FreedomWorks

Sizes of whole pickles are based on the diameter and the relationship of diameter to the count per gallon. Size designations, applicable counts, and diameters are outlined in Table II of this subpart. The diameter of a whole cucumber is the shortest diameter at the greatest circumference measured at right angles to the longitudinal axis of the cucumber… We often complain of “Big Government” in the abstract—a tangled assemblage of bureaus, departments and offices in and around Washington, D.C. But sometimes it helps to zoom in on the details. Pickles, for instance. Recently I showed how big government turned two words of a hastily passed law in to 850 pages of regulations. All of those pages are stored in the massive Code of Federal Regulations. The CFR is a compendium of every rule and reg ever concocted by the federal government, from soup (9 CFR 319.720) to nuts (21 CFR 164.110). And despite being incredibly important to businesses big and small, it doesn't make for very enjoyable reading. Reasonably good color in cured type means the typical skin color of the pickles ranges from light green to dark green and is reasonably free from bleached areas. Not more than 25 percent, by weight, of the pickles may vary markedly from such typical color. In mixed pickles, chow chow pickles, and pickle relish, all of the ingredients possess a reasonably uniform color typical for the respective ingredient. The pickles and other vegetable ingredients shall be free of off-colors… As of 2011, the CFR was a whopping 169,301 pages. That’s about 150 times the length of the Bible. If the CFR were compiled into one volume, the book would be 55 feet thick. The first three years of the Obama Administration added 11,327 pages to the CFR – a 7.4 percent increase. Now that President Obama has started his second term, he’s widely expected to create many more new regulations covering everything we eat, drink, touch and feel. (m)  Misshapen pickles mean whole pickles that are crooked or otherwise deformed (such as nubbins). Also see the definition for crooked pickles. (n)  Nubbin is a misshapen pickle that is not cylindrical in form, is short and stubby, or is not well developed. What do these regulations look like? I pulled one at random: 7 CFR 52.1681-1692, or the “United States Standards for Grades of Pickles” written by the Processed Products Branch of the Fruit and Vegetable Division of the Agricultural Marketing Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. You are actually paying a team of bureaucrats to mandate that a "small gherkin" must be less than 2.4 cm in diameter, whereas a "large gherkin" can have a diameter of up to 2.7 cm. They also wrote all the technocratic gibberish sprinkled throughout this post (I left out the diagrams illustrating excessive pickle curvature). Every government program has its defenders. I’m sure that the lowly USDA workers think they’re protecting innocent citizens from the rapacious schemes of Big Gherkin. But remember the humble pickle when politicians insist that there is nothing left to cut out of Washington’s gargantuan budget. For every one of your tax dollars funding something essential, there’s a barrel full of bills funding a bloated, wasteful beast. A beast that smells suspiciously like misshapen pickle nubbins. Follow me on Twitter at @ExJon.

Remember Lisa Jackson and her secret email name? It appears that Richard Windsor wasn't alone. I know, you're as shocked as I am that others may have used fake email addresses to avoid FOIA requests. Luckily, David Vitter and Darrell Issa aren't any more likely to be duped now than they were by Lisa Jackson. According to a press release today, January 29, 2013 Vitter, Issa Investigate EPA’s Transparency Problem, More Suspicious E-mail Accounts EPA Region 8 Administrator violates e-mail rule, uses private e-mail accounts to conduct official business (Washington, D.C.) – In a joint letter sent today, Senator David Vitter (R-La.), the top Republican of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, questioned James Martin, Region 8 Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), regarding his use of a non-official e-mail account to conduct official business, potentially violating federal transparency laws. In documents obtained by Senate EPW and House OGR committees, Administrator Martin used a non-official, me.com, e-mail account, which may have been an attempt to circumvent the Federal Records Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and Congressional oversight. Today's letter is a follow up to the letter sent nearly two weeks ago: The use of an alias account to conduct official Agency business makes compliance with the [Federal Records Act] and [Presidential Records Act] more difficult because the alias may not be matched to an actual Agency employee,” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote in the Wednesday letter, which was obtained exclusively by The Washington Examiner. The use of an alias email account to conduct government business also creates difficulties in fulfilling the FOIA or litigation requests. Furthermore, conducting official business using an alias may implicate criminal or civil penalties for the unlawful concealment of federal records,” Issa added. The committee asked for a response by January 29th." According to reports, Lisa Jackson has stated that the secondary account was created to handle "the large amount of email that her primary official account receives". No explanation has been offered, however, why she used an alias of the opposite gender and conducted official business over the account, counter to federal law. Perhaps Christopher Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute has hit on the reason for the secrecy: In May [2012], CEI filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking correspondence between EPA Regional 8 Administrator James Martin and the Environmental Defense Fund, where Mr. Martin had previously worked as a senior attorney. CEI’s FOIA request was aimed at determining the extent to which policymaking in the Obama Administration is being coordinated with outside environmental pressure groups." [emphasis added] One can only imagine other "outside pressure groups" that may be clandestinely communicating policy requests to this administration - especially in the wake of coverups in Mexico and Libya. The silence from the White House is deafening, considering President Obama's claims that he "won't stop fighting to open up government" and "we've put in the toughest ethics laws and toughest transparency rules of any administration in history". If that were really the case, we wouldn't have to wonder which outside pressure groups are influencing this administration or its layers upon layers of bureaucracies and armies of bureaucratic appointments.  

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 H.R. 325, a bill which would lift the U.S. debt limit without a dollar cap for four months (until May 19, 2013) with no accompanying spending reforms or reductions. The Constitution grants to Congress the "power of the purse," specifically, the power to "lay and collect taxes," to "pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," to "coin money and regulate the value thereof," and to "borrow money on the credit of the United States." (Article I, section 8.) The same Founding generation that granted these important powers also took it for granted that, as a rule, government spending should be frugal and budgets balanced. They abhorred excessive debt as much as they abhorred a standing army or an unarmed citizenry, and for the same reason: because it paves a path for tyrants. They also considered excessive debt immoral. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Our government has swindled futurity to the tune of over $16,000,000,000,000 (sixteen trillion dollars), a staggering amount that exceeds the entire annual output of the U.S. economy and equals more than $52,000 for every U.S. citizen. And these enormous figures don't even include the government's more than $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion dollars) in unfunded entitlement promises. The statutory debt limit is a tool created by Congress to help it "manage" its finances. In theory, the periodic need to raise the limit serves as an occasion to reassess spending priorities and secure needed economies. In practice, Congress always just raises the limit "clean." Once again, Congress is preparing to grant itself a "clean" debt limit increase –- no strings attached. House leaders misleadingly speak as if the proposed bill is conditioned on Congress doing its job and passing a budget, and they claim Congress needs more time to pass a balanced budget plan through each chamber. But in fact, this bill is a "clean" debt ceiling increase. It would simply continue the current pattern –- ask for more money now for promised spending reforms later. If this pattern continues, the major credit agencies have threatened once again to downgrade our nation’s credit, which will make paying down the debt even more difficult. Congress must stop swindling futurity. We must put an end to "borrow-and-spend." No more "clean" debt limit increases. Instead, Washington should do its job and pass a budget -- a specific, immediate plan for balancing the budget within a reasonable period of time, without raising taxes. It's been four years since the Senate fulfilled its legal duty and passed a budget. During this time, Washington politicians have enjoyed unbridled, haphazard spending sprees, while America's families and businesses are left paying the tab. Until the American people see a plan for the spending, there should be no debt ceiling increase. We aren't asking for the moon. We're just asking for a return to regular order and common sense. Our message to Washington is simple: "No budget plan, no debt hike. No more debt until you do your jobs." Also, the bill includes language claiming to be "No Budget No Pay," a commonsense reform FreedomWorks has been urging Congress to adopt since 2011 -- but the actual language in the bill merely postpones Members' pay for two years rather than eliminating it; and the reform is temporary rather than permanent (applying only to this year). This limp approach is too lukewarm to be taken seriously. I urge you to call your U.S. Senators and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 325, in order to to stop a clean increase in the debt ceiling. We will count the vote on H.R. 325 as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013.

In his second inaugural address on January 21, 2013, President Barack Obama stated that “we must make the hard choices to reduce the cost of health care and the size of our deficit.” With regard to health care, all indications are that the price of health insurance will increase as a result of ObamaCare, with the federal government attempting to pass along these costs to the states by asking them to implement state-run health insurance exchanges. Currently, 27 states have decided to avoid implementing state-run exchanges in favor of federal health insurance exchanges. What is the motivation behind these decisions at the state level? The simple answer is that state-run exchanges are an attempt by the federal government to pass on the cost of ObamaCare to the states, while offering states no control over their own exchanges. Given the high costs of state-run health insurance exchanges and the potential for even higher costs as the price of insurance increases under ObamaCare, it is no surprise that states want to avoid the significant financial burdens associated with implementing their own health insurance exchanges. Nebraska is a perfect example of a state eager to avoid the high costs that a state-run health insurance exchange would bring to the Cornhusker State. In the November 2012 press release in which Nebraska announced that the state would participate in a federal health exchange, it was revealed that a state-run health insurance exchange would cost the state an estimated $646 million from 2013 to 2020 for an average annual cost of nearly $81 million. For comparison, a federal health insurance exchange in Nebraska would cost the federal government only $176 million over the same period, a difference of $470 million over the course of eight years. Of the cost difference between state-run and federal-run exchanges, Governor Dave Heineman stated that “it is simply too expensive to do a state insurance exchange.” In New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie vetoed a measure passed by the New Jersey legislature which would have created a state-run health insurance exchange. Estimates show that such a state-run exchange would have cost New Jersey $100 million dollars each year in operating costs. In justifying his veto, Governor Christie wrote in his message to the New Jersey Senate that “financing the building and implementation of a State-based Exchange would be an extraordinarily costly endeavor,” and that “the total price for such a program has never been quantified, and is likely to be onerous.” By vetoing legislation which would have set up a state-run exchange for New Jersey, Governor Christie was able to avoid a burden of $100 million for the taxpayers in his state, a burden that would certainly increase over time with the rising price of health insurance as a result of ObamaCare. Wisconsin, led by Governor Scott Walker, is another state which has acted to avoid the high costs that would result from the implementation of a state-run health insurance exchange. Estimates from the Walker administration indicate that implementing a state-run health insurance exchange in Wisconsin would lead to an annual operating cost between $45 million and $60 million. For Governor Walker, the estimated annual cost would be too much to pass along to taxpayers, saying that “if the state option is chosen…Wisconsinites face risk from a federal mandate lacking long-term guaranteed funding.” By avoiding the $45 million to $60 million annual costs associated with a state-run exchange, Wisconsin is also avoiding the potential for higher annual costs in the future, with estimates showing that ObamaCare will lead to an average increase in individual insurance premiums in the state of 30 percent by 2016. In Ohio, estimates from the state’s Department of Insurance indicate that setting up a state-run health insurance exchange would cost as much as $63 million, followed by costs of $43 million to run the exchange each year. Among the reasons why Ohio de

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 YES on the Lee Amendment (S.Amdt. 4) to H.R. 152, which would slightly reduce discretionary spending across the board in order to offset new spending in the bill. H.R. 152, which is intended to fund disaster relief for the victims of Hurricane Sandy, contains billions of dollars in new deficit spending. While FreedomWorks opposes much of the spending in the so-called “Disaster Relief Appropriations Act” generally, at the very least its spending increases should not be allowed to add to the nation’s $16.4 trillion in debt. Senator Mike Lee’s amendment to the bill will account for the emergency spending by cutting $6.3 billion in 2013 spending, and by simply lowering the spending cap under the Budget Control Act by 0.49% each of the next eight years. This simple, common-sense, across-the-board cut actually reduces spending by slightly more than the cost of the bill, resulting in a net savings instead of billions in new debt. If Washington intends to get serious about addressing its reckless spending, this simple reduction – only half of one percent of total discretionary spending – should be a no-brainer. I urge you to call your U.S. Senators and ask them to vote YES on the Lee Amendment (S.Amdt. 4) to H.R. 152. We will count the vote on the 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_2013-01-25_Sandy_Relief_Offset_Amdt_S.Amdt_._4_-_YES.pdf239.54 KB

[Click here for the PDF version.] President Obama has nominated his Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, to replace Timothy Geithner as 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 that is just as bad as Timothy Geithner. Listed below are the top ten reasons to oppose Jack Lew for Treasury Secretary:1. Jack Lew Played a Key Role in Fiscal Cliff Negotiations Jack Lew acts as a prime negotiator for Obama behind the scenes. Most recently, 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.2. Jack Lew Worked for Citigroup Jack Lew is 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 five hundred million in one quarter in 2008 as the bank’s bets turned south. 3. Jack Lew Has Ties With Corporate Welfare 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.”  4. Jack Lew Has Confessed That He is Not a Financial Expert During Lew’s previous Senate confirmation hearing, Senator Bernie Sanders asked whether deregulation contributed significantly to the financial collapse. Lew answered: “I don’t consider myself an expert in some of these aspects of the financial industry.” He then recommended that Senate Sanders speak to someone who understands the financial industry better: “I would defer to others who are more expert about the industry to try and parse it better than that.” 5. Jack Lew Drafted Health Care Reform under Clinton From February 1993 to October 1994, Jack Lew served as special assistant to President Bill Clinton. He was responsible for drafting the overly bureaucratic and costly “HillaryCare” health care reform legislation that would have declined the quality of health care.  6. Jack Lew Designed AmeriCorps As a special assistant to President Clinton, Jack Lew helped design the deeply flawed AmeriCorps national service program that costs taxpayers over $1 billion annually. While AmeriCorps is often touted as a volunteer program, all individuals are paid with taxpayer dollars to “volunteer” for government-approved service programs. 7. Jack Lew Drafted Obama’s Massive BudgetAs 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. 8. Jack Lew Makes Misleading Excuses to Why the Senate Has Not Passed a Budget The Senate has neglected its basic duty by not passing a budget in nearly four years. When asked about the Senate’s failure to pass a budget on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Lew incorrectly claimed that, “you can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes.” False—it only takes 51 votes to pass a budget. 9. Jack Lew Played a Significant Role in 2011 Debt Ceiling Negotiations He 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 never materialized. This was a bad deal for Americans that was crafted behind closed doors. 10. Jack Lew Advocates Raising Income TaxesAs director of the Office of Management and Budget, he created a budget that would raise taxes on the top 2 percent of incomes. Raising taxes is never a

[Source: White House OMB Mid-Session Review, summer 2012. Data does not reflect enactment of H.R.8, the so-called Fiscal Cliff bill, enacted in January 2013. This chart was compiled by FreedomWorks staff Dean Clancy and Hayden Smith, 1/16/2013, based on a suggestion by James Arthur of Tennessee.] What does this chart tell us? Five things, in my opinion:1. We are living beyond our means.2. We are not undertaxed, we overspend. 3. Entitlements are eating us alive. (Washington is becoming a big "insurance" company with an army.) 4. If we ever had to stop borrowing -- if we ever hit our statutory debt ceiling -- there would still be enough money coming in to pay bondholders (principal and interest), retirees, and our troops. We wouldn't "default." But we would have a cash-flow crunch and a temporary, partial government shutdown. 5. This is what happens when you don't pass a budget. The Senate has failed to pass a budget for nearly four years now, despite a statutory requirement that they do so by April 15 of each year.Remedy: The President should propose, and Congress should pass, a balanced budget. If that's deemed "too hard," then Congress should at least take a first, baby step and simply pass a budget. The House leadership has announced plans to vote on a budget that not only balances over time, but does so within ten years, and without raising taxes. That would be a huge improvement over our current mess. The Senate should do the same.TAKE ACTION. Sign our petition and help us tell the Senate: "DC, Do Your Job!Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks Vice President for Public Policy File Attachments Chart_-_2013_Federal_Spending_vs_Revenue.pdf110.62 KB

With National School Choice Week kicking off January 25th, conversations surrounding the topic are already buzzing.  While I have always been a supporter of school choice, it is only recently that the subject has taken a personal turn.  With one child excelling in public school and the other struggling, having choices in their individual educational needs will make a lifetime’s worth of difference. Our oldest daughter has never had a problem in school.  She easily makes good grades and the traditional public school model works well for her.  Our second to oldest is in her first year of public school and it is already apparent that what worked for the first is not going to work for the second.  I should start by explaining that we are in an excellent school district in South Carolina and we were fortunate enough to have our second daughter placed with the same teacher our first daughter had.  She is an amazing teacher and has worked hard to meet the differing needs of our children.  Unfortunately, due to school policies beyond her control, we’ve reached a wall in the extra help that can be given to my child.  The school cannot properly assess her needs until her next birthday at the end of the school year; meanwhile, she is quickly falling behind and at risk for being recommended for retainment.  As she is in Kindergarten, we can choose to hold her back or send her on to first grade for the next school year.  If we pay for outside help, she may stand a chance of moving on to first grade where she could get the extra assistance she needs.  From there we have to hope that, for her entire schooling, she has teachers that will be as dedicated, compassionate and flexible as her teacher has been this year.  Realistically though, it would seem that my daughter is in for a very long and very difficult educational journey.  So now my husband and I are faced with making choices that will decide her fate in school. Do we try to fit her into the educational box with which she has, in only her first year, shown herself to be perhaps incompatible?  Or do we think outside of that box and seek alternative solutions that may hold the key to her success?  And if we look outside of the box, what choices await? Aside from the very expensive option of sending my child to private school, South Carolina has a limited amount of choice within the education system.  Private school choice is not offered, however there are charter schools and online learning available. Currently there are 50 public charter schools and 6 online public charter schools in our state.  Additionally, the state-led South Carolina Virtual School offers courses for students in grades 7 through 12; online students can earn high school credits to go towards their graduation from the public, private or home school education they are currently receiving.  Putting those numbers and options in perspective, I have one charter school in my district that would be an option and I would have to participate in a lottery for the chance to have my child attend.  Not a hopeful picture. However, opportunity may be on the horizon.  Wednesday, state Senator Larry Grooms introduced legislation in the state Senate that would provide tax credit-funded scholarships to low-income and special needs students.  Families with students in private school and homeschool would also be eligible for tax deductions.  A similar bill was passed through the House last year, making history as the first school choice bill to do so, but it died in Senate on the last day of the session as they never took the vote.  In a state that ranks 48th in the country, according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, (despite spending more per pupil than most Southern states) and where parents have maybe one or two alternatives to traditional public school, obviously more school choice is badly needed.&nbs

“Never complain of that of which it is at all times in your power to rid yourself.” – Adam Smith quoting Greek Stoic philosopher Epictetus, chapter I, section II, and part VII of The Theory of Moral Sentiments, originally published in 1759. The national debt is a tremendous burden on our country, ourselves, and our posterity. In part one of this series, I provided a technical understanding of the debt, and in part two, I explained that we are much more likely to debase the currency (with all of the ruinous consequences such a drastic action entails) than to default on the debt. In part three, I claimed that the problem of the national debt is not insurmountable as long as people continue to lend to us, and I provided a few good reasons to believe that we have enough time to turn our dire fiscal situation around by addressing the debt. I begin this final part with a quotation from Adam Smith (and by extension, Epictetus) for one important reason: It is within our power to rid ourselves of the problem of the national debt. We are fortunate to live in a free society in which we can actively engage in the political process. It's not an easy task, and we admittedly suffered some painful defeats last November, but we still have the ability to elect fiscally conservative candidates who will stand firm against granting Washington D.C. more blank checks. We can still avert a debt crisis, but doing so will require difficult choices and a commitment to limited, constitutional government. Put simply, we must do two things in order to halt, and then reverse, the growth of our national debt: cut spending and encourage growth. Cutting Federal Spending This is the most intuitive solution to the national debt problem. If the government stops spending beyond its means, then it won't continue to rack up debt. However, we can do better than that. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal government will bring in an impressive $2.913 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2013. If we cut spending below that level, then we will generate a surplus and can begin to pay off the debt. The logic of lowering expenditures in order to avert a national debt crisis is simple and straightforward, but deciding what to cut can be more difficult. In order to make informed and prudent decisions about spending cuts, we must first have a basic grasp of federal spending. Federal spending is typically separated into two distinct categories: discretionary and mandatory spending. In fiscal year 2013, the CBO estimates federal outlays of $1.231 trillion in discretionary spending and $2.105 trillion in mandatory spending. What's the difference between these two categories? Discretionary Spending Even though discretionary spending constitutes barely one third of the estimated $3.554 trillion in federal spending this fiscal year, it remains the easiest place to cut. Why? Unlike mandatory spending, discretionary spending does not occur automatically. Every year, Congress is supposed to pass twelve categorized appropriations bills to authorize new discretionary spending. If they fail to do so, then they must pass a "continuing resolution" to maintain temporary spending until they can pass an appropriations bill. On this subject, it's worth noting that the Democrat-led Senate has failed to pass a budget since April 29th, 2009. What is included in discretionary spending? Well, for one thing, military expenditures. Of the estimated $1.231 trillion in 2013 discretionary spending, a whopping $644 billion goes to national defense. In other words, more than half of discretionary spending is defense spending. The rest of our discretionary spending goes to the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, La

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 H.R. 152, the “Disaster Relief Appropriations Act”.  The bill, as it passed the House, has a multitude of problems. First, the bill contains $50 billion in new spending, most of which is not offset and will therefore add to our trillion-dollar annual budget deficit. This leads to the second problem, which is that a large portion of this spending is not for acute, “emergency” disaster relief at all, which should be for getting those who suffered from the effects of the disaster through the immediate aftermath. This bill, being voted on two months after the fact, is mostly composed of long-term building projects, including in states not even affected by Hurricane Sandy. If these projects – which are essentially stimulus spending – really require federal funding, they should be accounted for through the normal budget process, not lumped in with a disaster relief bill. Finally, it is unclear why the federal government should be using federal taxpayer dollars – collected from all fifty states – to provide state-level disaster relief at all. Federal funds should be used to repair federal property, but state and local governments should budget and prepare for periodic disasters such as Hurricane Sandy, instead of relying upon the federal government and its inept agencies such as FEMA. I urge you to call your U.S. Senators and ask them to vote NO on H.R. 152. We may count the vote on H.R. 152 as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2012. 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_2013-01-22_Sandy_Relief_Senate_Vote_H.R._152_-_NO.pdf178.31 KB

Here we stand, in the days between Martin Luther King, Jr. Day and National School Choice Week. To many, these two events might have little in common. If you scratch the surface, however, they are inextricably linked. In fact, many would agree that school choice is the civil rights issue of our time.  The American dream tells us that any person, through hard work, can become anything in America. We are not guaranteed equal results, but we are supposed to be guaranteed equal chances to succeed. Life isn’t fair, we all know that. Some will achieve more than others. However, the flaws inherent in our educational system put certain groups of children at a disadvantage, and as Americans, we can and should do better.  When education was first considered a civil rights issue, the fight was manifested in Brown vs. Board of Education, which ended racial segregation in schools. However, schools remain segregated today but, this time, it is by geography. Students are assigned to schools based on the location of their home, which segregates children on the basis of wealth. As was decided in Brown vs. Board of Education, separate but equal is not acceptable in America. Yet, every day, children in poor neighborhoods are sent to schools which do not perform as well as those in wealthy areas.  All children should have an equal shot at the American dream, and having parents which live in a less desirable school district puts some children at a distinct disadvantage.  According to the U.S. Department of Education, more than 1700 “dropout factories” (schools in which fewer than 60% of students graduate) existed in 2008. At these schools, the majority of students are black and latino. It is not a leap, then, to say that in almost sixty years since the Brown vs Board of Education ruling, minority students are right back where they started.  America continues to slide in the ranks internationally when it comes to preparing our children for college and the workforce.  We can see that failing to address this issues leads to generation after generation of adults who are not prepared for the future, and this will largely be along racial lines. We cannot have some races set up for success and others set up to fail. All American children need to be given equal opportunities to succeed, regardless of race, income level and location. The viability of the American dream depends on the civil rights battle being fought in the arena of school choice. We need to get ready for battle. 

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to vote NO on H.R. 325, a bill which would lift the U.S. debt limit without a dollar cap for four months (until May 19, 2013) with no accompanying spending reforms or reductions. The Constitution grants to Congress the "power of the purse," specifically, the power to "lay and collect taxes," to "pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," to "coin money and regulate the value thereof," and to "borrow money on the credit of the United States." (Article I, section 8.) The same Founding generation that granted these important powers also took it for granted that, as a rule, government spending should be frugal and budgets balanced. They abhorred excessive debt as much as they abhorred a standing army or an unarmed citizenry, and for the same reason: because it paves a path for tyrants. They also considered excessive debt immoral. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Our government has swindled futurity to the tune of over $16,000,000,000,000 (sixteen trillion dollars), a staggering amount that exceeds the entire annual output of the U.S. economy and equals more than $52,000 for every U.S. citizen. And these enormous figures don't even include the government's more than $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion dollars) in unfunded entitlement promises. The statutory debt limit is a tool created by Congress to help it "manage" its finances. In theory, the periodic need to raise the limit serves as an occasion to reassess spending priorities and secure needed economies. In practice, Congress always just raises the limit "clean." Once again, Congress is preparing to grant itself a "clean" debt limit increase –- no strings attached. House leaders misleadingly speak as if the proposed bill is conditioned on Congress doing its job and passing a budget, and they claim Congress needs more time to pass a balanced budget plan through each chamber. But in fact, this bill is a "clean" debt ceiling increase. It would simply continue the current pattern –- ask for more money now for promised spending reforms later. If this pattern continues, the major credit agencies have threatened once again to downgrade our nation’s credit, which will make paying down the debt even more difficult. Congress must stop swindling futurity. We must put an end to "borrow-and-spend." No more "clean" debt limit increases. Instead, Washington should do its job and pass a budget -- a specific, immediate plan for balancing the budget within a reasonable period of time, without raising taxes. It's been four years since the Senate fulfilled its legal duty and passed a budget. During this time, Washington politicians have enjoyed unbridled, haphazard spending sprees, while America's families and businesses are left paying the tab. Until the American people see a plan for the spending, there should be no debt ceiling increase. We aren't asking for the moon. We're just asking for a return to regular order and common sense. Our message to Washington is simple: "No budget plan, no debt hike. No more debt until you do your jobs." Also, the bill includes language claiming to be "No Budget No Pay," a commonsense reform FreedomWorks has been urging Congress to adopt since 2011 -- but the actual language in the bill merely postpones Members' pay for two years rather than eliminating it; and the reform is temporary rather than permanent (applying only to this year). This limp approach is too lukewarm to be taken seriously. I urge you to call your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to vote NO on H.R. 325 to stop a clean increase in the debt ceiling. We will count the vote on H.R. 325 as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your U.S. Representative and urge him or her to vote YES on H.R. 273, a bill to prevent this year’s scheduled automatic pay increase for federal workers. It would be inappropriate for federal employees, including Members of Congress, to take a taxpayer-funded raise while the federal government continues to maintain a $16 trillion national debt that amounts to a $145,000 burden for each individual taxpayer.  And the potential raise is particularly galling when considering that the gap between federal employees’ pay and benefits and those of private sector workers has been steadily increasing over the past decade. While median wages for the total U.S. workforce are decreasing, federal workers are doing just fine.  The average federal worker earns around $75,000 per year, while Congressmen and Senators earn $174,000 per year.  Meanwhile, the median income for all U.S. households, according to a Pew Research Center Study, dropped from $54,489 to $50,054 since 2007. There is no way that federal employees ought to receive a raise funded by taxpayers whose standard of living is actively decreasing. Members of Congress, who have been spending our money lavishly, must learn to exercise fiscal responsibility with the taxpayers’ money before taking more for themselves. I urge you to call your U.S. Representative and ask him or her to vote YES on H.R. 273 to stop government employees from receiving an automatic raise. We may count the vote on H.R. 273 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_Congressional_Pay_H_R__273_-_YES_-_2013-01-17-1.pdf180.37 KB

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're still a nation desperately in need of jobs and revenue, right? A new study commissioned by supporters of the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline says Nebraska could reap close to $2 billion in economic benefits if the project were built. Creighton University economist Ernie Goss, hired to conduct the analysis, said pipeline construction would create several thousand Nebraska jobs while ongoing operations would result in several hundred positions. Over the next 16 years, the pipeline would generate close to $60 million in property tax revenue for the counties where it would be located, Goss said. There has been some chatter that President Obama will approve it this time around, although it is all pure conjecture at the moment. Lame-duck office holders do have the luxury of irritating the base as well as the opposition, however. The conundrum for the president is that the Keystone issue places him squarely in between the two constituencies he holds most dear: Big Labor and the Enviromaniacs. While union support for the pipeline hasn't been universal, Mr. Obama's decision to nix it the first time around did anger some. Mark H. Ayers, president of the Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO has publicly hammered the jobs issue. In a January 18th press release, Ayers voiced the frustration of many union workers, saying “…with a national unemployment rate in construction at 16 percent nationally, it is beyond disappointing that President Obama placed a higher priority on politics rather than our nation’s number one challenge: jobs.” James T. Callahan, president of the International Union of Operating Engineers, agrees, complaining to the Washington Post  that Obama’s decision was “…a blow to America’s construction workers,” who are struggling in “the sector hardest hit by the recession.” In an effort to keep the peace with Big Labor when that happened, the president, naturally, blamed Republicans. In his rejection of the pipeline, Obama blamed Republicans for forcing him to meet what the While House deemed an arbitrary deadline. This despite the fact that the State Department has had the application for Keystone since 2008, held 20 meetings on the subject, and produced a gargantuan 1,000 page Environmental Study to assess the possible consequences of the pipeline, which would bring oil from the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast of the United States. As Rep. Joe Barton of Texas ruefully noted, the U.S. “fought and won World War II” in a shorter amount of time. Proponents of the project continue to pressure President Obama. Today, he received a letter from Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall and ten Republican governors urging him to approve the pipeline. The governors of Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming signed the letter, which also touts Keystone as a job-creating project. “As legislators and decision-makers, we felt it imperative to speak up for a project that will contribute greatly to a safe, secure and long-term energy supply for North America,” Wall said in a statement. “We need greater pipeline capacity to move the oil – Canadian and American – that is vital to our shared goal of North American energy security.” Who will win this family fight among strong Democrat constituencies? Will President Obama make his labor supporters happy and create jobs and taxable revenue in the process? Or will he continue his first term habit of wasting taxpayer money on unproven green companies that either yield few results or fail completely? This would be a most opportune time for Bill Clinton to send some of his trademark political pragmatism over to the White House. 

In comments of late, Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, a decorated military veteran with impeccable credentials, has shown a proclivity for adopting an adversarial stance towards the GOP.   As one of the most prominent figures in the party over the past two decades through his military service and cabinet positions, Powell has always had a decidedly positive imprint on the reputation of the GOP with his name constantly rising as a possible presidential contender.  So it's with considerable dismay that I pronounce him to be, well - no longer a Republican!  I understand and support the concept of the Big Tent.  Embracing that concept places the prospect of winning securely back in its rightful place of importance.  Yet a big tent still has to have a secure structure to underpin the legislative goals after those hard fought wins occur.  General Powell holds far too many positions that place him squarely in the Democratic party's base to seriously be considered a Republican. First off there is his support of climate change legislation.  The Republican Party Platform does not support man made climate change, or its elevation to a level of importance that dwarfs the nation's requirement for affordable energy.  Powell supports the radical governmental takeover of the health care industry, The Affordable Care Act, which is completely at odds with the conservative ideals of smaller, limited government and free markets.  Powell also supports amnesty as a path to immigration reform, and oddly enough doesn't see the value of school choice or vouchers in improving the educational prospects of minority kids trapped in failing inner city schools. And Powell is no better on social issues, claiming the false mantle of choice over the position of Republicans that life is valuable and to be protected from conception to natural death. His dalliances with liberalism have not gone unnoticed.  Conservative firebrand and radio host Laura Ingraham expressed ire at Powell’s public statements and challenged Powell to a debate:  “I would challenge Colin Powell, frankly, to a debate on whether liberalism – climate change regulation he wants, I guess more affirmative action, he’s pro-choice, and now he believes that immigration amnesty is going to help, I guess, what? The wages of the black family?,” Ingraham asked. “Liberalism has been an utter disaster for black America,” Ingraham said. “The weapon of mass destruction, Gretchen, has been found. The Democrats found it. It’s Colin Powell. He’s blowing up on Republicans.” As much as we would enjoy the spectacle of a Ingraham takedown of Powell, a larger issue has emerged.  Powell is no longer simply supporting a few fringe Democratic ideals, he is castigating the party using the very tired but effective cudgel of race.  Tossing the race card is the purview of liberals; who use it when their ideas run out or are proven wrong using facts.  Instead of supporting his "evolution" from conservatism to liberalism with facts that support the superiority of the Democratic platform, Powell has sunk to saying the following about the GOP: The former secretary of State also strongly condemned his Republican Party, calling it out for a "dark vein of intolerance." "I think the Republican Party right now is having an identity problem and I'm still a Republican," Powell said on NBC's Meet the Press, as he lamented a "significant shift to the right" that has resulted in losing presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012. What?  The entire party contains a dark vein of intolerance?  That would include myself and other black conservatives that have taken issue with many of the strategies used (and unused) to attract and convert minorities to the party.  This is no time to avoid discussing sensitive matters, as the left makes headway with outrageous lies about the very nature of the reason that fully one half of this nation ascribe