FreedomWorks

Keynesianism is still not working. The central idea of the dominant economic philosophy in Washington, DC, is that when the private economy fails to produce enough demand, the government can and should step in to take up the economic slack. It should have been long since discredited. But like other bad ideas, people keep bringing it back. No sane person would say we have not tried government spending to stimulate the economy. We've tried it over and over, and it does not work. But still, some will beat a straw man until he cries for submission. Henry Blodgett, writing at Yahoo, noted that an important error had been uncovered in an influential economics finding. Once the error was corrected, the "90% debt-to-GDP threshold" instantly disappeared. Higher government debt levels still correlated with slower economic growth, but the relationship was not nearly as pronounced. And there was no dangerous point-of-no-return that countries had to avoid exceeding at all costs. The discovery of this simple math error eliminated one of the key "facts" upon which the austerity movement was based. It also, in my opinion, settled the "stimulus vs. austerity" argument once and for all. The argument is over. Paul Krugman has won. The only question now is whether the folks who have been arguing that we have no choice but to cut government spending while the economy is still weak will be big enough to admit that. The straw man is twofold. First, debt is not just bad because it slows down the economy, which it does a little. Debt is bad because it eventually piles up and the interest crushes the economic life out of a nation. Secondly, the 90% figure is important to those who identified the problem as the deficit (and taxes being too low), rather than as too much government that spends too much. Deficit and debt are symptoms of tring to spend our way out of a slow economy. As governments try to cushion the people from the effects of bad decisions or to spend their way to prosperity, they tend to develop high levels of debt.  Spending is the problem, not the solution. And should some "unexpected" set of conditions force a rise in interest rates, the huge debt will leave us without good options.  Europe has tried "austerity" since 2008, but the United States has not. The meaning of austerity is different over there: higher taxes on the people, with only a little more spending.  While dancing on the grave of austerity, the Keynesians sing a song of higher spending. Excess debt is fine, they chime, so high spending is nothing to worry about. Contrary to Blodgett, all we have done since the 2010 elections is to keep the increases in government spending at bay. We are still spending an outrageous amount, and not getting anything for it. Stimulus spending will continue to fail, because government spending, in and of itself, does not promote economic growth. There is no point going ever further into debt when doing so will not help. If you say "A results in B," and B doesn't happen, then either A never happened or A does not, in fact, result in B.  In this case, if you say "Government spending results in economic growth," and the economic growth doesn't happen, either government spending never happened or government spending does not, in fact, result in economic growth.  Why doesn't government spending work? There are at least four reasons: taxation, regulation, bad aim, and dependency. When government spends, it gets the money from somewhere: borrowing, printing, or taxation. In the end, all of these harm economic growth over the long term. Borrowed money must be repaid with interest, resulting in taxes -- and the anticipation of future taxes -- that are higher than they would have been otherwise.  Printing money reduces its value, a tax on the buying power of the money people already have. Government spending comes with regulations. This may be the worst aspect of spending, because it las

As I've documented in previous posts, the organized environmental left is marshalling forces to oppose Powder River Basin (PRB) coal exports to Asia via ports in the Pacific Northwest. Despite their best efforts at fear mongering about supposed environmental effects, local officials are beginning to push back against the prevailing narrative. Realizing that the opposition is based on faulty premises, and realizing the potential economic impact, several local officials are beginning to come out of the woodwork to support this idea. In an op-ed in the Bellingham Herald earlier this month, city councilors from Ferndale and Blaine came together to advocate for the 'family wage' jobs the proposed terminal would bring to Whatcom County: Our good-paying industrial job base has been shrinking over many years, to the extent that Whatcom County's average wage is now about 20 percent lower than the state average. We need to do everything we can to attract businesses that pay family wages and offer good benefits. Every lost opportunity extends the pain of financial stress for too many families. And less citizen spending power means fewer customers at local businesses and less tax revenue to support local schools and other vital services. Once Gateway Pacific Terminal is operational, it will be the second-largest property tax payer in the county. The terminal would benefit the Ferndale and Blaine school districts, paying property taxes in both. These districts have voter-approved levies funded from the taxes paid by property owners in the district. The taxes paid by GPT would take the load off of other property owners in these districts by over $2.2 million every year. The points being made are pretty obvious here:·    Gateway Pacific Terminals's taxes would take the load off of other property owners in the area by over $2.2 million every year; ·    Gateway Pacific Terminal would create new property tax revenues of roughly $4.8 million; ·    More than $600,000 in annual tax revenues could go to local fire district and $300,000 to local libraries; ·    Nearly $1.8 million of tax revenue would go toward Whatcom County and $1.7 million to Washington state; ·    Sales taxes would add an additional $700,000 annually to local jurisdictions in Whatcom County and an estimated $2.5 million annually to Washington state; ·    Once Gateway is up and running, economic studies show that more than 1,250 jobs will be created, with an estimated annual payroll of about $128 million; ·    These workers will likely spend about $17.1 million at local stores, restaurants and businesses each year; ·    During the two-year construction phase alone this would mean $12.3 million in local sales and use tax revenue, mainly in Bellingham, Ferndale, Blaine and Lynden; ·    Washington state would receive $44.3 million in sales and use tax revenue during the construction phase. A press release a few days ago from The Alliance for NW Jobs & Exports highlighted more statements from local officials who see the benefits of these terminals: “Exports are a critical component to economic growth.  The proposed bulk terminal facilities in the Northwest are just one example of the type of investment opportunities that could be harmed by federal export controls,” said Rich Hadley, CEO of Greater Spokane Inc. “Nearly 40% of jobs in Washington can be linked to trade.  I’m troubled by any effort to erect new barriers to exports that would put the U.S. at a disadvantage globally.” The infrastructure investments generated by the terminals – which will export coal along with other commodities such as grain, potash, and timber – are gaining support among Washington’s agriculture, labor and business communities.  “From our perspective, our trading partners in Asia need access to affordable energy, and we have an opportunity to benefit by

As I posted earlier, coal producers are trying to secure approval to ship Powder River Basin (PRB) coal overseas to Asian markets, while environmental extremists are attempting to make this the Spotted Owl fight of modern times. The environmental movement has established this as their beachhead, and are pulling out all the stops. Their long track record of fear mongering and hysteria masquerading as science gives them the experience and good old fashioned know-how to be able to stop economic progress in its tracks. The coal train fight is turning into the battle royale for environmental zealots to stop the expansion of the energy industry. The environmental groups opposing this effort have formed a coalition called Power Past Coal, which has been promoting all sorts of supposed effects of coal trains rolling through the Pacific Northwest to our ports. The biggest effect, they claim, will come from coal dust that blows off of open train cars. A typical freight train will likely haul 100-150 coal cars. Environmentalists cite industry estimates that such a train may lose up to 1 ton of coal dust in any one trip. For example, in a white paper for the Sightline Institute, environmental activist Eric de Place says, Coal dust escapes from the open-top rail cars used for transporting coal and can create safety and congestion problems for rail traffic. In 2005, for example, coal dust that had accumulated in ballast, the layer of crushed rock that supports rail tracks, caused two derailments. Coal dust deposits sometimes even cause spontaneous fires. The Burlington Northern / Santa Fe Railway (BNSF) has studied the problem and found that as much as a ton of coal can escape from a single loaded coal car, while other reports show that as much as 3 percent of a coal car’s load, which is typically 100 tons or more, can blow away in transit. The US Department of Transportation classifies coal dust as a “pernicious ballast foulant” that can weaken and destabilize rail tracks. It is not clear how much coal dust might escape in the Pacific Northwest, but one watchdog group has verified that coal and coal dust does escape from open rail cars traveling along Puget Sound coastlines. That last sentence, "... one watchdog group has verified that coal and coal dust does escape from open rail cars traveling along Puget Sound coastlines", refers to a media report from KING 5 News in Seattle. Funny thing is that they don't state how much coal or coal dust has been found along the tracks - a line that has been used to ship coal to British Columbia for many years with no complaints or problems. That passage from the white paper is instructive for a couple of other reasons. The author cites derailments and the average amount of dust lost from coal cars, but he does not say WHERE these things occur. It turns out that the two derailments in 2005 happened on the short Powder River Basin line, not far from the train's point of origin. It was attributed to coal dust fouling the ballast used as a bed for the rails. Regarding the amount of coal dust lost, what the enviros never tell you is WHERE that dust is lost. It doesn't take much effort to realize that most of the dust will be lost at the point of origin - near the mine where the cars are loaded. The further the train travels away from the loading point, the more the load will settle, meaning that less dust is going to blow away. The environmental extremist way of explaining this is to say, "It is unclear how much coal dust might escape in the Pacific Northwest ..." Again, we return to the fact that coal trains have been running in the Pacific Northwest for decades with no reported adverse effects. This includes trains through Spokane, across Washington State, up the Puget Sound and on into British Columbia. Additionally, the Boardman Coal Plant that produces electricity for PacifiCorp has had direct deliveries of coal via rail with no complaints in recent memory. Responding to a recent notification of a la

FreedomWorks has signed onto the following coalition letter in support of the Helping Sick Americans Now Act: Dear Leader Cantor and Congressman Pitts, We want to thank you for drafting, and offering to call up in the House, a bill that allows Members to choose between continuing to have part of the so-called Affordable Care Act fund lobbyists, activist organizations, and ad campaigns to raise taxes and restrict freedom, as it is presently doing, or redirecting some of those funds to make insurance more affordable for Americans with pre-existing conditions, while reducing overall spending. That’s the decision the House will face when it considers your H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Now Act. It should be an easy choice. We fully support repealing – and short of that fully defunding – ObamaCare, and in a perfect world that is what we’d have already done and would do again tomorrow. Collectively, we represent millions of Americans who recognize the harm ObamaCare will do to medical choice, access, and affordability, and know there are far better ways to improve health care. As long as we face the reality of this President and a Senate controlled by Democrats, we recognize that repeal will take time. We work every day to build awareness of the false promises and real harms of this dreadful law, and support for defunding, de-authorizing and ultimately repealing it. As we work toward repeal, we want to ensure that we protect innocent Americans from the worst aspects of the law, and mitigate the law’s damage to our country. That’s why we support the Helping Sick Americans Now Act. It would redirect money that’s currently being used to implement some of the worst aspects of the existing law to the Pre- Existing Condition Insurance Plan, or PCIP, a federal high-risk pool insurance program that helps provide coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, but which the Administration closed to new enrollees earlier this year due to funding constraints. The bill takes $4 billion from an Obamacare slush fund and reallocates part of it to helping sick people the President has turned his back on. The remainder, about $1 billion, goes to deficit reduction. To be clear: this bill defunds Obamacare. The American people need to hear about the failure and hypocrisy of this Administration, and the Helping Sick Americans Now Act will help to get this message out. First, the Administration sold ObamaCare as a vehicle for helping those with pre-existing conditions, but knowingly poorly designed and underfunded the primary program serving that most vulnerable group. Once the consequences of that under-funding became clear, instead of reallocating existing slush funds to support it, they shut the door to the program on an estimated 40,000 sick Americans, causing real hardship for many Americans who currently have no better alternatives. This didn’t have to happen. Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has the authority under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) to transfer money from the so-called Prevention and Public Health Fund (“Prevention Fund,” or “Slush Fund”) to the PCIP. But she has knowingly refused to take this simple, compassionate step, because politics takes preference over the people this Administration no longer needs to pretend to care about. H.R. 1549 would therefore require HHS to transfer approximately $4 billion in FY 2013-2016 funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund to PCIP. This would allow CMS to enroll sick Americans who have been denied coverage because of the Administration’s decision. In addition to prioritizing sick Americans, H.R. 1549 would also eliminate four years of funding from the Prevention and Public Health Fund, one of ObamaCare’s worst programs, which is rife with waste and abuse. For example, the “Prevention” fund has financed pet neutering campaigns, bike/park signs, and gardening, and more disturbingly lobbying campaign – in some cases directly funding lobbyists in violations of fe

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Senators regarding the ECPA Amendments Act (S. 607.). The Electronics Communication Act (ECPA) was designed in an era before electronic communication and storage had emerged as a dominant force in modern life. As such, it could not have foreseen the crucial need for better privacy protections, given the vast amount of sensitive information now stored digitally. As times change, legislation must be kept up to date in order to ensure that the continued liberty of the people against excessive government intrusion not be abridged due to gaps and ambiguities in previous laws. Recent revelations about the Internal Revenue Service’s ability to view private emails without a court-ordered search warrant have raised legitimate concerns about the increasingly unchecked power of the state over its citizens. Americans have the right to feel secure that their privacy will not be compromised without due process, a right explicitly protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the Fourth Amendment clearly protects against unreasonable search and seizure, and requires probable cause for the issuing of warrants. As it stands, ECPA leaves dangerous openings for the violation of these constitutional rights. For this reason, we urge you to voice your support for the ECPA Amendments Act (S. 607) introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy and Mike Lee. This act would prevent the federal government from prying into private, electronically stored information of law abiding citizens without following the proper channels of law. S. 607 is a critical step in keeping government out of the private lives of its citizens, and it is our hope that you will ask your Senators to co-sponsor and otherwise support the ECPA Amendments Act. Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-04-15_-_Support_-_ECPA_Amendments_Act.pdf191.9 KB

Here's FreedomWorks' weekly update from the Hill for the week of April 22-26. Schedule: The House and Senate are in session this week, but will both head home next week.  Congress will resume session on May 6th.Legislative Highlight of the Week: This week's featured legislation is in the Senate, which will be voting on the so-called "Marketplace Fairness Act", S. 743.  Introduced by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), this bill will allow states to collect sales taxes from businesses outside their borders. So if I, a Virginia resident, buy something online from a busines in Montana (which has no sales tax), I have to pay Virginia's sales tax on that product, and the business then has to remit the tax amount to my state. Final passage on this bill could happen either this week or after the recess - FreedomWorks has issued a Key Vote: NO against this bill. You can read more about why this bill is bad policy HERE.House/Health Care: The major bill being considered in the House before recess is H.R. 1549, the Helping Sick Americans Now Act.  Sponsored by Congressman Joe Pitts (R-PA), this bill would take money from the ObamaCare "slush fund" and use it to fund high-risk pools where patients with pre-existing conditions can get affordable insurance.  While not a perfect policy solution on its own, the bill highlights the irony that ObamaCare fails on its own to actually cover the uninsured, whom the bill was supposedly passed to help. FreedomWorks supports the strategy behind this bill - you can read more about our support HERE.House/New Fair Deal: As mentioned last week, the first two bills of the New Fair Deal have been released, both of which deal with stopping the government from giving handouts to handouts to corporations and favoring some industries over others.  H.R. 1567, the New Fair Deal: CEO's Act, introduced by Rep. Mulvaney (R-SC), eliminates several egregious pieces of direct corporate welfare. H.R. 1569, the New Fair Deal: BARONS Act, introduced by Rep. Pompeo (R-KS), eliminates a number of energy subsidies and credits in the tax code.House/Welfare: Rep. Tim Huelskamp has reintroduced a great bill, H.R. 1355, the State Nutrition Flexibility Act.  This bill would take all of the food welfare programs such as food stamps and block grant their funding to the states.  As was demonstrated by welfare reforms in the 1990s, allowing the states to manage their own welfare programs leads to better results, with more money the reaching people actually in need. House/Health Care: Rep. Bill Huizenga of Michigan has introduced H.R. 1522, the Health Care Freedom For Seniors Act.  This bill would allow seniors who have IRA and 401k plans to take the monthly amounts that they are required to withdraw from those accounts and roll it into a Health Savings Account, tax free.  This would allow seniors more control over their own health care, always a good thing.

Florida Governor Rick Scott has signed a new educational reform bill into law which some are calling “an education revolution.” This bill is aimed at revamping high school education in the state of Florida that will lead to more students being able to get a job upon graduation.  Under the new law, graduation requirements have been shaken up to reflect modern employment needs. Students can choose subjects which will prepare them for college, or those which will help them gain skills related to their desired job. It also allows students to substitute industry related courses for subjects like Algebra II, Chemistry, and Physics. Under the new system, Florida’s students can earn national certification in more than 200 different professions or occupations. "There were some additional graduation requirements that we believe essentially would've forced more students to drop out rather than pursuing high school graduation," said Barbara Jenkins, Orange County Schools Superintendent. Not only will the new bill encourage these students to stay in school, it will position them to find employment upon graduation. Scotty Crowe, Assistant Superintendent for Leon County schools says "We can meet the demands of the job market with having students that are ready and prepared through high school to step right in career ready positions.”   This opens up paths for many students whose needs were not being previously met.  “It just changes the options. It’s no longer just one option for graduation; it’s much more fair,” Bay District Superintendent Bill Husfelt said. “They get to pick and choose what direction they go instead of us molding all kids into one college area. That’s where we were going wrong.” These changes could very well encourage more students to stay in school through graduation.  Parents and children have more options for their needs, all of which address current economic realities. In addition to graduation requirements, the bill creates ways for middle-schoolers with a gift for math and science to be identified and given the opportunity to attend a state school, financial literacy education in high school economics classes, and a career readiness component to adult education programs. All in all, the bill is simply great for Floridians! "This bill is going to be great for our families, students, and make sure my children or my grandchildren can live in the great state of Florida because they can get a great job because I know that they can get a great education," said Gov. Rick Scott. Clearly, Scott understands that education is not one-size-fits-all and that American students need better options. Kudos for taking such a big step forward. I hope other states are taking notes.         

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to vote NO on S. 743, a bill that would allow states to collect internet sales taxes without regard for state borders.   While this internet sales tax scheme has been branded as helping “marketplace fairness”, all it really accomplishes is raising taxes and placing an untenable burden of compliance upon small businesses who sell their products online.  Under the interstate agreement being authorized by the “Marketplace Fairness Act”, a business selling products online would be required to figure out where their customers live and to charge them sales taxes based upon their residence, not where the business is located.  The cost of complying with the thousands of state and local sales tax regulations will be difficult for smaller online businesses to absorb. Perhaps more importantly, taxing across state border violates the long-held “physical presence standard” that restricts state from taxing sales that do not originate from a physical “nexus” within that state’s borders.  Allowing states to violate the physical presence standard will literally allow for taxation without representation, as consumers pay taxes to other states without ever getting the benefit of the use of those dollars.  Allowing states to tax each others’ citizens also removes an important incentive for tax competition between the states. The only winners in this deal are state governments, which are happy to use the new revenue to increase their spending, and large retail stores, who will be able to absorb any compliance costs while watching their smaller competitors struggle.  I urge you to call your U.S. Senators and ask them to vote NO on the internet sales tax, H.R. 743.  We will count the vote on this amendment as a KEY VOTE when calculating the FreedomWorks Economic Freedom Scorecard for 2013. The Economic Freedom Scorecard is used to determine eligibility for the FreedomFighter Award, which recognizes Members of Congress with voting records that support economic freedom. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe, President and CEO, FreedomWorks File Attachments KVN_2013-04-19_-_Marketplace_Fairness_Act_S._743_-_NO.pdf184.62 KB

Regulation of alcohol in the United States uses  a three-tiered system  that perpetuates big business’s control on the alcohol industry and has helped maintain a cartel-like hold on the marketplace ever since the end of alcohol prohibition in 1933. The power the distributor has on the market cannot be underestimated.   In order for alcoholic products to be sold, the law requires you to go through a distributor who has been licensed by the state to sell to the retailer.  This means if you decide to import or start up a brewery, you’ll have to acquire a distributor license yourself and deal with the subsequent overhead cost associated with it. The other option is signing a contract with an existing distributor who will sell your beer while expanding their own distributing network.  The cost here is perpetuating the control big business has on the alcohol industry.  Laws regarding alcohol vary depending on which US  state you reside in but generally, it’s required by law to ONLY sell beer to properly licensed distributors (some states have the government itself act as a distributor i.e. Utah, Pennsylvania).  The three tiered system might as well be called the three taxed, benefit system because that’s essentially what it does:  guarantee the state to collect taxes at every level while protecting big business advantage on distributing.  If you decide to enter the beer market, you better be prepared for the complex web of restrictions.  First, you will need a Limited Liability Corporation (LLC).  You must file the proper paperwork with the Alcohol Tobacco Trade and Tax Bureau (TTB) for the benefit of paying excise taxes and get the labeling permits.  All the requirements to protect consumers begin with the level of production and end at the beginning of distribution.  The distributor takes a profit from the sales but is really nothing more than a fancy way of saying “I’ll sell that for you at a higher cost because the government says so.” The three-tiered system ends up generating a virtual cartel of big business distributors in the marketplace for beer.   These large distributors often produce their own beer (they own licenses for 2 of the 3 tiers) and garner most of their profit off their own main-line beers. This arrangement makes it so the incentive to help out small time brewers looking to tap into the marketplace is nonexistent.  They will only “help” out on the chance of a win-win scenario.  If the beer doesn’t sell, then the distributor still makes money since their own line of beers is the bread and butter of the profit margins. In the case that the beer does take off and becomes fairly popular, the distributor sees increased profits.  Either way, the distributor faces little risk if the product doesn’t become successful.  This three tiered system requires taxation at every level,  from the brewery all the way down to the grocery store or restaurant.  The production level includes various types of taxes such as federal excise taxes, custom duties, permit and license fees, corporate income, and property taxes. The exact same taxes are applied at the wholesale level as well.  As if that isn’t enough, the retailer (restaurant, pub, grocery store) has to pay sales taxes, license fees, corporate or personal income and property taxes on top of everything else.  Regulation restricts the direct sale of alcohol from the producer to the retailer. They do nothing to foster commerce and everything to take a dagger to the side of the free market.   By the time all the taxes have been collected and accounted for, the consumer pays the brunt of the cost. In fact, taxes are the most expensive ingredient in beer.   If all the taxes levied on the production, distribution, and retailing of beer are added up, they amount to more than 40% of the retail price The way to completely free the market is t

Sacramento mayor and former NBA star Kevin Johnson is desperate to keep the city’s struggling NBA franchise. So much so that he pledged $258 million of public money to build a sparkling new arena. But Seattle also wants the team. So city and county leaders have promised $145 million of public money to build their own sparkling new arena. Politicians in Seattle and Sacramento insist that a booming economy is just around the corner if voters will just let them borrow millions to build a parquet-floored palace. The sad news for both cities is that sports teams, stadiums and arenas — especially when funded by the local government — don’t help the area’s economy at all. After decades of intense study, economists from the left, right and center agree on this point:  There now exists almost twenty years of research on the economic impact of professional sports franchises and facilities on the local economy. The results in this literature are strikingly consistent. No matter what cities or geographical areas are examined, no matter what estimators are used, no matter what model specifications are used, and no matter what variables are used, articles published in peer reviewed economic journals contain almost no evidence that professional sports franchises and facilities have a measurable economic impact on the economy. Politicians always promise that a new stadium or arena will lead to economic growth. But professional sports teams and their facilities don't create new economic activity, but merely take the place of other economic activity. If I have $100 to spend on entertainment, I might take my bride to a basketball game. If there isn’t a team, then I’ll take her to a concert or the theater or a nice dinner. Even if we just decide to stay at home and watch TV, we’ll still spend that $100 on local stores or services.  That C-note is going to be spent, whether big government wastes millions on a sports palace or not. The only thing that would increase my economic activity is if the government taxed me a bit less so I could spend $110. But what about the money paid to professional players and team owners? Surely that has to boost the local economy, right? No so much. The richest pros and financiers tend not to live in the local community so the majority of their money is shipped well out of town. And this doesn’t get to the moral failure of taking money from taxpayers to give to millionaire athletes and billionaire owners. Despite the strong-arm tactics of politicians, citizens are showing up to sound the alarm. ”Mr. Mayor, your attempts to pull off an upset win could adversely affect this community for decades,” said attorney and professed Kings fan Jeffrey Anderson, who asked the council to put the plan before voters or he would file a lawsuit to stop it. Other speakers said the timing of the deal was ironic given that nearby Stockton is in bankruptcy court after over-extending itself with debt, including a minor-league hockey arena. If politicians really want economic growth and not just money for their influential friends, they should return tax money to citizens. If we each have a few more dollars to spend on date night, that will do more for the economy than any basketball arena. Follow Jon on Twitter at @ExJon.

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our million-plus FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your representative and tell him or her to vote NO on H.R. 624, the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in its present form. Unless there are proper amendments that address our privacy and civil liberty concerns with the bill, FreedomWorks will oppose CISPA. CISPA would allow for more information sharing between the private sector and the federal government regarding cyber security. Although this year's CISPA is a net improvement over last year's bill, it still leaves open concerns about private information being shared in the name of national security.  There are grave Fourth Amendment concerns with CISPA. The bill would override existing privacy laws to allow companies to share “cyber threat information” with the federal government without making any reasonable effort to strip out any personal information from the file. Under CISPA, the government could be reading private emails or looking through a user’s Internet browsing history without a warrant. Users will have no way of knowing what has been shared since information provided under CISPA would be exempt from Freedom of Information requests. There is possibility that a company could—accidentally or intentionally—send your personal details to federal agencies. Companies would be protected from civil and criminal liability even if they make a bad decision that puts a user at unnecessary risk. The new version of CISPA is an improvement from last year’s bill. However, it does not go far enough to protect the privacy of users. The House must debate this controversial measure under a broad and open amendment process. Until the remaining privacy concerns in the bill are addressed, FreedomWorks will oppose this bill. Sincerely, Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks [Click here for a PDF version of this letter.]

"Oh, no. Another post about the RNC rules. Let me see how fast I can click away from this..." Stop! I get it. Who cares about a political party's internal rules? And when I see "Rule 16(a)(2)" and "delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule", my eyes glaze over a little, too.  Read on, for why you should care. This stuff determines who gets elected and how much freedom you continue to enjoy. As a result of rules changes made at the Republlican National Committee Spring Meeting in Hollywood, grassroots activists regained a little bit of control in how elections are carried out, and assured that political candidates were a little more honest.  RNC insiders, for all their talk of letting voters decide candidates, would in fact rather nominate by consensus. That means continuing let the people in Washington, DC and the media choose candidates based on personal wealth, seniority, or whose turn it is. Rules about the order and type of primaries determine the type of candidates we get to vote for. If you want to choose among lackluster, uninteresting candidates whose sole skill is playing by Party rules, do nothing. The insiders are happy to supply you with them.  But if you want to open the process to candidates willing and able to run on their ideas, you have to get involved with the rule-making process, and that means joining a political party, starting at the precinct level. Many people who think the way you do are already there. It's time you joined the fight. At the meeting, a motion to restore full grassroots control of the Party was quashed (video and state-by-state vote below). We haven't taken over enough of the delegations. But members undid the worst change pushed through by Romney operatives at the party’s 2012 convention in Tampa, making sure candidates are beholden to delegates and not the other way around. As reported by Newsmax.com, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said after the rule change that “presidential candidates can neither veto delegates nor unseat delegates."  Why is that important, really? Here is the heavy-handed Romney version of Rule 16 (a) (2), which said (pdf) (emphasis added):(2) For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these rules, if a delegate (i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the national convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule, (ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule No. 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or (iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the national convention for a particular presidential candidate, the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the secretary of the convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates. The effect of that was to bind delegates to candidates, turning them into mere functionaries or placeholders, centralizing power with the nominee and the RNC. I was a convention delegate in 2012, campaigning in my congressional district. I had to choose, before any states had voted, which of the many candidates I would support. Since no candidate is perfect, I had to choose the one among several that I thought would be popular enough in my area to make campaigning for him or her a positive experience. I had to collect signatures, going door-to-door in the snow (though thankfully it was only uphill one way).  I also had

Here's FreedomWorks' Weekly Update from Capitol Hill, for the week of April 15-19, 2013. House/Senate/Schedule: Both chambers of Congress will remain in session for the next two weeks. Legislative Highlight of the Week: This week is Cyber Week in the House, during which the House will deal with various internet regulations and cybersecurity measures.  The most important of these is the Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), H.R. 624.  Sponsored by Rep. Mike Rogers (MI-8), this bill would allow for more information sharing between the private sector and the federal government regarding cybersecurity.  Although this year's CISPA is a net improvement over last year's bill, it still leaves open concerns about private information being shared in the name of national security.  Until the remaining privacy concerns in the bill are addressed, FreedomWorks opposes this bill. House/Cybersecurity: During Cyber Week, the House will also be considering H.R. 1163, the Federal Information Security Amendments (FISA) Act.  FISA has over the years repeatedly caused concerns about internet privacy, so while this bill has recieved little attention from privacy groups thus far, it bears watching. House/Cybersecurity: The House will also vote on H.R. 967, the Advancing America's Networking Information Technology Research and Development Act.  Sponsored by Cynthia Lummis (WY-AL), this bill would provide funding for research and development in the cybersecurity and tech industries.  In a free market, the market decides what is worthy of R&D, not the government. House/Energy: On Wednesday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will vote on H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act.  This bill would authorize the completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline in spite of the President's executive orders to the contrary, and would shield the pipeline from some of the potential lawsuits which would be levied by environmentalist groups looking to stop it.  FreedomWorks has supported this bill - you can read our letter HERE. House/New Fair Deal: With the release of the New Fair Deal Program, the first two bills will be released:The first, introduced by Rep. Mick Mulvaney (SC-5) is the New Fair Deal: Consolidating and Eliminating Outdated Subsidies (CEO's) Act.  This bill would eliminate many direct federal subsidies, such as the infamous sugar subsidy and high-speed rail.The second bill is the New Fair Deal: Busting America's Rigid, Outdated, and Needless Subsidies (BARONS) Act", introduced by Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-4).  This bill would eliminate many federal credits and subsidies which favor selected companies and industries through the tax code. The bill primarily targets energy companies which recieve taxpayer dollars to develop special fuels and green energy.

Kids these days. If they’re not playing World of Minecraft on a WiiTV, they’re blasting that crazy hippity hop “music” on their iSurface pads. Why that Bieber-Eyed Gagas band gives me a headache every time I dial up stations on my wireless. Would it kill them to play a traditional pop standard now and again? Now THAT was music! By gum, if I didn’t know better I’d think every adolescent is hopped up on Four-Hour Monster Energy Pills and whatnot. As an aging member of the brilliant Generation X, I try to do my part. But when high schoolers tear up my azaleas with their Harlem Shake Mobs, all I can do is scream obscenities and hurl grapefruit at their heads. (Call the cops all you want, but it’s not my fault I lost the belt to my robe.) Part of the problem is poor education. Long ago, schools traded in reading, ’riting and ’rithmetic for activism, awareness and attitude. Instead of demanding excellence through rigorous studies, every miniature mouthbreather is told he's a Very Special Snowflake worthy of praise and wealth from American society. Sure, my kids are special, but the rest of them? Feh. At the fifth grade science fair, one of the little scrubs got an “A” for melting crayons with a magnifying glass. You’re breaking some new ground there, Dr. Hawking. It’s not just cranky old me noticing the gap between ability and confidence. A new poll by Junior Achievement found that kids are dangerously ignorant about their financial futures, especially the rising cost of college. And despite the worrisome future of the job market, teens’ self-confidence is stratospheric. Junior Achievement’s CEO Jack Kosakowski said, “my personal big take away at looking at the numbers is a lack of understanding of the cost of college.” In this year’s survey, more teenagers said they planned to be financially independent — around the time they turn 26. Fewer teenagers said they would be able to support themselves between the ages of 18 and 24. And while 52 percent of surveyed teens said their peers borrow too much money to go to college, just 9 percent of them said that they themselves are saving money for the future. Adding to widespread financial illiteracy, several studies have shown that the majority of teens think they have above-average intelligence — a statistical impossibility. Despite feeling smarter than their parents’ generation, today’s students self-reportedly study for fewer hours. On the bright side, they get better grades because of grade inflation… The trend of self-delusion among teenagers is a particularly American problem, Kosakowski noted. “The only things our kids rank the highest in are confidence in their abilities,” he said. “Math, science, and everything else has gone down.” Instead of just complaining about “kids these days,” there are ways we can improve their chances. And if you expect wise financial counsel to come from the government, you should look up our national debt. School choice can help students get a far better education and parents must teach and demonstrate common-sense money management. But all of us — young and old — need to speak the truth about basic economics or the youth of today will get a very rude awakening when looking for a job in the post-Obama era. Before I close, there is one golden piece of wisdom I can offer to the yearning teenagers of today that they should always hold near and dear to their precious little hearts: Get off my lawn. Follow Jon on Twitter at @ExJon.

Last August the seeds of dissention against the grassroots inside the RNC were sown and began to take root. At the committee meeting held during the Republican National Convention, several rules changes were adopted that reduced the power of the grassroots conservatives and libertarian leaning activists inside the GOP.  Since then activists inside the party have been organizing in order to remove or amend these rules and shift power back into the hands of the state parties and grassroots members and away from the heavy handed leadership trying to maintain control at the top.  This week in Los Angeles during the RNC's Spring meeting, many activists are working to overturn (or drastically amend) the rules adopted last August as well as elect new leadership that represents the growing decentralization of the movement.  Four very important incidents occured yesterday towards those efforts: The rules committee elected a new chair, Bruce Ash from Arizona.  Bruce voted for Morton Blackwell's complete repeal of the “Ben Ginsberg” convention rules.   Ash voted in favor of the grassroots on three different votes that would repeal or amend the rules adopted last August.  In contrast, his opponent Enid Green Mickelson from Utah voted against the rule changes and voted against empowering state parties each time.  Bruce Ash stated that he is committed to working for complete repeal over the next two years. The committee voted to take an oral roll call vote.  This put everyone on record for or against the rule changes. (Passed) The third vote was Morton’s “Full Repeal” of the rules passed at convention.  Unfortunately this vote wasn't handled as well as it could have been during the floor fight and the rule change failed by three votes.  25 Yea - 28 Nay. The committee also voted to repeal Rule 16, which disempowers the grassroots.  It passed out of the Rules committee 31 Yea – 20 Nay. While the grassroots wasn't successful in all their endeavors, there are some positive outcomes from yesterday's events. The new Committee Chair promised to continue to bring the subject up until we get full repeal. This will be a difficult task with the current delegate make up of the RNC, but having leadership that will not let the subject die is a good first step.  What's next for Rule 16? The repeal effort now goes to the larger body (full RNC committee) on Friday where it must pass with a 75% threshold. This is a daunting number and chances are slim that those votes are there.  We are also working with delegates to make amendments to: Rule 16 (a) (1) - Requires primaries and caucus to be binding.Rule 16 (a) (2) - This is language to deal with delegates who do not support the candidate they were bound to, it enables the nominee to remove a delegate who does not support the candidate to whom the delegate was pledged – to direct that the delegate must follow State Party rules or state law;Other power grabs from last fall's meeting included Rule 12. – Which allows the RNC to change rules at anytime, but it requires a (3/4) or 75% vote threshold to change rules. Dean Clancy called this move "unprecedented" stating that it gives the RNC the ability to ignore the convention on a whim.The RNC is seemingly hellbent on making the same mistakes over and over, relying on a top down, heavy handed strategy instead of trusting their grassroots constituents who actually do the hard work it takes to get candidates elected. We saw the effects of ignoring the grassroots during the 2012 elections. Want a repeat?  Aren't political parties supposed to be the vehicle for winning elections?  If so, they may want to change their tactics and trust the base. More than four dozen conservative, small (l) libertarian organizations representing millions of volunteers and activists signed a letter of support for full repeal of these rules. Will the powers that be pay attention?  We'll see