Senate Conservatives Fund

Mike Lee: Washington vs. The People

Thu, 16 May 2013 16:35:05 -0400

NATIONAL REVIEW | May 16, 2013

To prevent abuses of government power we have to reduce government power.

By Sen. Mike Lee

The recent scandals that have rocked the White House represent Americans' worst fears about big government: Your government is spying on you; your government is targeting you; and your government is lying to you. Americans should be outraged, but they should not be surprised.

It would be wrong to view the controversy over the IRS scandal as a typical Republican vs. Democrat squabble. The IRS is a powerful agency that can influence nearly every decision Americans make through its authority to tax and regulate. The IRS grows stronger and more powerful the more the federal government spends and borrows.

Organizations and individuals who promote fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, greater government accountability, and more local autonomy present a threat to the structure that gives the IRS its power. It should not come as a surprise, then, that the culture of the IRS would promote enhanced scrutiny of these groups.

This has nothing to do with what party is in power. That's why Americans should not mistake this for a battle between Republicans and Democrats. They should understand that it is a fight between Washington and everyone else.

Consider other examples of this fight between Washington and the people. The Associated Press, hardly a right-wing organization, is now a victim of privacy violations and excessive overreach by the Department of Justice. Private companies are being strong-armed by the Department of Health and Human Services to contribute to a "voluntary" fund to promote Obamacare. The administrations response to the sequester — which cut a paltry sum from Washington's $3.7 trillion budget — was to punish innocent Americans with long lines at airports and no more White House tours. The Environmental Protection Agency is accused of waiving fees for favored environmental groups but not for right-leaning organizations.

Though the recent examples involve a Democratic administration, Republicans have shown they are just as tempted to abuse the power of government. At its core, the IRS scandal is not the result of one political party attacking another. It is the inevitable consequence of a federal government that has gotten too big and too expensive to control. The federal government's massive bureaucracy is inherently dysfunctional, corrupt, intolerant, and incompetent — regardless of who is in charge. These are not random incidents perpetrated by bad actors. They are systemic features of the $4 trillion enterprise known as the federal government.

To a certain extent, the president is justified in shifting blame on to others. How could any one person be responsible for everything that goes on in his administration?

Unfortunately for the president, his best defense is the same reason Americans should reject his liberal agenda to make the federal government more powerful, more intrusive, and more involved in the decisions we make. The bigger government gets, the less control the president has and the more opportunities there are for abuse. And that means less freedom and security for the rest of us.

When the IRS can harass tea-party groups, when the Department of Justice can monitor reporters' conversations, when the EPA can adopt double standards for ideological allies and opponents, when Health and Human Services regulators can openly extort the businesses they regulate — in short, when there is no accountability — we are no longer citizens but subjects.

Conservatives often have a difficult time explaining why we support a smaller, more limited federal government. These scandals make that job a little easier. It's not that we don't like government, but we don't like government intimidating and harassing media outlets, businesses, citizen organizations, or anyone else in the manner these scandals have brought to light.

And we understand that because this kind of corruption and incompetence is inherent in any massive, unaccountable organization, simply passing a new law will not solve the problem. To prevent the next abuse of government power, we need to reduce government power.

Mike Lee is a U.S. Senator from Utah and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SCF Endorses Jim Bridenstine for U.S. House

Mon, 06 May 2013 09:16:42 -0400

Posted By: Matt Hoskins, SCF Executive Director

We have important news to announce regarding our new House Conservatives Project.

Today, we are endorsing U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) for the U.S. House in the 1st District of Oklahoma.

This is our first endorsement for a House candidate and we hope you will help make it a success.

Please take action to promote bold leadership in Washington by making a contribution to Jim Bridenstine's campaign today.

Congressman Bridenstine has a remarkable story that every conservative in America should know.

Jim Bridenstine is a Navy pilot and combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, and lives with his wife and their three children in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

Jim Bridenstine defeated an establishment RINO in the Republican primary last year with no name recognition and very little money. He ran a grassroots campaign, meeting with small groups of voters in their homes to build the support he needed to win.

After the election, Jim Bridenstine cast his first vote against John Boehner for Speaker of the House. He knows the GOP needs stronger leadership and he had the courage to vote his conscience even though it could have cost him an important committee assignment.

Later, Jim Bridenstine led the fight in the House against the FY2013 "continuing resolution" — a spending bill written by Republican leaders that included funding for the implementation of Obamacare. He circulated a letter among his colleagues to build opposition to the bill and he voted against the procedural rule that brought it to the floor.

Now Jim Bridenstine is leading the fight against a new Internet tax, which would hurt online consumers by giving states the power to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales taxes for them. It's a grossly unfair law that subjects entrepreneurs to over 9,600 different tax jurisdictions. It's being pushed by the lobbyists of large corporations to eliminate competition from small, online businesses.

Congressman Bridenstine doesn't just talk the talk. He walks the walk.

Please make a contribution to Jim Bridenstine's campaign today. Your support will help him continue to fight for conservative principles in Congress.

Supporting Jim Bridenstine is important for two primary reasons.

First, we need to protect him from the establishment. The Republican leadership in the House has significant power to hurt the fundraising efforts of members like Bridenstine who buck them. We can't let John Boehner (R-OH), Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) punish this principled leader.

Second, we need to elevate more conservative champions to lead the fight to save this country. Congressman Bridenstine is one of these champions. Not only has he stood strong in the House, but he also has the potential to become an outstanding candidate for the U.S. Senate when Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) retires in 2016.

SCF has fully vetted Congressman Bridenstine and he's the real deal. He supports all of our policy goals and has a record of fulfilling his campaign promises, even when it requires him to stand up to the leaders in his own party.

I recently met with Congressman Bridenstine and was extremely impressed. In many ways, he reminds me of Jim DeMint when he was first elected to the House in 1998. Bridenstine is authentic, sincere, and humble — qualities that are very hard to find in Washington these days.

Please help us reach our goal of raising $50,000 for Jim Bridenstine's campaign by making a contribution of $25, $50, $100, or more today.

When you contribute to Jim Bridenstine's campaign through SCF, he will receive 100% of your donation. That is our guarantee to our supporters and it's one the things that makes SCF unique from other political organizations.

Thank you for your support. We will keep fighting.

Ted Cruz: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill

Sun, 05 May 2013 09:32:03 -0400

Real Clear Politics | May 5, 2013

By Sen. Ted Cruz

Basic tenets of economics dictate that when you tax something, you get less of it. That's why it's incomprehensible that the U.S. Senate is moving to raise taxes on one of the brightest sectors of our struggling economy.

The Internet is a thriving ecosystem of entrepreneurial freedom that should be protected and nourished. It has allowed new businesses to compete in the national marketplace in ways that would have been impossible 15 years ago, and it empowers consumer choice. But tax-hungry politicians view the Internet as yet another source of revenue to bail out their big-spending governments.

The misleadingly titled Marketplace Fairness Act is a job-killing tax hike, plain and simple. It is, in effect, a national Internet sales tax, which would hammer the little guy and benefit giant corporations.

Senators who vote for it are voting to impose audits, compliance costs, lost wages, and inefficiency on small businesses in every state. And they are potentially crippling an engine of new job creation at a time of economic struggle. This bill will not create jobs; it will not create new opportunities; and it will not create the economic growth our country needs and our people deserve.

Currently, online sellers collect sales taxes based on their physical location. The MFA, however, would fundamentally change how businesses collect those taxes. Instead, it would require online retailers to charge taxes based on the consumer's location or where the product is ultimately consumed. That's like your grocery store quizzing you on where youre going to eat those apples or Hallmark asking where youre going to send that Christmas card. The compliance burdens associated with charging taxes based on the consumer's location are mind-numbingly complicated.

Consider this: Online and catalogue retailers with gross sales of $1 million — a level that is mom & pop size in many places — will be forced to collect sales taxes for the country's 9,600 state and local tax jurisdictions. Just as Obamacare punishes small business with taxes and regulations for employing more than 50 people, this legislation would punish small businesses for making more than $1 million in sales. For many businesses it may be more beneficial to make less money than to keep track of all the different taxes.

Small and medium-size businesses would be subjected to monthly or quarterly tax returns to all 46 states who collect sales tax; in addition, one amendment likely to be added to the bill would also include all 565 federally recognized Indian tribes in the definition of "state," so businesses would need to collect applicable taxes for them, too.

As if that wasn't enough, each of the nearly 10,000 jurisdictions gets to have its own tax rates and sales tax holidays with thresholds and caps. Each state can give sellers their own "tax app" and it's up to the seller to pay for integration into their in-house systems for ordering, fulfillment, and accounting.

Keep in mind, each state still gets to have its own audit, forms, tax base, and definitions. That means every online seller could be subject to dozens — or eventually hundreds — of audits each year.

So, how is this fair? After all, brick and mortar stores aren't subjected to all these rules.

And, how is it fair for a Texas business to collect taxes to support California Gov. Jerry Brown's big spending? Or to underwrite New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's nanny statism or Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel's anti-Second Amendment agenda?

Make no mistake: Big business supports this bill because it will drive smaller competitors off the Internet and out of business.

And it wouldn't help small brick-and-mortar retailers, as its proponents claim, because the sales they are losing today are mostly going to big-box stores and giant online retailers — both of whom are already paying sales taxes.

The largest online retailers already have physical business presences in most states. Meaning, they are already collecting and paying the state taxes. Right now, nine of the top 10 Internet retailers collect taxes in every state. Big businesses can afford to hire accountants and attorneys to pay the taxes properly and navigate audits.

Instead, this bill would just impose crushing new costs on small and mid-size Internet retailers.

Enjoy Web-based entertainment such as Netflix and iTunes? Or how about the projected 56 billion apps downloaded in 2013? Well, this bill will open the door to new taxes on every TV show, movie, game, song, or app you download.

Naturally, state and local governments are salivating at the prospect of getting a purported $23 billion in new revenue from the private economy. Especially when the out-of-state consumers paying those taxes and the out-of-state businesses owners who collect them can't vote them out of office.

Last but not least, this bill doesn't pass constitutional muster. The MFA overturns the fundamental idea that states' taxing authority ends at their borders. The Supreme Court has said that an out-of-state business could subject itself to a state's taxing power if due-process concerns are satisfied, namely that the business purposefully targets its activities in that state. But because pure Internet sales by their nature don't target any one state, this legislation presents a serious constitutional problem.

Raising the tax burden on small businesses in one of the still-thriving sectors of our economy doesn't make sense. And, imposing a national Internet sales tax while the nation is still trying to desperately to create jobs and provide new opportunities for millions of Americans still struggling to find work is economic foolishness.

Ted Cruz is a United States Senator for the state of Texas.

VIDEO: Ted Cruz Thanks Grassroots

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 10:52:34 -0400

U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) recently thanked grassroots activists for helping conservatives in the Senate defeat the recent gun control legislation.

The Washington establishment is now furious with Senator Cruz for exposing the fact that many of his Republican colleagues attacked him and Senators Mike Lee (R-UT) and Rand Paul (R-KY) for taking a stand on this issue. Cruz's crime? The establishment says he broke Senate protocol by disclosing the details of a private, closed-door lunch meeting. That's right. Even though he did not criticize anyone by name, he's in trouble because he spoke the truth.

According to the Republican establishment, Senator Cruz committed an unforgivable sin, which is why he's now being called a jerk, a liar, immature, ignorant, narcissistic, and whiny in news stories published in the New York Times, Politico, and the Washington Post.

SCF will work to defeat any Republican who attacks Senator Cruz for his comments. Conservatives need to stand with Senator Cruz and make it clear that we will not tolerate these smears.

Gun control: Obama's biggest loss

Wed, 17 Apr 2013 20:26:18 -0400

POLITICO | April 17, 2013

By Reid J. Epstein and Glenn Thrush

Never before had President Barack Obama put the moral force and political muscle of his presidency behind an issue quite this big — and lost quite this badly.

The president, shaken to the core by the massacre of 26 innocents at Sandy Hook Elementary School, broke his own informal "Obama Rule" — of never leaning into an issue without a clear path to victory — first by pushing for a massive gun control package no one expected to pass, and then sticking through it even as he retrenched to a relatively modest bipartisan bill mandating national background checks on gun purchases.

It was a bitter defeat for a president accustomed to winning, a second-term downer that may — or may not — foreshadow the slow decline suffered by so many of his predecessors. Obama seems to have the public behind him, but it illustrated his less-than-Johnsonian powers of personal persuasion, the possible shortcomings of his decision to wait a month after the killings to present a plan and above all the limits of his go-to "outside" strategy of taking his case directly to the American people.

More than anything, it was an emotional blow to Obama, who was as irritated at the four members of his own party as he was at the 90 percent of Republicans who defeated the bill.

One administration official told POLITICO the White House was especially disappointed with Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D), the only dissenting Democrat not up for re-election next year, who refused to go along with the bill even after White House chief of staff Denis McDonough visited her office to make Obamas case on Tuesday.

Still, officials believed Heitkamp would have flipped if they had gotten closer to the 60 votes they needed.

"The president was tremendously committed and emotionally engaged. I watched the president with these families. He was there for them and really felt it," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Connecticut Democrat who worked closely with the White House in the aftermath of the worst school shooting in the history of his state.

"Background checks will happen," he added, minutes after the vote. "This outcome is a delay, not a defeat."

Added Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.): "I never saw a president fight so hard, a vice president, never on any issue It shows us the cowardice of the Senate."

In the end, however, moderates and conservatives in the upper chamber said they simply couldnt deal with a flurry of progressive issues at once — from gay marriage to immigration to guns.

The other three Democratic "no" votes — Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Mark Begich of Alaska — were never really in play, sources familiar with the situation told POLITICO.

One senator told a White House official that it was "Guns, gays and immigration - it's too much. I can be with you on one or two of them, but not all three."

A glum Obama was sitting in the White House Situation Room for a previously scheduled national security briefing when news of the 54-to-46 vote broke, according to a senior administration official.

Obama wasn't watching the proceedings closely on C-SPAN because he already knew the whip count; over the last few days, the president personally lobbied most of the red and purple state Democrats and Republicans sitting on the fence, and had already vented his frustration with a handful of Democratic hold-outs who were waiting to see what other would do before committing.

In a break from protocol — Obama seldom talks publicly about what other politicians say to him privately — the president called out the Senate, including members of his own party, for succumbing to bullying of the National Rifle Association in the Rose Garden about an hour after the vote.

"Most of these senators couldn't offer any good reasons there were no coherent arguments about why we couldnt do this it came down to politics," a visibly agitated Obama said, flanked by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a clearly shaken Vice President Joe Biden and family members of Sandy Hook victims.

Senators on both sides of the aisle "caved to the pressure and started looking for an excuse, any excuse, to say no," he said, adding that he planned to continue pushing on the issue.

"I see this as round one," Obama intoned.

But privately, administration officials were looking ahead to the far more sanguine prospects of negotiating a bipartisan immigration reform bill and expressed hope that clearing the decks on guns would raise prospects for a faster agreement. Despite Obamas vow to fight on, one senior adviser to the president said "it was a fair question" to ask if Obamas old campaign apparatus, Organizing for Action, could help create a groundswell of protest against the "no" voters in each party.

Within an hour of Obamas Rose Garden remarks his political arm, Organizing for Action, announced it is launching a "day of action" Saturday. Supporters in states with what OFA believes are persuadable senators will hold events and be urged to contact their senators.

"We wont sit around and let Congress drag its heels while Americans are coming together to demand action," OFA executive director Jon Carson wrote to supporters. "We won't wait for the next Newtown."

While Senate Democratic leadership never trusted that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), one of the top negotiators on the bill was bargaining in completely good faith, the White House continued to negotiate with him.

Obama called the Oklahoman this week and allowed that he is open to Coburns proposal which came without the recordkeeping requirement the White House and gun control groups have publicly demanded but talks broke down once Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) turned their sights to Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.).

The gun control groups central to Obamas push never lost faith in the White House and praised its efforts even as it was clear the push would fail.

"Bribery isnt what it once was," said an official with one of the major gun-control groups. "The government has no money. Once upon a time you would throw somebody a post office or a research facility in times like this. Frankly, theres not a lot of leverage."

The White House and Senate Democrats won significant victories, but never generated enough momentum to reach the 60-vote Senate threshold to pass any gun control bill.

At several points allies thought they would win — but in the end only Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) followed Toomey, and gun control allies always assumed they would get them anyway, even on the "gold standard" bill Schumer introduced before the Easter break.

"Im very disappointed and there is a sadness here that there was a tremendous bipartisan effort," Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) said. "Manchin-Toomey didnt go as far as I would like to go but I supported it because there was a way to go for bipartisanship, so its enormously disappointed. I think today there are a lot of hard feelings."

Mark Glaze, the director of Mike Bloombergs Mayors Against Illegal Guns said it was clear by Monday that Manchin-Toomey proposal wouldnt get to 60 votes after the much-sought endorsement of the Second Amendment Foundation brought them no new support.

"You are not dealing with members who are looking for a reason to vote 'Yes,'" Glaze said. "Youre not talking about members who are actually looking for solid facts or policy. Youre looking at members who are afraid of the NRA."

By Wednesday, when it was clear to all the vote would fail, the Second Amendment Foundation rescinded its endorsement.

"The bottom line was that there were just not enough reasonable Republicans that Senator Toomey found," said Matt Bennett, senior vice president of The Third Way. "This is not his fault there just werent the numbers there to support what we were trying to do."

Hours before the Wednesday afternoon vote, Biden all but admitted the White House would lose during a Google Hangout with four supportive mayors.

"This is going to be a close vote, but I can assure you one thing. That were going to get this eventually, were going to get this eventually. If we dont get it today, were going to get it eventually. Because I think the American people are way ahead of their elected officials."

Knowing the numbers were stacked against passing the Manchin-Toomey bill, Biden left the online chat hoping for divine intervention.

"I hope to God that there are 60 people up there who have the courage to stand up and understand that this doesnt take much courage," Biden said. "The people are with you."

Families from Newtown, Tuscon, and Aurora watched from the Senators visitors gallery as the vote went down. A few cried, several looked on in utter disbelief. One woman, Patricia Maisch who wrestled a fresh magazine from Jared Lee Loughner in Tuscon, yelled "shame on you!" from the gallery.

Said Roxanna Green, whose 9-year-old daughter Christina-Taylor Green , was killed in Tuscon said "we were all thinking it."

"Im very disappointed. It should just be common sense. Well all be back, we're going to keep fighting," she said.