FreedomWorks

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to vote NO on the Continuing Resolution, H.R. 933. Because the U.S. Senate has refused to pass a budget since 2009, the government has been funded through a series of Continuing Resolutions (CRs), which just continue spending at the levels approved under the last actual budget. Including “emergency” spending, this CR will still spend $1.126 trillion in 2013 even including the sequester “cuts”. This CR is the best, and perhaps last, chance that Congress will have for making major reforms in spending for the foreseeable future. Yet the House plans to just pass the CR at current spending levels, and is even using a closed rule to limit debate and prevent any amendments from being offered that might reform spending in the bill. Even in the absence of a budget, Congress must attempt to return to some semblance of regular order, where spending bills are allowed to be debated and amended by members on the floor. For the past two years, Republicans in the House have voted in support of budget proposals that included some real, effective spending reforms, such as defunding the implementation of ObamaCare and its mandates, and eventually even bringing the budget to balance. So why, in the actual spending bill that must pass in order to fund the government, do they demand none of these things? Instead they appear content to let this trillion-dollar spending juggernaut float by untouched, leaving it to continue adding hundreds of billions of dollars to our nearly unfathomable $16.6 trillion in debt. I urge you to call your Representative and urge him or her to vote NO on the Continuing Resolution, H.R. 933. We will count this vote as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes Members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe, President and CEO, FreedomWorks File Attachments KVN_2013-03-06_Continuing_Resolution_-_NO.pdf157.81 KB

Austin Texas, whose claim to fame is its prolific “weirdness”, has undertaken a new effort to catapult their “weirdness” to new and unimaginable heights. While liberal mayors and governors across the nation have been busy waging war on guns, profit, and families, the liberal Austin City Council has been lamenting their unfortunate location within the red state of Texas, desperately searching for something to ban. Well, they finally found it, grocery bags. As of March 1st, grocery bags, both paper and plastic, are illegal inside the city limits of Austin. What’s equally disturbing is that the city is spending over two million dollars of taxpayer funds training groups of volunteer “citizen observers” to enforce the ordinance, with the hope of creating a bag gestapo. Retailers who do not comply with the ordnance risk paying steep fines.  Aside from the sanitary issues related to reusable bags, this ordnance is already driving business out of Austin and into nearby communities, where purchasing more than two items is still a welcome endeavor. It is perhaps the most predictable oversight in the history of liberal city councils; they failed to consider that shoppers like shopping bags. It is too soon to tell what the economic impact on Austin retailers will be, but many business owners are preparing for the worst and have already filed suit against the city.  This issue is easy to make light of, as liberal leaders across the nation are hell bent on banning anything and everything and their thirst for bans is unquenchable. From plastic bags, to guns, to carbon dioxide, to salt and soda- things must be banned! However, it’s really much deeper than that. Certainly we must mock and ridicule such ridiculous regulation, how could we not? But we must also realize that it is this sort of incremental localized regulation that has slowly but surely turned us into an administrative state. Outlandish local ordinances have a nasty habit of turning into widespread social engineering. The federal government uses silly plastic bag bans, such as this example to eventually make the case for federally funding green initiatives. Ludicrous local regulation is the foundation for incorrigible federal fiats. So while we mock Austin’s city council and sympathize with the single mother juggling milk and bread in one hand, and a newborn in the other, we can’t afford to lose sight of the big picture. The administrative state we currently live in is built upon a foundation of bag bans. 

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to vote NO on a closed House Rule for the “Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act”, H.R. 933. H.R. 933 contains the Continuing Resolution (CR), which is used to fund the federal government in the absence of a budget, since the Senate has failed to pass a budget resolution for nearly four years. But currently, the House Leadership has indicated that the CR will come to the House floor under a “closed rule”, meaning that debate will be limited, and no amendments will be allowed. On a bill which authorizes the government to continue its annually appropriated spending at over a trillion dollars per year, Representatives ought to at least be allowed to have a say in how that spending takes place. Already, Congressmen Huelskamp (KS-1), DeSantis (FL-6) and Bridenstine (OK-1) have an amendment which would remove all funding for the implementation of ObamaCare from the CR, and other Members may have other ideas for useful spending reductions that would help reduce our unsustainable deficits and our $16.6 trillion in debt. But for these amendments to see the light of day, Leadership needs to allow the bill to the floor under an open rule, in which amendments are allowed. I urge you to call your Representative and urge him or her to vote NO on a closed rule for the “Department of Defense, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act”, H.R. 933. If the House insists upon passing a closed rule, we will count the vote on the rule as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO, FreedomWorks File Attachments KVN_2013-03-05_Continuing_Resolution_Closed_Rule_-_NO.pdf330.87 KB

Lawmakers and lobbyists in Iowa are pushing for an additional 10 cent per gallon gasoline tax, on top of the 21 cent gas tax already in place. Raising the gas tax, especially in this stalled economy, would hurt Iowa families by forcing them to pay even more at the gas pump. This proposed tax would be particularly cruel since the average gas price in Iowa is a whopping $3.70 per gallon. Proponents of the gas tax argue that it “will be a minor cost for the average Iowan." But as the Iowans for Tax Relief writes in their report, gasoline taxes are regressive and hit lower income Americans the hardest. Poor Iowans that live on a fixed budget may not be able to afford to spend more money filling up their gas tank. An extra 10 cents on every gallon of gas can really add up for families that live paycheck to paycheck. Those in favor of the gasoline tax claim that the revenue generated will be used to repair the roads. However, Iowa already has several well-funded highway repair programs including the Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) and the separate “TIME-21” funding stream that is supposed to focus solely on road maintenance and construction. Iowans already pay a significant amount of money to the Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) through existing gasoline taxes and vehicle registration. One has to wonder, why does the state need even more money to repair the roads? Iowans for Tax Relief estimates that average Iowa family pays $600 annually into the RUTF. What is the RUTF doing with all of this money? Instead of raising the gas tax, perhaps we should look into how the RUTF and TIME-21 is spending the roughly $1.298 billion collected from residents. If the roads are in such poor shape—like proponents of the gas tax claim—then this signals that the RUTF is doing a poor job of prioritizing its funds and more money will not help the problem. There are some state lawmakers that are determined to see the gas tax pass this session and Governor Terry Branstad has not come out against the gas tax. In fact, he has said that he might even support a gas tax if passed by the legislature. That is unacceptable—a recent poll shows that an overwhelmingly majority of Iowans oppose raising the gas tax. The last thing Iowa needs is an increase in the gas tax that would further cripple the economy and hurt hardworking Iowa residents. Iowa residents should let their voices be heard. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

While Tennessee currently allows students to switch from one public school to another, both in-and-out of district, their overall options are very limited. With the currently proposed legislation, SB196/HB190, legislators aim to create much greater educational opportunities that improve the lives of all children; especially low-income families. Children don’t deserve to fall victim to bureaucracies that standardize school programs when their individual needs are at stake. Parents deserve to choose which schools they want to send their children to to make sure they have the best education possible no matter what their income. The proposed legislation helps students gain equal access to private and charter schools and provides a voucher equal to the cost east student is spent on by the state. As the bill states, “the amount representing the per pupil state and local funds generated and required through the Basic Education Program (BEP) for the LEA in which the student resides and is zoned to attend.” The state’s average per pupil cost is $6,182, allowing eligible students a generous voucher to switch schools. This bill supports Governor Haslam’s plan for a voucher program that gives low-income students as much of a chance as any other student with a better education. As written by the Metro Pulse, “The legislation as currently written, without any amendments—would only apply to students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches (i.e., an income of $42,643 or less for a family of four) who also happen to attend a school determined to be in the bottom five percent of schools in the state. Six of these schools are in Davidson County, six are in Hamilton County, one is in Hardeman County, one is in Knox County, and all the other 69 schools are in Memphis City Schools.” Not only does this bill strongly support the efforts for low-income families who receive the voucher, but will also improve the lives of families who stay with their low-ranking public schools; through competition. As seen by other states who have been involved in school choice programs, schools are afraid that by losing students they will lose funding. In turn, these schools work to upgrade and increase their offered programs and revamp the overall effectiveness of their curriculum. Upon passing of this legislation, parents of all socioeconomic classes will have the ability to move their children out of schools which standardize their children’s lives. Schools that traditionally have only been accessed by wealthier families will open their doors to all parents who want only the best for their children’s education and separate individual needs.

It’s probably safe to say that most Americans are unaware of what the term “fracking” means.  If you’ve heard of it, the details can be hard to pin down due to the controversy surrounding the method of gas extraction.  With mainstream movies like Gasland and The Promised Land on their side, those opposing fracking have easily buried the truth below layers of myths.  Fortunately, as we no longer live in a time when Hollywood and the left are the only media outlets, understanding what fracking truly entails is not completely lost. Fracking, as it is commonly called, refers to a process of drilling and hydraulic fracturing to retrieve oil and natural gas trapped underground.  Water pressure pushes a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into shale rock, which causes fractures and allows the oil and natural gas to escape out of the well.   States that have embraced fracking have seen economic booms that have created thousands of jobs and the ability to flourish in an economy otherwise lacking.  For instance, in Pennsylvania the Marcellus Shale has created 140,000 jobs and has added $1.1 billion in state and local tax revenues; in addition to the production of billions of dollars worth of natural gas energy, which brings down the cost of natural gas for all Americans. With an estimated 24 billion barrels of oil and 480 trillion cubic feet of natural gas potentially underground, fracking is being hailed as the answer to the country’s energy security.  Of course no advancement this groundbreaking, pun completely intended, goes without skepticism from some and fracking is no exception.  Opponents have spent millions spreading unfounded rumors as to why fracking is, in their opinion, the potential downfall of the world.  Let’s take a look at the most common myths and the evidence that refutes them. Fracking will cause your tap water to catch fire. The movie, Gasland, set this rumor ablaze.  One particular scene shows a man lighting the water pouring from his kitchen faucet.  The fact is tap water could be lit on fire long before fracking came about due to naturally occurring methane pockets in the ground.  If your water comes from a well and the drilling was done poorly, you stand a chance of having flammable water.  Investigators later checked the man’s house and found the methane in his water was due to the way his well was drilled, fracking played no role. Additionally, when the filmmaker was confronted by the director of the pro-fracking film FrackNation about why he failed to mention the fact that tap water could be lit on fire regardless of fracking, he claimed the information “wasn’t relevant.”  Your tap water will be contaminated. To protect the groundwater, each well is fortified with layers of concrete and steel casing which is cemented in place.  They are also constantly monitored as an additional safety precaution.  The wells are thousands of feet below the water table, with solid rock between the two.  As John Stossel points out in the Washington Examiner, the chemicals used in fracking would have to flow up against gravity through solid rock to breach the water.  Even EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, who is notoriously against fossil fuels, had to admit to Congress that there have been no “proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water.”  Toxins and carcinogens are used in the fracking fluid and much of it is left in the ground. The fluid used in the fracking process is 99.5% water and sand.  While there are hundreds of chemicals (of which many are biodegradable) that can be used in the process, the most common chemicals used are also found in your house.  For instance, sodium chloride may be used and is also used in table salt.  Guar gum is another chemical used in fracking and can also be found in ice cream.  If you attempt to search online for a list of the chemicals that can be used

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote NO on the “American Family Economic Protection Act”, S. 388. This bill would replace much of the decreased spending of sequestration with tax increases on the highest income earners, while also exempting favored programs from any cuts. There is simply no reason why the supposed sequester “cuts” should be offset or delayed at all.  The scheduled sequestration only trims 2.4 percent from overall federal outlays, which is less than the current yearly growth in spending. This means that under the supposedly “draconian” sequester, federal spending will still increase every year.  If anything, the sequester could be targeted more precisely to realize something more like real cuts in specific, wasteful programs, but the House passed such a reform last year and the Senate refused to even consider their proposal. Furthermore, the Democrats’ continued attempts to pass the government’s excess spending off onto the rich through higher taxes make no economic sense.  The United States’ wealthiest income earners already pay over 70 percent of all income taxes, and history shows that further raising their rates will merely lead the wealthy to move their money into unproductive areas of the economy in order to avoid the crushing burden of taxation.  Instead Senate Democrats should be focusing their efforts on passing a budget (which they have failed to do for over 1,400 days) in order to address the historic overspending that has existed over the past five years. Beyond just the tax increases, this bill also exempts all of the Department of Agriculture’s autopilot spending from sequestration and extends many favored agricultural programs. The USDA is rife with wasteful spending and corporate welfare, and its many entitlement programs should be prime candidates for major cuts rather than being exempted entirely. The Senate and the President need to acknowledge that the federal government has a massive spending problem, and that economic growth and actual spending reforms, not increased taxes, are the way to a sustainable fiscal future.   I urge you to call your U.S. Senators and ask them to vote NO on the “American Family Economic Protection Act”, S. 388. We may count the vote on this amendment as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes Members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments KVN_2013-02-27_Sequester_Replacement_-_NO.pdf406.92 KB

A few weeks ago, as my state legislature was gearing up to steal more of our personal liberty pass sensible legislation that benefits the greater good, I saw a tweet roll by from a state legislator in favor of her pet bill - banning smoking in cars while children were inside the car. This tweet stated something to the effect that, "It's not nanny state legislation! It's to protect the kids!" It struck me funny that this legislator could not even wrap her head around the concept of the nanny state enough to see that her populist bill could lead to more rejection of personal responsibility by the state. Of course, Oregon is famous for nanny state bills. When Mayor Bloomberg announced recently that he wanted to ban styrofoam in New York City, many were up in arms about how crazy that sounded, but I just chuckled to myself. After all, it's been banned in Portland since the 90s. And we're just getting started with these types of government-knows-better laws. According to the Cascade Policy Institute, we've become "addicted to sin taxes", despite their obvious ineffectiveness: Now, a provocative new study challenges the whole concept of sin taxes, finding that they “not only do little to limit the use of ‘bad’ products, they do nothing to reduce societal costs.” Most remarkably, the study “demonstrates that those shockingly large estimates of the costs that the consumption of alcohol, tobacco, sugar, and fat supposedly impose on society have little basis in reality.” Sin taxes also hit the poor harder than the rich. That’s because products like tobacco and state lotteries are disproportionately purchased by lower income people. Sin taxes also give governments “a financial incentive to foster the very vices they profess to despise.” This may explain why, out of the more than one billion dollars Oregon has received to date from the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement between 46 states and the tobacco companies, “not one penny has gone to tobacco prevention.” So why do legislators, and those who continue to reelect them and their ilk, continue to look favorably on a paternalistic government to make decisions for us? After all, aren't we a nation of rugged individualists who would rather go our own way than to have some busybody interfering with our lives? Increasingly, it seems, we are rejecting that notion and opting for more government protections - giving up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, as Ben Franklin put it. Now, there's a new book out to give academic cover to this notion. Against Autonomy, Justifying Coercive Paternalism, published last year by Cambridge University Press, will run you a cool $77.71 on Amazon (discounted from the cover price of $95). The book description reads: Since Mill's seminal work On Liberty, philosophers and political theorists have accepted that we should respect the decisions of individual agents when those decisions affect no one other than themselves. Indeed, to respect autonomy is often understood to be the chief way to bear witness to the intrinsic value of persons. In this book, Sarah Conly rejects the idea of autonomy as inviolable. Drawing on sources from behavioural economics and social psychology, she argues that we are so often irrational in making our decisions that our autonomous choices often undercut the achievement of our own goals. Thus in many cases it would advance our goals more effectively if government were to prevent us from acting in accordance with our decisions. Her argument challenges widely held views of moral agency, democratic values and the public/private distinction, and will interest readers in ethics, political philosophy, political theory and philosophy of law. So the next time some legislator or some leftist blogger or someone you're engaged with in debate scoffs at the notion that government wants to control your life (and inevitably deflects to a variation on "It's for the children!™"), point them to this book. There is always an aspect of

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your senators and tell them to vote NO on the nomination of Jack Lew for Treasury Secretary. If Jack Lew is confirmed by the Senate, it would be bad news for the U.S. economy. Lew is just another tax-hiking, big-spending beltway insider who is not qualified to be Treasury Secretary. As President Obama’s Chief of Staff, Jack Lew acts as a prime negotiator for Obama behind the scenes. He negotiated the disastrous fiscal cliff deal that contained tax hikes, corporate welfare, and no spending cuts. Most Americans saw their payroll taxes increase because of the terrible deal that was crafted behind closed doors. He also played a significant role in the failed 2011 debt ceiling negotiations – which resulted in a credit downgrade, a $2 trillion debt hike, and spending cuts that were promised but they have yet to materialize. As director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack Lew helped draft Obama’s budget that notoriously received zero votes in the Senate. He dishonestly said that the budget would not add to the debt. However, the Congressional Budget Office found that the budget would add nearly $10 trillion to the national debt over the next decade and it would have raised taxes on the top two percent of income earners. Jack Lew is also the former chief operating officer of Citigroup’s Alternative Investments unit—the group that invested in and profited off the housing and financial collapse. He was there when the bank nearly imploded and lost around $500 million in one quarter in 2008 as the bank’s bets turned south. After Citigroup received a $45 billion dollar taxpayer bailout from the Treasury Department, he received a $945,000 bonus from the bank in 2009. President Obama has even called the Wall Street bonuses “obscene” and referred to recipients as “fat cats who are getting awarded for their failure.” I urge you to call your senators and tell them to vote NO on the nomination of Jack Lew for Treasury Secretary. We will count their vote as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this letter.] Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;} Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-p

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Senators and urge them to co-sponsor S. 204, the National Right-to-Work Act.  Introduced by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), this legislation would allow workers the freedom to choose whether they wish to join a union, and would disallow the practice of compulsory union dues. The 1935 National Labor Relations Act was passed to secure the right of unions to collectively bargain with employers.  However, the act also secured the right of unionized workforces to run union-exclusive shops. Currently, federal labor law essentially allows unions to run closed shops, meaning that any new employee joining a unionized workforce can be forced to join that union and pay dues as a condition of employment. States can choose to opt out of this federal arrangement, but heavily unionized states struggle to pass right-to-work legislation against the efforts of unions which use their compulsory dues to finance massive political campaigns.  Thus, 8 million Americans in 24 states currently work in shops where they have no choice but to join their union, whether they agree with how that union represents them or not. The National Right-to-Work Act would simply do away with the specific provision of labor law that allows this union coercion.  The millions of workers in mandatory union shops would regain their freedom to choose not to associate with a union, while still retaining their right to unionize and collectively bargain if they choose to do so. I urge you to contact your Senators and ask them to support workplace freedom by co-sponsoring Senator Rand Paul’s National Right-to-Work Act, S. 204. Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-02-24_-_Support_-_National_Right-to-Work.pdf304.52 KB

FreedomWorks has signed onto the following coalition letter on reforming food stamps and other nutrition entitlement programs in the Farm Bill.An Open Letter to the United States Congress: Reform the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program by including Taxpayer Protections! Dear Members of Congress: On behalf of the millions of Americans represented by the undersigned organizations, we write to urge support for several common sense taxpayer protections to the nutrition programs included in the Farm Bill, particularly the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). It’s impossible to achieve significant savings in the bill without considering reforms to nutrition programs, as they account for 80% of total spending under the Farm Bill. When Congress takes up the food and farm legislation later this year, it should ensure that basic taxpayer protections are applied to nutrition programs.  The following reforms would limit spending, while continuing to provide a basic social safety net for the most vulnerable of Americans.Use block grants: Replacing the annual appropriation with a block grant would give states an incentive to control costs. This is an improvement over current policy, in which states have an incentive to procure as many federal dollars as possible. Last session, Rep. Huelskamp introduced a bill (H.R. 6567) that proposed to merge the six food welfare programs in the Farm Bill into a single block grant.Apply income and asset tests to categorically eligible households: A major driver of the growth in food stamp spending is state-based efforts to increase benefits and expand eligibility. An increasing number of recipients are automatically, or “categorically,” eligible for benefits based on their participation in other programs. According to the Congressional Budget Office, adding income and asset tests to categorical eligibility requirements would trim average annual outlays by $12 billion over 10 years.Roll back spending on Title IV to FY2008 levels: Federal outlays for nutrition programs in 2008 were $37.6 billion; in 2013, they will total $82.0 billion. Returning spending to FY2008 levels would strike a balance between fiscal responsibility and providing a reasonable social safety net.Separate Title IV from the rest of the Bill: Nutrition assistance is unrelated to the agricultural subsidies contained in the rest of the bill and it deserves its own treatment in separate legislation. Washington needs to stop rolling massive programs together in order to secure votes and shield programs from much-needed reform. Last session, Sen. Ron Johnson made a motion to send the bill back to the Agriculture Committee with instructions to strike Title IV—the title dealing with food stamps (SNAP) and other nutrition programs. We urge you to take this important step this year. Although there are many other areas in the Farm Bill that are ripe for improvement, lawmakers should consider a combination of the aforementioned reforms to nutrition programs. Sincerely, James Valvo Director of Policy Americans For Prosperity Phil Kerpen President American Commitment Al Cardenas Chairman American Conservative Union Randy Lewis President American Seniors Advocates Grover Norquist President Americans for Tax Reform John Tate President Campaign For Liberty Timothy Lee Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs Center for Individual Freedom Chris Chocola President Club for Growth Tom Brinkman Jr. Chairman Coalition Opposed to Additional Spending and Taxes (COAST) Jonathan M. Bydlak President Coalition to Reduce Spending Matthew Brouillette President and CEO Commonwealth Foundation Fran Smith Board Member and Adjunct Fellow Competitive Enterprise Institute Mattie Duppler Executive Director Cost of Government Center Tom Schatz President Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) Myron Ebell President Freedom Action Dean Clancy Vice President, Public Policy FreedomWorks Jimmy LaSalvia Executive Director GOProud Julie Gunlock

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Senators and urge them to oppose S. 336, the Marketplace Fairness Act.  Introduced by Senator Michael Enzi (R-WY), this bill would require online retailers to collect sales taxes when shipping to states in which they have no physical presence. The judicial precedent set by Quill Corp v. North Dakota (1992), as well as the anti-discrimination requirement in the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, raises significant questions with respect to the constitutional validity of the bill, and there is a concern that to require a business to pay taxes in a state where it has no physical presence would be an instance of taxation without representation. Apart from constitutional concerns, the bill would impose a substantial administrative burden on out-of-state retailers, requiring them to keep track of the requirements of thousands of different tax municipalities, while brick and mortar stores have only to keep track of one set of rules. Online retailers are already faced with the cost of shipping their merchandise, and the disadvantage that customers must wait several days before delivery. It is our view that the imposition of a further tax on these businesses serves less to eliminate unfair competition, and more to promote special interests and protect them from the business models of their more efficient competitors. Furthermore, as a greater number of retailers embrace new technologies, the line between brick and mortar stores and those focused on remote sales has become increasingly blurred. It is not clear how imposing an onerous new requirement on online retailers makes the marketplace fairer with respect to those who also operate in physical locations. It is our fear that allowing states to collect sales taxes from remote sellers undermines the ability of the states to compete with one another on questions of fiscal policy, and indeed the original purpose of a fiscally federalist government, namely that states act as laboratories to separate those policies which are successful at fostering economic growth from those that fail. Any increase in the taxation requirements of online retailers will retard economic growth and harm those businesses which have done the most to innovate over the past two decades. In the midst of recovery from a painful and protracted recession, it would be a mistake to enact policies that will reduce consumer spending and impose new regulatory requirements on businesses responsible for creating American jobs. I urge you to contact your Senators and ask them to take a principled stance against special interest protectionism by opposing the Marketplace Fairness Act, S. 336. Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-02-20_-_Oppose_-_Marketplace_Fairness_Act.pdf388.16 KB

Frequently, entitlement reform is discussed among policymakers as a way to reduce government spending, but the entitlement reform discussed often concerns individual entitlements, not those directed toward corporations. A recent examination of the federal tax code by the Cato Institute’s Tad DeHaven found that each year corporate welfare in the tax code cost taxpayers nearly $100 billion. In some cases, corporate welfare is used by the federal government to fund activities that would not otherwise occur in the private sector, simply because these activities are not economically viable without government subsidies. Not all examples of corporate welfare fit into this category however, as some corporate tax breaks are also designed to subsidize activities that would occur naturally, without government assistance. For either case, corporate welfare is nothing more than the government choosing winners and losers in the private sector. One place where corporate tax incentives are directed is toward the expensing of research and experimental expenditures, where an estimated $4.9 billion will be spent by the federal government during fiscal year 2013. According to the Internal Revenue Service, research and experimental expenditures are defined as “reasonable costs you incur in your trade or business for activities intended to provide information that would eliminate uncertainty about the development or improvement of a product.” There is no reason why this research needs to be subsidized by the federal government, and the government decreasing the tax burden of particular companies who devote resources toward research and experiments does nothing more than allow the government to show favoritism to particular corporations over others. Corporate welfare is also highly prevalent in the energy industry, with subsidies available to energy companies who produce electricity from renewable sources. Among the types of energy whose production is subsidized by the federal government are wind energy, closed and open-loop biomass, geothermal energy, hydropower, solar power, small irrigation power, and municipal solid waste. Credits for each of the aforementioned methods of electricity production generally range anywhere from 1.1 cents to 2.2 cents per kilowatt hour. Of these methods of energy production, wind energy producers are the largest recipients of corporate welfare, scheduled to receive an estimated $1.4 billion in tax credits for electricity production during the 2013 fiscal year. Often these subsidies do very little to offset the differences between the levelized costs associated with renewable energy as compared to the costs associated with the production of electricity from a source like natural gas. For example, the levelized cost (the net cost to install and operate an energy system divided by its expected life-time energy output) of generating electricity from natural gas is an average of 6.3 cents per kilowatt hour, as compared to generating energy from solar sources, which has an average levelized production cost of 21.1 cents  per kilowatt hour. While a subsidy for the production of electricity from solar power does reduce the levelized cost of solar energy, it does not make the price of solar power competitive with the cost of electricity generated from sources like natural gas or coal. If the mass production of solar powered electricity were a realistic option for electricity production in the United States, the federal government would not need to subsidize it, or other forms of renewable energy production. Instead, renewable energy credits are merely an example of the government using corporate welfare to create an un-level playing field in the American energy industry. In addition to subsidizing the production of electricity from renewable sources, the federal government also offers a tax credit to companies who install specifically designated equipment for the generation of renewable energy. During the 2013 fiscal ye

On February 5, the Congressional Budget Office released a report titled, "Macroeconomic Effects of Alternative Budgetary Paths". Full disclosure: even to us policy wonks, this report sounds a bit dry. Not exactly 50 Shades of Grey, if you know what I mean. But this report did contain some very interesting nuggets. Prepared at the request of the Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, Patty Murray, I'm certain that it came as a bit of a surprise. The report analyzes 3 broad approaches to budgeting and their projected effects on economic productivity over the 10 year period from 2013-2023. The 3 approaches are:$2 Trillion increase in primary deficits$2 Trillion decrease in primary deficits$4 Trillion decrease in primary deficits The report outlines the dire circumstances we face in its introduction: Federal debt held by the public now exceeds 70 percent of the nation’s annual output (gross domestic product, or GDP) and stands at a higher percentage than in any year since 1950. Under an assumption whereby current laws generally remain unchanged, federal debt will be 77 percent of GDP in 2023, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects.1 Such a large amount of federal debt will reduce the nation’s output and income below what would occur if the debt was smaller, and it raises the risk of a fiscal crisis (in which the government would lose the ability to borrow money at affordable interest rates). Moreover, the aging of the population and rising health care costs will tend to push debt even higher in the following decades. The question is, how much will the nation's output be affected by the three proposed changes to our deficits and debt? Well, as you might imagine, economic output is changed quite a bit, depending on which approach is followed.   Technical note: "primary deficit reduction" includes legislated government spending and excludes debt service (interest payments on the public debt). Figure 2 from the report shows some very interesting findings. The Democrats will focus on the short term effects that GNP will increase a little over the next two years, and Conservatives need to be ready to counter this argument. According to the report, .... real GNP under current law will grow by 1.3 percent in 2013 (as measured by the change from the fourth quarter of the previous year) and by 3.3 percent in 2014. Economic growth is then projected to pick up further, and the economy is projected to reach its productive capacity in 2017 and continue to grow in line with the increase in that capacity thereafter. In other words, we're due for an expansion of the economy through 2015. The Democrats will focus only on the short term projections that aggressive deficit reduction efforts will stunt that growth. For proof of this, head on over to the Senate Budget Committee website and check out the whiplash-inducing spin Patty Murray puts on the testimony given by CBO Director, Dr. Douglas Elmendorf. She went even further the next day, conducting hearings on "The Impact of Federal Budget Decisions on Families and Communities" - doing her very best to demonize those mean old deficit cutters who want to throw single moms out in the cold. However, the report is very clear, as seen in the graph, that these short term effects are illusory. The FAR LARGER point here is that the long term health of our economy would greatly benefit from deficit reduction. How can a stronger economy help all families across America? The effects are almost too numerous to calculate. So, it turns out that the Tea Party and fiscal conservatives were right - excess public spending has a strong negative effect on our economy, and the proper way to create long term, sustainable, stable economic growth is through aggressive deficit reduction measures.

In 2008, a group of liberty-minded citizens filed a lawsuit, Hall v. Sebelius, to disconnect Medicare Part A membership from their Social Security benefits. Last February, the D.C. Court of Appeals narrowly ruled in favor of the government, and the case seemed destined to reach the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court recently announced that it would refuse to hear the case, thereby rendering the lower court’s decision final. This link between Medicare Part A and Social Security, introduced in 1993 by the Clinton administration and upheld in 2002 by the Bush administration, was put in place by unelected bureaucrats as a means of preventing seniors from leaving Medicare. Why? As I explained last year, these technocrats would rather effectively force seniors to remain in Medicare than allow them the freedom to pick a private health insurance plan. Technocrats who desire to centrally plan society often use entitlement programs to manipulate the lives of those Americans who rely upon them. This regulation tying membership in Medicare Part A to your Social Security benefits is a clear example of their manipulative methods. If you’re a senior who doesn’t want to participate in government-run health care, for any variety of reasons, “opting out” of Medicare automatically makes you lose your Social Security benefits.  The administrative state can and should be considered a “fourth branch” of the federal government. Today, unelected bureaucrats are exercising legislative, executive, and judicial powers in a blatant violation of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Originating in President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” and bolstered by President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society,” the administrative state routinely and constantly expands the scope of federal power to interfere in our daily lives. Why can’t senior citizens choose to opt out of Medicare without losing their Social Security benefits? Shouldn’t everyone protest such a system? After all, choice is a fundamental tenet of American progressivism. Liberals demand the freedom to do whatever they want, whenever they want, however they want, and without any limitations imposed by external authorities such as family, religion, or community. However, if the government seeks to coerce you, then you won’t find the left interceding on your behalf. The liberal obsession with choice does not extend to the federal administrative state. The Supreme Court's failure to deal with the administrative state is a painful setback for the freedom of seniors from government-run health care, but we can continue the fight. In the last term of Congress, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) sponsored S. 1317, the Retirement Freedom Act. With Senator DeMint’s retirement, it’s time for a new Congressman to take his place and to sponsor legislation removing the link between Medicare and Social Security benefits, thereby rolling back the administrative state, protecting seniors, and restoring liberty. After all, if the Supreme Court refuses to act, we must take action to secure our freedom through our elected representatives.