Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
There go the Christmas cookies! Come on Congress...this is a ridiculous waste of tax dollars!
The National Institutes of Health is spending over $224,000 to study how to introduce healthy child menus in an effort to alter the “ordering behavior” of kids in restaurants.
A research project awarded on Nov. 26 to San Diego State University will attempt a “restaurant-based intervention,” coupled with a marketing campaign aimed at children to fight obesity.
The school has been given $224,250 for an “exploratory intervention” study that will specifically target Latino children, which the researchers say have the highest rates of obesity.
The project will first observe children’s “menu ordering and consumption behaviors” in 12 restaurants, followed by the “restaurant-based intervention.”
The intervention will create healthy child menus based on dietary guidelines. The researchers will then promote the menu through “an innovative children’s menu marketing campaign and prompting by restaurant employees.”
“The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of the intervention on sales of new healthy child menu items using restaurant sales data,” the grant said. “An exploratory aim will examine whether the addition of new healthy child menus is effective at altering ordering and consumption behaviors, assessed observationally, to decrease the calories, fat, and sugar, and increase the fruits and vegetables that children consume.”
Dr. Guadalupe X. Ayala, a professor of public health at San Diego State University, is leading the project.
Ayala has received $8.2 million from the NIH to lead various studies since 1997, including one focused on promoting healthy habits in Latino grocery stores.
According to San Diego State University, Ayala often works with grocery stores and restaurants on obesity prevention programs. She also has examined how to use family interventions in the Latino community to combat obesity, funded by the American Cancer Society.
“Dr. Ayala’s intervention studies are theory-based and culturally- and contextually-relevant,” the university said. “Most have resulted in improvements in health behaviors such as healthy eating and improvements in health status such as reductions in waist circumference.”
Her latest project, “Introducing Child Menus in Restaurants to Improve Access to Healthier Foods,” is slated to last until November 2015, and is being funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
The project’s public health relevance statement says the goal is to change what restaurants serve to kids.
“National health surveys demonstrate that obesity is the most prevalent chronic disorder among youth, with 31 [percent] of children classified as obese; rates are higher among Mexican-origin children living in the U.S.,” it said. “Nutrition research indicates that more frequent consumption of away-from-home foods is associated with higher intakes of calories, fat, and sugar.”
“This study proposes to change the restaurant food environment by modifying what is offered to children and promoting these changes through a marketing campaign and employees.”
A brief, but worthwhile article on Christianity and government.
1 - Increases spending in the short term
The deal increases spending in the next two years by $63 billion above current law. Current law allows for discretionary spending to be $967 billion in FY14 and $995 billion in FY15. This bill raises that by $45 billion in FY14 (to $1.012 trillion) and $18 billion in FY15 ($1.014 trillion).
2 - Increases deficits in the short term
While the agreement increases spending $45 billion in the first year and $18 billion in the second year, it only contains $6.5 billion worth of deficit-reducing offsets during those two years ($3.1 billion in FY14 and $3.4 billion in FY15). Because the policies on the front end are the most predictable and least likely to be overturned, these are the years that really matter. Unfortunately, only 10% of the new spending in these early years is offset in real time.
3 - The savings are severely back loaded
While the agreement purports to produce $23 billion in deficit reduction in the first ten years, it does so by relying heavily on savings in 2022 and 2023, a full 9 and 10 years into the budget window. In fact, the bill’s savings do not fully catch up with its front loaded spending increases until 2023. During this time, we will have had one, possibly two more presidents, and we will have had four different elected congresses with little-to-no ownership of this current deal. The cuts in this bill are so back loaded that a full 55 percent of the cuts ($47 billion out of $85 billion) occur in just the last two years.
4 - The back loaded savings are highly dubious
The largest single deficit reducing provision in the bill is one that is highly unreliable. The bill extends for two additional years (2022 and 2023) the mandatory sequester that is supposed to expire in 2021. This mandatory sequester consists largely of cuts to Medicare providers. Medicare provider cuts are classically hard to maintain over time. In fact every year (and again this year, on the same day the House will vote on the budget agreement) Congress votes to eliminate scheduled provider cuts as part of the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR, otherwise known as the “doc fix”).
5 - Violates the spirit and timeframe of the BCA
The Budget Control Act of 2011 was intended to offset a $2.4 trillion debt limit increase with matching spending cuts over a 10-year period, ending in 2021. However, this bill violates the BCA during the original 10-year period, and, as explained above, kicks a majority of its deficit reduction into 2022 and beyond.
6 - Full of budget gimmicks and fake savings
As has already been mentioned, the provision generating the biggest savings in the bill is highly uncertain to even happen, and isn’t even scheduled to start until 2022. The fourth biggest budget saving is $7 billion by extending the authority of Customs and Border Patrol to collect user fees for two additional years (2022 and 2023). The authority is scheduled to expire in 2021, but there is no question that authority will be extended at that time with or without this bill. This is a scoring change (simply extending the budget window), not a policy change.
7 - Full of commonsense savings that should be done as standalone bills
The bill has commonsense anti-fraud provisions (like not paying benefits to prisoners who are ineligible for benefits) that could and should be passed on their own with easy bipartisan majorities – but that should be done to reduce the deficit, not so politicians can award themselves for doing commonsense work by increasing spending elsewhere.
Heritage Action for America
We have been dubbed the microwave generation for good reason, we charge through life like we are on fire! But Yah has His own timetable and it can't be rushed. So when He puts you on hold: Watch your words. Like a small rudder on a big ship, what you say determines your direction and helps stop the wrong thoughts from infiltrating your mind.
We have been dubbed the microwave generation for good reason, we charge through life like we are on fire! But Yah has His own timetable and it can't be rushed. So when He puts you on hold: Watch your words. Like a small rudder on a big ship, what you say determines your direction and helps stop the wrong thoughts from infiltrating your mind. Mel Weldon said, "My mind is a garden, my thoughts are the seeds; my harvest will be either flowers or weeds." Ask Yah to help you control your emotions. Shaul says, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation, continuing steadfastly in prayer;” (Rom 12:12 NKJV). Complaining magnifies the problem. Prayer turns negative energy into a powerful force for good. Look for the humor in all things. Solomon said, "All the days of the afflicted are evil, But he who is of a merry heart has a continual feast." (Pr 15:15). Laughter dispels tension, lightens your burden and fills your soul with youth. Appreciate every chance to learn. The Chinese view problems as prospects; in their culture the character symbol of problems and opportunities are the same. Solomon said that the diligent make use of everything, “The lazy man does not roast what he took in hunting, But diligence is man's precious possession.” (Pr 12:27). Learn from your experience regardless of how hard it is, and remember, some of the world's greatest discoveries and breakthroughs resulted from crises. Love unconditionally. Problems are caused by people under pressure lash out. The bottom line is: we all make mistakes, and nobody is beyond redemption! Aren't you glad for that? Learn to see people through Yah eyes. "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good."(Ro 12:21). Be courteous, and maintain your dignity when you're under pressure, “Be kindly affectionate to one another with brotherly love, in honor giving preference to one another;” (Ro 12:10). Make peace your priority. Don't let your inner man be controlled by outside pressures. When you "go to war" everybody suffers, but when "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful." (Col 3:15), it restores your perspective and creates an atmosphere that's conducive to solutions. Look for a breakthrough from an unexpected source. When you "Commit your way to the LORD, Trust also in Him, And He shall bring it to pass."(Ps 37:5), don't be surprised when the people and circumstances He sends into your life aren't what you expected. He spoke to Balaam through a donkey (Nu 22:28), and He used a burning bush to get Moses' attention (Ex 3:2). Don't be in such a hurry. Ever notice that the faster you go, the more behind you get? Yeshua said, "By your patience possess your souls."(Lk 21:19). Don't be too proud to ask for help. Solomon said, "When pride comes, then comes shame; But with the humble is wisdom." (Pr 11:2). If the people you turn to aren't immediately available, be patient and don't give up. Yah designed us to work together, and somewhere up the road you will be called to help somebody by sharing what you're learning right now. "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, who comforts us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort those who are in any trouble, with the comfort with which we ourselves are comforted by God." (2Co 1:3-4). Shalom!
Pro & Con Arguments: "Should Churches (Defined as Churches, Temples, Mosques, Synagogues, etc.) Remain Tax-Exempt?"
PRO Tax Exemption for Churches
Exempting churches from taxation upholds the separation of church and state embodied by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US Supreme Court, in a majority opinion written by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "The exemption creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state, and far less than taxation of churches. It restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." 
Requiring churches to pay taxes would endanger the free expression of religion and violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By taxing churches, the government would be empowered to penalize or shut them down if they default on their payments.  The US Supreme Court confirmed this in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) when it stated: "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." 
Churches earn their tax exemption by contributing to the public good.  Churches offer numerous social services to people in need, including soup kitchens, homeless shelters, afterschool programs for poor families, assistance to victims of domestic violence, etc.  These efforts relieve government of doing work it would otherwise be obliged to undertake.
Taxing churches would place government above religion. The Biblical book of Judges says that those who rule society are appointed directly by God.  Evangelist and former USA Today columnist Don Boys, PhD, asked "will any Bible believer maintain that government is over the Church of the Living God? I thought Christ was preeminent over all." 
A tax exemption for churches is not a subsidy to religion, and is therefore constitutional. As stated by US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in his majority opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "The grant of a tax exemption is not sponsorship, since the government does not transfer part of its revenue to churches, but simply abstains from demanding that the church support the state. No one has ever suggested that tax exemption has converted libraries, art galleries, or hospitals into arms of the state or put employees 'on the public payroll.' There is no genuine nexus between tax exemption and establishment of religion." 
Poor and disadvantaged people relying on assistance from their local churches would suffer if churches were to lose their tax-exempt status. According to Vincent Becker, Monsignor of the Immaculate Conception Church in Wellsville, NY, the food and clothing programs his church offers would be threatened by a tax burden: "All of a sudden, we would be hit with something we haven't had to face in the past… We base all the things that we do on the fact that we do not have to pay taxes on the buildings."  Crucial services would either be eliminated or relegated to cash-strapped local governments if churches were to lose their tax exemptions.
US churches have been tax-exempt for over 200 years, yet there are no signs that America has become a theocracy. If the tax exemption were a serious threat to the separation of church and state, the US government would have succumbed to religious rule long ago. As the Supreme Court ruled in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970), "freedom from taxation for two centuries has not led to an established church or religion, and, on the contrary, has helped to guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief." 
Taxing churches when their members receive no monetary gain would amount to double taxation. The late Rev. Dean M. Kelley, a leading proponent of religious freedom, explained that church members are already taxed on their individual incomes, so "to tax them again for participation in voluntary organizations from which they derive no monetary gain would be 'double taxation' indeed, and would effectively serve to discourage them from devoting time, money, and energy to organizations which contribute to the up building of the fabric of democracy." 
The only constitutionally valid way of taxing churches would be to tax all nonprofits, which would place undue financial pressure on the 960,000 public charities that aid and enrich US society. If only churches were taxed, government would be treating churches differently, purely because of their religious nature.  
Small churches, already struggling to survive, would be further endangered by a new tax burden. A 2010 survey by the Hartford Institute for Religion Research found that congregations facing financial strain more than doubled to almost 20% in the past decade, with 5% of congregations unlikely to recover.  If these churches were obliged to pay taxes, their existence would be threatened and government would thus be impeding religious expression. 
The vast majority of churches refrain from political campaigning and should not be punished for the actions of the few that are political. The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) gives churches the freedom to either accept a tax benefit and refrain from political campaigning like all other nonprofit charities, or reject the exemption and speak freely about political candidates.   There are 450,000 churches in the US, yet only 500 pastors made political statements as part of Pulpit Freedom Sunday on Oct. 2, 2011.   The tax exemption should remain in place to benefit the vast majority of churches.
Withdrawing the "parsonage exemption" on ministers' housing would cost American clergy members $2.3 billion over five years,  which would be a major blow to modestly paid men and women who dedicate their lives to helping people in need. According to the National Association of Church Business Administration (NACBA), the average American pastor with a congregation of 300 people earns less than $28,000 per year. The NACBA also states that one in five pastors takes on a second job to earn extra income, and that only 5% of pastors earn more than $50,000.  As stated by D. August Boto, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention, "the housing allowance is critically important for making ends meet—it is not a luxury." 
CON Tax Exemption for Churches
Tax exemptions for churches violate the separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By providing a financial benefit to religious institutions, government is supporting religion. Associate Justice of the US Supreme court, William O. Douglas, in his dissenting opinion in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, decided May 4, 1970, stated: "If believers are entitled to public financial support, so are nonbelievers. A believer and nonbeliever under the present law are treated differently because of the articles of their faith… I conclude that this tax exemption is unconstitutional." 
A tax exemption is a privilege, not a right. Governments have traditionally granted this privilege to churches because of the positive contribution they are presumed to make to the community, but there is no such provision in the US Constitution. 
Churches receive special treatment from the IRS beyond what other nonprofits receive, and such favoritism is unconstitutional. While secular charities are compelled to report their income and financial structure to the IRS using Form 990 (Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax), churches are granted automatic exemption from federal income tax without having to file a tax return. 
A tax break for churches forces all American taxpayers to support religion, even if they oppose some or all religious doctrines. As Mark Twain argued: "no church property is taxed and so the infidel and the atheist and the man without religion are taxed to make up the deficit in the public income thus caused." 
A tax exemption is a form of subsidy, and the Constitution bars government from subsidizing religion. William H. Rehnquist, then-Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, declared on behalf of a unanimous court in Regan v. Taxation with Representation (1983): "Both tax exemptions and tax deductibility are a form of subsidy that is administered through the tax system. A tax exemption has much the same effect as a cash grant to the organization of the amount of tax it would have to pay on its income." 
The tax code makes no distinction between authentic religions and fraudulent startup "faiths," which benefit at taxpayers' expense. In spring 2010, Oklahoma awarded tax exempt status to Satanist group The Church of the IV Majesties.  In Mar. 2004, the IRS warned of an increase in schemes that "exploit legitimate laws to establish sham one-person, nonprofit religious corporations" charging $1,000 or more per person to attend "seminars."  The Church of Scientology, which TIME Magazine described in May 1991 as a "thriving cult of greed and power" and "a hugely profitable global racket,"  was granted federal income tax exemption in Oct. 1993. The New York Times reported that this "saved the church tens of millions of dollars in taxes." 
Churches serve a religious purpose that does not aid the government, so their tax exemptions are not justified. Tax exemptions to secular nonprofits like hospitals and homeless shelters are justified because such organizations do work that would otherwise fall to government. Churches, while they may undertake charitable work, exist primarily for religious worship and instruction, which the US government is constitutionally prevented from performing. 
Exempting churches from taxation costs the government billions of dollars in lost revenue, which it cannot afford, especially in tough economic times. According to former White House senior policy analyst Jeff Schweitzer, PhD, US churches own $300-$500 billion in untaxed property.  New York's nonpartisan Independent Budget Office determined in July 2011 that New York City alone loses $627 million in property tax revenue.  Lakewood Church, a "megachurch" in Houston, TX, earns $75 million in annual untaxed revenue, and the Church of Scientology's annual income exceeds $500 million.  
Despite the 1954 law banning political campaigning by tax-exempt groups, many churches are clearly political and therefore should not be receiving tax exemptions.   Every fall, the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group, organizes "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," encouraging pastors to defy IRS rules by endorsing candidates from the pulpit. More than 500 pastors participated in Oct. 2011, yet none lost their churches' exemption status.  In Oct. 2010, Minnesota pastor Brad Brandon of Berean Bible Baptist Church endorsed several Republican candidates and dared the "liberal media" to file complaints with the IRS. Brandon later announced on his radio program: "I'm going to explain to you what happened… Nothing happened." 
American taxpayers are supporting the extravagant lifestyles of wealthy pastors, whose lavish "megachurches" accumulate millions of tax-free dollars every year. US Senator Chuck Grassley, MA (R-IA) launched an investigation into these groups in Nov. 2007 after receiving complaints of church revenue being used to buy pastors private jets, Rolls Royce cars, multimillion-dollar homes, trips to Hawaii and Fiji, and in one case, a $23,000, marble-topped chest of drawers installed in the 150,000 square foot headquarters of Joyce Meyer Ministries in Fenton, Missouri. 
The tax break given to churches restricts their freedom of speech because it deters pastors from speaking out for or against political candidates.  As argued by Rev. Carl Gregg, pastor of Maryland's Broadview Church, "when Christians speak, we shouldn't have to worry about whether we are biting the hand that feeds us because we shouldn't be fed from Caesar/Uncle Sam in the first place." 
The "parsonage exemption" on ministers' homes makes already-wealthy pastors even richer at taxpayers' expense. The average annual salary for senior pastors with congregations of 2,000 or more is $147,000, with some earning up to $400,000.  In addition to the federal exemption on housing expenses enjoyed by these ministers, they often pay zero dollars in state property tax. Church leaders Creflo and Taffi Dollar of World Changers Church International had three tax-free parsonages: a million-dollar mansion in Atlanta, GA, a two-million-dollar mansion in Fayetteville, GA,  and a $2.5 million Manhattan apartment.  Kenneth and Gloria Copeland, leaders of Kenneth Copeland Ministries in Fort Worth, TX, live in a church-owned, tax-free $6.2 million lakefront parsonage. 
Official who OK'd Obama birth papers dies in crash John Bacon, USA TODAY December 12, 2013
I believe something similar happened to a man name Vince Foster if my memory serves me well!
Out of touch Boehner has declared war on Conservatives!
"It's a very, very unfortunate state of affairs."
So you decided to be a good citizen and go on HealthCare.gov to get that ObamaCare. You make upwards of $50,000 a year, which is decent but not so much that you can't get a subsidy in the age of Obama. So you figure you'll find out what your subsidy is and sign up.
But imagine your surprise when HealthCare.gov informs you that you are eligible for Medicaid! This, of course, renders you ineligible for any ObamaCare subsidy - although you're welcome to pay full price if you like. But there's another small problem. You are not eligible for Medicaid. But because HealthCare.gov thinks you are, there's no way you can get your ObamaCare subsidy unless you, er, "file an appeal" with the system.
Federal exchange sends unqualified people to Medicaid
Jayne O'Donnell, USA TODAY 3:58 p.m. EST December 9, 2013
Brokers are reporting that some of their clients are in insurance limbo as they wait for the error to be corrected by HHS or their states.
The federal health care exchange is incorrectly determining that some people are eligible for Medicaid when they clearly are not, leaving them with little chance to get the subsidized insurance they are entitled to as the Dec. 23 deadline for enrollment approaches.
State and industry officials haven't quantified the problem yet, but the National Association of State Medicaid Directors may release information next week after following up on reports from around the country, says Executive Director Matt Salo.
Here's what happens: When consumers applying for insurance put their income information into subsidy calculators on HealthCare.gov — the exchange handling insurance sales for 36 states — it tells them how much financial assistance they qualify for or that they are eligible for Medicaid. If it's the latter, consumers aren't able to obtain subsidies toward the insurance, although they could buy full-priced plans.
If the Medicaid determination is wrong, consumers should file an appeal with the federal marketplace, says Department of Health and Human Services spokeswoman Joanne Peters, but she says she does not have an estimate on how long that would take.
Brokers are reporting that some of their clients are in insurance limbo as they wait for the error to be corrected by HHS or their states so they can reapply.
Jessica Waltman, top lobbyist for the National Association of Health Underwriters, says she's heard a number of reports from around the country of people making as much as $80,000 a year being told they qualify for Medicaid on HealthCare.gov.
Saint of the Day
Catholic saints are holy people and human people who lived extraordinary lives. Each saint the Church honors responded to God's invitation to use his or her unique gifts. God calls each one of us to be a saint.
Thursday, December 12, 2013
Our Lady of Guadalupe
The feast in honor of Our Lady of Guadalupe goes back to the 16th century. Chronicles of that period tell us the story.
A poor Indian named Cuauhtlatohuac was baptized and given the name Juan Diego. He was a 57-year-old widower and lived in a small village near Mexico City. On Saturday morning, December 9, 1531, he was on his way to a nearby barrio to attend Mass in honor of Our Lady.
He was walking by a hill called Tepeyac when he heard beautiful music like the warbling of birds. A radiant cloud appeared and within it a young Native American maiden dressed like an Aztec princess. The lady spoke to him in his own language and sent him to the bishop of Mexico, a Franciscan named Juan de Zumarraga. The bishop was to build a chapel in the place where the lady appeared.
Eventually the bishop told Juan Diego to have the lady give him a sign. About this same time Juan Diego’s uncle became seriously ill. This led poor Diego to try to avoid the lady. The lady found Diego, nevertheless, assured him that his uncle would recover and provided roses for Juan to carry to the bishop in his cape or tilma.
When Juan Diego opened his tilma in the bishop’s presence, the roses fell to the ground and the bishop sank to his knees. On Juan Diego’s tilma appeared an image of Mary exactly as she had appeared at the hill of Tepeyac. It was December 12, 1531.
Mary's appearance to Juan Diego as one of his people is a powerful reminder that Mary and the God who sent her accept all peoples. In the context of the sometimes rude and cruel treatment of the Indians by the Spaniards, the apparition was a rebuke to the Spaniards and an event of vast significance for Native Americans. While a number of them had converted before this incident, they now came in droves. According to a contemporary chronicler, nine million Indians became Catholic in a very short time. In these days when we hear so much about God's preferential option for the poor, Our Lady of Guadalupe cries out to us that God's love for and identification with the poor is an age-old truth that stems from the Gospel itself.
Mary to Juan Diego: “My dearest son, I am the eternal Virgin Mary, Mother of the true God, Author of Life, Creator of all and Lord of the Heavens and of the Earth...and it is my desire that a church be built here in this place for me, where, as your most merciful Mother and that of all your people, I may show my loving clemency and the compassion that I bear to the Indians, and to those who love and seek me...” (from an ancient chronicle).
Patron Saint of:
The Great Sign
As long as we accept, with the people of Mexico, that Mary is our most merciful mother and that her Son occupies “the throne of David his father,” then our souls, like hers, will proclaim “the greatness of the Lord.” And “nothing will be impossible for God.”
Sorry Beohner, but you are wrong. 23 Billion in 10 years is absolutely DOG SHIT and you know it.
You, sir, are lying like your opponents, i'm glad you have taken thier lead by example.
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) took a hard swing Wednesday at conservative groups opposing the newly announced bipartisan budget deal.
"You mean the groups that came out and opposed it before they ever saw it?" he said in a response to a reporter's question.
Before the deal was even announced on Tuesday, Heritage Action and Americans For Prosperity stated their opposition to it. Following the announcement, Club For Growth said it would oppose the deal and include it on its congressional scorecard.
"They're using our members and they're using the American people for their own goals. This is ridiculous," Boehner said loudly. "Listen, if you're for more deficit reduction, you're for this agreement."
The deal reached by House Budget Chair Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Senate Budget Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) modestly raises spending levels from $967 billion to $1.014 trillion by 2015, counteracting approximately one-third of sequestration cuts. It also reduces the deficit by $20 to $23 billion by hiking airline fees and requiring federal workers and military personnel to kick in more for their pensions.
Boehner's tone toward the conservative groups was unusually aggressive, a further signal that he wants the deal to pass the House Republican caucus, where the groups hold sway among members.
Levi Russell, Director of Public Affairs for Americans For Prosperity, responded to Boehner's comments. "AFP stood with House Republicans earlier this spring when they passed modest spending limits set by the sequester," Russell said. "That bipartisan agreement was signed by President Obama and set spending levels at $967 billion. It’s disappointing to see leadership give up even those modest gains with nothing to show for it."
“Americans are deeply concerned about the direction of the country. Over the next few days, lawmakers will have to explain to their constituents, many of whom are our members, what they’ve achieved by increasing spending, increasing taxes and offering up another round of promises waiting to be broken. That will be a really tough sell back home," said Dan Holler, communications director for Heritage Action.
Club For Growth released a statement as well. "We stand with Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Tom Coburn, Rand Paul, members of the Republican Study Committee and every other fiscal conservative who opposes the Ryan-Murray deal,” said the group's president, Chris Chocola. “After carefully reviewing the budget deal, on which we never commented until it was complete, we determined that it would increase the size of government. We support pro-growth proposals when they are considered by Congress. In our evaluation, this isn’t one of those.”
Your support keeps freedom alive!