Latest updates from bobbarr.org http://www.bobbarr.org In his State of the Union address last week, President Barack Obama assured Congress and the American people that the economy was moving and that American businesses were beginning to restore many of the jobs lost as a result of the “Great Recession.” Of course, the modest job growth the nation has experienced comes in spite of President Obama’s policies, not because of them. In fact, the Obama administration has been openly hostile to many ideas and proposals that would promote economic growth and create jobs. Obama’s recent rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline serves as another stark reminder to voters — especially those who are unemployed — that the president is more interested in appeasing special interest groups than putting Americans back to work. Keystone XL is a proposed 1,700-mile-long pipeline that would send some 700,000 barrels of bitumen per day from Canada to Texas. According to the Heritage Foundation, the pipeline would create “20,000 truly shovel-ready jobs — and 179,000 American jobs by 2035.” Understanding the need for jobs and investment, congressional Republicans pushed the administration hard to approve the project. Obama rejected the proposal because of what he called a “rushed and arbitrary deadline,” claiming the State Department needed more time to review the proposal. More time? The pipeline project, which has bipartisan support, already has been on the table since 2008! And the “State Department” needs to study it? Is the president serious? Does he even know what the State Department does? It is filled with bureaucrats and diplomats — and they’re qualified to “study” a major pipeline project? Besides, the environmental aspects of the proposed pipeline project already have been studied in great detail — including by the State Department — and found to have only “limited adverse impact.” Even the editorial board of The Washington Post found Obama’s decision to indefinitely delay the Keystone project to be meritless and counterproductive. The board noted that “[w]ithout the pipeline, Canada would still export its bitumen — with long-term trends in the global market, it’s far too valuable to keep in the ground — but it would go to China.” Of course, the real issue for President Obama was not jobs or energy independence. This is about pleasing one of his core consistencies: environmental extremists irrationally opposed to this or any meaningful projects that would tap into our own energy resources. Unfortunately, in the rarefied world in which the environmental extremists operate — and into which Obama, for political reasons, has again chosen to place himself — the expressions “cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face” and being “hoisted on one’s own petard” have no relevancy. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=13861/30/2012I was a great fan of Superman comic books when I was a kid. Among my favorites were those in which the Man of Steel traveled to Bizarro World — a dimension in which everything was the opposite of our normal world. Watching the last few Republican presidential debates, I now have a pretty good idea of how Superman must have felt as he tried to function in a world in which left is right, black is white and up is down. I refer, of course, to the manner in which former Speaker Newt Gingrich is being attacked by fellow Republicans Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney. He’s being attacked for, well, accomplishing conservative goals. In the real world, a Republican presidential candidate who not only served as the architect for the first Republican-controlled House in four decades but during four years as speaker engineered legislation ultimately signed by a Democratic president that balanced the federal budget, reformed welfare and significantly reduced taxes would receive at least mild praise for such accomplishments. Yet listening to attacks by Romney and Santorum against Gingrich, someone not familiar with what actually happened in Washington during those years could be forgiven for thinking Newt was the most horrible and un-Republican political leader in our nation’s history. Attacks by one’s adversaries in primary contests are, of course, nothing new, and all the GOP candidates — those still standing as well as those who have exited the race — have taken shots at each other. However, the attacks against Gingrich targeting his terms as speaker are completely unreasonable. Newt is the only GOP candidate who can point to a record of changing national policies for the better. He balanced budgets, reformed welfare, cut taxes and more. Those accomplishments came with a heavy price for Gingrich; he was on the receiving end of relentless and withering attacks from Democrats (and jealous members of his own party) throughout his terms as speaker. To be sure, Newt made tactical and strategic mistakes aplenty. I know — I was a member of the Republican caucus during those years. But to now witness a former Republican senator (Santorum) and a former Republican governor (Romney), both of whom benefitted greatly from Gingrich’s work, distort history and twist his record is truly disheartening. One wonders if the attacks against Newt’s record by Romney and Santorum reflect these candidates’ disagreements with what Newt accomplished as speaker, or whether they are simply blinded by their personal ambition for high office. Either way, their actions are a disgrace to the party they purport to represent and to their own candidacies. Superman was always able to escape Bizarro World and return to the real world, in which his positive accomplishments were recognized and appreciated. Hopefully in our universe Newt’s intellect, unflagging energy and broad vision —all of which exceed those of his opponents — will enable him to focus the attention of the electorate on something that escapes Santorum’s and Romney’s pinched visions: that someone who has balanced the federal budget, actually reformed the federal government and significantly reduced taxes is someone to be admired and supported rather than torn down. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=13851/27/2012Government regulators and their enablers in Congress, always on the prowl to target industries for ever-more oppressive regulations and higher taxes, are now focusing on the venerable “good cigar” eloquently extolled by Rudyard Kipling and many other connoisseurs of a “good smoke.” Since the mid-1960s, tobacco has been one of the big-government nannies’ favorite targets. While anti-tobacconists have scored only sporadic victories in the courts over the past few decades, that is partly due to the fact that until 2009, when Congress passed the “Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act,” tobacco was not lawfully regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). While cigarettes are the primary target of the 2009 law, it was only a matter of time before the nannies at the FDA flexed their regulatory muscles and went after cigars. In fact, in November an FDA spokesman told The Daily Caller that the FDA believes it has the right to promulgate regulations controlling “other tobacco products.” The FDA is particularly targeting “cigarillos” or “little cigars,” the cheap, often-flavored brands sold at gas stations and convenience stores. Tobacco-haters claim that cigarillos are a gateway to nicotine addiction, though regulators have offered little evidence to support this claim. Last month, Reason magazine’s Jacob Sullum explained that proponents of tobacco regulation “offer zero evidence, aside from bald assertion, that flavored cigars are particularly popular among minors.” On the contrary, as noted by Sullum, researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and the University of Michigan have shown that consumption of these particular tobacco products has actually decreased over the past 10 to 15 years. There is, of course, even less evidence that premium cigars — brands like Ghurka, Padron and Arturo Fuente — are prompting a surge in teen smoking. Such facts, of course, matter little to the bureaucrats and “scientists” at the FDA, which continues to demonize all forms of tobacco. The vast majority of cigar retailers, and the decreasing number of clubs and bars that permit cigar smoking or sell cigars, are small businesses struggling to survive in a tough economy. The regulations being floated by the FDA would place such oppressive burdens on these establishments that it would be almost impossible for them to survive — which is, of course, the ultimate goal of the FDA and its supporters on Capitol Hill and at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. These same businesses are being hit by anti-tobacco regulations promulgated by government nannies at the state and local levels as well. Fortunately, at least some members of Congress are fighting back and defending these small businesses and the patrons they serve. Last April, for example, the “Traditional Cigar Manufacturing and Small Business Jobs Preservation Act” was introduced as H.R. 1639 (a companion bill has been introduced in the Senate). This bill seeks to put the brakes on the FDA’s gathering attack on cigars. Co-sponsors of this legislation make clear that cigars were never intended to be subjected to FDA regulation under the 2009 tobacco legislation, which was designed to limit access only to those tobacco products that are “used by youth” and which “target under-age children.” Good cigars, as pointed out also by supporters of HR 1639, are “are sold in family owned and run shops and are enjoyed by adults who smoke them in moderation, often at celebratory occasions.” H.R. 1639, which has already attracted 137 co-sponsors, would ensure that premium cigars are off-limits to the FDA. Unfortunately, neither chamber of Congress has aggressively pushed the legislation, and in the absence of firm pushback from Congress, the FDA’s threats against cigars will continue to gather steam http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=13841/23/2012Thankfully, student deaths due to hazing are extremely rare; and instances of serious hazing are — and should be — treated seriously by schools, student organizations, parents and law enforcement. Unfortunately, tragedy struck late last year when a student at Florida A&M University died as a result of hazing. The death of A&M drum major Robert Champion, apparently at the hands of fellow students who tormented him with excessive hazing, has moved a number of federal and state legislators to press for tougher anti-hazing laws than are already on the books in the vast majority of states, including Florida and my home state of Georgia. Such moves appear to be more a political reaction than a well-considered and necessary legislative response. After announcing her intention to file federal anti-hazing legislation, for example, Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-FL) said, “It’s time that we put an end to this horrible and humiliating ritual once and for all, so that no more students suffer the way that Robert and others have.” Well-intentioned as this idea might be, and even though Wilson has not yet offered details as to what her proposal will include, the threshold question ought to be why she and others believe it is the responsibility of Washington to step in and federalize such behavior. The fact is, tragic incidents such as the one that occurred at Florida A&M are state issues, ones that existing homicide, manslaughter and anti-hazing laws properly address. In Georgia, State Rep. Joe Wilkinson, a Republican from metro Atlanta, has renewed his push for legislation that would prohibit anyone convicted of hazing from attending any state-funded or private school at any level (beyond mandatory school attendance up to age 16). In response to questions about the necessity or relevance of such a measure, Wilkinson opined that the proposed law was proper simply because it would “bring more attention to the problem” — an approach to government that leads inevitably to redundant and unnecessary law-making. Unfortunately, the “we-need-more-laws” bandwagon onto which Wilson and Wilkinson have jumped is more the norm than the exception in modern government. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=13831/20/2012It’s now official: The so-called “Occupiers” protesting in cities from New York to California are eligible to be considered for homeless assistance under new guidelines issued by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The program through which such monies are available is called the Recovery Act Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program Recovery Plan (HPRP). HPRP was touted as a cornerstone component of the 2009 “stimulus” plan pushed by the then-newly installed administration of Barack Obama. The program’s seed money was a cool $1.5 billion, which was distributed to state and local agencies qualified to participate in HUD-administered programs designed to aid homeless persons. The purpose of HPRP, as defined in the enabling legislation, was to “provide homelessness prevention assistance for households who would not otherwise become homeless and rapid re-housing assistance to persons who are homeless.” The succinct “overall goal” was to “achieve housing stability.” By any reasonable measure, of course — and as with other parts of the so-called stimulus plan — HPRP has failed to either stimulate jobs or positively impact the nation’s housing slump in any meaningful way. But because a number of local agencies that received HPRP funds and still have such monies available to spend have received inquiries from Occupiers for assistance, HUD recently issued “guidance” to help these agencies determine eligibility. While the two-page “guidance” memo emphasizes that Occupiers applying for HPRP assistance are to be afforded no “special treatment” or “higher priority” than other applicants, the bottom line of the HUD memo is that Occupiers are eligible for HPRP assistance. Interestingly, the guidance memo expressly encourages local agency personnel to visit Occupy sites as part of their due diligence to ensure only truly “eligible” Occupiers receive the federal assistance. In fulfilling this part of their responsibility, local agency reps may even have the opportunity to get the autographs of one or more of their favorite entertainment personalities — like Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore or Alec Baldwin — who have shown up at Occupy sites from time to time to raise a fist of solidarity with the Occupiers before heading back to La La Land in their limousines. http://www.bobbarr.org/default.asp?pt=newsdescr&RI=13821/16/2012