Found: 36 records....
Freedom Works
Saturday February 24, 2018 @ 02:24:12 AM mt

USDA Promotes Its Way to Higher Prices

Have you heard of the Christmas Tree Promotion Board? What about the Mushroom Council or the Popcorn Board? Believe it or not, these are all ACTUAL federal programs that ruin free market commerce.

Buried within the bowels of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) is a litany of Research and Promotion Boards meant to boost American agriculture, but only for specific industries. The Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS) oversees these boards, claiming big per-dollar gains for American industries.

But theres no consistency in AMS product promotion. While USDA hosts boards for blueberry and raspberry promotion, it leaves behind grapes. Peanuts get special promotion while almonds and pistachios dont. The $727.3 million spent on these boards pits the interests of some Americans industries against others, making supposed benefits suspect.

A promotion board is comprised of industry leaders for whichever particular product it promotes. Board members are appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture to represent geographic locations with significant production. Members often represent large producers, importers, handlers, and general public advocacy. Appointment terms are generally short, lasting only a few years, but theres no guarantee that representation strikes a balance between large and small producers.

Board funding comes from taxes on the products they are supposed to promote. For example, the National Watermelon Promotion Board gets its revenue from a $.03 tax on every 100 lbs of domestic watermelon production and a $.06 tax on every 100 lbs of watermelon imports. Some boards exempt small producers from paying fees. Revenues for each board contribute towards product advocacy, such as the National Dairy Promotion & Research Boards famous Got Milk? advertisements. Revenues are also spent towards negotiations and advocacy for expanding exports.

The economic impact of these boards deceives the public. Costs from each board are diffuse and small on a per-person basis. For example, the average American watermelon consumer pays about half a cent per year to fund the National Watermelon Promotion Board. But across 22 different promotional boards, the costs add up, especially the $1 head charge on cattle and $.10 charge per 30 dozen eggs.

For one person, extra cents per year seems small, but the costs are damaging for the 320 million US population. Taxing and spending $727.3 million to push consumers towards 22 products makes food more expensive as a whole. Industry revenues brought by government-funded advertising dont create new value for the economy. It merely encourages shifting consumption from one thing to another. Any money that enters agriculture as a result of promotional board projects might be diverted from another American industry. The result is no net change in economic growth, and tax money is wasted in the process.

Unsurprisingly, USDAs Research and Promotion Boards are exempted from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) cost-benefit analysis. Maybe this is because OMB would find large costs and few benefits. Industry boards such as the Cattlemens Beef Board estimate return rates of $11.20 per dollar spent, but promoting single-industry interests is not the governments role. It should instead look for full-scale economic impact.

Consumer trends, rather than government mandates, should dictate how $727.3 million is spent. In an assessment-free world, consumers would buy products that benefit them. Companies producing useful food, or other things, could use their profits for advertising. Government promotion for agricultural products is simply unnecessary.

Heres a question for millennials: Should government spend money promoting avocados when people need affordable housing?

Proponents of promotional boards might cite health benefits of their products as justification for special government assistance, but such arguments fall short for Christmas trees, popcorn, and packaging. Plus, private industry can tout the healthfulness of its produce. This is evident during any trip to your local grocery store.

Lastly, promotional boards are arguably unconstitutional. Advertising performed on behalf of industries by these boards may classify as compelled speech. Producers subjected to assessments by boards may not wish to participate in the board nor pay associated fees. A dairy farmer once challenged mandatory payments towards Got Milk advertising as compelled speech in federal court, but sadly lost. Yet, its hard to argue that forced payments towards a service you would reject if given the option isnt compelled speech. Dairy farmers might want to invest money towards farm and labor capital, not celebrity endorsements. Few businesses let government choose who represents their products on television.

Government shouldnt encourage American consumers to choose one food over other products. Encouraging spending on 22 foods by hiking the prices on all of them distorts decision-making and makes food more expensive. There might be industry gain, but theres no gain for grocery shoppers. Taxpayer dollars are wasted in the process. Consumers and their choices allocate capital more efficiently.

You and your decisions are better options than government advertising.

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Friday February 23, 2018 @ 04:50:38 PM mt

Support Senate Bill 133 in Kentucky to Focus Corrections Resource on True Public Safety Threats

On behalf of FreedomWorks activist community in Kentucky, I urge you contact your senator and urge him or her to support Senate Bill 133 to protect incarcerated women in Kentucky and refocus corrections resources on true public safety threats. This bill concentrates on the drivers of female incarceration in Kentucky, currently home to the second highest rate of female incarceration nationally, more than twice the national average, while also providing greater protections to those incarcerated in jails and prisons across Kentucky, particularly for pregnant women in custody.

Right now, many jails and prisons are ill equipped or struggle to handle pregnant women or the basic health and hygienic needs of women. This legislation ensures that statewide jail standards include regulations for hygienic products, undergarments, and adequate nutrition for pregnant offenders, and prohibits the painful and dangerous practice of shackling during childbirth.

In addition, the bill updates Kentuckys archaic property crime statutes by raising the amount necessary to trigger a felony charge for theft from $500 to $1,000. With Kentuckys jails and prisons bursting at the seams, the Commonwealth can no longer afford to levy a felony conviction for stealing an iPhone.

The bill further seeks to encourage rehabilitation for low-level offenders starting earlier in the course of the justice system by codifying the Administrative Office of the Courts administrative release program. This program has been successfully using risk assessment tools to determine the risk alleged offenders pose to society before their trial date and ensuring the right people are detained while those who can safely maintain their jobs and housing can do so. Again, this is about making sure we are prioritizing detention and incarceration of serious criminals over those who pose no public threat or flight risk while awaiting trial.

Finally, Senate Bill 133 provides additional protections to victims of crime by expanding access to emergency orders of protection and interpersonal protective orders and allowing these life-saving tools to be provided in regional rape crisis centers and domestic violence shelters.

As we have seen in states that have pursued similar reforms, such as Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia, it is possible to protect the most vulnerable in our prison system and improve public safety outcomes by spending less money locking up low level offenders, all while crime rates decline. For these reasons, I urge you contact your senator and ask him or her to support Senate Bill 133 to make the Commonwealth safer and more prosperous while reducing the burden on your taxpayers.


Jason Pye, Vice President of Legislative Affairs, FreedomWorks

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Friday February 23, 2018 @ 03:43:53 AM mt

FreedomWorks Member of the Month for February 2018: Rep. Ted Poe R-Texas

FreedomWorks recognizes Rep. Ted Poe (R-Texas) as member of the month for February. Representing Texass 2nd congressional district, Rep. Poe was elected in November 2004 to succeed now-retired Rep. Jim Turner (R-Texas), who had held the seat since 1997. Rep. Poe is the first Republican to represent this particular district.

Rep. Poe is occasionally referred to as the Judge because of his tenure serving as a felony court judge in Harris County in Texas. Rep. Poe also served as a member of the United States Air Force Reserves for six years from 1970-1976 at Houstons Ellington Air Force Base.

Since joining Congress, Rep. Poe has been an avid fighter for civil liberties in the lower chamber. He has sponsored numerous amendments over the past few years that would limit warrantless searches of American citizens, close backdoor loopholes to due process requirements, and remove criminal penalties for offenses so innocuous as not filling out a government survey. His years of fighting for justice on the bench prepared him to continue to hold our government accountable to the same laws to which he held those who came before his court.

Rep. Poes amendment to the 2017 Department of Defense Appropriations Act sought to cut down on the abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), to make sure it stayed limited to foreign citizens, and not Americans. He also protected American companies from being forced to create intentional vulnerabilities in their technology so the government could hack them more easily in an emergency.

Earlier this month, when the question of re-authorizing FISAs controversial Section 702, Rep. Poe was one of the largest proponents of liberty in the House. He delivered an eloquent, stinging rebuke of the program in a floor speech before his colleagues. He stood firm in defense of the 4th Amendment rights of all American citizens.

Rep. Poe currently sits on the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the House Judiciary Committee. There, he is an important voice for the Constitution and is a major player in shaping the policy debate on consequential issues concerning civil liberties.

During his time in Congress, Rep. Poe has amassed an impressive 85 percent lifetime score with FreedomWorks and has won a FreedomFighter Award on five separate occasions. He is on track to add a sixth this year.

Having representatives like Rep. Poe in Congress to stand up for the Constitution and not allow the government to grow beyond what is mandated in it, is critical to maintaining our liberty for future generations. Rep. Poe announced last November that he is retiring from Congress at the end of this term, and we hope his tireless advocacy will inspire those who follow him.

FreedomWorks is proud to honor Rep. Poe as Februarys Member of the Month, and looks forward to seeing him seal his legacy as a warrior for the Constitution during the remainder of his time in Washington.

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Friday February 23, 2018 @ 03:43:44 AM mt

Capitol Hill Update: February 12 2018


The House and Senate are in session this week.


In case you missed it, Congress passed a spending bill that busted the spending caps by $296 billion over two years ($165 billion for defense and $131 billion for nondefense), plus another $80 billion in disaster relief. TheBipartisan Budget Act busted the spend caps by more than the previous three times the Budget Control Act was amended combined. Once the crowning achievement of House Republicans, the Budget Control Act is now dead. You can find how your representative and senators voted here and here.

There are seven bills scheduled for Tuesday. Votes are expected to begin around6:30 pm. For those not familiar with how the suspension calendar works,these bills aren't considered to be controversial, although leadership will occasionally put a potentially controversial bill on the calendar as a trial balloon,and require two-thirds of members present for passage. These bills can also be voice voted out of the chamber.

Two bills are currently expected to be on the floor on Wednesday, H.R. 3978, theTRID Improvement Act, andH.R. 3299,the Protecting Consumers Access to Credit Act. Both are subject to a rule to prevent or limit amendments. On Thursday, H.R. 620, theADA Education and Reform Act, will be on the floor and is subject to a rule. No votes are expected on Friday.

In case you're wondering what's going on with the push for the right to try, which was mentioned by the president in his State of the Union address. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Greg Walden (R-Ore.) says he supports right to try legislation, but he is either planning on making changes before bringing the bill up in his committee or will introduce his own bill.

For those not familiar with the right to try, 38 states have passed such laws allowing terminally ill patients with no options left access to experimental treatments that have cleared the initial phase of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) approval process. The Senate passedS.204, the Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try Act, by unanimous consent back in August. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the sponsor of the bill, is frustrated by the lack of movement in the House.

The rumor is that the changes will either water down the bill or only expand the FDA's compassionate use program. Needless to say, advocates for the right to try are incensed at Chairman Walden's actions. If the House simply took up S. 204 without any changes and passed the bill, it would go to the president's desk. Any changes to the bill or the passage of another piece of legislation will require action in the Senate, which may never happen, which, some suspect, isChairman Walden's intent.

Reps. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.) sent a letter toSpeaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.)last week urging them to bring S. 204 to the floor without changes.Reps. Biggs and Fitzpatrick have introduced their own right to try legislation, H.R. 878 and H.R. 2368.

The full committee schedule for the week can be found here.


It'll be nothing but immigration this week in the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) will bring the legislative vehicle, H.R. 2579, to the floor. Obviously, there are competing proposals, from Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue's (R-Ga.) RAISE Act to Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and John McCain's (R-Ariz.) USA Act. "Whoever gets to 60 wins," McConnell recently said. It should be an interesting week, to say the least.

The Senate will gavel in around 3:00 pm. A vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2579 will begin at approximately 5:30 pm.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a business meeting on Thursday, February 15. Currently, four court nominees and anomineeto the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board are on the agenda for consideration. Also on the agenda is a markup of S. 1917, the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. The bill makes modest changes to federal sentencing laws, including an expansion of the existing safety valve exception to mandatory minimum sentences, and reforms federal prisons, requiring risk and needs assessments and in-prison rehabilitative programming. FreedomWorks has a letter of support out of the bill.

The full committee schedule for the week can be found here.

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Friday February 23, 2018 @ 03:43:42 AM mt

Republicans Can't Make America Great Again By Bankrupting the Country

Republicans in Congress have retreated on their pledges to cut spending. How else should one interpret the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act, H.R. 1892, last week? The bill busts the spending caps by $296 billion over two years ($165 billion for defense and $131 billion for nondefense). Congress added another $80 billion in disaster relief, bringing the total to at least $376 billion.

The White House and Congress can't "make America great again" by adding more to the national debt, but that's what many have deluded themselves into believing. Sadly, the spending binge won't end with the $700 billion for defense discretionary and $591 billion in nondefense discretionary in FY 2018 and the $716 billion for defense discretionary and $605 billion in nondefense discretionary in FY 2019.

These spending levels will be the floor going into FY 2020, not the ceiling, to say nothing of mandatory spending, which is baked in the budgetary cake, and interest on the national debt, which is almost certain to increase as interest rates rise.

In June, the Congressional Budget Office released its regular budget outlook, in which it projected that the budget deficit would eclipse $1 trillion in FY 2022. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that the budget deficit will exceed that shameful threshold in FY 2019. Of course, the tax reform bill will reduce revenues to some degree, but Congress doesn't have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem.

Indeed, the United States had seen budget deficits of $1.412 trillion in FY 2009, $1.294 trillion in FY 2010, $1.299 trillion in FY 2011, and $1.087 trillion in FY 2012. The reason for this level of red ink was the recession, which led lower tax receipts and, because of the absurd notion that the federal government could spend the United States out of a recession, more spending.

After four years in the political wilderness, Republicans regained control of the House in 2010 on campaign promises of repealing ObamaCare and reining in federal spending. President Obama's White House came up with a plan that would trade an increase in the debt limit for either $1.5 trillion in spending cuts agreed upon by a bipartisan commission or $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts should the commission be unable to reach an agreement. In August 2011, the plan was codified into through the Budget Control Act, S. 365.

With the Budget Control Act in place and the economy slowly recovering from the recession, the budget deficit began to decline, reaching its lowest point as a percentage of gross domestic product in 2015, at 2.6 percent. Although President Obama proclaimed that he would "veto any effort to get rid of those automatic spending cuts to domestic and defense spending," he quickly changed his tune and called for some of the cuts to be restored. He wasn't alone. Then-Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) also wanted to roll back the spending cuts, writing in February 2013 that "a dramatic new federal policy is set to go into effect that threatens U.S. national security, thousands of jobs and more."

As the United States approached a purported crisis at the beginning of 2013, dubbed the "fiscal cliff," Congress delayed the start of the sequester to March 1, reducing the spending cuts by $24 billion. In 2013, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act, H.J.Res. 59, referred to some as the "Republican Surrender Act." The law increased spending by $45 billion in FY 2014 and $18 billion in FY 2015.

Congress blew through the spending caps again in November 2015, with the passage of another spending bill of the same name, H.R. 1314, allowing spending above the caps by $50 billion in FY 2016 and $30 billion in FY 2017. Both in 2013 and 2015, the plan was to extend the spending caps under the Budget Control Act, as well as pay for the increases in spending with gimmicks that would never come to fruition.

One of the architects of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 and Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 was Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). At the time, Ryan served as chairman of the House Budget Committee. He worked with his Senate counterpart, then-Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D-Wash.), to reach an agreement. This is the same man who once so strongly took up the cause of entitlement reform.

"We have before us the most predictable economic crisis that we have ever had in this country. We all know that. We also are getting a good grasp of the size and the magnitude of this crisis," Ryan said in April 2010. "Sovereign debt crises are popping up all over the world, and we are kidding ourselves if we dont think it could come to us next."

With the passage of the spending bill last week, it's clear that Republicans have retreated on fiscal conservatism. It's an ominous sign for fiscal conservatives who were hoping to see legislative action this year on welfare reform or hope to see at least some measure of discussion about entitlement reform, which is the real driver of budget deficits and debt.

Sadly, Republicans can't even hold strong on one of their biggest accomplishment, the Budget Control Act, when given the choice of increasing defense spending. The irony is strong, though. Admiral Michael Mullin, who served as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, once warned, "The most significant threat to our national security is our debt." Republicans may have made the United States less secure in the long run by increasing spending and budget deficits, all for their precious defense spending.

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Friday February 23, 2018 @ 03:43:41 AM mt

Support the Energy Sovereignty Act H.R. 4994

On behalf of our activist community, I urge you to contact your representative and ask him or her to support the Energy Sovereignty Act, H.R. 4994, introduced by Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.). This bill would ensure that unelected bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) cannot bypass the will of your elected representatives in Congress.

Federalism is one of the bedrocks of the United States. The framers of the Constitution knew that the needs and interests of citizens of one state would be far different from those of another. That is why the Tenth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, so that citizens of the many states could rest assured that an all-powerful national government would not govern against their will.

Section 115 of the Clean Air Act currently allows the executive branch to mandate that every state reduce its emissions by an amount determined by the unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. This is a blatant example of executive overreach, and undermines each states ability to govern its emissions in ways that will benefit its people. The Energy Sovereignty Act would repeal this dangerous provision.

While fighting for a healthy environment is a worthy goal, there are ways of doing so without circumventing the electoral process and growing the size of government. This bill is a common sense measure that gives power back to the states, where it rightly belongs, and ensures that any environmental solutions are decided by elected representatives, not unelected bureaucrats. For these reasons, I urge you to contact your representative and ask him or her to support the Energy Sovereignty Act, H.R. 4994.

Sincerely, Adam Brandon, President, FreedomWorks

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Friday February 23, 2018 @ 03:43:39 AM mt

White House's FY 2019 Budget Proposes Big Reductions in Nondefense Spending After a Spending Deal That Increases Deficits

The White House unveiled its FY 2019 budget request this morning. Although it's incredibly unlikely that the budget request will become law, it does provide a window into the policy priorities of the Trump administration. Of course, the passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act, H.R. 1892, set the discretionary spending level for FY 2019 at $1.321 trillion -- $716 billion for defense discretionary and $605 billion nondefense discretionary. This level of spending is $153 billion higher than the pre-Bipartisan Budget Act spending caps.

The White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposes a number of domestic policy changes, including the repeal of ObamaCare by the beginning of 2021, a new paid parental leave program, and an overhaul of the welfare system. The budget also calls for the elimination of the defense sequester, which will cost $777 billion over ten years, and a reorganization of the executive branch and a "two-penny plan" for nondefense discretionary spending, which would save $1.495 trillion if enacted over the course of the budget window. At least 22 federal agencies and programs would be eliminated if the budget plan were enacted without changes.

The topline budget request from the White House for FY 2019 is $4.407 trillion. OMB assumes that the economy will grow by 4.86 percent from 2018. (Note: While the economy should see solid growth, possibly getting the economy to 3.5 percent or 4 percent growth in FY 2019, between FY 2020 and FY 2025, OMB assumes annual economic growth of 5 percent, which is quite an assumption, to say the least.) Revenues are projected to be $3.422 trillion. Because the government continues to spend more than it receives in tax revenue, the budget deficit would be $985 trillion, roughly 4.69 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).

Over the ten-year budget window, FY 2019 through FY 2028, the White House's budget would increase defense discretionary spending and reduce nondefense discretionary spending. Under the current baseline, defense and nondefense discretionary spending are almost evenly split, representing 25 percent of all federal outlays.

Under the FY 2019 budget proposal released today, total discretionary spending declines to 23.6 percent of all federal spending. Defense discretionary spending would see a boost while nondefense spending would be significantly reduced. Even with these significant reductions to nondefense discretionary spending, the budget would never balance.

In a letter to congressional leaders from both parties, White House OMB Director Mick Mulvaney explains, "We believe that this level [of nondefense discretionary spending] responsibly accounts for the cap deal while taking into account the current fiscal situation. Spending at the levels included in the cap deal would add an additional $680 billion to the Nation's deficit over ten years above the FY 2019 Budget." He's not wrong about the "current fiscal situation," but it's hard to take it seriously because of the deal the president just signed into law last week that blew through the spending caps, setting a new baseline for discretionary spending. It's actually an insulting comment because of the spending caps deal.

If the budget were enacted, the budget deficit would decline by $3.6 trillion over ten years. The budget does some to address mandatory spending, which includes earned entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security and welfare, but it really only proposes significant changes to welfare, such as adding work requirements.

This is problematic because entitlements are the real drivers of federal spending not only in the next ten years but over the long term. Programs like Medicare and Social Security will eventually crowd out other areas of the federal budget, including defense, if Congress continues to kick the can down the road. The passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act is an ominous sign because if Congress can't keep spending caps in place that were agreed to in the Budget Control Act of 2011, how will they possibly get anything done on entitlements, which is the far bigger issue.

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Thursday February 22, 2018 @ 05:39:24 PM mt

FreedomWorks Declares Feb. 26 a Digital Day of Action to Defend InternetFreedom

Thousands of FreedomWorks activists will pressure select members of Congress to defend #InternetFreedom and uphold FCC Chairman Ajit Pais Restoring Internet Freedom order during a nationwide Digital Day of Action on Monday, Feb. 26.

The Senate is one vote away from using the Congressional Review Act (CRA) to revive the Title II Net Neutrality regulations imposed by the Obama administration. Left-wing groups are planning to flood the Senate with calls and emails Tuesday, Feb. 27 to flip a Republican vote, and make this scenario a reality. FreedomWorks Digital Day of Action will beat them to the punch by 24 hours.

FreedomWorks Digital Day of Action will include:

  • Continuous live stream events featuring members of Congress and policy experts on FreedomWorks Facebook and Twitter accounts
  • Driving hundreds of thousands of emails, phone calls, and tweets from constituents asking select members of Congress to protect internet freedom and uphold the Restoring Internet Freedom order
  • The campaign hashtags will be #InternetFreedom and #FreeTheNet

The online grassroots campaign will target the following Republican members of Congress:

  • Sen. Susan Collins (ME)
  • Sen. John Kennedy (LA)
  • Sen. Lisa Murkowski (AK)
  • Sen. Dean Heller (NV)
  • Sen. Dan Sullivan (AK)
  • Sen. Cory Gardner (CO)

FreedomWorks President Adam Brandon commented:

Congressional Democrats opposing the Restoring Internet Freedom order are fighting to bring back outdated regulations designed for the days of rotary telephones- whats so progressive about that?

Grassroots America didnt send Republicans to Congress to uphold damaging Obama-era regulations. Our Digital Day of Action is a reminder to congressional Republicans that their constituents are watching.

The mission of FreedomWorks is to build, educate, and mobilize the largest network of activists advocating the principles of smaller government, lower taxes, free markets, personal liberty, and the rule of law. For more information, please contact press secretary Jon Meadows at, or (202) 486-3720.

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Thursday February 22, 2018 @ 12:09:54 AM mt

The Weekly Fix: No Membership Required

The fix is in. The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) illegally coerced $32 million in union dues out of caregivers and home health aides in Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas. Those victimized in the scheme are petitioning the Supreme Court to get their money back.

According to the Free Beacon, a group of home caregivers (many caring for sick relatives full-time) were forced to pay SEIU fees, despite the fact that the union didnt work on their behalf. The caregivers reimbursement rates were determined by Medicaid, not SEIU bargaining.

In 2014, this injustice was partially corrected when the Supreme Court ruled that home caregivers are not public employees, and therefore did not have to pay the union fees. However, the courts stopped short of ordering the SEIU to pay back the illegally-seized wages.

The group of caregiving victims tried to recover their lost wages again in 2016, but an Obama-appointed Illinois federal judge ruled against them. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.

Now, the victims are petitioning the Supreme Court to overturn the decisions of the lower courts, and the court should rule in their favor. These victims deserve to get their money back. Medicaid was created to care for the elderly and disabled, not to pad the pockets of union bosses.

For as long as unions like the SEIU continue to cook up illegal fee schemes, Americans should have a legal path to recovering those stolen wages. Otherwise, unions will continue making up ways to steal other peoples money until the government gently tells them to take their loot and go home.

Its time to take a stand. The American people arent being heard by their representatives because the game is rigged. Government isnt broken. Its fixed.

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow
Freedom Works
Tuesday February 20, 2018 @ 01:44:08 AM mt

What the Military Needs Is Less National Debt

FreedomWorks president Adam Brandon unleashed the following comment on those citing the threat of terrorism or national security as reasons to support the explosion in our national debt through the McConnell-Schumer budget deal:

This budget deal is a disaster on many fronts, but one thing I find especially offensive is the brinkmanship that created this crisis and Republican leadership and other moderates who have the audacity to argue that we have to pass it for national security reasons.

Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Michael Mullen once said that our national debt is our greatest national security threat. As Congress plunges us further into debt by increasing spending and allowing entitlements to continue to grow, we will have less money to spend on defense. This is just basic math. This budget bill would return us to Obama-era deficits and bust the spending caps meant to slow the growth of our debt, our greatest national security threat.

The American people are about to find out who is serious about the fiscal issues facing our nation. Thankfully, senators like Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Steve Daines, and others have spoken out against this monstrosity. Others, sadly, are more than content with deficits as far as the eye can see, which will make our military weaker in the long run, as more threats emerge and as there is less money available because Congress will have spent us into bankruptcy.

For the sake of our national security, senators should vote against this bill.

Likes: Dislikes:
Like Dislike Comment Follow