In confronting the growing challenge of China, as with Japan in the 1980s and other challengers in the…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
Rubio: Beat China via Free Trade and Passing Trans-Pacific Partnership, Not Self-Destructive Protectionism

In confronting the growing challenge of China, as with Japan in the 1980s and other challengers in the past, the easy and simplistic response is to advocate protectionism.  But America remains the most prosperous and innovative nation in human history on the basis of free trade, not protectionism.  If closing borders to trade was the path to prosperity, then North Korea would be a global exemplar.

On that chord, Senator Marco Rubio (R - Florida), set to give a much-anticipated foreign policy speech on the campaign trail today, offers a refreshing commentary in today's Wall Street Journal entitled "How My Presidency Would Deal With China."  In his piece, Rubio advocates free trade and passing the Trans-Pacific Partnership as effective tools for confronting China, resisting the…[more]

August 28, 2015 • 09:52 am

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
Home Press Room CFIF Statement on GAO Revisions to Report on For-Profit Colleges
CFIF Statement on GAO Revisions to Report on For-Profit Colleges Print
Thursday, December 09 2010

ALEXANDRIA, VA -- The Center for Individual Freedom (CFIF) today responded to Government Accountability Office (GAO) revisions to its biased and defective report released last summer regarding recruiting practices in for-profit higher education with the following statement by its Vice President of Legal and Public Affairs, Timothy Lee: 

“The Obama Administration and its Department of Education have aggressively campaigned to regulate for-profit schools, and we have now witnessed sloppy conduct and allegations of corruption throughout the process.  Multiple United States Senators have asked the Department’s Inspector General to investigate allegations of illegal collaboration and leaking of information between Department officials and groups who might benefit from the regulations. Now, the GAO – the government watchdog arm of Congress - has retracted selectively edited information to damage the reputation of for-profit schools. This latest incident, and allegations that the Department has worked behind the scenes to destroy colleges that provide opportunities to working adults and low-income students, destroys the reports’ credibility and calls into question whether the investigators were improperly influenced.

"The GAO very rarely makes revisions to its reports – this only happens about 1% of the time. We therefore must question these developments and demand more transparency.  We do not need a ‘Collegegate’ scandal, in which the government manipulates data to further a partisan agenda. The Administration, Department of Education and the GAO should focus on allegations of internal corruption, and immediately cease pursuing regulations aimed at preventing students from attending the college of their choice.”

###

Question of the Week   
A Louisiana second-grader wrote to First Lady Michelle Obama with regard to which one of the following school lunches that had changed under new federal nutrition requirements?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"A federal judge in North Dakota acted late Thursday to block the Obama administration's controversial water pollution rule, hours before it was due to take effect. Judge Ralph Erickson of the District Court for the District of North Dakota found that the 13 states suing to block the rule met the conditions necessary for a preliminary injunction, including that they would likely be harmed if courts…[more]
 
 
—Timothy Cama, The Hill
— Timothy Cama, The Hill
 
Liberty Poll   

Do you believe that Vice President Joe Biden’s willingness to consider a presidential run is because he knows more than the public knows about the content of Hillary Clinton’s emails?