Washington, DC – The Club for Growth today urged Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Senate Republicans to object to going to conference on the FY14 budget unless an agreement is made to exclude tax increases or a debt limit increase:

“Supporters of big government in the Senate want to craft an anti-growth budget deal behind closed doors that would raise taxes and increase the debt limit,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “Senator McConnell and Senate Republicans should stand with Senators Lee, Cruz, and Paul and demand that anti-growth tax hikes and trillions of dollars in new spending and debt are kept out of the budget process. Fiscal conservatives shouldn’t trust any Senator from either party on this issue unless there is a public agreement to avoid these anti-growth tactics.”

---

Washington, DC - The Club for Growth today urged Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) to lead the Senate GOP conference in blocking the confirmation of Fred Hochberg for another term as the head of the Export-Import Bank until a serious plan to wind down the bank is enacted into law. The Club also urged Senator McConnell to block all other confirmations to the Export-Import Bank’s board. 

In May of 2012, Senator McConnell voted, along with 20 other Republicans, against reauthorizing the bank, whose clients have included Solyndra, Enron, and even Mexican drug cartels. Even President Obama has opposed the Export-Import Bank in the past, calling the bank “little more than a fund for corporate welfare.” 

“Senator McConnell stood strong when he voted against reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank last year, and we hope he will show leadership again by blocking Fred Hochberg’s nomination and all other nominations to the Export-Import Bank’s board,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “The Export-Import Bank is a slush fund for market-distorting subsidies that pick winners and losers in the private sector. Senator McConnell should demand a plan to wind down the Export-Import Bank, and not enable it to continue to hand out massive amounts of corporate welfare benefiting a few select industries.” 

“It’s time for Senator McConnell to lead Senate Republicans in standing up to Big Business by opposing these nominations,” added Chocola.

---

Washington, DC - Club for Growth Action today announced that it is adding Congressman Greg Walden (R-OR) to www.PrimaryMyCongressman.com following Walden’s comments opposing modest reforms to Social Security. 

To see Congressman Walden’s page on www.PrimaryMyCongressman.com click here or go to http://www.primarymycongressman.com/rep-greg-walden/ 

The purpose of www.PrimaryMyCongressman.com is to raise awareness of Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) who are currently serving in safe Republican seats. Congressman Walden represents a district in which Governor Mitt Romney received 57% of the vote, but has a dismal 62% lifetime score on the Club for Growth’s Congressional Scorecard. The website offers Club members and the general public the opportunity to recommend primary opponents to the incumbents highlighted by Club for Growth Action, as well as to recommend primary challengers for any Republican member of Congress. 

“We always knew Greg Walden had a liberal record, but he really cemented it with his public opposition to even modest entitlement reform,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “Greg Walden has voted for bailing out Wall Street, dozens of pork projects, and against cutting the spending from the Obama stimulus. He even voted against blocking taxpayer subsidies for Viagra. Greg Walden should be held accountable for his anti-growth voting record as well as his anti-growth rhetoric.”

---

Washington, DC - The Club for Growth issued the following statement in response to National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden’s comments opposing “chained CPI” inflation calculation for Social Security: 

“Greg Walden doesn’t seriously oppose even the most modest of reforms to social security, right?” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “With nearly $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, the last thing Republicans should attack the Democrats for is for making the most minor reforms to our entitlement programs. If anything, President Obama nibbles around the edges of entitlement reform and doesn’t do anything to put entitlements on a permanently sustainable path.” 

“Greg Walden ought to think about clarifying his remarks on chained CPI, and think about clarifying soon. I’m sure his constituents would like to know his opinion,” added Chocola.

---

Washington, DC - The Club for Growth issued the following statement in response to a proposal in President Obama’s budget that would cap the size of IRAs:

“What’s next – a cap on wealth in general?” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “President Obama continues to attack success and oppose policies that would lead to increased wealth and prosperity. It’s clear that growing the economy is not his top priority – it’s to punish the very people who help make this country so great.” 

“President Obama should be encouraging Americans to save by cutting income tax rates, and by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. Lower tax rates would lead to an economic boom that would benefit all Americans,” added Chocola.

---

Washington, DC - Club for Growth President Chris Chocola issued the following statement in reaction to Arkansas Democrat Senator Mark Pryor’s vote late Friday night against full repeal of the Federal estate tax, more commonly known as the “death tax.” Pryor joined the vast majority of Democrats in opposing full repeal of the tax. 

Unlike Pryor, Arkansas Republican Senator John Boozman supports full repeal of the death tax.

Senator Pryor has joined with the liberals in Washington before. Pryor voted for ObamaCare, the Obama “stimulus”, and to bail out the Wall Street banks. That’s why a recent ad by Club for Growth Action calls Pryor Obama’s “best ally” in Washington. 

“Obama ally Mark Pryor claims he’s an independent voice for Arkansas, but he just voted against full repeal of the death tax,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “The death tax hurts small businesses and farmers and should be completely eliminated. Mark Pryor should be held accountable for his vote for this nasty and anti-growth tax.”

---

Washington, DC - Club for Growth Action and the Senate Conservatives Fund today released the results of a series of polls conducted among likely voters in Arkansas’s 2014 U.S. Senate race. The results show that since Club for Growth Action began running a six-figure TV ad buy in Arkansas, support among Arkansans for Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) has plummeted. 

The TV ad, which pointed out that Senator Pryor stood with President Obama on ObamaCare, the failed Obama “stimulus,” and on bailing out the Wall Street banks, has had a devastating effect on Mark Pryor’s favorability ratings. In two months, Senator Pryor has gone from a +28 Favorable/Unfavorable spread among poll respondents (53/25) to even (36/36), a precipitous 28 point drop.  In addition, the number of Arkansans who now view Mark Pryor as a “liberal” has nearly doubled, going from 26% in a January survey to 47% now, a strong plurality of respondents. 

President Obama remains deeply unpopular in Arkansas, with only 38% of respondents having a favorable impression, compared to 58% who said unfavorable, a -20 point spread. Arkansans clearly recoil from the message in Club for Growth Action’s TV ad that “when you vote for Pryor, you vote for Obama.” 

“The more Arkansans hear about Mark Pryor’s support for the Obama agenda, the less they like Mark Pryor,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “President Obama’s economic policies are simply unpopular in Arkansas, and Mark Pryor’s support for ObamaCare, the Obama stimulus, and the Wall Street bailout have cost him support back home. Obama ally Mark Pryor is in deep trouble with Arkansans because of his strong support for big-government programs like ObamaCare and the Obama ‘stimulus’ that are bankrupting America.” 

"These numbers are not surprising. Our members who live in Arkansas continue to tell us that Mark Pryor has abandoned them and their values," said Senate Conservatives Fund Executive Director Matt Hoskins. "They know he pretends to be a centrist when he's in Arkansas, but votes with President Obama when he's in Washington." 

Both polls were conducted by the Republican polling firm Basswood Research. The polls took place January 27^th-28^th and March 16^th-17^th.  Each sample contained 600 likely general election voters, with a margin of error of 4%. The second poll was paid for by both the Club for Growth Action and the Senate Conservatives Fund. 

Selected results from the Club for Growth Action/Senate Conservatives Fund poll in Arkansas:

Favorable/Unfavorable: Senator Mark Pryor
January: 53% Favorable, 25% Unfavorable
March: 36% Favorable, 36% Unfavorable
Change: 28 points less favorable 

Which of the following comes closest to your opinion? Mark Pryor is an independent Senator who fights for the best interests of Arkansas residents; or, Mark Pryor sides too much with President Obama and the liberals in Congress. 

January: 46% Independent Senator, 31% Sides Too Much With Obama
March: 38% Independent Senator, 43% Sides Too Much With Obama
Change: 20 point swing towards “Sides too much with Obama”    

Do you think Mark Pryor is a liberal, moderate or conservative in his political beliefs? 

January: 26% Liberal, 32% Moderate, 12% Conservative
March: 47% Liberal, 25% Moderate, 6% Conservative
Change: 21 point increase among those who believe Pryor is a liberal

Ballot test for U.S. Senate in 2014 (March Only) 

Senator Mark Pryor (D): 35%
Congressman Tom Cotton (R): 43%
Undecided: 22%
Result: Pryor -8. Pryor is far under 50% and trails Congressman Tom Cotton in the straight ballot test by eight points.

---

Washington, DC - The Club for Growth today commended Congressman Matt Salmon (R-AZ) for his Op-ed in the Washington Times urging fiscal conservatives to fight to stop bad legislation from ever coming up for a vote. In the Op-ed, Congressman Salmon writes that fiscal conservatives are enabling legislation to become law, and urges other fiscal conservatives to start voting against the rule for bills that would grow the size of government: 

From this point forward, I will vote against the rule for bills that increase spending without offsetting spending cuts and encourage my other conservative colleagues to do the same. Similarly, if House leadership brings any more bills to the floor without first securing the support from the majority of the GOP conference, I will take the same action. If enough of my conservative colleagues in the House join me, we can unilaterally put an end to the growth of government that is moving us closer to Greece-like fiscal calamities. (Congressman Matt Salmon, “It’s time to break some rules in Congress,” Washington Times, 3/11/13) 

“Matt Salmon is exactly right. Fiscal conservatives should use all the tools at their disposal to stop bad legislation, including voting against the rule,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “Matt Salmon is demonstrating real leadership by fighting to stop bad policy from the beginning, not just at the very end. Fiscal conservatives should follow his lead.” 

Congressman Salmon’s entire Op-ed is below: 

SALMON: It’s time to break some rules in Congress
Conservatives must dare to be fiscally responsible
By Matt Salmon
Monday, March 11, 2013
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/11/its-time-to-break-some-rules-in-congress/print/ 

If there's anything I have learned since returning to Congress, it's that talk is still cheap, progress is still slow, and our liberties continue to erode every day. 

When I last served in the House during the 1990s, it was common to say that we needed to control spending to protect future generations. Since I left, I have watched the national debt pile up under President George W. Bush, and then explode to unprecedented levels under President Obama. Indeed, both political parties are responsible for this. Our fiscal situation has now become so dire that it's no longer just about protecting future generations -- it's about protecting the person retiring tomorrow. 

This is what compelled me to return to Washington and get back in the fight to restore fiscal sanity. 

Since being sworn in, I've had the opportunity to survey our problems from the inside out for more than two months. It's not pretty. America now owes more in debt than the total of our national gross domestic product, and Congress is more dysfunctional than ever. 

Sadly, far too many politicians in Washington lack the courage to do something to fix our problems. They are worried about the political implications of making the hard choices we so desperately need to cut spending and shrink government. 

That's unfortunate, and it needs to change. 

During my previous tenure in Congress, House Republicans passed several pieces of meaningful legislation. We enacted welfare reform, pro-growth tax cuts, and achieved the holiest of grails -- a balanced budget. In fact, by the time I left Congress in 2001 to honor my term-limits pledge, we had a budget surplus of more than $240 billion. 

These successes were not easy to achieve. They came about because House conservatives were willing to confront GOP leadership when they occasionally got off-track rather than standing firm on the principles of economic freedom. 

One tactic we used was to vote against House rules on specific bills that did not uphold conservative principles. 

This is how it works: Before a bill can be considered in the House, there must first be a vote on the rule. The rule dictates how much time is spent on debate, how many amendments will be allowed, etc. Since the majority party is in charge of the House schedule, they are the ones who create the rules. The vote to pass these rules is almost always party-line affairs and usually goes unchallenged. 

It's not uncommon for strong, fiscally conservative Republicans in the House to support the rule on an ugly bill that grows government, but then vote against the underlying bill. 

Yet it shouldn't be that way. Why should a self-described fiscal conservative enable the passage of a bad bill by supporting the rule? If they oppose the underlying bill, then they should vote against any procedural move -- including the rule -- that enables the bill's passage. 

As Rep. John D. Dingell, Michigan Democrat, once said, "If you let me write the procedure, and I let you write the substance, I'll [beat] you every time." 

More recently, had House conservatives voted against certain rules, they could have defeated several big-government bills that passed under a Republican House. 

It's time to shake things up and return the Republican Party to its roots of smaller government and less spending. 

From this point forward, I will vote against the rule for bills that increase spending without offsetting spending cuts and encourage my other conservative colleagues to do the same. Similarly, if House leadership brings any more bills to the floor without first securing the support from the majority of the GOP conference, I will take the same action. If enough of my conservative colleagues in the House join me, we can unilaterally put an end to the growth of government that is moving us closer to Greece-like fiscal calamities. 

Why would I be willing to challenge my Republican leadership? Because my allegiance will always be to the Constitution and the American people first and foremost, not to my political party. 

The United Kingdom Special Forces have a motto -- "who dares, wins." It's time for conservative Republicans in Congress to dare. The future of our nation depends on it. 

Rep. Matt Salmon is an Arizona Republican.

###

---

Washington, DC - The Club for Growth today pointed out that the Commerce Department has operated for 256 days without the nomination of a new Secretary by President Obama. The last Commerce Secretary, John Bryson, resigned his position on June 21^st, 2012. 

Following Secretary Bryson’s resignation last June, Club for Growth President Chris Chocola called for the elimination of the Commerce Department, writing in an op-ed published in The Hill that “The Commerce Department is ripe with duplicative waste and inefficiencies and that’s one of the main reasons why most Americans don’t know who Bryson is or what exactly Commerce does. The department has almost zero impact on actual commerce, job creation, or anyone’s daily routine.” 

“If President Obama doesn’t see a need to nominate a new Commerce Secretary, then why not just eliminate the whole department?” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “The Commerce Department is nothing more than a vehicle for corporate welfare and subsidies, and many of its functions are already done by other agencies. If President Obama felt that the Commerce Department was an important agency, he would have nominated someone to run it months ago.” 

Chocola’s June 2012 Op-ed is reprinted below:

Eliminate the Commerce Department
By Chris Chocola   
06/27/12
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/235183-eliminate-the-commerce-department 

With the recent resignation of Commerce Secretary John Bryson, the natural inclination of the Washington chattering class will be to immediately begin speculation about one thing: who will be the next Commerce Secretary?

I would like to propose a candidate: nobody. Not now, and not ever.

Instead of appointing a person to lead the Commerce Department, President Obama and Congress should work together to eliminate the department completely and use the savings to pay down the debt. The Commerce Department is ripe with duplicative waste and inefficiencies and that’s one of the main reasons why most Americans don’t know who Bryson is or what exactly Commerce does. The department has almost zero impact on actual commerce, job creation, or anyone’s daily routine.

According to its own website, the agency has a budget of approximately eight billion dollars and employs nearly 47,000 people. Many of its functions are unnecessary or easily merged into other departments.

Take one, a program in the Commerce Department called the Economic Development Administration (EDA) that costs hundreds of millions of dollars. Not surprisingly, the “economic development” benefits are dubious and the program has turned into a corporate welfare slush fund for members of Congress. Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina has identified EDA grants that went to a wine tasting room, a tourism promotion program in the Northern Mariana Islands, and an “innovation conference center” in Arkansas.

But that’s not all. The Commerce Department also spends millions of dollars in subsidies for fishermen as well. For example, the Cato Institute estimated that in 2010, the Commerce Department spent $74 million on Pacific salmon state grants and $35 million on fisheries promotion. The fishing industry should be allowed to rise and fall on its own two feet, and not receive taxpayer subsidies at any time – much less when we’re $15 trillion in debt.

We have a United States Trade Representative who is supposed to be in charge of promoting trade. However, the Commerce Department also has an agency called the International Trade Administration, which hands out wasteful export subsidies that are already duplicated (many times over) by other government agencies. Cato estimates that its elimination in 2010 would have saved taxpayers $389 million.

Yet another example of wasteful spending is the Minority Business Development Agency inside Commerce. If we want to help minority businessmen, we can do it the same way we can help every businessman: eliminate burdensome regulation, pass free trade agreements that open up new markets, and cut the corporate tax rate. We don’t need to pay the staff of a bureaucratic agency to accomplish that.

Move the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration into the Department of Agriculture, or eliminate it. Move the Patent and Trademark Office into the Justice Department. Eliminate the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Technical Information Service. With so much money to be saved, why isn’t this a no-brainer for Congress?

Politicians in Washington have been asking the wrong questions for years. For too long the Democrats have spent every dollar that wasn’t nailed down. The Republicans haven’t quite spent every last dollar, but they’re almost as bad as the Democrats. Only a fool would believe that the current rate of spending by our government is sustainable. Instead of asking how we slow the rate of growth of government, why don’t we actually get serious about cutting government by ending and reforming government agencies?

The United States Department of Commerce, now left without anyone to argue for it, sure seems like a good place to start.

Chocola, a former Republican Congressman from Indiana, is the president of the Club for Growth

---

Washington, DC - Club for Growth Action issued the following statement today responding to Senator Mark Pryor’s claim that Club for Growth Action’s new ad criticizing his voting record is “false”: 

“Senator Pryor says Club for Growth Action’s ad is false? Which part? He did vote for ObamaCare. He did vote for the Obama stimulus. He did vote for the Wall Street bailout. He really is Obama’s best ally in Arkansas,” said Club for Growth President Chris Chocola. “Senator Pryor can call Club for Growth Action any names he wants. What his political spin machine really needs to figure out is how to fool the voters of Arkansas into believing he’s not just another liberal Democrat in lockstep with Obama.”

---