Yesterday, the House passed the Farm Bill, and as my blog indicated yesterday, I voted against this bill for a variety of reasons, but there is one piece I am sure that Democrats will be sure to exclude from their talking points.  An earmark inserted by Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) for a “Qualified Forestry Bonds Program”, which would provide federally funded-tax credit bonds for purchases that meet the following standards:

• The forest must be adjacent to U.S. Forest Service Land;
• Half of the parcel must be turned over to the U.S. Forest Service;
• It must include at least 40,000 total acres; and
• It must be subject to a “native fish habitat conservation plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.”

You might have guessed it, but there is only one piece of land that meets these qualifications, a 1.6 million acre piece of land, owned by the Plum Creek Timber Company.

The Plum Creek Timber Company is attempting to sell the qualifying land to the Nature Conservancy, which has been touted by the Washington Post as the “world’s richest environmental group, with $3 billion in assets.”

This earmark will allow the Nature Conservancy to claim a $250 million ‘Tax Refund’ which would basically provide additional motivation for the group to purchase the land.  Keep in mind, that this tax refund would go to a conservancy group that has 501(c)3 organization, so it doesn’t pay taxes in the first place, according to the earmark the tax refund would be provided anyway.

If that wasn’t enough, according to the FEC, employees of plum Creek Timber have donated nearly $17,000 to Senator Baucus’ campaign fund.

The endowment of $250 million of taxpayer funds to encourage a rich environmental group to purchase land from a Senator’s wealthy campaign donors…I wish I could say the audacity of some Members of Congress surprises me, but I can’t. 

Today the House passed HR 2419, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, better known as the Farm Bill.  I was one of 106 who voted against the bill, I want to take a moment to let you know exactly what this bill does….all 673 pages of it.

Since 1933, Congress has passed some version of a Farm Bill every couple of years.  Unfortunately, all too often U.S. Farm Bills fail to consider the real needs of a responsible Agriculture policy.  The real problem impacting farmers is not persistent poverty, but rather normal yearly income fluctuations.  Below you will find several reasons why this is the wrong direction for Farm policy in America.

• This bill continues to subsidize wealthy farmers.  All farmer income tests are rejected by this farm bill and affluent will still remain eligible for permanent subsidies.  Most of these subsidies will go into large agribusiness interests.
• This Farm Bill waives the Democrat PAYGO rule, which requires any bill affecting mandatory spending or revenue to be deficit neutral. This conference agreement increases spending by $10 billion over the next decade, and $10 billion in gimmicks are also included.  Not to mention, this Farm Bill uses the spending from 2007, which allows for more spending than that of the 2008.
• The measure ignores the plight of consumers facing skyrocketing food prices by making a bad sugar program worse. Due to the current policy, sugar prices in the U.S. are twice the worldwide average and cost consumers nearly $1.8 billion last year, according to the GAO]. This Farm Bill will worsen this situation by increasing the sugar loan rate, and by creating a new sugar-to-ethanol mandate that will purchase sugar at inflated prices and sell it to ethanol producers at a substantial discount. This sweet deal for sugar producers will leave a sour taste in the mouths of American taxpayers.
• This Farm Bill creates a new, $3.8-billion Permanent Disaster Relief Program that disproportionately assists those with political clout, not real needs. This duplicates at least three existing crop insurance programs, along with other subsidy programs. This new program also creates incentives for the use of marginal lands that would otherwise not be farmed. To make matters worse, the cost of the program is likely to be double this amount due to a funding cliff that makes a “permanent” program disappear after only 5 years.
• The Farm Bill contains numerous wasteful earmarks. These include a $250-million earmark for land in Montana, an earmark that requires the USDA Forest Service to sell land to a ski resort, and a $170-million earmark for the salmon industry in San Francisco.
• The true cost of the Farm Bill is much higher than the advertised by the conferees. PAYGO gimmickry and special interest tax breaks and earmarks not contemplated within the advertized $10-billion framework push the overall cost to $23 billion over what the current Farm Bill pays for. 

This morning, The Hill reported that Rep. John Murtha’s infamous earmark for the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) was stripped from the 2009 intelligence authorization bill, the very same project which Democrats fought so hard to defend last year. 

The earmark worth $23 million was handily defeated in the House Intelligence Committee by a vote of 17-4.

Perhaps, the beltway establishment is starting to wake up to the public's distaste for these wasteful and corrupting earmarks.

It is no secret that I am not a fan of the Democrat PAYGO rule that requires any bill affecting mandatory spending or revenue to be deficit neutral.  In theory PAYGO sounds great, but at the heart of it, the Democrat rule is nothing more than a gimmick.

House Democrats, especially members of the “Blue Dog Coalition”, claim that they will not waive PAYGO for any reason, their recent actions have indicated otherwise.

In preparing the supplemental appropriations bill, Democrat leaders are reportedly planning on including billions of dollars in mandatory spending that would normally be subject to PAYGO, but recent reports indicate that they plan to circumvent PAYGO in order to enact proposals that could cost anywhere between $30 and $70 billion.

However, they are not willing to waive PAYGO to extend numerous expired and expiring tax provisions, including:

• The Research and Development Tax Credit
• Subpart F for active financing income
• Depreciation of restaurant equipment
• Credit for residential and commercial solar property
• Credit for electricity from renewable sources
• Credit for energy efficient homes and commercial buildings
• Credit for energy efficient appliances
• State and local sales tax deductibility
• Deduction for teachers’ classroom expenses

Collectively, these tax provisions which expired at the end of 2007 or will expire in 2008 will result in a tax increase of $102.6 billion through fiscal year 2008.

Democrats are using this gimmick for cheap political theater, and will jump at their first chance to circumvent it in order to raise your taxes.

Despite a much needed revamp of the entire farm bill, conferees continue to struggle through negotiations, but there is at least one group of planters who will come out ahead.  However, despite this congressional gridlock, there is at least one group of planters who continue to make money off the old farm bill. Sugar cane and sugar beet growers have actually managed to increase the size of their proverbial pot in the new package. Why? Because of government sponsored mandates for a “sugar-to-ethanol” program in the United States.

The U.S. Sugar industry has long enjoyed the comfort of a federal security blanket.  With interlocking price supports and import quotas, sugar tycoons have been able to sell their product in the marketplace with little or no foreign competition.  However, with the implementation of free trade agreements such as the 2005 Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA) and new provisions in NAFTA, the sweet deal U.S. growers had was about to be disrupted.  Not to be outdone, a strong lobbying effort was launched on behalf of sugar growers in order to help regain their cozy and secure spot in the U.S. market.

If these provisions in the Farm Bill are implemented, the price for U.S. Sugar (which is already above the global price) will increase, with additional mandates to encourage part of the sugar market towards ethanol production.  In addition, the U.S. based ethanol industry also benefits from high tariffs limiting ethanol imports, mostly on sugar derived ethanol from Brazil.

This is a sour deal and contrary to proven free market principles. Ethanol tariffs combined with the sugar subsidies keep Americans from accessing ethanol from its most efficient source, which is sugar. 

In the next week or two, the Senate will consider S. 27 the San Joaquin River Restoration Settlement Act.  This bill has been pushed by environmentalist extremists and would “settle” a 20 year old lawsuit that they’ve pursued against the federal government, in order to restore the salmon population of the San Joaquin River.  The best part of this bill is that the targeted area of water that this bill would help has been dry for the better part of 70 years.

This bill all by itself is outrageous, but thanks to Congressman Devin Nunes (R-CA), it has come to light that Democrats are planning to sneak in a massive earmark and “airdrop” it into this bill. The earmark will spend $1.1 billion in an attempt to put salmon into a river that has run dry.  The threshold for success is very small.  According to the settlement, if only 500 fish return, the project will be deemed successful. 

If you do the math, that makes each fish worth $2.2 million dollars.

Even for someone from Orange County $2.2 million is a lot for a fish.

Last week, the House passed H.R. 1195 which amends the Highway Bill from 2005, (The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act SAFETEA-LU).  To say H.R. 1195 passed is an understatement, it passed overwhelmingly…there were only 50 of us who voted against it, including yours truly.

This bill was supposed to only be making technical corrections to SAFETEA-LU, but if you read what the bill actually does, it conveniently increases funding for roughly 500 earmarks.

Included is a “technical correction” which expands an earmark for magnetic levitation technology (MAGLEV), a mass transit program. This earmark was problematic from the start. This project actively competes with a private company that is raising billions of dollars (without taxpayer support) to complete a similar high-speed rail route from Las Vegas to Southern California. Furthermore, the demand for a MAGLEV route from Southern California to Las Vegas is relatively low. Taxpayers from Florida, Ohio, or any other state should not be forced to foot the bill for earmarks that serve a select few.  Besides, you can get a plane ticket from LAX to Las Vegas for as little as $118.

Last November I wrote to you about the evidence that this Congress is the Least Productive Congress…ever. My argument continues to sustain itself.

Amidst a myriad of national issues, House Democrats have actively refused to bring anything substantive to the attention of the House of Representatives.

Gas prices are teetering at $4 per gallon, there are food shortages both at home and abroad, House Democrats have left our intelligence professionals without the ability to quickly intercept communications from foreign terrorists, and Democrats are still trying to compromise on a clean farm bill free from extraneous additions.

This week some of the most important legislation that reached the House floor included: Promoting the safe operation of 15-passenger vans, expressing support for designation of March 11, 2008, as "National Funeral Director and Mortician Recognition Day,” and Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that there should be established a National Watermelon Month.

Passenger vans, funeral director day, and watermelon month, I take it back….this is the do less than nothing Congress.

Almost two years ago to the day, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), announced that she had a “commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices (Release 4/24/06)”.

With gas prices hovering precariously close to $4 a gallon, I can’t help but wonder when this commonsense plan is going to show up.  Despite the elaborate rhetoric Speaker Pelosi has fed to the American people, she doesn’t really have a “commonsense plan” to bring gas prices down.  In fact since January of 2007, when Democrats took control of Congress, the price of gas was $2.33; today the average price of gas is $3.62.  A $1.29 increase is just over a year.  That is a 55% increase since the beginning of the 110^th Congress.

Pelosi’s leadership has resulted in the handcuffing of domestic energy exploration and now the powerful Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce wants to impose a 50 cent tax increase per gallon in order to discourage consumption of gasoline.

Is the premium of Pelosi's leadership really worth it?

All gas price estimates courtesy of AAA and can be viewed at www.fuelgaugereport.com

Today, His Excellency Bertie Ahern, the Prime Minister of Ireland spoke to a joint session of Congress. Ahern will be stepping down as Irish Premier; his legacy will be synonymous with the longest economic expansion in Irish history.  

Ireland’s recent economic success is thanks to a steadfast reliance on the free market.  In 1987 Ireland’s per capita income averaged about 63% of the United Kingdom’s.  From 1990-1995 their economy grew more than 5% per year and from 1996 to 2000 it exploded to more than 9% per year. 

Prior to the Irish economic boom, Ireland had a 13 year period of stagnation.  Ireland then took an aggressive course of slashing government expenditures, abolishing federal agencies, and cutting tax rates and regulations.  Much to this conservative’s delight, the government made strong pledges to abstain from deficit spending or inflate the currency, and they kept those promises!

This year, the Heritage Foundation ranked Ireland as having the worlds 3^rd freest economy (click here). In case you were wondering, the United States came in at 5^th place (click here), behind Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Ireland.  According to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Ireland has outperformed all industrialized economies over the past decade.

In a period of economic downturn, solutions are needed.  However those solutions should not be entrenched in big government ideas, but rather a return to more Laissez-Faire economic policies.

Legislative initiatives such as the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which includes the Spending Limit Amendment to the Constitution and the Taxpayer Choice Act, are ways that will limit government involvement and encourage free enterprise. 

According to a report published today by The Hill, a Capitol Hill Newspaper, presidential candidate Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009.  That is almost three times the largest amount any Senator has received in 2008.

The amount requested by Clinton for 2009 far surpasses the $387 million secured by Senator Thad Cochran in 2008 (R-MS).  As the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Cochran was the leading recipient of earmarks last year.

Clinton’s opponent Barack Obama and presumptive Republican nominee John McCain both have made it clear that they would not be requesting any earmarks in 2009. 

And yes, Senator Clinton did vote in favor of Senator DeMint’s (R-S.C.) earmark moratorium, along with Senators Obama and McCain. 

The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) recently unveiled their Congressional ratings for the first session of the 110^th Congress.  They derive “ratings” by measuring the strength of support for reducing spending and regulation and opposing higher taxes. The higher the score, the better.  Interestingly enough, no single legislator has scored a perfect 100 in the several years NTU has been conducting its scorecard.  Between 2006 and 2007, the average "Taxpayer Score" in the House fell from 39 percent to 35 percent.    While the Senate's average plummeted by 11 points, from 48 percent to 37 percent.

Only 52 lawmakers attained scores sufficient to receive an ‘A’ and be dubbed friend of the taxpayer. Below you will find a list of those receiving an ‘A’ in the House:

According to the Tax Foundation, in 2008, Americans will work 74 days to afford their federal taxes and 39 more days to pay state and local taxes. Meanwhile, buying food requires 35 days of work, clothing 13 days, and housing 60 days.  

Unfortunately, the numbers don’t lie; government in the United States continues to be a fixture in the budget of the American taxpayer.

In 1900, Tax Freedom day was January 22; roughly 5% of a person’s gross income went towards taxes.  Today, the average person will contribute approximately 30% of their gross income towards taxes at the state, federal, and local level.

Today, April 23 is Tax Freedom day.  Americans should take notice.   

I read this article the other day by Rep. Tom Feeney(R-FL) published an editorial recently about the current state of the economy.  I suggest you take a moment to read on.

Restrictions risk a new Great Depression

Rep. Tom Feeney

April 17, 2008

Picture this scenario:

A market bubble is created by easy-money policy and speculative investment followed by a collapse in market values. Our economy teeters on recession. Politicians reward big labor with new powers at the workplace.

Large government programs are proposed to create taxpayer-funded jobs. Entitlement programs for seniors and the poor are initiated. Temporary "stimulus" packages are passed to placate seniors, farm workers, unions and the unemployed.

Presidential candidates and congressional leaders attack free trade, vow to instate an estate tax on the rich and increase taxes on corporations, individual taxpayers and stockholders. Foreign countries' economies grow at accelerated rates while American jobs disappear.

Regulations are imposed to crack down on Wall Street, while state and federal governments bring lawsuits against demonized corporations for various offenses. Private companies are more heavily regulated to "protect" the public.

Next, the Democratic governor of New York condemns the "increasing concentration of wealth and power." Outcries against excessive executive salaries on Wall Street become widespread.

Sound familiar? Although it sounds like America in 2008, this scenario describes 1929 through 1935.

In her brilliant description of the Great Depression, The Forgotten Man, Amity Shlaes explains how excessive taxes and regulations, along with an attack on free trade, turned a temporary stock-market correction -- which probably would have lasted a year or two -- into an 11-year Great Depression. In 1930, President Herbert Hoover signed huge tax increases on investment and income taxes, as well as the Smoot-Hawley bill that attacked free trade. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal enlarged and transformed every aspect of the federal government into a Big Brother that stifled the private sector, job growth and freedom itself.

Most of these programs and government intrusions were popular, and FDR was elected a record four times. But populism cannot reverse the laws of economics. Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong and even China are growing faster and creating jobs faster than the United States today because their economies are becoming freer (all but China rank freer than us in the Heritage Foundation 2008 Index on Economic Freedom). Even the European Union has a significantly lower corporate tax rate than the United States.

As I write, Democrats in Congress are taking a page from Hoover's handbook. They have voted for the largest tax increase in history -- an average of $3,040 for every hard-working taxpayer in Florida, according to the Heritage Foundation. Both parties have dramatically increased federal spending and entitlement programs. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton compete to see who can more quickly destroy trade partnerships. And every day the Democratic majority in Congress proposes huge new government programs and expenditures. New oil and gas exploration and petroleum refineries are prohibited while taxes on energy companies are increased as gasoline prices soar. Proposals to allow unions to organize workers without an open democratic vote have passed the House. To add to an already out-of-control tort system, numerous punitive and excessive regulations on business have been proposed and many have passed. Sarbanes-Oxley alone has driven many companies private or overseas, at a cost to America of $1.4 trillion a year according to one study.

As investors flee Democrats' proposed tax increases and regulatory assaults, job creation is declining. You cannot create jobs by destroying incentives for small business owners, investors and capitalists -- nor can you tax and regulate your way to prosperity. The Soviet Union tried and died. Ireland and China, however, have learned this lesson. Populist demagoguery may win this election, but it cannot revive economic growth and prosperity.

"Less government, less taxes, and more freedom" is not just an outdated slogan, but rather a universal and timeless recipe for economic growth.

U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney, an Ovideo Republican, represents District 24.

Yesterday, the Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loans Act (H.R. 5715) passed the House overwhelmingly, but there were several votes against this bill, mine included.

This legislation creates another emergency government program in an attempt to bailout an existing program with problems caused by changes included in the College Cost Reduction Act, which was passed just last year.  The College Cost Reduction Act was an attempt by the government to essentially place price controls on student loans by capping interest rates that lenders could charge while at the same time cutting subsidies that the government paid to these lenders.

In this Conservative’s view, H.R. 5715 actually creates an even bigger program to fix a government program that failed last year. Instead of just fixing the problems in the original program, Congress in its infinite wisdom, decided to create another program to manage the problems of an existing program. I have urged the Fed to give student loan lenders access to the Fed’s discount window, and favor other tools that we already have at our disposal to add liquidity to the student loan market.

Until then it appears that my colleagues are content with fixing government with even bigger government….I disagree.