FreedomWorks

Since the early 1990s, the federal government has buttressed the wind energy industry through a series of programs and subsidies. The flagship program has been the Wind Production Tax Credit (PTC). This program provided a subsidy of 2.2 cents for every kilowatt-hour produced by wind utilities. This figure may not trigger any sticker shock, but over time the price tag has steadily added up. Roughly $20 billion has already been spent via the PTC and another $10 billion in future spending is already committed. The skyrocketing price is the result of multiple extensions of the program. The original PTC had a built-in expiration date that lapsed in 1999, however it has managed to survive through eight separate extensions by Congress. The latest extension, snuck into the ‘Fiscal Cliff’ deal struck in early January, has raised significant concern as budget scoring projects it pledges another $12 billion in addition to the $30 billion that has already been committed or spent. Now, with the taxpayer already committed for $42 billion, the IRS has just announced it will boost the 2.2 cent subsidy to 2.3 cents. This rate increase is estimated to cost the taxpayer an additional $545 million. To make matters worse, the Government Accountability Office issued a report last month revealing that the federal government operates a total of 82 separate wind industry related programs across over a half-dozen agencies that collectively cost taxpayers $2.9 billion each year. The report also found that a majority of the programs are redundant. Sixty-eight of the 82 programs overlapped with each other in some form in one of the more recent and striking examples of the sheer extent of government waste. The fact of the matter is that spending on the wind industry is spinning out of control. Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that all this investment has produced negligible, if not negative, results. Currently, subsidization of renewable energy dominates government energy investment, accounting for 68 percent of all federal energy-related tax subsidies. Without doubt, decades of heavy investment like this have resulted in exponential growth in the generation capacity of domestic wind power. However, when examining wind’s impact on the electric grid as a whole, the growth in this individual sector doesn’t translate to increased grid capacity overall. Billions of dollars have been spent and wind power creates next-to-none of the energy demanded by the U.S. grid. In 2011, wind accounted for less than 2 percent of all energy produced in the U.S. Adding insult to injury, it’s important to remember that since wind energy is dependent on weather patterns, there are significant issues with wind power supply versus demand on the energy grid. The little amount of wind power that is created happens to be primarily produced during times and weather conditions almost exactly inverse to peak power demand. 2009-12, Summer and Annual Load and Wind Availability -ERCOT Source: Dr. Jonathan A. Lesser, Wind Intermittency and the Production Tax Credit, A High Subsidy for Low Value Power, Continental Economics, Oct. 2012. http://www.continentalecon.com/publications/cebp/Lesser_PTC_Report_Final_October-2012.pdf This phenomenon is inconvenient to proponents of the wind industry, but the explanation is simple and should have been anticipated. On cool, breezy nights, people turn their lights and A/C units off. But it is during these conditions when the combination of dense air and windy conditions produce the greatest amount of lift on wind turbine blades, and hence produce the most power. It’s essentially the opposite in the summer days, when people have their A/C units on full-blast to combat the hot and stagnant air conditions outside. All these factors thus beg the question: Why does the government continue to give away billions of dollars to corporations to produce a diminutive amount of power and, further, produce it at precisely the times we demand power the l

Recently I reported on Ohio Republican Representative Barbara Sears’ failing to support The Health Care Freedom Act (HCFA) bill that would help defend Ohioans from Obamacare penalties.  Currently the chances of the HCFA being considered for an additional hearing are weakening, as it has not been listed on the committee schedule.   However, Rep. Sears did choose to respond to my article; but not to me and not proactively.  Blogger Maggie Thurber, who has formerly worked with Sears, reached out to Sears for comment after my post angered Tea Party activists who were unaware of Sears’ actions.  While her response is too lengthy to post in full, much of it quoting language from the applicable bills and laws, Sears’ defense of her voting record is worthy of reaction.  I reached out to Sears, as she expressed interest in me doing so, and have included her response to me as well. To begin, Sears states:  The following are my thoughts regarding several issues discussed in Breeanne Howe’s article. First, it’s always disappointing when someone chooses to make inferences both personal and professional without taking the time to look at facts or do even the minimum amount of research. I appreciate that you reached out to me for some background. I have tried to summarize my comments in order of the article not to infer that the article is remotely creditable [sic] but to simply to review and comment process. First I’d like to thank the representative for taking the time to respond to my article,  even though she didn’t find it at all credible.  I’d also like to give reassurance that my post is well-researched, though one might not appreciate the facts presented.  I have offered my apology for not reaching out to Representative Sears for comment prior to this post, certainly no offense was meant; I reported based on the facts on the ground. After dismissing the facts in my article as inaccurate, Sears went on; not to offer correction, but to restate her prior positions on the state constitutional amendment previously passed in Ohio, her reason for not supporting the HCFA (HB 91) and her bill, HB 3, which focuses on regulating navigators.   It is the state constitutional amendment, the Healthcare Freedom Amendment, that Sears points to as the reason she believes she cannot support the HCFA. According to the representative: It seems illogical to push legislation that would work towards the destruction of our private healthcare marketplace. I have yet to hear a workable argument that suggests that HB 91 doesn’t violate our Constitution. The Healthcare Freedom Constitutional Amendment passed by 66% of Ohio and in all 88 counties in Ohio states: • Section 21 (A) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.  • Section 21 (B) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall prohibit the purchase or sale of health care or health insurance.  • Section 21 (C) No federal, state, or local law or rule shall impose a penalty or fine for the sale or purchase of health care or health insurance. I could suggest that if we pass HB 91, then we violate Section 21(b) and Section 21(c) in that we will be prohibiting both the sale of health insurance and an individual’s right to purchase health insurance by imposing law and rules that would be specifically used to punish a carrier should they accept any remuneration, credit, or subsidy as provided in the PPACA. As I pointed out in my original article, and Sears reaffirmed in her response, Ohio has refused to enact a state exchange.  Therefore, as noted by HB 91 co-sponsor Rep Young, “the HCFA legislation puts the same amount of limitation on these providers as the state refusing to run its own exchange.”  HCFA doesn’t limit the purchase or sale of health insurance, it simply limits the funding a health insurance company can r

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to support the Northern Route Approval Act, also known as H.R. 3.  Introduced by Rep. Lee Terry (NE-2), this bill would allow for the completion of the Keystone XL Pipeline without any further delay or interference from the Obama administration and radical environmental special interests. For the past two years, the White House has held the Keystone Pipeline hostage over alleged environmental concerns. Yet the president’s own administration appears to disagree with this hardline stance. The US State Department issued the preliminary findings of a study last month that raised no major environmental concerns or objections regarding the construction of the pipeline. Further, the pipeline would only be an 875 mile extension to America’s already existent 2.3 million mile fossil fuel pipeline network. Considering these facts, it becomes obvious that opposition to the Keystone Pipeline is rooted not in concern for the environment, but rather in the desire of central planners to micromanage the economy and pick winners and losers in the energy market. This meddling has occurred for decades and has cost American taxpayers billions of dollars and has jeopardized the nation’s access to reliable and affordable energy. It’s time to get government out of the way and let the Keystone XL Pipeline be completed. Thus, I urge you to contact your Representative in the House and tell them to support H.R. 3, the Northern Route Approval Act, today! Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-04-09_-_Support_-_The_Northern_Route_Approval_Act_Keystone_Pipeline.pdf219.52 KB

Here's the latest from Capitol Hill, for week of April 8-12. House/Senate Schedule: The House and Senate are both back in this week, and will both remain in session for three weeks.Legislative Highlight of the Week: Next week will be “Cyber Week” in the House, which will consider a number of bills having to do with internet regulation and cybersecurity.  Of particular concern is an as-yet-unnamed bill which would expand the government’s power to prosecute individuals under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA).  The CFAA is already written so broadly that individuals can be prosecuted for crimes that they have no idea they committed (like violating a website’s terms of service).  CFAA needs to be made more specific so that the lines are clear between criminal activity on the internet and simple users who may not even be aware they are committing a crime.  Instead, the current bill makes it even easier to prosecute people under CFAA and makes its penalties more severe.  FreedomWorks has signed a coalition letter opposing the current draft of this bill, which can be found HERE.House/Cybersecurity: Also next week, the House will be considering a revised version of the infamous CISPA (The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act).  FreedomWorks and nearly every other liberty-minded group opposed CISPA last year because it allowed the government and companies to share personal information attached to information regarding cyber threats.  We will watch this year’s version to see if it addresses the individual privacy concerns.House/Energy: On Wednesday, the House Committee on Energy & Commerce will be holding a hearing on H.R. 3, a bill that would allow the approval for the Keystone XL pipeline to bypass both the President’s executive orders and potential litigation delaying it.House/Labor: This week, the House will vote on H.R. 1120, the “Preventing Greater Uncertainty in Labor-Management Relations Act”.  Sponsored by Rep. Phil Roe (TN-1), this bill would address the unconstitutional appointments President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).  These appointments, which bypassed the Senate even though the chamber was still in session, were struck down by a federal court.  Yet, the newly appointed members and the NLRB have continued to operate as if the ruling never occurred.  This bill would simply freeze any new regulations from the NLRB and suspend any that have occurred since the illegal appointments.House/Spending: Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-4) has introduced the Full Faith and Credit Act, H.R. 807.  This bill would force the Treasury to prioritize our payments on the debt first in the event that the debt ceiling is reached.  This would eliminate the argument that hitting the debt ceiling would force the U.S. to default on its debt (something that could only occur if the administration chooses to let it happen). Also, if you haven't already, be sure to check out www.NFDrsvp.com to learn more about our big event on Tax Day, April 15th, here in D.C.  FreedomWorks will be launching our exciting new initiative, the New Fair Deal.  If you can't make it in person, the entire event will be streamed live at live.freedomworks.org, with guest speakers to include Reps. Mick Mulvaney, Tom Price, Mike Pompeo, and Justin Amash.

Dear FreedomWorks member, As one of our millions of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to support the Full Faith and Credit Act, H.R. 807.  Introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-4), this bill would force the Treasury Department to prioritize necessary payments on the debt over all other government spending in the event that the debt ceiling is reached. The idea that reaching the debt ceiling would result in the United States being unable to pay its creditors has been thoroughly debunked by a multitude of analysts and economists.  The revenue generated through taxation and other sources provides enough cash to not only pay the interest on the debt, but also to pay for most autopilot spending such as Medicare, Social Security and military pay. Simply put, for the United States to default on debt payments, the President would have to choose to do so.  However, since the administration has continually insisted upon threatening default, the Full Faith and Credit Act will take that option entirely off the table.  This is a simple, common-sense protection, and it is surprising that only 64 Representatives have currently co-sponsored the bill. Thus, I urge you to contact your Representative and urge him or her to support the Full Faith and Credit Act (H.R. 807) and to co-sponsor the bill if they have not already done so. Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-04-05_-_Support_-_House_Full_Faith_and_Credit_Act.pdf327.69 KB

U.S. Senators Roy Blunt (R-MO) and Mark Pryor (D-AR) have successfully passed an amendment to the continuing resolution which effectively transfers $55 million to the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).  This increased the total allocated costs for FSIS to $1,056,427,000  up from $1,001,427,000.  In order to get this increase, Agriculture Buildings and Facilities and Rental Payments along with Child Nutrition Programs were cut.  Money was effectively redistributed to the FSIS. The campaign to successfully redistribute the funds was championed by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.  Vilsack began the campaign quite early stating in February “a nationwide shutdown of meat and poultry plants during a furlough of inspection personnel” could result in “as much as 15 days of lost production, costing over $10 billion in production losses.”   Vilsack began the doom and gloom messaging tactics that has now become common rhetoric when describing the sequester.  The message received an initial, skeptical response from the National Joint Council of Food Inspection Locals, the meat inspector labor union.  Trent Berhow, Vice Chair of the union, deduced,”If the federal government truly put the inspectors out of the plant, the industry would sue the hell out of them.”   His fear-mongering tactics began working as the union commenced to back his initiatives.  Even cattlemen and women began supporting legislation to prevent the furlough of FSIS inspectors.  The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) President Scott George revealed “Had inspection been halted, this would have resulted in a backlog of animals, shortened supply of beef to market, higher prices and harm to the futures market.”   The NCBA did deride Vilsack and his department for forsaking the duty to provide inspectors. Vilsack and his fear-mongering message now had both the backing of the beef lobby and meat inspector’s labor union.  Senator Blunt took the message to heart defending the amendment stating, “Without this funding, every meat, poultry and egg processing facility in the country would be forced to shut down for up to two weeks.  That means high food prices and less work for the hardworking Americans who work in these facilities nationwide.”   The amendment passed via voice vote and the entire continuing resolution package passed 73 to 26. The passage of this amendment goes completely against what the sequester was aimed at doing, across the board cuts on government programs.  Instead Department Secretaries, lobbyists, and labor unions are able to finagle funds away from certain agencies and put them towards others.  Winners and losers are chosen.  Have the lessons from Solyndra and General Motors not been learned?  Have they taught us nothing?  Government fails when it attempts to pick winners and losers.  Taxpayers are left on the hook, while insiders make deals to help special interests.  In this case, Vilsack is able to increase his and FSIS power, the labor union is able to avoid furloughs, and the beef lobby is able to assuage the fear of government irreparably harming the industry.  The sequester is healthy for the United States Government and more across the board cuts can help begin to reel in the massive $16 trillion debt.

One would have hoped that after a couple of weeks the overblown brouhaha over the consequences of the sequestration cuts would have died down, but alas, there are those still insistent that the meager $85 billion in cuts will somehow result in a cataclysmic shock to the American economy. Hysterical bloggers, columnists and commentators continue to assert that these cuts will devastate everything from national defense, to air travel, to education, to health care, to the environment itself. With all this fuss, it’s easy to lose perspective on how small these cuts really are from a historical perspective. For example, the federal budget outlays for fiscal year 2011 were a full $200 billion dollars less than those projected for 2013. If the loss of $85 billion is such an economic and ecologic disaster, one shudders to think of the barbarous dark age that those poor people in 2011 must have experienced. The point, of course, is that all this overwrought hand-wringing is utter nonsense. 2011 was not a year of military defenselessness, nor of especial illiteracy, nor of ecological collapse. Planes did not cease to fly and cancer patients were not suddenly stripped of their health care. In short, nothing alarming happened at all as a result of the inadequacy of $3.6 trillion in federal spending. The extent of the inconvenience to taxpayers of these cuts is determined solely by deliberate allocation of them to the most visible and popular services, such as the much lamented cancellation of White House tours, as well as the decision to release hundreds of prisoners into the general population, a political stunt that is as irresponsible as it is tasteless. The implicit claim being made is that America is no longer able to stand on its own two legs without constantly increasing levels of federal spending, that the country has become so fragile and dependent on government that even the smallest cuts send it spiraling into chaos and desolation. As depressing as this claim is, we can take solace in the fact that it is far from credible. This is still a great country, filled with millions of independent, intelligent citizens fully capable of mastering their own destinies. The idea that the country cannot survive a return to spending levels of less than two years ago is at once insulting to the citizenry and a sad commentary on the mentality of dependency which those in power have so feverishly tried to thrust upon us.

Nevada State Senator Tick Segerblom has introduced a bill that would legalize betting on presidential elections, a practice that is currently outlawed nationwide, including in states that allow other types of gambling. Naturally, this can be expected to raise hackles and invite questions over propriety and the dignity of the office, but why? Why do Americans still display such a distaste for gambling in general, which even in this enlightened age can only be engaged in a select few localities? The distinction between that type of gambling which is regulated and that which is not has always been rather arbitrary. In a broad sense, every decision we make is a gamble, since none of us has such clairvoyance to guarantee a particular outcome. Everything from crossing the street, to getting married without a prenup, to going ahead and eating those slightly off smelling oysters due to their tantalizingly low prices is, at its core, a gamble. Some may protest that these examples are not really gambling because they are not purely monetary in nature, but it is difficult to see how decisions about personal finance differ substantially from casino gambling. What is the stock market, if not a betting game? How is buying a house in the hopes that its value will rise over time differ from backing a particular horse in the third race? And nowhere is this hypocrisy more apparent than in the case of state lotteries, which offer all the fun of roulette with astronomically worse odds. Since gambling is legal only in select locations, such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City, there is an artificially enforced scarcity that inhibits competition and makes prices higher than they would otherwise be, inflating profits for the casino owners at the expense of the gambler. Those truly concerned about the well-being of the would-be card shark should welcome the competition that would result in better odds for the poor fellow. There is a worry that looser gambling laws would turn all cities into seedy dens of iniquity, but other countries have legalized gambling without this becoming a problem, and betting on elections as State Senator Tegerblom proposes is already possible using the Dublin based betting service, InTrade. It is not clear why such a reform would be uniquely problematic in the United States. Indeed, it’s an industry that employs over 100,000 people and generates more than $3.6 billion dollars in wages a year. Just think of the economic boon such an industry could provide if legalzied nationwide. In any case, the laws have done little to deter people from gambling, at least on a small scale. Living room poker games, bets on the Superbowl, and wagers surrounding elaborate March Madness brackets take place all the time, violations of laws which are as unenforceable as they are absurd. The World Series of Poker is a highly entertaining broadcast, internet gambling is a vital industry that has done nothing to harm the fabric of the country, and even a squeaky-clean Mormon like Mitt Romney can find enjoyment in an occasional $10,000 bet. Casino gambling is in fact nothing more than another form of entertainment. If, rather than throw their money away on tickets and overpriced concessions to view whatever digitally rendered abomination Hollywood is now thrusting upon us, some people would simply prefer to spend that money at the gaming table, why should they not be allowed to do so? The bottom line is that people should be free to do what they choose with their own money. Whether that involves starting a business, investing in gold, or placing a friendly wager on a hot air balloon race around the world is no business of the government’s. Anti-gambling regulations are outdated, inconsistent and anti-freedom and should be repealed, not just for Nevada, but for all Americans who would like to make their sports, their games and yes, even their elections, just a little more interesting.

Senator Rand Paul has reintroduced legislation to audit the Federal Reserve in the Senate. The bill, S. 209, currently has 24 cosponsors. This legislation is important because the people deserve to know who the Federal Reserve is bailing out behind closed doors. Here are the Republicans that have not cosponsored the audit the Fed bill yet. Please call them or tweet at them and politely ask them to cosponsor S. 209! Here is a video on why auditing the Federal Reserve is important:Even Senator Reid has been statements on the importance of auditing the Federal Reserve. In 1995, he said: "I think it would be interesting to know about the Federal Reserve. I think we should audit the Federal Reserve. It's taxpayers money that is being used there." Tell your senators to audit the Fed! Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

Last week during Congress’s “vote-a-rama” over amendments to the continuing budget resolution, the Senate voted, mostly along party lines, to reject an amendment that would eliminate a government subsidy to provide cell phone service to low income consumers. The program in question is called Lifeline, and it was established in 1985 as a way to give telephone access to those that could otherwise not afford it for use in emergency situations, and in 2005, it was extended to cover cell phones as well. This sounds a noble goal, but there are several problems with the reasoning behind why such measures should be considered wise or necessary. To begin with, one may already dial 911 from a cell phone free of charge, with or without a service plan. This substantially harms the case that Lifeline is necessary to provide emergency services to the poor. Additionally, Lifeline does not pay for the phones themselves, but only the service. Many cell phone companies have already found ways to voluntarily offer free phones to low income individuals, so it is unclear how Lifeline is useful in this area either. In reality, the Lifeline program is merely another form of entitlement. People already depend on the government to provide for them when they are sick, old or unemployed. Now they can rest assured that the government will be there for them when they are feeling chatty. Lifeline is not a hugely expensive program, at least relatively speaking, costing only $1.6 billion for 2011. The part of the program that deals with cell phones, the one Congress proposed to cut, is presumably only a fraction of that number. Yet there are two reasons why we should care about this issue and others like it. First, it represents the continuing expansion of the entitlement mentality that grips the country more tightly with each passing year. By engendering dependency, those in power ensure that the status quo is not disturbed. We have seen this already with the way the sequestration cuts have played out. Although the cuts were incredibly minor, they can be organized in such a way as to impact the services that voters depend on, scaring them away from further cuts in the future. The more services the government provides, the more credible its threats against the public when faced with the possibility of spending reduction. Secondly, if Congress cannot agree to cut even a small program such as this, how can we possibly expect to deal seriously with the major entitlement reforms necessary to rein in the ballooning national debt? If we are so bitterly divided over something as trifling as cell phones, how can we hope to reform Medicare or Social Security? We do not need any more entitlements in this country. Mobile communication is not a fundamental human right. If government is going to pay for people’s cell phones, it might as well pay for their televisions, their iPads and their e-readers. This endless push for government to guarantee all of life’s conveniences is damaging to our society and in the long run can only end in economic and cultural ruin.

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 co-sponsor the Accountability in Grants Act of 2013, S. 558 in the Senate and H.R. 959 in the House.  Introduced by Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) and Congressman Ed Whitfield (Ky.-1), this legislation would stop the EPA from using Clean Air Act funds to give grants to programs outside the United States. Each year, the Environmental Protection Agency issues hundreds of millions of dollars in grants through the Clean Air Act for the purpose of studying ways to reduce air pollution. However, a 2011 inquiry into the nature of these grants found that the EPA had awarded tens of millions of dollars of these grants to foreign countries. Among the grants that were awarded, according to 2012 testimony by Rep. Whitfield, were “$141,450 to China to study swine manure”, and “$1,226,841 for the United Nations to promote clean fuels”. Disregarding the larger question of whether the federal government should be funding these sorts of programs at all, the government certainly should not be sending taxpayer dollars to subsidize research overseas.  That money would surely be useful here at home addressing such spending items as our $16.75 trillion debt. Thus, I urge you to contact your Members of Congress and ask them to support common sense limits on federal spending and to co-sponsor the Accountability in Grants Act (S. 558 or H.R. 959) today. Sincerely,   Matt Kibbe President and CEO FreedomWorks File Attachments LoS_2013-03-26_-_Support_-_Accountability_in_Grants_Act.pdf285.03 KB

Never before have the sentiments of this 'politics over prosperity' President been more clear than in the aftermath of the sequestration debate. Since the reality of the $85 billion cuts across government departments, agencies and programs has set in, the President has set a clear and convincing course in trying to punish Americans in a very public manner, for the concept of reigning in government spending, and has continued to reward those outside our country. Of course, there are the very words which back up the assertion that the Obama administration is trying to make the budget cuts as painful as possible for his own political gain.   In an internal e-mail to the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS), an administration official pressured the division not to contradict "what we said the impact would be".  That impact, according to the official, would effect the ability to manage "wildlife damage to the aquaculture industry".  It was an assertion that caused Congressman Tim Griffin to accuse the White House of trying "to make sure their worst predictions come true and to maximize the pain of the sequester cuts for political gain". Words are not nearly as powerful as actions, though.  Dr. Ben Carson recently lamented that "It seems like what the president is doing is trying to cut in the places that hurts the most in order to prove a point".  And indeed, the President has made his efforts to cut the most visible and popular government services quite public, while quietly continuing aid to foreign causes. Only after comparing the actions does it become clear who is being hurt by these intentional cuts, and who is being spared the pain. The People's Cuts White House Tours The White House responded to $85 billion in budget cuts a few weeks ago by shutting down White House tours and saving the government a meager $18,000 per week.  That amounts to roughly $936,000 in a full year, or just over .001% of the sequestration amount.  Middle school students from Iowa, who had their visit to the White House canceled, responded by posting a video which had the students shouting, "The White House is our house.  Please let us visit."  In the end, the students learned that the White House is no longer the people's house, but rather just another pawn in the game of politics. Tuition Assistance for Military The Army, Air Force, and Marines all announced they would suspend tuition assistance programs for college students, citing budget issues.  The move resulted in a White House petition which garnered over 100,000 signatures. In addition to the tuition assistance, a program that helps homeless veterans get back on their feet was cut. Air Traffic Safety A few days ago, the administration announced that it would close 149 air traffic control towers, forcing pilots at smaller airports to "coordinate takeoffs and landings among themselves ... with no help from ground controllers".  The move, cited as being necessary because of the sequester, led to Senator Jerry Moran declaring that the message being delivered by the administration is that "spending cannot be cut without severe consequences, before the safety and well-being of Americans." No Pain, All Gain While no one is debating the need for tightening belt straps in a country completely saddled in trillions of dollars in new Obama debt, the comparison between what is being cut and what is not being cut is puzzling.  While school children, military members, veterans, college students, and pilots are all seeing the wrath of the President's political messages, you'd be surprised at who is still receiving money from the administration despite a sequestration that the President has assured us would result in a doomsday scenario. Observe... Secretary of State John Kerry granted $250 million in American aid

Today, the Indiana Supreme Court made an important decision for families in that state by unanimously upholding their school voucher law. “Finding that the challengers have not satisfied the high burden required to invalidate a statute on constitutional grounds, we affirm the trial court’s judgment upholding the constitutionality of the statutory voucher program,” the court wrote. The teachers union-supported lawsuit argued that the law was unconstitutional as it caused public funds to end up in religious institutions, but the justices understood that the law benefited families first. Any benefits to these other organizations was simply incidental and, therefore, not in violation of the state Constitution.  "It's the end of the constitutional debate," said Robert Enlow, president and chief executive of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. "Anyone who says it is not legal in the state of Indiana no longer has a leg to stand on." Senior Attorney Bert Gall of the Institute for Justice said that “The teachers’ unions tried to prevent parents from using Choice Scholarships to secure a quality education for their children, but the unions failed.” Governor Mike Pence released a statement saying, in part, “I welcome the Indiana Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Indiana’s school choice program. I have long believed that parents should be able to choose where their children go to school, regardless of their income. Now that the Indiana Supreme Court has unanimously upheld this important program, we must continue to find ways to expand educational opportunities for all Indiana families.” One of the reasons that this case is such a pivotal step forward for school choice is that Indiana’s school voucher program has wider eligibility than most states offer. Normally, these programs are limited to students in low income families, failing schools, or specific geographical areas within the state. In Indiana, however, middle-class families may also participate to safeguard a better education for their children.  The program, which is in its second year, is making great headway in Indiana as the fastest growing such program in history. Last year, 3,919 students received school vouchers. This year, that number has nearly tripled to 9,324, and is poised to expand even further in the years to come. Thankfully, the Indiana Supreme Court has protected the right for families to choose the best education for their children. 

In early March, Ohio State Representative Ron Young and Rep. Andy Thompson introduced a bill known as, “The Health Care Freedom Act,” (HCFA) that proposed a new line of defense against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or, Obamacare.  The bill, when passed, will prohibit health insurance companies in Ohio from accepting any federal funding that would trigger penalties for employers or individuals who aren’t compliant with Obamacare.  Wednesday, when the bill was brought up in committee, opposition arose; but not only from the expected side of the aisle.  While the Democrats did balk at the bill, Republican Majority Floor Leader Barbara Sears also took issue with HCFA.  One needn’t look too deep to understand why Sears wouldn’t want the HCFA to pass in Ohio.  Not only has she received a substantial amount of financial contributions from the health care industry, she currently works at a health insurance provider and recently passed her own bill which helps implement Obamacare. Representative Sears is currently serving her third term in Ohio and over the years has amassed nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from various members of the health care industry.  In fact, her list of donors is a veritable who’s who of health care heavy hitters including: Humana, Merck & Co, Aetna, United Health Care, Johnson and Johnson and many more national players.  When she’s not representing the people of Ohio (or the health care industry) in the House, she works as the Senior Vice President of Employee Benefits at Roemer Insurance, who's website refers to her as a “resource,” as well as an employee.  Perhaps it was in the spirit of being a “resource” that led Sears to introduce HB 3, a bill that regulates the “navigators” established in Obamacare. Navigators will be individuals tasked with helping citizens through the maze of Obamacare before they actually purchase insurance.  According to the federal law, their duties consist of:  (A) conduct public education activities to raise awareness of the availability of qualified health plans; (B) distribute fair and impartial information concerning enrollment in qualified health plans, and the availability of premium tax credits under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and cost-sharing reductions under section 1402; (C) facilitate enrollment in qualified health plans; (D) provide referrals to any applicable office of health insurance consumer assistance or health insurance ombudsman established under section 2793 of the Public Health Service Act, or any other appropriate State agency or agencies, for any enrollee with a grievance, complaint, or question regarding their health plan, coverage, or a determination under such plan or coverage; and (E) provide information in a manner that is culturally and linguistically appropriate to the needs of the population being served by the Exchange or Exchanges. The law, which mandates navigators, specifically bars them from issuing health insurance and directs that funding for the new jobs must come from the state exchanges.  The issue of navigators has been surprisingly absent from the news, considering the large amount of money states will have to come up with to comply with this aspect of Obamacare.  California, notorious for their problems with debt, is slated to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to hire 21,000 navigators. So why would a Republican propose a bill that seeks to further regulate a government created job that will cost the states untold amounts of money?  It would appear that insurance brokers across the country are getting nervous about the prospect of competition from navigators and have been lobbying for stricter standards on them.  One such group, the Independent Insurance Agents and Brokers of America, has been lobbying nationwide and their Ohio affiliate has contributed financially to Rep. Sears’ campaigns since 2010.  The

On Saturday, Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin addressed CPAC, and according to at least one observer, was the best speaker of the conference. After he finished, he agreed to address a small gathering of bloggers to expand on the points he made in his speech. Of his main speech, Solomon Yue, Oregon RNC National Committeeman, said, Low expectations when he began his speech and what he did with his message about what he as governor did to empower people. He was the populist backed up with constitutional principles. Expanding on these constitutional principles, Gov. Walker spoke of strategy and messaging in his blogger briefing. He had three main themes that he wanted to drive home. 1. The states are where the GOP has had great success, despite losses on the national stage in the 2012 elections. Governors and state houses are often dominated by Republicans, and these states have laid the groundwork for real reform. We need to be optimistic that we can create real change. Voters want us to present new ideas to confront the challenges we face. We need to have a plan, and we need to be optimistic that it can be implemented and that it will improve the lives of the voters on an individual basis. 2. Trust the voters to be able to handle the tough issues - don't shy away from taking them on. The voters are smarter than many on The Hill give them credit for. Voters spend little time watching the state houses and the capitol as they live their lives, but they do care deeply about the issues and potential solutions. Speak to voters directly about the issues and trust them to understand the solution you offer. Walker rejects out of hand the idea that there are voters we simply can't reach as Conservatives. We must simply find ways to speak to each individual in the way that it is relevant to their lives. 3. Be courageous. For instance, don't talk about entitlement reform. Talk about moving people from government dependence to true independence. He challenges the notion that we don't care about the poor. He makes the strong point that we obviously care deeply about those who are temporarily down and out, and want to help them get out of poverty. The American dream is not based on dependence, it's based on independence. As conservatives, we should not apologize for that - we should get better at explaining why that's relevant to the life of each individual we talk to. Check out the whole address - it's full of very useful insights into how Conservatives can and should connect with voters on an individual basis: scott walker addresses bloggers at cpac.movie from Jeff Reynolds on Vimeo. Follow Jeff on Twitter at @ChargerJeff