So I don't see why the bashing of the Washington Times Editorial as "TOTALLY DISHONEST" -- which CLEARLY makes reference to the "May 28 Draft proposal" in the first paragraph.
It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized.
"It's obvious that this represents a fairly accurate portrayal of the FTC's existing thinking and deserves to be scrutinized."
No that is not obvious. Try reading the document. On the contrary, it is obvious that at this stage they are just throwing ideas at the wall. There is absolutely no indication that the FTC has endorsed any of these ideas or that they even came from FTC personnell (the document actually suggests that many of the ideas came from external sources).
If you do not like any of those ideas please comment on them (the document provides a link for that).
But if you are going to hold the FTC responsible for everything that gets mentioned in one of their discussions with the public as if it is their plan and idea, the FTC and the government will just stop having discussions with the public.
For example on page 5, the FTC asks the question,
"Is a “wait-and-see” approach preferable at this time, when experimentation to find new revenue sources is ongoing and the likely effects of some proposals may be difficult to gauge?"