Republican Kentucky State Representative, Tim Couch, has what he considers a brilliant solution to end online harassment. He wants to step all over some of your First Amendment rights by denying you anonymity on the Net. Yes, Representative Couch has caught a bit of the authoritarian bug.

It doesn’t take long to realize the ramifications of a law like this. Sure, it would probably cut down significantly on “online bullying”, which I doubt is as much of an issue as he feels it is, but by doing so it will also infringe on the freedom of ideas and especially political speech. Anonymity can certainly be abused, but it is also a tool to allow people to expose negative actions among the community, workplace, etc. while keeping their identity concealed and personal safety secure without fear of backlash or reprisal from the accused party.

Why is it a general rule of thumb to not release the identity of an alleged rape victim? Because doing so would prevent many victims from stepping foward and reporting the crime if their names were to be dragged through the media. Why do we have whistle blower laws? We have them to prevent acts of revenge on those who have the courage to expose the corruption. Furthermore, think of the impacts of political speech this law would have? Many people would be quite reluctant to make their true views and feeling known about a certain politician or policy if they have to reveal their true identity.

Then we have the matter of personal safety. You can find anyone today by using the Internet without a whole lot of work. Anyone who has commented on a blog or on a message board forum knows how heated discussions can be. Do we want people being stalked because another reader doesn’t like the political views they espouse or the fact they may have trashed their favorite sports team? This is not far fetched. It happens and your full name would be out there for all to see.

How would a law like this be enforced? How would the State of Kentucky determine what Internet sites are subjected to this restriction? Would it be only those blogs or message forums that are run from within the state? What of people in Kentucky who access Web sites served outside of the state? The Internet knows no geographical boundaries. A law such as this would simply open the door to more bureaucracy and judicial chaos

Mr. Couch is an example of an increasing problem within the Republican Party, the spoken belief of limited government, but the practice of big government authoritarianism when it helps a personal agenda. This proposed law is unenforcible, unconscionable, and unlikely to pass Constitutional muster.

House District 90
Clay
Harlan (part)
Leslie

Mailing Address
PO Box 710
Hyden KY 41749

Frankfort Address(es)
702 Capitol Ave
Annex Room 432B
Frankfort KY 40601

Phone Number(s)
Home: (606) 672-8998
Home: (606) 672-8998 (fax)
Annex: (502) 564-8100 Ext. 632

Warning! May not be safe for work as it does contain some profanity.

Liberals like Talleytowngal like to blame President Bush and Republicans for corporate welfare and high CEO salaries. I think it is time for a history lesson on the tax code concerning executive compensation of publicly held companies.

In the early 1990s, the investing community expressed mounting frustration over its belief that public companies were making excessive executive compensation payments without the approval or even knowledge of their shareholders. In response, in 1993 Congress enacted Internal Revenue Code section 162(m), which caps a public company’s corporate income tax deduction at $1 million per year for amounts paid to each of its top five executives. However, the provision included an important exception for performance-based pay plans, provided the plans are preapproved (sic) by the company’s shareholders and compensation committee.

Although many may have expected section 162(m)’s $1 million compensation limit to become a significant revenue raiser for the
government, the provision has rarely resulted in nondeductible compensation for the well-prepared company. That is because section 162(m) is very narrow in its denial of executive compensation deductions, for three principal reasons. First, the provision applies only to public companies. Second, the $1 million cap applies only to a company’s chief executive officer and each of the next four highest-paid executive officers (referred to as “covered employees”). Finally, and most important, the $1 million cap does not apply to performance-based pay (that is, bonuses).

So just who happened to be in charge in 1993? By limiting the deduction corporations can take on a CEO’s salary to just $1 million while creating performance based incentives, the Democratic controlled Congress created the massive disparity between CEO’s and the average worker we have today. From 30-40% in the early ’90’s to nearly 400% in some cases today. Now I am not arguing that the disparity is wrong. Publicly held corporations have to answer to their shareholders and they should decide their own compensation packages. I am pointing out that when Democrats try to punish corporations for perceived misdeeds they often get the opposite of what they intended in the first place. In this case instead of limiting CEO compensation they created a vehicle to help it explode.

In order to pay CEO’s a higher salary corporations began tying compensation to the company’s stock price in the form of stock options or bonuses. These stock options are the performance based exemptions set forth in section 162. When you tie compensation to stock prices executives begin making corporate decisions based on stock price because it affects their salaries. These decisions are not necessarily for the betterment of the company. Now this is a loose generality and should not be considered an indictment of any particular CEO nor should it be an indictment of every CEO. But take a look at some of the things that have happened since section 162 was enacted back in 1993. The .COM bubble burst in in 2000-2001, Enron and hundreds of other companies artificially inflated their stock prices creating massive fraud, many companies and their top executives got caught illegally back dating their options, and last executive turnover is reaching all time highs.

All of this contributes to the liberal perception of corporate greed, welfare, malfeasance, etc. When ironically it was Democrats who changed the law and caused this to happen.