Liberty.com

One more push against Obamacare before the March 18th vote. Come to Washington, DC and talk to your Representative!

We are calling everyone that is able to come to Washington, DC on March 16th, 2010 for one more push against Obamacare. We will meet at the Cannon building at 9am and speak with as many representatives as possible, encouraging them to vote NO on this version of health care reform.

Upon passing the “stimulus” last year, Obama repeatedly claimed that he would “call out” any political official that misused or wasted any portion of the $787 billion “stimulus”:

If a federal agency proposes a project that will waste that money I will not hesitate to call them out on it and put a stop to it. And I want everybody here to be on notice that if a local government does the same. I will call them out on it and use the full power of my office and our administration to stop it... We have asked for the unprecedented trust of the American people to deal boldly with the greatest economic crisis we've seen in decades and with that the privilege of investing unprecedented amounts of their hard earned money to address this crisis. With that comes unprecedented obligations to spend that money wisely, free from politics and free from personal agendas. On this I will not compromise or tolerate any shortcuts.

So have any wasteful, inefficient and politically driven projects been funded by the “stimulus?” All signs point to absolutely yes.

John W. Pope Civitas Institute released a report on The 10 Worst Federal Stimulus Projects in North Carolina, the top three wasteful projects on their list include studying the effects of cocaine on monkeys, a private dance theater and reducing hot flashes through yoga.

1. Study of monkeys using cocaine:  $71,623
Wake Forest University was granted money to “study the effects of self-administering cocaine on the glutamate system on monkeys.” Well, at least the monkeys will be stimulated.

2. North Carolina Dance Theatre: $50,000
This grant is used to retain four professional dancers from the North Carolina Dance Theatre’s second company. Nice for them, but why are tax dollars financing what should be a privately-funded philanthropic organization?

3. Reducing hot flashes through yoga: $147,694
Funds granted to Wake Forest University to study “preliminary data on the efficacy of integral yoga for reducing menopausal hot flashes.”  The President warned us that the stimulus plan was needed to avoid an economic 'catastrophe.' How does this study help revive the economy?

An article by the Sun Sentinel lists a multitude of strange projects that the “stimulus” is funding in Florida:

 The cactus bug project at the University of Florida is more ambitious, spending $325,394 in stimulus money to determine how environment affects the mating decisions of females. According to the project proposal, it should also answer the question, 'Whether males with large weapons are more or less attractive to females.'

In addition, Florida allocated almost a million taxpayer dollars to the study of lice:

$934,498 to UF for high-tech equipment to study the DNA of lice.

In Massachusetts, a notable portion of the “stimulus” money has gone to bee research.

9.3 million is headed to Harvard for a project called "Robobees," to artificially mimic the behavior of a bee colony.

Reporter Kathy Curran asks an important question:

How does the study of bee pollen in northern Iceland during the Viking age create jobs and stimulate the local economy?

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) released a report analyzing 100 wasteful stimulus projects. Included in his long list is a small Pennsylvania airport:

The John Murtha Airport in Johnstown/Cambria County will receive $800,000 in economic stimulus funds, despite the fact that virtually no one uses the airport.

Looking back, the intention of the “stimulus” was to:

save or create about 3.5 million jobs while investing in priorities that create sustainable economic growth for the future.

According to Nova Southeastern University economics professor Albert Williams:

There is no guarantee that these quirky projects will in fact create jobs.

During Obama’s speech urging local governments and federal agencies to use the “stimulus” money in a wise manner he correctly stated that:

    the American people are watching.

In fact, the American people are watching and questioning why their hard-earned money is involuntarily funding odd research projects on lice DNA, historical bee pollen and drugged monkeys. In addition, Americans should wonder why Obama has yet to “call out” local governments for funding these projects that have failed to stimulate any job growth.

Dear Member of the House Republican Conference:

As Chairman of FreedomWorks, an 880,000-member grassroots organization that promotes lower taxes, less government, and more freedom, I am writing to urge your support of an earmark moratorium.  On behalf of the members and supporters of FreedomWorks, I urge Congress to take this important step towards fiscal responsibility and taming the spiraling federal deficit.

For too long, earmarks have been the lifeblood of Washington.  In Fiscal Year 2009 earmarks totaled more than $20 billion as special interest lobbyists worked the halls of Congress for pet projects in favored districts.  Congress has become a favor factory with more and more politicians slipping wasteful, pork-ridden earmarks into bills that eventually become law.  From the “Bridge to Nowhere” and the “Charlie Rangel Center for Public Service” to more recent earmarks requested for studying the use of cocaine by monkeys and a dance theater in North Carolina, the earmark continues to rule Washington.

Republicans have an opportunity to rehabilitate their standing with the American people by acting to stop earmarks within their own caucus, a step Speaker Pelosi refuses to consider.  Voters are fed up with both the corruption and reckless spending in going on in Washington, and politically motivated earmarking is symptomatic of both problems.

A moratorium on earmarks demonstrates a commitment to smaller government and less waste.  On the heels of recent Wall Street bailouts and unprecedented stimulus spending, taxpayers are wary of the excesses of government.  With an estimated deficit of $1.5 trillion in Fiscal Year 2010, Americans cannot afford business-as-usual in Washington.  Taxpayers want less government and responsible government.  Supporting a moratorium on earmarks is a first and important step towards that goal.

File Attachments
FW_DA_3-10-10.pdf	96.88 KB

Putting an economy-wide cap on America’s greenhouse gas emissions continues to be projected as a costly initiative. A policy brief recently released by Harvard's Energy Technology Innovation and Research Group concluded that reducing oil imports and greenhouse gas emission levels in the U.S. would be, “Harder than it looks.” More specifically, the study bluntly stated:

Reducing oil consumption and carbon emissions from transportation is a much greater challenge than conventional wisdom assumes. It will require substantially higher fuel prices, ideally in combination with more stringent regulation.

Regarding prices at the pump, the new study concluded that a legitimate decrease in transportation emissions by 2020, 

…may require gas prices greater than $7/gallon by 2020.

These significant increases in gas prices and regulation would need to be accompanied by tax credits in order to subsidize electric or hybrid vehicles. However, in order for these subsidies to exist, increases in government revenues would be required. Translated, this would mean more tax hikes for American consumers. Regarding this subsidy schema, the study notes:

…it is extremely expensive and an ineffective way to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near term.

Creating yet another tax (an energy tax), and increasing regulations to ensure a decrease in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, is a fusion of what the majority of Democrats in Congress want, and what the EPA is pursuing. While Congress is in the midst of crafting a cap and tax related bill, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking to exercise a backdoor power grab that would place an annual threshold on the amount of greenhouse gases that businesses and vehicles can emit. Both initiatives would financially burden American taxpayers. Given the state of our recession stricken economy, does it really make sense to further increase spending levels, and further increase taxes, especially when the impact on global temperatures is negligible at best?

The proposed Murkowski Resolution, if passed, would foil the EPA’s aggressive regulatory agenda. This resolution, or one of the other proposals is a critical step to shutting down the EPA’s backdoor power grab.

Come join FreedomWorks, and many other Tea Party groups and organizations in our storming of the three House Office Buildings to express our opposition towards Obamacare 2.0!

We will be meeting outside the Canon House Office Building beginning at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, March 16th. Our message is Vote No on Obamacare 2.0!

Click here to learn more about the details of this event.

Slowly but surely, Democratic support for the EPA’s regulation of greenhouse gases is waning.  Recently, West Virginia Democratic Sen. John Rockefeller introduced legislation that would prohibit the EPA from going forward with its regulation scheme for the next two years. Sen. Rockefeller, a coal state Democrat, contends that protecting jobs is vital, and that that is precisely what his EPA proof legislation intends to do. Politico reports that Sen. Rockefeller stated that his bill will,

…safeguard jobs, the coal industry, and the entire economy.

Many Republicans and coal state Democrats have expressed grave concerns about the economic implications of EPA’s regulatory proposal. The economies of coal dependent states are among some of the most vulnerable victims of potential EPA emission regulation. In other words, the degree to which this bureaucratic power grab could decrease productivity, growth, and employment is based on geographic location. Either way, what’s bad for some states, ends up being bad for the domestic economy as a whole.

Senator Lisa Murkowski, who proposed the Murkowski Resolution, which aims to prevent the EPA from acquiring its backdoor power grab, commented on Sen. Rockefeller’s proposed legislation:

Senator Rockefeller’s legislation is further evidence of the growing, bipartisan, and bicameral resistance to EPA’s back-door climate regulations...Given the overwhelming opposition to these actions, I’m hopeful that this bill will draw additional support and advance quickly.

Regarding the increasingly negative sentiment that is percolating among Democrats over the proposed EPA regulations, Politico reports:

Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV) introduced companion legislation in the House, with coal state Democrats Reps. Alan Mollohan, of West Virginia, and Rick Boucher, of Virginia, as cosponsors.

Politico also mentions:

Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), and Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) have signed on to another a disapproval resolution authored by Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) that would also attempt to stop the EPA rules.

With the EPA’s CRU researched science recently having been discovered as tainted and manipulated, the EPA should be in no immediate rush to slow the economy with its proposed regulations. After all, doesn’t climate change regulation that is projected to stifle our already crippling economy seem irrational? Hasn’t our economy suffered enough over the past couple of years?

The Murkowski Resolution will help you learn more about legislation that aims to prevent the EPA’s backdoor power grab. This is legislation that will safeguard American workers from the costly burden of more red tape.