United States Congress

The Democrats continue unjustified attacks on taxpayers and job creators

by Guest Author on February 6, 2012

The following article by U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district, including the Wichita metropolitan area, explains — yet again — how ridiculous it is for President Barack Obama and others to attack Wichita-based Koch Industries on the Keystone XL pipeline issue. Pompeo explains that Koch has no financial interest in the pipeline, what “intervenor” status means, and who really stands to benefit if the pipeline is not built. Pompeo hints at who it is, but I’ll be more direct: Warren Buffet. A news article that explains how Warren will personally benefit from blocking the Keystone XL pipeline is Buffett’s Burlington Northern Among Pipeline Winners.

The Democrats continue unjustified attacks on taxpayers and job creators

By U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo

The President and his allies, including those in Congress, have shown what a nasty, personal, and abusive re-election campaign we are about to experience. A recent sideshow in my committee in Congress provides yet another clear and shocking example.

A recent letter from Representatives Henry Waxman and Bobby Rush, both Democrats, demanded a live witness and testimony from “a representative of Koch Industries” at a hearing on the Keystone XL pipeline, scheduled to be held just two days later. The frivolous nature of the request is proven by that plainly unreasonable deadline. But the partisan tactics go far beyond that.

Even if Koch Industries had a financial interest in the Keystone XL pipeline, what possibly could be wrong with that? Perhaps more importantly, under what circumstances would such an interest be worthy of a congressional inquisition? Charles Koch and David Koch, co-owners of Koch Industries, are citizens, taxpayers, entrepreneurs, and employers. Their companies employ nearly 50,000 people in the U.S. alone. The company maintains its headquarters in the district I represent, employing 2,600 great Kansans. The company and its employees are among the most hard-working and generous in our community. The company has never been bailed out by the American taxpayers. And given that Americans are desperate for jobs, we should be begging entrepreneurs to look for new opportunities, not attacking them simply because their companies might make a profit.

The facts are clear: Koch Industries does not have a financial stake in the pipeline — why, therefore, should its officials become part of the all-too-familiar congressional committee circus? The facts are straightforward and a matter of public record. Koch Industries has repeatedly stated that it does not have a financial stake in the pipeline: It does not own the pipeline, it has no role in the pipeline’s design, it is not one of the shippers who have signed contracts to use the pipeline, and it will not build the pipeline.

Democrats dug deep for some excuse to attempt to haul Koch officials in for a public flogging. What did they find? A 2009 attempt by a Koch subsidiary to obtain “intervenor” status in a Canadian legal proceeding, in order to track the approval process for the pipeline. Wishing to know the fate of the pipeline, and having an interest in whether or not the pipeline is built — as thousands of frustrated American workers and consumers do — obviously does not amount to a financial interest in the pipeline’s construction. Indeed, the Sierra Club of Canada applied to “intervene” in the same proceeding. Notably, no one has alleged that Congress should investigate the Sierra Club’s interest in the pipeline project. So the “intervenor” ploy is a patent sham, and provides no basis for harassing Koch Industries.

It is also difficult to believe that Members of Congress really think that a particular company’s asserted financial interest in a project is, or should be, relevant to the merits of that project. It becomes still harder to believe, given the decision to target only Koch Industries and the Kochs — and no other company or individual. Doubtless many companies and individuals stand to benefit, or to be harmed, depending on whether President Obama’s decision to delay the pipeline is allowed to stand. News accounts have mentioned a number of those who might reap financial windfalls from the pipeline’s demise, including at least one of President Obama’s most prominent supporters and donors. (Hint: His secretary was the President’s highly visible prop at the State of the Union address.) But two congressmen directed their attention exclusively toward the Kochs, who — as successful businessmen and outspoken critics of the President’s job-killing, statist programs — have been targets for the Administration and its allies for many months.

Indeed, the very first line of President Obama’s very first campaign advertisement for the 2012 election attacks the Koch brothers. And liberal blogs and publications have published countless slanted pieces on Koch Industries, heavy on innuendo and light on facts. The Obama Administration has long been criticized for maintaining a de facto “enemies list” of its perceived political opponents, whether they are respected Supreme Court Justices, disfavored reporters, or private citizens who just want to keep their own doctors. The Democrats’ obsession with the Kochs as a political target is, indeed, additional evidence of a truly Nixonian approach to politics. That the Obama Administration and its allies use private citizens as symbols to be attacked and vilified is both unfair and deeply threatening to our civic life and the rule of law.

America deserves better from its elected officials. To be sure, the serious challenges facing the country often generate heated discussion and disagreement. But there is no justification for Democrats who want to haul American citizens before Congress for the exclusive purpose of political abuse. Congressional hearings should not be hijacked by naked political opportunism; legitimate business creators should not be vilified; and Congress should focus on the many policy questions before it, rather than wasting time in an illegitimate pursuit of the Administration’s perceived “enemies.”

Mr. Pompeo represents the Fourth Congressional District of Kansas. He serves on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, as well as the Subcommittee on Energy and Power. A version of this article appeared at Politico.

Tagged as: Barack Obama, Kansas fourth district, Koch Industries, Mike Pompeo, Politics, United States Congress

{ 1 comment }

Congress should reserve the right to protect our wireless future

by Guest Author on January 24, 2012

From Erik Telford
Wireless technology is great. Only a few years ago, most Kansans were using their phones to call, and perhaps even text, now mobile devices are essentially small computers in the palms of our hands — capable of almost anything.

According to Nielsen research, about 44 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers now own smartphones.[i] In Kansas, there are more than 2.4 million wireless subscribers[ii] and nearly 450,000 of those subscribers have data plans with full Internet access for more than 1 million high-speed mobile devices as of December 2009.[iii]

With mobile devices capable of almost anything, Kansans are finding more ways to use them — from uploading pictures during a concert at the Sprint Center to updating their Facebook status about K-State’s football team to checking into their favorite Wichita restaurant on Foursquare.

However, in what is becoming an all too familiar occurrence, some of these efforts are unsuccessful because we just can’t seem to connect online in a stadium or arena full of people. This is just one localized example of how the looming spectrum crisis could become a widespread reality — crippling innovation and investment in one of our country’s most vibrant sectors.

Thankfully, Congress is currently considering legislation that would help avoid the looming crisis by freeing up more spectrum through an auction process. Spectrum auctions are widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats; however, as with most things — the devil is in the details.

As the agency in charge of spectrum auctions, the FCC is pressuring Congress to give the FCC complete control over the auction design process. While the FCC’s request seems somewhat innocuous, if allowed, it could have dangerous consequences.

Recent actions by the FCC suggest it would use its power to limit which companies will get to participate in the auction, effectively determining the winners and losers.

Some members of Congress, support the FCC’s request and argue that proposals that would restrict the FCC from imposing eligibility conditions on auction participants “could have a deterring effect on fostering competition and maximizing auction proceeds to pay for a public safety network and deficit reduction.”[iv] The argument that fewer auction participants would result in more competition and more revenue, however, just doesn’t make sense.

The FCC’s desire to impose conditions to increase competition and encourage innovation is not only counterintuitive; it is unnecessary. As the FCC’s own data demonstrates, the wireless market is already fiercely competitive. Nearly 90 percent of Americans have a choice of five or more wireless providers.[v]

In, Kansas, consumers in communities both large and small have a number of options for wireless services. Consumers in Salina and in Wichita can choose from six or more wireless providers.[vi] In Garden City, subscribers can choose from seven or more wireless companies.[vii]

Furthermore, eligibility restrictions could prevent companies like Sprint, Verizon and AT&T from acquiring more spectrum, which could prevent them from deploying 4G service to other communities outside the Kansas City market due to spectrum constraints.

As the expert agency, the FCC is right to ask for some flexibility with the auction design process. Congress, however, should reserve its right to protect our wireless future by preventing FCC overreach and ensure that all companies can participate in the auction process. It’s only the fair choice to make.

Notes:
[i] Nielsen Wire, “Android and iPhones Dominating App Downloads in the U.S.” November 29, 2011
[ii] Federal Communications Commission, 15th Annual Mobile Wireless Competition Report, Table C-2: FCC’s Semi-Annual Local Telephone Competition Data Collection: Mobile Telephone Subscribership, in Thousands,” p. 248, June 27, 2011
[iii] Federal Communications Commission, 15th Annual Mobile Wireless Competition Report, Table C-5: Mobile Wireless Devices Capable of Sending or Receiving Data at Speeds Above 200 kbps and Subscribers with Data Plans for Full Internet Access as of December 31, 2009, in Thousands,” p. 260, June 27, 2011
[iv] Sen. John Kerry, Press Release, “Democratic and Republican Senators Urge Smart, Inclusive Spectrum Reform,” January 9, 2012
[v] Federal Communications Commission, 15th Annual Mobile Wireless Competition Report, “Estimated Mobile Wireless Voice Coverage by Census Block, 2010,” p. 6, June 27, 2011
[vi] Cell phone provider coverage as found by zip code on http://www.wirelessadvisor.com/
[vii] Cell phone provider coverage as found by zip code on http://www.wirelessadvisor.com/

Tagged as: Computing, Regulation, United States Congress

{ 0 comments }

Era of energy subsidies is over

by Guest Author on November 28, 2011

By U.S. Representatives Mike Pompeo of Kansas and Raul Labrador of Idaho, both Republicans. This is the original editorial. A version appeared in the Washington Times.

I’m afraid that the title of this op-ed is optimistic. As the authors note, “handouts are hard to give up.” But that’s no reason why we shouldn’t try to eliminate this type of harmful government spending. Pompeo has also introduced H.R. 3090: EDA Elimination Act of 2011 to shut down the Economic Development Administration, another source of wasteful government spending on economic development and business.

The Era of Energy Subsidies is Over

By Mike Pompeo and Raul Labrador

Bill Clinton famously said that “the era of big government is over.” Well, it didn’t work out that way. But something truly remarkable is happening in our national conversation about energy subsidies: outrage, mounting opposition, and, we hope, a swift end. This would be great news for taxpayers and for consumers.

Subsidy folly has been bipartisan and commonplace. For the past three decades, both parties have intervened in the energy industry. In 1978, a Democrat-controlled Congress and President Jimmy Carter created an Investment Tax Credit for solar, wind and other renewable energy sources. In 1992, a Democrat-controlled Congress and Republican President George H.W. Bush passed the Production Tax Credit for electricity produced from wind and biomass. Then in 2005, a Republican-controlled Congress and President George W. Bush passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which included massive tax subsidies for seemingly every energy source under the sun, including alternative vehicles, advanced nuclear power, and of course solar. The latter legislation created the infamous Department of Energy loan guarantee programs that have produced the ongoing Solyndra scandal.

After three decades, what have we learned? 1) Energy subsidies distort the free market by funneling billions in taxpayer dollars to politically favored energy sources and technologies, preventing market prices from signaling the optimal source for particular energy uses, 2) Subsidizing energy sectors drains the federal fisc and forces the consumption of higher-cost energy sources, 3) Politically allocated capital typically flows to politically connected companies or to large companies that could develop innovative technologies on their own dime. The $535 million Solyndra scandal has reinforced all of these lessons and helped shine a light on the energy subsidy debate, exposing those who maintain government is the solution to our energy needs.

The good news is, with the support of the American people, politicians are now speaking the truth. At a recent Republican presidential forum, the candidates were in near-unanimous agreement that it is time to end the federal government’s role and allow the free market to bring our nation the next great energy source. Governor Rick Perry said, “I do not think it is the federal government’s business to be picking winners and losers, frankly, in any of our energy sources.” Congresswoman Michelle Bachman had similar remarks: “I want to see a [level] federal playing field. We’ve seen what a disaster it is when the federal government picks winners and losers.” In his economic plan, Governor Mitt Romney said that government “should not be in the business of steering investment toward particular politically favored approaches.” This is progress. Just four years ago almost every candidate in Iowa was afraid to say that subsidizing politically favored energy technologies has been an enormous policy failure.

Given the shift in the debate, the time is now to end subsidies. This month we introduced the Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act, H.R. 3308, which has garnered support from such conservative organizations as Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, The Club for Growth, The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Freedom Action, Heritage Action for America, National Taxpayers Union, and Taxpayers for Common Sense. H.R. 3308 eliminates all energy tax credits, each of which is nothing more than a taxpayer handout to politically favored industries or companies. From solar to wind, from geothermal to biomass and from ethanol to hydrogen, they must all go. It is equal opportunity — not one single solitary tax credit survives this bill. The proposal will then use the savings realized from the repeal of these tax credits to lower the corporate tax rate. This is a perfect model for tax reform — close out politically allocated tax favors and loopholes and lower taxes on every business that competes in America.

While we are gaining broad public support to end these energy tax credits, the takers of government largesse seldom go quietly. The pro-subsidy lobby pushes to extend its giveaway from Uncle Sam — seeking to extend the production tax credit subsidies for wind, biomass and geothermal every four years. This is the umpteenth-and-never-final request for “just four more years.” But a few more years will just lead to a few more years after that. Even before we introduced the legislation that for the first time provides zero tax credits to any energy source, the American Wind Energy Association howled that Congressman Pompeo “seems to misunderstand how a key federal tax incentive has built a thriving American wind manufacturing sector and tens of thousands of American jobs.” Well, we both understand perfectly — handouts are hard to give up.

After three decades, the tide on energy subsidies has turned. Our nation has squandered hundreds of billions of dollars with these tax credits and has little to show for it. We hold no ill will to any of these energy sources that currently receive tax credits — some or all of them may well become the next great American energy technology. But having dozens of energy handouts leads companies to spend resources lobbying Washington, D.C. rather than tinkering in their garages and labs. Indeed, we are counting on one of these alternatives to succeed. We just know that we have no idea — nor do any of our peers in Congress — which one consumers will ultimately demand. The winner must be determined the old-fashioned way: hard work, innovation, American moxie and superior skills engaged in competition.

Let’s put a different twist on the old saying “not invented here” by acknowledging that energy technology never has been invented here, on the Potomac, and do away with energy subsidies once and for all.

Tagged as: Economic development, Government spending, Mike Pompeo, Subsidy, United States Congress

{ 0 comments }

Kansas and Wichita quick takes: Wednesday November 23, 2011

by Bob Weeks on November 23, 2011

Standing up for fundamental liberties. A particularly troubling objection that those who advocate for liberty face is that we want to deny freedom and liberty to others — as if the quantity of liberty is fixed, and I can have more only if you have less. This is the type of false accusation that leftists make against Wichita-based Koch Industries. In this excerpt from the company’s Koch Facts page, the work that Koch does to advance liberty for everyone is explained: “Throughout Koch’s long-standing record of public advocacy, we have been strong and steadfast supporters of individual liberties and freedoms. These values permeate all that we do as a company and every part of our public outreach. We help fund public and school-based educational programs across the country in an effort to increase citizens’ understanding of the relationship between economic liberty and democracy. We support voter registration efforts in the communities where we live and work, and for our tens of thousands of employees. We support civil rights programs through numerous organizations. We also help build entrepreneurial initiatives that foster the fundamental reality that economic freedom creates prosperity for everyone, especially the poor, in our society. … For many years, we have directly contributed to Urban League, Andrew Young Foundation, Martin Luther King Center, Latin American Association, 100 Black Men, Morehouse College, United Negro College Fund, and dozens of other worthy organizations pursuing similar civic missions. We founded and continue to support Youth Entrepreneurs in schools throughout Kansas, Missouri and Atlanta. This year-long course teaches high school students from all walks of life the business and entrepreneurial skills needed to help them prosper and become contributing members of society. … Many of the attacks against Koch in recent months are cynical posturing at best and deliberate falsehoods divorced from reality at worst. For proof, look no further than the false claim from groups like SEIU that we are somehow trying to suppress the right to vote. … Our freedom as individual Americans relies on the ability to hold the government accountable through the direct exercise of voting rights and the exercise of other individual liberties. We are unwavering in our commitment to these rights and we stand firmly behind our track record in defending them.”

Private property saved the Pilgrims. At Thanksgiving time, the Economic Freedom Project reminds us how an early American experiment with socialism failed miserably, and how private property rights and free enterprise saved the day. See So, Is That My Corn or Yours?

Did Grover Norquist derail the Supercommittee? To hear some analysts, you’d think that Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform is responsible for no deal emerging from the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Supercommittee”). It’s ATR’s pledge to not increase taxes that is blamed, so they say. All members of the Kansas Congressional Delegation except Kevin Yoder signed the pledge. Paul Jacob is thankful for Norquist and that a tax increase was averted.

Drive-through petition signing. From Americans for Prosperity, Kansas: The Wichita area chapter of the free-market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity (AFP) and other local groups have been working to collect signatures for a petition to put the hotel guest tax ordinance to a public vote. Volunteers will be collecting signatures this weekend during a “drive-thru” petition signing Friday, Saturday and Sunday at two Wichita hotels. Wichita activists are continuing their efforts to collect signatures for a petition to put the hotel guest tax ordinance to a public vote. Registered voters simply drive up to the listed locations and volunteers will bring a petition out to them. The times are from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm Friday and Saturday (Nov. 25 and 26), and 12:00 noon to 5:00 pm Sunday (Nov. 27). The locations are Wichita Inn East (8220 E. Kellogg Dr.) and Best Western Airport Inn (6815 W. Kellogg/US-54).

Job creation. Governments often fall prey to the job creation trap — that the goal of economic development is to create jobs. We say this today in Wichita where several labor union leaders appeared before the Sedgwick County Commission to encourage the county to grant a subsidy to Bombardier Learjet. The labor leaders, naturally, pleaded for jobs. To them, and to most of our political and bureaucratic leaders, the more jobs created, the better. Our business leaders don’t do any better understanding the difference between capitalism and business. In his introduction to the recently-published book The Morality of Capitalism, Tom G. Palmer writes: “Capitalism is not just about building stuff , in the way that socialist dictators used to exhort their slaves to ‘Build the Future!’ Capitalism is about creating value, not merely working hard or making sacrifices or being busy. Those who fail to understand capitalism are quick to support ‘job creation’ programs to create work. They have misunderstood the point of work, much less the point of capitalism. In a much-quoted story, the economist Milton Friedman was shown the construction on a massive new canal in Asia. When he noted that it was odd that the workers were moving huge amounts of earth and rock with small shovels, rather than earth moving equipment, he was told ‘You don’t understand; this is a jobs program.’ His response: ‘Oh, I thought you were trying to build a canal. If you’re seeking to create jobs, why didn’t you issue them spoons, rather than shovels?” … After describing crony capitalism — the type practiced in Wichita, Sedgwick County, and Kansas, with deals like the complete funding by taxpayers of the Bombardier LearJet facility, Palmer explains: “Such corrupt cronyism shouldn’t be confused with ‘free-market capitalism,’ which refers to a system of production and exchange that is based on the rule of law, on equality of rights for all, on the freedom to choose, on the freedom to trade, on the freedom to innovate, on the guiding discipline of profits and losses, and on the right to enjoy the fruits of one’s labors, of one’s savings, of one’s investments, without fearing confiscation or restriction from those who have invested, not in production of wealth, but in political power.”

Experts. David Freedman and John Stossel discuss experts, our reliance on them, the political advocacy that’s often involved, and how often experts are wrong.

Tagged as: Americans For Prosperity, Capitalism, Economic development, Economic freedom, Free markets, Interventionism, Koch Industries, Property rights, Sedgwick county government, Subsidy, United States Congress

{ 0 comments }

Supercommittee fails at tiny goal

by Bob Weeks on November 21, 2011

With it apparent that the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction (the “Supercommittee”) has failed to reach an agreement, we need to step back a moment and realize just what a tiny task the committee was given.

The committee’s goal was to achieve $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. That’s $120 billion per year, on average.

For context, in fiscal year 2011, which ended on September 30th, 2011, federal government expenditures were $3.6 trillion, and deficit was $1.3 trillion.

This means that the committee’s annual goal of $120 billion is 3.3 percent of last year’s spending, and 9.2 percent of the last year’s deficit.

This is why the supercommittee’s goal must be described as very small and modest. Yet it could not be achieved. Congress could not agree to reduce spending by 3.3 percent, when the real goal we need to meet is 36 percent, if we ever wanted a balanced budget. This failure has large implications on our future. If we can’t achieve such a modest goal, how will we solve the real problems?

Since the committee failed, an automatic sequestration, or cutting, process will go into effect. But that won’t happen until 2013 — if it happens at all.

Spending cuts, or not?

Besides the failure of the supercommittee to meet such a small goal, we must realize that spending, even if the sequestration takes place, will continue to rise. The cuts that sequestration would impose are cuts not from previous year spending, but cuts from budgeted spending, and that spending is always rising. Veronique de Rugy explains in her article Federal Spending Without & With Sequester Cuts: “When the public hears ‘cut,’ it thinks that spending has been significantly reduced below current levels, not that spending has increased. Thus, calling a reduced growth rate of projected spending a ‘cut’ leads to confusion, a growing deficit, and an ever-larger burden for future generations.”

Her article contains a chart, presented below, of future federal spending with and without sequestration. There’s not much difference.

Tagged as: Government spending, United States Congress

{ 0 comments }

Huelskamp on spending, health information database, and Buffett

by Bob Weeks on November 2, 2011

Addressing members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club last Friday, U.S. Representative Tim Huelskamp of the Kansas first district updated the audience on national spending and debt, a health information database that poses privacy risks, and Warren Buffett’s taxes.

On being a new member of Congress, Huelskamp said people ask me “is Washington everything you thought it would be?” And I answer yes — and much worse.

He told the audience that the Washington Post newspaper has identified him as a member of the “Apocalypse Caucus,” a group of twenty lawmakers that have voted no for almost everything, including raising the debt ceiling. The Post says these lawmakers would be willing to shut down the government simply to make a point. Huelskamp told the audience “The point we need to remember is there is an apocalypse ahead unless we rein in spending, unless we rein in this president, unless we rein in the regulations.”

Huelskamp said that for every dollar spent in Washington, 41 cents is borrowed money. And while some in Washington say that there is a plan to get things under control, he said this is not happening yet.

He described a budget committee hearing in which four economists testified. He asked how long do we have until we reach the point of no return such as Greece is at presently, where they can’t pay back their debt? The first economist, a conservative, said “act as if you have no time left.” The other three economists — moderates and liberals — said they agreed with the first economist’s assessment.

During a series of budget negotiations in the spring, Huelskamp said that initially House leadership had started with the idea of cutting $100 billion. But that number was thought to be too much, and eventually Congress and the president settled on cuts of $25 billion. But the actual spending that was cut was only $350 million, or just about one-third of a billion dollars.

Huelskamp described the debt ceiling negotiations in the summer as a situation where the president had to have Congress’s permission to raise the debt ceiling. But he said Congress agreed to no cuts at all, despite having this power. He didn’t want to vote to just “kick the can down the road,” and that’s why he voted against raising the debt ceiling in August.

He also told of hearing from a high-ranking Chinese official at a budget committee hearing. The official — Huelskamp reminded the audience that China is a communist country — told the committee members the things they would have to do with the budget. While Huelskamp agreed with the official’s assessment of what the U.S. needed to do with its budget, he wondered how do we get in this position, where we turn over, often, our sovereignty to foreign nations.

Huelskamp cited a national poll that found that 48 percent believe the American dream is dead. In his town hall meetings — he’s held about 70 so far — he estimates 90 percent believe the American dream is gone, or soon to be gone. “Most Americans, including Kansans, as optimistic as we are, are worried about what’s going on in Washington. And they don’t know who to blame, and they’re going to start blaming everybody. I’m one of the few who believe the American dream is still alive and well.”

Switching topics, Huelskamp described former Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius, now Secretary of Health and Human Services, as the third-most powerful person in Washington, due to her position implementing national health care.

Regarding health care, Huelskamp is troubled by a database HHS is proposing that will be used to regulate insurance companies. If insurance companies sign up healthy people, they will be taxed, and they will receive subsidies for insuring sick people. Huelskamp said the only way to determine this behavior by insurance companies — are they insuring the healthy or sick? — is by looking at the health insurance histories of the individual people each company insures. He views this as a threat to patient privacy.

According to Wichita Eagle reporting, HHS will collect only information that is not personally identifiable.

But in a Washington Examiner op-ed on this topic, Huelskamp wrote: “The federal government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to managing private information about its citizens.” He provided several examples of data being lost.

As ObamaCare is evolving in the rule-making process overseen by Sebelius, we can’t be sure what requirements, regulations, or uses might be found for this patient health history data.

On Warren Buffett, Huelskamp said that Buffett sheltered $24 million from taxation on his most recent tax return. “Mr. Buffett doesn’t want Mr. Obama to have his money, either. It’s called hypocrisy. He doesn’t trust him with his money. Which is why — you’ve got to give him credit — he’s planning to give every single last dime to charity.”

Tagged as: Government health care, Health care, Kansas first district, Kathleen Sebelius, Regulation, Taxation, Tim Huelskamp, United States Congress, Wichita Pachyderm Club

{ 0 comments }

Obama’s executive orders

by Bob Weeks on October 31, 2011

Americans for Limited Government has commented on President Barack Obama’s recent use of executive orders to step around the will of Congress:

“These unilateral executive orders, whether on government-backed student loans and mortgages or FDA oversight, are intended to sidestep the consent of the governed, and as a result they overstep the President’s constitutional boundaries. Obama can rhetorically dress this up however he likes, but his actions are not predicated on the consent of the governed, they are fueled by his desire to maintain and expand power. This is not the rule of law, but the rule of man.

“Obama is just following the playbook of the Center for American Progress, which had argued for the White House to use executive orders and other regulations to advance its agenda after Democrats lost control of the House of Representatives in the November elections. This is all designed to get around the political process, and has occurred repeatedly under Obama’s watch, whether with the EPA’s carbon endangerment finding or the unilateral implementation of management-labor forums for the federal civil service.”

The full press release is at Obama’s executive orders overstep.

Phil Kerpen’s recent book Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America — and How to Stop Him holds other lessons of how presidents — from both political parties — overstep. In the introduction Kerpen gives us a history lesson on a topic that doesn’t receive much discussion in public: the grab for executive power by presidents through the use of “signing statements.”

Elizabeth Drew made the case against Bush’s abuse of executive power in a lengthy New York Review of Books piece called “Power Grab.” She specifically highlighted Bush’s use of signing statements (a technique to object to elements of a law while signing it, and refusing to enforce those elements), the detention of foreign combatants at Guantanamo, and warrantless wiretaps. She concluded that Bush was a tyrant.

Kerpen explains how the view from the oval office can make one forget campaign promises:

Even the Bush practice that raised the most ire — the use of signing statements — was embraced by Obama just weeks after he took office, when he said: “it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections.” Contrast that with what Obama had said about signing statements on the campaign trail: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.”

Later in the chapter Kerpen describes another critic of Bush’s use of executive power and how things would change with the election of Obama:

One of the harshest critics of executive power under Bush, Yale law professor Bruce Ackerman, dismissed the overly simple view of many on the left regarding Obama ending abuse of power. After a warning about an authoritarian takeover, he says:

This grim prognosis depends on structures, not personalities, permitting us to move beyond knee-jerk reactions to the politics of the day. Most obviously, the election of President Obama has, for many, sufficed to dispatch any serious doubts about the system: Good-bye, imperial presidency; hello, Americas first black president, and the nation’s remarkable capacity for constitutional renewal!

But a paragraph later he falls into the very trap he warned against, absurdly writing of Obama:

He may be charismatic, but he is no extremist: there is little chance of his running roughshod over congressional prerogative, even those as indefensible as the filibuster. But the next insurgent president may not possess the same sense of constitutional restraint.

Sadly, contrary to the ideologically blinded analysis of most observers from the left, all of the elements of excessive executive power that they feared from Bush have continued — or worsened — under Obama. On top of which he has used the financial crisis as an excuse to seize control — without Congress’s approval — of the energy supply, industrial activities, the Internet, and labor policy.

Some of the loudest voices opposing Bush’s use of executive power are now cheering for Obama to push things much further. It’s different when its your guy in charge.

Or: the more things change, the more they stay the same.

Tagged as: Barack Obama, Constitution, Politics, Regulation, United States Congress

{ 1 comment }

Kerpen on Obama’s regulatory extremism

by Bob Weeks on October 20, 2011

In the introduction to his book Democracy Denied, Phil Kerpen gives us a history lesson on a topic that doesn’t receive much discussion in public: the grab for executive power by presidents through the use of “signing statements.”

Elizabeth Drew made the case against Bush’s abuse of executive power in a lengthy New York Review of Books piece called “Power Grab.” She specifically highlighted Bush’s use of signing statements (a technique to object to elements of a law while signing it, and refusing to enforce those elements), the detention of foreign combatants at Guantanamo, and warrantless wiretaps. She concluded that Bush was a tyrant.

Kerpen explains how the view from the oval office can make one forget campaign promises:

Even the Bush practice that raised the most ire — the use of signing statements — was embraced by Obama just weeks after he took office, when he said: “it is a legitimate constitutional function, and one that promotes the value of transparency, to indicate when a bill that is presented for presidential signature includes provisions that are subject to well-founded constitutional objections.” Contrast that with what Obama had said about signing statements on the campaign trail: “This is part of the whole theory of George Bush that he can make laws as he is going along. I disagree with that. I taught the Constitution for 10 years. I believe in the Constitution and I will obey the Constitution of the United States. We are not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress.”

Not that Obama alone takes criticism for exercising presidential power contrary to the actions of Congress, as he describes the auto industry bailout in the last days of the presidency of George W. Bush. A bill didn’t make it through Congress, but Bush “repurposed” TARP funds — intended for banks — and used them for an auto bailout in the amount of $17.4 billion.

It is this use of executive power and agencies to bypass the will of people — as expressed through Congress — that is detailed in a book authored by Phil Kerpen and published this week: Democracy Denied: How Obama is Ignoring You and Bypassing Congress to Radically Transform America — and How to Stop Him.

Kerpen is Vice President for Policy at Americans for Prosperity, a national group that advocates for free markets and limited government at all levels. His website is philkerpen.com, and it features excerpts from the book along with a theatrical trailer.

Kerpen explains the problem by describing a solution: The Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act, or REINS Act. This proposed law would require any major regulatory action to be approved by Congress and receive the president’s signature. Kerpen writes: “We have regulators who are effectively writing and executing their own laws. The major policy decisions that affect every aspect of our economic lives are moving forward without consent of the people’s legitimately elected legislative branch.”

The problem is that often Congress passes generic laws and leaves it to regulatory agencies to write the rules that implement the law. By requiring Congressional and Presidential approval of major regulations, agencies will be accountable to the current Congress, and lawmakers will have a chance to ensure that actual regulations are consistent with the intent of enabling legislation.

Cap-and-trade energy legislation provides an example of Kerpen’s thesis, which is “how the Obama administration was disregarding Congress and the American people to accomplish its objectives through regulatory backdoors.” The legislation passed the House, but couldn’t pass the Senate. So what happened next? Kerpen explains Obama’s detour around Congress:

Just to show you how unfazed the Obama administration was by the political defeat of cap-and-trade, consider what’s on page 146 of Obama’s 2012 budget: “The administration continues to support greenhouse gas emissions reductions in the United States in the range of 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020 and 83% percent by 2050.” Those just happen to be the same levels required by the failed Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill. Obama is telling the EPA to just pretend that the bill passed and regulate away.

In fact Obama’s EPA was already moving full steam ahead to implement a global warming regulatory scheme that could even be more costly than cap and trade — without the approval of the American people and without so much as a vote in Congress.

The remainder of the chapter details some of the ways EPA is accomplishing this backdoor regulation.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as ObamaCare, is another topic Kerpen covers where regulation is replacing lawmaking by Congress:

Nancy Pelosi was right in more ways then she realized when she infamously said “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” Not only was the more than 2,000-page bill negotiated in secret and so densely complex that few humans could understand it, it also deferred most of the really difficult and important decisions to the regulators, including dozens of brand-new boards, committees, councils, and working groups. So even after ObamaCare had been passed there was no way to know what was really in it until the bureaucracy was assembled and began issuing regulations.

Kerpen describes the bill that passed as not “finished legislation,” and is now being interpreted by bureaucrats, the most powerful being HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Her office is now, according to Kerpen, “issuing a whole string of official guidelines and regulations that attempt to ‘correct’ the draft law, often by asserting things that the law doesn’t actually say.”

Other chapters describe regulation of the internet (net neutrality), card check, the Dodd-Frank financial regulations, and energy regulation. All of these represent the Obama administration either ignoring Congress or creating vast new powers for itself. The chart Kerpen created shows the plays being made.

Kerpen’s chart of Obama regulatory extremism. Click for larger version.

What about regulatory reform? Obama’s doing that. In January he wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “We’re looking at the system as a whole to make sure we avoid excessive, inconsistent and redundant regulation. And finally, today I am directing federal agencies to do more to account for — and reduce — the burdens regulations may place on small businesses.”

In a chapter titled “The Back Door to the Back Door: Phony Regulation Reform” Kerpen explains that this promise or regulatory reform by the president is a sham. Kerpen describes the executive order that implements regulatory review this way: “The new executive order is the regulatory parallel to the Obama administration’s strategy on federal spending, which is to spend at astonishing, record rates and rack up trillions of dollars in deficits while paying lip service to fiscal responsibility by establishing a fiscal commission.”

And in a gesture of true public service, Kerpen introduces us to Cass Sunstein, the man who is heading the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), the agency that will be conducting the purported review of regulations. A quote from Sunstein: “In what sense is the money in our pockets and bank accounts fully ‘ours’? Did we earn it by our own autonomous efforts? Could we have inherited it without the assistance of probate courts? Do we save it without the support of bank regulators? Could we spend it if there were no public officials to coordinate the efforts and pool the resources of the community in which we live?”

Kerpen sums up Sunstein’s political philosophy of central planning:

The idea of Sunstein’s “nudge” philosophy is that the fatal conceit of central economic planning can somehow succeed if it is subtly hidden from view. Sunstein thinks that if he imposes regulations that steer our choices instead of outright forcing them, he can achieve desirable social objectives. … Given Suinstein’s views and the central role he will have in reshaping federal regulation to be “more effective,” we need to be deeply concerned that any changes that come out of the process may make regulation less apparent, but no less costly — and more effective at crushing genuine individual choice and responsibility and substituting the judgment (even if by a nudge instead of a shove) of a central planner.

The challenge, Kerpen writes in his conclusion to the book, “is to change the political calculus to elevate regulatory fights to the appropriate level in the public consciousness. We must make sure the American people understand that a disastrously bad idea becomes even worse when it’s implemented by backdoor, unaccountable, illegitimate means.”

Kerpen recommends passage of the REINS Act as a way to restore accountability over regulatory agencies to Congress. The two messages Congress needs, he writes, are: “You can delegate authority, but you can never delegate responsibility,” and “If you fail to stop out-of-control regulators, voters will hold you accountable.”

Tagged as: Americans For Prosperity, Regulation, United States Congress, United States government

{ 0 comments }

Pompeo at Pachyderm on economy, budget

by Bob Weeks on October 3, 2011

Last week U. S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita addressed members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club. As might be expected, major topics that members were interested in were the economy and budget issues.

As an introduction, club vice-president John Todd played a video of a recent meeting of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight where Pompeo interrogated a Department of Energy official concerning the loan guarantee made on behalf of Solyndra, a company that has ceased operations and filed for bankruptcy. That video may be viewed here.

In his brief opening remarks, Pompeo described the Solyndra matter as just one example of the problems inherent when government — of either party, he added — tries to allocate capital. He described this problem as pervasive, existing throughout all areas of government.

Pompeo said that President Obama’s policies are simply wrong and have been a disaster. He said the current Congress has made progress in stopping the worst of what the president wants to do.

In response to a question, Pompeo said that while the House has been busy passing legislation, the Senate has not. The Senate has not passed a budget for three years.

I asked a question about federal grants: If local governments refuse federal grants, could legislation already introduced by Pompeo be expanded so that all returned grant funds would be used for deficit reduction, rather than being spent by someone else? This is an important issue, as many officeholders rationalize the acceptance of grants by arguing that someone else will spend the money, and it’s our tax money.

Pompeo said that anytime money from Kansas is returned to Washington, he will move to make sure it is used for deficit reduction, and not to go someplace else. He said these decisions are difficult ones for local officials.

Pompeo said that citizens would “fall off their chair” to learn of the huge magnitude of grant monies that flow from Washington. Each grant comes with restrictions on the use of the funds. He mentioned the Economic Development Administration, an agency which has a budget of over $400 million per year in earmarks.

On federal spending, Pompeo said that we think we’ve done good when we reduce the rate of growth of spending by an agency from eight percent to three percent. While it is possible to gain support for cutting grants and spending on projects in other Congressional districts, Congressmen soon find out that their constituents have benefited from federal spending programs. Support for cutting programs then fades.

But he said that the idea of giving back grant funds for deficit reduction is an idea that might catch on. It’s an idea that is discussed everywhere, he said. The problem lies in Washington, in that the programs exist.

On the need for tax reform, Pompeo said there is broad consensus that it is necessary. But it may not happen very quickly, especially under the current president. Tax reform under Obama, he said, would likely result in higher taxes. But when we tackle tax reform, he said everything will be impacted.

On energy policy, he reiterated his position that government should not be trying to select which form of energy will succeed. He also repeated his opposition to the NAT GAS Act, formally known as H.R. 1380: New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2011, which would provide subsidies to use natural gas as a transportation fuel. If natural gas is destined to be a transportation fuel, the industry will be able to figure out how to make it work, he added.

He declined to name who he favors among the Republican presidential candidates, but he implored the audience to work hard for the eventual nominee, saying we can’t tolerate four more years of the current president.

On foreign trade, Pompeo said we need more trade, not less. On jobs lost to foreign producers, he said it is the federal government that has created policies that make investment more effective in foreign countries, and we should not fault companies for responding these policies and the realities of the global marketplace. He said that the Kansas fourth congressional district is the third most trade-dependent district in the country, with airplanes and agricultural products being the reason. “We are enormous beneficiaries of foreign trade,” he said.

Pompeo explained his vote for raising the debt ceiling as realizing the necessity to pay the bills for money we had already spent. Once that was realized, the goal was to get the best deal possible. The two best things that emerged, he said, was the fact that there was no tax increase, and that there will be a vote on a balanced budget amendment in both the House and Senate before the end of the year.

He mentioned that the budget plan developed by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan will take 20 years to balance the budget, and will require raising the debt ceiling seven times by then. Ryan also voted to raise the debt ceiling.

The votes this summer affected discretionary spending, when it is entitlements that are the “true elephant in the room.” Pompeo said we must tackle the problems of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Tagged as: Economics, Government spending, Kansas fourth district, Mike Pompeo, Paul Ryan, United States Congress, Wichita Pachyderm Club

{ 2 comments }

Pompeo announces reelection bid

September 28, 2011

U. S. Representative Mike Pompeo of the Kansas fourth district announced his bid for reelection, citing his desire to continue working for smaller government and controlling harmful regulation.

Tagged as: Barack Obama, Government spending, Kansas fourth district, Mike Pompeo, Regulation, Sam Brownback, United States Congress

United States Congress

The Democrats continue unjustified attacks on taxpayers and job creators

The Era of Energy Subsidies is Over

Spending cuts, or not?

Trending Topics

Recent Tweets

What to Read

Important liberty sites

Resources

Kansas blogs

Miscellaneous

Categories

Meta

Archives

Samsphere friends

Kansas sites

Most Recent Posts

Special sections

Recent comments

Featured thoughts