Frankly My Dear, I Can't Even

Salon's Tim Donovan argues that Millennials really have no reason to vote for either party, and should just stay home and write posts in Salon about how Millennials aren't voting.

For those of us who follow “millennial issues,” this generation’s low turnout hardly came as a surprise. Last April, the Harvard Institute of Politics found something surprising while talking with young voters: considerably more young Republicans expected to vote than Democrats. Armed with this troubling data, Democratic candidates had months to adapt their messaging and court our votes. What happened? Universally, Democratic candidates didn’t bother to address the (very real, very serious) problems that are on the minds of many millennials: the racist and costly drug war, ballooning student loan debt, long-term unemployment, flat wages at shitty retail and restaurant jobs, and an imperiled climate. Democratic strategists seemed to assume that running as the Not-Republican Party would carry them to victory among young voters. Perhaps they were just too comfortable, believing that, since millennials would never vote for Republicans, those votes were secure. The election firmly behind us, we all know how well that turned out. 

If Democratic strategists thought they could simply ignore the needs of millennial voters because we find Republican politicians to be noxious, hopefully this election taught them a lesson they won’t soon forget. People who need jobs, a pay raise, or just some debt relief are unlikely to put partisan loyalty over more immediate needs. Personally, I’d vote for Rand Paul for president faster than you can say “libertarian wacko” if I thought he would actually end the drug war, slash corporate welfare and plow the savings into student loan debt relief or a robust infrastructure bill. If someone like myself — a pajama-festooned, latte-sipping, liberal hipster who writes for Salon, fer chrissake – is willing to ignore party preference in favor of actual legislative gains, I can only assume that less ideologically committed millennials are even more willing to vote Republican for the right candidate or platform. 

Democrats are far too committed to being a centrist, business-friendly party that eschews economic populism at every turn. Hating your opponent might be a motivating impulse for some voters, but there’s already a party that believes in nothing beyond the destruction of its ideological enemies. Where’s the party for the rest of us, a generation who’ve come of age under the heavy thumb of neoliberal maximalism? Where’s the party that promises to fight back with unapologetically progressive politics? My suspicion is that the growing segment of disengaged millennials are looking for left-leaning candidates willing to shed the yolk of Clinton-era conformity and compromise — and they’re not finding it. (Help us, Elizabeth Warren, you’re our only hope!) Indeed, a simple examination of the exit polling seems to confirm this interpretation. Democrats lost millennials this cycle (as they did in 2012 compared with ’08), but it’s not like the Republican Party made any comparable gains among young voters that would suggest we’re moving rightward. Young people may be abandoning the Democrats, but it’s not because they’re rushing to endorse the public policy platform of Reince Priebus. (Thankfully.)

 You know what this says to me?

This says "I shouldn't have to vote for a party that isn't 100% on the issues I want, so I'll sit at home instead.  And I don't really give a damn if the Republicans win as a result."

And it's painfully clear that is exactly where Millennials and young Gen X voters like myself under 40 are.  Why should our generation have to eat the crap samdwich, when our grandfathers only had to survive the Civil Rights era and our fathers had to make it through Reaganomics?

The people that actually vote want to put out generation in indentured servitude in more ways than one, but why should we care, right?

Jesus wept.  If you consider voting for Rand Paul, you're not a goddamn progressive, you're an asshole.

New Tag:  Millennial Stupidity.

In Which Zandar Answers Your Burning Questions

Team WIN THE MORNING asks:

Does Mary Landrieu have a prayer?

No.

She's going to lose by double digits and end up working for an energy lobbyist firm anyway because of Keystone XL, which will pass the Senate as it did the House but get vetoed.  Then she'll work to get it approved by the State Department anyway some time next year, depending on if Nebraska's Supreme Court blocks the routh through the state or not (it won't.)

Thanks for playing.

StupidiNews!

• Jerusalem police say a pair of Palestinian men armed with axes and knives broke into a synagogue and killed four Jewish worshipers and injured six others, including two police officers.
• DEA agents conducted surprise investigations of NFL team doctors and trainers over the weekend looking for abuses of prescription pain drugs for players.
• Japanese PM Shinzo Abe will call for snap elections in order to bolster his fortunes as the country slipped into its fourth recession in six years.
• Republican operatives used encoded Twitter feeds to pass along internal polling data so outside groups would know where to spend money, something that could be considered illegal.
• Social messaging app Snapchat wants users to be able to send money with its new Snapcash service, routed through online payment vendor Square.

Last Call For San Fran Nan, Twitter Queen

Nancy Pelosi wins the internet today.

Happy 65th Birthday, @SpeakerBoehner! Welcome to Medicare and Social Security!
— Nancy Pelosi (@NancyPelosi) November 17, 2014

Exquisite.

The Grand Screwing Comes To Ferguson

Gov. Jay Nixon has just declared, for all intents and purposes, a preemptive state of emergency in Ferguson.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon (D) declared a state of emergency Monday in anticipation of possible unrest following the announcement of findings of two separate criminal investigations into the death of Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager killed by a Ferguson, Mo. police officer. 

“Regardless of the outcomes of the federal and state criminal investigations, there is the possibility of expanded unrest,” Nixon said in an executive order. “The state of Missouri will be prepared to appropriately respond to any reaction to these announcements.” 

Nixon said in the order he directed the Missouri State Highway Patrol, St. Louis County Police Department, and St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department to “operate as a Unified Command to protect civil rights” and put the St. Louis County Police Department in charge of security in Ferguson related to protest areas and demonstrations. 

He also said the adjutant general of the Missouri could “call and order into active service such portions of the organized militia as he deems necessary to protect life and property.”

Nixon certainly seems to think there's going to be the need for military-grade weapons to be on hand to deal with his own constituents, which is great.  I had no idea the plural of "black citizen of Ferguson, Missouri" was "preemptively declared state of emergency".

And yes, I'm well aware of the fact Nixon's said he was going to call out the National Guard ahead of the grand jury decision, and that he's declaring the state of emergency so that he can activate said National Guard.

That is, as they say, the entire goddamn problem in the first place.

Joe Six Pack Is a Terrible Labor Economist

As David Atkins points out at Political Animal, your average American is very very bad at guessing labor economics figures (but then again so are most citizens of industrialized nations).

Danielle Kurtzleben at Vox has a fascinating article about real unemployment versus perceived unemployment. It turns out that not only Americans but workers all around the world vastly overestimate the number of people who are out of work.In America, people think the unemployment rate is an astonishing 32%, though the official figure is closer to 6% and wouldn’t top 12% even using much more relaxed definitions of “out of work.” Citizens of other countries are similarly wrong about their own unemployment rates. 

Why does this matter? Well, first of all because you’ll be likelier to oppose social welfare programs for the jobless if you believe that one out of every three people isn’t working at all. 

But second, it leads people to believe that the problem is that there aren’t enough jobs, when the bigger problem is that people with jobs are struggling due to low wages. That has an impact, for instance, on immigration policy: no one believes that undocumented immigrants are taking high-wage jobs, so you’ll be likelier to oppose immigration reform if you believe that there just aren’t enough even low-wage jobs, as opposed to that the jobs that exist don’t pay well enough. 

While mechanization, outsourcing and flattening are eliminating industries and jobs entirely, the bigger impact is to flatten wages. This is the first recovery in modern history in which median wage growth has actually fallen.

Now my guess is that Americans are including the number of retired people in these figures, and if this is a guess at how many Americans are considered to be out of the labor force, they're actually both closer to the answer and underestimating it a bit (it's 37.3%, which means Americans are actually better economic ballpark figure guys than people give them credit for.)

The rest of Atkins's stuff holds true however:  median wages have fallen because corporations are hoarding record profits, then complaining about labor costing too much.  The last six years has been the best opportunity ever to shift wealth upwards and that's exactly what's happened.  The richest Americans are super-wealthy, and average Americans haven't seen wages go up in 40 years.

So yeah, "immigrants are going to take our jobs" plays really well in white middle-class America right now.  It's not immigrants, it's the one percent.  And in the end, neither party is willing to take those guys on too much.

StupidiNews!

• The White House has confirmed the latest video of Islamic State militant beheading American aid worker and veteran Peter Kassig is real, condemning the murder.
• Federal agents are looking into a DuPont chemical plant leak in Texas that has killed four workers and sickened a fifth.
• Japan's economy has slipped into recession as the world's third-largest GDP contracted in the third quarter by 1.6% after a 7.3% second-quarter crash due to PM Shinzo Abe's national sales tax hike.
• Romania has a new president as opposition party leader Klaus Johannis upset PM Victor Ponta to win Sunday's elections, throwing the ruling coalition into doubt.
• Online legalized gambling is crapping out as even Nevada is having trouble regulating and keeping bettors interested and national legalization is doomed under a GOP Congress.

Last Call For The War Pigs

The incoming Republican Congress will almost certainly destroy any deal President Obama reaches with Iran on its nuclear weapons, because Republicans want war with Iran.  

International negotiators have until Nov. 24 under an interim agreement to reach a deal with Tehran that would curb its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief, or seek another extension of talks. 

While the GOP won’t take control of the Senate until Jan.3, they are quickly making it clear they are serious about closely vetting any agreement. As the deadline approaches, Republicans fear the administration is too eager to reach a deal and could concede too much in talks.

A GOP Congress could doom what the president hopes will be a legacy foreign policy achievement.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) took to the Senate floor on Thursday to ask for unanimous consent to schedule a vote on a bill that would give Congress final approval over any deal, or else reinstate tough sanctions on Iran.

Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy (Conn.) quickly rejected the request, arguing that scheduling a vote on the deal would be "premature at this point." He said it would "send a fairly chilling message" that U.S. officials at the table with Iran did not have full authority to negotiate an agreement.

But when Republicans take control of the Senate, they could move to pass that bill, or push legislation from Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) which would reinstate sanctions if Iran violates any deal.

Their bill also pledges military support for Israel if it decides to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, which it has threatened to do.

Never forget that a ground war with Tehran has always been the final goal with the GOP, and they will get it any way they can.  If the GOP is able to get enough support for the Menendez/Kirk war bill, we will be going to war with Iran, plain and simple.  Our good friends in Israel will see to that.  The pressure will be on to scuttle the deal and pledge US military forces to assist Israel in bombing Iran, and then all hell breaks loose.

You may not like what Obama is doing in Iraq and Syria right now.  It'll be a fond memory compared to what's coming if we go to war with Iran.

Obama Calls The Bluff

Shorter President Obama to Republicans:  Please proceed, GOP.

A defiant Barack Obama dives into what could be a defining period of his presidency this week, after repeatedly enraging Republicans from afar during his Asia tour.

Obama faces showdowns with the GOP over immigration, the Keystone XL pipeline and his drive for a nuclear deal with Iran, all of which have huge consequences for his political legacy.

Far from being chastened by the Republican capture of the Senate, Obama is setting out to prove he is no lame duck and can still set the agenda.

But the GOP insists the mid-terms gave them a share of power in Washington, and believe Obama risks usurping his authority and even the constitution with his bold new strategy.

Obama chose a highly symbolic setting to set the tone for two final White House years in which he will face a unified Republican Congress.

Side-by-side in Myanmar with the world's most famous dissident, Obama refused to bow to what Republicans regard as the capital's new political "reality."

On the veranda of the lakeside villa from where Aung San Suu Kyi faced down a junta, Obama said he had long warned House Republicans he would use executive power to reform the US immigration system if they failed to.

"That's gonna happen. That's gonna happen before the end of the year."

The president doubled down in Australia on Sunday, before boarding Air Force One for home, saying he would be derelict in his duties if he did not act.

"I can't wait in perpetuity when I have authorities that at least for the next two years can improve the system," he said.

Good for President Obama.  It's outstanding to see him not backing down and daring the GOP to make good on its threats.  If they want to shut the government down again, let them.

Having said that, it's important to note that Democrats didn't take advantage of the last time the GOP did this, because the shutdown was immediately followed by the Obamacare "failed rollout" news, which of course was not a failure.  Still, don't expect the media to keep pounding on the Republicans when this happens.  Eventually the blame will shift to Obama for not giving in by our "liberal media".

Still, the GOP is about to fulfill every expectation of what liberals promised would happen in a GOP-controlled Congress, and it's going to be a rough two years for them.

Yes, Republicans Want To Impeach Obama

Let's remember folks that Republicans want to impeach Obama more than anything right now, and so far in just the last few days we've had Republicans openly threaten to do just that.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas:

“Well impeachment is indicting in the House and that’s a possibility. But you still have to convict in the Senate and that takes a two-thirds vote," Barton said. "But impeachment would be a consideration, yes sir."

Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who reiterated last month what he first said in August:

"Congress has to sit down and have a serious look at the rest of this Constitution, and that includes that 'I' word that we don't want to have to say," King said on Fox News Sunday.

"I only say that now on this program because I want to encourage the president: Please don't put America into a constitutional crisis," he added.

 Rep. Walter Jones of North Carolina:

"To me a constitutional question means that we have the option of impeachment," Jones said in an interview Breitbart published Thursday. "We have a Constitution, and I am very disappointed from year to year that we do not follow the Constitution. To me, if you think the president has violated his trust of office, meaning with the American people, then follow the Constitution."

And let's not forget the GOP hype machine.  FOX News is calling for impeachment already:

On the November 13 edition of Fox News' The Kelly File, host Megyn Kelly suggested that "some say Republicans have no choice" but to impeach President Obama if he issues executive action on immigration reform. Fox contributor Charles Krauthammer agreed, saying Obama's executive action is "an impeachable offense." Kelly went on to advise Republicans on legal options to "thwart President Obama's executive action," suggesting impeachment again, and adding a lawsuit, cutting off the funds needed to carry out the executive order, and holding up Obama's judicial and other appointments.

And of course National Review's Andrew McCarthy has written an entire book about impeaching Obama and is calling for it again now, saying Democrats should join Republicans in convicting him:

In the past, presidents acting in such ways would surely have been impeached. But as Kelly and Krauthammer illustrated, tolerating Obama’s lawlessness invites a destructive new era of dictatorial presidency. Not all future presidents will be liberal Democrats. Even with the press as the wind at their backs, Democrats faced with a Republican president who exploits Obama’s precedents to impose his agenda lawlessly will experience what Republicans are going through today: They will have insufficient support for ending the lawlessness. Obama will have devolved us into a banana republic where might makes right.

This is the theme of Faithless Execution: All Americans who aspire to sustain a nation of laws not men have a vital interest in rejecting executive lawlessness. The Framers understood that presidential usurpation of lawmaking power would be the road to tyranny. They were right . . . and avoiding tyranny should not be a partisan issue.

So yes, I fully expect the President to be impeached and soon.  This was always going to be the endgame of the Obama presidency after his re-election in 2012.  They have to destroy him now.

Last Call For Gruber Grubbing

A lot of sound and fury has been made about the "Gruber videos", clips of MIT health care policy wonk and ACA consultant Jonathan Gruber, saying some very unflattering and cynical things about the voting American public over the last couple of years..  The problem is most of what Gruber said is true, and most of the people angry at Gruber already hate Obamacare, President Obama, and Democrats in general.

So why are we seeing all these clips now?  Good question.

Who benefits from this poutrage?  Well, the people who fall into the following categories:

1) People who are not Mitt Romney.  Gruber worked for Mitt at one point as a consultant.  Oops.
2) People who want to see the ACA damaged in the short run (enrollment period started today), the medium run (lowered enrollment may make headlines if you believe this will affect it), and in the run run (Gruber's statement may end up grist for the SCOTUS case against ACA federal exchange subsidies).
3) People who dislike President Obama.

As for who specifically, well, all the 2016 GOP Clown Car candidates who aren't Mittens fit the bill.  But there's one more person who does.

Here's a hint:  It's a person who isn't Mitt, and would want to present themselves as a viable alternative to President Obama, with a viable alternative to Obamacare.

Here's another hint:  She's a Democrat.

Think on that a bit tonight.

Bipartisanship, Right?

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch remind us what the GOP hopes to accomplish in 2016 for America and voters, to focus on what's truly important for the country.

Getting revenge.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) came out swinging against Democrats Friday, telling a room of conservative lawyers that Republicans were ready to give the other party "a taste of their own medicine."

"Frankly, I intend to win with our candidate for the presidency in 2016, and we will give them a taste of their own medicine," said Hatch. "And we're going to win. We're going to win. These next two years are extremely important. Maybe the most important two years in our history."

Hatch delivered his remarks at the Federalist Society's annual conference in downtown Washington, D.C., Friday afternoon. He also said he is in favor of keeping current filibuster reforms in place, even though he protested when Democrats changed those rules last year. The new system requires just 51 votes to advance most nominees, instead of the 60 votes that were previously required. Democrats will not have 51 members in the new Senate. Republicans also have an incentive to keep the new rules in place in anticipation of success in 2016: If they win the presidency and maintain control of the Senate, they would have an easier time confirming their nominees.

"We should not return to the old rule. We should teach those blunderheads that they made a big mistake. And we have the votes to stop bad judges if we want to," he said.

Bipartisanship! Comity of the Senate!  The World's Greatest Deliberative Body! I tell ya, it's just shocking that anyone would believe Republicans really want to punish Democrats and the people who voted for them, because those people have to be put in their place, you know.

And that's exactly what the next two year will be about.  Putting the black president and his supporters in their place, and to teach us a lesson.  The supposed "will to govern" that Mitch McConnell and John Boehner were talking about has evaporated in less than two weeks.  Now it's about shutting down the government again.

Conservative House Republicans say they’re willing to shut down the government to prevent President Obama from carrying out what they see as unconstitutional actions on immigration. 

Tea Party lawmakers emboldened by the GOP’s big midterm gains say they will insist on attaching a policy rider to legislation keeping the government open that would block funding for agencies carrying out Obama’s promised executive actions limiting deportations.If the Democratic Senate or Obama rejects the rider, the government could shut down. A current measure funding the government expires on Dec. 12.

“I am insisting on that [rider] because the president is violating his executive privilege,” GOP Rep. Paul Gosar, who represents the border state of Arizona, said in an interview Friday.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) called the plan to block the executive action through the government-funding bill “a great idea.” Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), who defeated then-Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the June GOP primary in part by accusing his opponent of supporting “amnesty,” said he also backed the proposal.

Asked if a government shutdown would be worth halting Obama's immigration action, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) replied: “When you take an oath to uphold the Constitution, it is not appropriate to contemplate the political consequences. You should uphold the Constitution come what may.”

We know that when the Tea Party goes up against Boehner, Boehner folds every time.  So the House is talking shutdown, the Senate is talking revenge.

This is what you voted for, America.  Or didn't vote for when you stayed home.

A Discriminating Palate

And Sen. Rand Paul embarrasses Kentucky again by going on an epic rant against workplace discrimination laws, all but declaring that there is no discrimination that laws preventing discrimination doesn't create in the first place.  Paul showed up at a confirmation hearing of David Lopez and Charlotte Burrows to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and screamed at the nominees about why the commission even existed.

“Do you realize the downside of the unlimited nature of going after people with no complaint and what this is going to do to business? I mean, do you not understand what we’ve got to somehow balance that we want people to have jobs?” he asked Lopez. 

“How can you show up to work with a straight face?” he demanded. “I don’t understand why you wouldn’t resign immediately and say, ‘This is abhorrent.’” 

“This is so against what everything America stands for,” he blustered, “that you would go after people where there’s been absolutely no complaint, run them through the wringer and use the threat of the bully nature of your office to punish business and as a consequence punish their workers. I don’t get it.” 

Paul went on to describe the agency’s investigative practices as “entrapment” and “a crime.”

If Rand Paul's argument sounds a lot like the same logic MRAs and Gamergate nimrods use against women and minorities, it's because the arguments are the same.  The presence of people trying to get equal treatment is "destroying" everything.

Lopez responded, “I disagree that what the committee is doing is entrapment.” 

He went on to explain, “Most individuals who get discriminated against in the hiring process do not know that they’ve been discriminated against because employers usually do not say that they’ve been discriminated against.” 

“We’re going after mythology then,” said Paul. 

“Realize that there’s a penalty” for this, he went on, saying that there are millions of unemployed people in this country who would be happy to take whatever jobs they could get.

To recap, because discrimination is often subtle, covert, and pervasive, instead of overt, it's "mythology".  I'm sure that'll make a whole lot of people feel better that workplace discrimination is all in your pretty little heads.

But we're supposed to take this idiot seriously as our next President.

Sure.

Last Call For An Orange Boy Named Sue

Orange Julius is responding to the news that President Obama will soon take executive action on immigration by threatening to expand the House GOP's lawsuit against the President for being from a different party or something.

House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) is considering expanding a proposed federal lawsuit over President Obama’s executive orders to include action on immigration. Filing a separate lawsuit over the president’s authority to protect millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation is another option that gained traction Thursday during talks among party leaders. 

The idea to use the courts as an initial means of dissent, should the president move forward in the coming weeks to protect millions from deportation, moved to the front of the House GOP’s playbook after the leadership reviewed it. Boehner reportedly wants to respond forcefully and quickly should the president act and believes a lawsuit would do that, as well as signal to conservatives in his conference that he shares their frustrations about the president’s use of executive power. 

Several Republicans who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid confirmed Boehner’s outlook and the thrust of the leadership’s discussions. They cautioned that any final decision by House Republicans will be made only after consulting rank-and-file members in the wake of a White House announcement — if the president decides to issue executive orders on immigration.

Ahh, now you remember, the lawsuit where the House GOP can't get any actual lawyer to take it up because it's so patently stupid.

Boehner first announced plans to initiate a federal suit against Obama in late June, when he called the president’s executive orders an unconstitutional power grab by one branch of government. 

But the suit has wallowed ever since as GOP lawmakers have struggled to find a D.C. area law firm willing to take up their legal fight. In recent weeks, many observers have speculated privately that Boehner was purposely stalling his legal fight to include whatever actions Obama opts to take to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws. 

Whether the lawsuit will hold merit in federal court remains unclear. But Obama himself has strongly disputed the merits of the case. 

“I’m not going to apologize for trying to do something while they’re doing nothing,” he said during an interview with ABC News shortly after Boehner’s announcement. “The suit is a stunt.”

Once again, John Boehner cannot find a lawyer in all of Washington DC willing to take this case. Think about that.  And let's also think about the notion that if somebody doesn't like what the President is doing, the opposition party can drag the President into court.  Would anything ever get done in Washington at all?

Oh, and there's the little thing about the previous 43 Presidents not being sued.  I wonder why number 44 is being treated differently despite being the first President in decades to win two elections with more than 50% of the popular vote.

It's a goddamn mystery, I tell ye.

A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Net Neutrality

So Tuesday President Obama announced that he wanted the FCC to regulate broadband internet as a public utility, the way phones are regulated, in order to keep the internet free from "fast lane/slow lane" deals, site blocking, and to make internet more available to Americans.

Apparently somebody forgot to tell FCC Chairman (and former cable lobbyist mind you) Tom Wheeler, because it looks like none of this regulation stuff is going to happen.

Hours after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to pass tougher regulations on high-speed Internet providers, the agency’s Democratic chairman told a group of business executives that he was moving in a different direction. 

Huddled in an FCC conference room Monday with officials from major Web companies, including Google, Yahoo and Etsy, agency Chairman Tom Wheeler said he preferred a more nuanced solution. His approach would deliver some of what Obama wants but also would address the concerns of the companies that provide Internet access to millions of Americans, such as Comcast, Time Warner Cable and AT&T. 

“What you want is what everyone wants: an open Internet that doesn’t affect your business,” a visibly frustrated Wheeler said at the meeting, according to four people who attended. “What I’ve got to figure out is how to split the baby.”

So it looks like Wheeler answers to the internet giants, not the President.

A growing source of frustration for White House and congressional Democrats is that they have three of their own on the five-member commission at the FCC, a majority that should give them the power to push through a policy of their liking. But if Wheeler charts a different course, he could bring the other members along with him. 

And, as Wheeler reminded participants at his meeting with Web companies Monday, the FCC does not answer to the Obama administration. 

“I am an independent agency,” Wheeler told them repeatedly, according to several officials. 

In hindsight, perhaps putting a lobbyist in charge of the FCC was not the best idea, yes?  Of course, Wheeler isn't the problem, internet giants like AT&T are the problem, especially with such pissy behavior as this.

A&T Inc will stop investing in new high-speed Internet connections in 100 U.S. cities until regulators decide whether to enact tough “net neutrality” rules proposed by President Obama, Chief Executive Officer Randall Stephenson said on Wednesday.

The investment pause is the most dramatic action yet by a telecommunications or cable company after Obama on Monday urged the Federal Communications Commission to regulate Internet service providers more like public utilities.

At the same time, AT&T had been spending heavily acquisitions and had cut its capital spending estimate for 2015.

Companies and industry groups have already protested Obama’s proposal, saying it would stifle growth and investment.

“We can’t go out and invest that kind of money deploying fiber to 100 cities not knowing under what rules those investments will be governed,” Stephenson said at an analyst conference.

So this is a CEO punishing potential customers until it gets what it wants, and because broadband internet is a matter of a handful of providers or even a monopoly for many Americans, AT&T can get away with it.  What are consumers where AT&T is the only choice going to do?

So yes, think America needs a broadband policy?