blog

A Special Message From Governor Norm Bangerter & Representative Jim Hansen

Sat, 28 Jan 2012 18:16:00 GMT

Last election, we supported Mike Lee for United States Senate because we thought it was time for Utah to make a change in Washington. Next election, we support Orrin Hatch because it's time for Utah to lead the change in Washington.

When Republicans win control of the Senate in 2012, Senator Hatch will become Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the most important committee in Congress. Over 50 percent of the national budget—and every federal tax increase—must pass through the Finance Committee.

Re-electing Orrin Hatch is Utah's chance to lead the nation. It's our chance to show liberals that living within your means is as good of a principle for governing a nation as it is for governing a household. It's our chance to restore America as a land of promise and economic opportunity for our children and grandchildren.

Re-electing Orrin Hatch does matter. It matters to Utah. It matters to the nation. It matters to future generations. As Chairman, Orrin Hatch can stop federal tax hikes. He can cut spending. He can balance the budget. He can repeal ObamaCare.

This is Utah's time to lead. This is Utah's chance to change Washington. We hope you'll join us in re- electing Orrin Hatch.

New Defense Cuts Highlight The Need For Hatch's Experience

Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:24:00 GMT

Statement from Hatch Election Committee Chairman Dave Hansen Regarding Today's Defense Reduction Announcement Including a Proposed BRAC

Salt Lake City, UT – Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced today that as part of his strategy for defense department reductions, he will be asking Congress for approval for a new BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure ) process putting Hill Air Force Base once again in an uncertain position.

"Secretary Panetta's announcement today underscores the need to keep Senator Hatch in office working for our state and using the clout and positions he has attained in Congress for Utah," stated Dave Hansen, campaign chairman for the Hatch Election Committee. "We have been down this road before and Senator Hatch worked tirelessly, against huge odds, to keep Hill Air Force open and operating as one of the most efficient and productive military installations in our arsenal.

"His work on Hill and Utah's other military bases has been recognized from the Generals he regularly meets with, to the employees who work every day in Utah's defense industry. With the future of so many jobs and a premier air force base uncertain—it would be foolish to lose one of Utah's greatest defense champions.

"Utah will need the seniority and influence of Senator Hatch to protect the tens of thousands of Air Force jobs that are vital to Utah's economy. Unfortunately, Democrats will play politics with the base closure decisions and will favor the bases in the larger, blue states which bring them votes. Senator Hatch is uniquely positioned to fight off the liberal establishment and keep the Air Force Base in Utah where it belongs.

"BRAC rounds are comprised of the highest political stakes. It would be tragic to go through another BRAC round without the hard work, tenacity, and unwavering advocacy and influence of Senator Hatch in Congress to ensure Utah's interests are represented at the highest levels."

###

Roe V. Wade: A Constitutional And Moral Tragedy

Sat, 21 Jan 2012 01:16:00 GMT

Some anniversaries should not have to be celebrated because the events they mark should not have occurred. January 22, 2012, the 39th anniversary of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, is one of them. That decision is one of the greatest moral and legal tragedies in American history.

It is a moral tragedy in multiple ways, and they all stem from one inescapable fact. Every abortion kills a living human being. No word game, subject change, or political spin can change that fact. There have been nearly 50 million abortions since 1973 and, according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, the "decline in abortion incidence has stalled." More babies in America lose their lives to abortion every two days than American service members have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003.

As President Ronald Reagan wrote on Roe's 10th anniversary, the question is not when human life begins, but what is the value of human life? That remains the question today. Our Declaration of Independence says that every individual is created and given rights by God. The federal government spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year on programs to help the poor, elderly, sick, or disabled. Why? It is nothing less than moral schizophrenia to say that the very same people who should be helped today could have been killed before they were born.

There is a glimmer of light peeking through this otherwise dark cloud. After nearly four decades of pro-abortion propaganda and the drumbeat that abortion is a constitutional right, most Americans still oppose most abortions and a majority says that they are pro-life and that abortion is morally wrong.

Roe v. Wade is also a legal tragedy in the way it reached these morally tragic results. Make no mistake, there is no right to abortion in the Constitution; the Supreme Court simply made it up. Take a step back from the subject of abortion for a minute and think about what this means. The Constitution is supposed to be the primary way that the people impose limits and rules on government. The Constitution is written down so everyone will know what those limits and rules are. George Washington said that the people's control over the Constitution is literally the heart of our system of government. Our freedom depends on it. But when the Supreme Court changes the Constitution, as it did in Roe, it takes control of the Constitution away from the people, and their freedom along with it.

The phrase "judicial activism" gets tossed around a lot these days, as if it is nothing more than a label for any decision you do not like. Judicial activism really means judges taking control of the law in order to produce certain results. Claiming that there is a right to abortion in a Constitution that says no such thing, and using this made-up right to strike down state and federal laws, is as activist as it gets.

President Reagan wrote in his essay: "We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life—the unborn—without diminishing the value of all human life." Make no mistake about it; the end result of an activist judiciary that rejected our most cherished constitutional principles is the loss of 50 million innocent lives. In Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court used judicially tragic means to achieve a morally tragic end. By highjacking the Constitution and creating this so-called right to abortion, the Supreme Court attacked not only the value of human life itself, but also the liberty of all Americans. I hope that this decision has few anniversaries left.

This originally appeared on the Family Research Council's blog. -Team Hatch

NRA Sets The Record Straight On Senator Orrin Hatch's Support Of Our 2nd Amendment Rights

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:29:00 GMT

The Executive Director of the NRA's Institute For Legislative Action writes Senator Hatch:

Dear Senator Hatch:

Recently, your Second Amendment record has been subject to outrageous and false attacks. I would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight. Certain groups are not only unjustly blaming you for the passage of anti-gun legislation; they're also attacking you for your role in defending gun owners' rights during most of the critical legislative debates on this issue over the past 25 years.

Perhaps the most outrageous claims are that in the negotiations on the Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (also known as "FOPA," or as "McClure-Volkmer," after its Senate and House sponsors), you argued in favor of ATF's positions and against those of the late, great progun leader, Sen. Jim McClure of Idaho. According to the leaders of the NRA's lobbying team at the time, this is patently false.

One of those leaders is current NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, who puts it plainly: "Without Senator Hatch, we would not have had McClure-Volkmer." Another is the NRA's current Director of Federal Affairs, James J. Baker, who also unequivocally states: "I sat through all the negotiations with Senator Jim McClure, Congressman Harold Volkmer, Senator Orrin Hatch, and the U.S. Treasury Department, and never once did I see a representative of any other 'gun groups.'"

hi truth, your leadership was critical to the passage of FOP A. And FOP A was critical to the fate of gun ownership in America, because among its most important reforms were those that protected firearms dealers from abusive enforcement tactics of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.

Your record has been questioned on a host of specific issues. On one of these—the Coburn amendment to repeal the ban on carrying firearms in national parks and wildlife refuges—statements attributed to you are simply false, as a review of the C-SPAN video makes clear. Not only did you vote "yes" on repealing the ban, but your position was consistent, since you had earlier joined a majority of your colleagues in signing a letter to then-Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthome supporting a repeal.

On the other issues, you are being blamed for a difference of philosophy about legislative tactics. Like the NRA, you work to make a difference, not just make a statement.

Finally, your critics fail to give you due credit for other major actions you've taken to defend the Second Amendment. Most notably, under your leadership, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution produced its 1982 report, "The Right to Keep and Bear Arms." That report was a milestone in the movement to recognize the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right—a movement that culminated in the Supreme Court's landmark 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. You expressed your strong support for our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms by signing the historic congressional briefs before the court in both Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago. Further you also backed up that belief by voting against the confirmation of two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court nominees: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

In short, without your legislative leadership, Americans would long ago have faced real obstacles to the exercise of their Second Amendment rights. And without your intellectual leadership, the Second Amendment itself might be a dead letter, neglected or rejected by the courts, histead, thanks to your strong and savvy support for the Second Amendment, gun owners today can celebrate a decade of federal victories, and look forward to further advances in the years to come.

I look forward to our continued work on behalf of the Second Amendment and thank you for your past efforts in support.

Sincerely,

Chris W. Cox
Executive Director, NRA-ILA

Download The Letter

Grassroots, Economic Conservative Leaders Outline Importance Of Hatch Senate Finance Committee Chairmanship

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:52:00 GMT

In letter to Utah Senator, group writes, "Your understanding of the need for fundamental tax reform, the repeal of ObamaCare and reforms of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, make us confident that with you at the helm of the Finance Committee our future will be one of freedom, economic growth and a restoration of limited government."

Salt Lake City, UT – In a letter to Utah Senator Orrin Hatch, a group of limited-government, economic and grassroots conservative leaders outlined the importance of Hatch taking over as the next Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee in 2013, writing that with Hatch "...at the helm of the Finance Committee our future will be one of freedom, economic growth and a restoration of limited government."

Those signing the letter include the Presidents of National Tax Limitation Committee, National Taxpayers Union, Let Freedom Ring, 60 Plus Association, American Family Institution, past President of the NRA and ACU, David Keene and former governor of Virginia, Jim Gilmore.

The letter said, "Should Republicans win back the Senate in 2012, and you become Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, we are confident that you will use that committee to secure the most conservative reforms of the Nation's tax and spending policies in a generation. Your understanding of the need for fundamental tax reform, the repeal of ObamaCare and reforms of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, make us confident that with you at the helm of the Finance Committee our future will be one of freedom, economic growth and a restoration of limited government."

Senator Hatch expressed his gratitude for their support. "I couldn't be more honored by the confidence that these fine conservatives have placed in me. The Chairmanship of the Finance Committee provides Utah and the conservative principles our fine state was founded on, the opportunity to bring real, lasting reforms to force our government to live within its means. It's time to return our Republic to the principles of limited government that our Founding Fathers fought for—and we can help accomplish that goal through the Finance Committee."

To see the full text of the letter, click here.

###

Senator Hatch Opposes PIPA

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 21:21:00 GMT

The Hill reports on Senator Hatch's opposition to the Protect IP Act (PIPA):

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) joined Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) and Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) in dropping his support for the Protect IP Act amid a massive Web protest of the bill.

"After listening to the concerns on both sides of the debate over the PROTECT IP Act, it is simply not ready for prime time and both sides must continue working together to find a better path forward," Hatch said.

"Rushing something with such potential for far-reaching consequences is something I cannot support and that’s why I will not only vote against moving the bill forward next week but also remove my cosponsorship of the bill. Given the legitimate vocal concerns, it is imperative that we take a step back to allow everyone to come together and find a reasonable solution."

Hatch was one of six GOP senators to write to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) last week, urging him to delay the vote on the bill.

Hatch Receives Perfect Score From Nation's Top Grassroots Organization Committed To Smaller Government And Free Enterprise

Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:53:00 GMT

Scorecard Based On Important Economic Votes For The First Session Of The 112th Congress

Washington, D.C. – Sen. Orrin Hatch was recognized today by Americans for Prosperity (AFP) a renowned national grassroots organization committed to smaller government and free enterprise, as one of only five United States Senators to receive a perfect 100-percent score on key economic votes cast during the first session of the 112th Congress. He joined Senators Marco Rubio (R-Florida), Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and Ron Johnson (R-Wisconsin) in receiving this prestigious A+ rating.

Some of the noted votes dealt with such issues as the 2012 appropriations bills, the budget, the repeal of ObamaCare, and ending ethanol subsidies.

"The 112th Congress is dealing with some of the most critical economic issues of many generations," stated Hatch. "We must set our country on a better course of fiscal responsibility, less government, and above all else stop the insatiable spending that has defined Washington for far too long. I am working diligently to address these issues so that free enterprise can flourish and government will not be the answer to every challenge we face."

To read more in-depth about this scorecard and how Members voted you can access it at http://www.americansforprosperity.org/scorecard.

###

Sen. Orrin Hatch Focuses On Three Priorities In The New Year

Tue, 10 Jan 2012 00:56:00 GMT

Our nation is at a fork in the road.

On the left is the status quo of the past three years that brought us record high debt and deficits, the highest unemployment in decades and government intrusion into the lives of Americans like we've never seen before.

On the right, we have a path that restores America's prosperity, strengthens our economy to ensure good paying jobs for current and future generations of Utahns and guarantees our country will remain the leader of the free world.

I've always chosen the path to the right, and as Congress comes back into session in the coming weeks, I wanted to share with you my priorities for the new year.

First and foremost is reining in runaway government spending. Our national debt is more than $15 trillion, up 42 percent from three years ago. The spending under this White House, including its ineffective trillion dollar stimulus, have only done one thing—added to our nation's unsustainable debt.

That's why I've long championed a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution, which would put meaningful constitutional restraints on the power of Washington to spend beyond its means. Only by addressing the real causes of our budget crisis can we restore some fiscal sanity to Washington. In 2012, I'm going to continue to push for a balanced budget amendment as I have every year in the Senate. I'll also keep fighting against those in Washington who continue to push the failed borrow-and-spend economic policies.

As the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, trade and tax policy, I will be pursuing comprehensive reforms to restore our nation's fiscal integrity and promote economic growth.

Using President Reagan's criteria of fairness, growth and simplicity, tax reform that lowers rates is absolutely necessary to move America forward and is a critical priority of mine. Utah families should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money, and small businesses should be able to invest more in themselves and create jobs.

Fully repealing the unconstitutional, $2.6 trillion partisan health law is not only critical to job creation and economic growth, but is also step one to achieving real, lasting entitlement reform. And unless we act decisively to fix these massive government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, we will guarantee that our children and grandchildren's future is less bright than our own.

Finally, I'm going to continue to push for a long-term energy strategy that Utahns and this country need. This administration is the most anti-American-energy administration in recent memory, leading to higher energy costs for Utahns and job losses across the country.

Utah is home to some of the most energy-rich land, yet bureaucrats in Washington continue to cave to political pressures and barricade the land. For instance, the Bureau of Land Management is withholding more than $100 million worth of leases in Utah and Wyoming that it had already auctioned off. This is economic investment and job creation efforts that are stalled.

I'm working on ways to push this administration to cede ownership and control of the lands within Utah's borders back to the state, allowing us to develop a long-term energy strategy that works for Utahns, both in more jobs and lower energy costs.

It's a challenging time for our country, but I'm determined make our nation stronger as a result. It will require some tough choices and some bold leadership, but the time is now.

This originally appeared as an op-ed in the Deseret News. -Team Hatch

America's Broken Tax System Needs An Overhaul In 2012

Fri, 06 Jan 2012 21:06:00 GMT

Parades, parties and other festivities ushered in the arrival of 2012 in Utah and across the nation. Unfortunately, the New Year will be no cause for celebration unless we address the old problems left over from 2011 -- our $15 trillion-plus national debt and runaway government spending.

During the past year, three things have become increasingly clear to me and other fiscal conservatives. First, the deficits being run up by this Administration and its spendthrift congressional allies are unsustainable; second, spending is at a historically high level and is stoking these deficits; and third, the tax hikes this President would like to impose would put tax revenues at near-historic peaks.

That is why during this year, as the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, I will continue to lead in the battle to balance the federal budget. Hardworking Utah families must live within their means, and they expect their government to do the same.

To achieve this, we must reduce deficits and debt through spending cuts. We also must act separately to promote tax reform. If we mix the two efforts, we run the risk of paving the way for a back-door tax hike, much as our President has tried to do. He would rather raise taxes and keep on spending, unfettered by any fiscal restraints. That is akin to tossing an anchor to someone who is drowning.

Indeed, a consensus has emerged that tax reform, done properly, is imperative if we are to get America's fiscal house in order. That is why I will continue the fight this year to reform our nation's broken tax system. In doing so, I will use the same three criteria former President Ronald Reagan laid out when he put tax reform on the table in 1984: fairness, growth and simplicity.

"Fair" is not an adjective that anyone could truthfully use to describe our current tax system, not when 51 percent of American households pay no federal income tax. As it now stands, our system encourages too many Americans to push for more government spending without any concomitant obligation to pay for that spending through income taxes. When fewer and fewer people are responsible for paying for more government, where will be the interest in reducing the size of government? Everyone should have some skin in the game, even if it is only a few dollars.

We must also reform the system so that it promotes economic efficiency and growth. Economic growth will be the key criterion for our nation's future prosperity and fiscal health. And tax signals are powerful factors for determining where taxpayers are likely to engage or disengage their labor and capital. Clearly, these tax signals -- marginal tax hikes, for example -- interfere with market forces by redirecting economic activity from where it would otherwise go. A more efficient tax system will promote more economic growth.

Finally, we must simplify our tax system. When Winston Churchill characterized Russia as "a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside and enigma," he could just as well have been describing our overly-complex tax system. Former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman William Archer compared it to a weed. I prefer to think of it as a garden choked with weeds. If we don't cut them back, these weeds will eventually take over and become more burdensome than ever on every American. That must not be allowed to happen.

As we move forward to address this and other challenges in 2012, let me assure you that I will continue to fight as hard as I can for you and our great state and nation. Working together, I am optimistic we can ring in 2013 a year from now free of the attendant hangover brought on by unresolved problems and unmet challenges.

Thank you for the opportunity to serve as your United States senator.

Time To Pass A Balanced Budget Amendment

Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:27:00 GMT

Our nation is now over $15 trillion in debt. This is forcing a historic debate about the proper size and scope of our government. This debate is an enduring one in our great Republic. The people of Utah and people across the country are demanding dramatic action.

There is only one answer to our spending-fueled debt crisis and that is a constitutional balanced budget amendment that would put a straightjacket on our nation's addiction to spending money we simply do not have.

In 1997, a balanced budget amendment I put forward came one vote short of the necessary two-thirds votes to pass the Senate. Think where we'd be if we'd succeeded and sent this constitutional amendment to the people for ratification.

This week, the Senate will once again consider a balanced budget amendment I authored to make sure we never face this level of debt again. It will be a divisive debate, because those who stand against this constitutional amendment want to grow government, encroach on liberty, and expand our debt to levels we simply cannot sustain.

Backed by 47 United States Senators, this constitutional amendment makes sense. It requires Washington to balance its budget every year like Utah families do, ensures that any tax increase only occurs with supermajority approval in Congress, limits Congress' ability to raise the debt ceiling, and caps spending at 18 percent of our nation's economy.

Opponents say a balanced budget amendment is unnecessary and that Congress should make the tough fiscal decisions to reduce deficits and rein in our debt.

But history is a stark reminder that without a constitutional amendment that simply will not happen. Congress simply lacks the political will to make the tough decisions necessary to get our fiscal house in order. In fact, every grand compromise over the past three decades to tackle our debt has been undone almost immediately after being enacted by Congress, with massive spending increases being forced onto taxpayers almost as soon as the ink dried.

The real truth is that opponents don't want to let the American people decide how they want their government to function. The American people want a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, but Congress continues to deny them the opportunity to debate and ratify such an amendment. I suspect this is because they don't want to adhere to the fiscal discipline they know the American people want.

We are at a true crossroads as a nation—the fiscal path we take today will define the future we leave for our children and grandchildren. It is time we pass a balanced budget amendment so that the American people can decide whether to impose fiscal restraint on Congress, and help define the economic reality we want to face as a nation. Utahns deserve an opportunity to vote on the amendment, and I'm going to continue to do everything I can to make sure Congress gives them one.

This originally appeared as an op-ed in the Provo Daily Herald. -Team Hatch

Time For Accountability At The CFPB

Thu, 08 Dec 2011 18:30:00 GMT

The president stepped off his tour bus in Kansas this week and said that, "We shouldn't be weakening oversight and accountability. We should be strengthening oversight and accountability." Which is why I'm mystified that the president refuses to bring much-needed oversight and accountability to the massive new bureaucracy created under the onerous Dodd-Frank law that established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).

Today the Senate will consider a nominee to head this agency. While I have no problem with the nominee, I do have problems with the structure of this new bureaucracy, which lacks critical transparency and which, with only minor bipartisan effort, can easily be reformed. Regrettably, the president has chosen to play politics rather than so much as placing a telephone call to Congress.

This new bureaucracy possesses massive and wide-ranging powers to regulate any person or business offering or selling a "financial product or service" used by Americans without adequate checks, balances, oversight, or accountability.

The CFPB has been given unprecedented authority over financial institutions and Main Street businesses offering financial services. Once confirmed, whoever becomes the CFPB director essentially answers to no one and cannot be removed even for poor performance, including unbalanced regulations.

It also has been given significant power to regulate, but there's no check and balance if those regulations go too far.

Furthermore, the CFPB is funded directly by the Federal Reserve -- not through the standard congressionally approved spending process. That means little to no oversight of this new bureaucracy.

In an attempt to force the administration to make some key changes, I joined 43 of my Senate colleagues in trying to change the CFPB into something better equipped to provide consumer protection while, at the same time, being accountable to Congress and taxpayers about new regulations and the use of taxpayer resources.

Led by the Senate Banking Committee's Ranking Member, Senator Shelby, we tried to bring commonsense reforms of the structure of the CFPB before anyone takes the helm. What we were asking for just makes sense.

First, we were trying to establish a board of directors to oversee and limit the unbridled power of the CFPB.

Second, we were working to establish a safety-and-soundness check on CFPB's rules and regulations in order to ensure the very financial health of these institutions is adequately considered. This new bureaucracy shouldn't cause businesses to fail, but that's a real potential threat given how it's currently structured.

And lastly, we wanted to subject the CFPB to the ordinary congressional appropriations process to ensure proper oversight and accountability.

Our concerns are real and aren't just political obstruction. For example, even senior officials at the Fed are worried about the unprecedented way of financing an independent regulatory bureau.

As the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis put it: "I am concerned about this method of funding the Bureau. The amount of money allocated in the law is not based on any careful assessment of what the needs of the Bureau will be as it attempts to fulfill the mandate of the Congress with regard to consumer protection. Nor is there any mechanism for changing these amounts going forward, should market conditions change, or if the needs of the Bureau change."

At a time when we should be encouraging oversight and accountability, as the president argues, this new government bureaucracy is structured with virtually none of those attributes. The new consumer protection bureaucracy has almost free rein to impose whatever costly regulations it desires, without attention even to whether financial service providers would be driven to failure as a result. The only thing that could stop a bad regulation from flowing out of the CFPB is, according to the Dodd-Frank Act, if it "would put the safety and soundness of the United States banking system or the stability of the financial system of the United States at risk." That is an incredible and unparalleled high bar, allowing a check on a bad regulation if, and only if, it threatens the entire stability of our nation's financial system.

The president had the opportunity to address these concerns and work in a bipartisan way to help us change the agency into something that could potentially be accountable to the American taxpayer. And, these are easy fixes. Unfortunately, the Obama administration once again made a political decision, took a left turn, and it is the American public, small businesses, and consumers of financial services who will stand to suffer.

This originally appeared as an op-ed in the National Review. -Team Hatch

Putting Workers Over Union Bosses

Fri, 02 Dec 2011 15:10:00 GMT

Employee Rights Act would preserve choices of rank and file

Over the years, the debate over workers' rights has mostly been about what political party or interest groups are more focused on strengthening these rights. Unfortunately, during this debate, one group of individuals has been forgotten: the workers themselves. After yesterday's decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to move forward with its proposal to allow for "quickie" or "ambush" elections, it's clear that it is not the NLRB that is most interested in protecting workers.

For too long, too many workers have been at the mercy of the whims of their bosses—but not the bosses who run the facilities where they work hard every day to earn a living. Rather, they've been at the mercy of their powerful union leaders, who are getting paid six-figure salaries to promote class warfare.

For decades, union bosses have held hostage such basic workers' rights as a guaranteed secret ballot before a union could become the exclusive representative to negotiate issues such as salary, promotions or work schedules, or an employee's right to control which political causes and politicians (if any) are supported with his money. Now that the NLRB finally is poised to give unions the quickie elections they've been pushing for, the right of workers to be fully informed before voting on unionization also will be held captive.

Make no mistake: Big Labor is not simply fighting for the desires of union workers. According to recent Opinion Research Corp. polling, 78 percent of union households think votes on union representation should be conducted by secret-ballot elections. A larger majority, 83 percent, think there should be a revote every three years. Seventy-nine percent think the union should get approval before spending an employee's dues on political campaigns. And, despite claims of the former union lawyers at the NLRB who made Wednesday's decision, 87 percent of union households support a proposal to require the board to wait at least 40 days after a union petition is filed before holding an election.

When you realize that less than 10 percent of current union members voted to install the union collecting their monthly dues, support for giving union members a voice and a ballot is hardly a surprise.

Of course, these ideas disrupt the left's popular narrative. Unions and their Democratic allies in Congress want workers to believe they are being exploited by some faceless corporate overlord. But the facts tell a different story. It's not the companies signing paychecks that are doing the exploiting but the unions that falsely claim their interests and those of individual workers are one and the same.

Unions are paying a lot of money to keep this false narrative afloat.

Private-sector unions spent$171 million to influence the 2010 elections; 93 percent of their political contributions went to support Democratic candidates. Yet 40 percent of union members voted for Republicans.

It is precisely because of this wildly disproportionate bias in campaign spending that I'm not expecting many Democrats to sign on to reform legislation that I and 20 other Republican senators have co-sponsored called the Employee Rights Act (S. 1507). But any Democrats interested in doing more than simply taking marching orders from the unions will find the public very much on their side if they support this legislation.

Since my arrival in the Senate, I've been part of many battles that have pitted the institutional interests of major labor unions against major corporations. In every case, the warring parties disagreed over who was wearing the white hat. There should be no confusion this time. The Employee Rights Act is not about Big Business versus Big Labor but about employee rights versus union power.

This will be a different fight altogether.

This originally appeared as an op-ed in the Washington Times. -Team Hatch

Balanced Budget Amendment Would Have Prevented Current Mess

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 16:23:00 GMT

In 1997, after a fierce debate, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution I introduced was defeated by just one vote in the United States Senate. Fourteen years later, our nation is facing a debt crisis of epic proportions. Our national debt has gone from roughly $5 trillion in 1997 to over $14 trillion today. That's more than $45,000 for every man, woman, and child in America.

And that debt keeps growing. According to Congress' nonpartisan budget scorekeeper, the Congressional Budget Office, the nation's debt could reach an astonishing 90 percent of gross domestic product in less than a decade, with the government spending almost $1 trillion on interest payments alone.

It's no wonder the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Michael Mullen, said, "Our national debt is our biggest national security threat." And the International Monetary Fund recently found that the United States doesn't have a "credible strategy" to confront this looming crisis.

This situation has only gotten worse under the Obama administration. Over the last two years, discretionary spending has increased by 84 percent, if you include the failed economic stimulus, with spending reaching 25 percent of our nation's economic output—a level not seen since World War II.

In fact, our skyrocketing debt is the number one issue I hear about from the people of my state of Utah, who rightly do not understand why Washington can't make the tough choices they do for their families.

There's no doubt that if Congress had passed a balanced budget amendment over 10 years ago, we wouldn't be in the fiscal wreck we are in today. But that doesn't mean we can't put our nation on a more secure fiscal path by enacting one today. In the Senate, 47 senators are supporting a balanced budget amendment I've introduced that would require the president to submit a balanced budget to Congress every year that limits spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product, and that requires supermajorities in both houses of Congress to raise taxes or increase spending.

In fact, this isn't a novel or new idea. Every state, except Vermont, and countries like Germany and Switzerland all have this common-sense requirement. It's time Washington does as well.

Some ask, why do we need a constitutional amendment—why can't Congress and the White House come together and cut our debt? The answer is simple: This is the only way to force Washington to act. In fact, every grand compromise over the past three decades to tackle our debt has been undone almost immediately after being enacted by Congress, with massive spending increases almost as soon as the ink is dry.

Today, our nation is having a great debate over the size, scope, and shape of our national government—over how much we can afford without forcing future generations to foot the bill. The president is asking Congress to raise our debt limit without putting forward any meaningful proposals to combat our debt. I strongly believe that before we even consider this, the Senate must take up a balanced budget amendment. This kind of strong budgetary reform would put us on a path to fiscal health and would forestall this White House or any future White House from asking the American people to simply greenlight more debt.

A balanced budget amendment makes sense; its time has more than come. Now, Congress must act.

This originally appeared as an op-ed in U.S. News & World Report. -Team Hatch

Repeal Health Tax To Create Jobs

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:16:00 GMT

With unemployment persistently hovering around 9 percent, Congress and President Barack Obama must pursue policies for economic growth and job creation. Washington could provide businesses much-needed certainty and address the job crisis by repealing the president's partisan $2.6 trillion health law.

This would help our economy, reduce our staggering debt and give Americans the health care they deserve.

One component of the health care law that will likely have a devastating impact on job creation and the cost of health insurance is the tax on health insurance. This is a particularly insidious element of this massive law.

The president and his advisers repeatedly claimed that his bill would bring down the cost of health care. Yet to pay for all this new health care spending, he imposed billions in new taxes that will increase the cost of care and undermine job creation.

The insurance tax alone could impose $87 billion in costs on businesses and their employees in the first 10 years -- diverting revenue that could be used for higher wages, new hires and capital investment. Over the second decade, this cost to businesses and their employees is expected to be $208 billion.

This is how it works: Starting in 2014, health insurance companies will be whacked with a tax based on their net premiums written in the fully insured market. Eighty-seven percent of small businesses purchase insurance in this fully insured market. It is also the place that the self-employed and uninsured go to purchase insurance.

So who will pay this tax? Ultimately, small businesses and their employees. It will most likely get passed through to employees—who will pay for it in lower wages or higher premium contributions. The average employee with a family plan will see take-home pay reduced by $5,000 over the next decade because of this tax, according to one study.

Ultimately, the cost will be borne by factories that lose orders and workers not hired because of employers' growing benefit costs.

It'll be struggling American workers who are on the hook for this tax. It will creep into the pocketbooks of 2 million small businesses; 26 million workers covered by employer plans and 12 million people who purchase their own insurance plans in the individual market, according to a recent study by the National Federation of Independent Business.

This tax will force the private sector to shed 125,000 to 249,000 jobs between now and 2021, according to that study, with more than half of those losses falling on the backs of small businesses. The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, has testified that the new health law will result in the loss of more than 800,000 new jobs.

As Congress seeks bipartisan opportunities for real jobs legislation, it should consider our new bill to repeal this health insurance tax. Eliminating it could help change our economic landscape and provide fertile ground for new business and job growth.

It's the type of initiative the American people have been calling for. This demonstrates the type of bipartisan action Congress should be taking.

This originally appeared as an op-ed with Senator John Barrasso in the Politico. -Team Hatch

Protecting Charities, Churches And Others' Charitable Donations

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 23:30:00 GMT

From the moment the first settlers arrived in America, churches and civic institutions have been the bedrock of our society. These private organizations, not government, are the foundation of our communities, and their lifeblood are the charitable contributions made by hardworking citizens and families.

Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, recently confirmed this central role for charities and churches at a hearing on charitable giving held by the U.S. Senate's Finance Committee. Unfortunately, the current tax deduction for charitable contributions is under attack from many quarters.

As the top Republican on the Finance Committee, I invited Elder Oaks to discuss the need for protecting this deduction and ensuring that individuals in Utah and across the country will continue to be gracious in donating to those in need.

The tax code currently encourages charitable donations by allowing taxpayers to deduct those contributions from their taxable income. The American people are extremely generous in giving to their local communities, and this deduction contributes to this generosity. Unfortunately, President Barack Obama has repeatedly proposed that individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and families making more than $250,000 a year lose up to 20 percent of their charitable deduction.

Adopting this proposal would be a real mistake.

In his testimony before the Finance Committee, Elder Oaks confirmed that the private organizations that receive charitable donations are "responsible for tens of millions of jobs and innumerable services that benefit our citizens at every level." However, if the proposal to reduce the tax deduction for charitable donations from 35 percent to 28 percent were enacted, it would cost charities as much as $5.6 billion per year, according to the Urban Institute's Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found that other proposals to limit the charitable deduction could result in as much as a $10 billion drop in donations annually. For this reason, I am strongly opposed to the president's proposal, and I am fighting to ensure that it does not become law.

A quick look at the hurricane relief provided to the Gulf Coast in 2005 shows what a difference charitable donations can make. After Hurricane Katrina, more than $3.5 billion in cash and in-kind donations—food, water, clothing, medical supplies and other services—were donated. Roughly $2.1 billion in private donations for hurricane relief went to the American Red Cross, which sent more than 200,000 volunteers to the region to build shelters, provide meals and emergency assistance.

And they were not alone.

Catholic Charities donated $154 million, and hundreds of other organizations rushed in with volunteers, money and other resources to help people and businesses in the region get back on their feet. One of them was The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Elder Oaks noted in his testimony that the LDS Church donated more than $13 million in cash and 3,000 tons of emergency supplies. Thousands of Latter-day Saint volunteers gave more than 42,000 days of service.

The effectiveness of these private charities in providing relief to those in need stands in stark contrast to the mediocre response to the same crisis by government agencies. Churches and other charities have proven track records when it comes to caring for those in need. Does it really make sense to limit the current tax deduction to these organizations and give the money instead to the federal government, which is fraught with waste and mismanagement?

I am confident that the money "saved" by limiting the charitable deduction would neither reduce the deficit nor help the truly needy. Instead, it will go to fund more government bloat and government jobs.

Government was never intended to be the solution for every problem in this country. Yet today, government tries to do too much and succeeds at very little—at exorbitant expense to taxpayers.

The tax deduction does not exist to reward some donors more than others. It exists for the charity. The charitable deduction encourages members of society to direct enough resources to charities so they can carry forward the good works our society so desperately needs them to perform.

Government does not need another taxpayer handout. But Americans in need do need a hand up. The president and Congress should step aside and let our nation's charities carry on with the relief they are uniquely qualified to deliver.

We curtail the charitable tax deduction at our peril.

This originally appeared as an op-ed in the Deseret News. -Team Hatch