.

Will the country close the economic-death-spiral gap with California? Very possibly it will, if the federal government continues to follow California’s example of crushing its economy with ever-increasing government spending, taxing, and regulating.

The latest from California is that state lawmakers cannot reach agreement on a new budget for the fiscal year which began on July 1. That failure prompted Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to declare a state of fiscal emergency and to order a third furlough day for state employees. The state’s comptroller is now preparing to send IOUs to 28,000 California taxpayers who are owed refunds. Central to the budget impasse is the problem of closing a budget deficit that by latest estimates has grown to $26.3 billion. Some experts think California’s deficit will top $40 billion next year. Because of these budget maladies, Standard & Poors has put the state on notice for a lowering of its credit rating, which is already the worst in the nation (tied with Louisiana). California has the fourth highest foreclosure rate in the country. Of the cities with unemployment rates exceeding 15 percent, nearly half are in California.

California’s economy is imploding, and the causes are not very mysterious. While a national economic recession can be blamed for lower-than expected tax revenues, California has made things worse with policy choices that include spending every dime (and then some) as if there would never be a rainy day, and creating a poor business environment. As the Reason Foundation’s Adam Summers has pointed out, over the past decade, the state has nearly doubled its spending; and over the last 18 years, state spending has grown an average of 5.91 percent per year compared to yearly inflation plus population growth of just 4.38 percent. In other words California’s government has gotten bigger against any metric, and that has fed the demand for taxes. According to the Tax Foundation, California’s corporate tax rate is the eighth highest in the country; and overall Californians face the sixth highest state-local tax burden in the United States.

According to the Pacific Research Institute’s U.S. Economic Freedom Index Report, only three states have lower economic freedom scores than does California. The PRI index is a broad measure of how state governments impact their economies through tax, spending, and regulatory policies.

The lesson from California should be that high taxes, high spending, and lots of regulations is not a model for economic growth, yet those are precisely the policies that President Obama and Congress are pursuing. Federal spending this year will be about 26 percent of gross domestic product, the highest level since World War II. And the long-term outlook is even worse if nothing is done to reform entitlements.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives has passed a global warming bill that will do nothing to stop global warming, but will cost the economy an average of $393 billion per year. Even here, California appears ahead of the curve, as the EPA has just approved a waiver that will allow California to impose its own tougher limits on carbon emissions from cars. It seems even Congress recognizes the danger that increasing energy prices will drive businesses to other shores. That’s why the bill creates the possibility of new carbon tariffs on goods from countries that don’t regulate carbon as strictly. (New trade restrictions on top of regulations—what could possibly gone wrong?!)

If you want a preview of where such policies are taking the country, look at California today.

Amid the political noise out of Washington, June’s opinion polls picked up a growing public disquiet over ever-greater government spending and intrusion. These expressions of concern reflect the resiliency of the spirit of 1776, which we celebrate on Independence Day.

The just powers of government, the Declaration of Independence proclaimed on July 4, 1776, flow from the consent of the governed. Government’s purpose, the Founders agreed, is to secure the fundamental rights and sovereignty of the people.

Heritage constitutional scholar Matthew Spalding writes:

“The Declaration of Independence announced to the world the unanimous decision of the American colonies to declare themselves free and independent states, absolved from any allegiance to Great Britain. But its greater meaning—then as well as now—is as a statement of the conditions of legitimate political authority and the proper ends of government, and its proclamation of a new ground of political rule in the sovereignty of the people.”

Spalding notes that Thomas Jefferson, principal author of America’s founding document, intended the Declaration to be “an expression of the American mind.” Fitting, then, that Americans’ essential understanding of the need to limit government continues to be reflected in today’s polls.

The danger is that President Obama and today’s other powerful adherents of the progressive movement will succeed in clouding that understanding.

The launch of the anti-ship missiles, with a range of less than 100 miles, may not actually be a violation of UN resolutions which preclude “ballistic missile activity.” It is certainly no direct threat to the United States. But it is a pointed reminder – as it is not doubt intended – of the looming North Korean long range, ballistic missile threat.

Pyongyang’s continued development of nuclear weapons and ICBM delivery capability in defiance of UN resolutions and international diplomatic pressure demonstrates the need for the US and its allies to continue to develop and deploy missile defense systems, even as we do all we can both multilaterally and unilaterally to squeeze the regime into abandoning its programs.
UN Resolution 1874 “demands that [North Korea] not conduct any further nuclear test or any launch using ballistic missile technology [and] decides that the DPRK shall suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile program.”

Expectations for longer-range missile activity were heightened by reports in May that a long-range missile transporter was observed at two North Korean launch facilities, similar to observed preparations prior to Pyongyang’s April 5th launch of a Taepo Dong-2 missile which flew 2500 miles. It was conjectured that Pyongyang might choose to launch missiles either on the July 4th anniversary of the 2006 launch of a Taepo Dong-2 missile or the July 8th anniversary of the 1994 death of leader Kim Il-sung.

However, US intelligence sources were quoted on July 1 as stating that there were no indications of an impending long-range launch. Even after a Taepo Dong missile is placed on the launch stand, it usually takes several days to fuel and prepare it. North Korea could instead choose to launch Scud short-range ballistic missiles or No Dong intermediate-range ballistic missiles with little preparation since they are mobile systems. The launch of either missile would be a clear violation of UN Resolution 1874.

The division between today’s liberals and conservatives is not irreducible to policy differences. It is indicative of a deeper debate about the meaning of America.

Such debates are not new.

Calvin Coolidge, our 30th president often celebrated America’s birthday (which was also his) by defending America’s principles against the challengers within the “progressive movement.”

The progressive movement began in the early 20th century and included of academics, journalists, and even politicians. They asserted that America had advanced beyond the principles of the Declaration of Independence. All men were not created equal; some peoples were more historically advanced than others. Rights do not come from nature; government creates rights. Legislation did not require the consent of the people; it required technical expertise to regulating every aspect of life. These propositions had tremendous implications for governing.

On the contrary, Coolidge responded. There is finality to the Declaration: “If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions.”

Let us remember those words this Fourth of July.

The Iranian threat? No. The North Koreans? Not exactly. The international security threat just discovered: Ants.

A super aggressive ant, the Argentine ant, was formerly believed to be hostile to other ants – however, this is not the case. The Argentine ants from the three largest super colonies are friendly toward each other, leaving scientists to believe they are genetically related. And we humans were the ones that transported them all over the world. The Argentine Ant is known to often invade Southern California homes in the thousands. They’re even blamed for spreading weeds.

Right on cue, special interest groups have started making claims as to why the ant population has exploded. Our favorite so far is an organic food blogger claiming the population increase is due to our change in diet. Scared of ants taking over your home? Eat organic food!

This chilling, if not humorous new story being used and abused offers a striking resemblance to another popular scientific news item: global warming.

Every time an anomaly in the scientific world is discovered, a climate group immediately comes out saying it is due to global warming. Global warming could even increase terrorism, according to some. This is a dangerous trend that could be damaging to scientists all over. If a scientist wanted to look into this ant issue further, a good way to get grant money is to say he wants to research Argentine ants and their relation to climate change.

Don’t be surprised if a news story comes out sooner rather than later claiming that the ant population is exploding, thanks to global warming. I can see it now: “Unless we all want to be ant-slaves, we need to sign cap and trade legislation into law.” If such a story does come out, you’ll know how to react.

Congress passed the stimulus bill in February 2009 and the President has repeated his claims. President Obama recently said that the stimulus bill has already created or saved 150,000 new jobs and that it will “create or save” another 600,000 jobs by the end of the summer. Asked when the public should begin to judge the effects of the stimulus, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said “I think we should begin to judge it now.”

In that case, the stimulus must be judged a failure. The figure above shows the projections the administration made in January with and without the stimulus bill, and the actual unemployment rate since then. Unemployment has risen not only above what the President’s advisors predicted would happen if the stimulus passed, but above what they estimated would occur without the stimulus. By the President’s own measure, the stimulus has failed. The promised benefits from the $800 billion in additional federal spending and debt remain invisible.