Another Cost of Living Raise for Social Security Recipients? Don’t Hold Your Breath.


Portland, OR – Oregon’s Senator Jeff Merkley recently met with seniors at the Hollywood Senior Center and announced that he will be introducing legislation in the Senate that will increase Social Security benefits for seniors by changing the cost of living adjustment (COLA) formula to keep up with inflation.  Since seniors spend more of their income on healthcare, housing and heating fuel than the average household, the current formula fails to keep up with the actual costs seniors face.  The Merkley bill would provide a fair benefit to seniors.

“It’s time that we stop talking about reducing Social Security benefits and instead focus on giving our seniors a raise,” said Merkley. “I hear too many stories in Oregon about seniors who are struggling to stay afloat on their Social Security benefits and have to make a choice between medication and heating their home. It is unacceptable to have an inflation formula that steadily erodes the purchasing power of Social Security benefits.  Seniors deserve better.”

Senator Merkley sees Social Security and Medicare as a covenant with seniors. People work their whole lives with the understanding and expectation that they can rely on these programs when they retire. He has been a strong critic of a proposal circulating in Washington, DC to reduce the Social Security COLA for seniors by moving to a new formula called chained CPI.  For more than half of our seniors, Social Security constitutes a majority of their income. For a third, it is nearly 90 percent of their income.

The legislation announced by Merkley would move the Social Security COLA to the Consumer Price Index-Elderly (CPI-E) formula, which is designed to account for the unique spending patterns of seniors.

Currently the Social Security COLA is calculated by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) formula. Senator Merkley’s legislation would change the way that the Social Security COLA is calculated by replacing the CPI-W with the CPI-E formula.


Super Bowl Prostitutes are Underage and Unprotected.


Grassley Seeks Details on Treatment of Minors Rescued from Forced Prostitution

WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa is asking the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to continue to explain how underage victims are treated once they are rescued from forced prostitution as he works to gauge whether additional protections are needed, including how to protect foster care minors from exploitation.  Grassley’s questions to the agency started after a law enforcement operation rescued eighteen minors, including three from the foster care system, in connection with the Super Bowl earlier this year.

“From my inquiry so far, it seems the FBI has taken positive steps, including making clear that those who are forced into prostitution are victims, not criminals,” Grassley said.  “The FBI also has a coordinated effort that has recovered a number of juvenile victims.  But it’s important to track what happens to victims after rescue.  Are they getting the protections and services they need to stay safe?  Or are they ending up back in dangerous situations?   If they came from foster care, did the system fail to protect them?  These are the kinds of questions the FBI can help to answer.”

Grassley wrote to FBI Director James Comey on March 4, soon after the FBI publicized its Super Bowl operation, which rescued eighteen minors from forced prostitution as part of the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative.

The FBI responded on April 1, providing some details about the juvenile victims, including the fact that three of the victims came from foster care.  On April 25, Grassley wrote a follow-up letter to Comey, seeking details about the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative in general and the Super Bowl case in particular.

Last December, Grassley cosponsored a measure passed by the Finance Committee to identify and protect foster youth who are vulnerable to sex trafficking.  The House Ways and Means Committee is considering a similar measure today.

Grassley, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is a longtime advocate for improving foster care, especially the challenges facing those who age out of the system.  He is the co-founder and co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Caucus on Foster Youth.

Grassley is former Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee.  He is a senior member of the committee.

Grassley’s March 4 letter to Comey is available here.  The FBI’s April 1 response is availablehere.  Grassley’s April 25 letter to Comey is available here.

A Verse to Shaving (and most men are!)

Four Objects

Alternatives to shaving are so few and far between;

I either grow a beard or I must scrape my wattles clean.

It’s so unfair when on my crown the hair begins to thin

But underneath the follicles keep working on my chin.


Tis true my razor blade now has three blades, or is it four?

And that’s enough to gouge out bristles from a ruddy boar!

My shaving cream has lanolin and stypic properties,

And my aftershave smells like a gentle flower-laden breeze.


But all these years of shaving and of gazing in the mirror

Have given naught but nicks and cuts and tedium, I fear.

Evolution may provide a cure for hirsute man,

Putting hair upon our tongue instead of on our pan!


Can Visiting a Website Force You to Waive Your Constitutional Rights? General Mills Thinks So!


Sen. Menendez Urges FTC to Intervene on Behalf of General Mills Customers

NEWARK, NJ – U.S. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has sent a letter to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairwoman Edith Ramirez calling on the FTC to intervene on behalf of General Mills customers and review the company’s attempt to limit a consumer’s ability to sue them based solely on a consumer’s interactions with the company’s website.

“General Mills’ attempt to force consumers to give up their rights to sue in court is an unnecessary and dangerous expansion of abusive trade practices,” wrote Sen. Menendez.  “Consumers expect companies to be held accountable for their conduct, whether for making false statements or for putting consumers in danger. By imposing such broad legal restrictions on consumers, General Mills could potentially shield itself from responsibility for future instances of misleading advertising or failing to protect consumers from obvious harm.”

General Mills recently added warning on its website alerting customers that its legal terms had been updated, barring consumers who make “use of any of our sites or services” or participate in any other General Mills offering from suing in a court or joining a class action suit; instead they must submit to either informal negotiation or individually binding arbitration.  This broad, sweeping language includes any person who visits General Mills’ website, subscribes to their newsletter, or even joins their “online community.”

“Consumers should not have their rights so casually dismissed,” insisted Sen. Menendez.

The Senator has called on the FTC to investigate whether General Mills’ action constitutes an unfair trade practice.  In addition, he has asked Chairwoman Ramirez if changes to current law are necessary to prohibit companies from forcing arbitration on consumers as a method of resolving disputes.

Sen. Menendez has cosponsored the Arbitration Fairness Act, which ensures transparency in civil litigation and restores the rights of workers and consumers seeking justice in our courts.

The following is the full text of the Senator’s letter:

Edith Ramirez
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580

Dear Chairwoman Ramirez:

I write regarding General Mills’ attempt to limit a consumer’s ability to sue them based solely on a consumer’s interactions with the company’s website. General Mills’ attempt to force consumers to give up their rights to sue in court is an unnecessary and dangerous expansion of abusive trade practices. I write to ask whether this forced arbitration clause violates the Federal Trade Commission’s mandate against unfair trade practices and to seek your views about legislative proposals that the FTC would recommend to address this issue.

General Mills recently added a small, grey banner to their website warning that its legal terms had been updated. These updated legal terms bar consumers who make “use of any of our sites or services” or participate in any other General Mills offering from suing in a court or joining a class action suit; instead they must submit to either informal negotiation or individually binding arbitration. This broad, sweeping language includes any person who visits General Mills’ website, subscribes to their newsletter, or even joins their “online community.”

Consumers expect companies to be held accountable for their conduct, whether for making false statements or for putting consumers in danger. By imposing such broad legal restrictions on consumers, General Mills could potentially shield itself from responsibility for future instances of misleading advertising or failing to protect consumers from obvious harm. Consumers should not have their rights so casually dismissed. I write to inquire about the FTC’s views on this practice and ask that you further investigate whether it constitutes an unfair trade practice or whether changes to current law are necessary to prohibit companies from forcing arbitration on consumers as a method of resolving disputes.

If you have any questions, please contact my Chief Counsel, Kerri Talbot, at (202) 224-4744. Thank you for your continued work in this issue. I look forward to hearing from you.



Comcast/Time Warner Try to Control Internet Access.


In Letter to Sen. Franken, Netflix Says Competition & Consumers Will Suffer if Comcast/Time Warner Cable Deal is Approved

Netflix Says Comcast Will Use Market Power to Extract Tolls from Internet Content Providers; Franken Says Proposed Acquisition Would Give Comcast Power and Incentive to be Gatekeeper on Internet, Raising Costs & Limiting Consumer Choice

After asking Netflix last week to explain how the Comcast-Time Warner Cable deal would affect Internet consumers and content providers, U.S. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.)—one of the leading opponents of the deal—released the popular video streaming company’s response over the weekend.

You can read Netflix’s response here.

According to Netflix, competition and consumers will suffer if Comcast’s proposal is allowed to go through. Netflix opposes the deal, noting that it will result in higher prices for content providers or poorer service for customers.

“The proposed merger will result in online video content providers paying higher prices for access to Comcast customers or delivering poorer service to customers who depend on Comcast for broadband access,” wrote Christopher Libertelli, Vice President of Global Public Policy at Netflix, in his company’s response to Sen. Franken. “Ultimately, competition and consumers will suffer. That is why Netflix opposes the merger.”

When Sen. Franken wrote to Netflix last week, he expressed concern that the massive deal would give Comcast the power and incentive to act as a gatekeeper for traffic on the Internet, giving it an advantage over competitors in the online content market and threatening the open nature of the Internet. Sen. Franken asked Netflix to explain if and how Comcast’s proposal to buy Time Warner Cable would affect Internet consumers and other Internet content providers. He also pointed out that this deal would disrupt interconnection, the process by which content flows from providers, like Netflix, through cable companies, like Comcast, and finally to consumers.

“I’m very concerned that this deal will give Comcast too much leverage over everyone else on the Internet, resulting in higher prices and worse service for consumers,” said Sen. Franken. “I appreciate hearing from Netflix, as its experience with slow streaming speeds and new costs appears to illustrate the point. Unfortunately, Comcast refuses to even admit that this is a problem.”

Earlier this year, Comcast consumers experienced difficulty streaming Netflix videos, and Comcast required Netflix to pay a charge to alleviate the slowdown. In its letter, Netflix confirmed that it has seen firsthand how Comcast can use its market power to extract tolls from content companies. Sen. Franken fears that this could become the norm, essentially giving Comcast control over who gets access to its vast network of Internet subscribers. That precedent could stifle innovation and prevent the next Netflix or YouTube from coming to market and reaching consumers.

Since Comcast’s proposed acquisition was announced earlier this year, Sen. Franken has been fighting to give a voice to the millions of consumers in Minnesota and across the country who are being squeezed by cable and Internet costs. Earlier this month, at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Franken took a leading role in questioning the deal. You can view or download video from the hearing here andhere. And you can download a video of Sen. Franken talking about the Comcast-Time Warner Cable dealhere.

When the proposal was first announced in February, he wrote to several top federal regulators and asked them to carefully scrutinize the deal, raising concerns that concentrating more market power in the hands of fewer companies will stifle competition and leave consumers with fewer choices and higher prices.

Sen. Franken has also pressed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to take into account Comcast’s history of violating certain consumer protection measures, including some of the conditions imposed on Comcast by the FCC after it acquired NBC-Universal.

And last month, Sen. Franken said that if the deal goes through, it could harm the open nature of the Internet. Comcast’s net neutrality obligations, which were put in place by the FCC after the company’s acquisition of NBC Universal in 2011, are set to expire in 2018, and Sen. Franken is concerned about what will happen at that point-especially if this deal with Time Warner Cable is approved.

You can read Netflix’s response to Sen. Franken here or below. And you can read Sen. Franken’s letter sent to Netflix last week here.

Dear Senator Franken:

Thank you for your letter. Netflix shares your concerns about the power of a merged Comcast/Time Warner Cable and is committed to sharing facts with policymakers to increase their understanding of this issue. Netflix has seen firsthand how Comcast can leverage its existing market power to extract arbitrary tolls to reach consumers, particularly from Internet video companies like Netflix that pose a competitive threat to Comcast’s own video services.

Below are Netflix’s answers to the questions posed in your letter. We are also taking this opportunity to correct statements regarding our agreement with Comcast and the way the transit market currently functions made by Comcast Senior Vice President David Cohen during the Senate Judiciary Committee’s recent hearing.

1) Will Comcast’s acquisition of Time Warner Cable increase Comcast’s ability to extract payments from non-¬affiliated entities as a condition of access to Comcast’s broadband Internet consumers. If so, please explain how and why, noting also any consequences for consumers.


Comcast is limiting the capacity of connections between its network and other networks, unless the network agrees to pay Comcast for access. This congestion causes delays when traffic enters Comcast’s network through the settlement-¬free connections. Consumers experience these delays as slow page loads, poor streaming quality, and frequent streaming pauses.

Few Americans have a meaningful choice in broadband service providers: Comcast subscribers are largely stuck with Comcast. And the only way for content providers to reach the millions of broadband subscribers currently controlled by Comcast is to go through Comcast. By degrading consumers’ experience, Comcast can demand that content providers pay them a toll to avoid congestion and reach their captive subscribers. If content providers cannot effectively reach Comcast subscribers, they cannot compete. So they have little alternative for an uncongested connection unless they agree to Comcast’s terms.

If the Comcast and Time Warner Cable merger is approved, the combined company will represent 40 percent of wired broadband subscribers, including those 1 in 19 of the top metropolitan areas, with many of those homes having Comcast as the only option for truly high–speed broadband (>10Mbps). As DSL fades in favor of cable Internet, Comcast could control high-¬speed broadband to the majority of American homes. Comcast is already dominant enough to be able to capture unprecedented fees from transit providers and services such as Netflix. The combined company would possess even more anti-¬competitive leverage to charge arbitrary interconnection tolls for access to their customers.

2) Do you agree with Comcast’s testimony describing interconnection arrangements generally and Comcast’s new interconnection arrangement with Netflix in particular? If not, please explain.


During the Senate Judiciary hearing on the proposed merger, Mr. Cohen said that it was “Netflix’s desire to pay us directly and cut out a middleman.” That is not an accurate description. Netflix agreed to paid peering with Comcast to reverse an unacceptable decline in our members’ video experience. Netflix developed an entire CDN architecture, called “Open Connect” based on settlement-¬free peering. This no-¬fee interconnection norm avoids the gamesmanship and blackouts that plague cable carriage and retransmission-¬consent negotiations in the traditional video space. Indeed, Netflix is directly interconnected with ISPs all over the U.S. and internationally without any exchange of payment from either side. Our agreement with Comcast is the first time that Netflix was forced to pay an ISP for what amounts to access to their subscribers.

In a subsequent statement, Comcast said “[i]f Netflix did not like the terms of our agreement, or if they do not like the terms Comcast provides at any time in the future, Netflix can work with any of the multiplicity of partners that connect with Comcast…. Transit is a highly competitive marketplace and Netflix and other Internet content providers have many choices.”

The fatal flaw in this assertion is that the number of transit providers or pathways into Comcast’s network is irrelevant to this issue. Every transit provider must ultimately negotiate with Comcast for a connection to Comcast’s network and Comcast controls the terms of that access. Simply put, there is still one and only one way to reach Comcast’s subscribers: through Comcast.

Prior to our agreement to interconnect directly with Comcast, Netflix purchased all available transit capacity into Comcast’s networks from multiple transit providers. Every single one of those transit links to Comcast was congested (even though the transit providers requested extra capacity), resulting in poor video quality for our members. Until Netflix agreed to pay Comcast, the more that Comcast subscribers requested Netflix content, the more congested these connections became, and the more that their Netflix video quality suffered. That is where Comcast is able to leverage its market power most effectively. It can restrict transit capacity into its network to force content providers into paying for uncongested interconnection.

It is inaccurate for Comcast to suggest that by paying Comcast directly, Netflix is simply swapping out payment for services that it used to pay transit providers to perform. For a content company such as Netflix, paying an ISP like Comcast for interconnection is not the same as paying for transit service. Transit providers are paid by companies like Netflix because they carry Internet traffic over great distances and provide connections to all of the networks that comprise the global Internet.

Comcast does not connect Netflix to other networks. Comcast does not carry Netflix traffic over long distances. Netflix connects to Comcast in locations all over the US, and has offered to connect in as many locations as Comcast desires. Netflix is itself bearing the costs and performing the transport function for which it used to pay transit providers. It is Netflix that incurs the cost of moving Netflix content long distances, closer to the consumer, not Comcast.

3) Comcast argues that it operates in a highly competitive marketplace in which consumers have ample choices for high speed Internet service and therefore will not tolerate slow streaming speeds or artificially high costs. What do you make of that argument?

Few Americans have a meaningful choice in broadband Internet access service provider. According to the FCC, about 70 percent of U.S. households have at best two options for 6 Mbps or greater broadband Internet access, which is the floor for data-¬rich applications like streaming video. As stated above, consumers do not view mobile broadband as a wireline broadband substitute for applications like streaming video because of low data caps and reliability issues. Couple all of this with the high costs of switching from one provider to another, and most consumers feel that they have to take whatever their ISP offers.

To conclude, Netflix is committed to providing our users with great video quality whenever they chose to watch Netflix. Unfortunately, Comcast appears willing to sacrifice the quality of its own subscribers’ broadband experience to extract fees from the content providers that Comcast’s own subscribers are paying Comcast to access. The fact that Netflix paid to protect our consumers is evidence of Comcast’s power. Acquiring Time Warner Cable will only increase this leverage.

The proposed merger will result in online video content providers paying higher prices for access to Comcast customers or delivering poorer service to customers who depend on Comcast for broadband access. Ultimately, competition and consumers will suffer. That is why Netflix opposes the merger.

Christopher Libertelli
Vice President, Global Public Policy
Netflix, Inc.



Sunday Dinner. A Poem.


When manna filled the Hebrew tents, the people first rejoiced;

But later, nothing but complaints is all they ever voiced.

They didn’t have a Food Channel back in those ancient days

To show the Hebrews manna cooked in sixteen diff’rent ways.

They would gladly trade a ton of freshly laid down manna

For a moldy sausage or a speckled black banana.

They were smitten next with quail till it ran out their nose;

They died by tens of thousands, left to rot, and pecked by crows.

And so, here at our dinnertime, dear child, do not find fault –

Or you may wake up turned into a pillar of white salt!

Me and Nero Wolfe.


I read Rex Stout as a teenager, and gained little but trouble for it.

Unlike most of my tribe of hormone-addled boys at that age, I did not identify with the vigorous and masculine assistant detective Archie Goodwin – a gumshoe who could pistol whip a gangster or exchange racy bon mots with New York society debutantes at the drop of a fedora.

No, curse the luck; I fell under the spell of that obese egotistical genius, Nero Wolfe; Stout’s penultimate contribution to the detective genre.  Wolfe sat at his desk, sent Goodwin out to do the dirty work, and ate handsomely three times a day without fail.  Oh, and at the end of each story a huge check from a grateful industrialist would arrive that would tide the household over in style for the next six months.

That was the life for me, by George!  Fiddling with orchids and savoring shad roe sauteed in anchovy butter.

Not having access to any orchids, and, in fact, not even sure what the heck an orchid was (living in Minnesota as I did) I took to placing a few garish yellow dandelions in an empty pickle jar on my own desk – a card table that I had to give up twice a month so my mother could spread out her Green Stamps booklets to figure out what merchandise she had earned.

I tried commandeering my sisters, sending them out on crucial errands such as going down to the corner grocery store to get me a Fudgesicle, or biding them rustle me up a case to solve, posthaste.  But they were slender reeds, at best, that took my quarter and ate the Fudgesicle themselves on the way back home, or else stuck their tongues out at me, the saucy baggages, and ran away screaming with moronic glee.  Fie on them!

If one of my mother’s unfortunate tuna fish casseroles appeared at the dinner table, I took umbrage, rumbling sotto voce: “Is this flummery?”

I was told, in no uncertain terms, it was not flummery, it was tuna fish, and by god I’d better eat it or I’d get a flummery right between the eyes.

My vocabulary blossomed like a hothouse plant; showy and vapid.  I told my pal Wayne Matsuura, from across the street, to stop bothering me with his taradiddle.  My high school teachers were nonplussed when I termed their homework assignments “an intolerable affront to my gamboling”.  And when I explained what a misogynist was to a cute little redhead that had the hots for me, she threw me over for the vice president of the Chess Club.

At my birthday that year I finally got the portable TV I had been begging for, but instead of thanking my parents effusively, I merely nodded my head and grunted “Satisfactory.”  Then waddled off with my prize to see what Fritz was concocting for tiffin.

What finally cured me of my Nerophilia was a reading assignment in English Lit; we were given The Catcher in the Rye to peruse.  Suddenly Wolfe was out, and Caulfield was in.  My language degenerated into graphic Anglo-Saxon.  Riddled with angst, I brooded like you wouldn’t believe.

I won’t go into detail about my further behavior.  I’m just glad we weren’t assigned to read Lord of the Flies instead!


ESL in Thailand. A Personal Memoir.

Living in Thailand is as close to heaven as I'll ever get in this life!
Living in Thailand is as close to heaven as I’ll ever get in this life!

I decided to teach ESL (English as a Second Language) in Thailand for many reasons.  One of the main reasons is the food.  Thai cuisine is fabulous!  Rich, spicy, and always freshly made.  I grew up in a middle-class American home, where canned spaghetti and frozen fish sticks were a mainstay – so when I finally had the chance to see the world on my own, I wanted to treat my stomach to the best food on earth. After careful study of cookbooks and restaurants, I decided the best food on earth is in Thailand.  And I STILL believe that!

When I arrived in Thailand to teach, I was pleasantly surprised to find out that I would get a free lunch every school day, and that it would be authentic Thai food.  My very first day at school, after a morning of teaching grammar and vocabulary to giggling young Thai boys and girls, I waited impatiently for the cook to ring her old-fashioned brass hand bell, which signaled lunch time.  At the first chime I sidled up to the teacher’s section of the cafeteria and helped myself to jasmine rice and two different curries – one was yellow and one was green.  The yellow featured chicken and potatoes, and the green featured fried tofu, Thai eggplant, and sliced kaffir lime.

Ah!  It tasted so fine . . . for the first few bites.  And then the chili peppers kicked in.  WOW!  My tongue felt like it was swimming in lava.  I frantically downed a glass of water, to no effect.  The blaze continued to rage inside my mouth, and wisps of steam came out of my ears.  One of the other teachers, taking pity on my melting condition, kindly suggested I take a sip of soy milk to ease the burning.  That did the trick, and I finished my meal, between sips of soy milk, in high good humor.  Students were not allowed second helpings, but teachers were.  I went back for THIRDS, it was that good.

I ate very well the whole time I taught ESL in Thailand.  As long as I kept a carton of soy milk by my side to extinguish the flames when they threatened to engulf my throat.  My only disappointment with Thai cuisine was when I attempted to eat durian fruit.  This strange item grows throughout southern Thailand and is highly esteemed as an essential ingredient in ice cream.  I never managed to take more than one bite of it.  Like most foreigners, I could not get past the brutal initial odor of the fruit, which the British call “stinkfruit”.  It smells like a combination of vomit and mildewed dirty laundry.  I never could acquire a taste for it.

Now that I am back in the United States, still teaching ESL at Nomen Global in Provo, Utah, I yearn for those dear delicious dishes I feasted on back in Thailand.  Sticky rice with mango.  Thin roti pancakes drizzled with sweetened evaporated milk.  Green papaya salad.

A Big Mac and fries just does not excite my taste buds anymore.

If anyone has an extra plane ticket to Bangkok they’d like to give away, just stop by my classroom in Provo any weekday!


The Frozen TV Dinner: An Elegy.

Heartburn in Tinfoil.
Heartburn in Tinfoil.

When frozen TV dinners first appeared upon the scene,

They became as popular as Bishop Fulton Sheen.

Unlike the saintly Bishop, who appeared on Tuesday night,

The dinners appealed mostly to our carnal appetite.


Variety was lacking (in the dinners, not the Bish);

You had your choice of chicken, meatloaf, or questionable fish.

Heated in the oven, they were far from being lush,

Were stingy on the flavor and they chewed like cornmeal mush.


Relegated to the frozen food aisle, where all food

Not considered proper was allowed to sit and brood,

They soon became a byword with the comic and the scribe,

And children would not eat them without threat or massive bribe.


Today the “frozen entre” is what ev’rybody craves,

And kitchens are but little more than shelves for microwaves.

You can call me pigheaded and class me with the gophers,

But I don’t think a meal begins and ends with only Stouffer’s.




Saratoga Springs, UT – The U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced today its endorsement of Mayor Mia Love’s candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives in Utah’s 4th district. The world’s largest business federation, the Chamber serves as the voice of Main Street in Washington, representing more than 3 million businesses and organizations.

The Chamber wrote:

It is the Chamber’s goal to help elect a pro-business majority in Congress and work diligently in support of the interests of businesses to advance legislation that encourages economic growth, job creation, and a less intrusive federal government.

In today’s economy, it is critical that Members of Congress provide strong support of free enterprise and leadership for policies that will return the United States to its full growth potential. We believe that [Mia’s] election to the U.S. House of Representatives will help produce sustained economic growth, help create jobs, and get our country back on track.

Love responded:  

“During my time as mayor of Saratoga Springs, my city thrived despite the economic sluggishness of the Obama years. The formula for prosperity and job creation is simple, but there are some people in Washington who still need to learn it: less regulation, lower taxes, monetary stability, and greater fiscal discipline in the budgetary process.”