Voice For Liberty

Tag: Jerry Moran

  • At Pachyderm: Chapman Rackaway on the Kansas primary elections

    At Pachyderm: Chapman Rackaway on the Kansas primary elections

    Voice for Liberty radio logo square 02 155x116On Friday May 20, 2016, Professor Chapman Rackaway of Fort Hays State University briefed members and guests of the Wichita Pachyderm Club on the August primary elections. Two surprises: Will Jerry Moran have a Republican challenger, and who does Dr. Rackaway believe Donald Trump should select for a running mate? This is an audio presentation. Accompanying visual aids are here.

    Shownotes

  • Export-Import Bank threatens a revival

    Last week members of the United States House of Representatives successfully executed a maneuver that will force a vote on the reauthorization of the Export-Import Bank of the United States. The method used, a discharge petition, was signed by well over a majority of House members, including perhaps 42 Republicans. If the petition signers vote the same way, the bill to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank will pass the House. It will then move to the Senate for consideration.

    No members of the House of Representatives from Kansas signed the discharge petition. In July a vote on an amendment in favor of the Ex-Im Bank passed with 67 votes, including votes from both Kansas Senators Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran.

    Wichita governmental agencies favor the Export-Import Bank.
    Wichita governmental agencies favor the Export-Import Bank.
    Business groups and government agencies usually favor Ex-Im. Business — as distinguished from capitalism. Free-market and capitalism advocacy groups are almost universally opposed. A statement from Americans for Prosperity read:

    Members are right to be frustrated with this attempt to sidestep regular order, especially to revive a defunct institution that represents the worst of Beltway crony capitalism. It’s unfortunate that some are determined not to take even a modest step toward restoring free markets or getting out of the business of special interest deals. Signing this discharge petition is an attempt to bring an inherently corrupt institution back from the dead, and it means siding with corporate lobbyists over taxpayers. Abandoning free-market principles is wrong, but trying to do it with a procedural gimmick just adds insult to injury.

    FreedomWorks issued this:

    This July, an 80-year-old corporate welfare program known as the U.S. Export-Import Bank was allowed to expire for the first time since its inception. Created by FDR as part of his New Deal, the bank offers taxpayer-backed loan guarantees to companies unable to secure independent financing — in other words, loans too risky for private investors to be willing to finance.

    It’s a ridiculous and obsolete program, and while its cost is small in the grand scheme of government spending — $2 billion over years — the difficulty with which it was finally defunded shows the extreme disproportionate influence of special interests in Washington. When conservatives finally succeeded in stopping the Bank’s funding, it was regarded as a huge victory for the opponents of corporate cronyism, proof of the concept that we can stop, or at least roll back, the leviathan if we could only muster the political will. …

    It’s cynical in the extreme for politicians to try to sneak this corporate handout past the voters, and anyone who supports the reauthorization should be ashamed of themselves. FreedomWorks has preemptively issued a Key Vote NO on any bill to reauthorize the Ex-Im Bank, and will count those votes on our legislative scorecard.

    Heritage Foundation has an excellent discussion of the issues at Export–Import Bank: Propaganda versus the Facts.

  • Does Kansas have its own Solyndra?

    Does Kansas have its own version of Solyndra, the politically-connected firm that failed and cost taxpayers some $535 million? We don’t know. But the Abengoa cellulosic ethanol plant near Hugoton received a $132.4 million loan guarantee under the same program that benefited Solyndra.

    In January I requested documents regarding the Abengoa loan guarantee and risk assessment from the United States Department of Energy. I had several conversations and emails with a records clerk. We came to agreement as to what I would receive, or at least what I am requesting to receive. But I’ve received nothing so far. I don’t know if the document will be made available to me at no charge, or will I have to pay thousands of dollars. The Department of Energy is working on my request, they say. But after nine months: nothing. Following, from October 2011, more information about this plant.

    At this moment, we can’t say that Kansas has its own version of Solyndra, the subsidized and politically-connected solar energy firm that recently shut down its operations and declared bankruptcy. But as far as absorbing the important lessons from Solyndra, we may have another chance to learn them in Kansas.

    Solyndra is a failure in several ways. Much money was lost. It may be that corrupt or criminal activity was involved; we don’t know that yet. It appears that Solyndra will be a useful political scandal for Republicans to exploit, especially in the upcoming election campaign against the president. We can be sure that Republicans will keep us informed on this.

    But the largest and most important lesson from Solyndra is one that many politicians — Democrats and Republicans both — don’t want to recognize: Government intervention in the economy is wrong for the health of the country.

    The problem is that when government intervenes in the economy, it almost always gets it wrong. It’s not that Obama and other politicians aren’t smart. It’s the problems inherent in government interventionism: There will be both routine and spectacular examples of waste, as people — politicians and bureaucrats, especially — are not spending their own money. Decisions will be made to benefit the well-connected and for political, not market-based reasons. Cronyism and corruption flourish, as many will find it easier to compete in the marketplace for politicians rather than in the free market where fickle consumers rule with their fleeting tastes and preferences.

    But politicians and bureaucrats love to intervene. For bureaucrats, intervention — government programs, that is — provides jobs, and well-paid jobs, too. Since much government intervention in the economy is in the form of subsidies, it allows politicians to dispense other peoples’ money and take credit for having “created” jobs or having built a bridge, probably to be named for them later on.

    Other government intervention is in the form of creating unneeded regulations or tax loopholes that favor politicians’ friends or harm their competition.

    All of this means that economic activity is directed according to political, not economic, considerations. It’s wasteful. It’s harmful. It diminishes market-based investment, that is, investment made according to what people really want and need. It reduces the freedom, liberty, and prosperity of everyone.

    Back to Kansas: Last week the Department of Energy announced the award of a $132.4 million loan guarantee to Abengoa Bioenergy Biomass of Kansas, LLC. This is the same federal agency and the same loan guarantee program involved in the Solyndra matter. The difference is that it’s an even newer so-called green energy technology involved: cellulosic ethanol production.

    The plant in Kansas is to be at Hugoton, in southwest Kansas. The press release from DOE promotes the number of jobs that will be created.

    Cellulosic ethanol is produced from plant material that is usually considered waste, such as corn stalks or wheat straw. That’s different from the usual input to ethanol production in America, which is corn that would otherwise be used as animal or human food. Because of this, cellulosic ethanol is thought of by many as the “silver bullet” that will dramatically improve the path of America’s energy future. That may be the case, or it may not be. Because of the reasons listed above, government is particularly unsuited to make that decision and to participate in the scientific and entrepreneurial experimentation that will produce the answer.

    At one time President George W. Bush praised the potential of this fuel. A Reuters analysis from July opens with: “The great promise of a car fuel made from cheap, clean-burning prairie grass or wood chips — and not from expensive corn that feeds the world — is more mirage than reality. Despite years of research, testing and some hype, the next-generation ethanol industry is far from the commercial success envisioned by President George W. Bush in 2006, when he pledged so-called cellulosic biofuels would be ‘practical and competitive’ by 2012.”

    That hints at the problem: despite much effort, scientists haven’t been able to demonstrate cellulosic ethanol production on a commercially-successful scale. According to the Wall Street Journal, as of this summer, no commercial cellulosic ethanol has been produced.

    The loan guarantee is not the only form of government subsidy and boost ethanol producers received. There is a tax credit for each gallon produced and a tariff that protects producers from cheaper imported ethanol.

    Despite these very large measures of government intervention, cellulosic ethanol backers blame the government for lack of progress in the industry, citing the government’s failure to mandate production levels and provide assurances that the industry would receive subsidies. And the loan guarantees are not made fast enough, they add to the list of complaints. An analysis by ClimateWire that appeared in the New York Times in January had industry boosters blaming the federal Department of Energy for its slow pace in issuing loan guarantees.

    We won’t know the success or failure of the Abengoa plant in Kansas for some time, and now we taxpayers are placed in the position of hoping that it succeeds. But it has the pedigree of a government plan to correct a perceived market failure, and that’s a danger sign.

    Both Kansas Senators Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran have spoken approvingly of this plant despite the government intervention involved; Moran in a statement after the announcement, and Roberts in previous years as plans were being made. U.S. Representative Tim Huelskamp, who represents the district where the plant is located, has not commented on this plant, and offered no comment for this story.

  • Kansas senators vote to advance Ex-Im Bank

    In a procedural motion, Kansas Senators Pat Roberts and Jerry Moran voted to advance the revival of the Export-Import Bank. The vote was a procedural motion on an amendment to allow a floor vote (invoking cloture). The amendment passed by a vote of 67 to 26.

    Among Republicans the vote was 24 to 26 against the measure. All Democrats voted in favor.

    The Export-Import Bank failed to be reauthorized by a June 30 deadline. It has not been making new loans since. The current legislation that passed the senate would reauthorize the bank.

    Free market groups have long opposed the Ex-Im Bank, while many business interest groups call it vital.

  • Huelskamp, Pompeo at top of Club for Growth scorecard

    Huelskamp, Pompeo at top of Club for Growth scorecard

    Kansans Tim Huelskamp and Mike Pompeo are among the eight U.S. House Members who scored 100 percent for 2014 on Club for Growth’s scorecard.

    Slider_ScorecardLegislative2013Update[1]Club for Growth describes itself as “a national network of over 100,000 pro-growth, limited government Americans who share in the belief that prosperity and opportunity come from economic freedom.”

    On the scorecard for 2014, released today, Kansas Representatives Tim Huelskamp and Mike Pompeo voted with the Club for Growth’s preferred position one hundred percent of the time. So did six other members of the House of Representatives.

    Kansans Lynn Jenkins and Kevin Yoder were tied at rank 73, with scores of 77.

    On the club’s Senate scorecard for 2014, Pat Roberts was ranked at number 11 with a score of 90, far above his lifetime score of 76. Jerry Moran was ranked at spot 25, with a score of 69 (lifetime score 73).

  • Renewable Portfolio Standard costly for Kansas

    A policy promoted by Kansas Governor Sam Brownback will result in higher electricity costs, fewer jobs, and less investment in Kansas.

    This is the conclusion of a new study by Kansas Policy Institute and Beacon Hill Institute. The policy is Renewable Portfolio Standard, or RPS, which mandates that a minimum amount of a state’s electricity be produced by renewable sources. In Kansas, the primary renewable source of electricity is wind.

    In a press release accompanying the report, KPI said “Renewable energy is more expensive than conventional energy, so government mandates are necessary to ensure that more renewable energy is purchased. However, the unseen consequences of well-intended efforts to increase energy independence are rarely considered. The authors estimate that by 2020, the average household’s electricity bill will increase by $660, approximately 12,000 fewer jobs will have been created, and business investment in the state will be $191 million less than without the mandate.” The press release and summary is at The Economic Impact of the Kansas Renewable Portfolio Standard, and the full report is here.

    Brownback has supported, first as U.S. Senator and now Kansas Governor, renewable portfolio standards, mandating the production of wind power. U.S. Senator Jerry Moran favors the production tax credit that makes wind feasible, but forces taxpayers to subsidize an expensive form of energy. Together they penned an op-ed that tortures logic to defend the tax credits. Each has spoken out on his own on the national stage. See Brownback on wind, again and Wind energy split in Kansas.

    Driving through western Kansas and marveling at all the wind farms might lead one to conclude that the efforts of Brownback and Moran are a success. Viewing the spinning turbines — when they are in fact spinning — is just the start of understanding the impact of wind power, mandates for its use, and taxpayer subsidy for its production. The KPI report is an important document that lets us understand more of the full effect of renewable portfolio standards.

  • Energy subsidies exposed

    On the campaign trail, President Barack Obama calls for an end to energy subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. It turns out, however, that this industry receives relatively little subsidy, while the president’s favored forms of energy investment — wind and solar — receive much more. Additionally, coal, oil, and gas industries paid billions in taxes to the federal government, while electricity produced by solar and wind are a cost to taxpayers.

    Saturday’s Wall Street Journal piece The Energy Subsidy Tally: Wind and solar get the most taxpayer help for the least production gathers the facts: “The nearby chart shows the assistance that each form of energy for electricity production received in 2010. The natural gas and oil industry received $2.8 billion in total subsidies, not the $4 billion Mr. Obama claims on the campaign trail, and $654 million for electric power. The biggest winner was wind, with $5 billion. Between 2007 and 2010, total energy subsidies rose 108%, but solar’s subsidies increased six-fold and wind’s were up 10-fold.”

    When looking at subsidy received per unit of power produced, the Journal found that oil, gas, and coal received $0.64 per megawatt hour, hydropower $0.82, nuclear $3.14, wind $56.39, and solar $775.64. Commented the Journal: “So for every tax dollar that goes to coal, oil and natural gas, wind gets $88 and solar $1,212. After all the hype and dollars, in 2010 wind and solar combined for 2.3% of electric generation — 2.3% for wind and 0% and a rounding error for solar. Renewables contributed 10.3% overall, though 6.2% is hydro. Some ‘investment.’”

    In Kansas, there is disagreement among elected officials over wind power. Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and U.S. Senator Jerry Moran favor the production tax credit that makes wind feasible. Together they penned an op-ed that tortures logic to defend the tax credits. Each has spoken out on his own on the national stage. See Brownback on wind, again and Wind energy split in Kansas.

    Brownback has also supported, at both federal and state levels, renewable portfolio standards. These in effect mandate the production of wind power. Recently Kansas Policy Institute produced a report that details the harmful effect of this law: “Renewable energy is more expensive than conventional energy, so government mandates are necessary to ensure that more renewable energy is purchased. However, the unseen consequences of well-intended efforts to increase energy independence are rarely considered. The authors estimate that by 2020, the average household’s electricity bill will increase by $660, approximately 12,000 fewer jobs will have been created, and business investment in the state will be $191 million less than without the mandate.” See The Economic Impact of the Kansas Renewable Portfolio Standard.

    In Wichita, Mayor Carl Brewer is recruiting wind power companies to come to Wichita. If he is successful, you can be sure it will be at great cost to Kansas and Wichita taxpayers.

    Contrast with the position taken by U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo, a Republican who represents the Kansas fourth district, which includes the Wichita metropolitan area. Recently he wrote: “Supporters of Big Wind, like President Obama, defend these enormous, multi-decade subsidies by saying they are fighting for jobs, but the facts tell a different story. Can you say ‘stimulus’? The PTC’s logic is almost identical to the President’s failed stimulus spending of $750 billion — redistribute wealth from hard-working taxpayers to politically favored industries and then visit the site and tell the employees that ‘without me as your elected leader funneling taxpayer dollars to your company, you’d be out of work.’ I call this ‘photo-op economics.’ We know better. If the industry is viable, those jobs would likely be there even without the handout. Moreover, what about the jobs lost because everyone else’s taxes went up to pay for the subsidy and to pay for the high utility bills from wind-powered energy? There will be no ribbon-cuttings for those out-of-work families.”

    Pompeo has introduced legislation in Congress that would end tax credits for all forms of energy production. See H.R. 3308: Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act.

    The Energy Subsidy Tally
    Wind and solar get the most taxpayer help for the least production.

    President Obama traveled to Iowa Tuesday and touted wind energy subsidies as the path to economic recovery. Then he attacked Mitt Romney as a tool of the oil and gas industry. “So my attitude is let’s stop giving taxpayer subsidies to oil companies that don’t need them, and let’s invest in clean energy that will put people back to work right here in Iowa,” he said. “That’s a choice in this election.”

    There certainly is a subsidy choice in the election, but the facts are a lot different than Mr. Obama portrays them. What he isn’t telling voters is how many tax dollars his Administration has already steered to wind and solar power, and how much more subsidized they are than other forms of electricity generation.

    Continue reading at the Wall Street Journal (subscription required)

  • Brownback on wind, again

    This week Kansas Governor Sam Brownback again made the case for government spending on a particular industry. The industry is wind power, and the governor made his remarks at a national conference of the wind industry.

    The wind industry, with Brownback’s support, wants to extend the production tax credit (PTC) for the production of electrical power by wind. In March Brownback and U.S. Senator Jerry Moran of Kansas wrote an op-ed making the case for extending the PTC. At the conference this week, Brownback called for extending the PTC, although he did support a four-year phaseout.

    The PTC pays generators of wind power 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour produced. To place that in context, a typical Westar customer in Kansas that uses 1,000 kilowatt-hours in the summer pays $95.22 (before local sales tax), for a rate of 9.5 cents per kilowatt-hour. (This is the total cost including energy charge, fuel charge, transmission charge, environment cost recovery rider, property tax surcharge, and franchise fee, according to a March 2010 illustration provided by Westar.) So 2.2 cents is a high rate of subsidy for a product that sells for 9.5 cents.

    Brownback and Moran contend that the PTC is necessary to let the wind power industry “complete its transformation from being a high tech startup to becoming cost competitive in the energy marketplace.” The problem with this line of argument is that wind is not an industry in its infancy. The PTC has been in place since 1992, a period of twenty years. If an industry can’t get established in that period, when will it be ready to stand in its own?

    The authors also contend that canceling the PTC is, in effect, a “tax hike on wind energy companies.” To some extent this is true — but only because the industry has enjoyed preferential tax treatment that it should never have received, coupled with a misunderstanding of the tax credit mechanism.

    The proper way to view the PTC is as a government spending program. That’s the true economic effect of tax credits. Only recently are Americans coming to realize this, and as a result, the term “tax expenditures” is coming into use to accurately characterize the mechanism of tax credits.

    Amazingly, Brownback and Moran do not realize this, at least if we take them at their written word when they write: “But the wind PTC is a winning solution because it allows companies to keep more of their own dollars in exchange for the production of energy. These are not cash handouts; they are reductions in taxes that help cover the cost of doing business.” (Emphasis added.)

    It is the mixing of spending programs with taxation that leads these politicians to wrongly claim that tax credits are not cash handouts. Fortunately, not everyone falls for this seductive trap. In an excellent article on the topic that appeared in Cato Institute’s Regulation magazine, Edward D. Kleinbard explains:

    Specialists term these synthetic government spending programs “tax expenditures.” Tax expenditures are really spending programs, not tax rollbacks, because the missing tax revenues must be financed by more taxes on somebody else. Like any other form of deficit spending, a targeted tax break without a revenue offset simply means more deficits (and ultimately more taxes); a targeted tax break coupled with a specific revenue “payfor” means that one group of Americans is required to pay (in the form of higher taxes) for a subsidy to be delivered to others through the mechanism of the tax system. … Tax expenditures dissolve the boundaries between government revenues and government spending. They reduce both the coherence of the tax law and our ability to conceptualize the very size and activities of our government. (The Hidden Hand of Government Spending, Fall 2010)

    U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo of Wichita recognized the cost of paying for tax credit expenditures when he recently wrote: “Moreover, what about the jobs lost because everyone else’s taxes went up to pay for the subsidy and to pay for the high utility bills from wind-powered energy? There will be no ribbon-cuttings for those out-of-work families.” See Mike Pompeo: We need capitalism, not cronyism.

    So when Brownback and Moran write of the loss of income to those who profit from wind power, we should remember that these profits do not arise from transactions between willing partners. Instead, they result from politicians like these who are willing to override the judgment of free people and free markets with their own political preferences — along with looking out for the parochial interests of the home state. We need less of this type of wind power.

  • Five questions with Mike Pompeo

    Originally published in The Washington Times. Below, U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo from Wichita explains his opposition to tax credits for all energy production, the problems with over-regulation of business, and the state of the economic recovery. As Decker notes, Pompeo’s stance against energy tax credits, which includes the production tax credit for wind power, is contrary to that of several Kansas politicians, including Kansas Governor Sam Brownback and U.S. Senator Jerry Moran. These have editorialized in favor of tax expenditures to support the wind power industry.

    5 Questions with Rep. Mike Pompeo: “We can’t spend our way out of this mess”
    By Brett M. Decker
    The Washington Times

    Rep. Mike R. Pompeo was elected in 2010 by the 4th Congressional District of Kansas. A native of Wichita and graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point, he patrolled the Iron Curtain as an Army officer before the Berlin Wall came down in 1989. After leaving active duty, Mr. Pompeo attended Harvard Law School, where he was as an editor of the Harvard Law Review. Before running for office, he managed two small businesses. He founded Thayer Aerospace, which grew to employ more than 400 workers, and was president of Sentry International, a company that manufactures oilfield equipment. You can find out more about the congressman’s work at: pompeo.house.gov.

    Decker: You have authored a bill to eliminate all energy tax credits. That can’t be popular for a congressman from a corn state. What’s so important about your legislation that it is worth ticking off constituents back home?

    Pompeo: The federal government has been a proven failure in picking winners and losers in the energy sector. Democrats and Republicans alike have used our tax code to reward their favorite energy sources — that is, ones in their home district — with tax loopholes. This causes every American taxpayer to subsidize those industries and causes consumers to pay higher prices for energy. This results in terrible energy policy and even worse tax policy. More importantly, taxpayers are getting hammered both coming (higher taxes) and going (higher energy costs).

    My bill, the Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act (HR 3308), would eliminate all energy tax subsidies from our Internal Revenue Code and turn that savings toward lowering our corporate tax rate to foster job growth here in America. The bill is revenue neutral and supported by every major conservative group, such as: Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Club for Growth, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, Freedom Action, Heritage Action, National Taxpayers Union, 60 Plus Association and Taxpayers for Common Sense. It gets rid of every tax credit related to energy; it favors no company, no person and no energy source. It treats them all equally. That is the American way.

    When I’m at home, Kansans tell me they want honest and serious leadership from their elected representatives, not the business-as-usual policies that got us into this economic mess. I am working hard to provide solutions to meet a most pressing goal: preserving our way of life for our kids and grandkids.

    Decker: I understand that you would use savings from the elimination of energy subsidies to lower the corporate tax rate. How would that work and why is it necessary?

    Pompeo: My goal in getting rid of tax loopholes is not to raise taxes. Our problem in Washington, D.C. is not a revenue problem, it is a spending problem. My goal is to make the tax code fairer and flatter and reward energy sources that lower costs for consumers. So, any increase in taxes that occurs because these tax goodies are eliminated will be offset by lower taxes for every single business in America. My bill would mean fewer tax loopholes for the powerful and the connected, and lower tax rates for everyone willing to take risk and engage in American commerce. This is the perfect combination and the way our tax code needs to be reformed. The Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act does this in one small place — the realm of energy tax credits — and it provides a model for the broader tax reform that will set our nation on a prosperous course for decades to come.

    Sen. Jim DeMint [of South Carolina] has sponsored a companion provision which garnered the support of a majority of the Republican Conference, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell [of Kentucky], during a recent vote on the Senate Floor. In the House, my bill enjoys the support of strong conservatives, including Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan [of Wisconsin]. I believe there is a growing consensus that my bill represents a free-market model for how to enact real, comprehensive tax reform.

    Decker: Before coming to Washington last year, you spent your career in the private sector, including building a successful aerospace company from the ground up. I have had many job creators tell me that if they had to start all over again that creating their own company would no longer be worth all the hassle, harassment and heartache. What are the most damaging government hindrances to entrepreneurs today?

    Pompeo: I’d start a business again in a heartbeat. Indeed, I hope that one day I may get the chance to do so when my mission here in Washington, D.C. is complete.

    It is true that President Obama has unleashed a slew of regulations upon small business. I struggled against that regulatory burden firsthand while running a company in Kansas. It is difficult to create jobs when you face an overwhelming tax burden, as well as countless compliance and reporting rules. I’ve been there. I’ve grappled with these issues while keeping the lights on and making payroll. That’s why we need to roll back government interference and grow our economy so people can find jobs. The energy sector is a perfect example where the Obama administration’s actions are harming both businesses and consumers. Having run a small business that provided oil and gas exploration equipment to domestic energy producers, I have seen this firsthand. Why, for example, has this president’s Environmental Protection Agency attacked with intent to destroy the coal industry that provides over 50 percent of all American power? Layer upon layer of regulations aimed at — in the president’s own words — “bankrupting” that industry. Why, for example, has this president put 10 (ten!) agencies on the beat to regulate hydraulic fracturing — a process that has been effectively regulated by states for decades with a tremendous safety record.

    These are the reasons some entrepreneurs are reluctant to start businesses and take risks. We can do better, we can create jobs in America, and I am confident the next administration will.

    Decker: Every time I sit down with a business leader, I get an earful about 2002’s Sarbanes-Oxley Act that dramatically altered federal accounting regulations and 2010’s Dodd-Frank Act to supposedly reform Wall Street. Should these laws be repealed? Why or why not?

    Pompeo: I’ve heard a great deal more about Dodd-Frank than I have Sarbanes-Oxley from Kansans. Both laws have had very significant and negative consequences for our economy. I support the repeal of Dodd-Frank in its entirety. Its goal to protect taxpayers from failures of the nation’s largest financial institutions is not accomplished and, instead, has negatively impacted community and regional banks along with their customers. It has also created yet another “do-good” organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Board. The CFPB will not protect consumers. Instead, it will add to the cost for every hardworking taxpayer who seeks to purchase a home with a mortgage or who wants to engage in other banking activity. Once again, the federal government, in its effort to protect citizens, fails in its mission and instead creates a bureaucracy that eclipses any good that might have been sought.

    Decker: The Obama administration talks an awful lot about an economic recovery, yet the unemployment rate is still sky high, record numbers of Americans are on food stamps and the national debt continues to mount due to runaway federal spending. What does such an anemic recovery say about the real state of our economy?

    Pompeo: This very weak data shows this is not a recovery that will truly provide the jobs and opportunity our nation must have and the next generation deserves. The $831 billion “economic stimulus,” passed into law in 2009, dug the hole deeper and did not accomplish what the president said it would – keeping unemployment below 8 percent. This should come as no surprise. Businesses have no interest in hiring new employees in this environment of higher taxes, regulatory uncertainty and the staggering costs of Obamacare. Republicans were swept into power in 2010 because Americans saw our solutions for recovery: less spending, less government and less regulation. All of these things are what will kick-start our recovery. We can’t spend our way out of this mess. That’s been tried and it failed. The real economy, private-sector job growth, will return when leaders in Washington, D.C. recognize what Kansans already know: The solutions are not to be found in ever-expanding government. The solutions are found through freedom, liberty, innovation and rewarding earned success.