Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870
Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 222 - The Real Cost of the Kyoto Protocol

Estimating the cost of the Kyoto Protocol, the international global warming treaty, has produced disagreement among the government’s energy analysts. President Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) put the cost of the treaty at $12 billion annually.1 Energy experts at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) put the yearly impact as high as $397 billion.2 Who’s right? Judging by the continued failure of international negotiators to create alleged cost-saving implementation measures, such as global emissions trading, the dire projections by EIA may be all too real.

02/10/1999
Group Questions Insurance Price Controls, Calls for Public Hearing
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

Group Questions Insurance Price Controls, Calls for Public Hearing

Following is the text of a letter sent today to George M. Reider, Jr., President of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, from James C. Miller III, Counselor to Citizens for a Sound Economy:

02/07/1999
Issue Analysis 84 - Clinton’s FY 2000 Budget: Washington Keeps $22 Trillion, Taxpayers Get $0
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

Issue Analysis 84 - Clinton’s FY 2000 Budget: Washington Keeps $22 Trillion, Taxpayers Get $0

One year ago, Bill Clinton promised to "save every penny" of the budget surplus for Social Security. Today, with budget surpluses projected well into the next century, Clinton’s FY 2000 budget proposes to grab nearly half of any future surpluses for new spending. Just as remarkable, Clinton calls for a net tax increase, not a tax cut, even though his budget assumes that Americans will pay war-era levels of tax revenues for at least the next decade. If enacted, the president’s FY 2000 budget plan would mean:

02/05/1999
Attempt to Undercut Peer-Review of the Everglades Re-Study Rejects Sound Science: Taxpayer Group Slams Babbitt's Whitewash
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

Attempt to Undercut Peer-Review of the Everglades Re-Study Rejects Sound Science: Taxpayer Group Slams Babbitt's Whitewash

Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) Foundation today criticized Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt's attempt to circumvent full-fledged peer review of the Florida Re-Study. The Re-Study project involves scrapping South Florida's current water-delivery system in order to redirect water into the Everglades. Project sponsors, in particular the Army Corps of Engineers, claim the plan is necessary to restore the Everglades ecosystem and to ensure a plentiful, clean water supply for South Florida's residents into the next century.

02/04/1999
No Consensus View on Climate Change Science: AGU Statement on Global Warming Disputed
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

No Consensus View on Climate Change Science: AGU Statement on Global Warming Disputed

The American Geophysical Union (AGU) recently announced that its membership supports government action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, despite acknowledging that uncertainties in the science of global warming still exist. That announcement earned sharp criticism today from Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), a free-market consumer advocacy organization.

02/01/1999
Issue Analysis 82 - Clinton's Social Security Fix: Right Rhetoric, Wrong Solution
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

Issue Analysis 82 - Clinton's Social Security Fix: Right Rhetoric, Wrong Solution

Bill Clinton’s January 19th State of the Union Address did much to make Americans more comfortable with the notion that Social Security’s future is dependent upon investing some portion of it in real assets, not paper IOUs, and that workers must be given a choice in how their retirement dollars are to be invested. While these are two sound ideas, he unfortunately came short of fully embracing them. Perhaps out of political necessity, Clinton bowed to his political left by splitting private investment and personal savings accounts apart, opting for a big-government approach to both of these concepts.

01/29/1999
CSE Foundation Finds that American Consumers Question the Government's Case Against Microsoft
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

CSE Foundation Finds that American Consumers Question the Government's Case Against Microsoft

At a press conference on the steps of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) Chairman and former Bush White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray and CSE Foundation's Executive Vice President Matt Kibbe released the results of a Wirthlin Worldwide poll that indicates American consumers are skeptical of the government's case against Microsoft.

01/07/1999
Should Government Help the Tortoise Beat the Hare?
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Press Release

Should Government Help the Tortoise Beat the Hare?

The past year has seen Microsoft make headlines across the country, and not just for its new and innovative products. The software giant has found itself the target of an antitrust case by the Department of Justice in conjunction with a number of state attorneys general. The government claims that Microsoft is acting anti-competitively by using its operating system, Windows, as leverage to dominate the market for Internet browsers. However, the government case ignores the fact that computer prices are plummeting and innovation is booming. Consumers can now educate themselves, shop, and even plan their next vacation through their computers. In a situation where prices are falling and consumer benefits are increasing, what is Microsoft's crime? After assessing the dynamics of the marketplace, South Carolina's attorney general, Charlie Condon, dropped out of the case against Microsoft stating, "Innovation should be left to entrepreneurs, not to government bureaucrats or to the courts." Indeed, it is hard to find the benefit to consumers of giving the people who brought us snail mail responsibility over the information superhighway.

12/21/1998
Capitol Comment 219 - Governors and State Legislators are Shooting Consumers in the Foot With Health Insurance Regulations
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 219 - Governors and State Legislators are Shooting Consumers in the Foot With Health Insurance Regulations

As states look for ways to improve health care quality and affordability, many are turning to increased regulation — which does the opposite. Whether intended to expand access to particular types of coverage (health benefit mandates), require health insurers to take all comers (guaranteed issue), or make coverage affordable through price controls (community rating), health insurance regulations actually increase costs and restrict access to coverage. Health insurance regulation is growing at an explosive rate.

12/17/1998
Capitol Comment 217 - Microsoft and Monopoly
null
http://d7.freedomworks.org.s3.amazonaws.com/styles/thumbnail/s3/te_social_media_share/fw_default_0.jpg?itok=mX_C44GW
Capitol Comment

Capitol Comment 217 - Microsoft and Monopoly

Over the past year, Microsoft has made headlines across the country, and not just for its new and innovative products. The software giant has been the target of an antitrust case by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The government claims that Microsoft is acting anti-competitively by using its operating system, Windows, as leverage to dominate the market for Internet browsers. Before intervening in one of the most dynamic sectors of the economy, the DOJ must demonstrate that Microsoft is a monopolist rather than a successful company in a fiercely competitive market.

12/14/1998

Pages