DOCSLIB.ORG

Defending America, Defending Taxpayers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defending America, Defending Taxpayers Defending America, Defending Taxpayers How Pentagon Spending Can Better Reflect Conservative Values About the Organizations National Taxpayers Union The R Street Institute is a new non- (NTU) is America’s independ - profit, non-partisan think tank that ent, non-partisan advocate for supports free markets, limited and overburdened taxpayers. NTU effective government, and responsible mobilizes elected officials and the general public on environmental stewardship. Founded in 2012, R Street behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful strives to craft pragmatic solutions to domestic budget, spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise. tax, and regulatory challenges. For more information Founded in 1969, the organization works at all levels about R Street's work, please visit www.rstreet.org . for the day when taxpaying citizens’ right to a limited government is among our nation’s highest democratic principles. For more information about NTU, please visit www.ntu.org . About the Authors Pete Sepp is Executive Vice President of the National Andrew Moylan is Senior Fellow and Outreach Taxpayers Union, where he has spent 25 years helping Director for the R Street Institute where he heads coali - to develop government affairs, public relations, and tion efforts, conducts policy analysis, and serves as the promotional strategies on behalf of the organization. organization’s lead voice on tax issues. He also helps to direct and supervise the research and Prior to joining R Street, Andrew was Vice President educational operations of the National Taxpayers of Government Affairs for the National Taxpayers Union Foundation. Union. He previously served with the Center for Sepp graduated cum laude from Webster University in Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute and complet - St. Louis, Missouri with a B.A. in History and Political ed internships in the U.S. Senate and House of Science. Before coming to NTU, he served with the St. Representatives with members from his home state of Louis County Board of Elections and with a U.S. Senate Michigan. He is a graduate of the University of campaign. Michigan with a degree in political science. Table of Contents Executive Summary . .Page 1 PART I – Introduction: A Fiscally Sustainable Approach to National Security . .Page 2 PART II – Recommendations for Reform . .Page 6 PART III – A Brief Political History: Fiscal Conservatives and the Pentagon Budget . .Page 11 PART IV A Field Guide for Pentagon Budget Reform . .Page 18 Appendix 1 – Full List of Specific Weapons System Reforms . .Page 28 Appendix 2 – Full List of Human Resources Reforms . .Page 30 Appendix 3 – Full List of Process Reforms . .Page 31 Executive Summary s conservative organizations, the R Street • $618.6 billion through 20 specific changes to per - A Institute and National Taxpayers Union sonnel and compensation (Appendix 2) . For exam - (NTU) believe strongly in a robust national defense. ple, trimming civilian positions at the Department However, our groups also believe strongly in exercising of Defense (DoD) by attrition could save nearly fiscal discipline in all areas of the federal budget. As by $37 billion by 2023. far the largest portion of discretionary spending, • $878.5 billion through 30 specific changes to pro - Pentagon expenditures must not escape scrutiny as grams and processes (Appendix 3) . For example, conservatives examine methods for reducing our stag - consolidating DoD grocery and retail stores could gering debt. save upwards of $9 billion by 2023. That is why we have joined together to produce this It should be noted that this report is not intended to report. By aggregating research from various reliable be an A-to-Z sequential “roadmap” to reform. Several sources, we hope to demonstrate that the “universe” of of the recommendations overlap or conflict with oth - programs and processes in need of reform at the ers, or would lead to spending additional money in Pentagon is more than large enough to allow for com - related areas to compensate. For instance, scaling back pliance with so-called sequestration while maintaining or eliminating the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program the strongest and most capable military the world has would necessitate greater reliance on (and investment ever known. in) the existing F/A-18 as an offset. What follows is a written report and appendices with Furthermore, while the reforms listed here total 100 specific recommendations that fall into three roughly $1.9 trillion by 2023, our organizations realize broad categories, totaling nearly $1.9 trillion: that such a steep cut to total defense spending in the • $385.8 billion through 50 specific changes to next decade is not achievable and likely not desirable. weapons systems (Appendix 1). For example, We present the list in its totality here instead to show replacing the costly V-22 Osprey aircraft with MH- that existing avenues for reform are amply sufficient to 60 and CH-53 helicopters could net over $17 bil - accommodate sequestration as but a first step down lion in savings by 2023. the path to a long-overdue fundamental restructuring of Pentagon spending. DEFENDING AMERICA , D EFENDING TAXPAYERS | 1 PART I Introduction: A Fiscally Sustainable Approach to National Security hen it comes to the Pentagon’s budget, why guarantee prosperity better than truly private economic Waren’t political conservatives in Congress activity. and elsewhere working to bring excessive expenditures Or, they are treated to political platitudes such as under control? The answer is, many of them have been “we can’t put a price tag on defending our freedoms” doing so, and all of them should be doing so. – a curious proposition, since countries that pay little Unlike many of the dubious functions the federal heed to government expenditures are generally not government improperly assumes, “provid[ing] for the known for having strong free-market economies. 1 common defence” is granted to Congress and enumer - Ultimately, these purported justifications for excessive ated in several parts of the Constitution, such as to levels of Pentagon spending ignore what is rapidly “raise and support Armies” and “provide and main - becoming the single greatest threat to our survival as a tain a Navy.” powerful capitalist nation: financial instability from an Safeguarding the nation from its enemies is the single unaffordable government. The main drivers of this most important task the American people have entrust - instability are structurally unsound entitlement pro - ed to Washington. As such, it confers upon our leaders grams. Nonetheless, other expenditures cannot be a special responsibility to balance all aspects of nation - overlooked in this arithmetic. Between the al security in developing a coherent policy. This entails Departments of Defense (DoD), Energy (nuclear not simply cobbling together a warfighting capability weapons), Veterans Affairs, Homeland Security, State, and funding sophisticated weapons. It must also mean and other agencies, national security-related spending differentiating needs from wants, planning for econom - goes well beyond weapons and uniformed soldiers. For ic as well as military strength, exercising consistent Fiscal Year 2013, this more inclusive measurement oversight, and ensuring that our defense posture would exceed $800 billion. 2 reflects the sustainable, right-sized government conser - The expenditure levels on individual components of vatives seek. national security are also eye-opening when put in a Unfortunately, Congresses and Presidents have often historical context. As National Taxpayers Union fallen short of fulfilling this responsibility. Instead of Foundation Director of Research Demian Brady wrote methodical budgeting, taxpayers are frequently treated in 2012, “Over the ten years since F[iscal] Y[ear] to horse-trading sessions designed to allay parochial 2001, defense spending rose by about $24 billion a fears over “local jobs.” Such a notion is offensive to year, in constant dollars.” 3 conservatives, who opposed the 2009 “stimulus” bill’s premise that government-directed deficit spending can 2 | DEFENDING AMERICA , D EFENDING TAXPAYERS National Discretionary Defense Spending In Constant (FY 2005) Dollars (in billions) $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 1 3 5 7 9 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 Source: National Taxpayers Union Foundation, from federal budget data. Such a large sum – amounting to roughly one-fifth of all federal outlays and more than half of all discre - tionary spending – must, a long with civilian do mestic “Not on ly does t he Pentagon bid up the prices programs, be part of any comprehensive blueprint for of items which only it can buy – like tanks – but fiscal restraint. it also pays too muc h for everyday items – like screws – which anyone could buy for less. Furthermore, the U.S. defense establishment should be Since the military does not need to compete in confronting a drawdown brought on by withdrawals providing our defense, it has no reason to worry from Iraq and Afghanistan. Compared to other post- about cost-effectiveness.” conflict eras, however, current plans for expenditure ________ pare-backs are quite modest. In fact, Cato Institute research (summarized in the following chart) has indi - James Davidson, Chairman Emeritus, cated that under most scenarios, defense outlays are National Taxpayers Union projected to begin rising again well before the end of Quoted in NTU’s Dollars & Sense Newsletter this decade. 4 Normally, recent post-conflict drawdowns have led to large spending reductions. 5 September/October 1982 Edition DEFENDING AMERICA , D EFENDING TAXPAYERS | 3 Pentagon Spending Since 1976 and Projections Constant 2012 Dollars, PB = President’s Budget $700 $600 $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8 0 7 7 8 8 8 8 8 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Actual Obama FY11 PB Obama FY12 PB Obama FY13 PB Sequester Cuts Source: Cato Institute.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • MAP Act Coalition Letter Freedomworks
    April 13, 2021 Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned organizations representing millions of Americans nationwide highly concerned by our country’s unsustainable fiscal trajectory, write in support of the Maximizing America’s Prosperity (MAP) Act, to be introduced by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.). As we stare down a mounting national debt of over $28 trillion, the MAP Act presents a long-term solution to our ever-worsening spending patterns by implementing a Swiss-style debt brake that would prevent large budget deficits and increased national debt. Since the introduction of the MAP Act in the 116th Congress, our national debt has increased by more than 25 percent, totaling six trillion dollars higher than the $22 trillion we faced less than two years ago in July of 2019. Similarly, nearly 25 percent of all U.S. debt accumulated since the inception of our country has come since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now more than ever, it is critical that legislators take a serious look at the fiscal situation we find ourselves in, with a budget deficit for Fiscal Year 2020 of $3.132 trillion and a projected share of the national debt held by the public of 102.3 percent of GDP. While markets continue to finance our debt in the current moment, the simple and unavoidable fact remains that our country is not immune from the basic economics of massive debt, that history tells us leads to inevitable crisis. Increased levels of debt even before a resulting crisis slows economic activity -- a phenomenon referred to as “debt drag” -- which especially as we seek recovery from COVID-19 lockdowns, our nation cannot afford.
    [Show full text]
  • The New Right
    W&M ScholarWorks Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects 1984 The New Right Elizabeth Julia Reiley College of William & Mary - Arts & Sciences Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Reiley, Elizabeth Julia, "The New Right" (1984). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539625286. https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21220/s2-mnnb-at94 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses, Dissertations, & Master Projects at W&M ScholarWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects by an authorized administrator of W&M ScholarWorks. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE NEW RIGHT 'f A Thesis Presented to The Faculty of the Department of Sociology The College of William and Mary in Virginia In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts by Elizabeth Reiley 1984 This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Elizabeth Approved, May 1984 Edwin H . Rhyn< Satoshi Ito Dedicated to Pat Thanks, brother, for sharing your love, your life, and for making us laugh. We feel you with us still. Presente! iii. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................... v ABSTRACT.................................... vi INTRODUCTION ................................ s 1 CHAPTER I. THE NEW RIGHT . '............ 6 CHAPTER II. THE 1980 ELECTIONS . 52 CHAPTER III. THE PRO-FAMILY COALITION . 69 CHAPTER IV. THE NEW RIGHT: BEYOND 1980 95 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION ............... 114 BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................. 130 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The writer wishes to express her appreciation to all the members of her committee for the time they gave to the reading and criticism of the manuscript, especially Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the New Right on the Reagan Administration
    LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS UNIVERSITY OF LONDON THE IMPACT OF THE NEW RIGHT ON THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION: KIRKPATRICK & UNESCO AS. A TEST CASE BY Isaac Izy Kfir LONDON 1998 UMI Number: U148638 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U148638 Published by ProQuest LLC 2014. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 2 ABSTRACT The aim of this research is to investigate whether the Reagan administration was influenced by ‘New Right’ ideas. Foreign policy issues were chosen as test cases because the presidency has more power in this area which is why it could promote an aggressive stance toward the United Nations and encourage withdrawal from UNESCO with little impunity. Chapter 1 deals with American society after 1945. It shows how the ground was set for the rise of Reagan and the New Right as America moved from a strong affinity with New Deal liberalism to a new form of conservatism, which the New Right and Reagan epitomised. Chapter 2 analyses the New Right as a coalition of three distinctive groups: anti-liberals, New Christian Right, and neoconservatives.
    [Show full text]
  • Minimum Wage Coalition Letter Freedomworks
    June 23, 2021 Dear Members of Congress, We, the undersigned organizations representing millions of Americans nationwide, write in blanket opposition to any increase in the federal minimum wage, especially in such a time when our job market needs maximum flexibility to recover from the havoc wreaked on it by the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Workers must be compensated for their labor based on the value that said labor adds to their employer. Any deviation from this standard is harmful to workers and threatens jobs and employment opportunities for all workers. Whether it be to $11, $15, or any other dollar amount, increasing the federal minimum wage further takes away the freedom of two parties to agree on the value of one’s labor to the other’s product. As a result, employment options are restricted and jobs are lost. Instead, the free market should be left alone to work in the best interest of employers and employees alike. While proponents of raising the minimum wage often claim to be working in service of low-wage earners, studies have regularly shown that minimum wage increases harm low-skilled workers the most. Higher minimum wages inevitably lead to lay-offs and automation that drives low-skilled workers to unemployment. The Congressional Budget Office projected that raising the minimum wage to $15 would directly result in up to 2.7 million jobs lost by 2026. Raising it to $11 in the same time frame - as some Senators are discussing - could cost up to 490,000 jobs, if such a proposal is paired with eliminating the tip credit as well.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxpayers Oppose Hike in the Federal Gas Tax
    Illinois Policy Institute August 21, 2007 An Open Letter to the President and Congress: Taxpayers Oppose Hike in the Federal Gas Tax Dear President Bush and Members of Congress: On behalf of the millions of taxpayers represented by our respective organizations, we write in opposition to proposals that would increase the existing 18.4 cent-per-gallon federal excise tax on gasoline. One legislative plan promoted by Representative James Oberstar would temporarily increase the federal gas tax by 5 cents per gallon to fund bridge repair around the country. We are extremely concerned that this “temporary” tax increase would turn into a permanent one. After all, President George H.W. Bush’s “temporary” gas tax increase of 5 cents per gallon in 1990 never went away as promised, while lawmakers “repurposed” President Clinton’s 4.3 cent-per-gallon hike when the budget seemed headed toward a surplus. Proponents of a federal gas tax increase insist that few would even notice the change in their fuel bills. In reality, a 5 cent-per-gallon jump would represent a steep 27 percent tax hike over the current rate and cost American motorists an estimated $25 billion over the next three years. Combined with state gas taxes, many motorists would pay over $7.50 in taxes for the average fill-up. This is a substantial burden on families trying to make ends meet and only makes gas prices harder to stomach. Given high energy costs, now is the time to give taxpayers a lighter – not a heavier – gas tax burden. 1 We also reject the notion that there isn’t enough money available for infrastructure upkeep.
    [Show full text]
  • Survey Questions
    NH 1i F U.S. Senate Questions#: 123456789 Judd Grqg-R' - Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y (603) 626-1212 Johr. Rauh-0 NNN-NNNNN 16031 595-9353 Larry Brady-I YYYYYYYYY 16031 641-5900 US. House of Representatives Questions#: 123456789 mrie I Bill Zeliff-R Bob Preston-0 Key: Dirtriat 2 Y -. =Yes Dick Swett-D RI =No Bill Hatch-R - =NoResponse I * Governor 3 Greas's-- actual survey response has sti 1 not ::-:been received by the Committee. However, these responses are :.+_... ...t:.=:derived from the survey he is distributing to New Hampshire ."Right to Work Supporters and is claiming to have sent to us. Candidates for Governor on back Survey Questions 1. Do you believe an employee who does not want the "services" 6. Will you suppore amendments to the Federal Election of a labor union should have the right to refuse to accept that Campaign Act to prohibit the use of compulsory union dues union as his exclusive representative, which federal law now and fees for political causes and candidzs opposed by union forces him to accept? members? 2. Will you support rep4 of the provisions in federal laws which 7. Will you oppose so-called "anti-double breasting" legislation authorize compulsory unionism? that has, as its primary goal, to forcibly unionize employees or construction companies? 3. Do you favor preservation of Section 14@) of the Taft-Hartley Act. which authorizes state Right to Work laws? 8. Will you oppose legislation to weaken or desrroy the Hatch Act, which protects federal employees from union political 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Around the Campfire, Issue
    Issue No. 42 January 20, 2013 End Welfare Subsidies While it is often thought that there is no socialist strength in America and that “welfare as we know it” is dead, a mighty block of U.S. senators, representatives, and state governors shove a lineup of socialism, welfare handouts, and entitlement rights. They fly below the radar screen of folk and news-business awareness because they cowl their Big Mother scam with high-flying ballyhooing of the free market, individual rights, and no governmental butting-in. I am not talking about an undercover cell of Maoists, but about pork-barrel “conservatives.” Mike Smith, an assistant secretary of the Department of Energy in the Bush Junior administration, laid out their goal in one talk, “The biggest challenge is going to be how to best utilize tax dollars to the benefit of industry.”[1] Anticonservation attorney Karen Budd-Falen stamps her foot down that federal land agencies must “protect the economic or community stability of those communities and localities surrounding national forests and BLM-managed lands.”[2] Then-Senator Frank Murkowski of Alaska (later governor), at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources subcommittee hearing on the Forest Service, January 25, 1996, said, “These people [loggers in southeast Alaska] are great Americans. Blue collar Americans. They work hard and look to us for help. We should be able to help them.…I have constituents out there who are real people, and they are entitled to a job.…These people rely on the government to provide them with a sustainable livelihood.”[3] It might be fair for Murkowski to call on the federal government to underwrite jobs for his folks.
    [Show full text]
  • Thank You President Trump
    Thank You President Trump conservativeactionproject.com/thank-you-president-trump/ January 13, 2020 January 13, 2020 Washington, DC Dear President Trump, On behalf of the conservative movement, we would like to thank you for the accomplishments your administration has achieved on behalf of the American people. From a booming economy, to stronger protections at the border, to implementing strong protections for the unborn, to nominating constitutionalist judges to the federal bench, you have kept your promises to the voters that elected you. Specifically, we want to applaud you for the following achievements: A booming economy that has unemployment at its lowest level in fifty years, the highest median household income on record, a labor force that has grown by 2.1 million. 1/11 Poverty rates for African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans at record lows, and unemployment among women is at its lowest level in nearly 70 years. Aggressively working to address the opioid crisis. Signing the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 which resulted in more than 6 million American works receiving wage increases, bonuses, and increased benefits. Rolling back nearly 8 regulations for every significant new one and cutting regulatory costs by more than $50 billion. Repealing two particularly onerous regulations: the Obama-era Waters of the U.S. rule, and the Obama-era “Clean Power” Plan, and revoking California’s emissions waiver, all of which cost Americans millions of dollars and thousands of jobs. Withdrawing America from the Paris climate treaty, which saved American families $20,000 a year. Opening up federal lands and offshore areas to fossil fuel development and permitting the pipelines and infrastructure necessary to facilitate further development.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservative Movement
    Conservative Movement How did the conservative movement, routed in Barry Goldwater's catastrophic defeat to Lyndon Johnson in the 1964 presidential campaign, return to elect its champion Ronald Reagan just 16 years later? What at first looks like the political comeback of the century becomes, on closer examination, the product of a particular political moment that united an unstable coalition. In the liberal press, conservatives are often portrayed as a monolithic Right Wing. Close up, conservatives are as varied as their counterparts on the Left. Indeed, the circumstances of the late 1980s -- the demise of the Soviet Union, Reagan's legacy, the George H. W. Bush administration -- frayed the coalition of traditional conservatives, libertarian advocates of laissez-faire economics, and Cold War anti- communists first knitted together in the 1950s by William F. Buckley Jr. and the staff of the National Review. The Reagan coalition added to the conservative mix two rather incongruous groups: the religious right, primarily provincial white Protestant fundamentalists and evangelicals from the Sunbelt (defecting from the Democrats since the George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign); and the neoconservatives, centered in New York and led predominantly by cosmopolitan, secular Jewish intellectuals. Goldwater's campaign in 1964 brought conservatives together for their first national electoral effort since Taft lost the Republican nomination to Eisenhower in 1952. Conservatives shared a distaste for Eisenhower's "modern Republicanism" that largely accepted the welfare state developed by Roosevelt's New Deal and Truman's Fair Deal. Undeterred by Goldwater's defeat, conservative activists regrouped and began developing institutions for the long haul.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservative Caucus. Inc
    The Conservative Caucus.Inc. National Headquarters 450 Maple Avenue East, Vienna, Virginia 22180 (703) 893-1550 i-r July 30, 1982 MEMORANDUM FOR ANDY MESSING30 xr FROM: HOWARD PHILLIPS Please check with Phyllis Schlafly to see whether she thinks it is a good idea for us to proceed with the Stop E.R.A. Action-Gram mailing proposed to us by The Viguerie Company. I do not care one way or the other. If Phyllis thinks it would be a plus, we will do it. If she thinks it would be a minus, we will not. Please advise. Thank you. HP:cj Board of Directors Executive Director National Security Task Force Publications Howard Phillips, Chairman F. Andy Messing, Jr. Brig, General Albion Knight, USA (Ret,) Senate Issues Yearbook Director Peter J. Thomas, Secretary Administrative Vice Chairman Senate Report Lawrence J. Straw, Jr., Treasurer Charles Orndorff Director of Research Grass Roots Richard Derham and Publications Member's Report J, Alan MacKay Field Coordinator Annual Report Monroe Thomas Joyce Runyon Conservative Manifesto National Director Financial Secretary Director of Howard Phillips Peggy Cross Administrative Services Margie Wilkins The Viguerie Company A Direct Mail Advertising Agency . 7777 Leesburg Pike, Fails Church, Virginia 22043;(703) 356-0440 COPY APPROVAL REQUEST Da^fe: 7-30-82 jq. Howard Phillips From: Johnson Enclosed for your review are copies of the package described below. Package Name: stop E.R.A. Package Signer: Howard Phillips Package Components: JL JL Page letter (computer/i398^ 2. reply form (computer/56JpP¥S«) — 3. flyer (description - ) brochure (description ~ x_ 5. BRE/Wfic ' ^ 6.
    [Show full text]
  • 2004 Campaign Finance Summary
    STATE OF MINNESOTA CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BOARD 2004 CAMPAIGN FINANCE SUMMARY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE CANDIDATES JUDICIAL CANDIDATES SPECIAL ELECTION DISTRICT 37 CONSTITUTIONAL AND SENATE OFFICE HOLDERS OTHER REGISTERED PRINCIPAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEES POLITICAL PARTY UNITS POLITICAL COMMITTEES AND POLITICAL FUNDS Issued: June 20, 2005 (data as of May 18, 2005) CAMPAIGN FINANCE AND PUBLIC DISCLOSURE BOARD Suite 190, Centennial Office Building 658 Cedar Street St. Paul MN 55155-1603 Telephone: 651/296-5148 or 800/657-3889 Fax: 651/296-1722 For TTY/TDD communication contact us through the Minnesota Relay Service at 800/627-3529 Email: [email protected] Worldwide web site: http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - ELECTION YEAR 2004 The Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board is charged with the administration of the Ethics in Government Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 10A. During an election year campaign committees of candidates who file for office are required to file three Reports of Receipts and Expenditures: pre-primary, pre-general, and year-end. Campaign committees of candidates whose office is not up for election and candidates who chose not to file for office, file one year-end report. Offices open for election in 2004 were: House of Representatives and certain Judicial seats. Political party units, political committees, and political funds that attempt to influence state elections also filed pre-primary, pre-general, and year-end reports. This summary is based on reports for election year 2004, as filed with the Board by principal campaign committees of candidates for 134 state representative seats (311 candidates filed), 38 candidates for elective judicial seats, and a special election in Senate District 37.
    [Show full text]
  • Young Americans for Freedom Box: 28
    Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Digital Library Collections This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections. Collection: Blackwell, Morton: Files Folder Title: Young Americans for Freedom Box: 28 To see more digitized collections visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit: https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected] Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/ Georgetown Young Americans for Freedom P.O . Box 3033 Washington, D.C. 20057 (202) 944-1291 Richard J. Mathias Chairman Patrick Mahon Vice-Chairman Kevin Piediscalzi Treasurer Quin Hillyer ~\\~, Secretary Don McLaughlin Program Director . J w~ M -h ~ r ~ ~ Kevin Kime Membership Director ~ Q""'RA,-!/.M'j wi~4~N~- Bridget Brooker Public Relations Brad Seiling Ul v~ Public Relations .ftvl'Al ~ ::,~ ~4 J }- Deroy Murdock Executive Director ~ ~ r r--t-1-ic1~ .M cf)/V/~ - ~ ~ _k~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ I w-laf-tvi,-1 C\.v\ w~}P ~,.de - ~ ~ ~ Iv~ wJ2JJ r•JJ..e. '14 ~ t,,11-,/ ~ ~uw/4 ~ w1d w/4J./-1 ~ al ~~ f~~. ~ ~ CnCQ~I~ ~ (;.e_t,.,~1 J-®'M.w.1~ c,W~c.J,__ PAGE 4A / WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 2 GOP told to follow FDR's example BY A WASHINGTON TIMES STAFF WRITER policy initiatives even when he knew A lack of grass-roots activism contri­ defensive," - they get to select the The Republicans could suffer "a some of them would fail, Blackwell said. buted strongly to the Democratic con­ terms of battle. , lonely landslide". next year unless they Eisenhower, on the other hand, quickly gressional resurgence in the 1982 "Every election," he said, "is a refer­ can find a way to put their conservative lost his opportunity while retaining his midterm congressional elections, endum on something," and ·conserva, coalition back together in time for the personal popularity, Blackwell said.
    [Show full text]