Support the Economic Freedom Act

Below is the Press Release from Congressman Jim Jordan (OH-4) and his proposed Economic Freedom Act.  Please contact Ohio's members of Congress and ask them to support Congressman Jim Jordan's "Economic Freedom Act".  Contact information is listed below.

From Congressman Jim Jordan (OH-4) --

Economic Recovery Through Private Sector Growth

The American economy lost over 7 million jobs, and the American people are more than 4 trillion dollars deeper in debt today because the tax-and-spenders in Washington, D.C. failed to heed President Reagan’s words:

“Government is not the solution to our problem.
Government is the problem.”

The multi-trillion dollar government stimulus programs and taxpayer-funded bailouts have failed. A growing private sector economy is the only “stimulus program” that will create the jobs needed to restore America’s economic strength.

Congressman Jordan and Congressman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) have introduced H.R. 5029, the Economic Freedom Act, a plan to unleash the power of America’s private sector economy.

The Economic Freedom Act would terminate the TARP and repeal the remaining stimulus, replacing them with a real stimulus plan to create jobs by:

           Reducing The Payroll Tax by Half for 2010 Providing immediate stimulus by increasing workers’ paychecks and improving the bottom line for employers.

Eliminating The Capital Gains Tax Encouraging the risk-taking and investment that is at the heart of the entrepreneurial spirit

Reducing the Corporate Tax Rate to 12.5% Improving America’s competitiveness in the global market and providing incentives for expansion and job creation

Permanently Eliminating the Death Tax Ensuring that small businesses and family farms, the engine of our economy, will continue creating jobs for future generations

Providing Immediate Business Expensing Encouraging long-term reinvestment in business, increasing competitiveness and creating jobs

Click here and listen to Congressman Jordan explain the EFA.

###

---------------------------------------------------------

Contact Info:

Below is the contact information for Ohio's members of the U.S. House.

Rep. Steve Chabot, OH-1
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-2216
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-3012
Email: https://chabot.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

Rep. Jean Schmidt, OH-2
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-3164
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-1992
E-mail: http://www.house.gov/schmidt/contact.shtml

Rep. Mike Turner, OH-3
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-6465
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-6754
E-mail: http://turner.house.gov/Contact/

Rep. Bob Latta, OH-5
D.C. Office Phone: 1-800-541-6446 (OHIO)
D.C. Office Fax: 1-800-278-8203
E-mail: https://latta.house.gov/Contact/default.aspx

Rep. Bill Johnson, OH-6
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-5705
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-5907
E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/charliewilson/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. Steve Austria, OH-7
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-4324
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-1984
E-mail: http://austria.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=7&sectiontree=4,7

Rep. John Boehner, OH-8
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-0600
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-5117
E-mail: SpeakerBoehner@mail.house.gov

Rep. Marcy Kaptur, OH-9
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-4146
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-7711
E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/kaptur/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. Dennis Kucinich, OH-10
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-5871
D.C. Office Fax; (202)225-5745
E-mail: http://kucinich.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm

Rep. Marcia Fudge, OH-11
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-7032
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-1339
Email: http://fudge.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=190&sectiontree=4,190

Rep. Patrick Tiberi, OH-12
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-5355
D.C. Office Fax: (202)226-4523
Email: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Rep. Betty Sutton, OH-13
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-3401
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-2266
E-mail: http://sutton.house.gov/about/emailform.cfm

Rep. Steven LaTourette, OH-14
D.C. Office Phone: (202) 225-5731
D.C. Office Fax: (202) 225-3307
Email: http://latourette.house.gov/contact/contact-form.aspx

Rep. Steve Stivers, OH-15
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-2015
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-3529
E-mail: https://stivers.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

Rep. Jim Renacci, OH-16
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-3876
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-3059
E-mail: https://renacci.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

Rep. Tim Ryan, OH-17
D.C. Office Phone; (202)225-5261
E-mail: https://forms.house.gov/timryan/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm

Rep. Bob Gibbs, OH-18
D.C. Office Phone: (202)225-6265
D.C. Office Fax: (202)225-3394
E-mail: https://gibbs.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

*** Please note: some members of the House are using the "Write your Representitive" U.S. House email program and refusing to accept emails/comments from people outside their District.  For residency verification a zip code and at times an address is requested.

If you live within the District and do not wish to use your own address or if you live outside the District and still want to comment, you can enter the zip code and/or address of the local District Office for the member you are trying to contact.

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn Introduces Health Care Choices Act

Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (TN-7) introduced a bill that will allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines...

Congressman Marsha Blackburn (TN-7) introduced the Health Care Choices Act today. She was joined by Rep. Fred Upton, Chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rep. Joe Pitts, Chairman for the Subcommittee on Health, and over sixty other co-sponsors.

The Health Care Choices Act replaces onerous Washington mandates with true competition for health coverage by permitting the sale of health insurance products across state lines. The Act will allow consumers to shop for health insurance just like they do for other insurance products- online, by mail, over the phone, or in consultation with an insurance agent in their hometown. It opens the consumer to greater insurance options than those offered in the state where they live.

"The health care law we repealed yesterday forces the cost of health insurance ever higher through Washington driven mandates. The Health Care Choices Act will drive down the cost of insurance through competition. Once we remove the artificial barriers created by state lines, insurance companies will be free to compete for your business; giving consumers the policies they want at a price they can afford." Mrs. Blackburn said.

In speaking about the bill Chairman Upton said: “Competition is one of the most powerful market forces. It drives down cost while improving quality, and it creates a vast array of options to meet consumers’ individual needs. Yet rigid federal constraints prevent Americans from shopping for health insurance the way they shop for car insurance and consumer products, looking at the costs and benefits offered by providers from coast to coast. I’m pleased to cosponsor this bill to empower Americans, and I welcome this and all efforts to replace Obamacare with commonsense solutions designed to bring down costs, expand access to coverage, and protect the doctor-patient relationship.”

Judicial Watch files Suit Against Maryland Community College for giving In-State Tuition break to Illegal Immigrants

From Judicial Watch --

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, announced today that on Thursday, January 20, it filed a taxpayer lawsuit against the Board of Trustees of Maryland’s Montgomery College for unlawfully charging discounted “in county” tuition rates to students who graduate from Montgomery County public high schools, regardless of their place of residency or immigration status. The new lawsuit alleges Montgomery College’s tuition policy violates both Maryland and federal law and places a substantial financial burden on Montgomery County taxpayers who subsidize the cost of students attending the community college. Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit on behalf of Montgomery County taxpayers Michael Lee Philips, Patricia Fenati and David Drake in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Philips, et al. v. Board of Trustees of Montgomery College (V342882)).

According to Judicial Watch’s complaint:

Under federal law, unlawfully present aliens generally are ineligible for state or local public benefits, including post-secondary education benefits such as reduced tuition, unless a state has enacted a law affirmatively providing for such eligibility. The State of Maryland has never enacted a law affirmatively providing that unlawfully present aliens are eligible to receive reduced, in-county tuition at public institutions of higher education, including community colleges such as Montgomery College…

Pursuant to Maryland law, “Montgomery College is required to charge out-of-state tuition to any student who attends a community college in the State of Maryland and is not a resident of the State…”

Defendant Board's long-standing policy is causing substantial, pecuniary loss to taxpayers in Montgomery County and the State of Maryland. By providing reduced, in-county tuition to all students who graduate from Montgomery County public high schools, regardless of their residence or status as unlawfully present aliens, Montgomery College is failing to collect revenue that, by state and federal law, it is required to collect.

By law, the tuition paid by a student who attends community college is determined by a student’s place of residence. Students who are residents of the county or counties supporting the community college they attend are charged an in-county rate. Students who are residents of the State of Maryland, but reside outside the county or counties supporting the community college they attend are charged an instate rate. Students who reside outside the State of Maryland are charged an out-of-state rate.

However, Montgomery College has a long-standing policy of providing graduates of Montgomery County public high schools, including illegal aliens who unlawfully reside in the United States, the lowest “in county” tuition rate regardless of their place of residence. Montgomery College described this policy in financial statements for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008 and 2009: "[T]he Montgomery College policy is applicable to all persons, equally, and includes all citizens as well as undocumented aliens…" The tuition policy was formally adopted by Montgomery College’s Board of Trustees on November 15, 2010.

Between 2006 and 2009, Montgomery College failed to collect $5,870,852 in tuition fees due to its policy of unlawfully allowing a discounted “in county” tuition rate to illegal aliens and other “out of state” students.

The policy has been questioned by the College’s own auditors. Maryland State Delegate Pat McDonough first alerted Judicial Watch to this issue last year, prompting Judicial Watch to conduct an independent investigation, which led to this taxpayer lawsuit.

“Montgomery College’s funneling of tax dollars to tuition benefits for illegal aliens is against the law. The policy is especially egregious in this age of government budget crises,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Our taxpayer clients hope the court will put a stop to Montgomery College’s policy of providing illegal perks at taxpayer expense.”

Ohio Republican Congressional Delegation comments on House Repeal of Obama Care

H/T Weapons of Mass Discussion

Speaker John Boehner --

Rep. Bill Johnson (OH-6) --



Rep. Bob Gibbs (OH-16) --



Can You Fix OH's Budget Woe's? Give it a Shot!

The Columbus Dispatch has a nifty little application that allows you to play Governor and gives you an opportunity to pick cuts or increases in state spending.  Upon completion of your made up budget, the application generates headlines you may expect to see if your cuts or increases were enacted.

Click here to give it a try. 

Leave a comment on your results below...

Pathway to Repealing Obamacare in the U.S. House (Awesome Video)

Here is a great video highlighting all the hard work done by Tea Party Patriot groups and members from across the U.S. in our fight to Repeal Obamacare in the U.S. House....

How to repeal Obamacare in the Senate

Here is a great piece at the Heritage Foundation laying out the procedure in which the Senate can force a vote on the repeal of Obama Care...

From The Heritage Foundation --

This week the House will pass a bill to repeal Obamacare. Congressional experts will argue that the Senate won’t pass a full repeal. They are correct to argue that full repeal will not be passed by both the House and Senate in the next few months, but they may be wrong that a full repeal bill will not pass in this Congress within the next two years. If Senators don’t take two procedural steps this week, they will make it virtually impossible to ever get a vote on the House-passed full repeal bill this Congress.

The House will pass H.R. 2 this week. Once that bill is passed, it will be sent to the Senate for consideration. Once the Senate receives the bill, any Senator can use Rule 14 to object to the second reading of the bill. This procedural objection will “hold at the desk” the House-passed bill and allow the Senate to act on the full repeal measure.

If the bill is referred to committee, it will never get to the Senate floor. This procedural objection by one or a number of Senators will stop the bill from being referred to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP). If the bill is referred to committee, there is little to no expectation that the committee will pass the bill, let alone have one hearing on the bill.

Objecting to Rule 14 would hold the bill at the desk of the Senate and would put H.R. 2 on the Senate calendar. This procedure could be done with a letter or call from one Senator to the party leader. This would allow the Senate Majority Leader to commence debate on the matter when he so chooses. It is unlikely that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D–NV) would move to proceed to the bill, yet there is a procedure that any Senator can use to force a debate.

Any Senator can use Rule 22 to commence debate on H.R. 2 if they have held the bill at the desk. Rule 22, the filibuster rule, states:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of."

If any Senator can gather 16 signatures on a cloture petition, then they could file that petition with the clerk of the Senate. This would commence a proceeding that would end with a vote requiring 60 votes to shut off debate on a motion to proceed to a full repeal of Obamacare within two days of the filing of the petition. It is expected that Senate liberals would use Rule 22 to filibuster a full repeal of Obamacare. This would put many Senate Democrats in the interesting situation of voicing support for so-called “filibuster reform” while at the same time using the filibuster rule to block an up or down vote on Obamacare.

Once a bill is held at the desk, they can gather 16 signatures, then wait until the appropriate time to file cloture. They could do so next week or next year. If the courts continue to declare parts of Obamacare unconstitutional and the American people continue to despise this law, then the probability of full repeal may go up over time. At a minimum, Senators have the power to force a vote on full repeal of Obamacare if they have the will to do so.

If the supporters of a full repeal of Obamacare don’t use the Senate’s rules to force a vote on full repeal, don’t take them seriously when they say they are really want to repeal President Obama’s de facto government takeover of health care.

Will they have the backbone to do this?