Priorities for the 111th Congress

When the 111th Congress convenes in January it will be an anxious time for conservatives. While pundits have said that Obama will govern from the center I have a very hard time believing that someone so far to the left could do that. I also find it hard to believe his "change" mantra considering the people he has surrounded himself with (Biden has been in the Senate for how long?), but I hope that I am wrong on both accounts.Either way, this is not going to be a Congress that is very receptive to conservative ideas. That being said, I think that it's important for those on the right to take a stand on some key issues. The following topics would be on my list of items worthy of a filibuster:

Cap and Trade: First let me define what cap and trade is for those who don't know. Here's what Wikipedia has to say: "A central authority(usually a government or international body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits) which represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed.Thus, in theory, those that can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society" While we should strive to have a cleaner environment cap and trade will present a heavy burden to those companies who produce our energy and while a lot of politicians would like to think that the companies themselves would shoulder these costs anyone with common sense would tell you that these costs will be passed on to the consumer resulting in high energy costs which will make tough economic times even tougher for working families. I find it rather ironic that Mr. Obama would want to pass legislation such as this when he's supposed to be such a champion for the working class. To be fair though, this is something that McCain also wanted to pass. Either way you look at it,cap and trade would be a bad idea for America.

Employee Free Choice Act: This is one of those pieces of legislation that sounds great when you read the name, but really stinks when you look at the details. What this "free choice act" would do is to eliminate the secret ballot in order to organize unions. Instead union organizers would have to get a certain percentage of employees to sign union commitment cards to organize the employees. With the card check organizers would be able to visit the employee at home, at work, or when they are out with friends and pressure them into signing the card to organize. This is just another ploy by union organizers who are suffering from large declines in their membership. While I have tremendous respect for union members I have great disdain for their leadership. Here's a great quote from Rep. John Kline of Minnesota, "It is beyond me how one can possibly claim that a system whereby everyone your employer, your union organizer, and your co-workers knows exactly how you vote on the issue of unionization gives an employee 'free choice.... It seems pretty clear to me that the only way to ensure that a worker is 'free to choose' is to ensure that there's a private ballot,so that no one knows how you voted. I cannot fathom how we were about to sit there today and debate a proposal to take away a worker's democratic right to vote in a secret-ballot election and call it 'Employee Free Choice."

Freedom of Choice Act: To me, this is the biggie. This is one of the bills that Obama has declared that "The first thing I'd do, as president, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing that I'd do." So, what will this bill do? The bill would abolish all restrictions and limitations on the right of women in the United States to have an abortion whether at the federal or state level. This would be a HUGE step back for all of us Pro-Lifers. I understand that overturning Roe vs. Wade may be a nearly impossible battle, but that makes it even more important that we have restrictions such as the partial birth abortion ban and the like.

Windfall Profits Tax: This is another one of those items that it is easy to convince the public that it's a good idea, but when you dig a little deeper you find out that it's an awful idea. The idea behind the windfall profits tax is to take a certain percentage (above and beyond the normal corporate income taxes) of "big oil" and redistribute it in the form of a rebate, or tax credit to tax payers making under a certain amount. Sounds great doesn't it? I always like getting checks in the mail! Problem is, this is another case where a seemingly good idea leads to another invisible tax. Who do you think is going to pay for the tax? The oil companies? Probably not. Just like any other company when their expenses rise they are going to pass those expenses right onto the consumer resulting in higher gas prices. Combine that with cap and trade and we could be looking at gas prices and $6+ a gallon. The other reason why I am strongly opposed to the windfall profits tax is because I think it is a very slippery slope. We would essentially be setting a limit to say when a company is making too much money. If we allow this to happen I can guarantee you that the government will keep moving that lower and lower. We need to stop penalizing success! I can understand if the companies were gouging their customers but oil companies have an 8% profit margin... That's not very much! I work for Verizon and our profit margin is a lot higher than that!

Fairness Doctrine: This is one of those issues that is nothing more than the lefts attempt at silencing their critics. For those who are unfamiliar with it the fairness doctrine would require broadcasters to give equal time to opposing viewpoints. For example, if a radio station wanted to broadcast "The Glenn Beck Program" for three hours they would be required to broadcast a talk show from a liberal viewpoint for three hours. The big problem is, as we've learned from Air America, liberal talk shows have a very small audience and so it wouldn't be in the station manager's best interest to have an liberal talk show on their airwaves. There would be a lot of station owners out there who would scrap the talk radio format all together because they would not want the legal trouble. Other than the obvious, me being a conservative and thinking that talk radio is a good thing, there are many problems with this. First, I think that it is an obvious violation of the first amendment. If we decide that it's a good idea to restrict what is on our airwaves then we are no better than those in Communist China.Second, being a conservative I believe that the free market should dictate what programs make it to the airwaves and not the government.While I don't think that the fairness doctrine has any chance at passing, I do think that it's an issue that we need to keep an eye on though it would almost be worth seeing it pass to see what MSNBC would have to do!

If you agree with me on these topics I urge you to take action and contact your Congressional representatives. Remember, they work for YOU!