Category Archives: Big Government

COALITION Seeks to Reform the federal Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)

capitol

Washington, D.C. – A broad coalition of free-market and center-right organizations are respectfully requesting that Scott Pruitt, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), reform the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) mandate. 

The previous Administration’s corporatist policies ushered in an unprecedented age of hyper-lobbying that promoted partial and partisan interests—saving Wall Street bankers, a failed stimulus package, an auto bailout for union control, the Obamacare fiasco, green energy boondoggles. President Trump promised to grow the economy by doing away with Obama-era cronyism.

Reforming the badly broken RFS system and will show that the President is serious about putting America back to work.

Read the Coalition letter here: COALITION Seeks to Reform the federal Renewable Fuel Standard

Food Fight in Maine

NANNY STATE red Rubber Stamp over a white background.

Maine Gov. Paul LePage is challenging the federal government over how to administer the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), commonly known as food stamps. Under the guise of reforming SNAP, Maine’s Republican governor wants to monitor what poor people eat and drink. The governor wants to create a state-based “food-police” to control what Maine’s poorest citizens put in their grocery bags.

Why should we trust that food bans in Maine won’t spread to other states or to the feds? If your poor food choices impact the cost of my insurance premium, why shouldn’t there be a national food-police restricting the diets of all Americans? If consuming less of an unhealthy food is good for poor people, consuming less of an unhealthy food is good for all people. Public health advocates will look at food bans in SNAP as a model for national efforts to restrict the food choices of all Americans.

Some in the political class believe that solving nutritional issues is the responsibility of the government. However, banning certain foods will not make people healthier; it will not save taxpayer money; and it will not reform entitlements. Instead, the food-police will disrupt the free market and create government food bureaucracies

Public health advocates believe that Americans are unable to make responsible decisions about the food and beverages we consume. Conservative advocates and elected officials should stand against paternalistic policies aimed at our diets, and trust the American people to decide for ourselves what is healthy or unhealthy. Food monitoring and restrictions violate individual liberty, and create a gateway for more government intrusion into our lives. Food surveillance is not entitlement reform, and it is not going to make Americans any healthier – as if that’s the government’s business anyway.

Conservatives should reject proposals to leverage government agencies (like the USDA) to interfere so deeply in the personal choices of Americans. Monitoring what some Americans put in their grocery carts is decidedly bad policy and anathema to conservative values.

Whether it’s under the guise of entitlement reform or public health, some politicians may favor food monitoring and restrictions because it’s an easy way to mislead voters to think they’re being good stewards of taxpayer money. But, food restrictions in SNAP will create a food bureaucracy mimicking the complexity of other regulatory boondoggles. Bureaucrats will have to analyze and categorize the 300,000 food and beverage products on the market now and the additional 15,000 food items introduced every year.

If the precedent is set that the government on the basis of public health has the authority to monitor the food choices of the poor, Governor LePage will set us down a slippery slope toward the food-police regulating and keeping watch over the diets of all Americans.

Congress Must Return to Regular Order

The Republican majority in the House has an extraordinary opportunity to lay out a comprehensive conservative blueprint for the first time in a generation. And, Speaker Ryan is intent on moving a “bold conservative agenda” in 2016. Heritage Action has asked Speaker Paul Ryan to deliver the keynote address at its third annual policy summit. Speaker Ryan will speak about ways to unite the conservative movement “around big ideas to save the American idea.” One such big idea is to restore the integrity of the legislative process. Regular order is an important safeguard for liberty and a constraint on Big Government.

A conservative agenda and building a movement around pro-liberty ideas must begin with the Congress keeping sacrosanct the legislative process. Otherwise we’re in for more of the same—no accountability and passing a bill to know what’s in the bill. Will Speaker Ryan lay his promise to rest? For the cause of liberty and moving forward with a “bold conservative agenda”, let’s hope that Paul Ryan is true to his word.

The Food Bullies of Maine

By Jerry Rogers

Just in time for Thanksgiving the Food Bullies are back looking to ban foods and monitor what we eat – all in the name of what they think is good for the rest of us.

Maine – through its Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) – is renewing its push to ban certain foods and drinks purchased through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP (food stamps). This time it’s trying to get the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to allow a ban as an addition to federal healthy-eating efforts.

According to the Portland Press Herald, “The state Department of Health and Human Services is once again seeking to ban food stamp recipients from using their benefits to purchase candy and soda. The department announced that it will seek a federal waiver to prohibit so-called junk food purchases within SNAP. The move by the department follows several failed efforts to seek the waiver through legislation, including a bill that died in the Legislature this year. This time DHHS will pursue the change through rulemaking.”

How will store clerks distinguish between food purchased through SNAP or with cash? Why should we trust that the surveillance will not spread to all food purchased by all Americans? Conservatives should reject proposals to leverage government agencies (like the USDA) to interfere so deeply in the personal choices of Americans. Monitoring what some Americans put in their grocery carts is decidedly bad policy and anathema to conservative values.

Food surveillance is a misguided, dysfunctional idea that will result in less freedom, bigger government, and more spending.

Whether it’s under the guise of entitlement reform or public health, some politicians may favor food monitoring and restrictions because it’s an easy way to show voters that they’re being good stewards of taxpayer money. On the contrary, if the precedent is set that state governments – on the basis of public health – have the authority to monitor the food choices of the poor, state-bureaucracies from coast to coast will set us down a slippery slope toward the food-police regulating and keeping watch over the diets of all Americans.

There are some politicians who believe that solving nutritional issues is the responsibility of the government. However, a food surveillance program will not make people healthier; it will not save taxpayer money; and it will not reform entitlements. Instead, the food-police will disrupt the free market and create massive state-based food bureaucracies. And if consuming less of an unhealthy food is good for poor people, consuming less of an unhealthy food is good for all people. Food surveillance will have its start in SNAP, but will end up impacting all Americans.

Public health advocates believe that all adults are unable to make responsible decisions about the food and beverages we consume. Conservative advocates and elected officials should stand against paternalistic policies aimed at our diets, and trust the American people to decide for ourselves what is healthy or unhealthy. Food surveillance violates individual liberty, and it creates a gateway for more government intrusion into our lives. Food surveillance is not entitlement reform, and it is not going to make Americans any healthier – as if that’s the government’s business anyway.

CFPB is a Rogue Agency

By Jerry Rogers, Vice President at the Institute for Liberty and Founder of Capitol Allies 

Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) calls on his colleagues to reform the CFPB

Dodd-Frank effectively gave the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unlimited regulatory power with little congressional oversight. The bureau’s budget is not subject to congressional appropriations—no power of the purse—because the Federal Reserve, not Congress, funds the agency. Given its independence from congressional scrutiny, the CFPB’s power to regulate is essentially a government license to destroy.

Dodd-Frank, however, specifically exempts auto lenders from the grasp of the unaccountable CFPB, but bureaucrats are going around the law and using lenders as agents of government to regulate auto dealers.

It’s time for Congress to reign in this rogue agency.

 

Government Gone Rogue

 No place in our Constitution is the president granted supremacy to act legislatively without Congress. And no place in our laws is the president given authority to use executive branch agencies to criminalize whole segments of the economy it considers unworthy. However, we know from the public record that President Obama is using the Justice Department (DOJ), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in something called “Operation Choke Point” to target small businesses by smothering their access to financial services. Without the ability to process payments, the administration chokes off the oxygen (money) needed for these “Mom and Pop” shops to survive. It’s a form of political nihilism never before seen in our nation’s history.

Most Americans are familiar with the DOJ and the FDIC. However the CFPB, a federal agency established by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street and Consumer Protection Act, has been operating under the radar for far too long.

Dodd-Frank effectively gave the CFPB unlimited regulatory power with little congressional oversight. The bureau’s budget is not subject to congressional appropriations—no power of the purse—because the Federal Reserve, not Congress, funds the agency. Given its independence from congressional scrutiny, the CFPB’s power to regulate is essentially a government license to destroy. What’s more, the CFPB is building a massive database on the financial transactions of every American. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), a libertarian think tank based in Washington D.C., has argued that the CFPB has “unaccountable power over the daily lives of the American people” that results “in a lack of public accountability, creating a power grab over every U.S. citizen.”

During most of our nation’s history, families, communities, churches, civic groups, and “Mom and Pop” businesses (i.e., civil society) have served as firewalls to restrain big government from flaming out of control. Americans with blemishes on their credit scores or short credit histories do not have the luxury of going to the big banks—SunTrust, Chase, Wells Fargo—for a small loan. These consumers depend upon payday lenders as credit and loan options. If the CFPB has its way, these lenders will be forced to permanently close their doors. Millions of Americans who are living paycheck to paycheck will have no where to go for short-term loans. The CFPB will have cut off an important financial option for working-class, middle-income Americans. Resources needed for emergency car repairs or to replace an appliance will no longer be available.

Ideological bureaucrats with a disdain for anything—the rule of law, the American people, civil society—opposed to their agenda are wreaking havoc on our economy and our liberty. The expansion of federal power—and more specifically the expansion of the executive branch—is the modus operandi of President Barack Obama. Since his first day in office, this president has sought to accumulate power and centralize control.

There is no higher law for Obama than his own ideological self-interest. Obama acts more like a plutocrat or mafia boss than the leader of a “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.”

The CFPB is actively engaged in closing down businesses while at the same time collecting dossiers on American citizens’ personal, financial transactions. Congress should abolish the CFPB or, at the very least, put it under the appropriations process. It’s time for Congress to reign in this rogue agency.

Puerto Rico Wants a Great Big Fat… Bailout

By Jerry Rogers

for TownHall

Puerto Rico’s massive welfare state and excessive spending has put it in an economic state worse than Greece. This small island has an enormous problem—$72 billion in bond debt and more than $50 billion in retiree obligations. What’s worse is that the Puerto Rican government doesn’t seem to be serious about reform. Pedro Pierluisi, the island’s nonvoting member of Congress, has sponsored legislation—H.R. 870—to extend Puerto Rico Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection.

The Associated Press reported that “the White House threw cold water Monday on the notion of bailing out Puerto Rico from its financial crisis, instead urging Congress to consider changing the law so the island can declare bankruptcy.” Of course, this is typical Washington doublespeak because bankruptcy protection—H.R. 870—would be a federal bailout by other means.

Puerto Rico, as a commonwealth, does not have the legal authority to file for bankruptcy. Some in Congress—mostly Democrats, but some Republicans, too—are seriously considering H.R. 870 as a backdoor bailout.

What happens when you run out of other people’s money? Well, if you’re the Democratic Governor of Puerto Rico, you demand a bailout, and for others to “share the sacrifice.” Governor Alejandro García Padilla told the New York Times earlier this week that Puerto Rico’s debt “is not payable. There is no other option.” Padilla would love to find “an easier option,” as he swears, “this is not politics, this is math.”

Not politics? Padilla is engaging in the worst kind of politics in which political elites insist that taxpayers pay for their failure. Puerto Rico’s debt crisis is the result of years of big government run amok. Over the past decade, liberal politicians in San Juan engaged in profligate spending and borrowing to cover the costs of everything from welfare to pensions to government services. Progressive policies that saw the public-sector debt grow as the economy shrank. Not politics, but math? Then why are public-sector salaries more than 90 percent higher than salaries in the private sector? Why not cut spending to pay your bills? Because Padilla has promised not to lay off government workers—two-thirds of Puerto Rico’s budget is payroll, and it’s off the table.

Puerto Rico’s political elites refuse to do what is necessary to create economic growth. Changing the nation’s bankruptcy laws to give them a special exemption is wrong. It’s a form of cronyism—politicians in Washington doing favors for politicians in San Juan. It’s letting them off the hook; absolving them of their responsibilities. The political elites in Puerto Rico have implemented anti-growth excise taxes on job creators while crippling the island’s economy with chronic spending on welfare subsidies and an ever-expanding public sector. The government employs more than a quarter of the island’s workforce, and its labor force participation rate—40.6 percent— is the lowest in the Western Hemisphere. More than half the population is not working. Why work if welfare pays more than a job?

So Padilla, Pierluisi, and the island’s political establishment are asking their friends in Washington for a favor. Their plea for Chapter 9 bankruptcy is gaining momentum as the political class looks to protect itself.

The bailout bill—H.R. 870—does not require any meaningful, market-based reforms. It’s a “get out of jail free” card for Puerto Rico’s political elites and their failed statist policies. Chapter 9 is not a solution, but rather, at best, a temporary fix. And, Chapter 9 might not be a fix at all. Bankruptcy procedures can take months or years to work through the system. H.R. 870 is a bad bill. What’s needed is a radical change of less spending, regulating, and taxing.

Americans are tired of bailouts and boondoggles—TARP, Solyndra, General Motors, the ObamaCare rollout. Let’s not add failed governments and political elites to the list. Americans don’t want a “Great Big Fat” bailout for Puerto Rico. We don’t want our very own Greek island.

Cover Oregon: The “Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad” Healthcare Website

While President Obama was ridiculed for the failures of the HealthCare.gov rollout, botched state-operated exchanges did not prove to be much better. As HealthCare.gov sat useless for weeks and months, the few states that built their own ObamaCare exchanges struggled with countless failures and setbacks. A couple of state exchanges—Kentucky and California—worked relatively smoothly. However, in most states the insurance exchanges were, if you can believe it, even worse than Obama’s. The Oregon health exchange—Cover Oregon—stood out as the worst.

In 2014, then-Governor John Kitzhaber, Oregon’s longest serving governor and full-on progressive Democrat—was in a high stakes reelection campaign. The ambitious Democrat needed to weather a storm of controversy around his campaign (he would win reelection with less than 50 percent of the vote in deep blue Oregon), and conceal the complete failings of his administration’s ObamaCare state-based health exchange Cover Oregon.

Kitzhaber hoped that his state’s health exchange would be a testament to activist government. Instead, Cover Oregon had become a laughingstock. The entire fiasco of mismanagement and missed deadlines posed a threat to Kitzhaber’s legacy as a progressive champion for healthcare reform. So, he surreptitiously handed over control of the Cover Oregon mess to a key campaign consultant—Patricia McCaig—who called herself the Princess of Darkness. Ms. McCaig knew nothing about healthcare policy, but that did not matter. Her job wasn’t to fix Cover Oregon; her job was to get Kitzhaber reelected.

Oregon’s ethics and election laws require a separation between political activity and official decisions. Regardless, the Princess of Darkness (you can’t make this stuff up) believed that the health site’s failure was so politically toxic that she decided to pull the plug. Kill it. Hit the eject button, and flush over $300 million in taxpayers’ dollars down the toilet. Government records and internal emails confirm that McCaig—not state officials—directed the decision to close down Cover Oregon rather than work with the state’s contractor, Oracle Corp., to repair the doomed site. Who cares? As long as Kitzhaber won his bid for a fourth term, the ends would justify whatever means.

Adding insult to injury, the Princess of Darkness then pushed to sue Oracle in a shady effort to deflect blame. The state is now embroiled in lawsuits and former Oregon officials are under myriad congressional and federal investigations.

Facing state and federal criminal investigations, Kitzhaber himself was forced to resign in disgrace earlier this year amid corruption charges and accusations of influence peddling. His handing off Cover Oregon to his chief political consultant and political hacks is but a piece of an overall environment where decisions were based on Kitzhaber’s political interests rather than what was best for the people of Oregon.

Like Alexander from the children’s book “Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day,” perhaps it would have been better for John Kitzhaber to have just moved to Australia. Well, it’s too late for him. However, it’s not too late for other governors to learn from Oregon’s failure. The Supreme Court will issue its decision in King v. Burwell this month. It would be best for the states to work with Congress to craft post-King solutions that will provide market-based healthcare solutions to our nation’s healthcare woes.

Governor Kitzhaber and Cover Oregon is a cautionary yet familiar tale. Big government and corruption are inextricably intertwined. King v. Burwell might give us a rare opportunity to hit the reset button.