FreedomWorks

Should we raise the national debt limit to accommodate more trillion-dollar deficits? In Washington, it's taken for granted that we should and will. But a lot of fiscal conservatives have got the crazy idea in their heads that any debt increase should be accompanied by something we haven't seen in years: a budget. An actual plan to balance the budget and stop accumulating debt.  President Obama is having none of it. Yesterday morning, he conducted a press conference clearly intended to put fiscal conservatives on the defensive in the next round of the Great Debt Ceiling Debate. His various claims and assertions, taken together, are so misleading, that only a line-by-line rebuttal can do them justice. Here goes.  Assertion: We will soon hit the debt ceiling Now, [a] congressionally imposed deadline coming up is the so-called debt ceiling ... Response: Correct. On August 2, 2011, President Obama signed into law a $2,100,000,000,000 ($2.1 trillion) increase in the government's statutory debt limit. Roughly 518 days later, the money ran out and Treasury hit the $16,394,000,000,000 [$16.394 trillion] ceiling on its borrowing authority. Because of massive overspending, America is on an unsustainable fiscal path.  The government technically came up to its current statutory borrowing limit -- of some $16,400,000,000,000 [$16.4 trillion] -- at the end of December. The Treasury, however, has the ability to do a bit of juggling with certain government funds and so keep us under the ceiling for a couple of months. Uncle Sam is currently spending about $100,000,000,000 [$100 billion] a month more than he takes in. Treasury's "extraordinary measures" to avoid hitting the ceiling are said to buy about $200,000,000,000 [$200 billion] worth -- or two months -- of headroom. Experts predict we will run out of headroom sometime in the latter half of February. At that point, the government won't be able to continue borrowing. Since the government currently raises only about 60 percent of the funds it needs to cover its expenses, this will mean an immediate 40 percent reduction in federal outlays (or more precisely, a postponement of 40 percent of federal outlays, as prioritized by the president). The remedy for this cash-flow crunch will come when Congress either raises the debt limit, increases taxes, or reduces spending, or some combination. Note Mr. Obama's use of the term "congressionally imposed" to describe the debt ceiling. He is impatient with the existence of a debt ceiling, and with fiscal conservatives' efforts to use it to secure spending restraint. During the recent Fiscal Cliff negotiations, he reportedly asked that Congress delegate to the President the power to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally without limit. That would be both unconstitutional and unwise. The US Constitution grants to Congress, and only Congress, the power of the purse, that is, the authority to fund the federal government, including the power to “lay and collect taxes,” the power to "pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and to “borrow money on the credit of the United States” (US Constitution, Article I, section 8, clauses 1 and 2). From 1789 to 1917, when Congress needed to borrow, it would pass a law authorizing the Treasury Secretary to conduct a particular bond issue of a certain kind and amount. In 1917, Congress provided the President with a limited delegation of borrowing authority. In 1939, it went further and created the first statutory aggregate debt limit to pay obligations authorized by Congress. Since then, Congress has raised the statutory debt limit dozens of times. But constitutionally the power to borrow remains with Congress, not the President. And it should remain there. Hence, the necessity of "congressionally imposed deadlines." Assertion: Before 2011, increasing the debt ceiling was routine and uncontroversial ... [the debt ceiling is] something most Amer

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Members of Congress and urge them to vote NO on H.R. 152, the “Disaster Relief Appropriations Act”, and NO on the Frelinghuysen Amendment to add $33 billion in spending to the bill.  There are a multitude of problems with this bill.  First, H.R. 152 itself contains $17 billion in spending, with another $33 billion to be added by Rep. Frelinghuysen’s amendment.  That’s $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. Representative and ask him or her to vote NO on H.R. 152 and the Frelinghuysen Amendment. We may count the vote on both H.R. 152 and the Frelinghuysen amendment as KEY VOTES 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_Sandy_Relief_H.R._152_-_NO_-_2013-01-14.pdf181.3 KB

Jack Lew, President Obama's choice to replace Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary, has been in Washington DC a long time. Anyone in public service that long will have quite a record of public statements that will paint an accurate picture for Senators who are considering his nomination. Last week, I wrote about some of the more outrageous statements Lew has made, and the lack of confidence some elected officials have shown in his ability to faithfully execute the cabinet position to which he has been nominated. The drumbeat of doubt against Jack Lew is continuing to build. First it was Jeff Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, who voiced strong opposition to Lew's nomination. A day later, Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) released the following statement: “As the country struggles with a painfully slow economic recovery, Washington needs leaders who are willing to support reforms that will put us on a sustainable fiscal path,” said Lee, a member of the Joint Economic Committee. “Unfortunately, the nomination of Jack Lew as Secretary of Treasury signals that the president will continue to pursue the same failed policies of the previous four years: higher taxes, more spending, and more debt.  It virtually guarantees the president will not compromise on entitlement reform, and assures that the White House will fight to maintain the status quo of our deeply dysfunctional system.  At a moment when the president could have shown a willingness to work with Republicans to fix the challenges that face the country, he has instead moved in a disappointing direction.” This opposition from the right has centered around Lew's continued insistence that the Obama budgets, famously rejected in Senate votes that received zero votes in 2010 and 2011, will balance and will reduce the federal public debt under the creative accounting gimmick, "primary balance theory": “Our budget will get us, over the next several years, to the point where we can look the American people in the eye and say we’re not adding to the debt anymore; we’re spending money that we have each year, and then we can work on bringing down our national debt.” – OMB Director Jack Lew, CNN’s State of the Union, February 13, 2011 However, Lew's very own Office of Management and Budget has figures that belie that claim. Under Obama's proposals, advanced by Jack Lew, the annual budget deficits are projected to remain at absurdly high levels - between $600 and $700 Billion over the next ten years, culminating in a $774 Billion deficit for fiscal year 2021. This will, predictably, not result in debt reduction. Rather, under these proposals, our total federal debt is projected to exceed $26 Trillion by 2021. As a percentage of our gross domestic product (GDP), the total debt is projected to remain at 106% of our total economic output. Lew cannot escape the math. He's either grossly incompetent or deliberately misleading the public. Incidentally, even liberals are opposed to this nomination, though for opposite reasons: One might think that Jack Lew, a man who was mentored by the late liberal Sen. Paul Wellstone and who interned for Eugene McCarthy, would be the kind of nominee self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) might passionately support.  Not so. On Thursday, Mr. Sanders issued a statement opposing the Jack Lew nomination: “At a time when the middle class is collapsing and millions of workers are unemployed, I do not believe he is the right person at the right time to serve in this important position…As a supporter of the president, I remain extremely concerned that virtually all of his key economic advisers have come from Wall Street. In my view, we need a treasury secretary who is prepared to stand up to corporate America and their powerful lobbyists and fight for policies that protect the working families in our country. I do not believe Mr. Lew is that person.”   For many reasons, it looks like Jack Lew's nomination will contin

Paycheck protection laws prevent union leadership from spending compulsory membership dues on political expenses prior to obtaining consent from membership as individuals. Paycheck protection programs have proved to be effective, so long as they remain comprehensive. Given the scope of unions in the Commonwealth, Pennsylvania workers stand to retain greater freedom and more of their hard-earned paychecks if an undiluted paycheck protection program is implemented in the state. Read more about paycheck protection laws from around the country and the potential benefits a program could bring to workers in Pennsylvania here, in this FreedomWorks Foundation Issue Analysis.   File Attachments PCP_Issue_Analysis.pdf503.51 KB

It has been widely reported this week that President Obama will nominate Jack Lew today for Secretary of the Treasury, replacing Timothy Geithner, expected to step down next month. It takes a special kind of crazy only found in Washington DC for someone who has failed so spectacularly to be nominated to head up our nation's treasury (see also: Geithner, Timothy). After all, Lew is the gentleman who, as the head of the Office of Management and Budget, was the architect of the Obama budgets that famously received zero votes in the Senate in 2011 and 2012 - not even his Democrat allies thought his bugets were realistic. According to CBS News, Lew is Mr. Obama's current chief of staff but has served in numerous government roles. Prior to his current post, which has given him direct access to the president, the 57-year-old was the director of the Office of Management and Budget. In that position he worked closely with Congress and federal agencies to oversee the budget of the entire federal government. That is a position he also held during the Clinton administration from 1998 to 2001. In the 1980s he was a senior adviser for former House Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neill, D-Mass., and worked with former President Reagan's White House on Social Security reform and tax reform. And between his Clinton and Obama administration stints, he worked in the private sector, including three years as a hedge fund manager for Citigroup. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) is vowing to fight this nomination. Yesterday, The Hill reported that he has prepared a statement saying "Jack Lew must never be Secretary of Treasury." Sessions expects that the Lew nomination will fail in the Senate, an aide said. The senator says Lew misrepresented Obama's 2012 budget by claiming that it did not add to the debt. "His testimony before the Senate Budget Committee less than two years ago was so outrageous and false that it alone disqualifies," according to the Sessions' statement, which was obtained by The Hill in advance. Sessions says in his statement that Lew, as the president’s budget director told Congress the budget "would not add to the debt of the United States. Sessions, the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, has continually grilled Lew on his testimony regarding budget proposals. In February 2011, Sessions nailed Lew for statements on CNN that the budget doesn't add to the debt and actually balances eventually - that is, if you don't count interest payments on our public debt as a budget expenditure. No, really: He continues, showing how interest payments will dwarf the expenditures of 15 federal agencies combined, and chastising Lew for "primary balance theory": Only in DC could you advance a theory with a straight face that says, in essence, our budget balances if you pick and choose which budget expenditures you're going to count, and ignore the rest. That's like saying, "Once my car gets repoed, my household budget is going to be nothing but smooth sailing." As if that weren't enough, Jack Lew has repeatedly misled the American public by saying that the Senate needs 60 votes to pass a budget: That's either gross incompetence or a deliberate falsehood. This implies that budgets can be filibustered; under Senate rules, that is not true. The former OMB director should be aware that budgets are ‘privileged’, meaning they can pass with a simple majority and not subject to a filibuster. In case you think he misspoke, he repeats the statement again: It's difficult to believe that someone who's been in DC since he was a staffer for Tip O'Neill wouldn't know the rules of the Senate. Of course we've come to expect an administration full of prevaricators, so Lew's expected nomination would be par for the course. Many conservatives are advocates of a return to zero-based budgeting as a partial solution to our addiction to spending. My hope is that, as a short term goal, we can at least aspire to overcome zero-vote budgeting.

Freedomcast - Episode 1 Welcome to our new podcast "The FreedomCast."   Twice a week on Tuesday and Thursday, I'll be bringing you interviews, news and updates on issues important to our listeners and the FreedomWorks family. Today, Senator Mike Lee and I discuss the fiscal cliff bill, the upcoming debt ceiling battle, and why truth resonates with the American people. Listen here. Have an idea for a podcast episode?  Is there someone you'd like me to interview, or an issue you'd like me to cover?  Send your suggestions to me on twitter. Follow FreedomWorks on twitter. #Freedomcast Follow Senator Mike Lee on twitter. Freedomcast produced by Brad Jackson. Music provided by Shock City Studios

It's like deja vu all over again.  The fiscal cliff bill, H.R. 8, was drafted behind closed doors, and lawmakers were given six minutes to read the 154-page bill before voting on it.  Once again, we apparently had to pass the bill to find out what's in it. (To see how your lawmakers voted, check HERE or check out your lawmakers' scores on FreedomWorks' Congressional Scorecard.) The bill is a total mixed bag, with tax hikes and tax credits and tax extenders and a bunch of random, miscellaneous provisions.  Oh, and the farm bill too, a totally unrelated bill that should have been voted on as a stand-alone measure. But more than anything, the so-called "American Taxpayer Relief Act" was full of corporate welfare - targeted tax credits and subsidies for companies and industries whose lobbyists have succeeded in acquiring loopholes for their clients.    According to the CBO, the bill actually spends $330 billion more than it takes in with the tax hikes. Much of this spending is for these special-interest tax loopholes that were scheduled to expire at the end of the year, but which will now be law for at least another year. The Joint Committee on Taxation has broken down the costs of each provision in the bill HERE, but below are some highlights (all numbers are ten-year figures): Business Tax Extenders:$14.3 billion to subsidize research and development$119 million for companies to hire Native Americans$1.79 billion to promote business investment in low-income communities$331 million for railroads to perform track maintenance$5 million for mining companies to use for rescue training$3.71 billion for "leasehold, restaurant, and retail improvements"$248 million for film production expenses (yep, we're subsidizing Hollywood)$358 million for "domestic production activities in Puerto Rico"$222 million for rum production in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands$62 million for economic development in American Samoa Energy Tax Extenders:$7 million for plug-in motorcycles$59 million for "cellulosic biofuel" research, including fule from algea$2.18 billion for biodiesel producers$12.1 billion for the wind production tax credit (more on the Wind PTC HERE)$154 million for energy efficient home upgrades$650 million for energy-efficient appliance credits$360 million for alternative fuels Farm Bill (Direct Spending, 2013 only):$5 billion in direct payments to farmers, most of which goes to subsidize large farm corporations $1 billion in direct price supports for selected crops (wheat, sugar, etc.)$10 million to encourage private land owners to grant public recreational access to their land$25 million for 'organic' agriculture research$100 million to research 'specialty crops'$30 million to help new farmers and ranchers start up$10 million to promote farmers' markets$22 million for organic certification cost-sharing While corporations and special interests receive billions of dollars of tax relief, this bill allows taxes to increase for 77% of Americans, thanks to the expiring payroll tax holiday.  Because Congress failed to extend the payroll tax cut, an individual who earns $26,000 per year will have over $500 per year in new taxes - that's $20 taken straight from each paycheck. And the bill effectively raised taxes on every American because it failed to account for any significant cuts in spending.  After all, every dollar of deficit spending is a future dollar that someone will have to pay in taxes down the road.

Key Vote NO on H.R. 8, the “Fiscal Cliff” Tax Hikes and Sequester Postponement Bill  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 against H.R. 8, the McConnell-Obama bill to raise taxes and postpone the promised sequester savings.  While the floor timing and possible amendments to this legislation remain unclear, the language of the bill that passed the Senate this morning is clearly unacceptable for a number of reasons: 1) It fails to extend 2012 income tax rates for individuals earning more than $400,000 a year, thus allowing the higher rates that took effect this morning to continue. It thus embraces President Obama’s cynical “soak the rich” approach, which punishes success and divides Americans against one another, without producing any significant revenue. 2) It once again kicks the can down the road on any meaningful spending reductions, by postponing $1,200,000,000,000 ($1.2 trillion) in promised savings required under the Budget Control Act of 2011, in effect repealing those savings and cynically letting the government go on piling a mountain of debt on our children and grandchildren. 3) It increases federal spending by $330,000,000,000 ($330 billion) over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, on luxuries we can’t afford, like an eleventh extension of the “temporary” unemployment benefits expansion of 2008, and various “stimulus” (i.e., special interest) tax breaks for corporate interests. To add insult to injury, the bill contains a number of earmarks, including $10,000,000 to promote farmers markets, $5,000,000 for the “National Clean Plant Network,” and $30,000,000 for a “Beginning Rancher and Farmer Development Program.” 4) It contains no meaningful spending reductions. CBO estimates the bill that passed in the Senate this morning would increase our national debt by nearly $4,000,000,000,000 ($4 trillion). That’s on top of our current, historically high national debt of more than $16,000,000,000,000 ($16 trillion).  While the bill contains $3,600,000,000,000 ($3.6 trillion) in tax relief, compared to the tax policy that took effect this morning—relief we support—its lack of meaningful savings and its “postponement” of $1.2 trillion in promised savings make it unacceptable. This is hardly the “balanced” approach that President Obama claims to insist on, whereby every dollar of spending reductions must be accompanied by at least a dollar in tax hikes.  Washington has an over-spending problem, not an under-taxing problem. Shifting more of the tax burden to the highest earners is not the way to get America out of our deep fiscal mire. Instead, we should be focusing on fixing our labyrinthine, corporate-subsidy-laden tax code and reforming our out-of-control spending and unsustainable entitlements. Only by making these real, substantial reforms will we be able to get our fiscal house in order and avoid another damaging debt downgrade. Congress must break its deeply ingrained habit of always kicking the can down the road.  There is a better way to handle the so-called fiscal cliff. FreedomWorks has been urging Congress to keep its promise of $1.2 trillion in ten-year sequester savings, extend all current tax rates for one year, and get to work in 2013 on reforming taxes and entitlements.  We oppose the bill on procedural grounds. As a matter of principle, we will never again support a back room deal that the American people have not been given ample chance to examine. Both parties promise full transparency but act in secret when no one is paying attention.  We will never fix our fiscal problems, shrink the national debt burden, reform the tax code, modernize our broken entitlements, and balance the budget until Congress and the President commit to return to regular order. Pass a budget resolution by April 15th, as required by law. Propose legi

As we approach the inevitability of the fiscal cliff, taxpayers are understandably concerned. How much more will I have to pay in taxes?   Will the the economy worsen?  What will the spending cuts mean for my family? What surprises await for personal and business taxes and regulations in 2013? First, the new taxes. Personal income taxes will be going up for everyone. As reported today by The Right Scoop, The NY Post has created a chart of what you’ll pay in taxes next year if there is no fiscal cliff deal:   As you can tell, that's not chump change. But it gets worse. There is also an onslaught of new regulations set to go into effect. As Senator Portman (R-OH) stated in an August 2012 guest column in the Wall Street Journal, Americans are learning more about the "fiscal cliff" approaching at the beginning of next year, when tax rates for families and small businesses are set to spike and new taxes in President Obama's health care spending law take effect. But unless there's real change in Washington, we're also headed for a steep "regulatory cliff" that could compound the damage. After three years of bureaucratic excess, the Obama administration has been quietly postponing several multibillion-dollar regulations until after the November election. Those delayed rules, together with more than 130 unfinished mandates under the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial law, could significantly increase the regulatory drag on our economy in 2013. Now that President Obama has been reelected, this massive armada of new regulations is ready to be unleashed against businesses all across America. The National Federation of Independent Business reports that over 4100 new regulations are set to be enacted on businesses in 2013. NFIB has compiled a list of just the 13 most expensive regulations, that together will cost the economy over $500 BILLION over four years: National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Ozone, $360,000,000,000 over 4 years - President Obama’s Letter to Speaker of the House Boehner, August 30, 2011 Boiler MACT, $9,500,000,000 capital cost and $11,600,000,000 over 4 years - Office of Management and Budget, “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters; Proposed Reconsideration,” accessed 6/26/12 Cross State Air Pollution Rule, $3,200,000,000 over 4 years - EPA, “Cross-State Air Pollution Rule,” accessed 6/26/12 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 111, Rearview mirrors, $10,800,000,000 over 4 years -  Federal Register, “Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Rearview Mirrors; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard, Low-Speed Vehicles Phase-In Reporting Requirements,” accessed 6/26/12 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for Particulate Matter, $1,560,000,000 over 4 years -  http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile_Bookmarked.pdf Florida Numeric Nutrient Standards (Phase 2), $100,000,000 over 4 years - Congressional Research Service, 4/25/12, “EPA Regulations: Too Much, Too Little, or On Track,” by James McCarthy Clean Water Act Jurisdictional Guidance and Rulemaking, $684,000,000 over 4 years - EPA, “Potential Economic Impacts and Benefits Associated with Guidance Clarifying the Scope of the Clean Water Act,” accessed 6/26/12 Non-Hazardous Solid Waste Rule (Reconsideration), $706,000,000 capital cost, $1,120,000,000 over 4 years - Office of Management and Budget, Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units; Reconsideration and Proposed Amendments , accessed 6/26/12 Tier 3 Pollution Motor Vehicle Emission and Fuel Standards, $17,000,000,000 capital cost, $52,000,000,000 over 4 years - API, July 2011, “Potential Supply and Cost Impacts of Lower Sulfur, Lower RVP of Gasoline,” pg 56 Uniform Standard for Stationary Sources (Flare Rule), $460,000,000 capital

Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) has been playing a bad messaging strategy, one that raises tactics above principle, conflating the fortunes of the Speaker with that of his party and his party with the broader conservative movement.  The Speaker asked House conservatives to vote for an unpassable bill they didn't want in order to show President Obama's intransigence. Whether it had passed or not, that message would not have been received, but another would have: conservatives would have voted for a tax increase after having campaigned against doing so. Had it gotten to President Obama's desk, he would have vetoed it, but the blame would still have been put on Republicans. Plan B was never going to pass the Senate or be signed into law. The disappointment expressed by some Republicans and feigned by the liberal press is misplaced.  After watching Speaker Boehner manipulate his way into the creation of the fiscal cliff, back primary challengers to conservatives, and then toss conservatives off key committees, the lack of trust was too great in the Speaker. He reached a tipping point past which his promises meant nothing and threats served only to steel his opposition. Everyone's taxes were always going to go up. The fiscal cliff negotiations are about who gets the blame. Boehner wanted to pass something the Democrats would block, so he could avoid blame for going over the cliff he himself had created. President Obama demonstrated repeatedly that he was not interested in bargaining, but would like to go over the cliff, allowing tax rates to rise on everyone, so that he could then lower rates for everyone but the rich.  No longer would we refer to the "Bush Tax Cuts," but "The Obama Tax Cuts."  As Erick Erickson put it, The fact is the GOP is going to get blamed no matter what. The fact is, if the GOP signaled to the American public it was willing to raise taxes on anyone, Barack Obama would have still rejected their deal and the GOP would still get blamed. Democrats were not going to pass that bill. They were rallying against it, using absurd analysis from the left-leaning Tax Policy Institute to claim it was a tax hike on the middle class and tax cut for the wealthy. As Daniel Horowitz said over at Redstate, the Plan B episode was a chance for House conservatives to show they learned from the Cut, Cap and Balance fight of 2011: Despite the fact that we all warned that Boehner would never stand by the plan and that they’d be breaking their CCB/debt ceiling pledge for nothing, they passed his bill.  Yes, unlike this time, there weren’t enough intransigent, knucklehead, knuckle-dragging, Tea Party rubes who were willing to block it.  Even though not a single Democrat supported it, the bill passed 218-210.  They all rallied behind Boehner to “strengthen his hand” in the hopes of getting a good deal.  Well, less than 24 hours later, he announced the grand bargain, which gave Obama a $2.1 trillion blank check with no balanced budget amendment and a defense sequester trap that they are dealing with to this day.  Boehner said at the time that he got 98% of what he wanted from the deal. Conservatives were told in March, 2011 for the Continuing Resolution (pdf) and then again in July, 2011 for the debt ceiling (pdf) that we must not go to the mat over these crises, that brinksmanship was a losing proposition. We were told to "keep our powder dry" for the 2012 elections, after which we would gain seats in the House and Senate and win back the White House. A Republican President would sign Obamacare repeal and bring spending back to normal levels. Speaker Boehner would not risk giving President Obama an election-year talking point, even though Boehner was put into that office largely to get rid of Obamacare and cut spending. He continued to bring up for vote fruitless and vain repeal bills, knowing that none would

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 against Speaker Boehner’s “Plan B” tax plan.  This bill, being offered as replacement language for H.J.Res. 66, would prevent automatic tax rate increases for most individuals, but would allow taxes to automatically increase for some higher-income Americans. Congress ought to avert the automatic tax increases for all Americans. While the bill would be vastly better than the deal which Speaker Boehner has reportedly been discussing with President Obama, the cause of fiscal conservatism could be set back by the House passing this legislation in the current environment. This is not the time to be negotiating about how much automatic tax hikes should be.  Raising taxes is not the way to get America out of our fiscal mess. Washington has an over-spending problem, not an under-taxing problem. Instead, we should be focusing upon fixing our labyrinthine tax code and reforming our out-of-control spending and our unsustainable entitlements.  Only by making these real, substantial reforms will we be able to get our fiscal house in order and avoid another damaging debt downgrade. While Speaker Boehner’s “Plan B” does not, strictly speaking, contain any tax hikes, its passage will be widely interpreted by the Washington establishment and the left-wing media as a capitulation to the President’s demand for higher taxes.  That will only embolden the supporters of ever-bigger government. Republicans, especially, should take a strong stand against President Obama’s cynical politics of dividing Americans against one another.   There is a better way to avoid the fiscal cliff.  FreedomWorks has been urging Congress to keep its promise of $1.2 trillion in ten-year sequester savings, extend all current tax rates for one year, and reform taxes and entitlements. I urge you to call your Representative and ask him or her to vote NO on Speaker Boehner’s “Plan B” tax plan. We will count any vote on this proposal 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 Key_Vote_Plan_B.pdf193.49 KB

In the face of $9 billion in unpaid bills, the Illinois legislature has found time in 2012 for an amazing amount of peripheral legislation to take effect in 2013. For instance, after Jan. 1, 2013, it will be illegal in Illinois to possess, sell, trade, or distribute a shark fin.  According to the Jacksonville, Illinois Journal-Courier, it's to keep people from killing sharks to make soup: About 73 million sharks are killed each year, a large portion of them simply so their fins can be used to make shark fin soup, a Chinese dish often in demand at the most luxurious of events. If the estimate given for the number of sharks killed seems high, it's because it's a wild overestimate. According to UN statistics, the world shark catch comes to about 750,000 metric tons per year.  The 73 million number appears to come from a 2006 study (pdf) of the number of shark fins sold in Hong Kong fish markets, which was then generalized to the world total shark catch. The study also assumed, it appears, that sharks killed for their fins are never used for their skin, cartilage, or as food. In fact, while the number of sharks in the world is not even known, the number killed or caught is probably closer to 30 million. The most widely cited study (pdf) on the topic states further that  ...controls on finning are a blunt instrument that have no capacity to provide differential protection to those shark species most at risk from overfishing. If direct controls on finning don't have much impact, then outlawing their sale in Illinois is an especially vain effort.  As if the shark fin law isn't absurd enough, there are 150 more such laws that take effect in Illinois January 1, 2013. For instance: HB 4531 changed the name of the Illinois Disabled Person Identification Card to the Illinois Person with a Disability Identification Card. The same bill quietly removed the religious objector's exemption for having a photo ID.HB 3950 Allows condominium associations to include high-speed Internet as a type of easement, instead of just TV cable. That is, the condominium version of homeowner associations in Illinois can now vote to allow other cable to be buried as a feature of the condominium development. The level of micromanagement never ceases to amaze. Starting January 1, stalkers may receive a shortened form for notification of an alleged violation. If the stalker is in prison, the sheriff has 48 hours to deliver the notification.  Can I repeat that? Illinois regulates how quickly its stalkers who are in prison are notified about orders of protection against them.In Illinois, purchasers of 5 or more plastic shipping pallets will have to gather, from the seller, the name, address, and telephone number of the seller, a description and count of the containers, and the date of the transaction. The buyer must verify the identity of the individual selling the containers from a driver's license or other government-issued identification card that includes the individual's photograph, and record the verification. The buyer must keep these records for a year after the date of purchase.  The purpose? To deter theft of plastic shipping pallets. When Illinois state government overreaches and micromanages the affairs of the people, the will of those people to succeed falls away. That's a big danger of government growth and excess spending: with too much spending comes a need to justify the jobs of policy makers, even with unnecessary and counterproductive legislation.

Update December 20th, 11:30 p.m. ET: Speaker Boehner's "Plan B" tax bill died today, just hours after FreedomWorks sent Congress a letter and launched a national call to action opposing the bill.When folks in Washington thought FreedomWorks was for the bill, they assumed it would pass. When FreedomWorks came out against the bill, it failed. Below is the blog post that Speaker Boehner reportedly cited when trying to persuade his fellow House Republicans to support the plan. It seems that he and others in Congress assumed FreedomWorks supported the bill. A close reading, however, reveals that while I warmly praised Mr. Boehner's decision to walk away from the negotiations with President Obama, and described the Boehner Plan B bill in factual terms, I never endorsed the bill, nor did FreedomWorks. + + + Good news! Yesterday, House Speaker John Boehner announced he has pulled out of the bipartisan fiscal-cliff talks with President Obama and is moving toward the approach that FreedomWorks has been urging. The FreedomWorks Plan:Lock in the promised $1.2 trillion in ten-year sequester savings.Extend all current tax rates for one year (including the FICA payroll tax rate).Reform taxes and entitlements to avert another debt downgrade.  Mr. Boehner's "Plan B" is to move a bill through the House that extends permanently (not just for a year) all current income-tax rates for everyone except those earning more than $1,000,000 a year. The bill includes some other tax provisions, listed below. Amendments are also likely to be made in order. [Note: It turned out no amendments were permitted, making it impossible for conservatives to improve the bill.] The votes could come as early as tomorrow [December 20]. While not nearly as good as the FreedomWorks Plan to avert the fiscal cliff, Plan B is much better than the so-called "balanced approach" that Mr. Boehner had, until Monday, been trying to negotiate with Mr. Obama. That deal would have: raised income tax rates for those in the two highest tax brackets; called off the promised sequester savings; cut Medicare benefits without real reform; and launched another round of wasteful and unnecessary stimulus spending. We need long-term spending reduction, but the Boehner-Obama plan as described in news reports would simply be another typical Washington "higher taxes today / lower spending someday, we promise" deal that wouldn't actually solve our long-term debt problem.  Indeed, by cutting Medicare benefits without real reform, it would give the Left a convenient and powerful talking point in their efforts to stop real reform. Thank goodness that deal is off the table. Let's keep it off, by moving to Plan B -- and then amending Plan B into the FreedomWorks Plan. Plan B calls the Democrats' bluff. They've been loudly pressuring the Republican-controlled House to pass a bill to extend all current tax rates on households earning less than $250,000 a year. Yet now, with the Speaker publicly embracing their idea (although he would set the threshold at $1,000,000 a year instead of $250,000), the White House has issued a veto threat and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has blasted the bill as totally unaceptable. Apparently, the Democrats are willing to hold a middle-class tax cut hostage to their insistence on raising tax rates on people earning between $250,000 and $1,000,000 a year.  The Plan B bill would prevent tax hikes for most income-tax payers in this weak economy. Let the Democrats explain their opposition to that. Given the Democrats' opposition, Plan B is unlikely to be signed into law. But in my opinion the House should consider it anyway (and, as I said, allow amendments, so we can turn it into the FreedomWorks plan). Details of the Bill According to an email we've received from the House Ways and Means Committee, the Plan B bill:Does not raise taxes. It is a net tax cut that prevents a $4.6 trillion [ten-year] tax hik

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Members of Congress and urge them to vote against the Hurricane Sandy disaster relief amendment that is being debated as a substitute for H.R. 1. Emergency disaster relief funding ought to be tied to relieving immediate structural and humanitarian distress. Yet, the greater portion of the current proposal’s money is either going towards future projects that are certainly not “emergency” in nature, or even towards projects not related to the hurricane damage at all.  A sampling:$58.8 million for forest restoration on private land.$197 million “to… protect coastal ecosystems and habitat impacted by Hurricane Sandy.”$150 million for “fishery disasters”, including fisheries in Alaska and the Gulf region.$10.78 billion for public transportation, most of which is allocated to future construction and improvements, not disaster relief.$17 billion for wasteful Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), a program that has become notorious for its use as a backdoor earmark program. This is only a fraction of the dubious spending proposed in the bill, which reads more like another federal stimulus program than a disaster relief bill. Perhaps worse, out of the $60.4 billion in requested funding, about $55 billion is emergency spending above the spending levels authorized by the Budget Control Act.  Even if every penny of this huge sum were warranted, we should still find a way to pay for the disaster relief out of our existing $3 trillion-plus budget rather than adding further billions to our enormous deficit. I urge you to call your Members of Congress and ask them to vote NO on the amendment to H.R. 1 or any disaster relief measure that funds pork programs and increases the deficit. We may count any such vote 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 Key_Vote_Sandy_Relief.pdf332.45 KB

States should not implement health insurance exchanges as defined by Obamacare. There is no fiscal advantage to doing so. An exchange will not improve life for a state's citizens, and there is great risk of political liability for officials responsible for an exchange.  The House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on Health held a hearing today at 10:00am to try to pry from DHHS bureaucrats answers to some of the huge number of unanswered questions about implementation issues facing the states. See below for a list of the questions. You can find out where your state stands and help block the further expansion of government into health care. Douglas Holtz-Eakin writes at NRO  that since Obamacare was passed and upheld in the courts, President Obama's reelection represents the third strike against repeal efforts, and therefore against efforts to combat the implementation of state exchanges. That presumes, however, that state-based exchanges are a worthwhile endeavor. Mario Loyola, also at NRO, counters: Holtz-Eakin’s basic position is that states will be able to control many aspects of the exchanges and that’s better than letting the federal government set them up and control them ... which they will not be willing to do. Loyola quotes Holtz-Eakin: States can, and should, control their destinies by deciding how their exchanges will function, which private insurance companies can participate, and what kind of insurance coverage will be offered. Deciding which private insurance companies can participate in the marketplace should not be a function conservatives want government to pursue. States will not be able to shape their exchange marketplaces in any meaningful way beyond choosing the individual companies involved, based on little more than how effective the companies are at lobbying. It is a recipe for cronyism, kickbacks, and corporatism.  "One of the most important limits on federal power," continues Loyola, "is that the feds normally have to implement and be accountable for their own policies. It is precisely that limit that the federal government escapes when it deputizes state governments into doing its bidding." Holtz-Eakin says that the federal exchanges (which are really to be one exchange tailored by ZIP code) are a trojan horse for single-payer.  Implementation opponents respond with a modified Cloward-Piven strategy: if the feds want to build an exchange to serve the states, let them try. Since they can't the way Obamacare is designed, the whole law will have to be reopened and then can be shelved for real, presumably bipartisan, reform. The Cato Institute's Michael Cannon lists the reasons not to implement. Summarized, they are:States are under no obligation to create one, and can always create an exchange later if they choose. 14 states have laws or constitutional provisions against doing so.A state-created exchange is not a state-controlled exchange. All exchanges will be controlled by Washington. Creating an exchange sets state officials up to take the blame when Obamacare increases insurance premiums and denies care to the sick. State officials won’t want their names on this disastrous mess.The arbitrary December 14 deadline is no different that the arbitrary November 16 deadline, or the “deadlines” for implementing REAL ID, which have been pushed back repeatedly since 2008.Each exchange would cost its state an estimated $10 million to $100 million per year, necessitating tax increases.  The grants to create the exchanges only last the first couple of years, after which states are on their own. Nina Owcharenko and Edmund F. Haislmaier of Heritage note that just running the exchanges will add about 3.5% overhead to the cost of insurance.Congress must authorize funds for federal “fallback” exchanges before they can operate, giving the House leverage.Creating an exchange would be assisting in the creation of a “public opt