FreedomWorks

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was passed by Congress on February 13, 2009 and signed into law by President Obama just days later. The Act had three main objectives: to create jobs, spark economic activity for long-term investment and growth, and establish greater accountability and transparency in government spending. Yet three and half years and $787 billion dollars later Americans are still waiting for those goals to become reality. It doesn’t take long to find ways the Recovery Act has failed at achieving its goals, but finding reliable information is a much more difficult task—wait, wasn’t transparency and accountability a goal of the Act?  The Department of Energy (DOE) was awarded over $35 billion from the Recovery Act and has so far paid out over $26 billion to renewable energy companies in the forms of grants, loans, subsidies, entitlements, and contracts. There are various programs that renewable energy companies can access in order to receive money. The largest and most widely known is the 1705 Loan program from the DOE, which gave loan guarantees to 26 companies for wind, solar, or geothermal generation; these individual loan guarantees range from $43 million to $1.6 billion. There are also the 1703 and ATVM loan programs—DOE’s 1603 grant program—as well the Treasury Department’s programs.  The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform conducted a report of the DOE’s handling of their loan guarantee program and discovered disastrous outcomes. The Department of Energy was warned by advisors of the risk associated with making such large loans to one sector of the energy field, but they continued with the programs anyway. As a result there is little diversification in the DOE’s loan holdings, which leads to a high risk and default potential. Making the situation worse, simple economics of money and banking was ignored as well, when the government sought no profit or interest repayment on the loans, even if the company was high risk. Put simply, the companies had “little skin in the game.” Ultimately, when the time came that they would default on the loans, taxpayers were the ones on the hook for the bill.  The risk to taxpayers increased when DOE decided to ignore lending standards and eligibility requirements. Regulatory requirements set by the Energy Policy Act outline that loans must only be given for “new or significantly improved technologies,” for “one technology per project sponsor”. In at least two cases found in the report DOE officials either mischaracterized equivalent projects as different or labeled “proven technologies” as “innovative” (pages 28-29 of Oversight Report). These were all ways for them to favor the renewable energy companies who were unable to compete with the falling natural gas prices without government assistance. Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Allison Herbert under the Obama administration led a review of Solyndra that found other structural problems in the DOE loan programs (page 26 of Oversight Report).  Here’s a quick look at how some of the many now failing and or bankrupt DOE favored renewable energy companies wasted their taxpayer loans and grants.  Beacon Power: (1705 Loan) They paid three of their executives more than a quarter million in bonuses in 2010, even though they were in financial trouble. They had no collateral or net worth in the game, and in 2011 they went bankrupt—leaving taxpayers on the hook for their default.  BrightSource: Received 1.6 billion in loan guarantees for a solar generation project, but spent over $56 million of that money to relocate tortoises.  Solopower: Accepted $40 million in Oregon taxpayer money in addition to DOE loans for $197 million, even though Standard and Poor’s gave them a bad rating. Abengoe: A Spanish based firm received $2.45 billion in loans and $818 million in Treasury grants.  The U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee has begun w

With the increasing federal deficit, it’s time to start examining where taxpayer money is going and how it is being spent. Republicans have now taken a stance against the Department of Energy’s loan programs for renewable energy companies, with the ‘No More Solyndras’ Act. The DOE program began at the end of the Bush administration, but under the Obama stimulus has obtained $47 billion more in loan granting authority.  The DOE loan guarantee problem lies in the fact that there has been little to no oversight and monitoring of the loans and how the money was being spent. Even worse is that there is no definitive reasoning as to why certain companies were chosen for the loans in the first place.  The ‘No More Solyndra Act’, introduced  in the U.S House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee by committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) would disband the loan program, stop the Energy Department from issuing any loan guarantees for applications received after 2011, and set new guidelines and standards for the granting of existing applications and loans already awarded. Under the ‘No More Solyndras Act’, all loan guarantees under DOE consideration must be reviewed by the Treasury Department before awarded. This draft bill also states if the Department of Energy chooses to make a guarantee-going against the Treasury’s decision, they must submit a report to Congress detailing their decision. ‘No More Solyndras’ mandates that the DOE consult with the Treasury Department if any loan guarantees require restructuring. The draft bill also calls for the prevention of “subordination” of the taxpayers to private investors. This last point is in reference to the fact that in past cases the Department of Energy brought in hedge funds, allowing them to have access to taxpayer funds. When these companies go bankrupt, private investors are also the first to step up and collect their money ahead of the government, before taxpayer money is repaid. This Act also calls for an economic analysis to be run on each individual company to ensure the project is viable. Investigations by various organizations and agencies have found that many loan guarantees were pushed through even after the DOE was suggested to pull the companies funding.  It is not that renewable energy doesn’t deserve a chance to compete with natural gas and receive investing to further research for the industry, but it does need to compete fairly. Right now we are throwing billions of dollars in loans, grants, and subsidies at an industry in order to force the reliable and affordable natural gas firms out of business. Even with DOE throwing billions of taxpayer funds into alternative energy companies their profitability and competitiveness is falling. Until the technology is there to affectively, efficiently, and affordably produce renewable energy we need to stop wasting the taxes paid by hard working Americans that results in jobless bankrupt companies. 

Looking for information on Paul Ryan's budget plans and the "Ryan Roadmap?" Look no further.  We've compiled this list of links to help activists, bloggers, and journalists learn more about Paul Ryan, the young conservative and legislative entrepreneur whom Mitt Romney has chosen as his running mate. The four iterations of the Roadmap are presented in reverse chronological order, from most to least recent. ROADMAP 4.0 (2012) (112th Congress) (FY 2013 House Budget Resolution) (2012) The fourth iteration of the roadmap looked much like the third, but modified the Medicare reform section to preserve original, 1960s Medicare alongside the new, competitive ("premium support") model. This approach is sometimes called "Wyden-Ryan," for its two co-authors Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin). Opinion: Why Democrats' 'Medi-scare' tactics won't work against Ryan plan (Avik Roy) - 2012-08-11 Report Card: Rand Paul "Tea Party Budget" = Best in Class (FreedomWorks graphic) - 2012-05-15 H.Con.Res.112 (Ryan budget for FY 2013) (legislative text, as reported)  - 2012-03 House Budget Commitee report on Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for FY 2013 H.Con.Res. 112 (Ryan Budget for FY 2013) (CBO Analysis)  - 2012-03 Path to Prosperity: A Blueprint for American Renewal (PDF document)  - 2012-03-20  House Budget Committee: Budget Resolution for FY 2013 (resources page) - 2012-03-20 ROADMAP 3.0 (2011) (112th Congress) (FY 2012 House Budget Resolution) (2011) The third iteration of the Roadmap resembled the second, but added a provision to fully repeal ObamaCare (enacted in March 2010) and dropped several big items: Taxpayer Choice, the VAT-like corporate income tax, universal health insurance tax credits, and Social Security personal accounts. Roadmap 3.0 also largely exempted defense spending from discretionary spending reductions. The bulk of its first-ten-year savings, therefore, came from Medicare (which then represented 13 percent of the federal budget), Medicaid (8 percent), and domestic discretionary spending (19 percent). Like the ObamaCare law, this iteration of the Roadmap proposed to reduce Medicare spending by $500 billion over ten years, although through managed competition rather than meat-ax payment cuts and bureaucratic rationing. The Medicare reform portion was largely unchanged from Roadmap 2.0, but once all House Republicans voted for it, it immediately became the object of intense attack by Democrats, who (misleadingly) accused Republicans of "ending Medicare as we know it" and (falsely) of "ending the Medicare guarantee." The individual income tax portion was altered to describe an individual and corporate income tax system that would be simpler and flatter than the existing code, with a top rate in both systems of no more than 25 percent. To avoid losing revenue, the plan assumed the elimination of numerous tax credits, deductions, and exemptions, but did not specify which ones. Mathematically speaking, to achieve a 25 percent top rate, virtually all existing credits, deductions, and exemptions would have to go. Note: Ryan's staff dubbed this iteration "Roadmap 2.0," but we think it should be called "Roadmap 3.0," because it is the third distinct version in the series. Report Card: Grading the Budget Plans (FreedomWorks graphic) - 2011-05-26 Opinion: The Medicare Test for President (Armey-Kibbe op-ed defending Ryan plan) - 2011-05-11 FY 2012 House Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res.34) - Final Legislative Text  - GPO - 2011-04-15 H.Con.Res.34 (112th Congress)Budget Resolution (Ryan budget for FY 2012)  - Govtrack - 2011-04-15 House Report on the FY2012 Budget Resolution (Ryan budget for FY 2012) (Report 112-58)  - 2011-04-11  The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise (PDF document) - 2011-03 The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America's Promise (resources page) - 2011-03 "Ryan Roadmap Plan 2.0" (Ryan budget for FY 2012) (legislative

Early this morning Mitt Romney announced that he has chosen House Budgetary Committee Chairman Paul Ryan as his running mate.   As many in the Tea Party movement have noted previously, Romney needed to choose someone who could articulate the battles that lie ahead for our nation as well as rally the base toward a Romney victory in 2012.   While Ryan has his flaws, as FreedomWorks CEO Matt Kibbe noted, this is a clear sign that the Romney campaign is reaching out to conservatives and the engaged Tea Party grassroots community. In December 2010, FreedomWorks and the Atlas Forum hosted a Sound Money forum where Congressman Ryan spoke on our fiscal policy and how it is on a collision course with our monetary policy."There is nothing more insidious that a government can do to its countrymen than to debase its currency, yet this is in fact what is occuring."   We believe that going forward we will have an ally in Paul Ryan.  He's known as a reformer; someone unafraid to take on the challenges of our unsustainable entitlement growth and our ever expanding federal deficit and national debt.   In the past he has supported a flat tax and understands the need for fundamental tax reform as a pathway to a prosperous nation.  Romney made a great choice in Paul Ryan.  It shows that you, the Tea Party and limited government conservative have made your voices heard.  Now, we must unite around this ticket and continue our efforts to shore up the House, take the Senate and the White House.  Never have we needed the grassroots more. As Matt Kibbe stated earlier today: If you and I don't show up to defend Paul Ryan, expect our best ideas to lose in the political marketplace. There is simply too much at stake to allow that to happen.  Will you join us? 

In this third and final episode with Rep. Marsha Blackburn, she talks more about her policy priorities.  Since being elected to Congress, Blackburn has been a leader for cutting federal spending, offering many amendments to cut whole departments and agencies across the board by several percent each year.  She also talks about how she led the fight against a state income tax while in the Tennessee legislature, and about her current leadership in the fight against federal regulation of the internet. Tea Time Interviewee:  Marsha Blackburn

This may not be news to our regular readers and activists at FreedomWorks, since we all predicted such outcomes if Obamacare were to be implemented. In other words, we didn't need to pass the bill to see what was in it - we knew the whole thing stunk. But as time marches on, we've seen more and more studies indicating that healthcare costs have spiked and access is tightening across the country, and it's directly caused by the passage of Obamacare - even before all aspects have been fully implemented. This week has seen several such reports. In fact, this has been a week chock full of remarkably bad news for this remarkably bad law. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), for instance, came out on Monday with the results from a national survey of business owners, and it ain't pretty: The National Business Group on Health this morning released their annual survey of employer health insurance policies.  The survey found that health insurance costs are expected to rise another 7% next year.  In addition, a majority (60%) of firms “plan to increase the percentage of the premium paid by employees in 2013,” while sizable numbers of firms plan to increase in-network deductibles (40%), out-of-network deductibles (33%), and/or out-of-pocket maximums (32%). Candidate Obama repeatedly promised premiums would go down by $2,500 -- and would go down that amount by this year.  Yet while candidate Obama promised that premiums would go DOWN by $2,500, they actually have gone UP by nearly as much -- from $12,680 in 2008 to $15,073 in 2011. What’s more, even though candidate Obama promised that “you will not have to change plans,” today’s survey found that the number of firms able to keep their pre-Obamacare coverage has decreased yet again.  Fully 57% of firms said they had no health plans with “grandfathered” (i.e., pre-Obamacare) status, and only about one-quarter (27%) were able to keep any portion of their coverage from before Obamacare’s passage – just two short years ago. This goes to reaffirm what was reported at Ricochet in April 2012:Even the estimates from the Congressional Budget Office before the passage of the law indicated premiums would increase by a significant amount because of its requirements: Average premiums per policy in the nongroup market in 2016 would be roughly $5,800 for single policies and $15,200 for family policies under the proposal, compared with roughly $5,500 for single policies and $13,100 for family policies under current law. The weighted average of the differences in those amounts equals the change of 10 percent to 13 percent in the average premium per person. And this is consistent with the continued projections we’re seeing from across the country. These have since been supplemented by reports at the state level about expectations of premium increases relative to what would have happened if Obamacare didn’t exist, such as in Indiana , where “The estimated ACA-driven premium rate change for the Indiana individual insured market beginning in 2014 is 75% to 95%.” And also Ohio , where premium rates in the individual market are expected to rise between 55% and 85% thanks to the law. We also have the estimates of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, who sees increases in premiums (as opposed to the decreases he anticipated just a few years ago). In Wisconsin , he anticipates a premium increases of 30 percent by 2016 in the individual markes; in Minnesota , he claims the individual market will see increases in premiums by 29 percent. And in Colorado , he expects premiums will rise by 19 percent relative to what they would’ve been without Obamacare. And this isn’t just about mandates on insurers – it’s also about the acceleration of health care spending. When you subsidize something, you’re going to get more of it. According to Health Affairs’ comprehensive look at national health spending projections through 2020 , we’re due to see a 10.7 percent

In this second of three episodes, Congressman Blackburn talks about her bills to reform the federal government's overreach in health care and in airport security. Tea Time Interviewee:  Marsha Blackburn

Many proponents of wind energy, including our current president, point to Europe as an example of how successful the wind industry can be if only given a chance in America. But how well is the wind industry really doing in Europe?  Germany leads Europe as the number one wind energy country with 27,214 MW of installed capacity. Wind energy in Germany generated 37.3 TWh of electricity in 2010, which accounted for 6.2% of the country’s power consumption. These numbers would indicate success for the wind industry in Germany, but at what cost? The main subsidy for wind in Germany is known as the German feed-in tariff. It has provided the win industry with protective tariffs and priority grid access in order to stimulate and maintain its prominence in Germany. According to the Institute for Energy Research, German government support for the wind industry between 2000 and 2010 cost a heavy $28.1 billion.   In 2010, Great Britain was home to more than 270 wind farms with 2,775 turbines in operation and plans for the construction of 10,000 more. But according to Ofgem, the energy regulator in Great Britain, annual subsidies for green energy have rising from £278 million in 2002-3 to £1.04 billion, or over $1.56 billion. The main subsidy given to green energy, with wind receiving the greatest benefits, is known as the Renewables Obligation (RO). RO requires a fixed percentage of power be produced using renewable energy. Many U.S. states have similar requirements known as renewable portfolio standards.  Dr. John Constable, director of policy and research at the Renewable Energy Foundation (REF), a green energy think tank, has admitted to The Telegraph that “The Government's plans for wind are wildly unrealistic. Wind power is going to be very expensive, very difficult and ultimately very costly.” Prof Ian Fells, emeritus professor of energy conversion at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, agrees: “Subsidizing wind farms is far too expensive, and the money could be better spent by investing in other forms of power.” Spain is experiencing similar backlash as a result of wind subsidies. In 2008, wind energy provided 10.2 percent of the country’s electric consumption, but demand for electricity has significantly fallen since the global financial crisis. Spain’s electricity system deficit is now over €24 Billion, or almost $30 billion because of the government subsidies.  RenewableEnergyWorld.com has this to say about the Spanish subsidies:  For over a decade, the Spanish government has prevented utilities from charging consumers the true costs of electricity. In other words, the final price paid by both large and small electricity buyers has been kept artificially low, in an arguably misguided attempt to contain inflation, protect consumers, and maintain the competitiveness of Spanish industry. This put the entire Spanish electricity system on a collision course with economic reality, and made a growing tariff deficit all-but-inevitable. http://knowledge.allianz.com/energy/?747/renewable-energy-top-ten-countries-wind-power The cost of wind subsidies are hurting not only taxpayers, but businesses and consumers as well. In many European countries such as Spain and England, energy suppliers must purchase a certain amount of electricity produced by green energy per megawatt hour which happens to be more expensive than traditional fossil-fuel based energy. This requirement is similar to the one discussed above known as renewable portfolio standards in the United States. Energy suppliers pass this added cost onto businesses, driving up prices for consumers and making it more difficult for companies to stay in business. This entire cycle has the effect of slowly suffocating the local economy.      The government funded wind energy programs throughout Europe are even more costly when job loss due to the expansion of the wind industry is added on. A study completed in Spain by the Universidad Rey Juan

In this first of three episodes, Rep. Blackburn talks about why she refers to herself as Congressman (it's grammatically correct), and talks about her family and her background in music. Tea Time Interviewee:  Marsha Blackburn

At FreePAC Section:  FreePAC

“Are you dead?” Section:  FreePAC

The Supreme Court's June 28th decision on ObamaCare came as a shock to many. But to others, it was a confusing document full of complexities that the mainstream media simply couldn't explain.  There's so much more to the decision than most people know about, but the document itself is long and complicated. That's why we created an easy to read summary for our activists. We call it the Roberts Decision for Non-Lawyers. Download a copy at the bottom of this post. In order to fight for the full repeal of ObamaCare, we have to be armed with knowledge. Understanding what the Supreme Court thinks about this "bad policy" is important for fighting against it. File Attachments Roberts_Decision_for_Non-Lawyers.pdf538.8 KB

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our million-plus members nationwide, I urge you to contact your senators and urge them to vote NO on S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. Introduced by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Susan Collin (R-ME), the supposed intention of the bill is to prevent cyber attacks. While reducing the threat of cyber terrorism is a worthy goal, the bill in its current state is deeply flawed and would stifle innovation on the Internet. The broad language in the bill leaves the door wide open for abuse. It would set up a new government bureaucracy called the National Cybersecurity Council to govern cybersecurity for “critical infrastructure” and it could encourage companies to share more of our private information with the federal government. This is problematic because it would allow the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to define what falls under the category of critical infrastructure. Since it is not known which industries fall under the DHS’s definition, it would essentially create a completely open-ended regulatory apparatus for internet security. Rather than improving internet security, the multi-year process of creating government standards would halt private innovation in cybersecurity because no one wants to invest in something that may or may not meet government standards that have yet to be defined. Since the Congressional Budget Office has not vetted this bill, no one is quite sure how much it will cost to implement these burdensome regulations. Businesses could be dramatically impacted by the new costs imposed by the bill. Especially when the economy is so fragile, now is not the time to create more uncertainty in the private sector that could result in job losses. I urge you to call your senators and ask them to vote NO on S. 3414, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012. We will count their 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 Freedom Fighter Award, which recognizes members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this key vote notice.] File Attachments CybersecurityAct.pdf54.42 KB

The speeches at FreePAC in Dallas July 26 will have a lasting impact on the movement for limited government. Each was inspirational and important, but one stands out among the others for the insight that political victories are a result of cultural change.  The only way to limit government is with a limiting culture. You can watch the rest of the amazing FreePAC speeches from the links below:Richard Mourdock made me proud to have done a small part to help him win the Indiana US Senate nominationSen Mike Lee reminded me that the Constitution is worth fighting forSen Rand Paul built the case against ObamacareDean Clancy gave the action plan for Obamacare repealSen Jim DeMint told us of the battle to elect conservatives to the SenateTed Cruz showed why he is a once-in-a-generation conservative voiceRev. C. L. Bryant inspired and brought the crowd to its feetStephen Kruiser said the war will not be won with one electionDeneen Borelli awed the crowd and stole the show with her no-nonsense dismissal of liberalismDana Loesch indicted the legacy media, Glenn Beck called this the beginning of a worldwide movement for freedom The most important speech at FreePac, however, was Matt Kibbe telling the assembled leaders for freedom "Politics is not enough," as Kibbe said."We must take over every aspect of our culture if we're going to take our country back." Restoring freedom and limiting government can not be accomplished just with political engagement or even by focusing on good policy. We must engage and retake our culture and its institutions.  The only way to limit government is to restore a culture that insists it be limited. Further, that culture must provide a way to meet the needs of society currently met by big government.  Churches must insist themselves from their own resources and with their own efforts on providing for the needs of their members, knowing that when government meets those needs, it pushes the wider Church itself to the sidelines, like a sad former star quarterback who insists he can still play.  We must, in the words of Chris Loesch to me at FreePAC, "Back talented acts, actors and directors, not just conservatives who happen to have acts. Otherwise we're the same as the left."  Kibbe said, "We have to take over Hollywood. We have to take over the media. We have to take over the culture."  Diverse conservative voices such as Rick Santorum, Andrew Breitbart, Sarah Palin and Matt Kibbe all now are on record saying that the real battleground for conservatives and libertarians is the culture. Each of them said it in a different way and for different reasons, but the nub of it is that our politics reflects the attitude of the people, not the other way around. We chastise politicians for not standing up for our ideals, yet they are mere reflections of their job descriptions. They are supposed to represent their constitutents, and they cannot be expected to fight the larger culture when doing so. We need to change our culture if we have a hope of changing our politics.  That starts when you don't accept a media narrative in a casual conversation. It continues when you interact online. Highlight the stories you want to read more about. Insist that the people around you -- both online and in daily life -- accept the validity of your viewpoint, and eventually your viewpoint will become accepted.

One of the privileges afforded the writers on Bloggers Row at FreePAC on July 26 was the opportunity to attend a "press gaggle" after the event. We had the opportunity to head down to the arena's catacombs for press availability with Sen. Jim DeMint, Sen. Mike Lee, Sen. Rand Paul, Senate Candidate Ted Cruz from Texas and Senate Candidate Richard Mourdock from Indiana. Here is the video of that event. (Technical note - please excuse the audio difficulties. There was a ton of background noise and this was taken on my cell phone.) Highlights include:A unanimous prediction of victory for Ted Cruz in the primary and general electionA hat tip from Richard Mourdock to new media and grassroots activism, and the similarities between his primary and that of Ted CruzJim DeMint's strong assertion that Obamacare will be repealed if conservatives take the Senate and White HouseMike Lee responding to Texas Gov. Rick Perry's criticism of outside groups in the Texas Primary ... and Jim DeMint's statement that "every senate race is a national race".Rand Paul addressing whether he will be Mitt Romney's VP pick.... and, Jim DeMint saying that the Senate is no place for geniuses. FreePAC blogger press conference July 26 2012 from Jeff Reynolds on Vimeo.