Voice For Liberty

Category: Free markets

  • Obama fundraising on anti-Koch obsession

    Are Americans tired of hearing that this year’s election is all about an obsession with defeating President Barack Obama? For those who know that Obama took a bad economic situation and implemented policies that made it worse — yes, we want to defeat the current president. The president’s election campaign, however, turns that concern for the future of our country into “obsession” and uses it to raise money. As is often the case, the target of a recent fundraising letter is Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, who are principals of Wichita-based Koch Industries. While the letter attacks the Kochs for “jacking up prices at the pump” the real reason why liberals don’t care for them is for their unwavering support for the causes of economic freedom, free markets, and limited government that Charles and David Koch have advocated for very many years.

    By the way, I’ve never heard an answer to this question: If oil companies have the power to “jack up” gasoline prices, why do they let the price go down, as it often does? And why is the price not higher than it is?

    Fortunately for America, the Koch brothers and Koch Industries do not back down from these attacks. Following, the company responds.

    Mr. Jim Messina
    Campaign Manager
    Obama for America

    Dear Mr. Messina:

    Because every American has the right to take part in the public discourse on matters that affect the future of our country, I feel compelled to respond directly about a fundraising letter you sent out on February 24 denouncing Koch. It is both surprising and disappointing that the President would allow his re-election team to send such an irresponsible and misleading letter to his supporters.

    For example, it is false that our “business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump.” Our business vision begins and ends with value creation — real, long-term value for customers and for society. We own no gasoline stations and the part of our business you allude to, oil and gas refining, actually lowers the price of gasoline by increasing supply. Either you simply misunderstand the way commodities markets work or you are misleading your supporters and the rest of the American people.

    Contrary to your assertion that we have “committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama,” we havestated publicly and repeatedly since last November that we have never made any such claim or pledge. It is hard to imagine that the campaign is unaware of our publicly stated position on that point. Similarly, Americans for Prosperity is not simply “funded by the Koch brothers,” as you state — rather it has tens of thousands of members and contributors from across the country and from all walks of life. Further, our opposition to this President’s policies is not based on partisan politics but on principles. Charles Koch and David Koch have been outspoken advocates of the free-market for over 50 years and they have consistently opposed policies that frustrate or subvert free markets, regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican was President.

    f the President’s campaign has some principled disagreement with the arguments we are making publicly about the staggering debt the President and previous administrations have imposed on the country, the regulations that are stifling business growth and innovation, the increasing intrusion of government into nearly every aspect of American life, we would be eager to hear them. But it is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy. The implication in that sort of attack is obvious: dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent.

    This is not the first time that the President and his Administration have engaged in this sort of disturbing behavior. As far back as August, 2010, Austan Goolsbee, then the President’s chief economic advisor, made public comments concerning Koch’s tax status and falsely stated that the company did not pay income tax, which triggered a federal investigation into Mr. Goolsbee’s conduct that potentially implicated federal law against improper disclosure of taxpayer information. Last June, your colleagues sent fundraising letters disparaging us as “plotting oil men” bent on “misleading people” with “disinformation” in order to “smear” the President’s record. Those accusations were baseless and were made at the very same time the president was publicly calling for a more “civil conversation” in the country.

    It is understandable that the President and his campaign may be “tired of hearing” that many Americans would rather not see the president re-elected. However, the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.

    We agree with the President that civil discourse is an American strength. That is why it is troubling to see a national political campaign apparently target individual citizens and private companies for some perceived political advantage. I also hope the President will reflect on how the approach the campaign is using is at odds with our national values and the constitutional right to free speech.

    Sincerely,
    Philip Ellender
    President, Government & Public Affairs
    Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC

    This letter was originally published at KochFacts.com.

  • Who has the economic power?

    Though there is often much focus on the richest private individuals in the United States, the U.S. Congress actually has far more economic power.

    In this video, economist Robert Lawson compares the economic power of the 535 most wealthy private citizens with the spending power of the 535 members of Congress. You might be surprised by what you find out.

    As Congress continues to spend and government continues to increase in size, our economic freedom will continue to decrease. And as our economic freedom decreases, our economic opportunities and quality of life are threatened.

  • ‘Occupy Koch town’ ignores the facts

    By Melissa Cohlmia. A version of this appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

    I’ve lived in Wichita nearly all my life and know what a welcoming community this is. But with protesters arriving here this week to “speak out” against my employer, Koch Industries, it’s unlikely the red carpet will be rolled out for them given their unfounded attacks and nasty resentment of this company.

    The protesters are occupying “Koch Town” because, in their own words, they want to tell our shareholders, “No Keystone XL Pipeline.” If that is their goal, the protesters have the wrong address, like so many who perpetuate the false claim that Koch is behind the Keystone XL Pipeline project. For the record, one more time, we are not.

    Protesting Koch means protesting the livelihoods of 2,700 Kansans and 50,000 Americans who are employed by Koch companies. In these tough economic times, these jobs have provided our employees financial security during the recession and ensuing painful, slow recovery. Koch companies employ tens of thousands in manufacturing products Americans want and need — things like fiber for carpeting, clothing and air bags; building and consumer products; and petroleum-based products and building-block chemicals that make our lives better and provide much-needed energy. These are the kinds of jobs that create a robust manufacturing sector, which America needs in order to stay competitive.

    Protesting Koch also means protesting the many ways Koch companies and our employees contribute to the community. As the protesters visit our city, we invite them to take notice of the Koch Orangutan Exhibit at the Sedgwick County Zoo or the Koch Habitat Hall at Great Plains Nature Center. If they prefer something less wild, they can visit the Koch Aquatic Center at the YMCA. Or if they want to see something more creative, they could spend time at the Koch Family Sculpture Garden at the Wichita Center for the Arts. Maybe they could bowl a few frames for the Koch-sponsored “Bowl for Kids’ Sake” event to benefit Big Brothers Big Sisters.

    I am proud to work for Koch. As director of corporate communication, I’ve read and heard much about this company and its shareholders that is dishonest, distorted and derogatory. And while we continue to try to bat down the falsehoods, as quickly as we quash one, another rears its ugly head. As Winston Churchill once said, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

    I ran my own small business and experienced the ups and downs that come with breaking out on my own. I met demands from customers, made profit, and put it toward my family and the causes I believed in. When I decided to join Koch, it was in part because of the values of this company – honesty, integrity, respect, a focus on real value creation. I saw that I could participate in an enterprise that was hard at work improving people’s lives on a larger scale. Since coming to Koch, I have never been asked to veer from these values.

    So, protesters, as you visit Wichita, you’ll notice we’re friendly, patriotic, and proud of our work ethic and community spirit. We won’t shout back unless it’s at a basketball game at Wichita State’s Charles Koch Arena. And we’re proud of Koch Industries and our fellow employees because this company makes a positive difference in our lives and our community.

    Melissa Cohlmia is director of corporate communication for Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC and a Wichitan.

  • Wichita Chamber of Commerce

    News that the Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce has decided to support the “Vote Yes” campaign in the February 28th Wichita city election should disappoint those who believe in economic freedom, free markets, and limited government as the engine of job creation and prosperity.

    The subject of the election is a Wichita city charter ordinance that rebates 75 percent of the Ambassador Hotel’s guest tax collection back to the hotel. In January I made a presentation to a Chamber committee in an effort to persuade it to support the “Vote No” campaign, or to stay neutral.

    There was some hope that the Chamber would support free markets and limited government — instead of crony capitalism and corporate welfare — as sound policies for economic development. Many in Wichita thought that the Chamber had turned in this direction of economic freedom about two years ago.

    Now the Chamber’s decision lets us know it believes that eight government subsidy programs supporting the Ambassador Hotel are not enough: The Chamber says there must be a ninth.

    This decision reminds me of a piece in the Wall Street Journal by Stephen Moore that shows how very often, local chambers of commerce support principles of crony capitalism instead of pro-growth policies that support free enterprise and genuine capitalism.

    Most people probably think that local chambers of commerce, since their membership is mostly business firms, support pro-growth policies that embrace limited government and free markets. But that’s not always the case, as we can see in Wichita. Here, in an excerpt from his article “Tax Chambers” Moore explains:

    The Chamber of Commerce, long a supporter of limited government and low taxes, was part of the coalition backing the Reagan revolution in the 1980s. On the national level, the organization still follows a pro-growth agenda — but thanks to an astonishing political transformation, many chambers of commerce on the state and local level have been abandoning these goals. They’re becoming, in effect, lobbyists for big government.

    …

    In as many as half the states, state taxpayer organizations, free market think tanks and small business leaders now complain bitterly that, on a wide range of issues, chambers of commerce deploy their financial resources and lobbying clout to expand the taxing, spending and regulatory authorities of government. This behavior, they note, erodes the very pro-growth climate necessary for businesses — at least those not connected at the hip with government — to prosper. Journalist Tim Carney agrees: All too often, he notes in his recent book, “Rip-Off,” “state and local chambers have become corrupted by the lure of big dollar corporate welfare schemes.”

    …

    “I used to think that public employee unions like the NEA were the main enemy in the struggle for limited government, competition and private sector solutions,” says Mr. Caldera of the Independence Institute. “I was wrong. Our biggest adversary is the special interest business cartel that labels itself ‘the business community’ and its political machine run by chambers and other industry associations.”

    From Stephen Moore in the article “Tax Chambers” published in The Wall Street Journal, February 10, 2007. The full article can be found at Liberalism’s Echo Chambers.

  • On Charles and David Koch, Obama channels Nixon

    “Richard Nixon maintained an ‘enemies list’ that singled out private citizens for investigation and abuse by agencies of government, including the Internal Revenue Service. When that was revealed, the press and public were outraged. That conduct will forever remain one of the indelible stains on Nixon’s presidency and legacy.”

    Now President Barack Obama is running the same type of campaign against Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, who are principals of Wichita-based Koch Industries.

    This is the conclusion of Theodore B. Olson, former solicitor general of the United States. He presently represents Koch Industries. His op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal (Obama’s Enemies List) lays out the harmful effects of the president’s campaign against Charles and David Koch.

    Olson calls for all Americans to respond and oppose the president’s actions, writing “Whoever may be the victim of such abuse of governmental authority, the press and public almost invariably unify with indignation against it. If a journalist, labor-union leader or community organizer on the left can be targeted today, an academic or business person on the right can be the target tomorrow. If we fail to stand up against oppression from one direction, we abdicate the moral authority to challenge it when it comes from another.”

    Why is Obama so opposed to Charles and David Koch? For one thing, they run a successful business that provides over 50,000 private-sector jobs. For some reason, that goes against the president’s grain. He’d rather have 50,000 government jobs, or at least jobs in corporations that cower in response to his bullying tactics. The Kochs, thankfully, don’t.

    Another reason must be the unwavering support for the causes of economic freedom, free markets, and limited government that Charles and David Koch have advocated for over four decades. See Charles G. Koch: Why Koch Industries is speaking out.

    Obama’s Enemies List

    David and Charles Koch have been the targets of a campaign of vituperation and assault, choreographed from the very top.
    By Theodore B. Olson

    How would you feel if aides to the president of the United States singled you out by name for attack, and if you were featured prominently in the president’s re-election campaign as an enemy of the people?

    What would you do if the White House engaged in derogatory speculative innuendo about the integrity of your tax returns? Suppose also that the president’s surrogates and allies in the media regularly attacked you, sullied your reputation and questioned your integrity. On top of all of that, what if a leading member of the president’s party in Congress demanded your appearance before a congressional committee this week so that you could be interrogated about the Keystone XL oil pipeline project in which you have repeatedly — and accurately — stated that you have no involvement?

    Consider that all this is happening because you have been selected as an attractive political punching bag by the president’s re-election team. This is precisely what has happened to Charles and David Koch, even though they are private citizens, and neither is a candidate for the president’s or anyone else’s office.

    Continue reading at The Wall Street Journal (subscription not required).

  • For Koch Industries, New York Times’ vendetta is never-ending

    For those who pay attention, it is astonishing to witness the non-stop, over-the-top efforts of liberal mainstream media like the New York Times to discredit Wichita-based Koch Industries and its principals Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch. They have been non-stop advocates for limited government, free markets, and economic freedom for many years, and this is something the political left just can’t stand. Following is a letter from Melissa Cohlmia of Koch Companies Public Sector, LLC to Arthur S. Brisbane, the Times’ public editor, or readers’ representative. The letter was originally published at KochFacts.com.

    Mr. Arthur Brisbane
    Public Editor
    New York Times

    Dear Mr. Brisbane:

    We have been observing coverage about us in the Times over the last year that appears in many cases driven by a political agenda and in others so gratuitous that it stretches the bounds of newsworthiness to absurd lengths. You will recall that we brought a number of these specifics to your attention last April and May. Since that time, there have been more than 50 articles in the paper critical of Koch (zero that are positive) written by some 41 different Times authors. You were gracious to offer a continued dialogue on the matter and two such pieces that appeared over the weekend prompt us to reach out again.

    The first, by art critic Anthony Tommasini, complained about our support for the arts, compared us to the deposed King Ludwig of 19th-Century Bavaria and the Renaissance Medicis and therefore urged that the situation “would seem to make the performing arts a natural focus for the Occupy activists.”

    The second piece, appearing in the “Ethicist” column by Ariel Kaminer, applauded a reader for keeping her granddaughter away from a performance of “The Nutcracker” because we donated to the production. “Tolerance has its limits” Ms. Kaminer explained, and “Tchaikovsky makes strange bedfellows.”

    In other words, Times writers apparently must perform contortions so bent-over-backward that it involves medieval references and politicizing children’s Christmas ballets, all to squeeze a disparagement about Koch into their copy. My question to you is: if the paper is going to be indulging a hostile approach that is this far-fetched, then don’t we deserve some explanation from editors for the sheer frequency and the underlying purpose?

    Readers themselves might wonder if they’ll soon read moral circumspection about the many performing arts or left-leaning institutions supported by the Sulzberger family, which owns the paper. Doubtful, it would seem. (And never mind at all the Sulzberger family’s role in building the New York Stock Exchange, stifling the Times’ unions, giving golden parachutes to underperforming executives, and other such activity the paper lately characterizes as “the one percent”).

    When we last interacted, you explained that we could “expect the Times to continue to cover Kochs’ activities rather closely, as your organizations’ activities have acquired quite a high profile.” I’m troubled that this is a kind of circular logic — the Times is covering Koch because Koch is being covered — and tells readers little about the thinking and motives of the Times’ apparent fixation with us.

    Let me reiterate that these are far from the only such examples. In October, a Times dining critic commenting about what protestors prefer to eat wrote, “Unlike the Tea Party, funded as it is by wealthy reactionaries like the Koch Brothers, ‘Occupy’ is sustained by energy, frustration … pizza and apples paid for by supporters or donated by farmers.” In November, one of your columnists denounced where we choose to live, saying, “even when oligarchs clearly get their income from heartland, red-state sources, where do they live? OK, one of the Koch brothers still lives in Wichita; but the other lives in New York.” And though the group Americans for Prosperity has tens of thousands of members, supporters, and co-founders, it is routinely described specifically as a project of ours.

    As one of your predecessors once pointed out, the Times is a liberal newspaper. We understand that and have been documenting the often irrational and cynical ways in which left-wing groups have targeted us. But if the Times is going to take part in that bandwagon and go to lengths so far afield from legitimate news coverage, then it ought to have the integrity to acknowledge it.

    We would be grateful if you could look into the examples we’ve cited and the larger point. We look forward to hearing your thoughts.

  • Wichita’s political class

    From June.

    The discussion at yesterday’s Wichita City Council meeting provided an opportunity for citizens to discover the difference in the thinking of the political class and those who value limited government and capitalism.

    At issue was Mid-Continent Instruments, Inc., which asked the city for a forgivable loan of $10,000. It received the same last week from Sedgwick County. According to city documents, the State of Kansas through its Department of Commerce is also contributing $503,055 in forgivable loans, sales tax exemptions, training grants, and tax credits.

    At the city council meeting Clinton Coen, a young man who ran for city council earlier this year, spoke against this measure, which he called corporate welfare.

    In response to Coen, Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, south and southeast Wichita) asked if we should ignore companies that want to do business here, or should we allow them to leave? Implicit in the question is that the threat dangled by Mid-Continent is real: that unless the city gives them $10,000, they will expand somewhere else. How citizens and council members feel about this issue largely depends on their perceived genuineness of this threat.

    When Coen recommended that the city cut spending, Clendenin said “I can guarantee you, from what I have seen, this city government has cut a tremendous amount of spending.” When pressed by Coen for examples of cuts, he demurred. Clendenin also said that the $10,000 is needed to show the city’s commitment to the company.

    Perhaps coming to the rescue of her younger and less experienced colleague, Council Member Janet Miller asked City Manager Bob Layton how much has been cut from the budget, and he replied “we’ve cut over $20 million in the general fund over three years.”

    In saying that, Layton is using the language and mind-set of bureaucrats and politicians. In this world, it’s a cut if spending does not rise as fast as planned or hoped for. As you can see from the accompanying chart, Wichita general fund spending has not been cut in recent years. It has risen in each of the last three years, and plans are for it to keep rising.

    Wichita general fund spending

    This illustrates a divide between the thinking of the political class and regular people. Blurring the distinction between plans and reality lets politicians and bureaucrats present a fiscally responsible image — they cut the budget, after all — and increase spending at the same time. It’s a message that misinforms citizens about the important facts.

    Miller also praised the return on investment the city receives for its spending on economic development, citing Wichita State University Center for Economic Development and Business Research and the cost-benefit calculations it performs. These calculations take the cost of providing the incentives and compare it to the returns the city and other governmental entities receive.

    What is rarely mentioned, and what I think most people would be surprised to learn, is that the “returns” used in these calculations is manifested in the form of increased tax revenue. It’s not like in the private sector, where business firms attempt to increase their sales and profits by providing a product or service that people willingly buy. No, the city increases its revenue (we can’t call it profit) by collecting more taxes.

    It’s another difference between the political class and everyone else: The political class craves tax revenue.

    Aside from this, the cost-benefit calculations for the city don’t include the entire cost. The cost doesn’t include the county’s contribution, the majority of which comes from residents of its largest city, which is Wichita. Then, there’s the half-million in subsidy from the state, with a large portion of that paid for by the people of Wichita.

    But even if you believe these calculations, there’s the problem of right-sizing the investment. If an investment of $10,000 has such glowing returns — last week Sedgwick County Commissioner Jim Skelton called the decision a “no-brainer” — why can’t we invest more? If we really believe this investment is good, we should wonder why the city council and county commission are so timid.

    Since the applicant company is located in his district, Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita), praised the company and the state’s incentives, and made a motion to approve the forgivable loan. All council members except Michael O’Donnell (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) voted yes.

    Going forward

    While the political class praises these subsidies and the companies that apply for them, not many are willing to confront the reality of the system we’re creating. Some, like O’Donnell and Sedgwick County Commissioner Richard Ranzau, have recognized that when government is seen as eager to grant these subsidies, it prompts other companies to apply. The lure of a subsidy may cause them to arrange their business affairs so as to conform — or appear to conform — to the guidelines government has for its various subsidy programs. Companies may do this without regard to underlying economic wisdom.

    We also need to recognize that besides simple greed for public money, businesses have another reason to apply for these subsidies: If a publicly-traded company doesn’t seek them, its shareholders would wonder why the company didn’t exercise its fiduciary duty to do so. But this just perpetuates the system, and so increasing amounts of economic development fall under the direction of government programs.

    While most people see this rise in corporate welfare as harmful — I call it a moral hazard — the political class is pleased with this arrangement. As Meitzner said in making his motion, he was proud that Wichita “won out” over the other city Mid-Continent Instruments considered moving to.

    Another harmful effect of these actions is to create a reputation for having an uncompetitive business environment. Not only must businesses of all types pay for the cost of these subsidies, some face direct competition by a government-subsidized competitor. This is the situation Wichita-area hotels face as a result of the city granting millions in subsidy to a hotel developer to build a Fairfield Inn downtown.

    Even those not in direct competition face increased costs as they attempt to hire labor, buy supplies, and seek access to capital in competition with government-subsidized firms. Could this uneven competitive landscape be a factor that business firms consider in deciding where to locate and invest?

    We can expect to see more government intervention in economic development and more corporate welfare. Former council member Sue Schlapp in April took a job with the Kansas Department of Commerce. Her job title is “senior constituent liaison,” which I think can be better described as “customer service agent for the corporate welfare state.” Her office is in Wichita city hall.

    Increasingly we see politicians and bureaucrats making decisions based on incorrect and misleading information, such as claiming that the city’s general fund budget has been cut when spending has increased. Sometimes they are fed incorrect information, as in the case of a presentation at Sedgwick County Commission that bordered on fraudulent.

    Sometimes, I think, officeholders just don’t care. It’s easiest to go along with the flow and not raise ripples. They participate in groundbreakings and get their photograph in the newspaper and on television that way. Which brings up an important question: why do none of our city’s mainstream media outlets report on these matters?

  • Crony capitalism and social engineering: The case against tax-increment financing

    A report published earlier this year by urban planning expert Randal O’Toole of the Cato Institute gives a good overview of tax increment financing (TIF) districts and the harm they cause. O’Toole discusses the research that shows that TIF has an overall negative effect on communities that use it. He also addresses the issue of crony capitalism, which is well documented in Wichita, with TIF developers handing out a continuous stream of campaign contributions to those politicians who vote their way. Following is the executive summary of O’Toole’s report, followed by a link to the full document.

    Tax-increment financing (TIF) is an increasingly popular way for cities to promote economic development. TIF works by allowing cities to use the property, sales, and other taxes collected from new developments — taxes that would otherwise go to schools, libraries, fire departments, and other urban services — to subsidize those same developments.

    While cities often claim that TIF is “free money” because it represents the taxes collected from developments that might not have taken place without the subsidy, there is plenty of evidence that this is not true. First, several studies have found that the developments subsidized by TIF would have happened anyway in the same urban area, though not necessarily the same location. Second, new developments impose costs on schools, fire departments, and other urban services, so other taxpayers must either pay more to cover those costs or accept a lower level of services as services are spread to developments that are not paying for them.

    Moreover, rather than promoting economic development, many if not most TIF subsidies are used for entirely different purposes. First, many states give cities enormous discretion for how they use TIF funds, turning TIF into a way for cities to capture taxes that would otherwise go to rival tax entities such as school or library districts. Second, no matter how well-intentioned, city officials will always be tempted to use TIF as a vehicle for crony capitalism, providing subsidies to developers who in turn provide campaign funds to politicians.

    Finally, many cities use TIF to persuade developers to build “new-urban” (high-density, mixed-use) developments that are supposedly greener than traditional designs but are less marketable than low-density suburbs. Albuquerque, Denver, Portland, and other cities have each spent hundreds of millions of dollars supporting such developments when developers would have been happy to build low-density developments without any subsidies.

    TIF takes money from schools, fire departments, libraries, and other urban services funded by property taxes. By eliminating TIF, state legislatures can help close current budget gaps and prevent cities from taking even more money from these urban services in the future.

    The entire report is available at the Cato Institute at Crony Capitalism and Social Engineering: The Case against Tax-Increment Financing.

  • Era of energy subsidies is over

    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.