News Articles NEWS ALERT: IFL on Supreme Court Overturning DC Gun Ban Institute for Liberty Applauds Supreme Court Decision The Institute for Liberty, a non-profit national advocacy organization, today applauded the Supreme Court for its affirmation of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms. In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the High Court overturned the District’s decades-old ban on individual ownership of handguns, recognizing that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms. “This ruling underscores that the Founding Fathers intended for the Constitution to be a document protecting citizens from their government, not the other way around, and that the language within it is supposed to be interpreted in a straight-forward and plan manner,” said Andrew Langer, President of the Institute for Liberty. “For far too long, progressive jurists, lawyers, and politicians have twisted the language of the Constitution to chip away at the individual rights of Americans.” The Institute for Liberty is focused on these incremental diminutions in individual rights. Its motto is “Defending America’s Right to Be Free,” and it fights against what it calls, “the petty tyrannies of government.” “Whether it’s property rights, rights to self-defense, or rights to speak freely, those who have argued for greater government power have picked and chosen from the Constitution’s explicit language,” Langer continued. “This decision affirms that the Bill of Rights has to be read in toto—that the 2nd Amendment lays out just one justification for the protection of individual gun rights. You have to also remember that the 9th and 10th Amendments make it clear that simply because other reasons aren’t laid out, it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. All that is not surrendered to the government is retained by the people, and the universe of individual rights isn’t limited to what was laid out more than 200 years ago. The founders were brilliant in that regard—they knew that while the times might change, the basic rules of a free society shouldn’t.” Institute For Liberty Statement On Domestic Oil Drilling The opposition by Sen. Obama and his fellow Democrats is not only predictable, it underscores how disinterested they are in finding real solutions to the real problems faced by real Americans. We have the means to solve this problem--a problem that has been artificially created and exacerbated by Democrats and their radical allies. They talk about fantastic solutions to this crisis: fanciful technologies that will allow us to take fuel directly out of the ground and put it into our vehicles to make them run. But we already have that fantastic solution, that amazing substance which we can take out of the ground, simply refine it, and then put it in our cars to make them go. It’s called oil. There’s plenty of it, there’s plenty of it here, and we’ve got plenty of space to transform it into a usable fuel. We simply need to go and get it and then refine it right here. Furthermore, it is disingenuous to suggest that simply because the oil wouldn't be available immediately, it represents no immediate relief. If the oil futures markets are greatly responsible for the high cost of oil per barrel, ensuring a supply of oil from a stable source would go a long way towards ameliorating uncertainty. And besides, the same people who are saying that because it won't be available immediately, we shouldn't do it, are the same people who a dozen years ago were saying that we shouldn't drill in ANWR because that oil wouldn't come into the marketplace for a decade. The American people could have used that oil two years ago, and they could certainly be using it now. Small Business Advocate Tapped To Lead National Advocacy Organization Washington, DC – The Institute for Liberty, a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, has named Andrew M. Langer as its new President. Langer joins the organization having spent six years lobbying for small businesses at the National Federation of Independent Business. “It is a distinct pleasure to join the staff of IFL,” Langer said. “I’m looking forward to broadening the organization’s focus, and establishing IFL as a leader on small business and entrepreneurship issues.’ Founded in 2005 by Jason Wright, the Institute for Liberty stands to protect Americans from what it terms the “petty tyrannies” of government. Its motto is, “defending America’s right to be free.” Langer continued, “We spend a great deal of time in Washington focusing on the so-called, ‘big ticket’ items, laws and rules that cost a tremendous amount of money. But any small business owner knows that it’s the little things that can be the hardest to contend with, the hour here, the hour there, that add up. Very little emphasis is placed on fighting against these incremental burdens, and placing them in their proper context.” The Institute for Liberty will put a particular focus on federal agencies, and will be active in injecting the small business perspective on new and proposed regulations. Mr. Langer has been an activist in free-market and limited-government issues for more than a decade, getting his start in the property rights movement. He is an accomplished public speaker, having spoken to organizations and conventions nationwide. He has testified before Congress nearly twenty times on small business issue, and foreign governments have asked him for advice on improving their small business sectors. He is also active in local politics on Maryland’s Eastern Shore. Nation's Regulatory Czar Being Hounded For Doing Her Job Washington, DC (May 6) – The Institute for Liberty criticized the United States House Judiciary Committee for holding a hearing on the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and by extension the White House, in the rulemaking process. Susan Dudley, OIRA’s Director, was called before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law to testify on “The Rulemaking Process and the Unitary Executive Theory.” “This is another attempt by the Democrats in the Congress to throw mud on the executive branch for lawfully discharging its duties,” said Andrew Langer, IFL’s President. “People seem to forget that OMB’s job is not just to control the budget, but also to manage the agencies, and OIRA’s role isn’t just to be a gatekeeper of information, but to also oversee the regulatory process. This hearing is an unnecessary distraction.” OIRA’s mission has been carried out by both Democrat and Republican presidential administrations. It reviews regulatory proposals and makes sure that they are sound, in accordance with administration policy objectives, and that they are in compliance with a host of laws, including laws that serve to protect small business. The Constitution makes it clear that while Congress creates the nation’s laws, it is up to the executive branch to create the policies that go into enforcing those laws. OIRA’s role is critical in that regard. “Regulations, and they paperwork they create, present a huge burden for America’s small businesses. We have a trillion dollar regulatory state. Americans spend upwards of eight billion hours every year filling out paperwork for the federal government, the equivalent of two weeks of paperwork for every adult man and woman in the US. We need good people like Susan Dudley at OIRA making sure that each incremental burden is necessary and proper,” Langer added. In a separate written statement brought to the hearing, Langer discussed these impacts in detail. For businesses with fewer than twenty employees, their regulatory burden is roughly $7700 per employee, per year. The more time these businesses spend figuring out their obligations under the law, the less time they have to productively add to the nation’s economy. And at this time of economic uncertainty, it is an absolute necessity to cast a critical eye on the nation’s regulatory state. The Institute for Liberty is a Washington, DC-based advocacy organization. Its primary focus is on executive branch policy, specifically the impact of those policies on small business and entrepreneurship. Advocacy Group Calls for Federal Tax Thank You Note “It’s Just Good Manners” Washington, DC, April 15, 2008 – At a press conference held this morning, the Institute for Liberty called on the federal government to issue a thank you note six months after taxes are filed, saying that the government ought to be thankful that the citizenry are fulfilling what many believe to be the price of citizenship. “We believe that the federal government ought to provide a receipt to each taxpayer in October of every year – a note of thanks detailing the total amount in federal income taxes paid by the filer for the prior calendar year,” said Andrew Langer, the institute’s president. “If Americans are to really exercise their oversight roles, then the federal government has its own obligation to ensure that the populace knows exactly what they are paying. And saying thank you is, frankly, just good manners.” IFL is an advocacy organization dedicated to what it terms the “petty tyrannies” of government, specifically those that impact small business and entrepreneurship. Its motto is “Defending America’s Right to Be Free.” Taxes remain a primary issue for small business owners and entrepreneurs, both with regards to the complexities of the tax code and the sheer burden of what they owe each and every year. “As income is the property of the person who earns it, the power to tax that income is part and parcel of the other powers to take private property,” Langer further explained. “The power to take private property has always been regarded as ‘the despot’s power’…apt to be abused, and requiring the utmost care, attention, and oversight by the people.” IFL believes that by furnishing people with an accounting of what they have paid in the previous year, and doing so in the weeks leading to federal election time, that individuals will be more cognizant of their federal tax burden when going to the polls. Having that burden fresh in their minds would lead them to make choices that are more “tax friendly.” American Earmarks for France’s Airbus Cost Transparency Must be Maintained in Airbus Tanker Deal A battle emerging between the White House and Capitol Hill highlights enormous additional infrastructure costs ignored by the Air Force when it awarded the contract for its new airborne refueling tankers to Airbus, a French conglomerate, over the plane submitted by American-based Boeing. Although President Bush signed an Executive Order in January instructing federal agencies to ignore spending requests that contained “earmarks” – spending inserted into bills often anonymously and without being voted on – the White House is now requesting an exemption to its own Executive Order in the case of the 2009 Defense Authorization Bill. “One can only assume that the Air Force, is pressuring the President to grant this exemption,” states Kerri Houston, Senior Vice President for Policy at Institute for Liberty, a public policy group that has expressed grave concerns about the national security implications of the Airbus deal. “The Air Force does not want limits on the amount of foreign content in these refueling planes, and to the further benefit of Airbus, also wishes to use the earmark process to hide the high ancillary costs of choosing the over-sized French tanker over the lighter, smaller and more agile American alternative.” Ms. Houston continued, “the Airbus plane is so large that it requires costly infrastructure upgrades -- borne by U.S. taxpayers -- to lengthen runways and add size to fields and hangars just to land and park these giants.” “Its attempt to shield these costs from Congressional oversight by burying them in earmarks seems to demonstrate that the Defense Department believes it has something to hide -- unlike the tanker itself -- that can’t be hidden anywhere, including from hostile fire.” “However, there is not enough White Out or invisible ink at the Pentagon to make the additional costs of choosing these flying giants disappear.” Help Wanted in Michigan: A New Hero for a New Era by Kerri Houston Since the 2008 campaign began, each GOP frontrunner has likened himself at least once to the unrivaled hero of the party faithful, Ronald Reagan. But the continuous stream of personal comparisons to President Reagan is causing many GOP primary voters to ask, “that’s nice, but who are you?” As Tuesday’s primary takes place in a state that has been hemorrhaging manufacturing jobs for years, it presents an opportunity for participants to provide answers to that defining question. Republican candidates rightly tout the nation’s historically low 4.7% unemployment rate and economic growth as a positive for the current Republican administration. However, these numbers do not tell the whole story, or the personal stories of the 3.2M American manufacturing workers who have lost jobs in the past seven years. Michigan’s manufacturers have suffered massive losses over the last decade. Although manufacturing still contributes $69.2 billion to the state’s economy and is its largest individual contributor, the job loss continues. In August 2007, Michigan’s unemployment rate was 7.4% and the state’s latest year over year economic analysis showed that businesses experienced a 100% increase in layoff events. As a direct result of the enormous U.S. trade deficit with China, its estimated that Michigan lost 54,900 jobs from 2001 to 2006. This happens because China cheats. Because of the explosion of serious safety problems with Chinese products, its booming manufacturing sector has attracted attention from U.S. consumers. Some analysts take the incomplete view that the low cost of Chinese-produced goods outweighs the loss of manufacturing jobs. It is unlikely that the 279,000 Michigan souls who lost their jobs since 2000 would agree. As many workers left higher paying manufacturing positions for lower pay in the service sector, they present a painful irony as their lower family incomes create a greater demand for the cheap products that put them out of their jobs in the first place. China ignores international treaty obligations and flaunts its non-compliance fearlessly. Although it promised to end currency manipulation when joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, it continues undervaluing its currency, making its goods cheaper and ours more expensive. Chinese manufacturers, predominately owned by the government in the first place, are given free land, buildings, transportation infrastructure and “loans” with no expectation of payback. In the last five years alone, the Chinese government poured $52 billion of subsidies into its state-owned steel industry. Chinese manufacturing benefits financially from ignoring the few environmental laws on its books. Waterways and wells in China run red and purple with dyes and toxins that factories dump into ground and river. Many Chinese factories disregard international norms for workers by embracing low pay, forced labor and deplorable conditions for workers that would make their Michigan counterparts weep. In our global economy, it is reasonable to expect a flow of labor and trade, but Michiganders should not have to compete with unrestrained economic cheating and worker exploitation. The migration of jobs to China also has serious national security and consumer safety implications. For example, counterfeit brake shoes made of pressed grass have entered U.S. markets. Consumers should be grateful that Chinese counterfeiters can’t spell, as the only clue that the parts were fake was the address on the equally bogus boxes – Made in “Deaborn” Michigan. Large military equipment sits idle in repair centers as the few American companies left that provide spare parts or the tools used to attach them have dwindled to a trickle. Humvees receive armor plating at a painful pace as only one U.S. manufacturer of armored steel remains. Yet thanks to its lopsided balance of trade with the U.S. and a current account surplus approaching $100B U.S., China has been able to increase its military funding by 18.2% over the last year, much of it focused on emerging military space applications. Despite the ability to address China’s cheating through existing trade laws, our government has done little to solve the problem. But Michigan’s upcoming presidential debate provides an opportunity for Michiganders to pose questions to Republican hopefuls about U.S. job losses and China’s looming economic threat. In his farewell address to the nation in 1989, Reagan noted, “All great change in America begins at the dinner table.” Many dinner tables in Michigan and across our nation are different now as displaced workers struggle to make ends meet. It is the dinner table voice that must ask candidates urgent questions about saving American manufacturing jobs, enforcing U.S. trade laws and holding cheaters like China accountable. Ronald Reagan won over Michigan’s “Reagan Democrats” because they saw him as a strong leader who would fight for American interests. What the GOP field needs now is not a history lesson, but a candidate willing to be a leader by making a similar commitment to American prosperity and security. Now’s the time to ask each Republican candidate if he is up for the task.