APL Signs Coalition Letter to the U.S. Senate Against Stimulus Bill

February 4th, 2009

To the Members of the U.S. Senate:

We the undersigned public interest organizations, representing millions of members and supporters nationwide, hereby call upon you to reject the $819 billion spending bill that passed the House of Representatives last week.

This legislation will total some $1.2 trillion when interest is calculated over the next decade, and represents an unsustainable growth of government.

In addition, the Congressional Budget Office calculates that the budget deficit will already be $1.2 trillion for 2009. On January 3rd, the Washington Post reported that the deficit could total as much as $2 trillion. In part, it depends on how badly the recession hits the U.S., but also on how much productive capital the government takes out of the broader economy.

The irresponsible expansion of the budget to bail out state governments from their own budget deficits, expand Medicaid, boost education spending, food stamps and unemployment benefits, build federal buildings, provide more for public housing, construct climate change supercomputers, erect trade barriers overseas, create refundable tax credits, and make special interest payouts will not stimulate sustainable economic growth.

Instead, the astronomical growth of government spending, coupled with further monetary easing and protectionism, will discourage investment, savings, and capital creation, because in the longer term it means higher taxes, higher interest rates, and inflation. It will destroy jobs in the private sector, thus increasing individual dependency on government.

Importantly, it will steep American taxpayers ever deeper into a spiral of debt, now nearly $10.7 trillion. That includes $4.3 trillion owed in the form of unfunded obligations to Social Security, Medicare, and other commitments, and $6.4 trillion held privately, $3 trillion of which is held overseas. 40 percent of the debt held privately comes due this year. The only way for the government to pay it is to borrow yet more money.

As a result, the federal government is running the serious risk that it will default on its financial obligations, as the nation's creditors during the current economic downturn may be unable to continue sustaining the uncontrolled growth of spending, leaving the nation in financial ruin.

America needs a plan now to begin paying down the national debt, not an ill-conceived scheme that will make that task impossible for our children and our children's children. The nation needs to tighten its belt, and learn how to live on less credit, less borrowing, and less debt.

This is a change that must occur at the individual level, at the county level, the state level, and the national level. It is not a change that should begin by doubling down on a hasty, careless gamble.

In addition, permanent tax cuts that change incentives are much more effective than temporary targeted tax incentives and spending. What economists call the "permanent income hypothesis" shows that individuals and businesses only change their spending and investment habits significantly when they expect policy changes to be permanent. It takes more than one-year, for instance, to build a factory, and businesses may not do so if they think that tax incentives are only temporary.

Preventing tax increases on individual income, capital gains and dividends, changing the tax code to allow full-cost, first-year expensing for business equipment rather than the arbitrary IRS depreciation schedule, and lowering the U.S. corporate tax rate, among the highest in the world, would yield much more bang for the buck in ensuring a rapid economic recovery than the current package of massive spending with a sliver of targeted tax cuts.

Again, on behalf of our members nationwide, we the undersigned urge you to reject the $819 billion spending bill now being considered. Instead, we ask you to promulgate a real plan for change, to finally set the nation's fiscal house in order, to provide permanent tax relief to businesses and individuals, to free the American people from the boom-to-bust economic cycle, and to at last retire the national debt.

Sincerely,

Fred L. Smith, Jr.
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Gary Aldrich
Chairman
CNP Action, Inc.

William Wilson
President
Americans for Limited Government

Mark Williamson
Founder and President
Federal Intercessors

Thomas McClusky
VP for Government Affairs
Family Research Council

David N. Bossie
President
Citizens United

James L. Martin
President
60 Plus Association

Duane Parde
President
National Taxpayers Union

Mark Chmura
Executive Director
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

Thomas Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Dr. William Greene
President
RightMarch.com

Ken Blackwell
Chairman
Coalition for a Conservative Majority

John Berlau
Director
Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs

Ron Shuping
Executive Vice President of Programming
The Inspiration Networks

Alex-St. James
Chairman
African American Republican Leadership Council

Cliff Kincaid
President
America's Survival, Inc.

Richard Falknor
Chairman
Maryland Center-Right Coalition

Amy Ridenour
President
National Center for Public Policy Research

No Madame Speaker

No, Madame Speaker, that was your head.

San Francisco Chronicle:

Pelosi said one of her favorite moments from Inauguration Day was when Marine One lifted off the Capitol grounds, signifying former President George W. Bush's exit from Washington. 'It felt like a 10-pound anvil was lifted off my head,' she said.

After the way the mostly liberal crowd treated the outgoing president at the inauguration, you'd think the Democratic party leadership would be going out of its way to show a little more class, if only in public, and only to make themselves look a little better than they now appear.

Bingo

An anonymous commenter nails it.

On the Latest Kennedy for Senate

Absolutely.

State and Local Government Bailouts Unfair to Taxpayers

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty has joined 58 other organizations in calling upon the U.S. Congress to refuse to use federal taxpayer funds to bail out states and local governments that are spending more than they take in.

Why should taxpayers in states and localities that balance their budgets be forced to bail out state and local governments than overspent?

A better solution is spending cuts.

The New Congress: Raising Your Prices and Hurting the Economy

David Ridenour, writing for the National Center for Public Policy Research, has an op-ed in today's Washington Times on the damage that would be done if the new ever-more-liberal Congress puts a curb on greenhouse gas emissions.

After the vote today among Democrats in Congress to replace somewhat moderately liberal Rep. John Dingell (D-CA) as chairman of the House Commerce Committee with off-the-wall left-wing partisan Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), you can bet energy curbs are on the fast track, especially in the House.

An excerpt from Ridenour's op-ed:

When our economic bus is teetering at the edge of a cliff, it's a bad time to throw on some extra weight...

...A study by the National Association of Manufacturers projected that emissions caps similar to those rejected earlier this year by the U.S. Senate calling for a 63-percent cut in emissions by 2050, would reduce U.S. gross domestic product by up to $269 billion and cost 850,000 jobs by 2014.

The Heritage Foundation estimated such restrictions would result in cumulative GDP losses of up to $4.8 trillion and employment losses of more than 500,000 a year by 2030.

...Duke University's Nicholas Institute estimates a GDP loss of $245 billion by 2030 while the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates a GDP drop of $238 billion to $983 billion.

...According to a study conducted by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the restrictions could raise gasoline prices 29 percent, electricity prices 55 percent and natural-gas prices 15 percent by 2015.

...And it appears that all this economic pain would be an utterly meaningless gesture. Patrick Michaels, former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, who is now with the Cato Institute, says reducing U.S. emissions 63 percent would prevent a mere 0.013 degrees Celsius in warming....

The entire article is here.

MoveOn.org's Curious E-Mail on Governor Sarah Palin

We received the following email from MoveOn this evening, addressed "Dear MoveOn member," although we have never joined nor contributed to that organization.

MoveOn appears a bit overwrought at John McCain's selection of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate.

A few things struck us about the email, which is reprinted in full below:

1) The word "religious" in a sequence of words MoveOn personnal regard as pejorative. In context, it appears MoveOn considers religious faith to be a negative.

2) MoveOn's use of Wikipedia as a source (see footnote #1). Risky. Wikipedia can say anything, and often does.

3) MoveOn's use of a Huffington Post blog post by the notoriously unreliable Canadian PR flack Kevin Grandia as a source on Palin's views on climate change (see footnote #5). Grandia is paid to write for the Canadian left-wing environmental website DeSmogBlog, run by a PR agency and popular with many global warming skeptics for its unintentionally hilarious incompetent posts on science issues. If MoveOn truly needs the help of foreign experts to evaluate U.S. candidates, it would do better to consult competent ones.

4) MoveOn refers to Palin suing the Bush Administration "for listing polar bears as an endangered species," but the Bush Administration didn't list the polar bear as an endangered species, it listed it as a threatened species. There is a big difference. MoveOn listed a political statement by the Sierra Club as its source for this, but the Sierra Club statement had it right.

5) MoveOn members being quoted but being identified without their last names. Are these people made up, or are they real people who lack the courage to have their full names in an e-mail? Surely the political situation in Alaska is not such that ALL the MoveOn members there faced some sort of retaliation for criticizing the governor. (Though we note that "member" Sherry C. said Palin "is doing well running our State.")

6) The consistent theme about Palin having no foreign policy experience, as if this was not also true for Bill Clinton in 1992, Jimmy Carter in 1976, Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and Barack Obama today, among many other presidents and presidential aspirants. Ditto for national experience. Governors often are elected to the presidency.

7) [Added to post later] MoveOn accepted the left-wing The Nation magazine's word that Palin endorsed Pat Buchanan for president in 2000, but ABC News is reporting, based on a 1999 Associated Press report, that Palin supported Steve Forbes and served on his local campaign leadership committee that year.

Judge for yourself. Here's the complete MoveOn email:

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday was John McCain's 72nd birthday. If elected, he'd be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for "inexperience," here's who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here's some basic background:

She was elected Alaska's governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.1

Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.2

She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.3

Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.4
She's doesn't think humans are the cause of climate change.5
She's solidly in line with John McCain's "Big Oil first" energy policy. She's pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won't be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.6

How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.7

This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here's a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She's a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She's vehemently anti-choice and doesn't care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she's far too inexperienced to be in this position. I'm all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn't done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain's part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he'll get our vote by putting "A Woman" in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She's a global warming denier who shares John McCain's commitment to Big Oil. And she's dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he's made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain's vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.

Thanks for all you do.

–Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "Sarah Palin," Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. "McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate," NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-5456418-QPWcmFx&t=1

3. "Sarah Palin, Buchananite," The Nation, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-5456418-QPWcmFx&t=2

4. "'Creation science' enters the race," Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-5456418-QPWcmFx&t=3

5. "Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science," Huffington Post, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-5456418-QPWcmFx&t=4

6. "McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy," Sierra Club, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-5456418-QPWcmFx&t=5

"Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past," League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-5456418-QPWcmFx&t=6

"Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor," The Times of London, May 23, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-5456418-QPWcmFx&t=7

7 "McCain met Palin once before yesterday," MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-5456418-QPWcmFx&t=8

A Long Road Out of Springfield

This George Will column is brilliant.

NewsBusters Turns Three

Congratulations to Newsbusters!

Four Liberals Chosen to Moderate Presidential Debates By Outsiders Nobody Elected

The busybodies nobody elected, otherwise known as the nonpartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, has decided that four liberals from the mainstream press should moderate the presidential debates this fall.

No conservative or even moderate candidate should ever agree to debate under these terms.

The candidates should ask each other questions. Can't get any fairer than that.

Facts Are Stubborn Things

Senator Barack Obama keeps insisting he's right when he claims properly inflating tires could save "all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling."

John Hinderaker says Obama's wrong about that.

The facts are so clear here, that we wonder why Obama keeps bringing this up.

Letter to Congress Urges Gas Drilling Ban Be Allowed to Expire

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty has joined a coalition letter delivered to Congress today saying:

Dear Senator/Representative:

On behalf of our millions of members and all American consumers suffering from high energy prices, we urge you to
allow the current restrictions on much-needed American energy resources to expire as scheduled under current law.
Unless Congress acts affirmatively to prevent it, October 1st, 2008 will be a day fittingly described as “American
Energy Freedom Day” as those restrictions expire.

According to estimates from the Department of the Interior, the Outer Continental Shelf contains 86 billion barrels of
oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and there is an additional 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil locked in
oil shale in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.

Now that President Bush has lifted the executive branch moratorium, the only thing prohibiting development of these
energy resources is a temporary ban that is set to expire at the end of this fiscal year. On October 1, 2008, domestic
energy resources will no longer be held off-limits by the federal government.

We urge you to oppose the creation of any new moratorium for fiscal 2009, even if it is attached to what some people
in Washington consider “must-pass” legislation. We further urge you to sustain a presidential veto of any measure to
impose a new moratorium.

A strong majority of the American public sees drilling expansion as necessary to reduce fuel prices now and in the
long run. Creating new restrictions on domestic energy development would fly in the face of public opinion and
exacerbate the pain every American citizen feels at the pump.

Sincerely,

[List of Signers]

A PDF of the actual letter, including the complete list of signers, can be accessed here.
____

The REAL Inconvenient Truth: Zealotry over Global Warming Could Damage our Earth

Nigel Lawson, once a cobinet minister in Margaret Thatcher's government, has written a top-notch article about climate change and why the public should be wary of heeding the message of green activists about global warming.

The article is a must-read; one of the best we've seen in a long time.

Stimulous Plan: Wealth Redistribution Over Economic Expansion

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty signed on today to a coalition letter spearheaded by the National Taxpayers Union:

January 28, 2008

An Open Letter to the United States Congress: Don't Fall for "Stimulus" Fairy Tales!

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of the millions of members of our respective organizations, we write to urge caution regarding the so-called "economic stimulus" plan that may soon be before you. As more details emerge about this initiative, it is becoming clearer that it would favor wealth redistribution over true economic expansion.

The recently announced plan has some questionable elements, chief among them a $100 billion income tax rebate scheme that will distribute checks of up to $600 for individuals making less than $75,000 and $1,200 for couples making less than $150,000. Even those who had no income tax burden will be eligible for checks worth $300, provided they earned more than $3,000 in 2007. These tax rebates don't create any new wealth, they simply redistribute resources that the Treasury extracted from others.

In addition, the plan will increase the limits for loans purchased or insured by the Federal Housing Administration as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. It would increase those loan limits to $725,000 and $625,000, respectively. This expansion of federally sponsored mortgage debt is but a continuation of risky lending practices, backed implicitly by the American taxpayer.

The plan laudably includes roughly $50 billion in tax incentives for business. But while enhanced expensing and carryback provisions constitute worthy tax relief for businesses, the fact that the provisions only apply this year simply means that many businesses will shift their future investments up to 2008, potentially leading to a slowdown of investments in 2009. Consistent and stable business expansion requires long-term policies, not temporary changes.

Despite claims by its proponents, this plan will not lead to the kind of economic stimulus that has been advertised. Congress has no mechanism for "creating" additional wealth in America over the short term, as 1970s experiments in tax rebates and spending increases proved. This plan amounts to taking a bucket of water from the deep end of the pool and pouring it in the shallow end; the result yields neither new water nor a larger pool.

Furthermore, the focus on consumer spending is ultimately misguided. To quote economist Don Boudreaux, "Spending power is not so much the fuel for economic growth as it is its reward. [T]he key to economic growth is investment that raises worker productivity." If Congress seeks true stimulus that is economically sound, it ought to reduce tax rates and avoid bailing out the housing market. Making the lower capital gains tax rate permanent and reducing inordinately high corporate taxes would have a much more stimulative effect than any rearrangement of existing tax revenue.

Sincerely,*

Duane Parde
President
National Taxpayers Union

Jim Martin
President
60 Plus Association

Tim Phillips
President
Americans for Prosperity

Amy Ridenour
Vice Chairman
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

Timothy Wise
President
Arlington County Taxpayers Association (VA)

Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

Doug Bandow
Vice President for Policy
Citizen Outreach

Barbara Anderson
Executive Director
Citizens for Limited Taxation

Clyde Wayne Crews Jr.
Vice President for Policy
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Thomas Schatz
President
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Bob Williams
President
Evergreen Freedom Foundation

Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council

Richard O. Rowland
President
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Jon Coupal
President
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association

John Tillman
CEO
Illinois Policy Institute

Karl Peterjohn Executive Director
Kansas Taxpayers Network

Richard Falknor
Chair
Maryland Center-Right Coalition

David Ridenour
Vice President
National Center for Public Policy Research

Lew Uhler
President
National Tax Limitation Committee

Doug Kagan
Chairman
Nebraska Taxpayers for Freedom

Paul J. Gessing
President
Rio Grande Foundation

Phil Krinkie
President
Taxpayers League of Minnesota

Rick Durham
President
Tennessee Tax Revolt

*Organizations listed for identification purposes only.

_____

Repeal the AMT

Rep. Paul Ryan wants to know: Why patch the alternative minimum tax, when we can repeal it?
_____

What Could Be Wrong...

"What could be wrong with a treaty governing the oceans championed by President George W. Bush, the secretary of the Navy and the overwhelming majority of the members of both political parties who make up the Senate Foreign Relations Committee?"

Jane Chastain answers the question.
_____

An Opinion on Socialized Health Care

Snarky.

On Al Gore's Nobel Peace Prize

Possibly the best post on this anywhere, on Power Line.

The Media Gets a Tongue-Lashing

Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez gives the news media a dressing down, perhaps as thorough a dressing-down as it has ever received.

The media, of course, barely reported it, but the blogosphere, thankfully, did.

Hat tip: Michelle Malkin.

LOST & the Coast Guard

If asked, would Cuban boat people support the Law of the Sea treaty?

Based on this, Mal Kline may think not.

Oklahoma Indicts People for Circulating Petitions

The Oklahoma attorney general has indicted three people for circulating a petition calling for a "Taxpayer Bill of Rights" in Oklahoma.

The potential penalty is 12 years in a state prison and a 25,500 fine.

Reg Crowder is wondering if Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmunson attended law school in North Korea.

More details on the case -- and the more you read, the more shocking it gets -- can be found here. A copy of the indictment itself is here.

Supporting General Petraeus

Under the leadership of Concerned Women for America, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty and 38 other groups are pressuring Congress to be more supportive of General Petraeus and our active duty military:

Dear United States Senators and Members of the House of Representatives:

Gen. Petraeus is an emblem of patriotism. He has willingly taken the mandate provided by the President of the United States and the U.S. Senate to serve his country in one of the most difficult missions in the world. Gen. Petraeus is admirably living up to an extremely complicated job of heading up a war effort in a dangerous region of the world.

Senators who voted unanimously to confirm Gen. Petraeus should live up to their duty to give this leader the resources and support that he needs to accomplish the mission entrusted to him.

Supporting Gen. Petraeus and U.S. troops includes condemning unwarranted attacks on the character of this good man. The vicious attack on him, his commitment to the American people and the integrity with which he leads the Multi-National Force in Iraq will go down in history as a disgrace. It will be seen not only as a reprehensible criticism of Gen. Petraeus but, by extension, those who serve under him, all members of the United States Armed Forces. It is legitimate to ask tough questions of Gen. Petraeus on his testimony but not to question his patriotism.

The Politico reported that one anonymous Democratic Senator said, “No one wants to call [Petraeus] a liar on national TV. The expectation is that the outside groups will do this for us.” It is not a stretch for Americans to believe that MoveOn.org’s malicious assault on the honor of the commanding General of Coalition forces speaks for at least some Senators. If MoveOn.org does not speak for you in attacking the man you chose to lead the armed forces in Iraq, the undersigned respectfully request that you go on record objecting to it and vote in favor of the Cornyn Resolution in the Senate and Boehner Resolution in the House of Representatives. These resolutions strongly condemn the personal attacks on Gen. Petraeus’ honor and integrity.

We, the undersigned, ask that you show this principled man the respect that he deserves by condemning personal attacks on his integrity and the forces he leads.

Sincerely,

A PDF of the entire letter, with signers, can be found here.

Blowing in the Wind

Classical Values says: "If we all work together to build a better future, the environment might be saved."

Too bad the local zoning regulations are in the way...

Don't Tax the Internet

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty has joined a project spearheaded by Americans for Tax Reform to urge Congress to extend the moratorium on taxes on the Internet:

September 17, 2007

Dear Member of Congress:

On behalf of millions of taxpayers, we request that Congress promptly extend the Internet Tax Freedom Act before it expires on November 1, 2007. If the moratorium is allowed to lapse, American taxpayers could be exposed to countless new and onerous taxes from states and municipalities simply for accessing the Internet.

Since 1998, Congress has ensured that Internet access is not subject to either state and local taxes or multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet commerce, regardless of the technology consumers use to access the Internet. With the moratorium’s expiration rapidly approaching, it is imperative that Congress continue to prohibit Internet access taxes and multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce.

The Internet prospers today as the result of unshackled innovation and technological growth unfettered by government taxation or regulation. Although policies up to this point have temporarily put a hold on government interference, passing a permanent ban on Internet taxation would send a signal that the Internet is open for further growth and development. Taxing access and Internet activities would not only hinder the expansion of technology that fuels our modern economy, but it would also rebuild communication barriers among families, hamper growing businesses, and negatively impact our lives in countless ways.

The U.S. cannot afford to open the free Internet market to taxation. The time of temporary moratorium has passed. Once again we, the undersigned groups, urge you to co-sponsor and work to pass S. 156 and H.R. 743 which would permanently extend the federal moratorium on Internet access taxes.

Sincerely,

Barbara Anderson,
Executive Director,
Citizens for Limited Taxation

John Berthoud,
President,
National Taxpayers Union

Greg Blankenship,
President,
Illinois Policy Institute

Chris Derry,
President,
Bluegrass Institute

Leon Drolet,
Executive Director,
Michigan Taxpayers Alliance

Ryan Ellis,
Executive Director,
American Shareholders Association

Richard Falknor,
Executive Vice-President,
Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Colin A. Hanna,
President,
Let Freedom Ring, Inc.

Tom Hoefling,
President,
Idahoans for Tax Reform

Derek Hunter,
Executive Director,
Media Freedom Project

Kimberly Kuo,
Executive Director,
MyWireless.org

David A. Keene,
Chairman,
The American Conservative Union

Matt Kibbe,
President,
FreedomWorks

Thomas P. Kilgannon,
President,
Freedom Alliance

Phil Krinkie,
President,
Taxpayers League of Minnesota

Chris Lilik,
Young Conservatives of Pennsylvania

Jeffrey Mazzella,
President,
Center for Individual Freedom

John McClaughry,
President,
Ethan Allen Institute

Tom McClusky,
Vice President of Government Affairs,
Family Research Council

Chuck Muth,
President,
Citizen Outreach

Grover Norquist,
President,
Americans for Tax Reform

Tim Phillips,
President,
Americans for Prosperity

C. Preston Noell III,
President,
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Andrew Quinlan,
President,
Center for Freedom and Prosperity

Amy Ridenour,
Vice Chairman,
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

Lori Roman,
Executive Director,
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)

Richard O. Rowland,
President,
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

Thomas A. Schatz,
President,
Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Curt Smith,
President,
Indiana Family Institute

Fred L. Smith, Jr.,
President,
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Pat Toomey,
President,
The Club for Growth

Mead Treadwell,
Alaskans for Tax Reform

Steve Voeller,
President,
Arizona Free Enterprise Club

Mark Warden,
President,
Budget Watch Nevada

Paul M. Weyrich,
National Chairman,
Coalitions for America

Jason Wright,
President,
Institute for Liberty Internet Freedom Coalition

The PAC Fairness Act of 2007

It's wrong for the federal government to restrict an American citizen's right to contribute his own funds to the political causes of his choice. The right to contribute to a political cause with which one agrees is akin to the rights of free speech and free association.

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland has introduced H. R. 3492, the PAC Fairness Act of 2007, to raise limits on the amount of contributions that may be made to political committees, and to index such limits to inflation.

This bill makes sense, and deserves support.

APL Joins Coalition Opposing New National Heritage Areas

The following letter -- signed by a diverse group of more than 110 organizations, elected officials and citizens -- was delivered on September 4 to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader John Boehner, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Pete V. Domenici, House Committee on Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, House Committee on Natural Resources Ranking Member Don Young as well as all the members of the House and Senate Natural Resources Committees.

Dear [Elected Official]:

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kelo v. City of New London ignited a national outcry against government abuse of property rights. The "bridge to nowhere" and other wasteful programs triggered angry protests against the practice of earmarking.

National heritage areas are the Kelo decision and earmarks rolled into one.

National heritage areas are preservation zones where land use and property rights can be restricted. They give the National Park Service and preservation interest groups (many with histories of hostility toward property rights) substantial influence by giving them the authority to create land use "management plans" and then the authority to disburse federal money to local governments to promote their plans.

As a March 2004 General Accountability Office report on heritage areas states: "[National heritage areas] encourage local governments to implement land use policies that are consistent with the heritage areas' plans, which may allow the heritage areas to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning in ways that could restrict owners' use of their property."

The proposed "Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area Act" provides a good case study on how heritage areas can be self-perpetuating federal pork and influence projects.

The chief lobbying organization for this heritage area, the Journey Through Hallowed Ground Partnership, received a one million-dollar earmark in the 2005 federal transportation bill at the behest of Members of Congress sponsoring legislation to establish this heritage area - an earmark that was granted before the organization was even incorporated. A million-dollar earmark thus was issued to help create a steady stream of future pork, at the expense of the rights of local landowners.

We believe zoning and land use policies are best left to local officials, who are directly accountable to the citizens they represent. National heritage areas corrupt the principle of representative government and this inherently local function by giving unelected, unaccountable special interests the authority to develop land management plans and federal money with which to finance their efforts.

Once established, National heritage areas become permanent units of the National Park Service, and as such, permanent drains on an agency that currently suffers a multibillion-dollar maintenance crisis. According to the GAO, "sunset provisions have not been effective in limiting federal funding [for National Heritage Areas]: since 1984, five areas that reached their sunset dates received funding reauthorization from the Congress."

Supporters of new heritage areas have the public will precisely backward: Americans want stronger property rights protections and less pork-barrel spending - not more earmarks to programs that harm property rights.

Please do not support the creation of additional national heritage areas or federal funding for heritage area management entities, support groups, or groups that lobby for or advocate the creation of new heritage areas.

Sincerely,

David Ridenour
Vice President
National Center for Public Policy Research

J. William Lauderback
Executive Vice President
The American Conservative Union

John Berthoud
President
National Taxpayers Union

Paul Poister
Executive Director
Partnership for the West

Larry Pratt
Executive Director
Gun Owners of America

William Niemeyer
Mayor
City of West Alton, MO

Ryan Ellis
Executive Director
American Shareholders Association

Peter Flaherty
President
National Legal and Policy Center

Steve Snow
Supervisor
Loudoun County, VA

Carol W. LaGrasse
President
Property Rights Foundation of America

Tom DeWeese
President
American Policy Center

Rachel Thomas
Property Rights Advocate
Huachuca City, AZ

Rose Ellen Ray
Treasurer, Citizens for Property Rights
Loudoun County, VA

Paul Driessen
Senior Policy Advisor
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise

Maxine Korman
Korman Ranch
Hinsdale, Montana

Gerald Hobbs
President
Public Lands for the People

John Grigsby
Vice President
Taxpayers for Accountable Government

Don Parmeter
Executive Director
American Property Coalition

Leo Schwartz
Chairman
Virginia Land Rights Coalition

Pat King
Anvil Ranch
Tucson, AZ

Tom Borelli, Ph.D.
Portfolio Manager
Free Enterprise Action Fund

John and Connie Morris
Members, Tongue River Watershed Alliance, and MT and WY Farm Bureaus

Brad VanDyke
Representative
Rural Utahns for Local Solutions

Jerry Hamilton
Environmental Coordinator
Formation Capital Corporation

F. Patricia Callahan
President and General Counsel
American Assoc. of Small Property Owners

Erich Veyhl
Publisher
Maine Property Rights News

Dane vonBreichenruchardt
President
U.S. Bill of Rights Foundation

Mark Williamson
Founder and President
Federal Intercessors

New Mexico Federal Lands Council

New Mexico Wool Growers, Inc.

Beth Machens
Board of Aldermen
City of West Alton, MO

Janet M. Neustadt
Board of Aldermen
City of West Alton, MO

William J. Richter
Board of Aldermen
City of West Alton, MO

Deborah Anderson
Treasurer
City of West Alton, MO

Susan Silk
City Clerk
City of West Alton, MO

Charlotte Meyers
Assistant Administrator
City of West Alton, MO

Ora B. Anderson, Jr.
Planning and Zoning Commission
City of West Alton, MO

Ray Ponciroli
Board of Aldermen
City of Portage, MO

Paul M. Weyrich
National Chairman
Coalitions for America

Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council

Jay Lehr
Science Director
The Heartland Institute

Jim Martin
President
60 Plus Association

Bill Moshofsky
Vice President
Oregonians In Action

Niger Innis
National Spokesman
Congress of Racial Equality

Gregory Cohen
President and CEO
American Highway Users Alliance

Richard Falknor
Executive Vice President
Maryland Taxpayers Association, Inc.

Linda C. Runbeck
President
American Property Coalition

Thomas K. Remington
Managing Editor
U.S. Hunting Today

Lew Uhler
President
National Tax Limitation Committee

Jon Caldara
President
Independence Institute

Dan Byfield
President
American Land Foundation

John Taylor
President
Tertium Quids

Susan Carlson
Chairman and CEO
American Civil Rights Union

Gary Palmer
President
Alabama Policy Institute

Lenore Hardy Barrett
State Representative
Idaho

Jonathan DuHamel
President
People for the West-Tucson

Jack and Patricia Shockey
President and Director
Citizens for Property Rights

Fred Grau
Executive Director
Take Back Pennsylvania

Mike Dail
Chairman
American Land Foundation

Chuck Cushman
President
American Land Rights Association

James Stergios
Executive Director
Pioneer Institute

Deneen Borelli
Fellow
Project 21

Marilyn Hayman
Chairman, Citizens for Responsible Zoning and Landowner Rights

Bruce Colbert
Executive Director, Property Owners Association of Riverside County, CA

Randall and Ruth Lillard
Farmers and Landowners
Madison County, VA

Joyce Morrison
Farmer and Agricultural Environmentalist
Fieldon, IL

Donald Castellucci, Jr.
Councilman, Town of Owego
Tioga County, NY

Milari Madison
Property Owner
Loudoun County, VA

Robert L. Sansom
Farmer and Landowner
Madison County, VA

Mary E. Darling
Sonoita, AZ

James Vadnais
Port Angeles, WA

Floyd Rathbun
Fallon, Nevada

Steven and Peggy Breen
Boise, Idaho

Peggy Bogart
Access Advocate

Dan Goulet
Portland, OR

Susan Freis Falknor
Bluemont, VA

Fred L. Smith
President
Competitive Enterprise Institute

Matt Kibbe
President
FreedomWorks

Mychal Massie
Advisory Council Chairman
Project 21

Steve Baldwin
Executive Director
Council for National Policy Action, Inc.

Caren Cowen
Executive Director
New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association

Randy T. Simmons
Mayor, Providence City, UT
Professor, Utah State University

Donald E. Wildmon
Founder and Chairman
American Family Association

Leroy Watson
Legislative Director
National Grange

Kelsey Zahourek
Executive Director
Property Rights Alliance

Roy Cordato, Ph.D.
VP for Research and Resident Scholar
John Locke Foundation

C.J. Hadley
Publisher/Editor
Range Magazine

Elizabeth Arnold
Grassroots Consultant, Environmental Community Outreach Services, Juneau, AK

Greg Blankenship
President
Illinois Policy Institute

Bill Wilson
President
Americans for Limited Government

Jane Hogan
Secretary
Ontario Hardwood Company, Inc.

Katherine Lehman
President
People for the USA Grange #835

Howard Hutchinson
Executive Director
Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties

C. Preston Noell III
President
Tradition, Family, Property, Inc.

Dr. William Greene
President
RightMarch.com

Leo T. Bergeron
President
Upper Mid-Klamath Watershed Council

Eugene Delgaudio
President
Public Advocate of the U.S., Inc.

Leri M. Thomas, Ph.D.
Charter Member
Virginians for Property Rights

John McClaughry
President
Ethan Allen Institute

Richard O. Rowland
President
Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

James W. Jarrell, Sr.
Board Member
Virginia Bear Hunters Association

Harold L. Stephens
Member
Citizens to Protect the Confluence

Jerry Fennell
Chairman
Jicarilla Mining District

Bonner R. Cohen, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow
National Center for Public Policy Research

Judy Keeler
Secretary
Bootheel Heritage Assoc. (Animas, NM)

Alexandra H. Mulkern
Mechanicsville, MD

Lee Riddle
Brookings, OR

Stephen L. Ralston
Columbia, PA

Mark Pollot
Boise, ID

Billy Jean Redemeyer-Roney

D.J. McCarthy
Civil Engineer

Clifton McDonald
Needles, CA

Kirk and Jeri Hansen
Clayton, ID

Suzanne Volpe
Sterling, VA

Amy Ridenour
Director
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

More information about the project can be found at this link.

SourceWatch Lists Us In Group We Didn't Join

We see on SourceWatch, an imaginative "wiki" style website sponsored by the leftish Center for Media & Democracy, that Americans for the Preservation of Liberty is a member of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a network of organizations organized by the non-profit group Consumer Alert in 1997 to examine the impact of proposed global warming regulations on consumers.

Without any disrepect intended toward the fine work of the Cooler Heads Coalition, we were surprised to see that SourceWatch reports APL as a member of Cooler Heads, as, as far as we know, Consumer Alert closed about the time Americans for the Preservation of Liberty was founded.

60 Groups Demand Statesmanship from Senate

Americans for the Preservation of Liberty has joined 59 other groups in demanding that the U.S. Senate take more seriously its responsibility to evaluate and confirm judges to the federal judiciary:

July 25, 2007

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
The Honorable Arlen Specter
The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
The Honorable Sam Brownback
The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin
The Honorable Tom Coburn
The Honorable John Cornyn
The Honorable Richard J. Durbin
The Honorable Russell D. Feingold
The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
The Honorable Lindsey Graham
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy
The Honorable Herb Kohl
The Honorable Jon Kyl
The Honorable Charles E. Schumer
The Honorable Jeff Sessions
The Honorable Sheldon Whitehouse

United States Senate
U.S. Capitol
Washington, DC

Dear Senators,

We and the organizations we represent are deeply concerned about the Senate Judiciary Committee’s lack of progress in reporting judicial nominees out of committee. This is particularly pronounced for U.S. Courts of Appeal nominees, and has made it impossible for the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent in good faith. The broken promises and personal attacks on nominees that have accompanied this inaction – as well as the unfairness of denying qualified nominees a fair up-or-down vote by the full Senate – only add to the public perception that your committee is not living up to its responsibilities.

That approval ratings for the 110th Congress are among the lowest in history is a testament to the American people’s concern that their elected representatives are more interested in partisan politics and politically driven investigations than in making progress on the issues citizens really care about. The American people want you to do your job, and among the most important responsibilities of the Judiciary Committee are processing and voting on the President’s judicial nominees. We respectfully request that you take this responsibility seriously, including putting statesmanship above politics and special interests.

More than six months into this Congress, the Judiciary Committee has held hearings for only four appeals court nominees, and has voted on only three such nominees. At that pace, the Senate will fall far short of the historical average of 17 circuit court confirmations during a president’s last two years in office. That average was maintained during the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton presidencies, despite the fact that the opposition party controlled the Senate. The American people expect no less from this Senate and do not want the Judiciary Committee to stand in the way. Fortunately, the historical average can be achieved if you and your colleagues are willing to eschew partisan politics in favor of fairness and fulfilling your constitutional duty.

Instead, five appeals court nominees – three of them waiting to fill vacancies declared “judicial emergencies” – and 14 district court nominees are languishing in the Judiciary Committee. Four additional appeals court nominations have just been announced. Several nominees have been waiting for more than a year for the committee to do its job. In some cases, the nominees are being subjected to obstruction borne of partisan politics. In other cases, the Judiciary Committee has fallen behind because it insists on holding hearings for judicial nominees just once a month.

Among those appeals court nominees being blocked in the Judiciary Committee is Judge Leslie Southwick, an Iraq War veteran rated “unanimously well-qualified” by the American Bar Association. Unfortunately, Judge Southwick has been the target of an ugly campaign of character assassination by liberal special interest groups. It is very telling that, despite sifting through nearly 7000 cases Southwick voted on during 12 years on the Mississippi Court of Appeals, his critics are basing their opposition on two opinions he didn’t write.

If the nomination of Leslie Southwick is allowed to die in committee, it will be a loss to both the federal bench and the reputation of the Judiciary Committee. The American people will ask why you put the demands of special interest groups above the fair treatment of a man who interrupted a highly successful career to serve his country in Iraq.

The impact of the judges issue on Senate campaigns in 2002 and 2004 demonstrated that the public is watching. Americans want to see progress rather than hear explanations for why you were unable to rise above politics. They do not want to hear that inaction in the Judiciary Committee is the White House’s fault for failing to name nominees for some of the vacancies. In fact, calls for the White House to speed up the pace of nominations are undercut when you allow those already nominated to languish in the Judiciary Committee.

The American people are equally unsympathetic to the claim that certain nominees cannot get a hearing because of the Judiciary Committee’s arcane “blue slip” policy. That policy is rightfully perceived as serving senators rather than the public. Because the policy exists entirely at the discretion of the committee chairman, blame for the resulting delays cannot credibly be laid outside the committee.

President Bush fulfilled his constitutional duty by nominating the outstanding men and women who await action in the Judiciary Committee. We respectfully request that you allow the Senate to fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent, by ensuring that each and every judicial nominee is given a hearing and is reported out of committee for consideration by the full Senate in a timely manner. If you cannot support a particular nominee, vote him or her out of committee without a positive recommendation, or vote against confirmation. But please do not deny the nominee a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. In other words, we ask only that you do your job by putting statesmanship above politics and special interests.

Respectfully,

Curt Levey
Executive Director
Committee for Justice

Jim Martin
President
60 Plus Association

Diane Gramley
President
American Family Association of Pennsylvania

Jim Backlin
Vice President for Legislative Affairs
Christian Coalition of America

Paul M. Weyrich
National Chairman
Coalitions for America

Kay R. Daly
President
Coalition for a Fair Judiciary

Wendy Wright
President
Concerned Women for America

Richard A. Viguerie
Chairman
ConservativeHQ.com

Phyllis Schlafly
President and Founder
Eagle Forum

Tony Perkins
President
Tom McClusky
Vice President of Government Affairs
Family Research Council

Brian Burch
President
Fidelis

Tom Minnery
Senior Vice President of Government and Public Policy
Focus on the Family

Mary E. Bliss
Director of Special Projects
Illinois Citizens for Life

James Bopp Jr.
General Counsel
James Madison Center for Free Speech

Wendy E. Long
General Counsel
Gary Marx
Executive Director
Judicial Confirmation Network

Tom Fitton
President
Judicial Watch

Kristian M. Mineau
President
Massachusetts Family Institute

Douglas Reaume
Owner and Director
Michigan Catholic Radio

Father Frank Pavone
National Director
Priests for Life

Mychal Massie
Chairman
Project 21

Randy Brinson
Chairman
Redeem the Vote

Cathy Herron
South Carolina
Andrea Lafferty
Executive Director
Traditional Values Coalition

Dr. Carl Herbster
President
AdvanceUSA

Gary J. Palmer
President
Alabama Policy Institute

Susan A. Carleson
Chairman & CEO
American Civil Rights Union

Dr. Don Wildmon
Founder & Chairman
American Family Association

Micah Clark
Executive Director
American Family Association of Indiana

Gary Glenn
President
American Family Association of Michigan

Mark Chmura
Executive Director
Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

Jeffrey Mazzella
President
Center for Individual Freedom

Michael S. Heath
Executive Director
Christian Civic League of Maine

Samuel B. Casey
Executive Director & CEO
Christian Legal Society

Phil Burress
President
Citizens for Community Values

Robert R. Galbreath
Founder
Citizens for a Constitutional Republic

Tom Shields
Chairman
Coalition for Marriage and Family

Karen Testerman
Executive Director
Cornerstone Policy Research

Alan Chambers
President
Exodus International

Kent Ostrander
Executive Director
Family Foundation of Kentucky

Maurine Proctor
President
Family Leader Network

John Stemberger
President and General Counsel
Florida Family Policy Council

Kelly Shackelford
President
Free Market Foundation

Christine Carmouche
President
GrassTopsUSA

Bryan Fischer
Executive Director
Idaho Values Alliance

Ron Shuping
Executive Vice President of Programming
Inspiration Networks

Anita Staver
President
Liberty Counsel

Hiram Sasser
Director of Litigation
Liberty Legal Institute

Mathew D. Staver
Dean and Professor of Law
Liberty University School of Law

Dr. Patricia McEwen
Director
Life Coalition International

Forest Thigpen
President
Mississippi Center for Public Policy

Deal W. Hudson
Director
Morley Institute

Amy Ridenour
President
National Center for Public Policy Research

Steven W. Fitschen
President
National Legal Foundation

Richard J. Howell
President
Natural Rights and Laws Compact

Pastor Russell Johnson
Chairman
Ohio Restoration Project

Carmen Pate
Co-Host
Point of View radio talk show

Dr. William Greene
President
RightMarch.com

Dr. Rick Scarborough
President
Vision America Action

Victor Williams
Assistant Professor of Law (Catholic University of America)
Washington, DC

Nanny State v. the Poor

Gerald Prante of the Tax Foundation takes a look at the way the federal nanny state seems to be going out of its way to put taxes on the poor.

Open Letter on Competitiveness

As noted in this article in Tax and Budget News, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty has joined other organizations in opposing two Senate proposals we believe would hurt American competitiveness:

The Honorable Henry M. Paulson, Jr.
Secretary
Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20220


Dear Secretary Paulson:

We are writing to express our concern about two Senate proposals that would undermine American competitiveness, discriminate against developing nations, and compromise the U.S. commitment to free trade in financial services.

Senator Byron Dorgan of North Dakota has proposed S. 396, a bill which targets American companies operating in selected low-tax jurisdictions and strips away their ability to postpone the imposition of a second layer of tax on their foreign-source income. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan has proposed S. 681, a bill which imposes a wide range of taxes, regulations, and penalties on American taxpayers operating in selected low-tax jurisdictions.

Both of these pieces of legislation are deeply flawed. They share a common premise that the U.S. government should adopt an adversarial position against jurisdictions with pro-growth tax policy. Specific flaws include:

Both bills will undermine American competitiveness. Only U.S. taxpayers seeking to operate in low-tax jurisdictions will be penalized by these proposals. Foreign taxpayers will be able to benefit from good tax policy in these jurisdictions, while American taxpayers will suffer a competitive disadvantage. The United States will lose market share, causing a drop in jobs and exports.
Both bills create discriminatory blacklists. Senator Dorgan's legislation singles out 40 jurisdictions for discriminatory treatment, while Senator Levin's bill targets 34 nations and territories. Exactly 75 percent of the jurisdictions blacklisted in S. 396 and more than 75 percent of the jurisdictions blacklisted in S. 681 are in the developing world. Neither bill targets wealthy nations such as the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, and the United Kingdom, even though they all have "tax haven" policies, and Senator Dorgan's bill omits Luxembourg and Switzerland.
Both bills violate America's trade obligations. The United States wisely supports free trade in services, a policy which unambiguously promotes the national interest. Unfortunately, S. 396 and S. 681 both would impose protectionist barriers and almost surely put America in violation of its World Trade Organization obligations. Equally worrisome, the proposals would invite other nations to target the United States, particularly since America's own "tax haven" policies for foreign investors have helped attract more than $10 trillion to the U.S. economy.
We urge you to protect America's self-interest and oppose proposals that seek to thwart tax competition and penalize good tax policy in other jurisdictions. The United States is not a decrepit, high-tax European welfare state, yet this legislation is akin to the noxious tax harmonization schemes concocted in various European nations.

If some lawmakers are concerned that American taxpayers are shifting economic activity to low-tax jurisdictions because of better tax law, they should respond by fixing some of the laws in the Internal Revenue Code, many of which were identified by the President's Advisory Panel on Tax Reform.

We look forward to working with you and hope that you will resist anti-competitive, discriminatory, and protectionist proposals that are contrary to good economic policy.


Sincerely,

Andrew F. Quinlan ~ President, Center for Freedom and Prosperity Foundation

Veronique de Rugy ~ Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute

Grover Norquist ~ President, Americans for Tax Reform

John Berthoud ~ President, National Taxpayers Union

Ashley Miller ~ Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Matt Kibbe ~ President, FreedomWorks

Pat Toomey ~ President, Club for Growth

Fred L. Smith Jr. ~ President, Competitive Enterprise Institute

Karen Kerrigan ~ President and CEO, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council

Thomas Schatz ~ President, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste

Tim Kane ~ Director, Center for International Trade and Economics, The Heritage Foundation

David A. Keene ~ Chairman, American Conservative Union

James L. Martin ~ President, 60 Plus Association

Gary Palmer ~ President, Alabama Policy Institute

Ryan Ellis ~ Executive Director, Alliance for Worker Freedom

Lori Roman ~ Executive Director, American Legislative Exchange Council

Daniel Clifton ~ Executive Director, American Shareholders Association

Tim Phillips ~ President, Americans for Prosperity

Mark Chmura ~ Executive Director, Americans for the Preservation of Liberty

Steve Voeller ~ President, Arizona Free Enterprise Club

Terrence Scanlon ~ President, Capital Research Center

Jeffrey Mazzella ~ President, Center for Individual Freedom

Chuck Muth ~ President, Citizen Outreach Project

Chip Faulkner ~ Associate Director, Citizens for Limited Taxation (MA)

Stephen Manfredi ~ Communications Director, Coalition to Protect Free Markets

Mallory Factor ~ Chairman, The Free Enterprise Fund

Michelle D. Bernard ~ President and CEO, Independent Women's Forum

Kerri Houston ~ Senior Fellow, Institute for Liberty

Tom Giovanetti ~ President, Institute for Policy Innovation

Stephen J. Entin ~ President, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation

Dr. Don Racheter ~ Moderator, Iowa Wednesday Group

J. Robert McClure, III ~ President and CEO, James Madison Institute

Colin A. Hanna ~ President, Let Freedom Ring

Richard Falknor ~ Executive Vice-President, Maryland Taxpayers Association

Amy Ridenour ~ President, National Center for Public Policy Research

Lewis K. Uhler ~ President, National Tax Limitation Committee

Sharon J. Rossie ~ President, Nevada Policy Research Institute

Fred Lane ~ Chairman, New York Tax Reform Organization

Bill Sizemore ~ Executive Director, Oregon Taxpayers United

Sally C. Pipes ~ President and CEO, Pacific Research Institute

Bob Bauman ~ Legal Counsel, Sovereign Society

David M Strom ~ President, Taxpayers League of Minnesota

Roland Boucher ~ Chairman, United Californians for Tax Reform

Charles W. Jarvis ~ Chairman, United Seniors Association

John Taylor ~ President, Virginia Institute for Public Policy

The Drug of Choice

From Janice Rogers Brown, by way of Booker Rising, a nice quote.

Hat tip: What If?.

Addition Request Leads to Extortion Demands

As conditions for granting a building permit, the Washington County, Oregon government demanded that Grimm's Fuel Company pay it $1,200 up front, build concrete sidewalks and make various other public works improvements.

Addition Request Leads to Extortion Demands

Grimm's Fuel Company specializes in landscaping, heating and yard debris recycling services in and around Washington County, Oregon. In May of 2000, owner Jeff Grimm applied to the City of Tualatin for a building permit to add a 7,200 square-foot extension to house an additional three employees and store extra office supplies. The permit was readily approved by city officials, but officials from Washington County intervened before Grimm received the permit. The County made additional demands for an extraordinary number of conditions they said had to be met before Grimm could begin construction.

County demands included the payment of a $1,200 administrative deposit, installing concrete sidewalks along the business' property, eliminating one of three accesses to the county-owned Cipole Road (accesses Grimm had maintained for decades) and dedicating an additional right-of-way for "adequate corner radius" at the intersection of Cipole Road and Highway 99.

Grimm contended that all of the demands were expenses the county should pay for, and that he should not be required to incur the costs of the changes just to receive a building permit.

Tualatin officials reviewed the county demands, but refused to impose them. City officials argued that the addition to Grimm's property in no way required such radical changes.

The architectural review of Grimm's proposed addition, prepared by Tualatin officials, said: "The county has also required that right-of-way be dedicated along SW Cipole Road and that a sidewalk be installed along the property's frontage... The county has not submitted any findings supporting their requirements. Therefore, [Tualatin officials] are not recommending that these requirements be included as conditions of approval for this development." The city government, however, did not aggressively challenge county officials' continued assertion that the permit fell under their jurisdiction due to Grimm's county road access. This left Grimm at the mercy of county government and hostage to their demands.

After two years of negotiations with Washington County officials failed to reach an agreement, Grimm decided to officially apply for a county building permit. Since the problems revolved around the county's demands regarding the city permit, Grimm thought that applying directly to the county might force a resolution. But county officials refused to let him apply for a permit, creating legal standing for Grimm to file a lawsuit to force the county to take action. This led to a settlement before the case went to trial. The settlement allowed Tualatin officials to grant Grimm his building permit by waiving the condition for him to obtain an access permit from the County. Grimm's addition was finally completed as initially approved - without the county's conditions.

Sources: Oregonians in Action Legal Center, Dave Hunnicutt, Jeff Grimm, City of Tualatin Planning Department

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.

Tiny Shack Prevents Development of Valuable Land

photo credit: Ryan Balis

For over two decades, a developer battled Washington, D.C. officials for permission to replace a so-called "historic" run-down shack - which the developer owned - with commercial and residential units for the Capitol Hill neighborhood.

Tiny "Historic" Shack Prevents Development of Valuable Land

Capitol Hill is home to some of the most valuable real estate in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area. Since the 1970s, however, militant preservationists have prevented the development of a number of very valuable plots under the guise of protecting a form of run-down shack they call a "shotgun house."

Larry Quillian purchased ten adjacent, mostly-vacant lots on the 1200 block of Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast more than 25 years ago. He planned to remove the remaining structures and construct two-story buildings for retail tenants and residents. Quillian found his dreams for the land destroyed by a 1978 law - passed after he bought the land but before construction had started - that declared the entire Capitol Hill neighborhood a historic district.

Historic district rules dictate that new projects involving demolition of existing buildings must be beneficial to the neighborhood. To meet this requirement, Quillian planned a mixed-use development that would consist of ground-floor retail and second-floor residential units - exactly the type of structures city planning officials have urged developers to build for the last 30 years.

But the Capitol Hill Restoration Society (CHRS) took issue with Quillian's plan because it necessitated the demolition of a so-called "shotgun house," a tiny one-story residence so-named because a single shotgun blast through the front door would easily exit through the back window. Insisting that the ramshackle structure was an important piece of the "historic fabric of the community," the CHRS brought Quillian's project to the attention of the city's Historic Preservation Review Board in 1987, which shot down his proposal to build the commercial and residential units.

Quillian then offered to give the shotgun house to the CHRS for free two years later. He proposed a deal in which the CHRS would be able to restore and use the house as it saw fit while Quillian retained control of the lot. CHRS officials rejected Quillian's offer on the grounds that the deal was bad for the CHRS from an investment standpoint, but they continued to insist that Quillian restore and maintain the shotgun house, doing so with his own money.

Quillian refused to pay the estimated $300,000 that would be needed to preserve the run-down shotgun house. Since he was unable to remove it and develop the property, its condition gradually worsened. Quillian hoped the city would demolish the shack due to sanitation concerns. The Washington, D.C. City Council, however, passed a law in 2001 specifically aimed at preventing "demolition by neglect." Under the new law, the city is given the ability to use taxpayer dollars to restore and refurbish broken-down properties and then bill the properties' owners. The Historic Preservation Review Board decided to use Quillian's property as a test case for the previously unenforced law.

Quillian, who had no intention of paying for the restoration of the shotgun house, did not plan on giving in to the demands of the CHRS or the Review Board. "I don't really care anymore," he explained. "I don't have to develop the site. I can always give it to my grandchildren and let them battle the Restoration Society for the next 30 years."

Although Quillian had been waiting to see if the District of Columbia would try to restore the shack and bill him for the repairs, it appears this will not be necessary. A Texas development company decided to purchase the house from him. It plans to include the old structure among new apartments it is constructing in the area.

Sources: Washington City Paper (November 1, 2002), The Hill (September 11, 2002; November 13, 2002; May 18, 2005), JPI Development Co.

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

$58,000 Spent Fighting Over a Treehouse

photo credit: saveourtreehouse.com

The government of Clinton, Mississippi goes after a family's treehouse, after granting a permit to build. Case ends up before the Mississippi Supreme Court.

$58,000 Spent Fighting Over a Treehouse

Two anonymous complaints about a treehouse have cost a Clinton, Mississippi homeowner at least $28,000 in legal fees and local taxpayers about $30,000 in a fight to have a playhouse torn down.

In early 1997, Mary Welch sought and received permission from the city's permit department to build a treehouse - a structure that is not defined by city ordinances - in her front yard. After receiving the two anonymous complaints in 2002, however, Clinton Mayor Rosemary G. Aultman ordered the Welch family to tear the treehouse down. The family appealed the demand to the city's planning and zoning board. Despite not being able to find any ordinance banning such structures, and the fact that 51 out of 54 neighborhood homeowners signed a petition in support of the treehouse, the board still ruled that the treehouse should be restricted from the Welchs' front or side yard. City officials also denied the Welchs' request for a conditional use permit that would have granted a special exemption and allowed the treehouse to remain in place.

The Welch family challenged the planning board's claim in Hinds County Circuit
Court, where Judge Tomie Green ruled in favor of the Welch family. In her ruling, Green pointed out that no city ordinance defines a treehouse. The city board voted to appeal the ruling to the Mississippi Supreme Court in August of 2003. However, the court sided with the Welches and will allow the treehouse to stay.

Despite the Supreme Court's finding that the city's use of the ordinance was "unconstitutionally vague," the city has not offered an apology to the Welch family nor amended the zoning ordnance. The Welch family has accumulated at least $28,000 in legal bills since the controversy began, while the city has spent roughly $30,000 on a case that most Clinton residents did not want pursued. A poll conducted by the Southern Research Group found 76 percent of registered voters in Clinton preferred that city officials resolve the issue by granting the special exemption to the Welch family. Instead, the city remained on a crusade against a treehouse, adding frustration and mounting legal bills to the Welch family while wasting taxpayer dollars.


Sources: Mary Welch, Saveourtreehouse.com, The Clarion-Ledger (July 24, 2003; August 5, 2004)

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

_____

Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.

City Tells Church It Must Spend $262,000

photo credit: Peyton Knight

A church in downtown Warrenton, Virginia must use local government-mandated wood instead of fiberglass to fully restore its deteriorating steeple - at a cost of $262,000 more for the church.

City Tells Church It Must Spend $262,000

For over 130 years, the Warrenton Baptist Church in Virginia has been recognized by its intricately-carved 65-foot steeple. While the structure has remained strong over the years, time and weather have taken a toll on the shingles, siding and molding. Church members proposed replacing the current wood steeple with a fiberglass replica, but city officials rejected the plan, instead demanding the church pay an estimated $262,000 more than they have budgeted to have the existing steeple fully restored with wood.

The Warrenton Architectural Review Board rejected the fiberglass steeple replacement on the grounds that the material would "clash" with the vintage appearance of the historic district in which the church was located. Church officials appealed the decision to the Warrenton Town Council, but the Council unanimously rejected their appeal. Members of the church then filed suit in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County, arguing that the decision was "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable."

The church had preferred to spend the funds on charitable works, and even considered relocating. Ultimately, however, it decided to acquiesce to the city's demands.

Sources: Washington Post (February 22, 2004), Fauquier Citizen, Fauquier Times-Democrat

**Read this story and 99 other all-new outrageous stories of government regulatory abuse in the new fifth edition of the National Center for Public Policy Research's book, Shattered Dreams: One Hundred Stories of Government Abuse.

Download your free PDF copy today here or purchase a print copy online here.**

Reprinted with permission from The National Center for Public Policy Research.