FreedomWorks

Earlier today, the First Department of New York State's Appellate Division upheld a ruling that struck down Mayor Bloomberg's controversial portion cap rule or "soda ban." The ban would've prohibited movie theatres and other restaurants and eating establishments from serving specific sugary beverages in quantities larger than 16 ounces. Of course diet sodas were exempt and patrons would still be able to purchase multiple 16 ounce beverages, but logic, or something...  The unanimous decision by the Appellate Division stated, "the Board of Health failed to act within the bounds of its lawfully delegated authority. Accordingly, we declare the regulation to be invalid, as violative of the principle of separation of powers." Ouch.  Unlike the prior ruling which found the portion cap rule to be, "arbitrary and capricious," the Appellate Division did not dive into this issue. Rather they vetted whether or not the New York City Board of Health amending a rule with wide reaching ramifications crossed into legislative authority. The Appellate Division did take the time to express their concern that the portion cap rule, "necessarily looks beyond health concerns, in that it manipulates choices to try to change consumer norms."  Had the rule change sanctioning the portion cap rule remained in tact, countless small businesses might have suffered. The NAACP New York State Conference and the Hispanic Federation alleged the portion cap rule would, "selectively and unfairly harm small and minority-owned businesses by discriminatorily preventing them from selling large 'sugary beverages' while allowing their large competitors such as 7-11 and grocery stores to carry the banned sugary beverages," in an amicus brief. While the Appellate Division did not make any claims regarding minority owned business, they did recognize that the portion cap rule, "resulted in a ban that includes exceptions which necessarily favors some businesses and products at the expenses of others."  Bloomberg insisted “today’s decision is a temporary setback, and we plan to appeal this decision as we continue the fight against the obesity epidemic.” Meanwhile, Bloomberg is urging Congress to prohibit the use of foodstamps for the purchase of sugary drinks. 

Dear FreedomWorks member,  As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Senators and urge them to vote NO on S. 1243, the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations (T-HUD) Bill. The T-HUD bill increases spending to $54 billion in fiscal year 2014 and contains wasteful pet projects that should be cut. Please tell your Senators to vote against this fiscally irresponsible bill that disregards the spending limits set forth by the Budget Control Act of 2011.  The massive Senate T-HUD bill will increase the national debt and hurt taxpayers. The spending levels in the bill are $2.4 billion more than President Obama’s request and $2.3 billion more than fiscal year 2013 spending levels. There are many inefficient programs in the bill such as the Essential Air Service and Appalachian Regional Commission. These programs that force taxpayers to subsidize low demand airports and special interest pet projects should be eliminated to boost economic prosperity. Other wasteful programs in the bill include the Federal Aviation Administration and Amtrak. These costly programs should be eliminated since the private sector can better handle transportation than government monopolies. Voting yes on the current appropriations bill that contains these wasteful programs would be fiscally reckless.  The T-HUD bill is a plan by big spenders in Washington to get rid of the sequester savings. Sequestration is a good step in the right direction and Congress must keep their promise on the sequester savings they made to the American people. Under sequestration, the funds for Transportation and Housing and Urban Development should be reduced from last year. The current bill breaks that spending promise. The massive appropriations bill that will increase the unsustainable national debt is a step in the wrong direction. I urge you to call your Senators and ask them to vote NO on S.1243, the T-HUD Appropriations Bill. We will count their vote as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. Our 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_2013-07-29_Senate_T-HUD_Approps_-_NO.pdf299.89 KB

FreedomWorks has signed the following coalition letter in support of defunding ObamaCare: Dear Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor, We the undersigned organizations and individuals urge House Republicans to include language fully defunding Obamacare when they consider their upcoming legislation to fund the government for Fiscal Year 2014. On October 1, 2013, open enrollment begins for Obamacare’s massive new entitlements, including the new federally-subsidized exchanges and the Medicaid expansion. October 1st is also the beginning of the new fiscal year, meaning that Congress must pass a bill funding the government by that date to avoid a government shutdown. The excuses for not pulling out all the legislative stops to repeal Obamacare are over. The Supreme Court failed to strike down the entire law when it had the opportunity, and the 2012 election, which focused little on Obamacare, did not yield a new President or a new Senate majority. Despite these setbacks, the ultimate “power of the purse” still resides in the House, and the House will soon act to fund the government. In doing so, the House should include language ensuring that no more taxpayer dollars can be used to implement Obamacare. This funding prohibition should include all Obamacare funding streams, both discretionary and mandatory, and it should eliminate funding for Obamacare’s new entitlements. This will effectively halt implementation and enforcement of the law in its entirety, and will give the President and Senate Democrats a choice: Continue funding the government, or shut down the government on behalf of an unpopular law that they have admitted will not work and cannot be enforced as written. Obamacare interferes with the doctor-patient relationship. It continues to raise health insurance premiums and explode the national debt. And, even as our economy continues to struggle, the law’s new job-killing rules, regulations, and taxes will only continue to ratchet up as time goes on. The Obama Administration is pulling out all the stops – legal and illegal – to create a new constituency for this law and make it a permanent fixture on the American fabric. The best and last chance for House Republicans to stand up and thwart this law before its new entitlements kick in is during the upcoming funding debate, and the House should live up to the moment and pass a bill funding the government but denying any funding for Obamacare. Sincerely, Michael A. Needham CEO, Heritage Action for America Chris Chocola, President, Club for Growth Matt Kibbe, President and CEO, FreedomWorks Tom McClusky, Senior Vice President, Family Research Council Erick Erickson, Editor-in-Chief, Redstate.com The Honorable Edwin Meese III, former Attorney General, President Ronald Reagan The Honorable David McIntosh, former U.S. Representative, Indiana Al Cardenas, Chairman, American Conservative Union Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform Brent Bozell, Chairman, ForAmerica Jenny Beth Martin, Co-Founder, Tea Party Patriots Morton Blackwell, Chairman, The Weyrich Lunch The Honorable T. Kenneth Cribb, Jr., former Domestic Advisor, President Ronald Reagan. Duane Parde, President and COO, National Taxpayers Union The Honorable Jim Ryun, Chairman, Madison Project Heather Higgins, President, Independent Women’s Forum Phil Kerpen, President, American Commitment David N. Bossie, President, Citizens United Phyllis Schlafly, Founder and President, Eagle Forum Jim Martin, Chairman, 60 Plus Association The Honorable Alfred S. Regnery, former Publisher, The American Spectator Penny Nance, President and CEO, Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee Ken Hoagland, Chairman, Restore America’s Voice Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring Nathan Paul Mehrens, President, Americans for Limited Government Amy Kremer, Chairman, Tea Party Express John Tate, President, Campaign For Liberty David Williams, President, Taxpayer Protection Alliance Chris Littleton, Ohio Rising Bob

As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Members of Congress – your congressman and both senators – and ask them to sign the Lee and Meadows letters to affirm that they will not vote for any government spending bill that includes continued funding for ObamaCare. Implementing the President’s signature achievement has become, as the law’s primary author has conceded, a train wreck. Enrollment is set to begin on October 1st, and the mandates and subsidies on January 1st, yet the administration has conceded that it is not certain it will have crucial parts of the complicated new system ready in time. Insurers are leery of entering the exchanges, some exchanges are behind schedule, and it is clear ObamaCare implementation will sharply raise insurance costs for many Americans – especially younger adults. The Obama administration’s response to all of these troubles has been to grant more than 1,200 waivers to politically connected entities. More recently, it has granted the biggest waiver to date: a complete suspension of the employer mandate. Meanwhile, the individual mandate remains, fining anyone who fails to buy government-approved health insurance. This selective enforcement of the law – granting exemptions to big business but not to individuals – adds a final exclamation point to the mound of evidence that ObamaCare is not ready for prime time. As Senator Mike Lee has said, “If the administration will not enforce the law as written, then the American people should not be forced to fund it.” If Congress fails to use its power of the purse to withhold further funding, it will be complicit in ObamaCare’s harms and the rank unfairness of its implementation. I urge you to call your Members of Congress and ask them to sign the Meadows letter (in the House) or the Lee letter (in the Senate) to commit to defunding ObamaCare. We will count their signature as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes members who consistently vote to support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments KVN_2013-07-29_ObamaCare_Defund_Letter_-_YES.pdf292.23 KB

As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your representative and urge him or her to vote YES on the “Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act”, H.R. 367.  Introduced by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN) and co-sponsored by 164 of his colleagues, this bill simply requires that executive agency regulations that will have a major economic impact be subject to a vote in Congress.   Every year, the executive branch issues thousands of new rules and regulations. Those rules that impose at least $100 million of annual compliance cost are considered “major rules.” In 2010, federal agencies issued 95 major rules. The REINS would respect the checks and balances carefully established in the Constitution by requiring Congress to approve such rules. Agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) would no longer be allowed to pass economically-devastating regulations without being put to a congressional vote. As our Founding Fathers understood, it is dangerous for any branch of government to have unchecked power. In Federal 51, James Madison acknowledged that checks and balances are “necessary to control the abuses of government.” In article 1, section 7 of the Constitution, the process of creating a new law is outlined and clearly gives that power to the legislative branch. Today, unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch repeatedly disregard these limits by enacting new rules without the approval of Congress. A CNN poll found that the majority of Americans believe that the federal government has become so large that it imposes a threat against citizens’ rights. We cannot allow the American people to be potentially harmed by regulations that have not been subjected to the proper constitutional lawmaking process—a vote by their elected representatives. The REINS Act would restore accountability and protect citizens’ rights by giving elected officials a voice in all major regulations issued. It is unjustified that unelected bureaucrats can impose substantial costs on individuals and businesses without approval from the people’s representatives. I urge you to call your representative and ask him or her to vote YES on the REINS Act, H.R. 367. We may count their vote as a KEY VOTE when calculating FreedomWorks’ Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes Members of Congress who consistently vote to support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments KVN_2013-07-29_REINS_Act_-_YES.pdf303.03 KB

Colorado is a political anomaly. Through a well-financed campaign of four wealthy donors, the red state turned blue in a few election cycles. This “Colorado Model” has come to haunt Republicans. The success of the Colorado Model has now prompted organizational campaigns like Battleground Texas, an organization targeting Texan youth and minorities to vote progressive, to attempt to repeat the effective model. Colorado’s political shift should serve as a warning to Texas. Colorado was once a bastion of economic opportunity, but progressive polices have robbed the state of its economic prosperity. Texas must not sway from the path of economic opportunity to be enslaved by policies of progressivism.   Colorado: Freedom in Decline When Colorado was a conservative Republican state, the state was a beacon of freedom in the United States. The state had balanced budgets, low taxation, and relatively low amounts of debt. As Colorado became dominated by progressives, economic and personal freedom slowly declined. The Mercatus Center of George Mason University analyzes state policy impacts on individual and market freedom in the “Freedom in the 50 States” study. According to the Mercatus Center, Colorado has seen the greatest slip in the freedom rankings since the recent election cycle. In 2007, Colorado ranked 4th freest state in the Union. In four years, as progressive policies were widely implemented, Colorado’s freedom ranking plummeted to 19th . Burdensome Tax and Fiscal Policy Colorado’s major shift in rankings comes primarily from tax and fiscal policies (as seen in the charts below). The State’s net taxation burden increased from 8.3 percent to 9.2 percent in the FY2006-FY2010. Over the same period, Colorado’s debt increased by 3.6 percent and still continues to grow. The Independent Institute agreed that Colorado has serious spending problems. The Institute explained that Colorado’s policies are likely “discouraging both job creation by private employers and job seeking by individuals.” The once conservative state which ranked 4th overall with the most economic opportunity has fallen far as a result of the progressive Colorado Model. Economic Opportunity in Free Fall In addition to rising debt and taxes, Colorado enacted a plethora of economically harmful regulation. Labor laws are unattractive and Colorado is put at a disadvantage to other states. Colorado ratified wage controls resulting in higher unemployment rates and its health insurance mandates have made medical care substantially more expensive compared to other states. In four years, Colorado’s economic outlook has declined dramatically. Kissing Personal Liberty Goodbye Personal liberty in Colorado has not fared any better. Since Democrats have taken control of Colorado leadership, Civil Liberty rankings have plummeted from 17rd to 33rd of all of the States. Recent gun control laws have driven away a popular hunting industry which brought almost $2 billion of private spending to the state. As well, increasingly restrictive education policies targeting private and home educated students have deterred families from immigrating.. Texas: The Land of Opportunity By comparison, Texas is the promise land of economic opportunity. The state offers a low tax, business friendly environment. From 2001 to 2011, Texas created 1.2 million jobs. While Texas is not perfect, the state has seen significant growth at a time while the US economy was floundering. According to the Mercatus Center, “Texas is first in the country in terms of labor market freedom. It is a right-to-work state and remains the only state not to require employers to contribute to workers’ compensation coverage.” In terms of economic opportunity, Texas has strong resume of “deficit-slaughtering, budget-cutting, [and] seriously limited government” Battleground Texas plans to emulate Colorado to turn Texas into a blue state. Colorado’s weakened economy and evaporating freedoms should remind Texas of the effects of

Many outside Oregon have written off the state as a perennial loss for conservatives, owing to its deep blue liberal reputation. This reputation is brilliantly depicted in the IFC show Portlandia, which many Oregon natives view more as a documentary than a comedy. But the politics of Oregon are a much more complex stew of several influences, including a deep libertarian streak and strong conservative values - especially outside the Portland metro area. Indeed, it's only been since 2008 since we had a Republican Senator - Gordon Smith, who was defeated by Portland liberal Democrat Jeff Merkley. Since Merkley's election, he's been almost invisible except for the perennial questions surrounding whether he really represents the whole state, or just Portlandia. He's started to publicly surface in 2013, however, as he attempts to gear up for reelection for the first time as a US Senator. For instance, he's tried to increase his relevance by taking a prominent stance in the NSA domestic spying controversy - a stance that has met with, shall we say, mixed results. He's also tried to portray himself as a champion of the people in the IRS scandal - although it's questionable whether he's done more harm than good. So it's safe to say that, at best, Merkley's statements have been all over the map as he tries to position himself as relevant and as an advocate of the people. And that also applies to his stance on Obamacare. As the implementation of Obamacare hits some unexpected snags, Merkley continues to be on the side of Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. The National Republican Senatorial Committe (NRSC), along with Oregonians across the state, are all noticing: Rhetoric “I think it's important for us to recognize and acknowledge this is working the way it's supposed to.” (President Barack Obama, 6/7/2013)“The implementation of this is fabulous." (Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, 6/27/2013)"ObamaCare has been wonderful for America." (Majority Leader Harry Reid, 7/14/2013)Merkley said, "overall [ObamaCare] ‘allows you to control your own future, and that’s as American as apple pie.’” (Justin Much, “Merkley Talks Health Care, Taxes,” [Salem, OR] Statesman Journal, 3/20/2011) Reality A report published by the non-partisan Society of Actuaries shows that ObamaCare will increase the costs of medical claims in Oregon by more than 14%. (Society of Actuaries, Cost of the Newly Insured Under the Affordable Care Act, 3/26/2013) "The fact is that ObamaCare raises health care costs, increases taxes, and is forcing employers to cut back on jobs without achieving its stated objective of insuring all Americans - and Jeff Merkley promised otherwise," said NRSC Press Secretary Brook Hougesen. "Jeff Merkley proudly stood with Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and made promises about the law that have been broken, but he still refuses to listen to millions of Oregon women, workers and families who want ObamaCare permanently delayed and dismantled so that the rising cost of health care can finally be properly addressed." A quick search for the term "merkley obamacare" produces a constituent letter that typifies the effects of Obamacare on the average Oregonian family: March 13, 2013 The Tax increases on Passive income in ObamaCare cost me my job. My Employers will have to pay the tax instead of being able to employ me. My In-Laws are not rich, and wish they could continue to employ me, but thanks to the tax increases, that is not an option. REDUCE TAXES! BALANCE THE BUDGET! STOP WASTING MONEY! STOP COSTING PEOPLE THEIR JOBS! Hillsboro , OR It remains to be seen if a truly conservative and competitive candidate can be recruited to run against Merkley in 2014, and whether the NRSC can deliver the goods in terms of support and proper messaging to appeal to Oregon's unique voters. One thing is clear, however - Jeff Merkley is out of touch with those voters of Oregon who aren't tofu eating hipsters

The White House has issued a veto threat for two House bills to repeal parts of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In a dishonest statement, the administration claimed that a bill putting into law the administration's unilateral decision to delay the employer mandate was "unnecessary", and that delay of the individual mandate would cause people to lose their insurance.  A group of 20 conservative organizations and individuals, including FreedomWorks' Dean Clancy, signed a letter in support of these two measures. According to the rule taken up for the bills, they will be sent to the Senate as a single bill. The Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) (pdf) addresses: H.R. 2667 – Authority for Mandate Delay Act (Rep. Griffin, R-Ark., and 26 cosponsors)H.R. 2668 – Fairness for American Families Act (Rep. Young, R-Ind., and 23 cosponsors) HR 2667 is in response to the administration's illegal unilateral change to the law, and the veto threat is therefor inexplicable on policy grounds.  The accompanying statement is just full of deceptive parsing and straw men. (Emphasis added throughout).The Administration strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668 because the bills, taken together, would cost millions of hard-working middle class families the security of affordable health coverage and care they deserve. HR 2667, delaying the employer mandate, would not have any policy impact at all, since the administration is already delaying the employer mandate.HR 2668, delay of the individual mandate, would not cost anyone affordable anything. It would merely not require them to buy it. If they want it, they can still get it, still subsidized if they qualify (and for that, they're on the honor system). The administration is admitting that the product it is pushing this summer is not only unaffordable, but that people will not purchase it even if it's subsidized -- unless they are forced by federal law to do so.  The SAP equates these two bills with full repeal of the ACA, using the preferred Obama tactic: railing against the straw man.  Let's just skip all of that, and touch briefly on the heart of the matter:H.R. 2667 is unnecessary,I know the phrase "doubling down" is something of a cliche, but the administration has gambled that its unlawful conduct would not be challenged, and here throws its position directly in Congress' face. To this administration, Congress is not necessary.and H.R. 2668 would raise health insurance premiums and increase the number of uninsured Americans.Actually, Obamacare as a whole is already raising premiums, and will continue to do so. Mandates and subsidies both increase prices, as suppliers know they can charge more to a captive customer base that's being subsidized.As William W. Pascoe, co-founder of the Repeal Coalition put it, If every employee who now receives coverage from his employer continues to receive that coverage, there will be no increase in the number of uninsured Americans. The number of uninsured Americans will stay the same, or possibly decrease as individuals make their own decision to purchase coverage. [...]Has the Administration now acknowledged that the Affordable Care Act is causing employees to lose coverage they currently have?Back to the administration's deceitful SAP and the punchline:If the President were presented with H.R. 2667 and H.R. 2668, he would veto them.President Obama has decided that his big business cronies deserve a break, which he illegally gave them. Now he has declared that the rest of us don't get the same treatment. We can take some small comfort in the knowledge that even these disgraceful steps will not be enough to salvage this unworkable and unaffordable law.-----------Update: 19:39 7/17/2013The House having passed both HR 2667 and 2668 in bipartisan fashion, Senate Republicans called for a vote on the bills: Joint Statement: Senate Republican Leadership Calls For Votes on Employer a

July 16, 2013  Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative in Congress and tell them to support the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act (H.R. 1900). The legislation forces the government to respond to industry requests for natural gas pipeline construction permits in an efficient and timely manner in order to facilitate growth and stability in this critical sector of the economy. Currently, the permitting process is a daunting and protracted process to complete. Federal regulators often sit on permits for many months, even years, as they weigh environmental and, increasingly, political concerns. The result is an industry paralyzed by red tape. Yet it’s the American consumer paying the ultimate price. Energy prices, in real terms, are higher now than during the peak of the energy crises of the 1970s. Americans are demanding access to affordable and reliable power from natural gas, but the industry’s efforts to respond are being stymied by an overbearing regulatory state. The result is not only higher prices, but also a continued reliance on foreign energy sources. The Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act aims to change all that. The bill, H.R. 1900, forces the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to render a decision on permits within one year of when they are received. It further directs any and all relevant government agencies to issue the appropriate licenses and permits within 90 days of FERC’s decision.   The enactment of this legislation will grant invaluable levels of certainty to the natural gas industry, allowing companies to more appropriately allocate capital, provide a greater supply of domestically produced energy to the market and, ultimately, lower prices.  The government is meant to be a guarantor of the market, not an arbitrator. It’s time this principle be reapplied to the energy market. Thus I urge you to contact your Member of Congress today and tell them to support H.R. 1900, the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-07-16_-_Support_-_Natural_Gas_Pipeline_Permitting_Reform_Act.pdf219.36 KB

Top Ten Ways ObamaCare Sticks It to Young Adults     By Dean Clancy [Note: a .pdf version of this post can be found at the bottom of this page] ObamaCare should really be called the Unaffordable Care Act, especially when it comes to adults in their twenties and thirties. ObamaCare’s “individual mandate,” which takes full effect on January 1, 2014, requires all Americans to purchase expensive government-controlled health insurance, even if they don’t want or need it. (1)  The defenders of this mandate, and especially the health insurance lobby, claim a mandate on all of us is necessary to “help the uninsured.” In fact, the mandate’s real purpose is to prevent the system’s new government-run “health exchanges” from collapsing. Young adults are being singled out as the group who will have to bear the brunt of preventing this collapse. They’re being asked to sacrifice their dollars and their freedom. Eighty percent of 20-somethings who earn more than about $18,500 a year will see their health insurance costs go up as a result of ObamaCare. In California, the cost of a basic plan for a 25-year-old male will jump as much as 92 percent, in Ohio as much as 700 percent! Meanwhile, the Administration is enforcing ObamaCare selectively, having granted more than 1,200 waivers to politically connected labor unions and corporations over the past three years, and more recently exempting all large businesses. In short, ObamaCare is unfair, unnecessary, and harmful to our health. No wonder it’s so unpopular, even before it has been fully implemented. We call on all Americans, and especially millennials, to “burn their ObamaCare card,” join the “health care draft resistance” movement, and help us hasten the replacement of government-centered care with patient-centered care. Here are the top ten ways ObamaCare sticks it to young adults: 1.    Raises insurance costs for adults under 40 (on purpose) 2.    Reduces access to workplace health insurance 3.    Shrinks workplace health benefits 4.    Reduces work-hours 5.    Kills jobs 6.    Increases debt 7.    Raises taxes 8.    Is unfair 9.    Is unnecessary 10.  Is insulting 1.    Raises insurance costs for adults under 40 (on purpose) ObamaCare sticks it to young adults by driving up their health insurance costs. On purpose. That’s right, the law is designed to drive up costs for people in their twenties and thirties, in order to keep the new ObamaCare exchanges from collapsing. Unless a lot of young, healthy people sign up to pay for insurance through the government exchange,  premiums will spiral upward as too many old and sick people sign up, which will cause the system to collapse. Thanks to ObamaCare’s numerous mandates, the health insurance in most cases will cost more than it’s actually worth, especially for young adults. Hence the need for a mandate requiring people to pay into the system. The young are, in effect, being drafted into compulsory national service. How does ObamaCare drive up rates? Primarily by forcing insurance companies to accept all applicants, regardless of age or health status (“guaranteed issue”) and by forcing them to charge all applicants roughly the same price (“community rating”). These mandates make insurance more expensive, especially for healthier folks, some of whom naturally respond to the higher expense by becoming uninsured -- the opposite of the law’s alleged goal. Younger people tend to be healthier. That’s why they also tend to be uninsured -- the high cost isn’t worth it for them, relative to the benefit. The largest negative effects of guaranteed issue and community thus fall on younger people. ObamaCare imposes a host of other mandates. One is to make insurers cover adults up to age 26 on their parents’ policy. That sounds nice, until we realize that it costs each of us an ad

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 support the Defund ObamaCare Act, which has been jointly introduced as S. 1292 by Senator Ted Cruz (TX) and as H.R. 2682 by Congressman Tom Graves (GA). FreedomWorks has been fighting to stop ObamaCare for four years. ObamaCare is more than just bad policy – it is a “train wreck,” so poorly written as to be completely unworkable. The best solution at this point is to fully defund any further implementation of this misbegotten law and to start over with true market-oriented reforms that return the focus of health care to patients and doctors – rather than politicians, bureaucrats, and insurance companies. With the start date for ObamaCare being less than five months away (January 1st, 2014), the law’s inherent unworkability is already beginning to manifest itself. The Obama Administration itself recently admitted as much by unilaterally (and illegally) cancelling the employer mandate, one of the core parts of the bill, for at least a year. This is on top of the unilateral delay of a key small business component and of the income verification requirements for determining eligibility for taxpayer subsidies. These instances of selective enforcement aren’t just signs of unworkability, they’re also part of a plan to try to drive as many Americans as possible into the health care “exchanges” – the law’s central administrative mechanism, to avert the exchanges’ collapse. The Administration is right to be worried. The exchanges are faltering even before they’re launched. Thirty-four states (two-thirds of the Union) have declined to set up a state-based ObamaCare exchange, and those few states that have agreed to do so are struggling to meet the October 1, 2013, deadline. Even California and Connecticut, which embraced ObamaCare early and worked diligently to set up their exchanges, are having difficulty meeting this deadline, despite having had four years’ notice. The so-called “federal” exchanges (being set up by HHS in the resisting states) are rumored to be behind schedule as well. Many of the nation’s largest health insurers, sensing the instability of the law, are refusing to participate in the exchanges. Who could blame them. Congress holds the federal purse strings. Congress can and should defund this train wreck and start over with patient-centered reforms. I urge you to contact your Members of Congress and urge them to support the Defund ObamaCare Act (S. 1292 and H.R. 2682) and to co-sponsor their respective chamber’s bill if they have not already done so. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-07-16_-_Support_-_Defund_ObamaCare_Now_Act.pdf335.61 KB

Capitol Hill Update, 15 July, 2013 House & Senate/Schedule: Both chambers are in session this week, and will remain so until August 2nd. Legislative Highlight of the Week:  On Tuesday, Senator Harry Reid has announced his intention to use what is often referred to as the “nuclear option”, a parliamentary trick that would let him change the rules of the Senate to block filibusters against presidential nominees. The filibuster is a Senate tradition, over a century old, that has been a time-honored method for the minority party to exert greater influence upon debates of great import in that chamber. Senator Reid himself, while in the minority in 2005, called the filibuster the "last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington", but now that he's the one holding the reins, he wants to make it go away. House/Health Care: On Thursday, the House will also consider H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act, a bill that will delay ObamaCare’s individual mandate until 2015.  Sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN), this bill is proposed in response to President Obama recently choosing to suspend the employer mandate for a year.  FreedomWorks has issued a Key Vote: YES in support of this bill. House/Health Care: The House will also vote Wednesday on H.R. 2667, the Authority for Mandate Delay Act.  Sponsored by Rep. Tim Griffin (R-AR), this bill would delay the employer mandate in ObamaCare until 2015. The rationale behind this bill is to emphasize the fact that it was unconstitutional for the Obama administration to delay the employer mandate unilaterally; that he should have come to ask Congress to reopen the law and make the change..  FreedomWorks supports this bill. House/Health Care: This week, House committees will be holding two interesting committee hearings about different aspects of ObamaCare: On Wednesday at 10 AM, the House Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Health, will hold a hearing in which a senior Treasury official will be asked about how the Obama administration felt it had the authority to unilaterally delay the enforcement of ObamaCare’s employer mandate.On Thursday at 1:30 PM, the House Committee on Energy & Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, will hold a hearing on ObamaCare implementation. House/Appropriations: There is a slight chance that the House may get to the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, H.R. 2397. Sponsored by Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young (R-FL), this bill appropriates $513 billion for defense spending on top of $86 billion in emergency war spending.  This amount ignores the sequester cuts, supposedly in exchange for those cuts being applied elsewhere in the budget.  In addition, the House is advancing this bill under a rule that does not allow for the open amendment process that leadership had promised for all appropriations bills. House/Education: On Friday, the House may vote on H.R. 5, the Student Success Act. Sponsored by Rep. John Kline (R-MN), this bill would substantially reform the No Child Left Behind and other educations standards. One particular section of the bill does deserve special praise – section 5521 forbids the federal government from using education funding to coerce states to adopt federal standards, such as Common Core.  Unfortunately, the rest of the bill specifically fails to provide for school choice, choosing to tinker with federal standards instead of putting control back into the hands of states, localities, and the parents. House/Judiciary: On Wednesday at 10 AM, the full House Committee on the Judiciary will hold a hearing concerning the oversight of the administration's use of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) authorities. The recent unveiling of the massive scope of government digital surveillance has raised questions about what, if any, limitations the federal government has to its domestic spying power.

As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to vote YES on H.R. 2668, the Fairness for American Families Act. Sponsored by Rep. Todd Young (R-IN), this bill—which the House is expected to take up this week—would delay ObamaCare’s “individual mandate. Beginning on January 1, 2014, ObamaCare will require most U.S. citizens to purchase government-controlled health insurance. This “individual mandate” is, by the Administration’s own admission, the “linchpin” of the Washington takeover of health care. If the mandate were to go away, the whole costly and intrusive scheme would unravel. The individual mandate is a latter-day “intolerable act.”  Despite the Supreme Court’s erroneous 2012 ruling, Congress lacks authority under the Constitution to impose such a mandate on U.S. citizens. And even if it were constitutional, the mandate is immoral because it violates our individual liberty, is not necessary to “help the uninsured” (there are less coercive and less costly ways to do so), and is terribly unfair, both in its effects and it how it is being implemented. The unfairness of the mandate is this: its costly burden falls most heavily on just one segment of the population: young adults in their twenties and thirties.  They are the group most likely to be uninsured. Indeed, two-thirds of the uninsured are in their twenties and thirties. ObamaCare causes their insurance premiums to rise exponentially, in some cases doubling or even tripling. These Americans are uninsured because health insurance costs too much. ObamaCare’s mandate is unfair to them, because it forces them to buy a product that is already too expensive, relative to their needs. But the law is also unfair to everyone, not just millennials, in terms of how it is being implemented. The Obama Administration recently made a unilateral (and illegal) decision to cancel the “employer mandate” (which requires employers with more than 50 employees to offer and heavily subsidize health insurance to their workers). But it left the individual mandate in place for the rest of us.  The Administration had already displayed rank unfairness by granting more than 1,200 waivers from ObamaCare provisions to its labor union allies and corporate cronies. It has now given Big Business the ultimate waiver, a complete exemption from the mandate, while making sure that Big Insurance gets its own “ultimate gift” from Big Government: a compulsory customer base.  No wonder more than 70 percent of Americans oppose the individual mandate, and just 12 percent support it. The only cure for the manifold ailments of ObamaCare is to immediately defund or repeal it entirely, and to replace it with patient-centered health care that will actually lower costs and improve quality and access for all.  Until then, basic fairness demands that individuals be granted the same favor as the Administration has given to businesses. The individual mandate must be delayed for as long as possible. H.R.2668 would delay the mandate for the same length  of time that the Administration claims to be “delaying” the employer mandate: one year. That’s a start. I urge you to call your Representative and ask him or her to vote YES on H.R. 2668, to delay ObamaCare’s individual mandate. We may count their vote as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The 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_2013-07-15_Individual_Mandate_Delay_-_YES.pdf419.56 KB

The startling realization that the NSA has been spying on American citizens is often met with the excuse “I have nothing to hide, why should I worry?” and is subsequently ignored.   There are many strong arguments as to why you should care: privacy should be valued for its own sake, large bureaucratic apparatuses have proven to be untrustworthy, and sweeping domestic surveillance invites ‘Big Brother’ into our society. The strongest argument though, is to point out that now or in the future you may indeed have something to hide and not even know it. Ancient Wisdom:   “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” –Tacitus, Roman Senator and Historian  Tacitus’ wisdom still holds true today, almost 2000 years later.  The more laws, the more law breakers there are in society. With the stroke of a pen, the amount of criminals in the U.S. can increase or decrease dramatically. For example: under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as ObamaCare, those who refuse to get insurance and refuse to pay the penalty tax  are in violation of the law and are, technically, criminals.  The yearly deluge of new laws is so immense that even industries with massive stables of lawyers and lobbyists have trouble keeping up. The Federal Register (FR) codifies all new rules that the federal government adds each year. This year alone, the FR contains 4,062 new laws in its 79 thousand pages.  224 of the rules are classified as “economically significant”, meaning they will impose a minimum cost $100 million on the economy due to their incredible scope and complexity.   Figure 11, above, is from The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s report, “Ten Thousand Commandments 2013.”  How do every day Americans even stand a chance against this regulatory tsunami?  The regulatory and enforcement powers of the executive branch agencies are growing every day as the agencies are given wide latitude to elucidate and enforce general and vague congressional mandates.  We are all criminals now: The U.S. is burdened with incredible levels of regulation - levels unprecedented in the world.  It’s often cited that the average American commits 3 felonies every day. The worst part is that intent doesn’t matter – if you break a law that you didn’t know was on the books, too bad, you are still a criminal! That 3 felony estimate may seem a little high, and perhaps it is. But one thing is for sure: each year, every American commits at least one crime worthy of 5 years in prison under current law. And that’s a best case scenario.  Laws, whose penalties are serious enough to substantially derail your life, are being produced by our government at an unparalleled rate. This flood of edicts is literally ensuring America becomes a society of criminals.  The largest threat is that citizens can be held criminally responsible for breaking laws they did not know of and would have obeyed if told. The criminalization of regulatory law goes hand in hand with the government’s willingness to set aside the ‘intent to do wrong’ (called mens rea) requirement when an obscure regulation is unknowingly broken. There are many victims of this over-zealous enforcement of regulatory law.  Victims of government overregulation make the news more frequently than ever.  When a science experiment started producing some smoke, a Florida high-school student got labeled a terrorist. She was expelled and her perfect school record was irreversibly tarnished. When bureaucrats become overzealous in prosecuting, even simple mistakes create criminals. There are many examples of citizens unknowingly breaking laws, you could be next. One of the most egregious examples involves illegal rabbits.  Illegal Rabbits: A Missouri family had a hobby of raising rabbits, in part to teach their children how to be responsible. Eventually the hobby turned into a side business where rabbits would be sold t

While Washington’s political elites use popular buzzwords like government “efficiency” standards, these are only an attempt to place a positive spin on expensive regulations. In their recent plan, the Obama White House proposed even higher efficiency standards. While increasing the Department of Energy (DOE) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) appliance efficiency standards sound promising, the policy is riddled with problems. Three myths of appliance efficiency Standards have been propagated but do not withstand rigorous scrutiny. By exposing these myths, it will become clear why the president and Congress should eliminate these appliance standards entirely and allow for improved technology and consumer demand to drive the market production of appliances.   Myth 1: Appliance Standards Encourages Technological Progress The DOE appliance efficiency standards and the EPA’s Energy Star program have claimed to promote better and cleaner technology but the resulting technologies falls far short of their promises. The washing machine is a prime example of how government regulation eliminated a cheap and efficient technology from the market for consumers. In 1996, top-loader washing machine was a staple of clothes washing in American homes with high ratings across the board from Consumer Reports. Government efficiency standards, however, were the beginning of the end of a stellar American brand as front-loaders met federal standards better than top-loaders. Yet, when the standard was implemented, Americans quickly discovered issues with front-loaders. According to numerous consumer complaints in the years after the regulation took effect (2007), front loaders tended to be expensive, often have mold problems, and are difficult to add laundry too after you start washing. Consumer Reports concluded in 2007, "For the first time in years, we can't call any washer a Best Buy." Government regulations effectively eliminated good technology from the market and artificially imposed other types of technology through the standards. Myth 2: Increase Good Consumer Choices Government bureaucrats have reduced consumer choice by targeting the most unlikely appliances, creating a running joke in Washington. For almost twenty years, toilets have been required to reduce of water per flush (gpf) in the name of water conservation. The low flush toilets have a much higher cost but also fail to get the job done. These toilets clog more often and require increased cleaning. Some machine models create noise and excessive vibration. A number of consumers even complain the toilets require multiple flushes, defeating the entire purpose of water conservation. Yet, Washington claims its standards provide better options for consumers.  Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) explained how the DOE doesn’t support choices for consumers saying, “There is hypocrisy that goes on people who claim to believe in some choices but don’t want to let the consumer decide what they can buy and install in their houses.” Government bureaucrats restrict consumer choices without fully understanding the repercussions. Myth 3: The Standards will Save Money According the Department of Energy, these standards saved about $40 billion on their utility bills in 2010. Additionally, the DOE has increase annual savings by more than 50 percent over the next decade for energy usage of appliances. However, these statistics tend to be misleading because they are addressing the overall projected reduction in energy use rather than the net cost. The DOE fails to take into account of the upfront expense of regulations and the cost of limiting market competition upon costs. Despite the claims of the Department of Energy saving money, the data seems to indicate the new appliance standards provide high cost to consumers directly and indirectly. For example, the DOE estimates its new requirement of dishwasher manufacturers will cost $84.6 million or 13.3 percent of their industries net value