Saving Medicare by Empowering Patients

Tue, 15 May 2012 13:59:09 +0000

Earlier this month, the Medicare Trustees, the board charged with assessing the program’s financial health, released its 2012 report confirming that Medicare is on an unsustainable path and will become insolvent in 2024. Recognizing that Medicare is a lifeline for America’s seniors, House Republicans have put forward positive solutions to protect the program for today’s seniors and save it for generations to come. Rather than joining us in this effort, Democrats continue to avoid confronting this generational crisis.

Testifying in a hearing of the House Budget Committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted that the Obama Administration does not “have a definitive solution to our long-term problem,” and added “what we do know is that we don’t like yours.” In other words, they have found no time to put together a plan to save Medicare and avoid a predictable debt crisis but plenty of time to launch political attacks against House Republicans. This is the epitome of empty leadership.

Three engines are driving Medicare towards a fiscal cliff – demographics, health care costs, and gimmicks. More than 10,000 Baby Boomers reach retirement age each day. Thanks to the most innovative health care system on earth, Americans are living longer than we were when Medicare was created in 1965. That’s good news. Unfortunately, the worker to beneficiary ratio is decreasing steadily. Twelve years ago, for every senior depending on the program, four workers funded the benefits. By 2030, just over two workers will support each senior.

While the number of workers paying into the system steadily declines, healthcare costs soar higher. Health care inflation continues to outpace the rate of inflation in the real economy. Over the past ten years, health care inflation has grown 48 percent. While everyone in Washington agrees that costs are climbing, gimmicks and misguided top-down solutions are only making the problem worse.

In order to fuel President Obama’s unpopular health care law, Democrats siphoned half a trillion dollars out of the Medicare trust fund. This decision pushed Medicare closer to insolvency and revealed that the President’s health care law relies on central planning.

Beginning in 2014, the Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB), a government panel of fifteen unelected bureaucrats, will have the power to effectively deny care to seniors by determining what to pay doctors to provide treatments and services. This is not an imaginary scenario. It’s a fact, and part of the reason that more than half of doctors in this country believe that the current health care law will force them to close or restrict their practices to Medicare patients.

Seniors will pay the price if Washington allows the status quo to continue. That’s why we are taking important steps to change course while there’s still time. We’ve put forward a responsible plan to improve and strengthen Medicare. Importantly, by acting now, we make sure that there are no changes for those in or near retirement.

Our plan for Medicare – which was part of our budget that passed through the House of Representatives in March – has a history of bipartisan support. It guarantees coverage and offers seniors choices. It is an approach based on the belief that patients come first.

Saving Medicare starts by placing trust in Americans, not Washington planners. Instead of blindly following fifteen government bureaucrats, our plan empowers millions of seniors. Under our plan, patients will select from a list of guaranteed coverage options that best fit their needs. We have taken care to ensure that the traditional Medicare option is among the choices. Low-income seniors or those with higher health risks will receive greater support while wealthier individuals will receive less support.

It is disappointing to see some in Washington turn to scare tactics and broken promises. The airways are already crowded with talk about Republicans “ending Medicare.” That whopper earned PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” award. America’s seniors are smart enough to see through this.

Medicare’s current course is unsustainable and irresponsible. Unless we act swiftly and decisively, it will become insolvent in 2024 and seniors today and for generations to come will pay the price for Washington’s failures. By empowering seniors and increasing coverage options, we can save Medicare.

Visit The Journal Gazette to read the full article.

Congressman Marlin Stutzman (IN-03) currently serves as a Deputy Whip and member of the House Committees on Agriculture, Budget, and Veterans’ Affairs. Congressman Tom Price (GA-06) currently serves as the fifth ranking Republican in the House of Representatives as the Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee and sits on the House Committee on Ways and Means and the House Budget Committee.

The Path to Prosperity: A Detailed Blueprint for American Renewal

Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:11:53 +0000

Today, Republican members of the House Budget Committee will introduce a budget that restores spending discipline, lifts the debt, strengthens health and retirement security, and reforms the tax code so the economy can grow.

Serious budgeting – meeting deadlines, setting priorities, making trade-offs, and offering credible solutions to the nation’s problems – is hard work. But Americans deserve nothing less. In stark contrast to the President’s latest proposal, the budget we are introducing today offers facts, specifics, and a detailed blueprint for American renewal.

America’s fiscal problems pose a real threat to our military. Left unaddressed, these problems will spell decline for America as a world power. Rather than cut defense to the bone, our budget deals with the actual drivers of our debt, making certain that our troops and military families don’t pay the price for Washington’s failure to take action.

At home, there is a growing and destructive trend of government overreach into the private economy – a trend that stacks the deck in favor of special interests and stifles growth. Our budget stops Washington from picking winners and losers across the economy. It repeals the government takeover of health care that threatens our personal and economic liberty. And it reduces the bureaucracy’s reach by making sure America has a public sector that works for the people it serves – not the other way around.

Right now, safety-net programs such as Medicaid and food stamps are failing the very individuals they are intended to help. Our budget strengthens the safety-net by refocusing aid on those who truly need it. It empowers states to tailor public-assistance programs to their unique needs. It offers policies that would grow the economy and create more opportunities for all Americans.

Medicare is endangered by an irresponsible government that has willfully ignored its looming insolvency. This threat is compounded by a new health care law that empowers unaccountable bureaucrats to cut the program in ways that would deny seniors access to health care. By contrast, our budget embraces bipartisan solutions to preserve the Medicare guarantee. It makes no changes for those in or near retirement and offers guaranteed coverage options to future seniors, regardless of pre-existing conditions. These options would be financed by a premium-support payment adjusted to provide additional financial assistance to the poor and the sick and less help to the wealthy. Medicare-approved health plans, including a traditional Medicare option, would compete against each other to offer higher quality care at lower costs.

Finally, the U.S. tax code has become a broken maze of complexity and political favoritism, stifling economic growth and job creation. Our budget tackles this problem head-on by consolidating the current six individual income tax brackets into just two brackets of 10 and 25 percent. Instead of raising taxes, it maintains revenue growth at a level consistent with current tax policy by getting rid of special-interest loopholes. It reduces the U.S. corporate rate, which is set to become the highest in the developed world, to a more competitive 25 percent, and it shifts to a “territorial” tax system to encourage companies to bring back foreign earnings and invest in the United States.

Just last year, the national debt surpassed the size of our entire economy. If left on its current course, the ever-rising debt will trigger an inevitable crisis and a state of decline that will be difficult, if not impossible, to reverse once it takes hold. Our budget ends this crisis before it begins.

This is what budgeting is all about and this is where this Administration has fallen short. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner admitted as much recently in a hearing before our committee: “We’re not coming before you to say we have a definitive solution to our long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”

Letting somebody else propose a path forward, and then attacking them for political gain, is anything but serious budgeting. Some may disagree with our vision but American taxpayers deserve an honest debate. Taxpayers, not Washington, should choose the path we take, and we owe them an honest debate.

We’ve presented a clear alternative to the current path to debt and decline, a path that leaves the next generation with a better country than the one we inherited.

Rep. Marlin Stutzman represents Indiana’s Third District and is a freshman member of House Budget Committee.

Visit the Indianapolis Star to read the full article.

Putting America on the Path to Energy Independence

Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:24:40 +0000

A little over a year ago, House Republicans made a promise to restoring the fundamental American ideal that anyone who is willing to work hard and sacrifice can succeed in America. Our promise was enshrined in “The Pledge to America,” a governing agenda designed to create jobs and make America more competitive, thus bolstering our nation’s economic security.

While the economic demands across our country are diverse, efforts to achieve long-term economic security face an obstacle: a failed energy policy that inhibits growth and promotes uncertainty in energy costs. From northeast Indiana across the country to Bakersfield, California, our economy depends on reliable sources of energy.

The clearest example of the influence energy has on our economy is the price that consumers face at the pump. Basic economics tell us that higher gas prices force consumers to cut back spending on discretionary items. A deeper analysis shows that in 2011, the typical U.S. household spent 8.4% of their income on gas for personal transportation. This was an increase from the previous decade, in which Americans spent 5.7% of their income on gasoline. The impact of the price of oil also has an indirect consequence to Hoosier households. As the “Crossroads of America,” Indiana benefits greatly from the logistics and distribution companies that transfer goods throughout the country. Without relief from $4-a-gallon diesel, our “Crossroads” could very well be vacant.

Unfortunately, President Obama’s response to this situation is not to implement policies that would provide relief at gas stations by immediately increasing America’s energy production. Instead, the Obama Administration has been pursuing policies that seemingly embrace higher fuel prices in order to advance a political platform. In fact, Energy Secretary Steven Chu has stated that his goal is to “figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” This out-of-touch agenda will devastate American families who simply cannot afford to pay $8.36 per gallon like the Germans or $9.24 per gallon like the Italians, especially in the current economic climate.

While President Obama refuses to lead on this issue, House Republicans have advanced bold energy legislation to combat rising energy prices.

Most recently, the House passed the PIONEER Act, a bipartisan solution to increase energy supply immediately and put our country on the path to energy independence. Provisions of this legislation encompass a true “all of the above” approach to domestic energy production. It would remove regulatory barriers for developing renewable energy sources on federal lands, make 3% of land in the Arctic coastal plain available for exploration and production that is environmentally respectful, and approve the Keystone XL pipeline. It also addresses many of the Administration’s price-spiking regulations that have had the consequence of further limiting the supply of domestic energy.

While these are welcome steps for taxpayers across the country, there is more work ahead. Under President Obama, the Environmental Protection Agency has levied the most expensive rules in the agency’s history, including rules that would cost our economy’s energy sector 180,000 American jobs annually. Just last week, GenOn Energy Inc., the third-largest U.S. independent power producer by market value, announced that it expected to shut 13 percent of its generating capacity by 2015 because of environmental regulations. These burdensome regulations have real economic consequences for all Americans. To uphold our “Pledge To America,” House Republicans will continue to fight this Administration’s harmful energy agenda, and instead focus on solutions that protect existing American jobs, promote new economic growth, and secure our future.

Congressman Marlin Stutzman represents Indiana’s 3rd District and currently serves as a Deputy Whip and member of the House Committees on Agriculture, Budget, and Veterans’ Affairs. Congressman Kevin McCarthy currently serves as Majority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives and is the proud Representative of California’s 22nd District.

Visit The Journal Gazette to read the full article.

Celebrate agriculture, don't stifle agriculture

Thu, 08 Mar 2012 19:13:28 +0000

Today is National Agriculture Day. Today is a day to recognize all that America’s farmers, ranchers and agribusinesses do, a day to celebrate the abundance provided by our agricultural entrepreneurs.

As businessman-farmers ourselves, we know firsthand the challenges our producers face each and every day. We also know that the national debt crisis endangers the prosperity of everyone across the United States, and that wasteful farm program spending has been a real contributor over the decades. That’s why we introduced the Rural Economic Farm and Ranch Sustainability and Hunger (REFRESH) Act in October — a deficit-reduction bill that cuts an estimated $40 billion over 10 years, ends policies that work against market forces and offers viable insurance options for farmers.

As both chambers of Congress grasp for solutions to our mounting federal deficit and a farm bill that expires in a few short months, our bill remains the only comprehensive piece of agriculture legislation that can claim this level of savings, combined with fundamental policy reforms.

Previous op-eds by us this week here on the Congress Blog have outlined some of the farm policy improvements made in our bill: we propose energy programs to reduce America’s dependence on foreign oil while also creating jobs across rural America; we call for conservation reforms that would free up land for farmers to grow more food while ensuring that important conservation programs are fiscally sustainable; and we offer commonsense reforms in the farm bill’s huge nutrition title that would reduce waste in food programs and close loopholes, saving $14 billion over the next 10 years while still allowing us to meet the needs of the hungry and fulfill our budgetary obligations.

The REFRESH Act would eliminate the practice of writing checks every year to farmers regardless of need, which causes significant inflation of land rents and other input costs. It would do this by scrapping the $5 billion annual direct payment system that manipulates markets and restricts farmers’ freedom by barring them from planting certain crops on their land.

To provide a genuine safety net for our nation’s food producers, we’ve proposed an aggregate risk and revenue management program that protects farmers against “shallow losses.” Unlike direct payments currently in place, this program would not blindly send money out the door, but rather only when farm revenues actually fall and farmers are truly in need. This program would complement the proven private-public crop insurance market for catastrophic loss that covered 255 million acres last year.

Our bill tackles other specific programs that hurt America’s economy. For instance, thanks to technocratic price-fixing, U.S. consumers today pay nearly double for their sugar. Government manipulation of the sugar market levies an indirect tax of an extra $4 billion each year in food prices. Such stringent controls and artificial barriers should be the antiquated relics of the Eastern bloc, not mainstays of U.S. policy. Our legislation would end the current system of trade quotas and tariff barriers, promoting competition and increased quality for domestic sugar users.

American dairy farmers face their own labyrinth of regulations and controls. Our REFRESH Act would give dairymen simple, voluntary risk management tools. By eliminating a complicated dairy price support program and milk income loss contract program, we offer producers the option to participate in a simpler insurance system. While not perfect, these reforms would move the future of dairy toward a freer market with, we believe, significant backing from the often-divided dairy community.

And, perhaps most importantly, our bill plans for the future of this vital sector. By promoting agricultural research that improves productivity, reduces imports and identifies alternative markets for agricultural and waste products, our bill ensures that America’s agricultural sector will remain a global leader for years to come.

We are proud that American agriculture does not need the federal government to make its decisions. In a globally competitive marketplace, American agriculture has remained on top because of efficient use of land, machinery, science and technology. As we celebrate National Agriculture Day today, we celebrate the fact that America’s farmers and ranchers will continue to grow even more successful, remaining the world’s leader in feeding growing populations, IF our government programs stay out of their way.

Lugar and Stutzman are Indiana Republicans, family farm owners and members of their respective Senate and House Agriculture committees.

Visit The Hill to read the full text.

REFRESH Act: Meeting needs of hungry while cutting costs

Wed, 07 Mar 2012 17:25:11 +0000

Our government’s $15.3 trillion debt casts a cloud of uncertainty over every American’s economic security. Americans from every walk of life—rural, urban, young, old—are left treading water in Washington’s sea of red ink. Too many politicians talk about cutting spending without following through. In reality, we can only tackle out-of-control deficits if we begin the work of setting priorities and finding savings. As conservatives, we know that, when it comes to nutrition programs, we must balance our fiscal obligations with our convictions to help those who are truly in need.

On one hand, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates that 49 million people in the United States were food insecure last year. That means that, at times during the last year, these households were uncertain of having, or unable to acquire, enough food to meet the needs of all their members because they had insufficient money or other resources for food.

The food and nutrition programs administered by our Senate and House Agriculture Committees provide needed assistance to hungry people in Indiana and across America. In December, there were 46.5 million people participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as the Food Stamp Program), which is an increase of 5.5 percent in the period of a year. For those with legitimate needs, food and nutrition programs, like SNAP, can provide welcome, provisional relief.

On the other hand, in its January 2012 baseline projections, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that food and nutrition spending (most notably SNAP and child nutrition programs) will cost the federal government $102 billion in 2013. That represents an increase of $4 billion over this year and accounts for an astounding 84 percent of the total food and agriculture budget.

Balancing these two challenges – a need for assistance and the overwhelming expense of programs – will be a priority for our respective Committees as we draft a new farm bill. We believe that we can achieve real budget savings without turning away Hoosiers and other Americans with legitimate needs.

That is one reason why we introduced our Rural Economic Farm and Ranch Sustainability and Hunger (REFRESH) Act, which creates real reforms to U.S. farm and food support programs. These reforms create a true producer safety net that will serve more farmers more fairly, while being responsive to regional and national crises that might endanger the continuing success of America’s farmers. The reforms also improve accuracy and efficiency in federal nutrition programs, while protecting Americans in real hardship. The REFRESH Act accomplishes all of this while saving $40 billion in taxpayer dollars over the next ten years.

The nutrition title of the REFRESH Act is expected to save taxpayers nearly $14 billion over the next 10 years, accounting for roughly one-third of the REFRESH Act savings, but less than a 2 percent reduction in overall nutrition program spending. By focusing on closing eligibility loopholes, eliminating overlap in programs, and improving the efficiency of SNAP, we can make a reasonable and important step toward cutting costs.

Specifically, the REFRESH Act would eliminate broad-based categorical eligibility for SNAP benefits. Under existing legislation, participants can be automatically or “categorically” eligible for SNAP benefits, if they are eligible for some other low-income assistance programs. Under our bill, this automatic eligibility for SNAP would be limited and available only to those receiving cash benefits from another qualifying program. After all, categorical eligibility is a far cry from responsible assistance. Our bill would ensure that those individuals eligible for SNAP benefits continue to receive their benefits, while eliminating loopholes that allow in participants who would otherwise not be eligible to receive SNAP benefits.

The REFRESH Act also eliminates duplicative federal government programs. The bill would eliminate the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food and Nutrition Service employment and training program, which reimburses states for certain training programs. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are currently 47 federal government programs that provide employment and training. REFRESH’s common sense provisions help to reduce some of that government overlap and duplication.

Additional savings can be realized through improved enforcement of federal food and nutrition programs. The REFRESH Act would improve the quality control and enforcement for SNAP. In addition, the bill eliminates the funding for “bonus” payments made to the states that demonstrate “high or most improved performance” in implementing the SNAP. States do not need federally-funded awards for doing what they should be doing anyway – implementing food and nutrition programs accurately and efficiently.

As the Senate and House take up our new farm bill and its food and nutrition programs, we must carefully balance the needs of hungry Americans with the imperative to cut federal spending. Our REFRESH Act offers a real solution to this challenge – one that achieves actual budget savings while not destroying the underlying programs.

Sen. Lugar and Rep. Stutzman are Indiana Republicans, family farm owners, and members of their respective Senate and House Agriculture Committees. This is the third of a four-part series celebrating National Agriculture Day on March 8, 2012.

Visit The Hill to read the full text.

REFRESH Act: Farmers know conservation; Farm bill must put them first

Tue, 06 Mar 2012 19:51:33 +0000

As businessmen-farmers and conservatives, we take our commitment to conservation seriously. While bureaucrats evaluate conservation policy from office buildings far away, farmers who rely on their land for their livelihoods understand the importance of stewardship. As Congress begins the work of writing a new farm bill, farmers’ conservation priorities need to be front and center.

Conservation policy should promote farm productivity, strengthen true stewardship, and knock down the bureaucratic maze farmers now face. For these reasons, we introduced the REFRESH Act last fall. The REFRESH Act brings real reforms to farm policy and should be the foundation of the next farm bill.

American farmers lead the world in productivity and innovation. With food prices on the rise, they are ready to meet growing global demand. At the same time, Hoosier farmers understand conservation’s role in maintaining fruitful lands. Currently, many conservation programs provide valuable assistance in improving agricultural practices, protecting wildlife, and reducing the toll on vulnerable soil.

However, much of the land in the 32-million-acre Conservation Reserve Program was set aside to stop farmers from growing food. That kind of market manipulation makes no sense today. Bureaucrats in Washington cannot offer a compelling argument for the government to lock up rich farm land. That is why the REFRESH Act opens up eight million productive acres to let farmers do what they do best – supply global demand.

By allowing farming with good stewardship on millions of prime acres, the REFRESH Act shifts conservation support toward productive use and working lands programs. We have offered a commonsense approach to promote productivity and responsibly direct conservation dollars to better long-term protections.

But policies are only effective if they are accessible. Enduring stewardship protections must cut the bureaucratic red-tape that farmers face.

Today, the Department of Agriculture oversees more than 20 agricultural conservation programs. Although there are some similarities among these programs, each program is uniquely administered. Over the past 60 years, the number of programs available to U.S. producers has sprouted out of control. At first, conservation efforts focused on reducing high levels of soil erosion and providing water to enhance farm production. Congress responded by creating and revising programs designed to reduce resource problems on the farm. In 1985, Congress established the first conservation programs designed to deal with environmental issues resulting from agricultural activities.

Provisions enacted in subsequent farm bills reflected the growing influence of non-agricultural interests in the formulation of conservation policy and the recognition that agriculture was not treated like other business sectors in many environmental laws. The conservation agenda expanded to address other natural resource concerns, such as wildlife habitat, air quality, wetlands protection, energy efficiency, and sustainable agriculture.

As agriculture policy strayed from the producers’ interests, farmers and businessmen became mired in red-tape and uncertainty. We have seen firsthand the confusion that is created by the profusion of programs and their distinct workings. Too many farmers are unsure about the purpose of policies that Washington hands down and whether to participate in them.

This is why the REFRESH Act consolidates the sprawling conservation complex into just three principal programs: a more modest Conservation Reserve Program, a consolidated Easement Benefits Program, and a targeted Working Land Program. In all, the REFRESH Act’s conservation title will save taxpayers $11 billion over the next 10 years.

As the Senate and House take up conservation, we cannot lose sight of the farmers who take stewardship personally and lead the world in food production. We look forward to working with our colleagues on a robust Farm Bill conservation title, which reduces government overlap and red-tape while still ensuring first-rate stewardship of our land. The REFRESH Act is on the table. We are ready to begin the work.

Sen.Lugar and Rep. Stutzman are Indiana Republicans, family farm owners, and members of their respective Senate and House Agriculture Committees. This is the second of a four-part series celebrating National Agriculture Day on March 8, 2012.

Visit The Hill to read the full text.

REFRESH Act: Strengthen rural communities and U.S. energy security

Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:26:39 +0000

The House and Senate will consider a new Farm Bill at a time when Americans are struggling with climbing energy costs. This nation deserves strategic policies that promote economic growth, enhance our energy security, and work to save Americans’ money. This will require a comprehensive approach that incorporates more domestic oil, biofuels, fuel-saving innovations, and trade with our Canadian partners.

An overlooked source for innovative energy policies is America’s farm program. As Hoosier members of the Senate and House Agriculture Committees, we laid out responsible energy policies when we introduced the REFRESH Act last fall. The REFRESH Act brings real reforms to farm policy and, by simplifying and consolidating the previous Farm Bill’s energy title, encourages diverse fuels, efficiency investments, and new energy opportunities for rural entrepreneurs.

The Lugar-Stutzman REFRESH Act eliminates or consolidates the energy title to just six core initiatives, half of the previous farm bill. Specifically, the REFFRESH Act would:

Facilitate research, development, and demonstration of next generation biofuels and biochemicals and the biomass crops and residues to produce them. It would leverage private investment and introduce program reforms to encourage cost competitiveness in the biorefineries and BCAP programs.
Reauthorize and reform the popular REAP program to demonstrate opportunities for economically viable energy investments and encourage loans rather than grants.
Repeal the handouts for sugar-based ethanol.

Real commitment to rural growth requires that we put money where our mouth – or authorization – is. We offer basic mandatory funding that is more than paid for through cutting waste.

Renewable energy production creates jobs. Rural communities see potential for real economic growth in the emerging biofuel sector. Advances in technologies and agricultural techniques could offer economic benefits from coast to coast. Using the REFRESH Act as the basis for the next Farm Bill would help galvanize private investment in the sector, bringing jobs to a ready economy.

Dramatic advancements in biofuels will help build a more secure and self-reliant America by reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Each year, Americans spend hundreds of billions of dollars to import oil. Our reliance on ill-tempered regimes halfway across the world does us no favors today and invites insecurity tomorrow. In this tight oil market, even a small supply disruption could cause shortages and force prices even higher.

Biofuels alone will not make America energy independent. But, as part of an inclusive strategy that promotes domestic oil production and construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to bring Canadian oil to the American Gulf coast, they can strengthen our leverage in a global market. Hostile regimes know that oil is power. As their power wanes, we expand our policy options in the Middle East and protect our economy.

While we utilize proven energy sources and develop new opportunities, we must also promote energy efficiency. Rural areas are especially ready for these cost-saving steps. Over 42 million Americans live in rural communities, many in homes that are significantly less efficient than those typically found in cities. The USDA has found that rural households spend $200 to $400 more per year on their utility bills than comparable urban households. That’s a hefty price at a time when families are doing their best to tighten their belts.

The REFRESH Act would make it easier for rural families, farms, and small businesses to pay for energy efficiency upgrades through their regular utility bills.

Indiana’s entrepreneurs and farmers are ready to meet these challenges head-on. Although the Farm Bill is a relatively small part of our nation’s energy policy, it is a key element in the effort to partner with Hoosiers for research and education. That’s part of the reason we introduced the REFRESH Act.

The REFRESH Act saves taxpayers $40 billion over the next ten years. Its energy title moves us in the right direction. We emphasized programs that demonstrate the technological and economic opportunity for energy innovation. We move away from an antiquated and costly grant system toward one focused on loan programs. This isn’t big government extending big subsidies. Our bill offers entrepreneurs and farmers a chance to build more robust private sector growth.

Americans want solutions. The REFRESH Act is an outline for success and should be the foundation of the coming Farm Bill. We have an opportunity to promote self-reliance, ensure security, and cut costs. We look forward to working with our colleagues on these serious reforms.

Sen. Richard Lugar and Rep. Marlin Stutzman are Indiana Republicans, family farm owners, and members of their respective Senate and House Agriculture Committees. This is the first of a four-part series leading up to National Agriculture Day on March 8, 2012.

Visit The Hill to read the full text.

Stutzman: Time to Redefine ‘Rural’ for USDA

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 23:00:16 +0000

The Obama administration is taking steps to separate the American people from the land that feeds and clothes them.

Federal agencies are looking for more ways to regulate our daily lives, and every week they overreach their authority. Every regulation and ruling has an adverse effect on the agricultural industry, which, in turn, leads to higher energy and food costs. This administration does not seem to understand the basics of business and only understands an unnatural need to drive innovation out of the agricultural industry. With rural counties continuing to lose population to urban centers, it is of the utmost importance to define what is rural — as directed by the 2008 farm bill — so as to target scarce federal dollars to those needy communities hanging in the balance.

The Environmental Protection Agency continues to pursue an agenda that does not account for the effects on farmers and ranchers. The agency is pursuing regulations that limit the ability of farmers to work their fields by demanding that no dust be raised during tilling. These regulations further threaten fines to farmers for Clean Air Act violations because of the dust. This type of action by the EPA is only one of many that bypass Congress by writing regulations that do not apply to laws previously enacted.

It is time for oversight and an open process to determine the reasons for rulings and regulations that directly and adversely affect agriculture. There must be a check placed on an agency that decides to operate outside the law and believes it can order Congress to write legislation that will give it more authority — while threatening new regulations if Congress does not capitulate to such demands.

With the writing of the next farm bill right around the corner, it is imperative we understand the effect of the current law on agriculture and the nation as a whole. My fellow Republicans in the majority on the Agriculture Committee will spend this year evaluating programs and holding hearings to determine what’s working and what can be improved to support our producers. It is of the utmost importance to make sure the goal of the program is consistent with how it is being implemented while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

Many programs have seen their purpose change over time. We must take a hard look to determine which programs have outlived their usefulness so that we can make the hard decisions to improve agriculture as a whole. This review will include justification of any subsidy programs, many of which are in desperate need of overhaul. It is time to look at how useful these programs are, determine whether they are indeed needed to protect producers in times of trouble or identify whether there is a better way to protect producers in the short and long term.

Serving on the subcommittee dealing with rural development has shown me the importance of the English language. It seems the word “rural” has too many meanings within the Department of Agriculture. This only adds to the confusion between the agency and producers. It is time for Washington to understand what “rural” means and to use a definition that can be applied to the whole government.

Once a solid definition is created — or at the very least there’s a clear understanding of the current definitions, as directed in the 2008 farm bill — it will be easier to keep rural development programs where they are needed and to use the sparse resources to their best effect, and thus be fiscally responsible with those funds.

As a family farmer who has lived under the rule and guide of legislation and agency regulations. I know the importance of limited government. Growing up farming in the Midwest taught me that fiscal responsibility is key to long-term success, so I’m eager to work on the Budget and Agriculture panels to balance the needs of producers with the need to end deficit spending.

This review process is the perfect opportunity to make dynamic and much-needed changes to a piece of legislation that has become less about agriculture and more about protecting special interests. The 2012 farm bill has the opportunity to change Washington culture while improving agriculture and the lives of those in rural America. This will not be easy; it could be one of the most divisive actions taken up by this Congress. We have been charged with making the decisions that will get America growing again!

Go to rollcall.com to read the full text.

We need specific plans from the president, not just rhetoric

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:58:35 +0000

Tonight, President Obama will address a joint session of Congress to deliver a “major speech” on jobs. The occasion calls for action and conviction, not just rhetoric. I’m hopeful that the President will avoid the clichés, poll-tested lines, and vague promises. Count me among those who want to hear genuine solutions and thoughtful policies.

Hoosiers understand that we need a real plan. The nation just received the disheartening announcement that the economy remained stalled, not creating a single job in August. In fact, twenty five million Americans are unemployed, underemployed, or have simply given up looking for work. In Northeast Indiana, five of the eight counties I represent have unemployment rates higher than the national average, with Elkhart and Noble Counties suffering the most. These numbers paint a grim picture but I’m confident that the American entrepreneurial and innovative spirit can meet these challenges if Washington adopts genuine reform.

The President has an opportunity to outline specific steps and policies that will aid the private sector in job creation. If the economy created a job every time politicians turned a good phrase, we wouldn’t be facing historic unemployment. If the President wants to show that he’s serious about recovery, he should roll up his sleeves and get into the gritty policy details.

Back in January, I was pleased to hear the President correctly note that “sometimes, [federal] rules have gotten out of balance, placing unreasonable burdens on business—burdens that have stifled innovation and have had a chilling effect on growth and jobs.” Unfortunately, since then, his administration has done little to curb the excessive tide of regulations that tie the hands of employers.

In 2010, alone, federal agencies issued 3,271 final rules. That’s close to ten rules a day. Just give that a minute to sink in. And while the regulatory machine picks up steam, businesses become less likely to invest and hire new employees. An economy focused on compliance rather than innovation cannot make a dent in 9.1% unemployment.

That’s why I believe that tonight President Obama should announce a yearlong “rule-freeze.” For the next year, no agency should issue further mandates on businesses, unless in response to a genuine national crisis. It’s a freeze plain and simple. Many businesses have already undergone hiring freezes. It only makes sense that Washington’s bureaucratic machine should cool off first.

If the President is unwilling to call off the regulators, he should at least support a responsible effort to slow them down. Tonight, President Obama ought to lend his full support to H.R. 10, the REINS Act of 2011. This legislation would reverse the process that allows agencies to pass major rules without Congressional approval, without the approval of the American people.

I’ve co-sponsored H.R. 10 because it would demand that Congress pass all major rules before they take effect. We elect lawmakers to make the laws and it’s hardly a novel idea to allow them to do so. That’s something that every American can support.

Having spent much of last month talking with Hoosiers back in the district, I consistently heard their emphasis on confidence as a prerequisite for growth. Because every successful business has to reasonably forecast their expenses, the President ought to stop his repeated calls for increased taxes and instead offer specific and bold initiatives to cut government spending immediately.

Our nation’s staggering $14.6 trillion debt hangs over the economy and creates an environment of uncertainty. Yet, whenever the President is brought to the table, he repeats his call for those “who can afford it” to “pay their fair share.” The reality is that President Obama has called for higher taxes on the small businesses that are best positioned to hire new employees.

My hope would be that this speech offers a course correction. If the President withdraws his calls for increased taxes once and for all, many employers could breathe a sigh of relief, project their expenses with more certainty, and begin to grow.

Finally, the President must offer a list of precise and immediate cuts to federal spending. Now isn’t the time for behind-the-curtain bargains. The American people need to see a plan for serious spending reform. The jobs crisis we now face cannot be separated from the federal government’s spending addiction. Washington already tried to spend its way out of this mess. It didn’t work. An agenda that opposes increased government spending is an agenda that supports real private sector job growth. If families and businesses in Indiana understand that, there’s no reason our President can’t.

I’m ready to work with the President in each of these areas. I’ll be listening carefully to the speech tonight. More importantly, though, I’ll be watching what actions his administration takes in the weeks to follow. Hoosiers still need jobs and want solutions. I’m hopeful that together we can work toward both.

Click here to read the full text at the News-Sentinel.com.

Simple, Free-Market Principles Solve Complex Problems

Fri, 16 Dec 2011 22:56:23 +0000

“They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong.” -Ronald Reagan

Genuine solutions are not the products of a “fire, ready, aim” approach. Open conversation will pave the way for workable health care reforms. I believe that a productive exchange must begin with an examination of costs. Right now, the national debate focuses too narrowly on insurance, rather than taking a serious look at the underlying costs. Certainly insurance is an important part of the larger discussion but we should remember that insurance covers the costs of health care. If costs aren’t addressed first, Washington will only prolong symptoms of a broken and complex system, instead of curing the disease.

As we weigh options for reforming health care in our country, we cannot abandon the free-market policies that have lowered costs and driven innovation in other sectors. Free-market principles should form the bedrock of an industry that represents a full 16.6 percent of our nation’s gross domestic product.

Over the past 10 years, health care costs have more than doubled. Unfortunately, that trend will only continue if health costs are not governed by the simple decisions that we consumers make for each of our other purchases. Economics 101 teaches us that individual choices determine the price of every good or service that the market offers. When consumers are able to make more informed decisions, prices will fall as doctors compete for patients. Unfortunately, Washington’s top-down policies distort this proven system and drive up prices.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama’s recent health care legislation, serves as the most blatant distortion of market forces. The law, with its maze of mandates, controls, tax hikes, and subsidies, will drive costs higher. Rather than dictating universal coverage through the bureaucratic regulations of the individual mandate or single payer systems, we should strive for broad accessibility through individual choice.

Current law has erected roadblocks for individual decision-making and private insurance. For example, health insurance companies are prohibited from competing across state lines. I’ve co-sponsored the Health Care Choice Act to replace Washington’s mandates with interstate competition. You can’t watch the nightly news without seeing a dozen ads for auto-insurance companies that are allowed to compete across state lines. If we allow health insurance to compete in similar fashion, we’ll increase access through lowered costs.

For those unable to purchase private plans, our nation has established Medicaid. Unfortunately, the program’s noble goals have been hindered by red-tape and top-down inefficiencies. That’s part of the reason that Medicaid patients are twice as likely to visit an ER than the uninsured. It’s a problem that demands real solutions.

President Obama has opted to expand the program, without genuine reform and at great expense to taxpayers and state governments. I’ve supported a prudent transition to a block grant system where each State has greater flexibility to manage their unique Medicaid programs, cutting the red tape, ensuring access to care, and keeping costs low. This proposal was included in the Republican Budget Resolution for this fiscal year.

I also believe that Congress should permanently fix the broken formula that compensates doctors who see Medicare patients. Washington has kicked that can down the road before. Without a permanent solution, delays and cuts could restrict access to care, as many doctors are forced to cut back on the number of Medicare patients they see. Inaction could further burden our ERs that care for those outside the traditional channels.

Now is the time for reform. I’m always open to serious proposals that address the costs at the heart of the problem. A quick band-aid won’t solve a deep-rooted problem. We need clear, careful, and free-market based policies. Hoosiers understand that clumsy, heavy-handed bureaucrats make lousy surgeons.

Congressman Stutzman represents the 3rd Congressional District of Indiana.

Read the full text here at KPC News.

Recent News

Saving Medicare by Empowering Patients

The Path to Prosperity: A Detailed Blueprint for American Renewal

Putting America on the Path to Energy Independence

Celebrate agriculture, don't stifle agriculture

REFRESH Act: Meeting needs of hungry while cutting costs

REFRESH Act: Farmers know conservation; Farm bill must put them first

REFRESH Act: Strengthen rural communities and U.S. energy security

Stutzman: Time to Redefine ‘Rural’ for USDA

We need specific plans from the president, not just rhetoric

Simple, Free-Market Principles Solve Complex Problems