Tea Party Patriots Ordinary citizens reclaiming America's founding principles.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

OH has 4 of 10 Most Conservative Members in the U.S. House

While OH Senator Sherrod Brown is rated as the most liberal in the U.S. Senate and is compared to self-proclaimed Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of VT, OH Congressman Jim Jordan is tied for the most conservative member in the U.S. House. 

Trailing right behind Congressman Jordan as the most conservative members in the U.S. House are three other House members from Ohio....

From the Columbus Dispatch --
A new survey by National Journal magazine in Washington, lists four Republicans from Ohio as among the 10 most conservative members of the U.S. House.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, earned a tie for first by voting the conservative position 95 percent of the time on 100 key House votes last year. He was followed by Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Loveland, with 94.5 percent; House Speaker John Boehner, R-West Chester, with 94.2 percent, and Rep. Bob Latta, R-Bowling Green, with 94 percent.
Congressman Jim Jordan is Chairman of the Republican Study Committee (RSC).  As Chairman of the RSC, Congressman Jordan has been leading the fight to cut spending.  And, as a way to NOT raise the debt ceiling and NOT default on the Debt, Congressman Jordan and his fellow RSC members have introduced HR 421 the Full Faith and Credit Act, (click here to read).

While we may have 4 of the most conservative members in the U.S. House, it appears one of the freshmen Congressman from OH is already forgetting why he was sent to D.C.!

OH Freshman Congressman Steve Stivers (OH-15), in siding with the GOP establishment and helping the Democrats, was one of 95 GOP House members to turn a deaf ear on the voices that elected him to cut spending and voted AGAINST an RSC Amendment that would have made an additional $22 Billion in cuts in the Continung Resolution.  Because this amendment failed the GOP led House did not meet their pledged cuts of $100 Billion.

Please contact Rep. Steve Stivers and remind him of "why" he was elected to his first term in Congress --

Rep. Steve Stivers

Columbus Office: PH:(614) 299-6415 / Fx: (614) 299-9601
D.C. Office: (202) 225-2015 / Fx: (202) 225-3529

** Use 43212 for Zip Code on email comments.**

Saturday, February 26, 2011

Reason #872, 193 to "Take Down Brown" in 2012!

Is it any surprise the darling of the Plain Dealer and husband of PD Columnist Connie Schultz, OH Senator Sherrod Brown was voted the MOST liberal senator in D.C.?

From the Columbus Dispatch --
Ohio's senior Sen. Sherrod Brown has been ranked among the most liberal senators last year by the National Journal. He was also on the list for 2009.

The others on the "most liberal" list (all Democrats) are Sens. Ben Cardin, Rhode Island; Patrick Leahy, Vermont; Carl Levin, Michigan; Barbara Mikulski, Maryland; Harry Reid, Nevada; Bernie Sanders, Vermont; Debbie Stabenow, Michigan; Sheldon Whitehouse, Rhode Island.

The Journal picked Republican Sens. John McCain, Arizona; Jim DeMint, South Carolina; and John Thune, South Dakota, as the most conservative.

The publication tracks voting patterns of the 535 members of the House and Senate in compiling its annual rankings.
McCain one of the most conservative?  It must be a misprint!

SB 5; Let's Make Sure We Get it Right

The below memorandum of concerns on SB 5 was forwarded from State Senator Tim Grendell to OH Senate President Tom Niehaus, State Senator Shannon Jones (SB 5 Sponsor) & State Senator Kevin Bacon (Chairman - Insurance, Commerce & Labor Committee & SB 5 Co-Sponsor).

In offering his opinion, State Senator Grendell brings up some very good points that clearly must be addressed. 

While fully supporting the concept of a much needed reform on Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA's) to get OH back on sound fiscal footing and reflective of the feedback from our members, CTPP's position from the day SB 5 was introduced has beeen --CBA's should not be removed but completely reformed, Safety Forces should be exempted, safe guards must be installed on the merit pay provisions, worker rights are respected and above all SB 5 MUST be in accordance with the OH Constitution.  

We would ask the OH Senate members to review and debate the following concerns as outlined by State Senator Tim Grendell and supported by several other GOP State Senate members. The last thing we want to do is pass a Bill to find out what is in it.  For the future of Ohio -- it is important we get this right.

From State Senator Tim Grendell --
This memorandum reflects my initial primary concerns with SB5 as currently drafted. I fully appreciate the complexity of this bill and the time and effort expended by its sponsor. This memo is by no means an exhaustive discussion as to the constitutional and legal issues raised by SB 5, which are many.

           Abolishment of Collective Bargaining Rights
What does it mean to “abolish” collective bargaining for public employees? What method of addressing the interaction between public employees and management will replace collective bargaining? In my experience, civil service is not a functional alternative and will cost both the employee and the taxpayer’s substantial legal expenses. Does a public employer have to bargain with each employee? Can groups of public employees ban together to negotiate employment terms? Will the loss of collective bargaining grievance procedures lead to substantial individual lawsuits?

Under current Ohio law, an “at will” employee can pursue a wrongful employment termination lawsuit if the suit is based on a public policy basis (e.g. age discrimination, sex discrimination, race discrimination, whistle blower). Greeley v. Miami Valley Mnt. Contractors, Inc., 49 Ohio st.3d 228 (1990).

The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that union workers covered under a collective bargaining agreement cannot pursue a wrongful termination lawsuit based on public policy because those union workers have recourse through the collective bargaining agreement’s grievance procedures. Haynes v. Zoological Society of Cincinnati, 73 Ohio St. 3d 254 (1995). If eliminating collective bargaining opens the door to wrongful termination/public policy lawsuits by public employees, the cost of that litigation, even if successful for government-management, could become more expensive than the purported savings from abolishing collective bargaining.

Under civil service, an aggrieved classified public employee my appeal a layoff or displacement to the state personnel board of reviews and then to the Common Pleas Court. R.C. Sec. 124.328; Collyer v. Darling (6th Cir. 1966), 90 F.3d 211. This is a far more cumbersome and costly way to resolve such disputes. Moreover, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that union collective bargaining – not civil service status, precludes Greeley wrongful discharge public policy lawsuits. See Haynes, supra.

If the state is going to rely on civil service to fill the collective bargaining gap, the Legislature will need to rewrite Ohio’s Civil Service Law, R.C. Chapter 124. I have discussed this with far more knowledgeable folks in DAS, and they agree with this assessment. Additionally, a home rule municipality’s civil service rules prevail over state statute. See, e.g., Fenton v. Enahore (1987), 31 Ohio st. 3d 69. Relying on civil service will result in a patchwork of requirements.

Based on my 30+ years of legal experience, it is my opinion that SB 5, in its current form, will lead to costly litigation and labor strife. It will lead to impasse rather than less costly dispute resolutions. Contract settlements will be less likely and strikes (unless statutorily prohibited) will be more prevalent than under current collective bargaining procedures. It is extremely difficult to see how the taxpayers will benefit from the ultimate impacts of SB5 as written.

Simply put, collective bargaining has some benefits, particularly in the lawsuit avoidance, grievance process. I support reforming collective bargaining, not its elimination. If it is eliminated, something will fill the gap and I suspect that something will be litigation, blue flu, and (unless prohibited) more public employee strikes.

 At a minimum, SB5 must permit and provide for (if not require) a collective bargaining grievance dispute resolution process to avoid Greeley lawsuits.

Unconstitutional Contract Interference
While SB5 appears to say that it does not interfere with existing contracts, other provisions in the bill raise constitutional contract interference concerns.

As I read SB5, it provides that laws pertaining to the provision of health care benefits to pubic employees prevail over conflicting collective bargaining agreements. The bill also invalidates any agreement that purports to require the public employees join any exclusive representative. (lines 10848-10850) (“Any agreement that purports to require that employees join any exclusive representative is void and unenforceable”)

“The bill permits termination of a collective bargaining agreement when, per the Auditor, a public employer is in a state of emergency. There may be some SERB opinion support for this provision.” There are other provisions that invite constitutional inquiry or concern.

I have two constitutional based concerns:

First, some of these provisions appear to violate the constitutional prohibition against contract interference and most certainly will invite litigation. Second, even if one justifies such interferences on the statutory nature of pubic employment, the precedent that the Legislature can reach in and terminate, interfere with, or negate contractual terms because of economic exigencies opens a Pandora’s Box that could serve as a terrible precedent for a future liberal administration seeking to extend this power to other private contractual business relationships or public contracts for private services or materials. The Tea Party and Liberty Council members should be very careful on this issue.

Elimination of Binding Arbitration
SB5 essentially eliminates binding arbitration and replaces it with the possibility of a perpetual contract or management mandates. If either party does not accept the SERB panel’s recommendation, the parties must execute a collective bargaining agreement with the same terms as in effect prior to the appointment of the fact-finding panel, unless the public employer implements the panel’s recommended options (in whole or part) while negotiations continue. If SB5 eliminates collective bargaining, how can it force employees to execute a collective bargaining agreement? If the expiring agreement is better than the panel’s recommendations, why would the benefitting side accept the panel’s recommendations – ever? What happens if the parties do not reach an agreement – does the last year of the previous agreement continue for one year or indefinitely?

We certainly can tighten up the binding arbitration provisions, such as:
(1)   Enact a statutory cap such as in New Jersey (based on public revenues and current economy).
(2)   Submit the binding arbitration report to the Common Pleas Court for plenary, de novo review, using the court’s equitable powers.
(3)   To address Governor Kasich’s concern, require that all arbitration or panel members be Ohio Citizens (although I think this is already the case).
(4)   Tighten the SERB process.

Right to Strike
A good argument can be made that public employees should not be allowed to strike. However, eliminating the right to strike for all public employees would require a functional and mutually fair binding arbitration process.

Teacher Tenure/Continuing Contracts
While concerns about teacher tenure (continuing contracts in Ohio) should be addressed, total elimination will undermine the ability to attract good teachers to Ohio. If you are a hard working teacher who could get longer employment protection in Pennsylvania or Kentucky, why would you settle for a year to year job in Ohio? Moreover, terminated teachers will claim that they were the victims of arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory actions -- end result -- more lawsuits. We should change the law to require that teachers retain their tenure through their satisfactory performance on a regular basis. This can be accomplished by giving school management the right and authority to conduct annual performance evaluations of teachers. If a teacher is placed on a “Needs Improvement Status,” the teacher goes on the top of the RIF list and, if the teacher’s performance remains substandard, the teacher can be terminated for poor performance, despite longevity.

The total elimination of the “seniority” employment protection factor also exposes hard working, long term public employees (who have no social security or 401K benefits) to premature termination preventing them from earning their full public pension benefits. If these “good” older public employees are terminated early and cannot find reasonable employment elsewhere, will they further burden state support programs? Will they file age discrimination based lawsuits? Some seniority based protection should be provided for long term hard working public employees, who deserve it.

Health Care Benefits
Even Wisconsin is only requiring 12.6% contribution by public employees. Where did 20% come from? While I see no legal impediment to the healthcare provisions in SB5, we could save more taxpayers’ dollars by removing healthcare from public collective bargaining and requiring all public schools to participate in a statewide health insurance pool. This should save taxpayers millions of dollars. Moreover, the management and union healthcare plans must be commensurate.

Eliminating Higher Education Collective Bargaining
I still do not understand how this will affect state university and college professors/teachers. Will they negotiate their employment terms individually? Will this make tenure an individual threshold? Will the best and the brightest professors/teachers find states with collective bargaining at their level more attractive than Ohio? The UC Professors’ testimony certainly raises concerns about discouraging the best and brightest to teach at Ohio’s universities and colleges.

Police/Fire/Highway Patrol
Even Wisconsin understands the wisdom of exempting police, fire, and state highway patrol from collective bargaining elimination. This is especially true if police/fire still are prohibited from striking. Police, fire, and the highway patrol should either be exempted out of SB5, or the bill should include some fair and functional binding arbitration provision. Sergeants (perhaps lieutenants and captains in local police departments) should not be included as supervisors because they do not have the appropriate level of power and responsibilities. Police and fire must be allowed to bargain staffing levels and equipment issues when safety-related. To not do so, places Ohio’s safety focus at risk of injury or worse.


There are numerous provisions in SB5 dealing with the bargaining process that need to be reconsidered. These include, but are not limited to:

·        Public employer refusal to talk provision
·        Deletion of language that prohibits pension pick up procedures in collective bargaining agreements. (what about previously negotiated arrangements?) Pension pickup saves money.
·        Under the National Labor Relations Act, permanent replacement workers can be hired for an economic strike, but not for an unfair labor practice strike. SB 5 fails to make this distinction.

Saving Money – State Budget Shortfall

The assertion that SB5 is the answer to the state’s current purported 8.5 billion dollar plus state budget shortfall is misleading and perplexing. The current state collective bargaining agreement runs through FY 2012. Since SB5 would extend the State’s FY 2012 terms for at least another year, if the parties do not reach a new agreement, the current  agreement  could cover both years of the FY 2012 – FY 2013 budget. Many existing police, fire, and teacher collective bargaining agreements have 1 or 2 years remaining. How can SB5 reduce the economic costs of these existing contracts without totally vitiating the Constitutional prohibition against contract interference? Since SB5 does not apply to local governments (excluding police/fire), how will it help local governments offset their expected local government fund losses? Is there a fiscal analysis that supports the “savings” argument?

This memo is by no means an exhaustive constitutional or legal analysis of SB5; that would take days or perhaps weeks. I recommend that the Senate obtain such an exhaustive legal review before acting on such an overwhelming change in Ohio’s public labor law.

I also note that we, as a caucus, never discussed abolishing collective bargaining at our mini-retreat in December, 2010, or retreat in January, 2011. Rather, we talked about collective bargaining “reform,” without discussing any details. SB5 goes far beyond “reform.” At a minimum, we should discuss each of the broad sweeping changes proposed in SB5 in Caucus before moving forward on SB5.

I am having amendments drafted to address my concerns based on SB 5 as currently in committee.

I will continue to support defensible collective bargaining “reform.”

I will continue to review SB5 and provide further comments as appropriate. 

Thank you for your consideration.

Monday, February 14, 2011

The headline reflects the madness

"The President says he is ushering in a new era in fiscal responsibility with his 3.73 TRILLION DOLLAR budget proposal." (emphasis on TRILLION DOLLAR is mine)

I prefer to make the sound of an old teletype machine in my mind just before reading the headline. It adds to the absurdity.

Can it be any clearer folks?

There is no rambling thought here ... just a reflection of the oxymoron that passes as "news." This is the double speak that I call Fishyspeech.

I prefer to look at such astonishing headlines through the eyes of high satire ... yet it is surely not a joke.

Tea Party means hard work, conviction, confidence, and optimism.

Most of the occupants of these great United States grew up ... in the United States! ... of America! We have the unique shared American experience. The Tea Party represents the experience of the American way. Born Free. Defend Free.

Choose freedom.

Tea Party ... the 80/20 Party.

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Mandatory Drug Testing for Recipients of Public Assistance Bill introduced in OH Senate

State Senator Tim Schaffer has reintroduced a bill in the Ohio Senate (SB 69) that would require drug testing for those receiving any type of public assistance.  Several other states (SC, FL, WV & KY) have also introduced varying versions of this bill.

From The Newark Advocate --
People in Ohio asking for government assistance from the state would have to be screened for drugs if a bill introduced Thursday in the Ohio General Assembly is passed and signed into law.

Sen. Tim Schaffer, R-Lancaster, introduced Senate Bill 69, which would establish drug-testing requirements for adults who apply for need-based programs.

The bill would deal with people applying for state programs that provide cash assistance, medical assistance, housing assistance, food assistance or energy assistance.

The bill is co-sponsored by Sen. Gayle Manning, R-North Ridgeville.
Under the leadership of former OH Senate President Bill Harris and new OH Senate President, State Senator Tom Niehaus, it should come as no surprise that last years version of this Bill died in the GOP-led Senate Finance Committee. So as you can see, even though Ohio's State Senate is GOP-led this year - as it was last year - there is no guarantee SB 69 will make it out of  the OH Senate.

Please contact your State Senator and urge them to support SB 69. 

State Senators from the Cuyahoga County area --

Senator Tim Grendell / District 18
Phone: (614) 644-7718
Email: SD18@senate.state.oh.us

Senator Shirley Smith / District 21
Phone: (614) 466-4857
Email: SD21@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Senator Michael Skindell / District 23
Phone: (614) 466-5123
Email: SD23@maild.sen.state.oh.us

Senator Tom Patton / District 24
Phone: (614) 466-8056
Email: SD24@senate.state.oh.us

Senator Nina Turner / District 25
Phone: (614) 466-4583
Email: SD25@maild.sen.state.oh.us

For contact information for OH Senators outside Cuyahoga County, please click here.

Friday, February 11, 2011

Action Alert: Defunding Obamacare / Your calls are needed now!

Action Alert

We need you to call the GOP members of the House Rules Committee (where the first vote is expected in the next 24 hrs) immediately and urge them to support Rep. Steve King's amendment to defund Obamacare.

The defunding of Obamacare is NOT in the Continuing Resolution currently in process!
There are two types of funding in ObamaCare: direct appropriations made by the law itself and separate discretionary spending necessary to execute the law’s myriad provisions. Because it is a type of budget bill, a continuing resolution would only deal with the discretionary spending needed to execute the law, not the money the original ObamaCare law appropriated.

A continuing resolution is a type of appropriations bill that allows the government to continue functioning without having Congress decide how much money to give to each individual federal program or agency. (Weasel Zippers)
The GOP members of the Rules Committee, and their office phone numbers are:

Pete Sessions, TX-32 (202) 225-2231

Virginia Foxx, NC-5 (202) 225-2071

Rob Bishop, UT-1 (202) 225-0453

Rob Woodall, GA-7  (202) 225-4272

Richard Nugent, FL-5 (202) 225-1002

Tim Scott, SC-1 (202) 225-3176

Daniel Webster, FL-8 (202) 225-2176

Keep the pressure on and hold the GOP to its promises!

Please ask the Congressmen to support Steve King's amendment to defund Obamacare in the continuing resolution. 

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Stop the funding for Cincinnati's Streetcar Named Public Plunder!

Action Alert

Facing a budget gap of Grand Canyon like proportions, Ohio's Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) has recommended $51.8 million in funding for "Cincinnati's Streetcar named Public Plunder"!

Governor Kasich has already stopped the federal funding for proposed low-speed rail being fraudulently billed as a high speed rail in OH, and now WE must stop the wasteful spending for the "Streetcar named Public Plunder" being proposed in Cincinnati!

From our friend Rebecca Heimlich (OH Coordinator) from Americans For Prosperity --
Ohio's Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC) recommended that $51.8 million of your tax dollars be given to Cincinnati’s streetcar project.

Ohio is facing an $8 billion budget deficit.  We commend Governor Kasich for pledging to solve this budget crisis without reaching even further into our pockets.  In the next few months, Ohio will be making many difficult decisions about how to cut its budget and reform Ohio’s overgrown government to become more efficient and effective.

Given these circumstances, terminating any funding for Cincinnati’s streetcar project should be one of Ohio’s easier decisions.  It is an expensive project that will be financed by more government debt; it will require ongoing taxpayer subsidies; and it won’t provide any economic benefit for Cincinnati or Ohio.

Please act now!  Public comments on TRAC's recommendation are being accepted until this Friday, February 11th.

This streetcar project ultimately will put Cincinnati, Ohio, and the federal government further in debt.  Construction alone is projected to cost $143 million.  That number will likely rise with additional cost overruns.  Cincinnati City Council has already approved the issuance of $64 million in debt to fund its portion of the construction (before cost overruns).  Cincinnati is counting on Ohio for over $50 million and on the federal government for $25 million, both of which are already far in debt.

The Streetcar will be an ongoing financial drain.  Once the City accepts the federal grant, it will be obligated to operate the streetcar for decades, with an estimated annual cost of $10 to $12 million.

Neither Cincinnati nor Ohio can afford to fund this project.  But, even if they could, they shouldn’t.  Streetcars do not provide economic benefit and are not cost efficient.  Studies of streetcar experiments in other cities have proven these projects to be a poor, unproductive use of taxpayer dollars.

Proponents of Cincinnati’s streetcar would have you believe that if “you build it, they will come.”  Meaning riders and developers will magically appear on the streetcar and along its lines, like the baseball fans that magically appeared in “Field of Dreams.”  Other cities have found that this is not true.  Portland spent nearly $2 billion subsidizing developments along its streetcar and light rail lines when private development failed to materialize.  New Orleans added two new lines in the early 2000s to its St. Charles streetcar line, and the ridership still steadily declined.
 Click here to make your public comment.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Senator Hatch introduces "Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act"

In attempts to further stem the out-of-control EPA, the rogue regulatory agency hell-bent on imposing Cap & Trade regulations through the Clean Air Act, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced the Defending America's Affordable Energy and Jobs Act....

From Senator Orrin Hatch --
WASHINGTON – Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) have introduced legislation that would pre-empt federal agencies from restricting human carbon-dioxide emissions without authorization from Congress.

The Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act also would prevent any legal action from being taken against greenhouse gas emitters for their contribution to climate change.

"With this bill, we are reclaiming Americans’ right to have their elected officials have a say in the laws and regulations that effect them,” Hatch said. “Last time I checked, Congress makes the laws and the Administration implements the people's laws.

“We have put a lot of focus on the EPA for attempting to regulate carbon emissions without the express consent of Congress,” Hatch added. “In truth, though, the President is attempting to implement these controls throughout the entire federal government, and we don't intend to stand idly by and watch as the U.S. Constitution is circumvented in this way."

The bill would define the government's ability to implement the Clean Air Act only for pollutants which harm humans as a result of direct exposure, but not based on the theory that a greenhouse gas may contribute to general warming of the planet.

The bill would also move the existing oversight of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles away from the EPA, and place the effort under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transportation.
Combined with Senator Rand Pauls REINS Act, in which Hatch is a co-sponsor, the "Defending America’s Affordable Energy and Jobs Act" will serve as a useful tool in combating the EPA's -- Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy

The Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy is the battering ram of the Clean Air Act.  This, along with court ordered consent decrees, the EPA is trying to impose Cap & Trade regulations on small businesses such as dry cleaners, gas stations, restaurants and 28 other industries. 

Senator Rand Paul introduces REINS Act; Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny

Senator Rand Paul is taking the steps to stop the over-reaching federal agencies from imposing regulatory edicts & arbitrary mandates without the consent of Congress.

A perfect example of this would be how the EPA is using the Clean Air Act & Clean Water Act as their Hammer & Sickle to impose Cap & Trade restrictions on people and business through regulation over legislation.

From Senator Rand Paul --
Senator Rand Paul (Ky.) today introduced the REINS Act, or Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny Act of 2011, on the Senate floor.

Designed to “increase accountability for and transparency in the Federal regulatory process,” the REINS Act will result in better drafted and detailed legislation, an improved regulatory process, and will ultimately create a Legislative Branch accountable to the American people.

“I am proud to offer this legislation today alongside my fellow Kentuckian, Congressman Geoff Davis, in the House,” Sen. Paul said Monday. “If Congress is to impose regulations and laws on U.S. citizens, it is important that those citizens are made aware of how they come to be. Cutting red tape and opening the regulatory process to scrutiny is an important step in holding government accountable to all Americans.”

Joining Sen. Paul as co-sponsors are Republican Senators Jim DeMint (S.C.), John Ensign (Nev.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Roy Blunt (Mo.), John Thune (S.D.), Mike Enzi (Wyo.), John Cornyn (Texas), Orrin Hatch (Utah),  Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), John Barrasso (Wyo.), Roger Wicker (Miss.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Mike Johanns (Neb.), John Boozman (Ark.), David Vitter (La.), Mike Lee (Utah), James Inhofe (Okla.), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), and Marco Rubio (Fla.).

"When liberals can't pass legislation, they enact regulations. As we have seen at the EPA and FCC, unelected bureaucrats can advance a radical, liberal agenda when it loses legislatively or in the courts. The accountability provided by the REINS Act is necessary to ensure federal agencies cannot unilaterally destroy jobs and harm our economy with unnecessary regulations,” Sen. DeMint said. “Businesses should be focused on how best to invest and grow to create jobs, not on fending off burdensome micromanagement through regulation from Washington.”

“Members of Congress like to talk a good game about protecting their constitutional rights.  Yet, in reality, we delegate an enormous amount of authority to federal agencies. The REINS Act will help Congress retake the rule-making authority it has ceded to the executive branch and bring the regulatory process under control,” Sen. Coburn said.

Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Action Alert: Senate Expected to vote on Healthcare Repeal TODAY!

Action Alert

It looks as though Senator McConnell has found a way to force Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to call for a “healthcare repeal” vote in the Senate. The vote is expected today!

The GOP is going to try to use the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization, S. 223, as a vehicle for repealing the 1099 provision of Obamacare. The Senate Republicans will add an amendment to S. 223, and the amendment will be to repeal Obamacare.  Reid has agreed to allow the vote, but is expected to raise a budget point-of-order objection in attempts to thwart passage.  (Read More Here)

We need to support Senator MCConnell’s efforts. We encourage you to contact Ohio’s two senators and the following targeted senators, and urge them to vote “YES” for the repeal of Obamacare.

Ohio Senators

Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH) / DC: (202)224-3353 / Cleveland: (216)522-7095
** Senator Portman will be supporting Repeal of the Health Care Reform Law **

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) / DC: (202)224-2315 / Cleveland: (216)522-7272

Targeted Senators

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) / DC: (202)224-5521
Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA) / DC: (202)224-6324
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) / DC: (202)224-3954
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO) / DC: (202)224-6154
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL) / DC: (202)224-5274
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) / DC: (202)224-6551
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) / DC: (202)224-2644
Sen. James Webb (D-VA) / DC: (202)224-4024

H/T to Amy & Jeff with the Medina TPP for putting together the above info.