Topics
Cutting Through Washington’s Unnecessary, Job-Killing Red Tape
Holding Washington Accountable
Expanding NIH Research to Fight Children’s Diseases by Not Subsidizing Presidential Campaigns or Party Conventions
Cutting Through Washington’s Unnecessary, Job-Killing Red Tape
Did you know there are more than 160,000 pages of federal regulations? We all demand clean air and water, and rules are necessary—but Washington has gone overboard with too many rules that are too hard to understand, and too costly to comply with. The Obama Administration alone has added over 11,000 pages of new regulations to the Federal Register. Too often, Washington over-regulation puts small businesses at a disadvantage, leading to lower salaries, lost jobs and even shuttered doors. Let’s make sure Washington regulations pass the common-sense test by requiring new rules to pass an up-or-down vote in Congress.
YG Network Poll Data:
- By a 55% to 38% margin, to strengthen the middle class, respondents favor reducing government regulations and lowering taxes over increasing federal spending on infrastructure, green energy and early childhood education (May poll).
- Conservatives: 82%/13%
- Moderates: 48%/44%
- Liberals: 27%/67%
- By a 52% to 39% margin, respondents prefer reducing regulations to help businesses grow and increase worker take home pay over more regulations to protect consumers and the environment and to increase workplace safety (May poll).
- Conservatives: 76%/17%
- Moderates: 47%/44%
- Liberals: 29%/62%
- 64% approve of having elected lawmakers, rather than unelected bureaucrats, approve regulations with an economic impact of $100 million or more (May poll).
- Conservatives: 73%
- Moderates 60%
- Liberals: 59%
YG Network Focus Group Data:
While reducing regulations polled well, we learned from our focus groups that it is important to make a clear connection—without resorting to jargon—between regulations and their impact on jobs, wages, and consumer prices.
-
“It’s going to affect the middle class because there will be fewer jobs out there, but some regulations are essential.”
– Swing participant, Manassas -
“What are regulatory costs?”
– Tea Party participant, Manassas
YG Network Dial Tests:
Respondents support having some regulations, but they believe that having excessive regulations is harmful to the economy. Respondents support the idea of Congress having to approve regulatory rules that will have significant economic effects.
| WHAT: | WHY: |
| Regulations are burdensome | |
| “Burdensome regulations reduce salaries, reduce the numbers of employees, and shutter businesses, which means even more Americans out of work. Where is the concern for ordinary Americans? A recent study from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce details how various EPA regulations would have an impact on worker incomes equivalent to the annual loss of tens of thousands of jobs. There are so many regulations that it’s getting to the point that it’s too hard to start a small business, or for current businesses to hire new employees. If you want to start a landscaping business, all you should need is a lawnmower, not an accountant and a lawyer to help you hack through all the red tape before setting up shop.” | This is designed to focus on the ways in which burdensome regulations negatively impact workers, business owners, those who want to start their own businesses, and the economy as a whole. Respondents support having some regulations, but they believe that having excessive regulations is harmful to the economy. |
| Presidential over-reach | |
| “In his last State of the Union Address, President Obama promised that if Congress wouldn’t act on his agenda, he would do it himself, through bureaucratic rules and regulations. It is wrong for him to go around Congress and act on his own. Our Constitutional system of checks and balances is meant to ensure that the President can’t do whatever he wants.” | Respondents support our Constitutional system of checks and balances, and they do not want any one person making all of the decisions. Having that type of government would go against our democratic values. |
| The REINS Act | |
| “Under the proposed REINS Act (REINS stands for Regulations from the Executive In Need of Scrutiny), new major rules can’t take effect without approval from Congress. Major rules would be those that would have significant economic effects, or rules that would cost the economy at least $100 million a year. Congress of course is famous for its gridlock. Provisions in the REINS Act would ensure that rules would not be killed by Washington maneuvering employed in the service of special interest groups. Major rules would have a straight up or down vote within a certain time frame. The REINS Act would increase accountability. And, hopefully, it would begin to disentangle the American economy from the winding web of over-regulation.” | Respondents support the idea of Congress having to approve regulatory rules that will have significant economic effects, or rules that would cost the economy at least $100 million a year. Respondents want our elected leaders to be accountable for supporting or opposing these types of regulatory rules. |
Holding Washington Accountable
Washington should work for Americans—not work Americans over. But too often, Americans who are singled out by federal agencies like the IRS feel like they’re guilty until proven innocent. This is wrong and unfair. Let’s protect Americans who are forced to deal with the IRS or other federal agencies by requiring federal employees to inform citizens of their rights before subjecting them to an audit or similar actions. Another area where we can better hold Washington bureaucrats accountable is in how they spend our money. It’s reasonable for every federal agency to reduce the amount it spends on overhead like supplies, travel and conferences. This is especially clear after it was revealed that the IRS has spent $50 million taxpayer dollars on things like luxury hotels, sports tickets, dance classes and alcohol—often without even fully accounting for these irresponsible expenditures. Why shouldn’t federal agencies like the IRS hold themselves to the same standards they demand of everyday Americans? The fact is, they should. And when they don’t, they should be held accountable and punished—just like the rest of us.
YG Network Dial Tests:
Respondents believe that the federal government has too much power and is not held accountable for its actions. Respondents believe that government should work for us, but they do not see that happening. This erodes their trust in government.
| WHAT: | WHY: |
| Government abuse | |
| People who have been audited by the IRS often say the same thing: “It felt like I was guilty until proven innocent.” And how about those reports about Americans who have been singled out by the IRS because of their political ideology? Why does it seem like we forgo our rights as American citizens when a federal agency suspects us of something? Each year federal agencies make almost a million judgments about people’s compliance with federal regulations. All too often the agency is the accuser, the investigator, and the judge. In these adjudications Americans aren’t guaranteed the rights they would have in court. They do have the right to fight federal fines—if they don’t mind the hassle and the expense of taking the government to court. Government should work for us, not work us over. But this doesn’t seem to be the case with federal bureaucracies. | Respondents believe that the federal government has too much power and they are not held accountable for their actions. Respondents believe that government should work for us, but they do not see that happening. This erodes their trust in government. |
| Protecting citizens’ rights | |
| We need to protect Americans who are forced to deal with the IRS or other federal agencies. One proposed law would require federal employees to inform citizens of their rights before subjecting them to an audit or similar actions. They would have to let you know that you have the right to record meetings and phone conversations with federal agents and auditors. Agencies might be less likely to bully us or unfairly change the ground rules of the audit if they know every word is being recorded. Did you know you already have the right to be represented by an attorney when dealing with federal agencies? If you weren’t aware of that, perhaps it would show concern for ordinary Americans if the government informed them of these and other rights at the beginning of an audit. | Respondents strongly believe that when they are dealing with federal agencies, they want to be treated fairly, and they believe that they should be made aware of their rights before being subjected to an investigation or legal action by a federal agency. They support these proposals to make federal agencies more accountable. |
| Government overspending | |
| One challenge to our country is the huge amount of debt due to government overspending. We all have to tighten our belts. People have to do that with their families when times are tough; the government should do it as well. | Respondents are tired of our government’s overspending. They know they cannot act that way in their own lives, and they believe that the government should be more responsible with our tax dollars. This tees up the next statement well. |
| Reducing government waste | |
| A reasonable and fair proposal is that every federal agency reduce by five percent the amount of money it spends on overhead, like energy, supplies, travel, and conferences. For instance, over a three-year period the IRS spent 50 million taxpayer dollars on things like luxury hotel rooms, baseball tickets, dance classes, and alcohol. The IRS has admitted that many of these expenses were “inappropriate.” And the IRS didn’t keep full financial records of the conferences, so the costs may be even higher. Try saying that at your own tax audit. The Government Accountability Office, which is an independent agency designed to provide oversight into policy effectiveness, has identified what could be up to hundreds of billions of dollars in redundancy and duplication. That’s an easy place to begin to get our fiscal house in order. | Respondents strongly oppose government waste, and they believe that there is spending in federal agencies’ budgets that could be cut without harming the missions of those agencies. |
| Solyndra | |
| In the last few years, Washington has sent billions of dollars in subsidies to the politically connected. The Obama administration loaned more than half a billion dollars to Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, at outrageously low interest rates. Solyndra later went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers holding the bag. When Solyndra first applied for the loan, appraisers warned that it looked too risky. Obama officials fast-tracked the loan process anyway. How did Solyndra get such a great deal? It might be because one of Solyndra’s biggest investors was also a big fundraiser for Obama’s presidential campaign. Solyndra is not the only example of government investments gone wrong, unfortunately. Beacon Power Corp., EnerDel, and Abound Solar are other companies that have filed for bankruptcy after receiving substantial federal funds or loans. Deals like these are unacceptable and unfair to taxpayers. | This effectively ties together two concerns that respondents repeatedly discussed: government waste and crony capitalism. Providing background information about Solyndra makes this even more effective because not everyone is familiar with what happened to that company just by hearing about “Solyndra.” However, when background information is provided, the message really resonates with respondents. |
| Picking winners and losers | |
| It’s not fair for the government to pick winners and losers in the marketplace, especially when our nation’s leaders are picking their friends to be the winners. Government bureaucrats entrusted with public safety and money should be held to an especially high standard. | Respondents are tired of the crony capitalism that goes on in the federal government, and they want to have fairness in the marketplace. When the federal government picks winners and losers in the marketplace, that principle is violated. |
| Lois Lerner | |
| Recently Lois Lerner, who at the time was director of the tax-exempt organizations division of the IRS, revealed that her division had improperly targeted conservative and religious groups for scrutiny. When she refused to resign, she was placed on administrative leave, with full pay and benefits. That’s hardly fair. | Respondents strongly oppose the idea that Lois Lerner could act improperly in her position of power at the IRS and still receive full pay and benefits. Respondents told us that they would not be treated the same way if they were to act improperly in their positions of employment—and that’s not fair. |
| Government employees who break the rules | |
| Another proposed law would make it easier to discipline and even dismiss government employees who break rules, violate the rights of Americans, or, worst of all, endanger lives. The federal government should be allowed to place on unpaid leave employees under investigation for serious offenses. Implementing these changes would make things fairer for taxpayers. Both houses of Congress should pass them, and the President should sign them into law. | Respondents do not see any accountability in their government. They are seeing that government employees are allowed to act irresponsibly and still get paid—even for serious offenses. Respondents told us that they would lose their jobs if they were to act in this manner in their own positions of employment. Respondents value equality and fairness. When government employees are allowed to break the rules without repercussions, those principles are violated. |
Expanding NIH Research to Fight Children’s Diseases by Not Subsidizing Presidential Campaigns or Party Conventions
Every four years, the national political parties throw themselves lavish events in the form of their national conventions. But while this is well known, many Americans may not realize that tens of millions of taxpayer dollars—designated by Americans who check a voluntary presidential campaign funding box on their tax returns—help pay for these political extravaganzas. YG Network’s modest proposal: instead of using taxpayer funds to underwrite national party conventions, let’s let taxpayers check a voluntary box on their tax returns to fund pediatric research to help American families struggling with debilitating diseases like autism, Down Syndrome, and leukemia.
YG Network Dial Tests:
Respondents believe that the “Kids First Research Act” is a much better way to spend taxpayer dollars than on campaigns and conventions. When children are suffering, they want to help, and the “Kids First Research Act” provides them with a fast and easy way to do just that.
| WHAT: | WHY: |
| Publicly funding campaigns and conventions | |
| “With all the demands on our federal budget, and record levels of debt and deficit spending, I think those taxpayer dollars spent on campaigns and conventions could be better spent elsewhere.” AND “And the time is ripe to make this change. Americans are voting against public campaign funding through their tax returns. In 2010, only 7% of taxpayers checked the box on their 1040s to earmark funds for presidential campaigns. The number of box checkers has been declining steadily almost since the program began in 1976. Clearly it’s time to end the public funding of presidential campaigns. Americans don’t want to pay for it, and candidates aren’t using it. In the last campaign, neither major presidential candidate took the money.” | Respondents do not believe that we should publicly fund campaigns and conventions because it is not a good use of taxpayer dollars. They believe that parties and candidates have proven that they are able to raise the money they need privately. |
| Caring for children | |
| “While the party faithful party on, children and families across America struggle with life-limiting and debilitating diseases such as autism, Down syndrome, and leukemia. Research has vastly improved management and treatment of these and other conditions, but we can always do better, and ultimately we’d like to find cures. But that costs money. The ‘Kids First Research Act,’ which has support from both parties in Congress, would eliminate the presidential campaign funding checkbox on tax returns. In its place would be a new voluntary checkbox authorizing spending for pediatric research at the National Institutes of Health. The legislation would increase federal funding for research to identify causes of and develop treatments for diseases that affect children. Our children’s health should be a national priority.” AND “Those dollars could be better spent helping our children fight disease. These are special kids. You know some of them. Let’s do what we can to give them a more normal, more hopeful, childhood.” | Respondents believe that the “Kids First Research Act” is a much better way to spend taxpayer dollars than on campaigns and conventions. When children are suffering, they want to help, and the “Kids First Research Act” provides them with a fast and easy way to do just that. |