In this, the second of three episodes with Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia, Max Pappas asks the Congressman about his record in the Georgia statehouse, for which he won FreedomWorks' Legislative Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Rep. Graves talks about the enormous change in Congress that resulted from the 2010 election. He also talks about the five key principles that guide his every vote in Congress.







Tea Time Interviewee: 

Tom Graves

Dear Senator:

On behalf of the millions of members represented by our organizations, we urge you to vote no on The Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 (Farm Bill). The bill barely makes a dent in the massive agricultural subsidy system and fails to decrease Washington’s outsized and outdated role in American agriculture.

Farm businesses are a testament to the skill, ingenuity, and persistence of Americans. While many sectors continue to feel the effects of the recession, American agriculture is one of the few bright spots in the economy. Net farm income is at $98 billion, nearly doubling between 2001 and 2011. Farm businesses exported nearly $140 billion worth of products, exceeding imports of agricultural products by more than $37 billion. And it’s estimated that one out of every 12 jobs is connected to agriculture.

Congress must take this opportunity to reassess unnecessary and complicated federal policies that manipulate market decisions in this critical and vibrant component of our economy.          

Yet, the Farm Bill fails to even meet the meager $30 billion deficit reduction target in the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget request, containing a mere $23 billion in deficit reduction, squandering this opportunity. The bill does eliminate some unnecessary programs, like direct payments, counter-cyclical payments, and ACRE - a step that is long overdue. But it then turns around and replaces them with new entitlement programs to guarantee agricultural business profits, such as Agricultural Risk Coverage and Crop Insurance Supplemental Coverage Option. This is indefensible. Congress must not create any new potentially budget-busting entitlement programs that would increase Washington’s role in farm business decisions while destroying the nascent private supplemental crop insurance industry. These new programs are not a safety net; they’re a springboard to guaranteed profits for agriculture at the cost of major annual drains on the treasury.

The Farm Bill also fails to make meaningful reforms to the largest Washington-based support for agriculture, federally subsidized crop insurance. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates this program—which provided $2.2 million in subsidies for just one agricultural producer’s insurance premiums in 2011—will cost more than $90 billion over the next ten years. According to CBO’s preliminary score of the Farm Bill, costs for federally subsidized crop insurance will actually increase $3 billion. We also oppose using the Farm Bill to undo recent progress on reducing misguided biofuels subsidies.

America’s agricultural economy is strong. This strength and the glaring weakness of the federal budget—$15 trillion in debt and trillion dollar deficits projected for the next decade—make it essential that Washington’s role in agricultural policy be reformed.

For more information, please contact Joshua Sewell of Taxpayers for Common Sense at 202-546-8500 x116, or josh@taxpayer.net .

Sincerely,

American Commitment
Americans for Prosperity
Americans for Tax Reform
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste
FreedomWorks
Heritage Action for America
R Street
National Taxpayers Union
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Taxpayer Protection Alliance

[Click here for a PDF version of this letter.]

File Attachments

Joint_Farm_Bill_Letter_Senate_May23.pdf
152.59 KB

Just when you thought media bias couldn't possibly be more blatant, along comes this article from MarketWatch , a purportedly trusted source of Wall Street news. (Never mind that MarketWatch is operated by CBS, who should change their acronym to Cooing Barack Supporters ... but I digress).

This article so blatantly misrepresents the facts that it's difficult to know where to start:

By Rex Nutting , MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Of all the falsehoods told about President Barack Obama, the biggest whopper is the one about his reckless spending spree.

As would-be president Mitt Romney tells it: “I will lead us out of this debt and spending inferno.”

Almost everyone believes that Obama has presided over a massive increase in federal spending, an “inferno” of spending that threatens our jobs, our businesses and our children’s future. Even Democrats seem to think it’s true.

Government spending under Obama, including his signature stimulus bill, is rising at a 1.4% annualized pace — slower than at any time in nearly 60 years.

But it didn’t happen. Although there was a big stimulus bill under Obama, federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s.

Even hapless Herbert Hoover managed to increase spending more than Obama has.

Here are the facts, according to the official government statistics:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

I've even seen Tea Party members start to panic - "ZOMG IT WAS BUSH'S FAULT!"

I'll tackle the first section before I post the second section with rebuttal. It's pretty basic, really. The rate of growth in spending is NOT equivalent to spending as an overall percentage of GDP. This is a selective look at statistics without giving the overall context. Yes, the rate of growth has leveled off. But ONLY after spending was raised to unsustainable levels!

But the second argument is even more powerful. The Bush budgets - you remember, back in the day, when we actually passed budgets - never exceeded $2.5 Trillion, and deficit spending never exceeded $500 Billion. DEFICIT SPENDING HAS MORE THAN DOUBLED SINCE OBAMA TOOK OFFICE. Overall spending has increased by upwards of 50% since 2006, when the Democrats took control in Congress and the Senate. This chart is from the White House website :

 

 

 
Table 1.1—SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS, AND SURPLUSES OR DEFICITS (–): 1789–2017 (in millions of dollars) Year Total On-Budget Off-Budget Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (–) Receipts Outlays Surplus or Deficit (–) 2000 2,025,191 1,788,950 236,241 1,544,607 1,458,185 86,422 480,584 330,765 149,819 2001 1,991,082 1,862,846 128,236 1,483,563 1,516,008 -32,445 507,519 346,838 160,681 2002 1,853,136 2,010,894 -157,758 1,337,815 1,655,232 -317,417 515,321 355,662 159,659 2003 1,782,314 2,159,899 -377,585 1,258,472 1,796,890 -538,418 523,842 363,009 160,833 2004 1,880,114 2,292,841 -412,727 1,345,369 1,913,330 -567,961 534,745 379,511 155,234 2005 2,153,611 2,471,957 -318,346 1,576,135 2,069,746 -493,611 577,476 402,211 175,265 2006 2,406,869 2,655,050 -248,181 1,798,487 2,232,981 -434,494 608,382 422,069 186,313 2007 2,567,985 2,728,686 -160,701 1,932,896 2,275,049 -342,153 635,089 453,637 181,452 2008 2,523,991 2,982,544 -458,553 1,865,945 2,507,793 -641,848 658,046 474,751 183,295 2009 2,104,989 3,517,677 -1,412,688 1,450,980 3,000,661 -1,549,681 654,009 517,016 136,993 2010 2,162,724 3,456,213 -1,293,489 1,531,037 2,901,531 -1,370,494 631,687 554,682 77,005 2011 2,303,466 3,603,061 -1,299,595 1,737,678 3,104,455 -1,366,777 565,788 498,606 67,182 2012 estimate 2,468,599 3,795,547 -1,326,948 1,896,459 3,290,381 -1,393,922 572,140 505,166 66,974 2013 estimate 2,901,956 3,803,364 -901,408 2,224,545 3,169,287 -944,742 677,411 634,077 43,334 2014 estimate 3,215,293 3,883,095 -667,802 2,472,854 3,167,901 -695,047 742,439 715,194 27,245 2015 estimate 3,450,153 4,059,866 -609,713 2,669,297 3,298,248 -628,951 780,856 761,618 19,238 2016 estimate 3,680,085 4,328,840 -648,755 2,847,273 3,519,901 -672,628 832,812 808,939 23,873 2017 estimate 3,919,275 4,531,723 -612,448 3,038,128 3,672,539 -634,411 881,147 859,184 21,963 * $500 thousand or less.
 

James Pethokoukis reframes this even more starkly on his blog:
Actually, the Obama spending binge really did happen
As the chart indicates, Nutting arrives at that 1.4% number by assigning 2009—when spending surged nearly 20%—to George W. Bush: “The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the 2009 fiscal year were made by George W. Bush and the previous Congress. Like a relief pitcher who comes into the game with the bases loaded, Obama came in with a budget in place that called for spending to increase by hundreds of billions of dollars in response to the worst economic and financial calamity in generations.”

Let me complete the metaphor for Nutting: “Then as those runners scored, Obama kept putting more on base.”

Obama chose not to reverse that elevated level of spending; thus he, along with congressional Democrats, are responsible for it. Only by establishing 2009 as the new baseline, something Republican budget hawks like Paul Ryan feared would happen, does Obama come off looking like a tightwad. Obama has turned a one-off surge in spending due to the Great Recession into his permanent New Normal through 2016 and beyond.

So, the author took 2009 and lumped it in with Bush (BLAME BUSH!) and failed to separate out the Omnibus Spending Bill of 2009, TARP, and the Stimulus. No biggie. You see, here's the whole point of Democrat budgeting. This is one of the oldest tricks in their book. They raise the baseline spending by whatever means necessary - emergency spending usually does the trick because a giant increase in a proposed budget generally doesn't garner a lot of votes on the floor. All of the increased spending rate occurs in one event, instead of a series of budgets passed over several years. Once the baseline is raised, that's the new normal, and future budgets (if they're ever actually, you know, passed) work from the previously established precedent of higher spending. Plus that makes it easier to blame the last president for all of your spending malfeasance. At this point in the budget approval process, if someone is sharp enough to pick up on their little trick, they typically come back with something that sounds a lot like, "But, it's for the CHILLLLDRENNNNN!"

Ok now let's tackle the second chart in this article. This is where the author really shows how stupid he thinks his readers (and Obama sycophants) really are.

The big surge in federal spending happened in fiscal 2009, before Obama took office. Since then, spending growth has been relatively flat.

Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%.

There has been no huge increase in spending under the current president, despite what you hear.

Why do people think Obama has spent like a drunken sailor? It’s in part because of a fundamental misunderstanding of the federal budget.

Do you notice something funny? That supposed lowest spending ever year, 2012? Doesn't that bar seem like it's taller than the other ones? Sure seems like that means spending is higher, not lower. Take 2009 and blame it on your predecessor, if pressed on the issue say that you inherited this mess from him, put it all in a blender for maximum spin, and voila! You're not a drunken sailor anymore!

The disrespect for the voters in these budget games never ceases to amaze. In fact, they seem to raise the baseline every time they open their mouths.

For more than a year FreedomWorks and local activists have been working hard to bring education reform to Pennsylvania. Concerned families, school choice supporters, bold legislators and even the governor himself have stood up with us against Pennsylvania's education establishment in an effort to reform the state's failing school system.

Despite this bi-partisan support, some legislators have chosen to ignore the voters, failing to protect the needs of students, and instead voting to preserve union power. 

By supporting free market solutions like vouchers and an expansion of the state's EITC tax credit,  Pennsylvania legislators could ensure the opportunities provided by a quality education are available for generations of students to come. 

Unfortunately, Big Government Republicans are blocking the road to reform . 

Please take a few moments and call the following lawmakers and tell them it is time to support meaningful education reform that includes vouchers and expansion of the EITC tax credit. 

These lawmakers hold the key to successful passage of any reform bill, and they need to hear from you. 

Please ask them to bring education reform to the table and bring a bill to the floor. Demand they act in the best interest of the children and not for the special interests in Harrisburg.

Please contact these legislators RIGHT NOW:

Marcia Hahn (R-138): (717) 783-8573
Fred Keller (R-85): (717) 787-3443
Carl Metzger (R-169): (717) 783-8756
Dan Moul (R-91): (717) 783-5217
Marguerite Quinn (R-143): (717) 772-1413
Mike Tobash (R-125):  (717) 260-6148

If you would like more information on this campaign, or to get involved, please email Campaigns Coordinator David Spielman at dspielman@freedomworks.org . 

Please also take a moment to sign the FreedomWorks petition supporting school choice reform. 

 

Democrats had such high hopes just weeks ago that they would recall Governor Scott Walker and oust him from office. But their dreams are fading fast. With just two weeks to go before the election, Governor Walker holds a six point lead in the latest Marquette poll. This past weekend the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, by no means a conservative paper, endorsed Scott Walker in the governor's race.

Last February THOUSANDS of Tea Party Patriots turned out in Madison, Wisconsin, to support of Republican Governor Scott Walker. The tea party still supports Scott Walker.

And, there is more good news for Governor Scott Walker and Wisconsin. The reforms passed by Governor Walker and Wisconsin Republican lawmakers saved the state one billion dollars.
This comes from the Wisconsin Reporter :

While a lightning rod for controversy and recall, Wisconsin's Act 10 has paid significant dividends to taxpayers, according to a new analysis by the Beacon Hill Institute for Public Policy Research, at Suffolk University in Boston.

Act 10, which curbed collective bargaining for most unionized public employees, in the whole has saved taxpayers more than $1 billion, according to The Economic Impacts of the Wisconsin Budget Repair Act . The study is slated for release this week by Beacon Hill Institute, a prominent free market think tank.

What the analysis found is that without the law, which in part requires covered public employees to contribute more to their benefits and holds wage increases to the rate of inflation, Badger State governments would have been forced to raise taxes or make deep job cuts to meet budget expenses.

As it was, Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican -controlled Legislature pushed through reforms and reductions that filled a $3.6 billion budget shortfall, although organized labor asserts Republicans balanced the budget on the backs of public employees.

The measure drew the ire of organized labor and the Democratic Party, with tens of thousands of protesters packing the Capitol. Ultimately, it was the Walker-led reforms that launched a recall campaign in which the governor in two weeks must defend his term at the polls, facing Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett in a historic gubernatorial recall election.

The Beacon Institute analysis argues the law may have been controversial, even divisive, but there’s no disputing its benefit to taxpayers.

The vote is two weeks away.
Let's all do what we can to help move Wisconsin forward.

The Obama administration is pushing for green energy in a forceful way.  Their newest attacks target the Appalachian coal mining industry.  With help from the Department of Interior’s Office of Surface Coal Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM).  

The 2008 Stream Buffer Zone Rule, which created regulations on where spoil from surface mining could be placed, is now being rewritten by the administration.  The House Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Doc Hastings, has recently obtained documents and audio recordings of contractors and federal agency employees that raise questions about the actions and motives behind this push for the rewrite of the 2008 rule. This information was obtained through an outside source after the Department of Interior had refused to release them for over a year, even after being issued to subpoenas. 

The Obama administration is saying that this revision is necessary in order to reduce the harmful consequences of surface mining.  But, after a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was ordered by The Obama administration ordered a new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), even though a thorough analysis had been done for the 2008 rule. An early draft of the Obama administration’s new EIS found their more forceful regulations could cost up to 7,000 mining jobs and negatively impact up to 22 states.  These results were not made public until a story by the Associated Press [read full story here] leaked the information.  The administration criticized the contractor that was responsible for the EIS draft and reiterated the fact that it was only a draft and these numbers were more of placeholders. 

The Natural Resources Committee is now looking into the motivation behind the push for the re-write (read the whole press release here), and examining the Regulatory Impact Analysis.  To make matters worse for the validity of the Obama Administration, their motives are under scrutiny again after the release of the draft Regulation Impact Analysis (RIA), which is required for any new significant federal regulations to examine possible economic impacts.  The draft found that there would be a substantial decrease in coal production as a result of the new regulation. 

Yet by the time of the February 2011 RIA draft, the tables and graphs showing any negative results and repercussions of the administration’s revision had been removed.  The report also revealed that any small mining company, companies with fewer than 500 employees comprising 94% of the industry, would face disastrous economic impacts. 

This is just yet another example of the Obama administration’s war on coal.  While the President Obama states he is out to restore jobs,  the impact of this new regulation does anything but that and his administration finds no problem in sweeping negative results under the rug to advance their war on coal.  

As FreedomWorks continues its efforts to stop Obamacare with a live blog event , some evidence is coming in that shows just how important the issue was to voters in the recent primary upset wins for Richard Mourdock & Deb Fischer. 

The 2012 presidential election cycle has already seen its share of distractions from the Obama campaign and its propaganda wing in MSM, most notably the student loan "crisis" and the miserable failure known as the GOP's "War On Women". This is, of course, because the president can't really run on what he considers to be his most notable legislative achievement when it continues to be an electoral albatross as far as likely voters are concerned . 

The entire slate of GOP candidates in 2012 would do well to take note of some of the concerns in the recent upset victories, especially Fischer's stunning triumph. While it has been presumed that Sarah Palin's endorsement delivered all of the magic that enabled Fischer to go from (almost) virtual unknown to nominee in a matter of two weeks, it seems that her embrace of what most would consider to be a symbolic "Repeal Pledge" may have done the trick. 

The poll cited in the Politico piece shows that thirty eight percent of the voters in the Nebraska GOP primary made their decision in the final week and fifty eight percent of them voted for Fischer. And it was her opt-in for the pledge that seems to have done it. 

Among self-identified conservative Fischer voters, her signature on the Repeal Pledge was deemed more important than the Palin endorsement by a 37-17 percent margin. Among self-identified moderate Fischer voters, the pledge was emphasized over Palin by a whopping 34-10 percent margin. Moderates, in fact, broke nearly 42 percent for Fischer, close to 15 percent for Bruning, and 17.6% for Stenberg

Mourdock also signed the pledge and voters in both Indiana and Nebraska were informed by paid ads which single candidate in each race had done so. 

There are, obviously, a variety of different factors that contributed to the respective victories in each state. The Mourdock win was a resounding triumph for grassroots conservatives who long ago wearied of being sold out by the establishment career politicians in the Republican party and have found a voice through the Tea Party movement and organizations like FreedomWorks. Even the CEO of the group behind the pledge isn't doing a sole-credit victory lap . 

Just to be REALLY clear: in no lifetime would I say that the Repeal Pledge gets credit for anyone's victory. A bad or not credible candidate could take the pledge repeatedly and it wouldn't make any difference.  Good candidates have won without it.  And by definition there are many issues, personalities, and outside groups that each are helping create the outcome.

But now we have data, and the implications for candidates of what we’ve just confirmed are huge.

Many pledges taken during a campaign are, in fact, largely symbolic and used as little more than talking-point fodder for ads. Most of them are also less specific, often pledging commitment to a general ideal like no new taxes. This one, however, was about a specific course of legislative action. 

Yes, as James Carville once said long ago, this election is still "...about the economy, stupid!"

The candidates who aren't stupid should realize that Obamacare is about the economy too and its damage has yet to be done. The repeal of this looming economic wrecking ball should be first and foremost on their minds and, as the losers in the recent primaries found out, they need to make that very clear.

Because this is 2012. And the voters they need aren't stupid. 

While the Obama administration has played up its independence and indifference to big business, recent announcements with respect to energy policy suggest that the administration does, in fact, cozy up to business, working in hand and glove to craft potential new regulations on energy exploration and development. Recently, a memo authored by Senate Environment and Public Works Committee staff member George David Banks, a top aide to ranking member James Inhofe, R-Okla., sheds a light on the machinations between the administration and energy interests. Unfortunately, this opens the door for a host of new regulations that may be imposed on hydraulic fracturing—or fracking—the process that has unleashed the recent energy boom in America. To the cheers of big business , the Obama administration issued an Executive Order calling for an interagency group of regulators to oversee federal policies toward fracking and other “unconventional” methods of natural gas production.

More specifically, Obama’s executive order creates an interagency working group that includes the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Interior, the Department of Energy, and ten other federal agencies in order to coordinate polices on the use of new technologies in energy markets. While acknowledging that states already have the authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing and all other forms of onshore oil and gas production, the executive order asserts that a federal role is required due to its authority to regulate oil and gas production on public lands and Indian trust lands. But make no mistake, the Obama administration intends to expand its regulatory authority above and beyond regulation by the states, including “setting sensible, cost-effective public health and environmental standards to implement Federal law and augment State safeguards.”

A joint memo released by the Energy Department, the EPA, and the Department of Interior offers further insights into the potential regulations that this interagency group may adopt. Drawing on the core competencies of each agency, the memo highlights areas of interest, including air and water quality, environment and human health risk, the use of green technologies, as well as “land use, wildlife and economic impact.” The memo also refers to an earlier report, “Shale Gas Production Subcommittee 90-Day Report,” which highlights the potential regulations that may emerge. For example, the memo calls for eliminating the use of diesel fuel for surface production, something which can easily transform into a new mandate on producers. Additionally, calls for best practices improvements are a ready made call for new EPA regulations to establish “best available control technologies,” or mandate new “maximum available control technologies.” Such BACT and MACT regulations are contentious, as demonstrated by the EPA’s recent Utility MACT, which is perhaps the most expensive regulation ever issued by the agency.

This cozy relationship brought a rare rebuke from Energy and Commerce staff member Mr. Banks, who challenged the sagacity of this newfound relationship between big energy and the Obama administration. The memo, which is available here , shows how the administration stood behind the shield of big business to create a new regulatory regime for energy. The memo further questions whether this interagency task force is needed in the first place. One reason is that states already possess the authority to oversee fracking operations along with all onshore oil and gas production, raising questions about the need for federal intervention. Additionally, having blessed this new federal interagency group, businesses will find it much more difficult to object to any regulations they may propose.

This also raises the specter of “Baptists and bootleggers,” a term coined by economist Bruce Yandle to describe unlikely alliances between interest groups with different intentions pursuing the same goal. Both Baptists and bootleggers favored Prohibition, but for clearly different reasons: one group viewed the law as an exemplar of moral behavior while the other saw it as a means of eliminating their competitors from the marketplace. With respect to the new federal efforts on fracking, there is the possibility that the large companies lauding the executive order and the environmental groups opposed to fracking will eventually settle on costly regulations that make it difficult for smaller rivals to compete with the big energy companies. For example, the American Petroleum Institute has been vocal in its support of the Obama administration, but this interest group represents on a small percent of producers; roughly 95 percent of oil and gas wells are developed by independent producers. Businesses cheering the news of a new regulatory body should be enough to raise anyone’s eyebrow.

Natural gas is an important component of America’s energy future. Currently, roughly 25 percent of the nation’s energy is derived from natural gas, and shale gas—the production of which relies on technologies such as fracking—is playing a significantly larger role in production. Just a decade ago, shale gas accounted for just 2 percent of natural gas production; by 2011 that figure had jumped to 30 percent. The rush for new federal regulations may impede such advances, unnecessarily increasing energy prices for consumers and businesses.

New technologies such as hydraulic fracturing, 3D seismic imaging, and horizontal wells have revolutionized energy markets in the United States—to the point that the nation could become the energy powerhouse of the next century. Yet innovation and development require the flexibility to compete in the market for energy. Anointing a new group of federal regulators to oversee this emerging market all but assures that new and additional burdens will be placed on those trying to compete in this marketplace, reducing the potential benefits for American consumers and businesses.

File Attachments

Executive_Order_Memo.pdf
150.29 KB

In the latest Tea Time interview, Max Pappas sits down with Rep. Tom Graves of Georgia, another of the absolute best defenders of liberty in Congress. In this, the first of three episodes, the Congressman talks about his personal background and how he rose from humble beginnings to become the first in his family to earn a college degree.







Tea Time Interviewee: 

Tom Graves

Personal Freedom and Power IV:  Taxes Diminish Personal Power

“The power to tax is the power to destroy.”

-Chief Justice John Marshall

Every tax imposed by government diminishes the power of the person taxed.  Excessive taxation obstructs choice and entrepreneurship, which restricts freedom and prosperity for the individual taxed and the entire community.

 
Cut Spending – Cut Taxes:  Sweden – Ryan – Tea Party Budget
  “Austerity has failed,” is the mantra of the proponents of big government in America.  Seeking to enlarge central control, these predators of the governmental dole are singing in unison, “Look at Europe.” 

Okay, let’s inspect Europe.  Most of Europe raised taxes, nibbled at “cuts,” and expanded deficits.  Their economies are terrible.

However, there are two notable exceptions.  Since 2009, Germany and Sweden cut spending and balanced their budgets, which produced good economic growth, substantially better than the economic growth of United States and the remaining European countries.   Robert Barro a Harvard economist reports in the Wall Street Journal : 

Two interesting European cases are Germany and Sweden, each of which moved toward rough budget balance between 2009 and 2011 while sustaining comparatively strong growth—the average growth rate per year of real GDP for 2010 and 2011 was 3.6% for Germany and 4.9% for Sweden. If austerity is so terrible, how come these two countries have done so well?

Veronique de Rugy of George Mason University succinctly states: The answer is that they constrained spending without jacking up taxes.

Spain, Greece, Italy and most of Europe really didn’t impose austerity – the cuts were insignificant.  They continued to spend and increased taxes.  Resultantly, these countries continue to stagnate economically.

Instructive is the culture and economic transformation in Sweden.  Yes, Sweden the home of central government and high taxes – the benevolent government, adored by socialists everywhere.  Sweden has changed.  They are reducing taxes and cutting spending.  Sweden’s Finance Minister, Andres Borg, reasoned that government policies – high taxes and rigid regulatory controls - had caused decades of economic stagnation.

Sweden was a textbook case of European economic sclerosis. Very high taxes and huge regulatory burden.’

In January 2007, Borg and Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt cut taxes, and began to balance Sweden’s budget by cutting welfare benefits.  Yes, they cut welfare benefits and cut taxes and balanced the budget – in Sweden!  The excessive welfare state had encouraged less work and less productivity.  Borg explains how they framed their message.  The Spectator writes:

‘We are the new workers’ party.’ Tax rates would be cut for workers, and welfare cut to pay for it. High welfare levels, he says, can inflict cruelty in the name of compassion. ‘People emigrate from the labour market. Unemployment traps capture a lot of people in social exclusion.’ Tax cuts are not spoken of as an ideological aim, but as a tool to cut unemployment and advance social justice.

When the Great Recession spread to Sweden, Borg rejected the almost universal call for deficit spending.  His stimulus was more cuts in spending.  Borg explains in The Spectator : 

‘Look at Spain, Portugal or the UK, whose governments were arguing for large temporary stimulus,’ he says. ‘Well, we can see that very little of the stimulus went to the economy. But they are stuck with the debt.’

Note, Sweden has the highest growth in GDP in Europe.  Obviously, Borg knows wealth, investment and entrepreneurs are essential for a vibrant economy and prosperity.  A vibrant economy advances science, art and the standard of living for the entire society.  Totally contrary to “tax the rich” chant in America, Borg is enticing entrepreneurs and the wealthy to invest and live in Sweden.  Borg has cut the taxes on the rich – again in Sweden!

If you have a high wealth tax and an inheritance tax, people emigrate because it becomes too costly to own a company. Ownership is a production factor. Entrepreneurs are a production factor. Yes, these people are rich and you can obviously argue that we want to encourage social cohesion. But it is also problematic if you drive out entrepreneurs from your country, because they are the source of job creation.’

Compare the cultural and political climate of Sweden to the United States.  In 2011, Representative Ryan introduced his spending cuts – The Path to Prosperity - and President Obama invited him to a presidential speech, where the President ridiculed Ryan.  Then, the Democrats spent millions on a video showing Ryan pushing a grandma in her wheelchair off a cliff.   In the meantime, President Obama and his academic elites increased the deficit by more than a trillion – all in the name of stimulus. 

Harvard’s Barro believes these deficits – totallimg over $5 trillion in four years – had a modest impact in 2009 and a negative role in 2011 and 2012. 

For the U.S., my view is that the large fiscal deficits had a moderately positive effect on GDP growth in 2009, but this effect faded quickly and most likely became negative for 2011 and 2012. Yet many Keynesian economists look at the weak U.S. recovery and conclude that the problem was that the government lacked sufficient commitment to fiscal expansion; it should have been even larger and pursued over an extended period.

 Of course as Borg indicated, now America has more debt – horrendous debt.

Right now, Ryan and the House Republicans are attempting to reduce spending, and to eventually balance the budget.  Exactly the opposite, Majority Leader of the Senate, Harry Reid (D-NV) vows to stop any spending cuts.  Reid always seeks to increase the power and reach of the central government.  In reality – especially compared to Sweden – Ryan and the House Republicans have a moderate proposal.  This is politically understandable.  The Democrats continue to demagogue The Path to Prosperity and establishment-Republicans are very queasy.

Remember, Andres Borg convinced the people of Sweden that fiscal austerity was good for all Swedes.  Sweden cut spending and taxes.  The economy and employment expanded.  Likewise, Paul Ryan proposes to cut spending to expand the economy and employment.  Borg cut welfare benefits.  Ryan seeks to restructure many federal programs to the states and local community.  Ryan speaks of “subsidiarity,” which is a Catholic philosophy that focuses on the actual person, rather than a class of people, e.g., the poor and unemployed. Rather than classes of people controlled by rules, regulations and bureaucracies of a central government, Ryan proposes community and individually based solutions.  The Acton Institute explains : 

This tenet (subsidiarity) holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.

So far, Ryan has quietly spoken of subsidiarity and local governance.  Andres Borg observed that welfare “traps people in social exclusion.”  Ryan’s “subsidiarity” returns welfare to the community where true compassion and individual charity excels.  However, Ryan and all of us that believe in government closest to the people must articulate and expand our philosophical and moral message to more Americans.  

In addition to directly helping people in need – subsidiarity, We the People must set a goal for reducing taxes for all Americas – including the rich.  Andres Borg appreciates the entrepreneur and is beginning to entice them back to Sweden.  Likewise, America – truly the home of the entrepreneur – must foster opportunities for every American to expand their capacities – to combine creativity with savings to innovate and invent.  This is the philosophy and process that made America exceptional, and will restore economic growth and prosperity.

Finally, a fiscal message – austerity – is not enough.  We the People must convey the fiscal and human good that is part and parcel of limited government. 

Fiscally, a majority of Americans want small, restricted and locally-centered government.  The best proposal to reduce federal spending and balance the budget was produced by The Tea Party Debt Commission.  Thousands of Americans participated in producing the Tea Party Budget which cuts spending by almost $10 trillion in 10 years. 

Now, We the People must communicate with our fellow Americans, presenting our version of the fiscal, cultural and moral renaissance.  Decrease the confiscatory and autocratic power of government and increase the power and responsibilities of family and community.  Cut taxes and bureaucratic despotism, freeing all Americans to save, invest and expand their economic and social powers.

Bluntly, if America wants to remain an economic and cultural power, America must return to its roots – a government of limited powers.  This is the fiscal and cultural war that now besets America.  The political elites and their predatory special interest groups – Wall Street, big unions, government bureaucracies and big business – versus most Americans.  About 30 percent of Americans favor the political elites and 70 percent are strongly opposed.  Our opportunity and mission is to reach the 70 percent with the economic, moral and political alternatives to our present malaise and decline.

Some pundits are saying that the big banks like JP Morgan and Bank of America are too big and need to be broken up, in sort of a preemptive antitrust enforcement. But it would be far better if we just let the free market work, as we should have been doing all along. Failure to do so will have one inevitable result: the banks will fail, because they are too big not to fail.

The Washington Post ’s Kristina vanden Heuvel says it’s time to break up the banks :

Consider $2 billion lost on a bad bet, plus billions more as investors dumped the stock, a providential warning. When Jamie Dimon, the imperious head of JPMorgan Chase, revealed that the bank had lost so much on a derivatives trade gone bad, it was clear warning that, four years after blowing up the economy, the big banks are still playing with bombs.

Now, it’s not clear that the big banks can be blamed for “blowing up the economy”, but it seems enough of a Known Fact that vanden Heuvel is able to use it axiomatically. I remember decades of being told real estate prices could never go down, watching real estate prices go down after an oil spike, and then seeing them continuing to decline. The big banks were as much a victim of the various bubbles as the rest of us.

Were we really victims?  Everyone who ever signed a mortgage first had to apply for it, and then had the chance not to sign it. And how many of us sat in the banker’s office wondering if the suit on the other side of the desk knew we were getting the best of them?

Other pundits simply call for more regulation, as if regulators looking over the shoulder of every stock trader and bank teller would fix the problem. It would not, because as yet there is no problem.

But to vanden Heuvel, the 25 billion transactions per year of derivative trades valued in the trillions of dollars is all far too risky, based on one set of such trades losing money for one bank that has the funds to absorb it easily.

IIf JP Morgan has a problem, that problem is best handled by allowing it to affect JP Morgan, not by trying to prevent JP Morgan from knowing it has a problem..

As Michael Tanner said at National Review :

There is reason to question whether more regulation would, in fact, have done anything to prevent JPMorgan’s losses. Bloomberg notes that bank regulators and the Federal Reserve already had the power to examine the books of the London branch of the investment office, where the trades in credit-derivative indexes were made. And while these investments may have lost money, and may indeed have been unduly risky, such risk hedging is crucial to making it possible for banks to lend money. Comptroller of the Currency Thomas Curry says that it is too soon to know whether the so-called Volcker Rule would have prohibited the trades in question.

In fact, attempting to regulate away losses -- whatever the size -- is the same as attempting to regulate away profit. It is a classic Fool’s Errand: impossible to achieve, and you wouldn’t want the result anyway. Tanner goes on to note that JP Morgan has already been punished for the failed trades by the market, which has devalued JPM by 10% over the deals. And that’s not including the biggest punishment: loss of faith among prospective customers and trading partners. That the punishment is far worse than JPM deserves should be clear.

I really don’t care if JP Morgan lost $2 billion on some of their trades, and neither should you -- even if you own JPM stock.  What you should care about is the high likelihood that if JP Morgan lost $20 billion that our government would bail them out -- and you should worry especially if you own their stock . It’s a perversion of the capitalist system, and one of the reasons we cannot be said to have a free market economy. But more pointedly for investors, a bailout might help a company in the short run, but in the long run it can only lead to sloth and inefficiency -- and the heavier hand of regulators who do not share your interests.

The complexity of a large organization grows with it, eventually outpacing the ability of executives -- and certainly of regulators -- to understand its operation. In time, any big organization will fail. The only question is whether we will postpone the failure with continued bailouts and punitive regulation until the organization takes us down with it.

------
Note: a search for the turn of phrase that is the title of this piece turned up one reference, a blog comment from 2009 .

In this third and final episode, Senator Rubio talks about the importance of holding politicians accountable once they are elected. He emphasizes that many legislators really do respond to feedback from constituents.

As this interview was also broadcast live, the Senator takes a couple of questions from FreedomWorks members, about the "Buffett Rule", and about gas prices and energy production.







Tea Time Interviewee: 

Marco Rubio

Increasing Debt Ceiling, No Budget, Unrestrained Spending, And A Spinning Debt Clock... Obama’s Road To American Serfdom

By: Jim Hoft with Andrea Ryan

Buckle up.  Here we go...again.

On cue, America’s credit card is maxed out again.  And, on cue, our pompous Demogogue-in-Chief emerged before America, feigning command over the situation.  Predictably, Obama preemptively scolded Congress for their anticipated reckless and ideological misbehavior and fighting.  Because, they can’t “hold the American and global economy hostage to one party’s ideology ”, since it’s their “responsibility to ensure that the U.S. pays its bills and maintains its creditworthiness ”.

The Washington Post reported,

“During lunch at the White House with top leaders of the House and Senate, Obama called the political deadlock last year “not acceptable” and emphasized that he expects a “serious bipartisan approach” to tackling the budget and the federal deficit this year, White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

Obama stressed the need to “avoid fighting old political fights,” Carney told reporters after the meeting. “It’s simply not acceptable to hold the American and global economy hostage to one party’s political ideology. It’s the responsibility of Congress to ensure that the United States of America pays its bills, maintains its creditworthiness.”

Meanwhile, as Obama was admiring himself before his audience, the Senate Democrats were busy refusing to pass a budget.  Again.  Republicans proposed four fiscal blueprints for responsible spending, and the Democrats rejected all of them.  And, of course, proposed none of their own.  Again.  In complete violation of the law, it has been over 1,100 days since our country has had a budget.  That is obscene on so many levels, but, most importantly, because it creates an unnecessary and imminent threat to the stability of our country, and our national security.

According to The Washington Times ,

The Senate on Wednesday rejected every single budget being offered this year, leaving the chamber - and therefore the federal government - without a plan to address Medicare , Social Security and the other major entitlement programs that are driving deficits and debt.

In repeated votes, Democrats who control the chamber defeated four Republican proposals, including a plan that passed the House in March. The entire Senate also unanimously rejected President Obama’s 2013 budget, voting 99-0 against it, following a 414-0 vote against it in the House earlier this year.

Congress is required by law to pass a budget by April 15, then write the annual spending and tax laws to carry out the budget’s targets.

But for the third straight year, Democrats didn’t offer a plan of their own in the Senate . The last time it did pass one was in 2009, when Democrats controlled all the levers and wrote the measure that paved the way for them to pass Mr. Obama’s health care law.

In other words, the Senate Democrats are “holding the American and global economy hostage to their political ideology ” and betraying their “responsibility to ensure that the U.S. pays its bills, and maintains its creditworthiness .”  But, to protect the U.S. against a horrific fate would require a budget…something the Democrats refuse to provide.

Not far from here lies Greece, a once proud country built on an ancient foundation of historical greatness.  A country that has declined into complete fiscal, social, and political chaos  because of the failure of a grand scheme by its citizens to borrow and spend their way into prosperity.  Their government is in shambles and the citizens are cleaning out the banks in droves.  Who needs Spartans when a country can be reduced to a scene of carnage simply through its debt and governmental incompetence?

In "The Road to Serfdom ", Friedrich von Hayek  labeled what we are witnessing today.

“Everything which might cause doubt about the wisdom of the government or create discontent will be kept from the people. The basis of unfavorable comparisons with elsewhere, the knowledge of possible alternatives to the course actually taken, information which might suggest failure on the part of the government to live up to its promises or to take advantage of opportunities to improve conditions--all will be suppressed. There is consequently no field where the systematic control of information will not be practiced and uniformity of views not enforced.”

But, concurrent with Washington's spectacular display of insanity and Obama's passionate drive to divert America's greatness, economic freedom, and liberty into serfdom, Mitt Romney was in the Heartland giving a speech about our crisis of debt.  Romney's message, calling Obama's "prairie fire of debt" a "nightmare mortgage for America", was smartly wrapped in the imagery of a prominently displayed national debt clock .

Obama's failed policies of Socialism are taking us down Hayek's road.  If we don't change direction we might as well hold the chains ready for our children.

Today, May 16th, in an attempt to do the job that the Democrat-controlled Senate has failed to do for 1,113 days, Senate Republicans forced votes on five budget proposals.  As expected, all five budget proposals failed, with not a single Democrat voting for any one of them. 

FreedomWorks issued a Key Vote notice in favor of the budget resolutions being offered by Senators Toomey, Lee, and Paul.  Although Senator Paul's budget was the most effective proposal for solving our country's spending crisis, all three offered bold solutions and would have been a dramatic improvement on the current unsustainable spending. 

Here's how the votes turned out on all five budgets up for a vote today:
President Obama’s budget proposal, S.Con Res. 41 , which was introduced by Senator Sessions of Alabama in order to give the Democrats a chance to vote on the President's plan to dramatically raise spending and taxes.  Unsurprisingly, the Obama budget received zero votes from either party, as it is absurdly unsustainable and indefensible.  Roll Call Vote 97 . Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget as passed by the House, H.Con.Res. 112 , failed 41-58.  Roll Call Vote 98 . Senator Toomey’s Budget, S.Con.Res. 37 , failed 42-57. Roll Call Vote 99 . Senator Paul’s budget, S.Con.Res. 42 , failed 16-83. Roll Call Vote 100 . Senator Lee’s Budget, S.Con.Res. 44 , failed 17-82. Roll Call Vote 101 .
It is worth noting that there are four Republicans who voted with the Democrats against all five budget resolutions: Senators Brown (MA), Collins (ME), Heller (NV), and Snowe (ME).

There will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in return to give more to them.  Hence as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom, a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed:  the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less.  And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more.

- Benjamin Franklin, a letter to the Constitutional Convention

 
Can We the People Govern Ourselves?
Can democracies survive?  Can We the People govern ourselves? Maybe, but democratically elected politicians must significantly alter their behavior. 

Recently, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed the fiscal gap of state governments in America.  What they have found is elected officials have promised too much and saved too little.  The combined debt of the States is over $4 trillion.  These are debts to be paid by future taxpayers.  To eliminate their debts, state governments must increase tax revenues by 12.7% annually or reduce spending by 12.7%.

Benjamin Franklin once warned about predatory interest groups, using government to extract favors – paid by all the tax payers.

There will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in return to give more to them.    

Unfortunately, present -day politicians have been pleasing the predatory, interest groups without raising taxes.  Ruinously, elected politicians give benefits, e.g., posh retirements to government workers, and do not increase taxes.  Intentionally, politicians are increasing the government’s debt, which must be paid by future workers.  This is a common curse of democratically elected governments - politicians buy votes today and push debts off to future generations.  

Bob Williams, CEO of State Budget Solutions, identifies the sources of America’s disabling debt – accounting gimmicks, reckless spending and devious politicians: 

The downward spiral that state budgets are experiencing are the result of accounting gimmicks, reckless spending, and a failure of state legislatures and governors over the years to make the tough decisions to reset state spending to a level that taxpayers can afford.

Presently, America is stagnating economically and socially because of politically created debt.  Tragically, few politicians are honestly assessing the problem, and fewer are attempting to correct the escalating fiscal, political and societal upheaval.

Bob Williams, a former legislator, federal auditor, budget expert and a champion of personal freedom, knows what states must do to escape their imminent disasters.  First, identify essential government functions and implement Reality-Based Budgeting. 

Upon determining how much money the state actually has, government officials must establish what is the most effective and efficient way to deliver essential services within those limits.

Equally import, states must impose 401(k) type retirement accounts.  At the bequest of the public employee unions, generous and unfunded retirement and medical benefits have been promised to government workers.  Again Williams:

Unfunded pension liabilities are the dark cloud on the horizon of state budgets; a cloud totaling trillions of dollars.

Again, states must tax future workers to meet these contractual obligations.  Last year, Illinois increased its income tax by 66% and California is attempting to increase its income tax from 10 to 13 percent to help pay for government employees' benefits.

Politely, Bob Williams states that time is of the essence:

The day of reckoning is here.

Will these changes be implemented? Some states have made modest reforms, e.g., Utah and Indiana.  Other states are attempting to institute reforms, which politically and socially are fervently contested, e.g., Wisconsin, Ohio, and New Jersey.  Realistically, few politicians have the fortitude, persistence and character to reverse and rectify years of political gimmicks and gamesmanship. For self-government to survive and thrive, We the People must become persistently involved with the necessary reforms.
First, recognize all democracies have essentially the same problem – politicians pleasing their current voters at the expense of the future taxpayers. Second, support, support, support the politicians with the character, fortitude and competence to institute the essential reforms.  This is only a first step, but is essential in the short run. We the People must limit the power of government – federal, state, and local – to strictly defined functions. Politicians must be held accountable for all violations of the limits of the government’s power.  “Held accountable” includes monetary damages, which includes a politician’s pension. Many states and local governments will not produce leaders interested or capable of instituting the necessary reforms. Teams of policy and politically savvy experts – restructuring experts - will be needed.  Policy and financial experts to define the essential government functions, implement efficiency controls, and allocate the necessary money.  We the People must insist on empowering the experts to initiate necessary reforms.  Similar to the military base closure commission established by the federal government, the experts would recommend changes, subject to an all or nothing vote of the elected representatives.  Possible better, the vote could be all or nothing by the people.
There is no perfect solution.  There has never been a perfect system of governance.  America has had the best system of government, which in recent years has been overrun by predatory special interest groups and conniving politicians. Almost every political entity in America has accumulated enormous debt, which must be paid by future workers.  At some point, the future workers are going to refuse to pay for the past recklessness and corruptions of elected politicians.  Reformation must begin immediately.  Bob Williams has identified two essential reforms – Reality-Based Budgeting and pension reform. 

Again, time is of the essence or greater disruptions and bankruptcies will occur – much greater and more violent than the social and economic unrest occurring now. 

Much more important, self-governance is precious - unique.  Only We the People can restore and improve our system of self-governance.  Only structural reform will restore freedom and prosperity in America.  Politicians must be held accountable. 

Benjamin Franklyn understood that predatory interest groups would corrupt the political process, with the rulers demanding more taxes which enslaves the people:

There will always be a party for giving more to the rulers, that the rulers may be able in return to give more to them.  Hence as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom, a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed:  the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less.  And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the Princes, or enslaving of the people. Generally indeed the ruling power carries its point, the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more.

Tonight, May 16th, at 7 PM, FreedomWorks will host a free, live webcast with Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma to discuss his plan to halt the EPA’s latest round of job-killing regulations.  While you watch, you can post questions for the Senator.  Watch the webcast by clicking HERE .

Besides taking your questions, Senator Inhofe will discuss:
The EPA’s war on American energy and jobs. His Senate Resolution to prohibit the EPA from implementing Utility MACT – their most destructive regulation yet. His new book on climate change, entitled “The Greatest Hoax”.
Who: Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, Max Pappas, FreedomWorks Vice  President of Public Policy and Government Affairs, and Wayne Brough, FreedomWorks Chief Economist and Vice President of Research.

What: A live, streaming webcast to discuss Senator Inhofe’s efforts to stop the EPA’s runaway regulatory power.

When: Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 at 7 PM EST.

How: At 7 PM tonight, go to the webcast by clicking HERE .

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE
On Wednesday, May 16th at 7 PM, FreedomWorks will host a free, live webcast with Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma to discuss efforts to halt the EPA’s latest round of job­-killing regulations.  While you watch, you can post questions for the Senator.

Besides taking your questions, Senator Inhofe will discuss:

·         The EPA’s war on American energy and jobs.

·         His Senate Resolution to prohibit the EPA from implementing Utility MACT – their most dangerous regulation yet.

·         His new book on climate change, entitled “The Greatest Hoax”.

The Senate is expected to vote on four competing budget plans introduced by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA), Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), and Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) today. Passing an annual budget for the federal government is a fundamental responsibility of Congress. Yet under Harry Reid’s leadership, the Senate has not passed a budget in over three years and no Democrats in the Senate have even offered a budget proposal this year.

All of these proposed budgets would be an improvement from the status quo but Rand Paul’s Platform to Revitalize America shines above the rest. It would repeal ObamaCare, reform the tax code, block grant Medicaid to the states, reform Social Security, and balance the federal budget in just five years without raising taxes.

Most Republicans pay a lot of lip service to cutting spending but their actions rarely live up to their limited government rhetoric. But true fiscal conservatives like Rand Paul actually walk their talk. His budget plan is the only one that will abolish entire departments. The Departments of Education, Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development would be axed under his plan. Poof! These needless bureaucracies would be gone. That’s what I call a real budget plan. This is the strongest budget plan in a generation and all senators serious about reducing the size and scope of government should stand behind Rand Paul’s budget.

The Rand Paul budget would slow up the regulatory state. The American people are forced to comply with thousands and thousands of outrageous new rules and regulations issued by the executive branch annually. The term “major rule” refers to any rule or regulation that has an annual economic impact of $100 million or more. Regulatory agencies issued 100 major rules in 2010 without any input from our elected representatives in Congress. Anyone who remembers the classic School House Rock! video that shows how a bill becomes a law can testify that unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch aren’t supposed to make the laws.

The executive branch has completely disregarded article 1, section 7 of the Constitution, which outlines the process of creating a new law and clearly gives that power to the legislative branch. Rand Paul’s budget would implement the REINS Act which requires congressional approval for all “major rules” proposed by the executive branch. The REINS Act wouldn’t be necessary if the Constitution was strictly followed in Washington, DC. Congressional representatives are the most accountable to the people and must be allowed to stop harmful regulations that will erode individual liberty and crush job growth.

Under the Paul plan, Americans would no longer fear sexual harassment at the airport since the plan would privatize the TSA. Rand Paul knows a little something about how incompetent and abusive the TSA can be. He was detained at the Nashville airport for hours and ended up missing his speech at the March for Life back in January. The TSA picked the wrong guy to mess with. Now the senator is pursuing his mission to abolish the TSA with a vengeance.

As the budget report card complied by Dean Clancy and Daniel Anderson shows, Rand Paul’s plan earns an A+. The plans introduced by Sens. Mike Lee and Toomey earn an A- and B+, respectively. All three plans would balance the federal budget and save trillions of dollars within the next decade. But as FreedomWorks noted in our key vote notice , we do have serious concerns about the health care reform proposal in the Lee Budget and the Medicare provisions in the Toomey and Lee budgets—proposals that trace their roots to the Heritage Foundation plan that provided the template for RomneyCare and ObamaCare.

Why haven’t more Republicans rallied behind Rand Paul’s plan? Only seven senators had the courage to vote for Rand Paul’s almost identical budget plan last year. Do most Republicans senators want to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic? Simply nibbling around the edges of the budget won’t cut it.

Will the real conservative senators please stand up? The time has come to make your actions match your rhetoric.

Click here to tell your senator to vote for Rand Paul’s budget plan.

Max Pappas returns with Episode 2 of 3 with Senator Marco Rubio. In this episode, Senator Rubio talks about his political and economic philosophy. He addresses the complexity of the tax code, the burdens of over-regulation, and the dangers of our out-of-control spending and national debt. The Senator also stresses the urgent necessity of repealing Obamacare and dramatically reforming our health care entitlements.







Tea Time Interviewee: 

Marco Rubio

Good News From Wisconsin- Local Democrats and far left activists are in a panic! With less than three weeks remaining in the Wisconsin recall race, Governor Scott Walker is up by nine points in the latest We Ask America poll.

Worse yet for Democrats, MoveOn.org reported in a mass email that the DNC has withdrawn financial support from the race. Via the Democratic Underground the MoveOn.org email reads:

BREAKING NEWS FROM WISCONSIN: The Democratic National Committee isn't investing in the massive get out the vote effort in Wisconsin to recall Scott Walker. Wisconsin is ground zero for Democrats this summer —and there are only three weeks before Election Day—which is why this breaking news just doesn't make sense.

Still more bad news for Democrats--

In the latest Daily Kos/PPP poll (two far left organizations) Governor Scott Walker leads Tom Barrett by 5 points, 50-45.

The Wisconsin Democrats may be frustrated but the race is not over yet. The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that after Wisconsin Democrats aired their frustrations with national party leaders the Democratic Governors Association dropped another $700,000 into its recall ad buy. And, far left lightning rod and Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) will be campaigning with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett this month.

Now is the time to push Scott Walker over the finish line.   FreedomWorks for America has endorsed Governor Walker and you can help Governor Walker by donating to our efforts. Or, you can volunteer for his Super Saturday event this weekend. Now is not the time to let up. Let's help Scott Walker keep Wisconsin moving in the right direction.

I hope you can join us this week on our grassroots road trip through Ohio!

We'll be launching the tour in Troy with a Get-Out-the-Vote training session before continuing on to Cleveland and Toledo to help train and organize the great activists there.

I hope you can join us for at least one of these exciting events.

As you know, 2012 is a pivotal year for Ohio and America. From ObamaCare to EPA regulations, radical and dangerous policies are killing jobs across the country and preventing an economic recovery.

We must Take America Back in 2012. I know we can count on your help to turn the tide in Ohio and across America.
Event Details

•    Get-Out-the-Vote Training: Club 55
          845 W Market St Troy, OH
          Thursday May 17, 6:00 pm – 9:00 pm EDT
        
•    NW Ohio Conservative Conference: Hilton Garden Inn
          Levis Commons Blvd. Perrysburg, OH
          Saturday May 19, 9:00 am – 11:00 am EDT
         
•    Get-Out-the-Vote Training: The Freedom Center
          45 E Seminary St Norwalk, OH
          Saturday May 19th, 10:00 am – 12:00 pm EDT
         
•    Get-Out-the-Vote Training: Sheraton @ Cleveland Hopkins Airport
          5300 Riverside Dr. Cleveland, OH
          Saturday May 19, 3:00 pm – 5:00 pm EDT