Limbaugh says it's not role of federal government to break up media...

conglomerates.

He was talking about Howard Dean's comments in response to Chris Matthews' question last night on Hardball. Dean had said that there was too much media conglomeration but wasn't referencing FOX alone.

But is Rush wrong again? Whose job is it to break up "media conglomerates" if not the government? Is he just blowing smoke out of his piehole again?

then it is the job of the government to break up the conglomerates.

I believe The Nation did a story about this awhile back. They had a intricate diagram showing the ownership of all the media in this country. Basically, 6 conglomerates pretty much control the median in the United States. And if that isn't a cause to worry and to do something about it, then I don't know what is.

are not considered monopolies under anti-trust laws. The best we can hope for is reversing Powell's ownership decree and reinstituting the fairness doctrine.

and the fundamental issue is not whether or not that the job of the government is to "break up meddia conglomerates."

the issue is whether or not the society is better served by having such a high level of media control in the hands of so few decision makers.

limbaugh is smart enough to couch the discussion in terms that naturally lead to acceptance of his underriding premise, viz., that government has no place in regulating commerce for the benefit of the society.

regardless of how limbaugh attempts to define the debate, this debate has already been decided, and has come down on the side of the acceptance of the use of the organs of government to regulate commerce for the common benefit.

Not sure about the "smart enough," but he knows from whence his quarter-billion dollars flow. That is a certainty. Ask this: If Rush truly wants government to not regulate commerce, what are all those billions flowing into K Street (DC) lobbying firms doing there? Of course, they are there to assure that government regulates commerce in FAVOR of their clients. The hypocrisy here never ceases to amaze me. Guaranteed, no pricey offices on K Street for welfare mothers and other targets of the Right. Check out the energy bill. Say, Rush, what about those handouts?

The "free" market? Unintelligent markets cannot provide us with a plethora of voices, only we ourselves can.

Not because of his drug use/addiction, but because of his illegal exploitation of workers to break the law for his benefit, his illegal drug laundering, etc.

That's quite a karmic load, you are carrying, f_wad!

BUt, in answer to your question, Hell yes, it is government's role to break up monopolies...

One we all know the answer to, but one that needs to be asked until the proper authorities answer it.

Haven't seen anything in some time.

Oh yeah, how's Tommy Chong doing?

non-vote counting ass. Is not in jail. That is where he belongs. Thanks for stating the main reason to notice Rush. Why isn`t that slob in jail for buying perscription drugs from his maid? Could it be because he is a rich rightwinger? Yes, I think so.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

That's why it's the Federal Government's business, Rush.

the media pretty quickly.

Right now, the tax structure is a subsidy to size, without requiring profitiability or rationalitiy to justify increased sizes.

The bigger you are, the easier it is to make another dollar. However, when you have a de facto flat tax structure, it means the bigger you are, the lower your tax burden is relative to companies at the bottom end of the scale. If corporations paid progressive income tax on their income, they wouldn't merge and grow larger unless the competitive advantage made sense. Furthermore, smaller media companies wouldn't have the competitive disadvantage which is caused almost entirely be inequitable income tax burdens.

I'd like to see the tax structure as the first weapon against conglomoratization of the media.

Corporations don't care if they make money off their media divisions, since their media divisions act as advertising for their interests. They can slant the news to put a president into power who will give them multi-billion dollar tax cuts, or to create a fad that benefits their other interests. So a progressive tax structure would help, but not completely solve the problem, since corporations don't care if they are making money off their "news" divisions, and anyway it will be harder to convince people that we need a progressive tax structure is the main method of speaking to the people won't broadcast the message.

But I agree with you, a more equitable tax structure would solve many of this country's ills.

The media divisions do generate revenue, and, if we cut loopholes and had AMI for corps, those revenues would add to the corporation's bottom line. And, if there were progressive taxation, that would mean that they be forcing themselves into higher tax brackets. So, before "conglomerating" -- if there were more progressive taxation -- these companies would have to decide whether going into the higer bracket made sense (was it bringing real value) -- and, monopolization often doesn't, because it usually means less innovation, and lower responsiveness to changing tastes. Monopolies have guaranteed profits, but they also create less total wealth than a hard-competing innovative company would produce.

However, the most important thing is that progressive taxation of corporate income would ensure that small media companies wouldn't be at a competitive disadvantage based on tax rates alone. Many small businesses at the bottom of a tax bracket will forego income that a larger company farther out on the tax bracket wouldn't forego becuase their profit margins are so much lower thanks simply to the tax rate structure.

What I'm saying is that the tax structure is a huge subsidy to size. It encourages size without demanding increased competitiveness (and it does it in part because it puts small businesses at such a competitive disadvantabe relative to large companies).

I'm not sayin it's the only toold. But I think people don't realize how much the tax code is responsible for the economic landscape which creates fewer super large companies pushing small businesses out of their way.

I argue that all the time, that the tax structure is one of the driving forces in wealth distribution and short-term economic growth in America. A tax structure that rewards large corporations for simply existing has the side effect of making it harder for a smaller company to enter that market. This means less innovation, as you point out, and it also means lower wages, since the labor market is less diversified-- fewer companies, fewer employers to bid for labor, in other words. That's one of the driving forces behind Clinton's economy. By raising taxes on the wealthiest, he made business less profitable on the margins for large corporations, who spun off or shut down their less profitable ventures. But, since there was still a market for these ventures, smaller investors jumped in, creating more jobs at higher wages, which is the real reason that the high technology market boomed. Clinton didn't ride that boom, he created it.

Repubs confuse supply and demand, believing that supply creates demand, and thus, a corporation shutting down production means that the demand goes away. If the demand was there to start with, it will still be there when the supply goes away, and someone else will begin producing to meet that demand. They also believe the converse, that when a company is given money they will invest it in creating new supplies, which will create new demands. That fails, too, because companies only invest where there is already a demand, so they are more likely to harm the economy if given extra money than to improve it. They begin competing for a market whose demand is already being met.

But if taxes are based on profit, not total value, then a media organization losing money could even lower the taxes of a major corporation, yet still be profitable as an advertising investment. On the other hand, it would make ownership of some smaller outlets less profitable at the same time it made the overall corporation less profitable, so maybe it would result in more spinoffs than I think.

Let's try both. Regulation, and progressive taxation. Then we don't have to decide which is working best. :-)

Kerry called out Limpy by name in his speech released yesterday.

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1201.html

First of all, of course it's government's job. Government divies up the airwaves, and it is their job to make sure that everyone has access to those airwaves.

Government exists to do collectively what we can't do as individuals. If our rights are being violated by collective entities, be they governments, corporations, foreign nations, or just plain old mobs, then the purpose of government-- the reason we empower them to act on our behalf-- is to protect our rights from these entities.

Government's (thus, our) authority stops when its actions violate the rights of other individuals, to a degree. (All individual rights violate someone else's right to do something, but that's a digression). The government can't protect an individual's right to be free from the presence of other people, for instance. You can't pass a law saying all black people have to stay away from all white people, for instance. There is a hierarchy of rights, and it is spelled out in out Declaration of Independence (the inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and in the Constitution (rights of free speech, freedom from religion, and the right to bear arms in a militia-- a right denied to the colonists-- for instance).

Every citizen has the right to pursue their own commercial interests, so the government--ie, us-- should be hesitant to step on those commercial rights. That includes the rights of individuals to join together into corporations. However, when those commercial rights-- be they corporate or individual-- infringe on more basic rights of others, such as the right to breath healthy air or be free from knowingly hazardous products, the government has the obligation to step in and protect our rights.

Thus, when the freedom of mega corporations begins to infringe on the rights of society or individuals, or when society deems that those freedoms are causing a problem that we want fixed, then we have the right and the obligation to fix the problem, as long as we do not violate any higher rights of individuals in the process.

So Rush is wrong, and government does have the right and authority to regulate industry when the people believe that industry has become a threat. The entire body of the Constitution is an economic document defining the rights of government to regulate commerce. That's what sets our economy up so successfully in the first place.

And freedom of the press is not an issue, at least in Dean's plans. The press literally meant the printing press, so freedom of the press literally meant the freedom of printers to print whatever stories they wanted to print. That right of course extends to all forms of media. Regulating the rights of conglemorates to own various media outlets is a commercial issue, not a press issue. As long as the laws and regulations are not arbitrary and do not favor one particular slant or interfere with anyone's right to print what content they wish, then there is no first amendment issue. In fact, the reverse is the case. If a small number of corporations or individuals are allowed to effectively control all or most of the media in the nation, then the rights of a free press are violated, because these wealthy conglomerates stand in the way of individual media outlets to print their stories.

Feudalism is the system where private entities act as government, and control public rights. It is the most natural system, in that if an economic/governmental system is left unregulated, it will devolve into feudalism. Capitalism is a government construct where the government prevents the economy from becoming feudal. Rush Limbaugh's attitude will have us back in the middle ages in no time if it is followed. Corporations-- or any wealthy individual or entity-- is more of a threat to our freedoms than government could ever be, if unchecked.

Dean is right, Rush is wrong. Like it really took all those words to demonstrate that, huh?

We should take it back and re-start renting it out to bring in some cash.We are also, by law, to get free time on our own stations and we never do. Why not have Ashcroft look into that little law braking.

It was in large part Reagan's trashing of the Fairness Doctrine that gave him his wingnut mouthpiece status. If such a thing were reinstated, he'd be off the air in an instant.

It's a shame. He's just going to have to choose between being a lunatic on the radio or recovery.

opiates.
What a windbag

Literally!

OK, I'll conceed that, as government's job is to jail drug users and money launderers.