Rep. Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act Reins in Dodd-Frank, Increases Consumer Protections

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Thursday, July 14th, 2016, 11:15 AM PERMALINK


House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling’s (R-Texas) recently introduced Financial CHOICE Act (FCA) looks to rein in a myriad of onerous and costly regulations enacted under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank Act). In introducing the Act, Chairman Hensarling hopes to give Americans new ability to achieve financial independence and raise their standards of living, while also promoting economic growth for the economy as a whole.

Signed into law by President Obama in 2010, the Dodd-Frank Act was aimed at promoting financial stability in the U.S. However, since enactment Dodd-Frank has only increased financial instability, reduced consumer access while increasing costs, and burdened businesses with billions in compliance expenditures.

Dodd-Frank provisions such as the Durbin Amendment, Volcker Rule, and rules governing fiduciary duties lessen market liquidity and reduce access to financial products and services for millions of Americans. The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under Dodd-Frank empowered a new wave of unelected bureaucrats to essentially outlaw financial products unilaterally.

Thankfully, Chairman Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act provides much needed relief for financial consumers and U.S. businesses that have suffered under Dodd-Frank. The Financial CHOICE Act contains a number of pro-growth and pro-consumer reforms aimed at lessening Dodd-Frank’s regulatory burden and economic impact.  

Some of the most needed reforms under the Financial CHOICE Act are provisions reining in the CFPB.  For years the CFPB has been able to unilaterally ban certain financial services and products it deems “abusive” and has been able to collect personally identifiable information on consumers at will. The CFPB is also not subject to the appropriations process, leaving Congress with little oversight over the Bureau’s actions.

The Financial CHOICE Act would repeal the CFPB’s authority to ban bank products and services it deems “abusive” as well as requiring the Bureau to obtain permission before collecting personal information from consumers. The Act would also repeal the CFPB’s authority to prohibit arbitration, and would replace the current director with a five-member commission subject to congressional oversight and appropriations.

With regard to financial consumers, the Financial CHOICE Act would repeal price controls and regulations under Dodd-Frank’s Durbin Amendment that were imposed on debit card transaction fees. The premise of the Durbin Amendment was that the savings from regulated fees would be passed onto consumers, however studies show consumers have actually lost access to free checking and debit card rewards as a result.

The Financial CHOICE Act would also hold financial regulators accountable by requiring that financial regulations pass a cost-benefit analysis before enactment and that “major” regulations be passed by Congress instead of unilaterally by unelected bureaucrats. 

Other pro-growth and pro-consumer reforms to Dodd-Frank contained in the Financial CHOICE Act include:

  • Repealing the Volcker Rule’s restrictions on proprietary trading;
  • Replacing “Orderly Liquidation Authority” which allows the bailout of financial institutions at the expense of taxpayers;
  • Repealing the authority of the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) to designate firms as systematically important institutions (SIFIs);
  • Repeal the CFPB’s indirect auto lending guidance; and
  • Make all financial regulatory agencies subject to the REINS Act.

 

These and a number of other reforms contained in the Financial CHOICE Act will be a positive step to reining in costly regulations under Dodd-Frank and ensuring regulators are held accountable.

Overall, Chairman Hensarling’s Financial CHOICE Act will increase financial opportunities and protections for all Americans, end taxpayer funded bailouts, and encourage economic growth through competition, transparency, and innovation. 

 

Photo credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


IRS Manager Caught Playing Hooky To Attend Obama Rally

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Wednesday, July 13th, 2016, 3:32 PM PERMALINK


An IRS manager shirked her official duties to attend an Obama re-election rally in 2012, according to a statement issued Wednesday from the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. According to the statement, the IRS employee canceled a site visit and disappeared for four hours: 

OSC’s investigation confirmed allegations that the employee, while on official travel to perform site visits with her subordinates, canceled a site visit and asked a subordinate to drop her off at the location of a presidential candidate’s campaign rally.

The employee did not return to her place of duty for over four hours and did not request leave. OSC concluded that the employee attended the campaign rally and thus violated the Hatch Act’s prohibition against engaging in political activity while on duty.

Amazingly, the IRS employee gets to keep her job. As noted by Politico, OSC has announced the slap on the wrist given to the guilty IRS employee, a mere 14-day suspension:

“A supervisor at the Internal Revenue Service has received a 14-day suspension for ditching work in 2012 to attend a re-election rally for President Barack Obama. The IRS official's actions violated the Hatch Act, a federal law limiting politicking by government employees.”

The supervisor blatantly disobeyed the Hatch Act, which states that one must “not engage in political activity while on duty or in the workplace.” Not only did she defy a federal law that was meant to protect citizens from unelected bureaucrats engaging in partisan activities, but she also abused her power as a supervisor to instruct her subordinates in helping her shirk her duties.

The political engagement of an IRS manager at an Obama rally should be of no surprise. The IRS has a history of engaging in a left-partisan manner, even though it is supposed to be a politically neutral entity. During a three-year period of time that Lois Lerner was an IRS boss, only one conservative group was granted non-profit status.

Like Lerner, the IRS supervisor engaged in political activity on the taxpayers’ dime. She should be fired, not given a wrist slap. A 14 day suspension will not cure her negligence or defiance of her federal duties under the law. Breaking federal law does not result in a fourteen day suspension for most people, and the same should apply to the supervisor. 

 

Photo Credit: 
Bob Brown

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Illinois Obamacare Co-op Becomes 16th to Collapse

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Toni-Anne Barry on Wednesday, July 13th, 2016, 1:23 PM PERMALINK


Sixteen Obamacare co-ops have now failed. Illinois announced that Land of Lincoln Health, a taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op, would close its doors, leaving 49,000 without insurance. The co-op now joins a list of 15 other Obamacare co-ops that have collapsed since Obamacare has been implemented.  Failed co-ops have now cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion in funds that may never be recovered.

Co-ops were hyped as not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. They have failed to become sustainable with many collapsing amid the failure of Obamacare exchanges.

Since September, 13 Obamacare co-ops have collapsed, with only seven of the original 23 co-ops remaining.  Illinois’ Land of Lincoln co-op faced losses of $90 million last year and is suing the federal government for the deficit caused by Obamacare.  Co-ops across the country have struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges, losing millions despite receiving enormous government subsidies.

The mass failure of co-ops should not be surprising. Larger insurance companies have also struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges with many announcing they will stop providing coverage.

The web of government subsidies have also failed to provide insurances the funds they were promised. One of these programs – risk corridors -- recouped just 12.6 percent of the funds that insurers requested. The program, which was created to encourage insurers to take on higher risk individuals by transferring funds from insurers who made money to those that posted losses, was required to be budget neutral under law leaving Obamacare insurers with a significant shortfall.

Obamacare co-ops have also been plagued by inept management and unrealistic business models.

As a report by the Daily Caller’s Richard Pollock found, 17 of the 21 co-ops paid out gratuitous salaries to executives reaching as high as $587,000, which is more than four times as much as the $135,000 median health insurance executive salary. Worse still, many of these executives had little to no experience in the insurance industry and some of these excessive salaries were disguised in financial documents as “management fees.”  Last year, 21 of 23 co-ops posted losses.

Given the trend of failing Obamacare co-ops, the collapse of the Illinois co-op will not be the last.

A list of all failed co-ops and their cost to taxpayers compiled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee is found below:

CoOportunity Health - Iowa and Nebraska
Cost: $145,312,100

Louisiana Health Cooperative, Inc.
Cost:
$65,790,660

Nevada Health Cooperative
Cost: $65,925,396

Health Republic Insurance of New York
Cost: $265,133,000

Kentucky Health Care Cooperative - Kentucky and West Virginia
Cost: $146,494,772

Community Health Alliance Mutual Insurance Company - Tennessee
Cost: $73,306,700

Colorado HealthOp
Cost: $72,335,129

Health Republic Insurance of Oregon
Cost: $60,648,505

Consumers' Choice Health Insurance Company - South Carolina
Cost: $87,578,208

Arches Mutual Insurance Company – Utah
Cost: $89,650,303

Meritus Health Partners – Arizona
Cost: $93,313,233

Consumers Mutual Insurance – Michigan
Cost: $71,534,300

InHealth Mutual – Ohio
Cost: $129,225,604

HealthyCT – Connecticut
Cost: $127,980,768

Oregon Health’s CO-OP – Oregon
Cost: $56,656,900

Land of Lincoln Health – Illinois
Cost: $160,154,812

TOTAL TAXPAYER DOLLARS: $1,711,040,390

Note: This total does not include Vermont’s CO-OP, which was denied an insurance license by the state, and was dissolved before enrolling a single person.  

Photo Credit: 
Fraser Elliot

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

watchdogsc

socialism works until they run out of other people's money

El Cid

Corruption doesn't "go along with it". Socialism is corruption itself. It is a system to enrich the few and impoverish and enslave the masses. There are three kinds of socialist turd: 1) The evil, greedy, criminal who wants to grow rich stealing from the middle class. 2) The self-loathing guilty yuppie desperate to prove s/he is "virtuous", and 3) The Gimeedat Parasite who is content to be a slave provided that there is unlimited access to fast food and alcohol/drugs.

Billy G

Don't forget the corruption that inevitably goes along with it.


Senate Should Pass Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Alexander Hendrie on Wednesday, July 13th, 2016, 8:00 AM PERMALINK


Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) will this week introduce the “Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act.” America is more than $19 trillion in debt and this number shows no sign of decreasing. If a President asks Congress to raise the debt ceiling, they must also show a commitment to addressing the long term debt crisis.

This legislation forces this by requiring the administration provide Congress with detailed information on the federal debt and propose solutions to address the crisis as a condition of raising the debt limit. Similar legislation introduced by Congressman Kenny Marchant (R-Texas) passed the House last year on a bipartisan vote of 267-151. Given the support in the House, ATR urges all Senators to co-sponsor and swiftly pass this commonsense legislation.

The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act requires the Treasury Secretary to appear before Congressional Committees between 21 and 60 days before the Debt Limit will be reached to provide a detailed report outlining the nation’s financial state and to propose substantive reforms.

First, Treasury must submit a “Debt Report,” containing information on the current state of public debt, including historical levels of debt, the drivers and current composition of debt, and future debt projections.

Second, the legislation requires a “Statement of Intent,” containing short, medium, and long-term solutions the debt crisis, how increasing the debt limit will impact future spending, debt service, and the strength and stability of the U.S. dollar as the international reserve currency.

Third, the Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act requires a “Progress Report,” if the administration comes before Congress for additional debt limit increases in the future. This report must contain information on the status of all recommendations made in the original statement of intent.

The Debt Management and Fiscal Responsibility Act creates a clear, yet comprehensive framework that any administration must follow to reduce federal debt when requesting a debt limit increase. By requiring the submission of a detailed report and comprehensive plan before Congress, this legislation will ensure that increasing the debt ceiling only occurs as part of a framework to reform the nation’s finances and chart a pathway toward fiscal responsibility. ATR urges all Senators to support and co-sponsor this important legislation.

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/59937401@N07/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

Stuartpayne

I would support this, but question whether the government will follow its own laws. Where's the "teeth" to enforce this?


Committee Holds Hearing on FCC Oversight

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Daniel Savickas on Tuesday, July 12th, 2016, 4:07 PM PERMALINK


The House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology held a hearing today with all five Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners to discuss oversight of the Commission.

The hearing touched on a wide range of issues. Of those included the auction of high band spectrum, the FCC’s set top box proposal, and the sustainability of the Lifeline program.

FCC Chairman, Tom Wheeler, set the stage for the FCC’s open meeting on Thursday that will clarify the FCC’s policy and plan on high-band spectrum. This is another first of its kind auction.  Wheeler is optimistic about the proceedings.  He belives more high-band spectrum will allow the United States to lead the world in high speed, high capacity 5th Generation (5G) networks.

Vice-Chairman of the Committee, Representative Bob Latta, began by taking aim at the set top box proposal saying it is not the solution to protecting consumers. Representative Marsha Blackburn followed shortly thereafter saying the FCC has not ensured people be compensated for creating what is theirs, and the proposal threatens small businesses.

In Commissioner Ajit Pai’s testimony, he criticized the Commission’s set top box proposal further by saying it “misses the mark” and fails to protect the intellectual property of consumers and disproportionately hurts small businesses. He also said the proposal fails the most basic test of providing all consumers with the same privacy protections. He strongly recommended an approach that would lead towards an app-based system instead.

Pai continued by addressing the rampant waste, fraud, and abuse in the Lifeline program, which is meant to increase Internet access for low-income families. Pai added that the abuse is greater than he imagined, and that the program does not serve the low-income families that deserve it.

Americans for Tax Reform joined a coalition letter expressing gratitude that the Committee is looking into these important matters, and outlined concerns about the harmful effects of the FCC’s policies. The full letter can be found here.

Photo Credit: 
Greg Elin

Top Comments


ATR Supports H.R. 5499, the Agency Accountability Act (AAA)

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, July 12th, 2016, 3:01 PM PERMALINK


American for Tax Reform (ATR) President Grover Norquist today sent a letter to Congressional lawmakers urging support for Representative Gary Palmer's (R-Ala.) Agency Accountability Act (AAA), H.R. 5499.

Congress has granted agencies the authority to collect fines, fees, and other revenues outside of appropriated funds. While most of these funds are used to offset appropriations, a large portion are used by agencies to self-fund programs and operations outside of the normal appropriations process.

H.R. 5499 would correct this discrepancy by requiring that all fines, fees, penalties, and other unappropriated proceeds, be directed to the Treasury, thus making them subject to the appropriations process. Agencies would still receive the funds required to exercise their standard functions, but those funds would now be placed back under Congressional oversight.      

Below is the text of the letter, which can also be found here.

July 12, 2016

Dear Members of Congress,

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) urges your support of H.R. 5499, the Agency Accountability Act (AAA), introduced by Representative Gary Palmer (R-Ala.). Representative Palmer’s H.R. 5499 would increase transparency and oversight of the funds collected by federal agencies and in doing so would help to restore Congress’s Article I authority by subjecting such funds to the appropriations process.  

Congress has granted agencies the authority to collect fines, fees, and revenue, with a portion of those funds being used to offset appropriations. However, some of these funds do not receive Congressional oversight as to how they are spent, leaving agencies to use those funds to finance programs and functions outside of the typical appropriations process. According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in 2015 the federal government collected over $500 billion in user fees alone. 

Congress’s “power of the purse” is thus being usurped as billions in annual revenue from fines and fees levied by federal agencies escapes the appropriations process. For instance, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) receive no appropriated funds from Congress.

H.R. 5499 would work to correct such discrepancies by requiring that all fines, fees, and penalties, and other unappropriated proceeds, be directed to the Treasury, thus making them subject to the appropriations process. Agencies would still receive the funds required to exercise their standard functions, but those funds would now be placed back under Congressional oversight.      

H.R. 5499 is a positive measure to increase Congressional oversight over the actions of federal agencies, thus improving the overall transparency and accountability of the federal government.

I urge you to support and vote for H.R. 5499, the Agency Accountability Act.

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform

 

Photo credit: Zach Stern

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Postal Reform Bill Raises Concerns Ahead of Committee Markup

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Justin Sykes on Tuesday, July 12th, 2016, 12:03 PM PERMALINK


Today the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will markup the Postal Service Reform Act of 2016, proposed by Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) and the committee's Ranking Member Elijah Cummings (D-Md.).

While the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) is in dire need of reform, given that it has posted consecutive billion dollar losses annually since 2007 and is facing $125 billion in unfunded liabilities, a number of provisions in the Postal Service Reform Act (the Act) are cause for concern.

First, the Act provides for an increase in rates on certain postal products. Such a move has the effect of forcing consumers beholden to a government monopoly to cover USPS shortfalls. Second, the Act works to expand the Postal Service's role to services outside of the USPS's core mission of mail delivery. USPS should not look to expand it's mission to areas such as grocery delivery, banking, and other ill-advised schemes, but instead focus on improving the Postal Service's core mission.

Ahead of the hearing, ATR President Grover Norquist sent a letter today to Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and committee members, expressing these concerns. Text of the letter is below:   

July 12, 2016

Dear Chairman Chaffetz, Ranking Member Cummings, and Committee Members:

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), and millions of taxpayers nationwide, we write regarding the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s markup today of the Postal Service Reform Act of 2016, introduced by Chairman Jason Chaffetz and Ranking Member Elijah Cummings. 

While increasing the operational efficiency and financial stability of the United States Postal Service (USPS) is a laudable goal, a number of the reforms contained in the Postal Service Reform Act are not in line with achieving that goal. Instead, provisions within the Act providing for the increase of postal rates and an expansion beyond the core mission of mail delivery will only perpetuate many of the issues already plaguing the Postal Service. 

It is no secret the Postal Service has suffered from prolonged financial instability. Since 2007 the Postal Service has consecutively posted billions in losses and is facing $125 billion in unfunded liabilities, most of which is due in part to the decline of traditional mail. 

Although these issues are concerning, the answer should not be reforms that increase rates on some of the Postal Service’s most profitable products, essentially forcing consumers beholden to a government monopoly to cover USPS shortfalls. It is also not the answer to expand USPS services further outside of the core mission of mail delivery by creating a “Chief Innovation Officer” tasked with developing and implementing “nonpostal products and services.”

Lawmakers should instead look to make meaningful reforms that focus on improving the efficiency of the Postal Service’s core mission of mail delivery and increase operational transparency and accountability.       

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform

 

Photo credit: MoneyBlogNewz      

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Oregon Obamacare Co-op Becomes 15th to Collapse

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Natalie De Vincenzi on Monday, July 11th, 2016, 5:24 PM PERMALINK


Fifteen Obamacare co-ops have now failed. Oregon announced Friday that its second taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op would close its doors, leaving 40,000 to find new insurance. The co-op, known as “Oregon’s Health CO-OP now joins a list of 14 other Obamacare co-ops that have collapsed including Health Republic Insurance of Oregon which closed last year.  Failed co-ops have now cost taxpayers more than $1.5 billion in funds that may never be recovered.

Co-ops were created as not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. Co-ops were envisioned as innovative providers that could provide member-driven care without needing to worry about recording a profit. In practice, they have failed to become sustainable with many collapsing amid the failure of Obamacare exchanges.

Since September, 12 Obamacare co-ops have collapsed, with only 8 of the original 23 co-ops remaining.  Oregon’s Health co-op faced losses of $18.4 million last year and owed the federal government close to $1 million.  Co-op across the country have struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges, losing millions despite receiving multiple government subsidies.

The mass failure of co-ops should not be surprising. Larger insurance companies have also struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges with many announcing they will stop providing coverage.

The web of government subsidies have also failed to provide insurances the funds they were promised. One of these programs, Risk corridors recouped just 12.6 percent of the funds that insurers requested. The program, which was created to encourage insurers to take on higher risk individuals by transferring funds from insurers who made money to those that posted losses, was required to be budget neutral under law leaving Obamacare insurers with a significant shortfall.

Obamacare co-ops have also been plagued by inept management and unrealistic business models.

As a report by the Daily Caller’s Richard Pollock found, 17 of the 21 co-ops paid out gratuitous salaries to executives reaching as high as $587,000, which is more than four times as much as the $135,000 median health insurance executive salary. Worse still, many of these executives had little to no experience in the insurance industry and some of these excessive salaries were disguised in financial documents as “management fees”. Last year, 21 of 23 co-ops posted losses.

Given the trend of failing Obamacare co-ops, the collapse of Oregon’s second co-op will not be the last.

A list of all failed co-ops and their cost to taxpayers compiled by the House Energy and Commerce Committee is found below:

CoOportunity Health - Iowa and Nebraska
Cost:
$145,312,100 

Louisiana Health Cooperative, Inc.

Cost: $65,790,660 

Nevada Health Cooperative 

Cost: $65,925,396

Health Republic Insurance of New York

Cost: $265,133,000

Kentucky Health Care Cooperative - Kentucky and West Virginia

Cost: $146,494,772 

Community Health Alliance Mutual Insurance Company - Tennessee

Cost: $73,306,700

Colorado HealthOp
Cost:
$72,335,129 

Health Republic Insurance of Oregon

Cost: $60,648,505  

Consumers' Choice Health Insurance Company - South Carolina
Cost:
$87,578,208 

Arches Mutual Insurance Company – Utah

Cost: $89,650,303

Meritus Health Partners – Arizona
Cost: $
93,313,233 

Consumers Mutual Insurance – Michigan

Cost: $71,534,300 

InHealth Mutual – Ohio

Cost: $129,225,604

HealthyCT – Connecticut

Cost: $127,980,768

Oregon Health’s CO-OP – Oregon

Cost: $56,656,900


TOTAL TAXPAYER DOLLARS: $1,550,885,578

Note: This total does not include Vermont’s CO-OP, which was denied an insurance license by the state, and was dissolved before enrolling a single person.  

 

Photo Credit: 
https://www.flickr.com/photos/29487672@N07/

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments

John Pastirchak

Good point. You're referring to the marketing model of the once dominant A&P Grocery chain which ultimately failed. DC fares no better today. Obamacare is crumbling.

Mac

Their idea of running a business is to take a slight loss on everything you sell and make it up on the volume.

John Pastirchak

Is anyone surprised? Failed co-ops are like eggs on the faces of Socialists who believed they could do the impossible by sheer ideological will. True, in 2010 they had the votes. Too bad they didn't have any brains.


Rep. Gosar’s IERA Amendment Will Block Increased EPA Overreach

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Bradley Wyatt on Monday, July 11th, 2016, 3:38 PM PERMALINK


This week, the United States House of Representatives will consider H.R. 5538, the Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, introduced by Representative Ken Calvert (R-Calif.). This legislation allocates 2017 federal funding for agencies such as the Department of Interior, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Forest Services, the Indian Health Service, and other related agencies.  

Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.) has offered an Amendment (#7) to H.R. 5538 that would prohibit the use of funds to carry out the draft EPA-USGA Technical Report entitled, “Protecting Aquatic Life from Effects of Hydrologic Alteration.” Agency guidance under the report would expand the scope of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and increase federal control over waters currently under the jurisdiction of the states.

Since taking office, the Obama administration has sought to enact a number of overreaching and extraneous regulations on individuals and businesses that have cost billions of dollars. For instance, under Obama the EPA has put forth the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule, which would allow the agency to regulate private property anywhere that water can conceivably flow. It is estimated the WOTUS rule would cost American property owners and small businesses hundreds of millions annually in compliance and related costs.

Now, the EPA is again looking to expand it’s authority as part of agency guidance under the EPA-USGA Technical Report. If EPA authority were expanded pursuant to the Report, the agency could require an individual private water owner or local municipality to obtain a federal permit anytime they alter the amount of water available in rivers or other water systems.

American citizens cannot afford more economic hurdles and the commandeering of state powers over precious water supplies from an overzealous, unaccountable federal government.  States, local governments, and private water rights holders should not be subjected to such costly and burdensome federal overreach.

Americans for Tax Reform encourages all members of Congress to support Rep. Gosar’s Amendment #7 to H.R. 5538, which would prohibit funds for the EPA-USGS Technical Report, which aims to expand the scope of federal control over waters currently under the jurisdiction of states. 

 

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore

More from Americans for Tax Reform

Top Comments


Thune Encourages More Oversight of Executive Bureaucracies

Share on Facebook
Tweet this Story
Pin this Image

Posted by Daniel Savickas on Friday, July 8th, 2016, 1:50 PM PERMALINK


Senator John Thune highlighted yesterday vast leadership failures at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and shed light on how bureaucratic institutions like the FCC have hijacked the separation of powers doctrine that has guided this nation.

Thune powerfully condemned the systemic misuse of an organization that was meant, in his words, “to be places of expertise” to inform policy-making. However, the FCC has not embodied this key role for quite some time. Thune continued:

In recent years, the FCC has behaved less as an independent commission accountable to Congress, and more as a de facto arm of the executive branch, wholly subservient to the President. At the same time, the FCC has become more partisan than ever before, and an institution that has seized greater regulatory power while simultaneously shutting down bipartisan dialogue and compromise.”

In a time where the regulatory arm of the Executive Branch would make any one of our founders cringe, it is vital to sustaining our liberty that we recognize the reality of our situation as Senator Thune has done.

Thune’s words also ring true in a time where brave representatives in our legislature are trying to reclaim the promise that our founders handed down to us that our government would not have the power to act so unilaterally as to restrict our most basic freedoms.

The Separation of Powers Restoration Act (SOPRA) reels in the power that federal agencies and unelected bureaucrats have to dictate the policy that governs each American.

Introduced by Congressman John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.), as well as Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Mike Lee (R-Utah), SOPRA ends judicial deference to a 1984 court decision that requires courts to accept the executive branch’s interpretation of any law passed by Congress that may be vague in any way.

The FCC and the Obama administration have been allowed to run rampant, because of this irresponsible decision. Thune, along with these representatives are trying to solidify the truth that each branch of government is on equal footing.

Thune’s words go a long way in exposing the tacit acceptance of government overreach in this country. This precedent must not be allowed to continue.

Photo Credit: 
Gage Skidmore

Top Comments


hidden
×