flakedirect

Stop Government-run Health care

Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:28:26 +0100

As I'm sure you know, the health care debate in Washington has begun. One thing is for certain: this issue will be the battle of all battles in Congress this summer.

Too often in the recent past, the line separating Republicans from Democrats has been blurred. But when it comes to health care, I'm happy to report that the line has become much more distinct. The Administration and Democrats in Congress are bent on passing legislation to provide universal coverage and finance the plan through increased taxes. They estimated their plan would cost about $1 trillion to the taxpayers. So much for decreasing the cost of health care.

Interestingly, earlier this week the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) came back with their own cost projections of the Administration's plan and it seems the numbers didn't exactly add up. Not only did the CBO report that the actual cost of the program to be much higher than the President says it will cost, but even with that increased cost, the program would still leave nearly 30 million citizens uninsured. The true cost to cover everyone in this fashion would be somewhere north of $4 trillion.

While Democrats control Washington, I think we Republicans may be beginning to catch our stride. And it's just in time. We absolutely must stop any attempt at a single-payer system.

Soon, I will be offering legislation to increase the amount an individual and family can contribute to a Health Saving Account (HSA). Currently, individuals and families can contribute $3,000 and $6,000, respectively, to their HSA. My plan will increase that amount to $8,000 per individual and $16,000 per family and, in doing so, it will allow the use of HSA funds to pay for policy premiums, which is not permitted under current law. Other Republicans, like Senator Tom Coburn (the only physician serving in the US. Senate) and Representative Paul Ryan are offering plans to reform how Americans receive health care benefits while promoting universal access to quality and affordable health care, all without leveling trillions of dollars in new debt on future generations.

Every day I am asked, "How can I help?" or "What can we do?" I have some suggestions and hope you'll take the time to follow through on some of them.

1. Talk with your family and friends about why you feel it is important for you to retain your right to make your own health care decisions and formulate your own plan on how to get involved.

2. Contact your Representatives and Senators in Congress, and call the President and share your concerns with him. Your voice can truly make a difference if you let it be heard.

3. Write letters to your local newspaper in support of health care choice.

4. Use the internet and the power of social networking to join or start groups to stop government-run health care.

While many issues are important, I think we recognize the ability to keep the right to make our own health care decisions is critical.

As always, I hope you'll take a moment to share your thoughts with me. While I cannot promise to respond to each message, please know that I read every one.

Sincerely,

Jeff

P.S. Please click this link to read the column from the Wall Street Journal, which shows what can be done when the free market, rather than government coercion, is used to control cost and improve quality.

Bailout Blues: Part III

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 18:44:25 +0100

Late last year I wrote to you about the 'Big Three' coming to Washington seeking $25 billion in federal bailouts and loan guarantees. Many of us were concerned about the government being too willing to offer its 'helping hand' and, as it turns out, that was for good reason.

Since that time, the Obama Administration has not only bailed out GM and Chrysler, it has essentially taken them over. The Administration awarded the United Auto Workers Union a significant ownership stake in both companies, a stake much more generous than that of the bondholders. To say that these actions should give every American pause is, well, quite an understatement.

If this weren't bad enough, the Administration is making management decisions by ordering the closing of dealerships and telling Chrysler that it must cut its advertising budget in half. Tough decisions will no doubt have to be made, but for the government to make these decisions simply guarantees that political objectives will be pursued before economic objectives. For an administration that continually says it wants no part of owning an auto company, it’s sure giving it a go.

Last year I told you that, in my own view, if there ever was an industry in need of bankruptcy, it's the auto industry. But a “structured bankruptcy” that leaves Chrysler and GM as wards of the labor unions and the federal government is a particularly bad idea. I’m afraid that sound you hear is an Edsel coming off the assembly line…

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on this issue. As always, I look forward to your comments.

Bigger Than Abramoff Scandal?

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:53:48 +0100

Submitted by Jeff Flake on Thu, 03/19/2009 - 23:32.

This week, I introduced my fourth privileged resolution calling for an ethics investigation into the link between earmarks and campaign contributions. I think we're going to see some real progress on the earmark front very soon. As you know, earmarks are used as enticements to jack up spending everywhere else. If you wonder who provided the critical margin in the Senate for the bloated omnibus spending bill to pass earlier this month, it was Republicans who had some of the 9,000 earmarks in the bill.

I was interviewed for a segment on the corrupting nature of earmarks that aired on the CBS Evening News on Tuesday night. I hope you'll take a moment to watch it.

The pay-to-play issue runs much deeper than the Jack Abramoff scandal a couple of years ago. The PMA scandal being investigated by the Department of Justice, referenced in the CBS piece, is likely to be much bigger. The bottom line is: no member of Congress should be able to award no-bid contracts. It simply invites corruption.

When will we learn?

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 22:13:00 +0100

Submitted by Jeff Flake on Sun, 03/15/2009 - 16:12.

As you probably know, after promising on the campaign trail to eliminate earmarks, President Obama signed the omnibus spending bill this week totaling $410 billion, including nearly 9,000 earmarks. What’s more disturbing is that forty percent of the earmark requests were from Republicans. When will we ever learn?

This week, I also introduced my third resolution asking Congress to open up an ethics investigation to look at the correlation between earmarks and campaign contributions. While we were defeated again, please know that I will continue to offer resolutions on the pay-to-play connection between earmarking and campaign contributions until my colleagues in Congress agree that we need a higher ethical standard on the issue.

The San Francisco Examiner ran an opinion piece last Friday on my efforts to eliminate earmarks. I hope you’ll take a few moments to read it and share it with your friends and family members.

Jeff Flake pounds Congress on earmark evasion

San Francisco Examiner, Staff Writer (3/13/0)

Congress on Tuesday shamed itself by going on record, yet again, for what amounts to operating as its own protection racket. The House voted down a resolution by Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., asking the Ethics Committee to investigate whether there were any quid pro quos between federal spending earmarks and campaign donations linked to the now-disbanded lobbying firm known as the PMA Group. This was the third time in a few weeks the House defeated the Flake amendment. The PMA Group, which mostly handled defense issues, is under federal investigation specifically related to political contributions. The company was founded by a former key aide to Rep. John Murtha, D-Penn.

On Feb. 19, CQ Today reported that 104 House members (nearly a quarter of all representatives) sponsored earmarks for PMA Group clients in last year’s Defense Appropriations bill, and that 87 percent of those members received PMA campaign cash. Even after the announcement of the FBI raid on the firm’s offices, PMA clients received congressional earmarks worth at least $8 million in the omnibus spending bill President Barack Obama just signed into law. As Flake’s resolution accurately described it, “The federal investigation of the firm raise[s] concern about the integrity of congressional proceedings and the dignity of the institution of Congress.”

Each time he offered the resolution, Flake made it more focused. On Feb. 23, he asked broadly for an investigation into the relationship between earmark requests already made by House members and the source and timing of past campaign contributions. Opponents said that sounded like too much of a fishing expedition. On March 3, Flake specified that the investigation should solely focus on past earmarks and contributions related to the PMA Group. Opponents then complained that the group had been around for too many years to allow investigation of all past earmarks. So on Tuesday, Flake narrowed the search further to apply just to PMA-related earmarks for this fiscal year — an utterly reasonable request. Still, the House voted no, 228-184, with four Republicans joining all but 22 Democrats to block investigation.

Do these people think they are invisible? Cover my back and I’ll cover yours is the way too many in Congress view ethics issues. But Flake should not give up. He ought to offer a new resolution, again tied to 2009 PMA-related earmarks, and this time specify just which clauses of Chapter Four of the House Ethics Manual might be implicated. Members who vote again to sweep such a resolution under the rug might as well wear a sign that says Corruption-R-Us. We’ll publish their names.

The Pork Parade Marches On

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:48:20 +0100

Submitted by Jeff Flake on Fri, 02/27/2009 - 21:07.

In case you missed it on Wednesday night, I appeared on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News to discuss earmarks in the omnibus spending bill and the pay-to-play mentality in Congress. I've included the link to the segment for your convenience.

I also thought I'd share with you some of the most egregious examples of wasteful spending in the bill. Hold your nose...

$1,800,000 for swine odor and manure management research in Iowa

$475,000 for Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails of Statewide Significance in Maine

$760,000 for the Bayside Promenade in Maine

$475,000 for Railroad Quiet Zones in Hamburg, NY

$196,514 for the Fairfield Kitchen Incubator in Alabama

$428,000 for the United Autoworkers Region 9, Local 624 in New York, for incumbent worker training

$71,000 for Dance Theatre Etcetera, Brooklyn, NY, for "Tolerance Through Arts" initiative

$5,471,000 to the Iowa Department of Education to continue the "Harkin Grant Program"

$864,000 Income Enhancement Demonstration, OH

$2,192,000 Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY

Also, on Wednesday the House of Representatives considered my privileged resolution calling for an ethics committee inquiry into the relationship between campaign contributions and earmarks. Unfortunately, we were defeated by a vote of 226 to 182. I will be introducing a similar resolution next week, focused specifically on the now-infamous PMA Group, a Washington, DC lobbying firm that is under FBI investigation. I am optimistic that we can get this resolution adopted. It's remarkable to me that a lobbying firm under investigation can continue to receive millions in taxpayer money for their clients.

"Of Pork and Payback"

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:45:36 +0100

Submitted by Jeff Flake on Wed, 02/25/2009 - 21:44.

This week, Congress will vote on an omnibus spending bill to fund the government from March through September. The package will cost over $400 billion and includes more than 8,000 earmarks. That's right, over 8,000 earmarks in one bill. What's most insidious is that a number of the earmarks are going to clients of the now infamous PMA Group, a Washington lobbying firm under FBI investigation. So much for bringing transparency and change to Washington.

Yesterday, my piece on pay-to-play earmarking, "Of Pork and Payback", ran in the New York Times. If you haven't read it, I would encourage you to do so. We need to end the pay-to-play game in Washington.

Also, I wanted to let you know that I will be a guest on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News tonight. The show airs at 7pm (AZ Time) and we will be talking about earmarks in the omnibus bill and pay-to-play in Washington. I hope you'll watch the program and read the piece in the New York Times.

This Is Not Congress' Finest Hour

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:44:01 +0100

Submitted by Jeff Flake on Fri, 02/13/2009 - 21:46.

Well, if you would have told me when I came to Congress eight years ago that I would be voting on a "stimulus" package totaling nearly a trillion dollars, I wouldn't have believed you. But that's where we are. A deal has been struck and the House will vote today.

In truth, there is very little stimulus in this stimulus bill. At best, it wastes billions of dollars on marginal projects, many of which have no federal nexus. At worst, it institutionalizes hundreds of new programs that will endure far beyond this present crisis. In addition, some of the the language in this legislation puts us a good distance down the road toward government rationing of health care.

I've heard from many of you over the past several weeks, and I appreciate your comments and suggestions. I'm voting no, as you might have guessed. This one isn't even a close call.

This new spending, once in place, will be tough to roll back. Those of us who believe in limited government and free markets will have taken a serious blow if this legislation passes.

If there is a silver lining here, it is that, after a long hibernation, congressional Republicans, on the whole, seem to have awakened and are acting like Republicans again.

For the first time in years, there is a discernable difference between Republicans and Democrats on fiscal issues. If this lasts, I'm convinced we'll come roaring back a year from November.

I know that many of you are doing all you can to expose some of the more egregious aspects of the stimulus bill. Please keep it up. If we can't win this fight, let's ready ourselves for the next battle.

On a side note, I sat down for a lengthy interview with Fox News yesterday regarding the stimulus package. Fox News will be airing the documentary, entitled "Trillion With a T: How to Spend a Trillion Dollars," this weekend. It airs on Saturday, February 14 at 7:00pm Arizona time and on Sunday, February 15 at 1:00pm and 8:00pm Arizona time. Please take the time to watch the description of the program here. As always, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts.

Why We Need to Stop 'Pay to Play'

Sun, 05 Apr 2009 17:39:40 +0100

Submitted by Jeff Flake on Tue, 01/27/2009 - 18:34.

Pay to play. It's never really been a secret in Washington, D.C., but the egregiousness of this practice is just starting to rear its ugly head.

In today's Roll Call , it is being reported that longtime Rep. Jack Murtha's (D-PA) campaign was well funded by those for whom he secured earmarks. When he was in the fight for his political life last fall, Rep. Murtha cashed in chips he had accumulated through earmarking.

As you know, I've long railed against this practice. It's completely unethical, irresponsible and an incredible waste of your tax dollars. Governor Blagojevich's recent scandal in allegedly trying to sell a U.S. Senate seat is just another example of the 'Pay to Play' mentality. It's time we end this practice once and for all.

With the new administration's focus on change, I've offered a new piece of legislation aimed at cutting the connection between earmarks and campaign contributions by clarifying that campaign contributions do, in fact, constitute a "financial interest" that often influence congressional earmarking. A piece ran in today's Roll Call about my efforts. I encourage you to read it below.

Murtha Got Payback in '08

January 27, 2009

By Tory Newmyer, Roll Call Staff

Facing a surprisingly tough re-election challenge in the closing days of his 2008 campaign, Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) called on a well-established network of his earmarking beneficiaries to bail him out. And the defense industry contractors, several of whom had pulled down millions of dollars in Murtha earmarks in the 2009 defense spending bill, responded by flooding his coffers with what amounted to rescue cash.

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who is pushing a rules change to clamp down on lawmakers fundraising from earmark recipients, said recent revelations about the extent of the practice highlight the need to restrict it.

"Pay to play is rampant in the earmarking process, and it needs to stop," he said.

For the full article, please click here.

Flake Bids for Ban on Earmarks
January 27, 2009
By Steven T. Dennis and Tory Newmyer, Roll Call Staff

The pay-to-play scandal involving impeached Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) and his alleged shakedowns for campaign contributions has inspired a fresh effort by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to throw a wrench into Capitol Hill's earmark machine.
Flake's proposed rules change would ban Members from proposing earmarks if they received campaign contributions from anyone related to the company getting the earmark, including lobbyists, company employees and political action committees.

Reporters and watchdog groups have reported numerous instances of lawmakers funneling millions to their campaign benefactors by cross-referencing campaign finance data with earmark disclosures, and Flake believes that it is just a matter of time before a Blagojevich-like scandal explodes in Washington, D.C.

Flake said the Blagojevich scandal reveals that federal prosecutors are now serious about pursuing corruption stemming from the solicitation of campaign donations — a development that should worry Members of Congress.

"My first thought was that Blagojevich was a rookie compared to what goes on around this place," he said. "We've been whistling past the Justice Department, assuming that the House ethics guidance, written by our colleagues, will protect us from prosecution. I'm just trying to bring our own practice in line with what seems to be reality. I think this is the quickest way to do it."

Legislation, he said, could prompt First Amendment challenges.

He said he believes transparency rules applied at the start of the previous Congress have already had a chilling effect on fundraising from earmark recipients — but lawmakers hoping to rein in the practice need more tools to do so. "We're not much for shame," he said.

For the full article, please click here.