Profile Image

Info

americansforprosperity.org

Our Facebook Page (963,500 fans)

Contacts

This organization’s one contact is shared only with Congressional legislative staff.

If you have a @mail.house.gov or @senate.gov email address, register to get instant access to this information.

Don’t see your organization on POPVOX? Any U.S. nonprofit organization or community group can get listed.

Americans for Prosperity

Mission: Americans for Prosperity™ (AFP) and Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP Foundation) are committed to educating citizens about economic policy and mobilizing those citizens as advocates in the public policy process. AFP is an organization of grassroots leaders who engage citizens in the name of limited government and free markets on the local, state and federal levels.

* This organization profile has been set up by POPVOX.

Take Action with Americans for Prosperity

Campaign Priority Bills and Proposals POPVOX Sentiment Take Action
H.R. 1874
view

May 17, 2013

Dear Representative Price and Senator Ayotte:

On ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in endorsing H.R. 1874

81% 19%

237 total users

Support
S. 184
view

May 17, 2013

Dear Representative Price and Senator Ayotte:

On ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in endorsing S. 184

83% 17%

30 total users

Support
S. 1737
view

December 17, 2013

Dear Senator Harkin:

On behalf of more ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in opposing S. 1737

19% 81%

581 total users

Oppose
view

December 10, 2013 - As budget negotiations between the House and ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in opposing The Bipartisan Budget Act

15% 85%

814 total users

Oppose
H.R. 2009
view

July 15, 2013

Dear Representative Price:

On behalf of more ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in endorsing H.R. 2009

90% 10%

1879 total users

Support
S. 743
view

February 19, 2013

Dear Senators and Representatives:

On behalf of ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in opposing S. 743

7% 93%

1977 total users

Oppose
H.R. 259
view

January 15, 2013

On behalf of more than two million ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in endorsing H.R. 259

91% 9%

125 total users

Support
H.R. 107
view

January 17, 2013

On behalf of more than two million ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in endorsing H.R. 107

95% 5%

120 total users

Support
H.R. 367
view

January 24, 2013

On behalf of more than two million ...

view the full position statement

Join Americans for Prosperity in endorsing H.R. 367

92% 8%

1788 total users

Support

Detailed Legislative Agenda

H.R. 1874: Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013

May 17, 2013

Dear Representative Price and Senator Ayotte:

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I applaud you for introducing the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013 (S.184, H.R.1874). Your bill would require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to include dynamic scoring in its reports. This will give Congress a more realistic estimate of the fiscal impact of federal legislation.

The CBO routinely provides estimates of the impact of legislative proposals on overall tax revenues and government spending, contributing significantly to the policy discussions on Capitol Hill. However, the CBO’s reports fail to account for how the economy will react to new policies (for example, how American businesses will respond to higher tax rates). This leaves out an enormously-important part of the picture for any estimate of the true costs or benefits of any given proposal.

The result is, unfortunately, one that is regularly biased in favor of big-government policies. Under the current scoring regime, tax hikes look like they have less impact because the score ignores the resulting disincentives to work, save, and invest imposed on the economy. Similarly, deficit-financed “stimulus” spending tends to score with all positives for the economy because they ignore the full costs of a rising national debt down the road and the inefficiency of redistributing capital through government.

Your bill takes important steps forward in correcting this problem by requiring the CBO to perform a full “macroeconomic impact analysis” for major legislative proposals, known alternatively as “dynamic scoring.” This means that for any bill with an estimated annual impact of .25 percent or GDP or more, there will finally be an official recognition that the federal government’s tax and spending policies actually do affect the economy in important ways.

Americans for Prosperity is proud to support the dynamic scoring model and the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013 (S.184, H.R.1874). I urge your colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Read more: http://americansfor...-1874#ixzz2xT0e7Uyo

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-1874-support
S. 184: The Pro-Growth Budgeting Act

May 17, 2013

Dear Representative Price and Senator Ayotte:

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I applaud you for introducing the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013 (S.184, H.R.1874). Your bill would require the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to include dynamic scoring in its reports. This will give Congress a more realistic estimate of the fiscal impact of federal legislation.

The CBO routinely provides estimates of the impact of legislative proposals on overall tax revenues and government spending, contributing significantly to the policy discussions on Capitol Hill. However, the CBO’s reports fail to account for how the economy will react to new policies (for example, how American businesses will respond to higher tax rates). This leaves out an enormously-important part of the picture for any estimate of the true costs or benefits of any given proposal.

The result is, unfortunately, one that is regularly biased in favor of big-government policies. Under the current scoring regime, tax hikes look like they have less impact because the score ignores the resulting disincentives to work, save, and invest imposed on the economy. Similarly, deficit-financed “stimulus” spending tends to score with all positives for the economy because they ignore the full costs of a rising national debt down the road and the inefficiency of redistributing capital through government.

Your bill takes important steps forward in correcting this problem by requiring the CBO to perform a full “macroeconomic impact analysis” for major legislative proposals, known alternatively as “dynamic scoring.” This means that for any bill with an estimated annual impact of .25 percent or GDP or more, there will finally be an official recognition that the federal government’s tax and spending policies actually do affect the economy in important ways.

Americans for Prosperity is proud to support the dynamic scoring model and the Pro-Growth Budgeting Act of 2013 (S.184, H.R.1874). I urge your colleagues to support this legislation, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Read more: http://americansfor...-1874#ixzz2xT0e7Uyo

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-s-184-support
S. 1737: The Minimum Wage Fairness Act

December 17, 2013

Dear Senator Harkin:

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I write in strong opposition to the so-called Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013 (S.1737), which would gradually raise the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour. Despite its good intentions, your legislation would hurt the employment opportunities for the very people it’s trying to help.

Raising the minimum wage increases the cost of labor, meaning that businesses will hire fewer people on the margin. Those who are able to find work may face fewer hours or lower levels of benefits as employers switch from full-time employees to part-time employees. This shift has a particular impact on low-income and low-skilled workers, preventing them from developing the knowledge and skills they need to climb the economic ladder.

President Obama and his allies in Congress claim that raising the minimum wage will increase the incomes for the poorest households, but the economic evidence shows otherwise. According to a recent meta-analysis conducted by economists from University of California-Irvine and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, 85% percent of economic studies since 1990 have found that increasing the minimum wage causes businesses to shed their payrolls.

There’s wide agreement among economists from across the political spectrum that raising the minimum wage will fail to produce its desired effects. Writing in the New York Times this past March, former chairwoman of Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer called it a “half-measure.” “[E]conomic analysis raises questions about whether a higher minimum wage will achieve better outcomes for the economy and reduce poverty,” she penned.

Americans for Prosperity strongly opposes your legislation and similar efforts to raise the minimum wage. I urge your colleagues to oppose its passage, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

http://americansfor...m-wage-fairness-act

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-s-1737-oppose
H.R. 2642: The Farm Bill Conference Report

January 28, 2014 - Tonight after most people in Washington had left their offices to go home for the day, the Farm Bill conference committee delivered its long-awaited report. Crafted by House Agriculture Committee Chairman Frank Lucas and Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow, this 950-page deal reconciles the differences in the versions of the Farm Bill that passed the House and the Senate this past summer. Here at Americans for Prosperity, we’re disappointed that full, 5-year deal on the Farm Bill excludes most of the reforms that we’ve been calling for over the past two years.

The timing of the announcement is noteworthy. Releasing the Farm Bill conference report the night before President delivers his State Of The Union address means that it will see little attention in the media. Tomorrow the news cycle will focus on the issues that the President will discuss in his speech—healthcare, income inequality, immigration, etc. The Farm Bill will not be a focus of the speech, which means that it will get nowhere near the level of attention it deserves.

Diving into the policy details, this conference report seriously disappoints. It continues the status quo of broken farm programs and unchecked food stamp spending.

Overall, this Farm Bill spends way too much. This deal authorizes a trillion dollars in spending over the next decade, representing an increase over the 2008 farm law. (This is on the heels of the $1 trillion pork-filled omnibus appropriations bill that Congress agreed to earlier this month.) This deal shifts most of the spending cuts to the out-years in the budget window, when they will probably never be realized. As we’ve discussed before on the AFP blog, scoring a 5-year bill over 10 years hides the true cost of Farm Bill programs—these are phantom Farm Bill savings. Farm Bill proponents argue that this conference report will reduce the deficit, but this claim woefully relies on Washington budget gimmicks.

One of the biggest disappointments in the conference report is that it remarries the unholy alliance of food and farm programs. AFP applauded the House of Representatives for moving farm programs and food stamps to different authorization schedules this past summer, and we called on Farm Bill conferees to keep them separate in their conference report. Separating these two parts of the Farm Bill is the first step toward meaningful reforms (although it’s not an end in itself), and it would allow Congress to critically evaluate each part without being distracted by the other.

Looking closer at farm programs, this conference report cements the corporate welfare policies that have defined U.S. farm programs for far too long. It doesn’t eliminate the redundant catfish inspection program, for instance. Although it does reportedly eliminate the widely-criticized direct payment program, it expands a number of other corporate welfare programs such as crop insurance premium subsidies and revenue guarantees. In addition, although the dairy’s supply management program that House Speaker Boehner criticizes is excluded, the conference report includes premium reductions to help dairy farms, essentially cancelling the benefit.

The downsides don’t stop there. The conference report also provides disappointingly few reforms to the nation’s food stamp program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which accounts for around 80 percent of Farm Bill spending.

The one silver lining on this dark cloud is the fact that it closes the so-called LIHEAP loophole at the state level. This limits the provision that allows people to be automatically eligible (in the technical term, “categorically” eligible) for food stamp benefits based on their participation on other specified government programs at the state level, such as heating assistance. This saves around $8 billion over the next decade. The conference report doesn’t eliminate categorical eligibility completely, however; states still have a number of ways to sweep more people onto SNAP regardless of whether they meet the federal financial requirements. The conference committee should have included additional taxpayer protections such as income tests, so as to ensure that food stamp beneficiaries are truly low-income and not just gaming the system.

This conference report is a huge disappointment for advocates of limited government and spending control. Congress missed an opportunity to go back to the drawing board on food and farm policy. Lawmakers may think that nobody was watching when they released this bloated conference report, but they would be wrong. Congress may vote on the conference report as soon as Wednesday—lawmakers should know that millions of people at the grassroots level are paying close attention to their actions (or rather, their inactions) on this issue.

Read more: http://americansfor...tment#ixzz2rhmGu1f6

(This bill was enacted February 7, 2014.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-2642-oppose
The Bipartisan Budget Act

December 10, 2013 - As budget negotiations between the House and Senate continue, we write to urge Congress to oppose any legislation that increases spending above current law or raises new federal revenue.

According to reports, the House and Senate conference committee that was recently convened to negotiate the federal budget is considering a plan that would violate Congress' promise on discretionary spending caps and increase federal revenue. Legislation that raises federal revenue and spending levels is unacceptable to conservatives and the majority of Americans and should be rejected by Congress.

Though conservatives support more spending restraint, the discretionary spending limits defined in the Budget Control Act represent a promise to the American people to marginally slow the growth of government. The budget conference committee represents an opportunity for Congress and President Obama to honor their bipartisan agreement; it is not a vehicle to break budget limits or increase revenue. Rather than searching for ways to abandon a bipartisan spending agreement, Congress should pass legislation that upholds the caps and then focus their energy on something productive, like stopping the train wreck that is Obamacare.

While many have expressed legitimate concerns about the nature of the spending limits, Congress has the ability to repurpose the BCA's caps and limit other areas of discretionary spending as it deems prudent, such as protecting our national defense, without exceeding the $967 billion spending limit. Congress and the President have no excuse to violate their existing budget agreement. Conservatives cannot support any legislation that raises spending levels or increases revenue.

http://www.protecti...iew&post_id=481

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-x-145-oppose
H.R. 2009: Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act of 2013

July 15, 2013

Dear Representative Price:

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I applaud you for introducing the Keep the IRS Off Your Health Care Act (H.R. 2009), which would prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from implementing the President’s health care law.

The health care law grants the IRS an alarming expansion of new power, essentially granting the agency the authority to oversee every American’s health insurance decisions. The IRS will be responsible for enforcing the health insurance mandates on individuals and employers, collecting the 21 new taxes created in the law, and cross-referencing individuals’ health insurance exchange applications with IRS records.

AFP is deeply concerned that all Americans will now be asked to turn over the private health insurance information about their children and families to a disgraced organization that has admitted to abusing its power and processing applications in a biased, political manner. How can the American people trust that the IRS won’t also target American citizens who disagree with the President when enforcing the health care law?

Your legislation also affirms the common-sense principle that control over health care decisions should remain between American families and their doctors, not Washington bureaucrats like the IRS. Americans for Prosperity is proud to support H.R. 2009, your legislation to prohibit the IRS from enforcing provisions of the health care law. I urge your colleagues to support its passage, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Read more: http://americansfor...-law/#ixzz2aRH3SCcv

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-2009-support
S. 743: The Marketplace Fairness Act

February 19, 2013

Dear Senators and Representatives:

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I am writing in strong opposition to the Marketplace Fairness Act and similar proposals that give congressional approval to an interstate compact allowing member states to require out-of-state retailers to collect taxes on remote sales.

The Supreme Court confirmed in Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992) that state governments cannot force businesses to collect and remit sales taxes unless they have a physical presence, or “nexus,” in the state. However, the Court also noted that while the states do not have the authority to burden interstate commerce, Congress does.

Your proposal to delegate taxing authority to an interstate compact, the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), has many constitutional and logistical problems. First, under the compact, member states will be able to require businesses in non-member states to collect and remit sales taxes for them. This result presents many of the same “taxation without representation” and Commerce Clause issues that arose in Quill. Second, this delegation of the taxing power from Congress to a sub-federal conglomeration of states may be an inappropriate delegation of a power inherent to the federal Congress. Taxation is one of the Federal Government’s core functions and allowing a subset of states to set national tax policy is a dangerous departure from current practice. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the SSUTA does not resolve the Court’s primary concern from Quill: that states were essentially shifting the administrative burden of their tax collection onto out-of-state retailers.

Complying with the internet sales tax would be a significant administrative burden for companies, particularly small businesses. Keeping track of the 9,600+ different tax jurisdictions throughout the country, with varying rates, bases, and collection methodologies, would be very challenging for online retailers that have a national reach. Computer software, a commonly proposed solution, would fail to mitigate this burden. In November 2011, Overstock CEO Dr. Patrick Byrne testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary and commented on his company’s recent efforts to expand into Kentucky. Byrne stated: “the off-the-shelf software required approximately $300,000 of investment and months of man-hours … to build. Implementation of this solution for the nation’s nearly 10,000 different taxing jurisdictions would be extraordinarily costly.”

Read more: http://americansfor...-act/#ixzz2T2tKknHD

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-s-743-oppose
H.R. 259: The Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act

January 15, 2013

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I am writing in strong support of the Energy Freedom and Economic Prosperity Act (H.R. 259). Your bill will put a stop to the federal government’s harmful practice of meddling in the energy market by eliminating all energy tax credits, across the board.

For decades the federal government has tried to encourage the production of various energy sources by providing special tax benefits, research and development funding, grants, loan guarantees, and more. Despite the poor past performance of these subsidy programs, Washington shows few signs of stopping this practice. The fiscal cliff deal that marked the start of 2013 extended a number of these targeted subsidies and special interest handouts.

Your bill provides a free market solution that would allow energy companies to compete for consumers’ dollars on a level playing field. It eliminates credits for ethanol; for “green” technologies like wind, solar, and biodiesel; for nuclear power; for electric vehicles; for hydrogen fuel cells; and yes, even for fossil fuels like oil, coal, and natural gas.

To offset the higher revenues that would result from eliminating these loopholes, your bill reduces the corporate income tax rate. This change will ensure that eliminating special provisions is not used as a guise to raise taxes. We don’t need higher taxes; we just need flatter less distortionary taxes.

Americans for Prosperity is proud to support H.R. 259. I urge your colleagues to support its passage, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Read more: http://americansfor...-259/#ixzz2J1XBTc3D

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-259-support
H.R. 107: The Federal Employee Accountability Act

January 17, 2013

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I am writing in strong support of the Federal Employee Accountability Act of 2013, H.R. 107. The federal government spends far too much, and we should look for ways to make it smaller and less intrusive. Your bill would stop federal workers from conducting union activities while at work.

According to a recent study from the Office of Personnel Management, federal union employees devote a staggering amount of time and resources on union activities. In FY 2010, federal workers spent over 3 million hours of paid work engaged in collective bargaining or arbitration of grievances against an employer. The cost of these activities is $137 million, borne by American taxpayers.

Your bill is a step in the right direction toward cutting spending. It saves over $686 million over 5 years, and more than $1.3 billion over 10 years.

Certainly, federal workers have the right to organize, to seek collective solutions for their contracts, and to express legitimate grievances about their workplace conditions. However, taxpayer dollars should go toward normal job responsibilities, not toward union activities.

Americans for Prosperity is proud to support H.R. 107. I urge your colleagues to support its passage, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Read more: http://americansfor...2013/#ixzz2J1WtdTXt

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-107-support
H.R. 367: The REINS Act

January 24, 2013

On behalf of more than two million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I am writing in strong support of the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act, H.R. 367. Your bill would restore Congress’s proper role in constructing the rules that govern the country by requiring executive agencies to submit major rulemaking proposals to Congress for review and a clear up-or-down vote before the rules take effect.

Increasingly over recent history, Congress has delegated its legislative authority to federal agencies, empowering bureaucrats to write regulations that carry the force of law and have an enormous impact on every aspect of American life. This has undermined accountability into the rulemaking process, as bureaucrats are unelected and not answerable to a constituency. Elected officials should be voting on these rulemakings because the public can hold them accountable.

Certainly, executive agencies serve an important role in the creation of the complex rules that govern our society. Congressional delegation of authority is required so that agency experts can take the necessary time to study relevant issues and produce thoughtful rules. Additionally, the public comment process is crucial because it allows stakeholders to advise executive agencies on how to make rules that fulfill agency goals while still allowing regulated entities to function.

However, the agency process should have congressional input. The Congressional Review Act was an excellent first step toward ensuring agencies do not vastly overreach their authority. But the CRA is reactive and requires that Congress sift through thousands of regulations searching for objectionable rules. By removing some of the previously delegated authority, the REINS Act would reverse this procedure and require agencies to report major rules and request authority to implement them.

It is time for Congress to reassert its proper role in the rulemaking process and rescind this portion of previously delegated authority. AFP is proud to support H.R. 367. I urge your colleagues to support its passage, and I look forward to working with you in the future.

Read more: http://americansfor...-act/#ixzz2J1WH5yMT

* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-367-support
H.R. 7 (112th): The American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act

Dear Representatives,

On behalf of more than 1.9 million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I would like to express some concerns about the American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act.

Without question the bill has significant strengths. AFP supports the effort to consolidate overlapping transportation programs and eliminate wasteful ones, and we applaud the expanded access to much-needed American energy resources. We especially commend the House for committing to an earmark-free bill, which we urge remain a priority moving forward into negotiations with the Senate. The previous surface transportation authorization included over 6,300 earmarks, including $200 million for the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska.

Nevertheless, Americans for Prosperity has some concerns with the bill. The bill continues to use large general fund transfers to fund transportation, and the bill’s overall spending level is flat at time when every government program could benefit from considerable cuts. The bill lacks commonsense labor reforms that would significantly reduce the expense of construction and maintenance projects. Finally, the bill could go much further in devolving power to the states, a commendable idea proposed in various forms in the current Congress by Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and Representatives James Lankford (R-OK), Tom Graves (R-GA), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Scott Garrett (R-NJ).

We urge amendments to strengthen the bill by adding critical labor reforms and cutting the overall spending level to the amount of anticipated revenue.

Moreover, we are seriously concerned that this legislation may be made significantly worse as it moves through the Senate, and therefore recommend caution in supporting a bill that may simply advance a process that ultimately results in a bloated and unacceptable final product.

We will be carefully monitoring this legislation and anticipate key voting against a conference report if it fails to accomplish meaningful reforms.

Read more: http://www.american...s-act#ixzz1m7VTS5nt

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-7-neutral
Auction Remaining TARP Assets (Proposal to Super Committee)

Facing a deteriorating financial situation in October 2008, the Troubled Asset Relief Program was sold to the American people as an emergency measure “necessary to stabilize our financial system and protect the economic security of all Americans.” But nearly three years later, and long after financial markets stabilized, more than $123 billion in TARP investments remain outstanding, a large majority of which is stock in AIG and the automotive industry. Funds will also continue to trickle out the door for a misguided TARP housing initiative with $43 billion of unexpended funds largely sitting idle. The financial crisis has passed and HAMP only forestalls recovery in the housing markets. The remaining TARP assets should be quickly auctioned off and any unused funds should be rescinded and used for deficit reduction.

http://www.american...Recommendations.pdf

(This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-x-11-support
Reform and Reduce the Federal Workforce (Proposal to Super Committee)

Federal employee compensation consumes 15 percent of federal discretionary spending,

and this huge line item is going in the wrong direction. While private sector employment shrunk over the last decade, the federal workforce kept growing and now stands at 2.97 million employees. Public employee pay is rising rapidly, even in the midst of a recession. One egregious example comes from the Department of Transportation: in 2007, only one employee made $170,000; just two years later 1,690 employees in the agency were making that much or more. Moreover, when considering benefits, job security, and wages together, federal employees’ compensation far outpaces compensation of similarly-situated employees in the private sector. We must remember that every dollar that government pays to an employee comes out of the private economy. It doesn’t make sense for government employment to grow faster and compensate better than the private sector, especially when the economy is sputtering. The federal workforce needs a significant overhaul, but two changes are immediately achievable. By law, most federal employees receive an annual pay raise every year, in line with a measure of wage inflation. Merely reducing this scheduled salary increase for all federal workers by a half percentage point each year would save $50 billion through 2021, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). The President’s Fiscal Commission also recommended cutting the federal civilian workforce by 10 percent, using attrition (hiring only two new workers for every three who leave service) instead of layoffs. They estimated this measure would save $13.2 billion in 2015 alone, and it would likely save at least $100 billion over ten years.

http://www.american...Recommendations.pdf

(This bill was proposed in a previous session of Congress.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-x-17-support
S. 299: Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011

Dear Senator Paul and Representative Davis,

On behalf of more than 1.5 million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, thank you for introducing the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act – S. 299 and H.R. 10. The REINS Act would begin to restore Congress’s proper role in the construction of rules that govern the country by requiring executive agencies to submit major rulemaking proposals to Congress for review and a clear up-or-down vote before the rules take effect.

Estimates show that every year between 80 and 85 major rules—rules with an impact of more than $100 million—are implemented by executive agencies with no vote by elected officials. It is time to inject accountability into the rulemaking process and require agencies to bring these major rulemakings before the People’s duly-elected representatives.

Executive agencies obviously serve an important role in the creation of the complex rules that govern our society. Congressional delegation of authority is required so that agency experts can take the necessary time to study relevant issues and produce thoughtful rules. Additionally, the public comment process is crucial because it allows stakeholders to advise executive agencies on how to make rules that accomplish agency goals while still allowing regulated entities to function.

However, the often clandestine agency process should not be without congressional input. The Congressional Review Act was an excellent first step toward ensuring agencies do not vastly overreach their authority. But the CRA is reactive and requires that Congress sift through thousands of regulations searching for objectionable rules. By removing some of the previously delegated authority, the REINS Act would reverse this procedure and require agencies to report major rules and request authority to implement them.

It is time for Congress to reassert its proper role in the rulemaking process and rescind this portion of previously delegated authority. Thank you again for introducing S. 299 and H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act.

Read more: http://www.american...hr-10#ixzz1X8I6SkQw

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-s-299-support
H.R. 10 (112th): Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act

Dear Senator Paul and Representative Davis,

On behalf of more than 1.5 million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, thank you for introducing the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny (REINS) Act – S. 299 and H.R. 10. The REINS Act would begin to restore Congress’s proper role in the construction of rules that govern the country by requiring executive agencies to submit major rulemaking proposals to Congress for review and a clear up-or-down vote before the rules take effect.

Estimates show that every year between 80 and 85 major rules—rules with an impact of more than $100 million—are implemented by executive agencies with no vote by elected officials. It is time to inject accountability into the rulemaking process and require agencies to bring these major rulemakings before the People’s duly-elected representatives.

Executive agencies obviously serve an important role in the creation of the complex rules that govern our society. Congressional delegation of authority is required so that agency experts can take the necessary time to study relevant issues and produce thoughtful rules. Additionally, the public comment process is crucial because it allows stakeholders to advise executive agencies on how to make rules that accomplish agency goals while still allowing regulated entities to function.

However, the often clandestine agency process should not be without congressional input. The Congressional Review Act was an excellent first step toward ensuring agencies do not vastly overreach their authority. But the CRA is reactive and requires that Congress sift through thousands of regulations searching for objectionable rules. By removing some of the previously delegated authority, the REINS Act would reverse this procedure and require agencies to report major rules and request authority to implement them.

It is time for Congress to reassert its proper role in the rulemaking process and rescind this portion of previously delegated authority. Thank you again for introducing S. 299 and H.R. 10, the Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny Act.

Read more: http://www.american...hr-10#ixzz1X8I6SkQw

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-10-support
H.R. 2587: Protecting Jobs From Government Interference Act

Dear Representative,

On behalf of more than 1.7 million Americans for Prosperity activists in all 50 states, I urge you to support Rep. Tim Scott’s Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act, H.R. 2587. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) bureaucrats should never be empowered to dictate important business decisions just because they don’t like the impact on their Big Labor allies. Mr. Scott’s bill would prohibit the NLRB from ordering a company to shut down, relocate, or transfer operations. [...]

Companies already face an out-of-control federal government that imposes over $1.75 trillion in regulatory costs on American businesses every year; those businesses will simply move their operations overseas if they are also asked to stomach blatant intimidation and costly relocation orders. Enforcing labor laws is important, but allowing the NLRB to dictate where a private company can do business simply goes way too far.

http://www.american...-intrusions-hr-2587

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-2587-support
H.R. 1834: Freedom to Invest Act of 2011

Dear Representative Brady,

On behalf of more than 1.7 million Americans for Prosperity (AFP) activists in all 50 states, I write to applaud your introduction of the Freedom to Invest Act, H.R. 1834. The bill reinstates temporarily reduced tax rates for companies repatriating earnings generated abroad. Such a policy has, in the past, encouraged a flood of reinvestment here in the United States. Today it is a much-needed plan to stimulate job creation and inject as much as a trillion dollars of capital into the American economy, funds that would otherwise remain locked out of the country.

Under current tax policy, companies that return foreign earnings to the U.S. must pay the difference between the foreign income tax and the U.S. corporate rate. But with the second-highest corporate tax rate in the world at 35 percent it’s no mystery why corporations allow their foreign earnings to sit in bank accounts overseas instead of reinvesting those earnings in the American economy. Recent estimates show that companies are holding well over a trillion dollars of accumulated earnings abroad. Easing this crushing corporate tax burden would provide strong incentives for American corporations to bring that money back to the United States instead of reinvesting it in jobs on foreign soil.

Past experience shows that a repatriation tax holiday can be an effective tool for easing burdens on American businesses and stimulating economic growth. In 2004, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act that temporarily reduced taxes on repatriated earnings. With this new law in effect, hundreds of companies seized the opportunity to bring their earnings home from abroad; that year more than $300 billion in additional earnings were brought back to the U.S. as a result. More importantly, survey results confirmed that American businesses put this money to use in the American economy by investing in capital and R&D, hiring and training employees, and paying dividends to shareholders. Your bill looks to repeat that success – economists predict similar measures today would help create more than 1.8 million jobs.

AFP has two reservations with your bill in its current form. First, AFP would like to see a permanent resolution to this problem instead of a temporary one. Temporary tax holidays of any kind actually increase complexity and uncertainty in the tax code, they risk distorting economic behavior and they may even encourage companies to waste resources lobbying for additional, future tax holidays. AFP strongly encourages you to support a permanent change to a territorial tax system. The overwhelming practical benefits of bringing hundreds of billions in capital back into the American economy outweighs these costs, but future work in this area should focus on making these changes permanent, eliminating these costs entirely.

Second, your bill adds an ultimately misguided “maintenance of employment” requirement as a condition for the tax deduction. One of the most frequently-cited criticisms of the last repatriation tax holiday came when just a handful of companies brought earnings back to the U.S. from abroad, claimed the temporary tax savings, but then actually reduced their workforces. Those ignoring the law’s wider economic benefits used this as a political cudgel against its supporters. Your bill attempts a remedy by slapping on a draconian $25,000 fine for every employee a credit-claiming company lays off.

This is simply bad economic policy. However they come about, job cuts are indeed unfortunate – especially in the current climate of high unemployment. But the reality is that they are sometimes necessary for a company’s long-term growth and survival. “Creative destruction” often stings in the short-term, but it is exactly what drives growth, innovation, and efficiency in a capitalist economy. Individual firm leadership is in the best position to make these admittedly tough decisions, not the government, and this bill hampers their flexibility to do what is sometimes in the best interest of their business and, ultimately, of the economy as a whole. AFP is opposed to this type of government micromanagement of business decisions. We urge you to consider removing the provision as the bill moves forward.

Nevertheless, the bill has already gained significant bipartisan support because it’s easy to recognize as a commonsense way to boost the American economy without resorting to bloated and inefficient government “stimulus” packages. One trillion dollars can do a whole lot of good for capital investment, job creation, and shareholders in this country. The impact would absolutely dwarf the Obama administration’s failed $787 billion government spending spree.

Read more: http://www.american...-1834#ixzz1VI8th1ZC

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-1834-support
S. 940: Close Big Oil Tax Loopholes Act

S. 940 singles out American oil companies by eliminating the industry’s access to certain broadly available business and investment tax benefits. One example is the Section 199 domestic production activities deduction that gives American businesses tax relief when they produce goods in the country. S. 940 would bar only “any major integrated oil company” from claiming this deduction. While AFP agrees that Congress should eliminate targeted tax breaks that benefit one form of energy over another, eliminating an industry’s access to tax benefits that are broadly available to American businesses is an improper use of the tax code.

S. 940’s targeted tax increase not only inflicts immediate pain on the American economy, but it also has long term effects. Investment in any business project, energy or otherwise, requires a careful balancing of risk and return and managing some level of uncertainty about the prospects for a project’s success. That risk and uncertainty only increases when investors have to worry about the government stepping in and changing the rules. If Congressional Democrats and President Obama continue their current course of bullying and intimidating American businesses, they will continue to repel investment with uncertainty and a harsh business climate.

Read more: http://www.american...s-940#ixzz1OtWcHhQK

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-s-940-oppose
S.Con.Res. 19: A concurrent resolution setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth the appropriate budgetary ...

Dear Senator Toomey,

On behalf of more than 1.7 million Americans for Prosperity (AFP) activists in all 50 states, I write to applaud your introduction of a budget to Restore Balance and put the nation’s finances on a sustainable path. Your budget joins a growing chorus of voices that seek to reestablish a pro-growth America that will result in more jobs, higher wages and more tax revenues.

Several of your budget proposals offer commonsense solutions for the country’s runaway deficits. The nation’s fiscal troubles will not be solved through austerity and cutting spending alone. We must restore a pro-growth economic environment that will catapult us out of this recession. A major overhaul of the federal tax code is one important element of restoring a pro-growth climate. By lowering compliance costs, stripping away distortionary rules that benefit special interests and lowering the overall rate, your proposed tax reform will spur economic activity, create jobs and drive higher economic output and, as a result, more government revenue.

AFP believes the dynamic scoring methodology you use is far more accurate than the flawed Joint Committee on Taxation model, and urges Congress to adopt a scoring model that is more accurate and less biased towards higher taxes and spending.

Additionally, AFP strongly supports your proposal to block grant federal welfare programs, including Medicaid. I would encourage you to include the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The nation is best served when elected officials closest to constituents make decisions; welfare spending is a perfect example of that principle. Medicaid is crushing state budgets and its entitlement nature is dragging the federal budget down as well. Block granting welfare programs allows legislatures to make decisions that work in their state while simultaneously empowering states to care for the neediest in society and free budgets from the restrictive hand of the federal government.

However, I also recognized at least one area of concern. I was disappointed to note that your budget does not repeal the death tax. This tax is one of the most hated in the U.S. tax code and significant majorities of Americans believe it should be repealed. The death tax has never been a tool designed to raise revenue for the federal government; it has always been a way to conduct social policy by trying to break up family inheritances. The death tax inflicts double and triple taxation that endangers family businesses and incentivizes tax-avoidance strategies.

http://www.american...mey-budget-proposal

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-sconres-19-support
H.R. 1081: Consumers Payment System Protection Act

The Federal Reserve, authorized under Section 1075 (the Durbin Amendment) of the ill-conceived Dodd-Frank financial reform act, is poised to cap the interchange fee paid by merchants for debit card transactions at 12 cents – an over 70 percent drop from current average levels. Such draconian price controls will inevitably push the cost of utilizing debit cards onto consumers and card issuers.

Consumers and seniors on fixed incomes will likely bear the brunt of these regulations directly, as card issuers struggle to cover the cost of artificially low price controls on interchange fees. For card holders, this means higher fees, fewer card rewards, the elimination of banking services such as “free checking,” or otherwise. Simultaneously, banks – and particularly smaller card issuers – will be forced to determine whether offering some consumer services is more costly than it is worthwhile. As is the outcome with all price controls, the Fed’s implementation of Section 1075 rules would reduce debit card offerings, severely dampening a burgeoning and highly convenient service for consumers.

The Fed has interpreted the Durbin Amendment to mean that card issuers can’t even price services to cover their fixed and even variable costs. For this reason, New York University law professor Richard Epstein contends that these price controls likely violate both the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the 5th Amendment, as they require banks and credit unions to abide by explicitly below-cost price controls and deprive them of their property rights to a return on capital invested.

After Section 1075 was hastily inserted into the Dodd-Frank Act with little time for review, S. 575/H.R. 1081 takes the responsible step of further studying the impact of such regulations before they are implemented. Already, the Government Accountability Office found that when similar transaction fee caps were enacted in Australia, the cost was passed onto consumers in the form of reduced rewards and higher annual fees for payment card holders. Contrary to the rhetoric of price control proponents, none of the savings merchants received in Australia were passed onto consumers.

http://www.aba.com/...psLetter_040111.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-1081-support
S. 575: Debit Interchange Fee Study Act of 2011

The Federal Reserve, authorized under Section 1075 (the Durbin Amendment) of the ill-conceived Dodd-Frank financial reform act, is poised to cap the interchange fee paid by merchants for debit card transactions at 12 cents – an over 70 percent drop from current average levels. Such draconian price controls will inevitably push the cost of utilizing debit cards onto consumers and card issuers.

Consumers and seniors on fixed incomes will likely bear the brunt of these regulations directly, as card issuers struggle to cover the cost of artificially low price controls on interchange fees. For card holders, this means higher fees, fewer card rewards, the elimination of banking services such as “free checking,” or otherwise. Simultaneously, banks – and particularly smaller card issuers – will be forced to determine whether offering some consumer services is more costly than it is worthwhile. As is the outcome with all price controls, the Fed’s implementation of Section 1075 rules would reduce debit card offerings, severely dampening a burgeoning and highly convenient service for consumers.

The Fed has interpreted the Durbin Amendment to mean that card issuers can’t even price services to cover their fixed and even variable costs. For this reason, New York University law professor Richard Epstein contends that these price controls likely violate both the Due Process and Takings Clauses of the 5th Amendment, as they require banks and credit unions to abide by explicitly below-cost price controls and deprive them of their property rights to a return on capital invested.

After Section 1075 was hastily inserted into the Dodd-Frank Act with little time for review, S. 575/H.R. 1081 takes the responsible step of further studying the impact of such regulations before they are implemented. Already, the Government Accountability Office found that when similar transaction fee caps were enacted in Australia, the cost was passed onto consumers in the form of reduced rewards and higher annual fees for payment card holders. Contrary to the rhetoric of price control proponents, none of the savings merchants received in Australia were passed onto consumers.

http://www.aba.com/...psLetter_040111.pdf

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-s-575-support
H.J.Res. 56: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to balancing the budget.

Over the past decade or so, it has become increasingly clear that unless there are firm constitutional guardrails to constrain federal spending elected officials are either unable or unwilling to overcome the institutional forces that facilitate endless profligacy. Your proposed amendment seeks to establish those guardrails in a responsible and, hopefully, effective way.

One of the most important provisions in your proposed amendment is a spending cap that would limit federal outlays to 18 percent of GDP. This limitation reflects a proper vision of limited government and the relationship of spending to GDP in the post-WWII period. Additionally, by insisting that spending is restrained in order to balance the budget you guard against the amendment being hijacked and distorted to advance economically-destructive tax increases.

Your amendment also strikes a balance between allowing flexibility for some deficit spending in times of national emergency, while requiring supermajorities in both chambers to do so. This assures citizens that the federal government will only run a deficit when there is a broad consensus that a genuine crisis demands it.

Several other provisions nicely round out your balanced budget amendment. Your insistence on two-thirds majority vote to approve tax increases or spending above 18 percent of GDP is laudable. Your measure to prohibit courts from legislating tax increases from the bench is important and prescient. Finally, a five-year transitionary period from ratification to legal efficacy will give budgeteers enough notice to take meaningful action without the politically-contentious transition that could otherwise be used as a pretext to oppose the amendment.

http://americansfor...dment#ixzz1LPsVtfxZ

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hjres-56-support
S.J.Res. 10: Joint resolution proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Over the past decade or so, it has become increasingly clear that unless there are firm constitutional guardrails to constrain federal spending elected officials are either unable or unwilling to overcome the institutional forces that facilitate endless profligacy. Your proposed amendment seeks to establish those guardrails in a responsible and, hopefully, effective way.

One of the most important provisions in your proposed amendment is a spending cap that would limit federal outlays to 18 percent of GDP. This limitation reflects a proper vision of limited government and the relationship of spending to GDP in the post-WWII period. Additionally, by insisting that spending is restrained in order to balance the budget you guard against the amendment being hijacked and distorted to advance economically-destructive tax increases.

Your amendment also strikes a balance between allowing flexibility for some deficit spending in times of national emergency, while requiring supermajorities in both chambers to do so. This assures citizens that the federal government will only run a deficit when there is a broad consensus that a genuine crisis demands it.

Several other provisions nicely round out your balanced budget amendment. Your insistence on two-thirds majority vote to approve tax increases or spending above 18 percent of GDP is laudable. Your measure to prohibit courts from legislating tax increases from the bench is important and prescient. Finally, a five-year transitionary period from ratification to legal efficacy will give budgeteers enough notice to take meaningful action without the politically-contentious transition that could otherwise be used as a pretext to oppose the amendment.

http://americansfor...dment#ixzz1LPsVtfxZ

(This bill failed December 14, 2011.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-sjres-10-support
H.Con.Res. 34 (112th): The Federal Budget for FY 2012

Chairman Ryan’s FY2012 budget resolution is a bold and serious policy document that tackles many of the federal budget’s most deeply embedded flaws. Ryan’s budget spends $6.2 trillion less than President Obama’s budget. While many in Washington lack the political courage necessary to propose much-needed changes to entitlement programs, Ryan’s budget provides premium assistance to seniors on Medicare and block grants federal Medicaid funds. At the same time, Ryan’s budget takes the proper fiscal conservative position by honoring our current obligations to Americans who are already in both of these programs. Blocking granting Medicaid is a particularly important reform to a welfare program with an outdated and unsustainable funding model. Block granting Medicaid builds on the success achieved in the AFDC-TANF transition of 1996.

The RSC’s FY2012 budget resolution is also a key document that proposes $55 billion more in 302(a) discretionary cuts for FY2012 than Ryan’s proposal. Additionally, the RSC budget balances within the 10-year window. However, the RSC budget proposes raising the retirement age on Social Security. This change would make Social Security’s current bad deal for workers even worse. AFP would prefer to see reforms that uphold our commitments to current seniors while allowing future retirees the option to control a portion of their Social Security funds in personal accounts that have real value and contribute real investment to the economy.

http://www.american...onservative-budgets

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hconres-34-support
H.R. 910: Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011

The American people have spoken out loudly and repeatedly against the higher energy costs and lost jobs that would result from the EPA distorting the Act to regulate GHGs, something it was never designed to do.

http://americansfor...ption#ixzz1HIXrAChT

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-910-support
H.J.Res. 37: Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to regulating the Internet and broadband industry practices.

The explosion of investment, innovation and adoption in the Internet and IP-enabled devices is the greatest free market success story of our time. The FCC must not be allowed to disrupt what's working so well by stepping in with regulations. By any measure there is no market failure that necessitates government intervention. Prices continue to drop; adoption continues unabated; and quality continues to increase. The FCC's so-called network neutrality rules threaten to upset this dynamic sector of the American, and global, economy. By attempting to force Internet providers to “treat every bit equally” the FCC is undermining incentives to innovate and invest. We cannot even conceive of the next great innovation in either the core or edge of the burgeoning IP field. Installing a “solution” that is in search of a problem is not good policy.

The Commission is currently attempting a second foray into Internet regulations, after its first attempt was rejected by the courts. In Comcast v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stated, it is axiomatic that “administrative agencies may [act] only pursuant to authority delegated them by Congress,” they do not have “untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer Commission authority.” The court vacated FCC’s order and rebuked their attempted power grab. But the courts are not alone in their rejection of FCC’s purported authority. More than 300 Members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, signed a letter stating Internet policy is the province of Congress, not the FCC.

The Congressional Review Act is an important tool that helps Congress assert its proper role in the rulemaking process. When an agency oversteps its statutory authority and then ignores court rulings that properly clarify the agency’s authority, it is incumbent on Congress to use the CRA to vacate the rule.

Read more: http://www.american...res37#ixzz1FMD6iDfE

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hjres-37-support
S.J.Res. 6 (112th): The Resolution of Disapproval of FCC Net Neutrality Rules

The explosion of investment, innovation and adoption in the Internet and IP-enabled devices is the greatest free market success story of our time. The FCC must not be allowed to disrupt what's working so well by stepping in with regulations. By any measure there is no market failure that necessitates government intervention. Prices continue to drop; adoption continues unabated; and quality continues to increase. The FCC's so-called network neutrality rules threaten to upset this dynamic sector of the American, and global, economy. By attempting to force Internet providers to “treat every bit equally” the FCC is undermining incentives to innovate and invest. We cannot even conceive of the next great innovation in either the core or edge of the burgeoning IP field. Installing a “solution” that is in search of a problem is not good policy.

The Commission is currently attempting a second foray into Internet regulations, after its first attempt was rejected by the courts. In Comcast v. FCC, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals stated, it is axiomatic that “administrative agencies may [act] only pursuant to authority delegated them by Congress,” they do not have “untrammeled freedom to regulate activities over which the statute fails to confer Commission authority.” The court vacated FCC’s order and rebuked their attempted power grab. But the courts are not alone in their rejection of FCC’s purported authority. More than 300 Members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, signed a letter stating Internet policy is the province of Congress, not the FCC.

The Congressional Review Act is an important tool that helps Congress assert its proper role in the rulemaking process. When an agency oversteps its statutory authority and then ignores court rulings that properly clarify the agency’s authority, it is incumbent on Congress to use the CRA to vacate the rule.

Read more: http://www.american...res37#ixzz1FMD6iDfE

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-sjres-6-support
H.R. 87 (112th): The Repeal of Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform

I am writing to applaud your introduction of H.R. 87, a bill to repeal the so-called Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. This bill greatly expands bureaucratic control over the financial sector and is sure to have a litany of unintended consequences that will hamper the economic recovery, limit the availability of credit and harm those the bill was intended to protect.

The impetus behind the Dodd-Frank bill was purportedly to end “too big to fail;” however, the bill does no such thing. While granting regulators the power to step in and claim province over firms they deem to be failing, it also gives regulators the power to bailout firms with so-called systemic risk. The Special Inspector General for TARP reported Secretary Geithner admitted, “while the Dodd-Frank Act gives the Government ‘better tools,’ and reduced the risk of failures, ‘in the future we may have to do exceptional things again’ if the shock to the financial system is sufficiently large.” This admission that “too big to fail” is still part of the government’s strategy institutionalizes moral hazard and threatens a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.

http://www.american...k-repeal-bill-hr-87

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-87-support
H.R. 96: Internet Freedom Act

The Federal Communications Commission is engaged in a regulatory power grab, and Congress must intervene. It is unfortunate that agencies—including the EPA, FCC and the Department of Labor—are trying to usurp Congress’s proper legislative authority by invoking regulatory authority they have never been granted.

(This bill failed to be passed during the two-year Congress in which it was introduced.)
* The organization’s position on this bill was entered by POPVOX. Direct link to this position: https://www.popvox.com/orgs/afp#afp-hr-96-support