News

Phil Kerpen on June 7, 2012 |

As Obama heads to Las Vegas to tout a fake controversy over extending subsidized interest rates on federal Stafford Loans, American Commitment released a new video that explains the remarkably low stakes in this distraction from the real issue for new graduates: jobs.

Phil Kerpen on June 5, 2012 | End Regulatory Tyranny, Unlock American Energy

It's an outrage. One EPA administrator already resigned for admitting he likes to crucify oil and gas companies.  Now another EPA administrator has admitted what we already knew -- that the Obama administration intends to destroy the coal industry.  That's bad news for anyone who turns on a light switch, because it means steeply higher electricity prices.

“If you want to build a coal plant you got a big problem. That was a huge decision,” EPA Region 1 Administrator Curt Spalding said at Yale University of the new regulations that effectively ban new coal-fired power plants.

“You can’t imagine how tough that was, because you got to remember if you go to West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and all those places, you have coal communities who depend on coal. And to say that we just think those communities should just go away, we can’t do that."

But they did do that. And now they've been exposed.

The question is, can they be stopped? Yes, but we need your help.

Click on www.WarOnCoal.com NOW to tell the Senate to VOTE YES on S.J. Res 37 and stop the war on coal!

The centerpiece of the War on Coal is a rule called Utility MACT that will significantly raise electricity prices across the country, undermine the reliability of the grid risking blackouts and brownouts, and cost tens of billions of dollars.

Obama said he wanted electricity prices to "necessarily skyrocket" and to "bankrupt coal."  If we can stop this Utility MACT rule, we'll deal a huge setback to an administration that wants coal communities to "just go away."

Please take action today, the vote could happen any time between now and the end of next week. It will be a very close vote and is not subject to filibuster.

Click on www.WarOnCoal.com NOW to tell the Senate to VOTE YES on S.J. Res 37 and stop the war on coal!

Phil Kerpen on June 1, 2012 | Promote Economic Growth

Senate Democrats are again making noise about the so-called DISCLOSE Act, S. 2219, legislation that would force non-profit advocacy organizations to disclose their donors if they criticize elected officials. The bill has support from 44 Democratic senators and may be brought up for a vote in the next couple of weeks. Proponents will offer high-minded talk of democracy and transparency, but what they really want to do is intimidate and suppress their political enemies.

ALEC bullying shows what DISCLOSE Act is about
By Phil Kerpen

Senate Democrats are again making noise about the so-called DISCLOSE Act, S. 2219, legislation that would force non-profit advocacy organizations to disclose their donors if they criticize elected officials. The bill has support from 44 Democratic senators and may be brought up for a vote in the next couple of weeks. Proponents will offer high-minded talk of democracy and transparency, but what they really want to do is intimidate and suppress their political enemies.

The Obama campaign has launched personal attacks against known donors to the Romney campaign, in what amounts to an enemies list. Obama’s IRS has leaked the confidential donor list of the National Organization for Marriage.

In this environment, forced disclosure would not only chill political speech, but could also expose people who engage in the political process to coercion, intimidation, and violence.

The most instructive example of this dark side of disclosure is the left’s ongoing campaign of intimidation and harassment against the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).

ALEC is rare among public policy nonprofits – on the left or right –in that it generally discloses its donors, who openly participate in a transparent process of developing model free-market legislation for the state legislators who are its members. Yet the proponents of forced donor disclosure for non-profits don’t cheer ALEC for its disclosure; they exploit it as a weakness.

Led by Common Cause and the racial-grievance group Color of Change, which was founded by avowed communist, 9/11 truther, and disgraced former Obama green jobs czar Anthony K. “Van” Jones, left-wing agitators have bullied dozens of companies into pulling their support for ALEC.

The bullies have admitted they are manipulating a tragic death to silence their political opponents. “The Trayvon Martin thing was like a gift,” one of the organizers said.

These attacks falsely assume that there is something improper about companies that thrive in a free-market system investing a small amount of their profits to protect that system. In fact, the opposite is true; most companies are far too concerned with lobbying for short-term advantage through government regulations, spending, and special favors that help them in the short term while imperiling their long-term success.

But in the face of an orchestrated campaign of intimidation, companies find it easier to appease the agitators and retreat than to stand and fight.

The most recent companies to cave to the anti-ALEC bullies were Amazon and Wal-Mart (urge them to reconsider at ...

Phil Kerpen on May 31, 2012 | End Regulatory Tyranny, Unlock American Energy

by Drew Johnson and Phil Kerpen

In 2008, then-candidate Barack Obama explained his energy policy like this: “Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad.” He went on to say: “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them.”

That’s really bad news for Tennessee, which relies on coal-fired power plants for 53 percent of its electricity. Yet, shockingly, Sen. Lamar Alexander is siding with Obama and his “war on coal.”

Read the rest in The Tennessean and fight back at WarOnCoal.com!

Phil Kerpen on May 25, 2012 | Reform Health Care Right

Sometime in the next month, the United States Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s individual mandate, the provision forcing everyone in the United States to buy health insurance. Based on how badly this provision was defeated in the oral arguments, it will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. If the law’s most popular provision, the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions, is also struck down, Obama has nobody to blame but himself.

Obama Should Blame Himself, Not The Court
By Phil KerpenAC President Phil Kerpen

Sometime in the next month, the United States Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of Obama’s individual mandate, the provision forcing everyone in the United States to buy health insurance. Based on how badly this provision was defeated in the oral arguments, it will likely be struck down as unconstitutional. If the law’s most popular provision, the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions, is also struck down, Obama has nobody to blame but himself.

Obama campaigned against the individual mandate. In fact, it’s the issue he won the nomination on. Obama said four years ago: “The main difference between my plan and Senator Clinton’s plan is that she’d require the government to force you to buy health insurance.” He even ran attack ads bashing Clinton on the issue.

Once Obama was in the White House, though, his tune changed. The mandate became the centerpiece of a corrupt deal that Obama cut with the insurance industry – in brief, the insurance industry agreed to accept the ban on excluding pre-existing conditions and several other expensive, onerous regulations in exchange for a mandate forcing everyone to buy their product, and hundreds of billions of dollars of subsidies to further sweeten the pot.

Ron Suskind, who was granted insider access to the White House, explained that Obama made the deal even though “Obama, never much for the mandate, was concerned about legal challenges.”

He should have been more than concerned. He should have upheld his sworn oath to the Constitution and said no to any deal that relied on an unconstitutional mandate.

The oral arguments before the Supreme Court showed this wasn’t a close call. Even liberal commentators acknowledged it was a blowout. Jeffrey Toobin of CNN said it “was a train wreck for the Obama administration,” and Andy Serwer of far-left Mother Jones magazine added “Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. should be grateful to the Supreme Court for refusing to allow cameras in the courtroom, because his defense of Obamacare on Tuesday may go down as one of the most spectacular flameouts in the history of the court.”

It wasn’t Verrilli’s fault. Obama was making him defend the indefensible. A federal government with the power to order citizens to purchase politically-favored goods and services is a government of unlimited, unchecked powers—a government the Constitution exists to prevent.

If the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions falls with the mandate, as is likely, that will also...

Pages