Putting an economy-wide cap on America’s greenhouse gas emissions continues to be projected as a costly initiative. A policy brief recently released by Harvard's Energy Technology Innovation and Research Group concluded that reducing oil imports and greenhouse gas emission levels in the U.S. would be, “Harder than it looks.” More specifically, the study bluntly stated:

Reducing oil consumption and carbon emissions from transportation is a much greater challenge than conventional wisdom assumes. It will require substantially higher fuel prices, ideally in combination with more stringent regulation.

Regarding prices at the pump, the new study concluded that a legitimate decrease in transportation emissions by 2020, 

…may require gas prices greater than $7/gallon by 2020.

These significant increases in gas prices and regulation would need to be accompanied by tax credits in order to subsidize electric or hybrid vehicles. However, in order for these subsidies to exist, increases in government revenues would be required. Translated, this would mean more tax hikes for American consumers. Regarding this subsidy schema, the study notes:

…it is extremely expensive and an ineffective way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.

Creating yet another tax (an energy tax), and increasing regulations to ensure a decrease in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, is a fusion of what the majority of Democrats in Congress want, and what the EPA is pursuing. While Congress is in the midst of crafting a cap and tax related bill, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to exercise a backdoor power grab that would place an annual threshold on the amount of greenhouse gases that businesses and vehicles can emit. Both initiatives would financially burden American taxpayers. Given the state of our recession stricken economy, does it really make sense to further increase spending levels, and further increase taxes, especially when the impact on global temperatures is negligible at best?

The proposed Murkowski Resolution, if passed, would foil the EPA’s aggressive regulatory agenda. This resolution, or one of the other proposals is a critical step to shutting down the EPA’s backdoor power grab.

We are calling everyone that is able to come to Washington, DC on March 16th, 2010 for one last push against Obamacare. We will meet at the Cannon building at 9am and speak with as many representatives as possible, encouraging them to vote NO on this version of health care reform.

Upon passing the “stimulus” last year, Obama repeatedly claimed that he would “call out” any political official that misused or wasted any portion of the $787 billion “stimulus”:

If a federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money I will not hesitate to call them out on it and put a stop to it. And I want everybody here to be on notice that if a local government does the same. I will call them out on it and use the full power of my office and our administration to stop it... We have asked for the unprecedented trust of the American people to deal boldly with the greatest economic crisis we've seen in decades and with that the privilege of investing unprecedented amounts of their hard earned money to address this crisis. With that comes unprecedented obligations to spend that money wisely, free from politics and free from personal agendas. On this I will not compromise or tolerate any shortcuts.

So have any wasteful, inefficient and politically driven projects been funded by the “stimulus?” All signs point to absolutely yes.

John W. Pope Civitas Institute released a report on The 10 Worst Federal Stimulus Projects in North Carolina, the top three wasteful projects on their list include studying the effects of cocaine on monkeys, a private dance theater and reducing hot flashes through yoga.

1. Study of monkeys using cocaine:  $71,623
Wake Forest University was granted money to “study the effects of self-administering cocaine on the glutamate system on monkeys.” Well, at least the monkeys will be stimulated.

2. North Carolina Dance Theatre: $50,000
This grant is used to retain four professional dancers from the North Carolina Dance Theatre’s second company. Nice for them, but why are tax dollars financing what should be a privately-funded philanthropic organization?

3. Reducing hot flashes through yoga: $147,694
Funds granted to Wake Forest University to study “preliminary data on the efficacy of integral yoga for reducing menopausal hot flashes.”  The President warned us that the stimulus plan was needed to avoid an economic 'catastrophe.' How does this study help revive the economy?

An article by the Sun Sentinel lists a multitude of strange projects that the “stimulus” is funding in Florida:

 The cactus bug project at the University of Florida is more ambitious, spending $325,394 in stimulus money to determine how environment affects the mating decisions of females. According to the project proposal, it should also answer the question, 'Whether males with large weapons are more or less attractive to females.'

In addition, Florida allocated almost a million taxpayer dollars to the study of lice:

$934,498 to UF for high-tech equipment to study the DNA of lice.

In Massachusetts, a notable portion of the “stimulus” money has gone to bee research.

9.3 million is headed to Harvard for a project called "Robobees," to artificially mimic the behavior of a bee colony.

Reporter Kathy Curran asks an important question:

How does the study of bee pollen in northern Iceland during the Viking age create jobs and stimulate the local economy?

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a report analyzing 100 wasteful stimulus projects. Included in his long list is a small Pennsylvania airport:

The John Murtha Airport in Johnstown/Cambria County will receive $800,000 in economic stimulus funds, despite the fact that virtually no one uses the airport.

Looking back, the intention of the “stimulus” was to:

save or create about 3.5 million jobs while investing in priorities that create sustainable economic growth for the future.

According to Nova Southeastern University economics professor Albert Williams:

There is no guarantee that these quirky projects will in fact create jobs.

During Obama’s speech urging local governments and federal agencies to use the “stimulus” money in a wise manner he correctly stated that:

    the American people are watching.

In fact, the American people are watching and questioning why their hard-earned money is involuntarily funding odd research projects on lice DNA, historical bee pollen and drugged monkeys. In addition, Americans should wonder why Obama has yet to “call out” local governments for funding these projects that have failed to stimulate any job growth.

FreedomWorks "No Reconciliation" petition has surged past 60,000 signers in less than a week!  The last I saw we had 61,308 signers - with more joining all the time.  Be sure to forward it to your family and friends to sign and urge them to forward it as well.  The best way to stop this thing is by growing the movement person by person, group by group.

Once you've signed - go to the Stop ObamaCare Online War Room to take action.

These coming days are crucial to finally stop this thing once and for all.  We have to make all the hard work of the past year count, and we can't stop short of the finish line. 

If you can, try to come to DC for a day of lobbying. on March 16.  We aren't gathering in a nice, neat crowd.  We aren't going to be outside, out of the way.  We're going to be in their offices demanding that those who represent us listen to the folks who gave them the power they have to begin with.

If you can't come to DC, go to your local district offices.  While this may sound less exciting, for staff members not accustumed to the hustle and bustle of a DC office, this could be the biggest thing that happens in their office all month and can make a huge impact. 

Over the next few days, we'll have more details and packets of talking points and information on ObamaCare and cap and trade that you can download and take with you so please keep watching for updates and spread the word!

 

Congressmen Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Mike Pence (R-IN) and John Campbell (R-CA) last week introduced the Spending Limit Amendment to the U.S Constitution. This constitutional amendment would ensure that federal spending will not exceed one-fifth of the nation's economy. The spending limit, if passed and ratified by the states, can only be suspended by a declaration of war or a two-thirds congressional vote. Rep. Jeb Hensarling and Mike Pence released a statement in the Wall Street Journal explaining the excessive growth of federal spending within recent years:

 In five years, federal spending has skyrocketed to 24.7% from 19.9% of our economy. That's the highest level since World War II. Borrowing has ballooned the national debt to $11.9 trillion from $7.3 trillion, a five-year increase equal to the accumulation of debt between President George Washington and President Bill Clinton.

Due to the rapidly increasing national debt, Pence believes that limiting spending to one-fifth of the economy is a necessity:

 With our nation facing a fiscal crisis, it is time to fundamentally change the way Washington spends the taxpayers' money. Unless we change course, the public debt will consume the entire economy in less than fifteen years. Runaway spending and record debt will make future generations of Americans less free, less prosperous and less secure.

The following graph depicts how federal spending would likely drastically change under the Spending Limit Amendment:

Unfortunately, the Spending Limit Amendment continues to not receive the attention it deserves. The current level of government spending is unsustainable and simply cannot be ignored. As Rep. Hensarling and Pence declare, this is a "spending cap with teeth." It is urgent that those who believe in fiscal responsibility call their representatives and ask them to vote for the Spending Limit Amendment for the sake of America's future prosperity.

Come join FreedomWorks, and many other Tea Party groups and organizations in our storming of the three House Office Buildings to express our opposition towards Obamacare 2.0!

We will be meeting outside the Canon House Office Building beginning at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, March 16th. Our message is Vote No on Obamacare 2.0!

Click here to learn more about the details of this event.

Slowly but surely, Democratic support for the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases is waning.  Recently, West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller introduced legislation that would prohibit the EPA from going forward with its regulation scheme for the next two years. Sen. Rockefeller, a coal state Democrat, contends that protecting jobs is vital, and that that is precisely what his EPA proof legislation intends to do. Politico reports that Sen. Rockefeller stated that his bill will,

…safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy.

Many Republicans and coal state Democrats have expressed grave concerns about the economic implications of EPA’s regulatory proposal. The economies of coal dependent states are among some of the most vulnerable victims of potential EPA emission regulation. In other words, the degree to which this bureaucratic power grab could decrease productivity, growth, and employment is based on geographic location. Either way, what’s bad for some states, ends up being bad for the domestic economy as a whole.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, who proposed the Murkowski Resolution, which aims to prevent the EPA from acquiring its backdoor power grab, commented on Sen. Rockefeller’s proposed legislation:

Senator Rockefeller’s legislation is further evidence of the growing, bipartisan, and bicameral resistance to EPA’s back-door climate regulations...Given the overwhelming opposition to these actions, I’m hopeful that this bill will draw additional support and advance quickly.

Regarding the increasingly negative sentiment that is percolating among Democrats over the proposed EPA regulations, Politico reports:

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) introduced companion legislation in the House, with coal state Democrats Reps. Alan Mollohan, of West Virginia, and Rick Boucher, of Virginia, as cosponsors.

Politico also mentions:

Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) have signed on to another a disapproval resolution authored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would also attempt to stop the EPA rules.

With the EPA’s CRU researched science recently having been discovered as tainted and manipulated, the EPA should be in no immediate rush to slow the economy with its proposed regulations. After all, doesn’t climate change regulation that is projected to stifle our already crippling economy seem irrational? Hasn’t our economy suffered enough over the past couple of years?

The Murkowski Resolution will help you learn more about legislation that aims to prevent the EPA’s backdoor power grab. This is legislation that will safeguard American workers from the costly burden of more red tape.

Display Mode:  Image: Show only the feature Image. Image:  Button Image:  URL:  http://www.freedomworks.org/landing/noreconciliation/index.php Weight:  0

Spending Limit Amendment would create constitutional amendment to cap federal spending

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

Dear Representative,

Both Republicans and Democrats have had sole control of both chambers of Congress and the White House at different times over the past decade and made it clear that excessive spending is a bi-partisan problem.  That is why, on behalf of hundreds of thousands of FreedomWorks members nationwide, I urge you to cosponsor what should be a bi-partisan solution: H.J. Res. 97, the Spending Limit Amendment (SLA) proposed by Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Mike Pence (R-IN), and John Campbell (R-CA). 

The SLA would create a constitutional amendment to cap federal spending at the post-World War II average of 20% of the economy.  For historical perspective, federal spending was less than 10 percent of GDP as recently as 1940.  In the past ten years, annual federal spending has almost doubled, going from $1.8 trillion to $3.52 trillion.  In that time span, the government’s expenditures grew from around 18 percent as a share of the economy to almost 25 percent.  This massive increase has lead to the highest levels of spending as a share of the economy since World War II. 

Over the last ten years, federal debt—which is ultimately taxpayer debt—has also more than doubled, increased from $5.6 trillion to $12.5 trillion.  That increase is greater than the entire accumulation of federal debt incurred from our first president, George Washington, through our 42nd president, Bill Clinton.  The annual federal budget has gone from a $236 billion surplus in 2000 to a $1.4 trillion deficit in 2009.

Left unattended, these enormous levels of borrowing and spending will continue to grow.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that by 2036 three entitlement programs will consume all federal revenue—and that is without the expensive new health care entitlement Congress is considering adding.  It also predicts that by 2038 the amount of debt held by the public will reach 200 percent of the total economy.  This path is clearly unsustainable.  It will necessitate an increase in burdensome taxes, slowing economic growth, and will inevitably lead to a lower standard of living for Americans than would otherwise be achievable. 

Adding the Spending Limit Amendment (SLA) to the United States Constitution would guarantee that federal spending cannot continue to grow the size government at unsustainable rates.  The SLA would limit federal spending to 20 percent of the economy.  This, of course, should not be seen as the level spending should be, but rather the most it could possibly be.  This proposal allows the limit to be waived if a declaration of war is in effect or with a two-thirds vote of Congress.  The Amendment would not set forth a particular plan for how the government should appropriate spending.  It would instead establish a Constitutional restraint on the spending that present and future lawmakers pass.

Amending the United States Constitution is one of the most serious responsibilities of our system of self-government.  It is intentionally and rightfully difficult to do.  But our forefathers understood that—in order to protect the prosperity of the union and the liberties of its people—there would be situations which necessitated the amendment process.  The displayed inability of both parties to restrain spending on their own, which has lead to the mortgaging of our nation’s future, is one such situation.  The recent debt troubles in Greece should serve as a clear enough reason for this course of action.  I urge you to take action now and support this amendment.  Our children and grandchildren are depending on you. 

Sincerely,

Matt Kibbe
President and CEO

File Attachments Letter_constitutional_amendment_cap_spending.pdf108.45 KB

Today, the Labor Department reported that 36,000 net jobs were lost in the month of February. In comparison, the number of job losses grew from January’s reported 26,000 net job losses. Construction was the hardest hit industry cutting an estimated 64,000 jobs last month. According to the LA Times, there were no improvements in February’s job market since millions are still unable to find a job or full-time employment.

The number of officially unemployed remained at nearly 15 million, with 4 in 10, or 6.1 million people, having been out of work for six months or longer. And the Labor Department's broader measure of unemployment and underemployment, which includes part-time workers who want full-time jobs, rose to 16.8% last month from 16.5% in January.

The seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate remained unchanged at 9.7% in February. Of course, the unemployment rate fails to factor in the 1.2 million discouraged workers that have given up actively searching for employment. Below the Atlantic graph shows the stunning increase in discouraged workers since October 2007.

The White House’s economic adviser, Larry Summer, claimed that the blizzards in earlier February were responsible for the disappointing unemployment data since some workers were not paid for hours they did not work:

The blizzards that affected much of the country during the last month are likely to distort the statistics.

However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the blizzards likely had minimal effect on the Labor Department’s reported job statistics:

The unemployment rate was probably affected least by the snowstorm. The Labor Department said people who miss work due to weather-related events are counted as employed whether or not they’re paid for the time off. In prior snowstorms the unemployment rate barely moved even as payrolls showed large swings due to weather.

House Republican leader John Boehner claimed that Washington’s poor economic policies, not its weather, was responsible for the disappointing jobs report.

Mother Nature is a force to be reckoned with, but it’s the blizzard of higher taxes, wasteful spending, and reckless borrowing coming out of Washington that’s destroying jobs in this country.  President Obama and Democratic leaders will come out of the woodwork today armed with rehashed promises to do better, but their top and seemingly only priority remains this unpopular, unaffordable government takeover of health care.  This partisan health care bill has become a national distraction, and it’s not too late to scrap it so we can start over with a clean sheet of paper and a step-by-step approach focused on lowering costs and protecting American jobs.

Unfortunately, the White House will likely continue to wrongly blame the high unemployment rate on “snowpocalypse.” One reason that the unemployment rate remains high is current bills in Congress that will drastically raise taxes on businesses and individuals. The threat of potential future tax increases leave businesses uncertain whether or not they can afford to hire more employees. Therefore, businesses should be granted tax cuts that will make hiring new employees more affordable and secure.

A new web site was launched today in an effort to give citizens a voice in government’s continued, aggressive attempts to takeover healthcare. NoHealthCareReconciliation.com, an online petition website, was launched by FreedomWorks to give the public a voice on this backroom attempt to bypass the will of the people. "We’re hearing a lot of pent up anger over this brazen last-ditch effort to take over healthcare," said Matt Kibbe, President of FreedomWorks. "These arrogant procedural games simply will not be tolerated by the American people. Today, NoHealthCareReconciliation.com is giving them a voice."

"President Obama is getting desperate," said FreedomWorks Chairman, Dick Armey. "When he was a Senator, he supported a single payer system. He has since retreated to a government option, and now to a government knows best federal mandate with price controls that will savage private insurance. All the while he has not listened to or considered Republican alternatives, until he was in front of cameras. This is an exercise in using a sledge hammer to achieve a short term political goal instead of taking the time to create good public policy."

Budget Reconciliation was created in the Senate to enable the chamber to move quickly on crucial matters that affect the federal budget and basic government operations. Using it to ram through a partisan political agenda is a perversion of its original intent and has conservatives and independents alike hopping mad.

In addition to the abuse of parliamentary procedure, reconciliation violates the spirit of the April, 2009 DeMint Amendment that passed the Senate by virtue of a unanimous consent. The DeMint amendment requires a "point of order" for 60 votes to pass on any proposed health care legislation that would prevent Americans from keeping their current health care plan.

FreedomWorks’ launch of NoHealthCareReconciliation.com will be accompanied by an aggressive online organizing campaign for concerned citizens as well as active members of the tea party movement. Through the online war room, activists will also be able to email and call their legislators as well as find updated briefing materials and target lists.

Petition signatures will be delivered to Congress to reinforce the American public’s distaste for ObamaCare - and the parliamentary tricks that the left is stooping to in order to pass it.

 

So Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have made it clear they will “go nuclear” on health care and use the “reconciliation process.”  As usual, these Washington phrases leave many wondering what they mean and what steps may be taken to do this.

“Going nuclear” on legislation in this instance means jamming it though Congress against bi-partisan opposition and the clearly demonstrated opposition of the American people with 50 votes rather than the usual 60 in the Senate by using “reconciliation” rules.  “Reconciliation” rules were created in 1974 by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) to make it easier for the Senate to pass bills that dealt with the federal budget and deficit reduction.  About using this process for the health care bill, Byrd last year said:

The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation -- a process intended for deficit reduction -- to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role. ... [T]actics that ignore the means in pursuit of the ends are wrong when the outcome affects Americans' health and economic security.

--Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), "The End Of Bipartisanship For Obama's Big Initiatives?" The Washington Post, 3/9/09)

Left-wing cheerleaders like EJ Dionne at the Washington Post have argued that Byrd’s comments are irrelevant to the current debate because they were in reference to the big health care bill, not the smaller “reconciliation” bill that will be used to get the big Senate bill passed in the House.  But this is a false dichotomy.  The big Senate bill and its companion “reconciliation” bill are both part of the one big process experts are calling the “two bill strategy”. 

The best and most detailed explanation I’ve seen on this is by Keith Hennessey in “Mechanics of the two bill strategy.”

Basically, the House won't vote on the Senate bill, and all its bad details, until Pelosi and Reid have an agreement on what will be in the second bill, the reconciliation bill, and Pelosi gets a promise from Reid that he has 50 votes for the reconciliation bill.  Once that agreement is in place, they move one bill and then the other.  Maybe.  If all the politicians keep their word.  Which would be unusual. 

That’s why Sen. Gregg (R-NH) noted:

If you're in the House and you're saying, 'Well, I'm going to vote for this because I'm going to get a reconciliation bill,' I would think twice about that.  First because, procedurally, it's going to be hard to put a reconciliation bill through the Senate. Second because I'm not sure there's going to be a lot of energy to do it, from the president or his people. In my opinion, reconciliation is an exercise for buying votes, which, once they have the votes they really don't need it.

Dionne also argues that it's OK for the Democrats to abuse the reconciliation process and jeopardize the important function of the Senate because Republicans did so in the past.  This "he did it, too" school-yard argument ignores the fact that the American people threw the Republicans out of power for their many infractions against individual liberty, including such an abuse of power.  And, as first-grade teachers have to say too often, two wrongs don't make a right.

But if they do go all the way through the process, here’s a bit more detail on what to expect.  Using what we know about the process and some dates recently leaked in Inside Health Policy from a Democrat memo their “two bill strategy” will take the following steps:

Step 1, Friday, March 19: Pelosi has the House pass the Senate's health reform bill (Bill #1) from this past December without making any changes.  They have to do this because they know they can not get the 60 votes in the Senate again to pass such a monstrosity of a bill and that there is no way the “rules of reconciliation” could ever be bent far enough to accommodate this bill. 

The passage of Bill #1 is contingent upon the Pelosi and Reid agreeing to what changes will immediately be made to Bill #1 in the separate bill they will move through the “reconciliation” process--Bill #2.

Bill #1 then goes to the president for signature and becomes law.

Step 2, Monday, March 21: The House votes on Bill #2—the “reconciliation” bill—containing the agreed upon changes to the laws created Bill #1. 

Step 3, Wednesday, March 23: The Senate begins debate on Bill #2, the reconciliation bill. Debate is limited to 30 hours.

Step 4, Friday, March 26: The Senate begins voting on amendments to Bill #2, the last day before Congress leaves for Easter recess.  If all amendments are stopped, the Senate will need just 50 votes, under the rules of reconciliation, to pass Bill #2 and Obama, Reid, and Pelosi will have succeeded with their government takeover of health care.

What would the Founding Fathers think of this subversion of the legislative process?  None other than George Washington made the deliberative purpose of the Senate clear when Thomas Jefferson, upon returning from France, asked him why at the Constitutional Convention he had agreed to the creation of a bi-cameral legislature, instead of just one chamber.

“Why,” said Washington in response, “did you just now pour that coffee into your saucer before drinking it?”

“To cool it,” said Jefferson, “my throat is not made of brass.”

“Even so,” said Washington, “we pour our legislation into the Senatorial saucer to cool it.”

We need to tell Congress to cool it. Again.

Please sign our petition at www.NoHealthCareReconciliation.com and use our Health Care War Room to get in touch with your representatives and ask them to “cool it” as Washington said.  For more things you can do to make a difference, see "How to Defeat ObamaCare 2.0" by FreedomWorks' director of campaigns, Brendan Steinhauser.

These next few weeks are critical, so please also send this on to everyone you know and get them involved.  Washington "going nuclear" on us calls for a big response!

Many activists are wondering how to fight the final battle against Obamacare 2.0. Now that the president has made it clear he wants to jam a bad bill down our throats through "reconciliation" we must renew our efforts to stop this from happening.

After a morning conference call with activists from around the country, I wanted to share a few of their ideas with you. Most of these activities should be organized immediately, but their should be a major focus on the townhall idea during the congressional Easter Recess, which begins March 27th.

UPDATE: Fox News ran with a story about our strategy for Obamacare 2.0!

1. FreedomWorks has put together an online petition against the use of "reconciliation." You can sign it here: http://nohealthcarereconciliation.com We will personally deliver copies of the petition to Capitol Hill in the weeks ahead, and will post the pictures and videos on this blog. Please sign the petition and forward the link to your friends.

2. District office visits. We need to spend a LOT of time inside and outside district offices this month. To find out where your congressman has an office, please visit http://house.gov Be sure to try and schedule teams of two or three to go to the district office and meet with congressional staff. Every person going inside the office should deliver hand-written letters from their friends, family and neighbors about Obamacare 2.0 and the use of reconciliation. This will make a powerful statement about where the American people stand.

3. District office protests. Most of you know exactly how to do these! Keep up the pressure on your congressman by protesting outside the district offices. This could be done at the same time as the district office visits, or at different times. Have everyone protesting pick up their cell phones and call the DC office of your congressman to let him know that you are protesting outside his district office. Invite the local newspapers and tv stations to attend your protest.

4. Townhall meetings. These can be done throughout the month of March, and especially into the Easter Recess starting March 27th. Put together a public forum on healthcare, and focus on reconciliation. Invite your group and the public, and have an open microphone for citizens to speak out. If you congressman is around, invite him or her to attend. If they refuse to do so, just put up an empty chair with a nameplate and microphone. Create a visual that shows that your congressman doesn't want to face the people on this critical issue. If we can re-create the August 2009 townhall brouhaha, we will win this fight once and for all.

5. Protest incumbent re-filings. Watch this great video from the Pulaski Tea Party group in Arkansas. They protested inside the state capitol building in Little Rock as Senator Blanche Lincoln was filling out the paperwork to run for U.S. Senate. Invite the media and make your protest very public. Thanks to Bob Porto and Jebb Young for sharing this idea with the country!

Finally, thank you to Robin S. of Punta Gorda, FL for sharing his target list of vulnerable liberals in the House of Representatives. These folks should face the most grassroots activity from limited government activists. Again, visit http://house.gov to find out where they have offices in their districts.

Jay Cost over at RealClearPolitics has the best, most up to date whip count.

Brian Baird WA-03
John Boccieri OH-16
Bart Gordon TN-06
Larry Kissell NC-08
Jason Altmire PA-04
John Adler NJ-03
John Barrow GA-12
Allen Boyd FL-02
Rick Boucher VA-09
Ben Chandler KY-06
Tim Holden PA-17
Suzanne Kosmas FL-24
Frank Kratovil MD-01
Betsy Markey CO-04
Eric Massa NY-29
Jim Matheson UT-02
Michael McMahon NY-03
Mike McIntyre NC-07
Glenn Nye VA-02
Colin Peterson MN-07
Ike Skelton MO-04
John Tanner TN-08

Last week state legislators in New Mexico failed to pass an operating budget for fiscal year 2011 so they are now in a special session to get one passed. Thankfully, limited government advocates have been able to hold the line on higher taxes and are refusing to burden the working families of New Mexico further. Unfortunately, those calling for higher taxes haven’t backed down either. Your representatives and senators need to hear from you today.

and oppose tax hikes in New Mexico.

A number of tax hike plans are being floated that call for higher taxes on cigarettes. These plans are trying to put the fiscal burdens of an entire state on one small portion of the population. New Mexico is not the only state facing budget gaps in this down economy, many states are in the same boat. And many of the states that have tried to pull the quick cash cigarette tax maneuver have found that it isn’t the silver bullet many hoped for and often the expected cash just doesn’t materialize.

Instead of paying ever higher prices, smokers go online, across state lines, to reservations, and the black market to purchase cigarettes. That also leaves New Mexico’s small businesses hurting as sales decline. A majority of smokers are poor, which means that regressive cigarette taxes will fall most heavily on the shoulders of those who are struggling most to make ends meet these days. These are too many problems all to pay for a tax that won’t even bring in the promised funds big-government spenders are counting on.

and tell your legislators to oppose any tax hikes to fix the budget. New Mexico need to kick the spending habit, not burden our small businesses and the poor to dig us out of our financial hole. This is a state-wide problem that should be addressed by everyone.

That means cutting spending and waste. These are new times and we can’t afford the same big government plans of the past that weigh down families and enterprise. It’s hard to find anyone exempt from the current economic downturn. But if families can learn to do more with less and stick to slimmed-down budgets, New Mexico can, too.

When you come up short at the end of the week, you can’t go next door and tax your neighbor. You learn to get by. Urge your legislators not to compromise – no tax hikes for New Mexico. Your constant vigilance and support is greatly appreciated.

If the Democratic lawmakers in this video use reconciliation to gain passage of the currently pending health care bill, then it becomes clear that these same Democratic lawmakers are hypocrites in their own right. In this video, Democratic lawmakers claim that reconciliation is an irreponsibile power grab. Well if reconciliation is an irresponsible power grab, then why are these same Democratic lawmakers who denounced reconciliation deliberately choosing to use it?

 

Click here to sign the no reconciliation petition!

We knew it was coming.

It's been a threat hanging out there since last spring.

But now it's official.

Reconciliation, aka "a simple up or down vote" according to those trying to hide their real intentions from a critical public (who oppose reconciliation), is on the way to pass sweeping health care legislation (when 63% of voters want to see a smaller bill that addresses individual problems) by avoiding a Republican filibuster.

For those confused by this Senate procedure, here's how things are going to progress:

Sen. Tom Harkin told POLITICO that Senate Democratic leaders have decided to go the reconciliation route. The House, he said, will first pass the Senate bill after Senate leaders demonstrate to House leaders that they have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate.

... When asked whether the leaders had made the decision, Durbin said: "We are moving ahead with a version of the health care reform bill that we believe has a good chance of passing both the House and the Senate."

He then put the onus on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to signal whether she can provide enough votes to pass the Senate bill, followed by a package of fixes through reconciliation.

"The first step is with Speaker Pelosi and so I will let her decide what it takes in the House," Durbin said.

Reconciliation "has always been an option. But she has to make her own decision on what it takes to enact this in the House," he added. 

Durbin said Democrats are "coming to closure" on legislative language to send to the Congressional Budget Office for a cost estimate -- a step that can take weeks. "It has not been sent yet, but we are hoping it can be sent soon."

Over at RedState.com, the Heritage Foundation's Brian Darling goes into reconciliation in more detail.  It is a must read for anyone following this fight. 

There are three reasons why this perversion of reconciliation is unprecedented and wrong.  First, the liberals failed to pass ObamaCare through the regular order when they had huge majorities, therefore they need to change the rules of the game to pass ObamaCare.  Also, the leadership in Congress is attempting to use a reconciliation measure to amend a bill that has yet to be signed into law.  The plan is for the House to pass the Senate passed version of ObamaCare, then to pass the reconciliation measure to avoid a filibuster in the Senate.  Finally, the bill is unpopular, yet the majority party needs to restrict the rights of the minority party to make sure the minority party does not use procedural rights to uphold the will of a majority of Americans who hate ObamaCare.

Read the rest of the article to learn more.

What's next?

We know a few things:Obama, Pelosi, and Reid want this done before the Easter recess so that legislators don't have to face their constituents at town halls again like in August.  Easter recess starts on March 28 for the House and Senate.  Also, it takes some time to get bill particulars, CBO scores, and vote whipping together.  So this isn't going to happen tomorrow.

That means there is no reason to give up hope - far from it when we have good policy and a majority of Americans on our side.  Besides, we've kept up this fight so long, when no one thought it was stoppable, that we're hardly going to give up now. 

We need to make all our hard work this past year worth it.  If you have never visited your legislators' district office, this is the time to do it.  If you have never organized sit-in, or a candle light vigil, or just a protest outside their offices - this is your moment.  If you have already been doing all that - thank you.  We need our numbers to swell so use this opportunity to recruit and engage others.

Visit our war room for updated tactics and information.  Organize others in your area through our forum. And watch closely for updates. 

We have not yet begun to fight.

 

As Florida’s legislative session opens, insurance reform looms as a hot topic.  Legislation and regulation have all but destroyed the market for property insurance in Florida, reducing availability while increasing the state’s financial risk.  Poor public policy has driven major carriers from the market, leaving consumers a choice of either state-run Citizens Property Insurance Corporation or small insurance companies that most people do not recognize.  And the Herald-Tribune recently noted that many of these companies may lack the resources to cover claims in the wake of a hurricane.  Lawmakers must seize the opportunity to adopt real reforms that create and promote a working property insurance market for Florida’s homeowners.

In less than three months another hurricane season will arrive in the Sunshine State, yet the current insurance market in Florida remains problematic.  State-run Citizens has become the largest insurer in the state and currently holds 1 in 5 of all homeowner polices.  With Citizens badly overexposed and the Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund facing shortfalls in excess of $15 billion, should a major storm hit, the state is on the brink of financial disaster.  Unless the Florida legislature passes meaningful reform, nothing will protect Floridians from massive assessments should a major storm hit the state.

Rebuilding requires resources, and if they do not come from insurance policies, they will come from the taxpayer.  Instead of putting the state’s financial future at the mercy of the weather, efforts should be taken to encourage more underwriting in Florida rather than driving insurers out of the state.  Insurance reform is critical to the state’s future, and lawmakers should push for real reform in 2010.

The battle over climate change legislation heats up, as members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee recently held a press conference on the “introduction of the Resolution of Disapproval on the EPA’s carbon dioxide endangerment finding.” The resolution, which is similar to the Murkowski resolution in the Senate, currently has 79 co-sponsors.  As in the Senate, the resolution of disapproval was brought under the Congressional Review Act and aims to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from issuing regulations to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act; a backdoor power grab that would economically burden businesses and households.

The resolution would prevent the EPA from jumping ahead of Congress to impose costly new regulations on the American economy. Many who oppose the EPA’s intrusive plans contend that such regulations would essentially act as a national energy tax. 

U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Republican American Energy Solutions Group, was in attendance at Tuesday’s press conference. Regarding the EPA’s proposed initiatives, Pence commented:

Families across America and across the state of Indiana are struggling to pay their bills and the last thing they need is higher energy costs, yet that is precisely what the EPA's endangerment finding would cause. This finding is nothing more than a backdoor national energy tax that will cap growth and trade jobs.

Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio), commented:

The American people are asking, ‘Where are the jobs?’  They know the last thing we need in a struggling economy is new regulations that amount to a back-door national energy tax.  This tax will hit every middle-class American family and small business owner when they drive a car, flip on a light-switch, or buy any product made the United States.

U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), commented:

The endangerment finding that EPA put out last year is fatally flawed.

Rep. Barton then proceeded to state:

We want to send a very clear signal that what the EPA has done is wrong and it should be overturned by the elected members of the House and the Senate.

In today’s Politico, U.S. Rep., Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), commented:

The EPA has not only moved away from its mission of being the Environmental Protection Agency, now they are the Economic Punishment Agency.

There are many concerns with the EPA’s attempt to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from our country’s emissions of fossil fuels, which propel the economy’s growth and account for 85 percent of the nation’s energy. The overarching purpose of  the press conference, hosted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans, was to emphasize the economic burden of decreasing emission levels, and increasing energy costs for businesses and consumers. Limiting emission levels rations and therefore limits production, which would only guarantee a further relapse of the U.S. economy.

Republican House Minority Leader, John Boehner (R-Ohio) jointly introduced a new resolution, similar to the Murkowski Resolution, which would prevent a a power grab by the EPA. This resolution concisely points to the lack of validity in the EPA’s endangerment finding and therefore states that the EPA should not jump ahead of Congress with immense plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.

With the national unemployment rate looming around 10 percent, President Obama visited Georgia to attempt to lure Congress into accepting his proposal to make American homes more energy efficient. According to the White House, Obama's plan, officially known as the Homestar program, is expected to create tens of thousands of jobs. In the Homestar program, consumers will have an incentive to invest in energy efficiency improvements to their homes. Depending on the consumer’s energy savings, they will receive a set amount of tax payer dollars from the federal government:

The rebates are two-tiered: the Silver Star level offers $1000-$1500 rebates for improvements such as insulation, duct ceiling, windows, roofing, doors and upgrades to heating and cooling systems. The Gold Star level is for consumers who are planning more comprehensive energy retrofits and include an upfront home energy audit to achieve a 20% energy savings in their homes. Consumers at that level can receive $3000 and potentially additional rebates for energy savings in excess of 20%.

 With construction's unemployment rate at 24.7%, Obama expects his proposal to:

spark more construction hiring and would benefit home-improvement retailers.

Furthermore, a senator administration official claimed that the Homestar plan would be:

one of the fastest, easiest and cheapest things we can do to put Americans back to work while saving families money and reducing carbon emissions.

This should sound strikingly familiar to the Cash for Clunkers program last July. In fact, the Homestar program or as some call it—“Cash for Caulkers” was inspired by the so-called “successful” Cash for Clunker program. Unfortunately, politicians tend to ignore the long-term effects of their legislation. A number of lessons should have been learned through Cash for Clunkers. Granting temporary government rebates--tax payer dollars-- to those that traded in their old clunker for a new car gave consumers an incentive to buy these vehicles. However, due to the increase in demand, it also gave producers an incentive to raise the prices on all their vehicles. As a result, car dealerships were ordering a massive amount of new car shipments. After the brief Cash for Clunkers program ended, car dealerships were left with an over supply of cars that would not sell.

According to the Wall Street Journal,

the 'cash for clunkers' program, worth nearly $3 billion of taxpayer's money, increased car sales temporarily to record levels. But once the program was withdrawn, sales came close to plumbing new 2009 lows in September.

A report by Edmonds.com found that Cash for Clunkers cost taxpayers $24,000 per car since most of the cars would have been bought anyway without government rebates. 

As the graph above shows, Cash for Clunkers did boost auto sells for approximately a month—however, it is imperative to analyze the long-term effects of the program. According to the American Spectator, the demand for automobiles decreased after the program ended:

Cash for clunkers basically moved car purchases from the future to last summer, meaning it delayed many auto industry layoffs. The stimulus bill moved the date of a lot of other layoffs. Instead of coming last year, they'll come this year.

Once again, Obama has ignored the law of unintended consequences by promoting another incentive program likely to fail to achieve its objective. A good portion of Americans are likely to take advantage of the Cash for Caulker program’s government rebates and invest in energy efficient home improvements--  regardless of whether they were going to anyway without government intervention. Since the demand for these home improvements will increase, the price for the products and construction workers will also rise. Once the government program ends, the demand for home improvement products and construction workers will likely be lower than before government intervention. According to Chris Edwards, scholar at the Cato Institute,

It fits into that theme of artificially trying to pump up the economy in the short run but in my view at the expense of long-term growth. It increases the government's debt and will probably, like those other temporary programs, produce higher inflation in the future.

If Cash for Caulkers is passed, the federal government will be favoring a certain industry at the expense of others--it is taking your hard-earned tax dollars and redistributing it to others to pay for their home improvements. Americans should be free to spend their money to stimulate growth in the industry of their choosing--or save it or do as they please with their earnings. In the end, Cash for Caulkers will not increase long-term employment in the construction sector, it will only add to the unsustainable budget deficit and excessive national debt.

Flatonia, Texas had its first ever tea party protest this past weekend. The new group celebrated the one year anniversary of the tea party movement that began on Feb. 27th, 2009. There were more than 350 people in attendance in a town of only 1300! Congratulations to the folks there for their hard work, dedication to freedom, and their willingness to take to the streets to rally for freedom.

Check out the great pictures below!