August 29, 2007

Don’t Even Think About It

Posted by Adam Graham in : Idaho Conservative, The

The Club for Growth heard tell that should Larry Craig resign, then it was possible that Congressman Mike Simpson (R-ID) could run for the seat, so they issued a press release identifying Simpson as “one of the most economically liberal” Republicans in Congress.

I think there’s practically no chance of Simpson being appointed should Craig resign as he’d stated he wouldn’t run for Craig’s seat should Craig opt to retire and appointing him would necessitate a special election in the 2nd Congressional District, the release does explain why we need someone to challenge Idaho’s Prince of Pork:

  • Scored a humiliating 4% on the Club for Growth’s recent RePORK Card, voting against 48 out of 50 anti-pork amendments offered during the FY 2008 appropriations process
  • Voted for the Medicare Drug Bill (RC #669, 11/22/03)
  • Voted for a minimum wage increase (RC #18, 01/10/07)
  • Voted against protecting property rights in the wake of the Kelo decision (RC #350, 06/30/05)
  • Voted against the line-item veto (RC #317, 06/22/06)
  • Voted for the massive subsidy-infested 2002 Farm Bill (RC #123, 05/02/02)
  • Voted for mohair subsidies (RC #383, 07/11/00)
  • Voted against numerous free trade deals, including CAFTA (RC #443, 07/28/05); normal trade relations with Vietnam (RC #441, 07/26/00); normal trade relations with China (RC #255, 07/19/01); and free trade with Australia (RC #375, 07/14/04)
  • Voted from the so-called “527 Reform Bill” that would restrict political free speech (RC #88, 04/05/06)
  • Voted to criminalize “price-gouging” by oil companies (RC #115, 05/03/06)

“Idaho voters expect a U.S. senator who believes in limited government, free enterprise, and pro-growth policies,” said Club for Growth President Pat Toomey. “Unfortunately, Mike Simpson’s record in the House falls woefully short. Given his liberal record on economic issues, it is hard to imagine how Mike Simpson wins a Republican primary in the event that this Senate seats opens up.”

Come on, who’s up for the challenge?

7 Comments

  1. Comment by Bubblehead

    Yeah, Pat Toomey, Idahoans are really in support of price gouging by oil companies. Did the press release mention that Bill Sali voted for the minimum wage increase, even though he thought it was “unconstitutional”? (Granted, it was part of the defense supplemental, but still… “unconstitutional” is “unconstitutional”.)

  2. Comment by Adam Graham

    The bill isn’t really about price gouging, but government takeover of the economy.

  3. Comment by Bubblehead

    So, is Club For Growth (and, by extension, Adam Graham) opposed to any government regulation of the economy? Laws against monopolies? Laws against price collusion? Do you really think companies making vital commodities should be able to collude on prices? Isn’t the undesirability of that one of the reasons capitalism was able to evolve since the 19th century?

  4. Comment by Clayton E. Cramer

    Bubblehead might want to read Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose for starters. I’m not an opponent of anti-trust laws, but it isn’t at all clear to me that oil companies are “gouging” anyone. They buy oil on the world market–where rising demand from China and India, and Iran’s and Iraq’s inability to expand their oil industry have kept prices high.

    What constitutes a “vital commodity”? Can you give an example of such vital commodities where monopoly power exists without governmental interference in the market place?

  5. Comment by Adam Graham

    Here’s the Club’s statement on the bill in question:

    This bill seeks to prohibit the sale of gasoline at prices that are “unconscionably excessive” or that take “unfair advantage” of consumers. But it is a dangerous and arbitrary proposal. Nowhere in the bill are “unconscionably excessive” and “unfair advantage” even defined, thus guaranteeing untold litigation resulting from this ambiguity.

    More importantly, it simply fails to consider the textbook effects of supply and demand. In a free economy, high prices are the reflection of higher demand relative to supply. Any effort to artificially depress prices will inevitably lead to decreasing supplies and can eventually lead to rationing, both of which severely inhibit economic growth.

  6. Comment by W. Lane Startin

    Club for Growth aside, from a political standpoint if Craig resigns Butch Otter would be utterly insane to appoint anyone other than Jim Risch. A Risch appointment anoints him, should keep the IDGOP relatively quiet and would allow Otter to appoint someone more to his liking as lieutenant governor. Anyone else would set the stage for a very, very contentious primary, which would undoubtedly include Risch.

  7. Comment by Adam Graham

    Politically, you’re right and whatever personal issues there are between Risch and Otter, I hope that’s how Otter would handle it. I definitely could not stand Simpson as my Senator, it’s embarassing enough to have him as my Congressman.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.