Moving forward, it's vital that we make the necessary reforms to our financial regulatory framework, but the President's proposals miss the mark.  

First of all, he proposes expanding the role of the Federal Reserve – the big spender that has pumped about $8 trillion of your money into Wall Street’s bailout with just about no accountability, oversight, or transparency.  Turning the Fed into a super-regulator is not the answer.

But, he also proposes a new agency that will give government bureaucrats the task of deciding which financial products are suitable for consumers.  This proposal raises more questions than it answers.  

Is it really in the best interest of consumers to have a DC bureaucracy dictate what financial products can be sold in our nation?  And, should we expect it to operate with the efficiency that the FDA has demonstrated in approving new medical and health products?  Will this result in long delays before consumers can access different sources of financing?  All the while, consumers would be forced to wait anxiously for the government to approve that mortgage or small business loan that could best suit their needs.  How can we be sure that the agency will not become a slow, bureaucratic behemoth – something that regrettably has characterized many a government agency?

Furthermore, I have serious misgivings that the President’s proposal disconnects the mission of consumer protection from that of safety and soundness within the framework of this agency.  If the agency’s sole focus is on consumer protection without consideration for broader issues of safety and soundness, that could result in new consumer protection mandates that simultaneously weaken larger financial protections.  The last thing we need is another government agency with tunnel-vision – that is already one of the problems within the existing financial regulatory framework.

Republicans have an alternative solution.  Our plan requires regulators to streamline disclosures, and provides them with more investigative and enforcement tools. This includes increasing both civil and criminal money penalties in government enforcement actions; maximizing restitution to victims of fraud; improving surveillance of bad actors who exploit gaps in the current regulatory regime to continue preying upon innocent consumers; and allowing regulators to share information with foreign regulators and law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and prosecution of financial frauds without waiving privileges.

In recent weeks, there's been much attention paid to the content of the 2010 decennial census and the American Community Survey (previously, the “long form”). I encourage everyone to read them through and decide for yourself what you think of the questions. I've provided links to both of them below.

If our Congressmen actually read this 1,200 plus cap-and-trade bill that will impose massive energy taxes on businesses and consumers -- and for that matter, every single American, then they would come across this section: "Designation and Registration of Greenhouse Gases."

Essentially, this section lists seven greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, and a catch all, “other” which can be designated by the Administrator of the EPA at some later date with a citizen petition for consideration of the next generation of gases. (pg. 543)

What this means is that if you and your friends have an issue with a certain gas that you think should be a greenhouse gas, and you can generate enough support on a petition, you may be able to get that particular gas banned.  

Get ready for another couple of knocks on your door from the greenhouse-gas-of-the-month club.

Let's be clear, cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous policy for you and every single American that will result in higher costs on energy and all manufactured goods. After all, I can't think of anything produced that doesn't involve the use of energy – Director of the Congressional Budget Office couldn’t think of anything that would be impacted either when he testified before Congress earlier this year. Let's hope enough lawmakers come to their good senses and defeat this awful piece of legislation when it comes to the floor later today.

Some people just never learn. The popping of the housing bubble, after decades of Congress applying political pressure to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up poorly underwritten mortgages which put people in homes they couldn’t afford, should have been a sign.  But, apparently not everyone got the message.

It was reported this week that Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA) and Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY) have called for relaxed lending standards for condos. Recently, both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac decided to tighten mortgage lending standards on condos, no longer guaranteeing mortgages in buildings where fewer than 70% of units have been rented. The threshold was previously 51%. This is a prudent business decision by both Fannie and Freddie, as it’s essential that we make reforms like this to our housing market as we work to turn our struggling economy around and put in place the mechanisms to ensure we are never faced with a crisis like this again.

But unbelievably, Frank and Weiner sent a letter to the CEOs of both Fannie and Freddie, attempting to make the case that these more rigorous standards “may be too onerous” It’s short-sighted policy like this that kick-started the financial crisis in the first place. Relaxing mortgage standards to increase sales is terrible public policy, and proves once again that government has no place making business decisions.

If we can’t learn from our past mistakes, we’re doomed to repeat them. Sadly, here we go again.
 

It appears the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade energy tax will be on the House floor for a vote this Friday. This legislation is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy and despite Democrats’ best attempts to frame it as a necessary measure to stop global warming, cap-and-trade is merely a gigantic tax and huge revenue booster for our federal government to allow them to keep spending and fund more government programs.

No matter which analysis of this bill you look at, it means higher costs for all Americans. The CBO predicts that the rise in prices would hit low-income households the hardest as these homes spend a larger fraction of their income on energy needs compared to those with higher incomes.  It will especially impact those Americans living in Midwest states who get most of their energy from coal-fired utilities and have large manufacturing sectors.

One Minnesota company speaking up against this cap-and-tax bill is Holiday Stationstores, headquartered in Bloomington, MN. They have serious concerns about the low carbon fuel standard in this bill and its effects on the Upper Midwest.

They shared their concerns in a letter to Minnesota Congressman Collin Peterson, Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, at the time this bill was reviewed by his committee:

"…Minnesota has among the cleanest burning fuels in the United States.  However, Minnesota and a number of other Midwest states also rely heavily on transportation fuels that – while cleaner – are considered by some to have a large carbon footprint.

“The concept of a low carbon fuel standard itself is especially problematic for Midwest states. Unlike California, which produces much of its own crude, the Midwest relies on crude from Canada.... In Minnesota, for example, more than 80 percent of the state's crude supply comes from Canada. Although it's plentiful, Canadian crude is typically denser and requires more energy to produce than lighter and sweeter crudes. This makes it arguably more carbon intensive than crude derived from places like the Middle East."

The ones paying the price for this shortsighted bill are the businesses like Holiday Superstores who will be hit just for staying in business. And even worse, it's you and me who will ultimately feel the pain through skyrocketing energy costs.

This plan is wrong in its premise and in its execution. With our economy struggling as it is right now, how can we afford to raise energy costs? To educate yourself on what cap-and-tax really means for you and your family, check out what the Heritage Foundation has to offer.

Recently, ACORN International, which works in 12 countries across the world, has switched their name to "Community Organizations International." Apparently, being investigated in 14 states for voter registration fraud and facing repeated accusations by ACORN board members of financial mismanagement will inevitably take its toll on an organization’s image. It will be interesting to see if ACORN as a whole takes on a new name as well.

Meanwhile, ACORN is taking legal action against the group of whistleblowers known as the ACORN 8. This group of current and former members believes that ACORN "has been corrupted from its original purpose by senior management and an organizational structure that exploits the low and moderate income membership it was founded to serve." They are not looking for the complete dismantling of ACORN, but hope to restore the organization to its original and meaningful purpose through an independent audit and Congressional hearings.

Arthur Schwartz, the general counsel for ACORN, has sent a “cease and desist” letter to the group that would prohibit the "use of the name and mark 'ACORN' as well as the image of an acorn."

Clearly, ACORN does not like anyone criticizing their current operations and leadership. Marcel Reid, chair of ACORN 8, told the Washington Examiner that her group "will not comply."

“We have no intention of not using the name ACORN 8, it is not a trademark infringement,” she said. “This get tough attitude is part of larger attempt to silence people and shut them down. We are not going to be silenced."

It will be interesting to see how this case plays out, but we should all be thankful that a group like this is holding ACORN accountable.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve spoken with the GM and Chrysler car dealerships from my district that have been targeted for total or partial closure by President Obama’s Auto Task Force. They were given no reason, and really no recourse to challenge their closure. It is as if the Car Czar threw a dart at a dartboard to decide which dealerships would be given a pink slip. In fact, we still do not know the formula used to determine which dealers would remain open and which ones would close; which ones would lose certain brands and which would get new brands.

Now, GM is officially pitting dealers against another.  And, remember:  the government owns 60% of GM.  It has committed $50.7 billion directly to GM, plus another $12.5 to their financing arm, GMAC.  When we talk about GM, it’s hard to consider it a private entity.

GM is encouraging their "viable" dealerships to put pressure on Congress to defeat legislation aimed at protecting the hundreds of dealerships across the country slated for closure. I am a cosponsor of this legislation, the Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009, that would honor a car company’s previous commitments to local car dealers.  GM is lobbying for its defeat.

According to the Detroit News:

"GM gave its dealers talking points - and even a telephone script to use while talking to their members of Congress to oppose the measure. Dealers also have access to a toll-free number to help them reach a member of Congress -- dubbed the Dealer Voice Hot Line -- or dealers can e-mail legislators via a company Web site: www.gmdealervoice.com."

GM maintains that "In order to build a stronger, more viable GM, it is essential to have the best performing dealers, in the right locations, aligned with GM’s brand distribution strategy to be a part of GM’s reinvention."

Yet many of the best performing dealers are the ones GM is shutting down. The government is playing politics with private enterprise, and sadly, family businesses across the country are the ones taking the hit.

Members of Congress often rail against the loss of taxpayer dollars to waste, fraud, and abuse. They are always ready to sharpen their image of fiscal responsibility by calling for greater savings by eliminating excessive spending. But the vigilance of too many Members stops there. Today, my colleagues and I in the Republican Study Committee unveiled the Sunset Caucus to provide an easy opportunity for Congress to reduce the federal budget.

The Sunset Caucus is designed to shrink our ballooning government budget by eliminating federal programs, offices, and agencies that are duplicative or obsolete. 

As Ronald Reagan once said, “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.” 

As a member of the Sunset Caucus, I will select some program or agency that has outlived its usefulness, duplicates other government programs or that Congress never had any business creating in the first place.  The fight for the taxpayers has to start somewhere.

The average federal program duplicates five other programs. For example, there are about 60 separate welfare programs, approximately160 job training programs, and over 300 economic development programs. When American families are struggling to make ends meet, Congress should be looking for ways to tighten the government’s belt too, and this is a good place to start.

If we can’t make the easy decision to cut this kind of wasteful spending, is it is any wonder the American people are doubtful of Washington’s intentions to make the so-called “difficult choices.”

It's a big news week in Washington, but perhaps no item is more significant than the cost analysis released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) for the Democrats’ new health care reform bill.

Proposed by Senator Ted Kennedy's Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, the CBO found that it would cost at least $1 trillion over 10 years, and yet leave tens of millions of people uninsured. What’s even more troubling is that this hefty price tag does not include the massive costs of a government-run insurance plan or an expansion of Medicaid.

Politico reports that:

"The CBO concluded that by 2017, for example, the ranks of the uninsured would drop by about one third, or 16 million people, relative to projections under the current law.

"In that year, about 39 million would be covered by policies purchased through a government-organized marketplace known as an exchange. At the same time, however, 15 million would lose their employer provided insurance and another 8 million would move away from coverage they receive through government programs, the analysis concluded."

In sum, this plan spends too much, covers too few, and forces too many to lose the coverage that they have now. Clearly, it is anything but a fiscally responsible approach to health care reform. But we really shouldn't be surprised seeing how reckless the White House and Congress have been with your money over the past several months.

A government takeover of health care will raise taxes, ration care, and let government bureaucrats make decisions that should be made by families and their health care professionals. Republicans support health care reform that puts patients first and protects the important doctor-patient relationship. Republicans want to make quality health care affordable and accessible for every American and we want to let those who like their current health care coverage keep it.

We cannot allow politicians and special interests to stand between patients and the care they need. The American people deserve the freedom to choose the health care that is best for their families.

Under a law passed just last year and cosponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama, a President cannot fire an inspector general (IG) without first giving Congress 30 days notice detailing the reasons why that independent watchdog should be fired.  But, if a President essentially gives an IG an ultimatum -- resign now or we will fire you, when does that 30-day clock begin ticking?

Good question given that that is how President Obama’s recent firing of Gerald Walpin, the Inspector General with jurisdiction over the Americorps program, apparently went down.

Investors Business Daily lays out very clearly what Mr. Walpin did to ruffle the feathers of the White House:

“Seems that Mr. Walpin did a very bad thing — his job. He followed the money and discovered that the St. Hope Academy in Sacramento, Calif., had misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal AmeriCorps funds.

“The nonprofit education group, led by Sacramento mayor and former professional basketball star Kevin Johnson, had apparently spent the money on local politics. Specifically, according to the AP, funds were used ‘to pay volunteers to engage in school-board political activities, run personal errands for Johnson and even wash his car.’ All this, presumably, was to stimulate the local Sacramento economy.

“As a result of Walpin's efforts, Sacramento U.S. attorney Larry Brown reached an agreement with Mayor Johnson and the group to repay half of the $850,000 in grant money it had received, including $72,836.50 that came out of Johnson's own wallet.

“So does Walpin get an ‘atta boy’ from the administration? Is a press conference held praising him for his due diligence and the oversight of this administration as it carefully shepherds every single taxpayer dollar through the system? Not exactly.

“On Wednesday evening, Walpin was contacted by White House counsel Norman L. Eisen and given one hour to resign or be fired. Walpin refused, saying in an e-mail that it 'would be a disservice to the independent scheme that Congress has mandated — and could possibly raise questions as to my own integrity.'

It should also be noted that Mayor Johnson is a supporter and contributor to President Obama, having donated $2,300 to Obama for America in August of 2007.

You would think the White House would applaud the inspector general for putting an end to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraud against the taxpayers – but I guess it pays to have friends in the right places and Mr. Walpin doesn’t.

There's certainly not a lot of "hope" in that message.

I want to thank the American Humane for supporting my School Choice for Foster Kids Act, a bipartisan piece of legislation I introduced to help foster children gain access to quality, stable educations early in life. 

Not only does my bill allow foster children to attend the school best equipped to serve them, but it would also give these children, often for the first time in their lives, a chance at some stability even if when they change homes. As a foster mother of 23 children, I have experienced first-hand the need for stability in a foster child’s life.  Children in foster care face a number of challenges that other adolescents don’t face.  Many of them have endured abuse or neglect and often their first foster home placement isn’t their last.  Instead of separating foster children from trusted friends and teachers, we should give them the opportunity to stay at a school if it is fulfilling their needs.  At a time when they need stability the most, we should strive to meet that need

The School Choice for Foster Kids Act ensures the school voucher section of the Chafee Foster Care Independence Program—currently reserved only for older kids — includes foster children of all ages and allows foster parents to receive appropriate funds to transport their child to their original school or choose a school that can best meet their child’s needs.  This will allow foster children to remain at their original school, regardless of any foster home placement changes, and receive quality, uninterrupted educations.

The American Humane expressed support for this bill because they believe it will “allow foster families to choose what school is in the best interest of the child and allow them to provide the child with the stability they need.” I am thrilled to have the support of American Humane and appreciate their partnership on this issue near and dear to my heart.

While it's easy to call for the closure of Guantanamo Bay, President Obama is realizing that there are legitimate reasons that it can’t easily be done.  No other country wants to house these dangerous terrorists on their soil.  And, most Members of Congress are saying they don’t want them either.  For instance, Congressman John Kline and I introduced legislation to keep them out of Minnesota. 

However, after months of talk, America has found a country to take some of the detainees, and all it took was a little financial incentive.

Palau, a Pacific archipelago and long-time ally of the United States will take in 17 Uighur, or ethnic Chinese Muslims, detainees for the sum of $200 million in foreign aid. To put that number into context, the Wall Street Journal reports that that aid package breaks down to $11.7 million per detainee. For a country with 20,000 residents with a GDP of $164 million, talk about a boost to the economy!

Seventeen detainees gone, and only around 230 left. It looks like the President is going to be writing some pretty big checks in the next several months to deal with our detainees. Or he can admit that he’s learned since coming to office that his campaign promise is simply not the best plan for America. 

Recently, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released its analysis of the House Democrats’ cap-and-trade energy bill and found that it will result in $846 billion in new energy taxes that will affect every single American.

Congressman Dave Camp, ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee laid the case out very clearly as to what this energy tax means for middle-class America:

“The President has repeatedly stated married couples earning less than $250,000 a year would not face higher taxes, but this legislation imposes an energy tax on every American and provides no help to families making more than $42,000 or individuals making as little as $23,000. Increasing Americans’ fuel and utility bills in this recession is not only bad policy, but it completely ignores the hardships millions of Americans are already facing.  This is dangerous legislation in desperate need of closer review.”

If that wasn't bad enough, Bloomberg has reported that the Democrats' cap-and-trade energy tax will raise gas prices by 77 cents.

I think it's safe to say that President Obama's campaign rhetoric is catching up to him. Rather than prospering, all Americans are being hit hard by the reckless policies being practiced in Washington.

On the surface, PAYGO (short for Pay As You Go) seems like it would be an effective policy to rein in government spending, but like so many things:  the devil is in the details.

What the Administration would like for you to think is that by enacting this policy, Washington wouldn't be able to spend a dollar unless they save a dollar and the national debt would cease to swell as it has these past several months.

However, this is really a charade – and the details tell the story. First of all, this PAYGO has no impact whatsoever on entitlement spending -- Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which make up a very sizable portion of the budget.  They’d continue to grow on autopilot.  In fact, even if this PAYGO were fully enforced, entitlement spending would continue to grow 6% a year without offsets.

Second, this PAYGO includes an enormous $3.5 trillion loophole.  The President’s proposal specifically exempts a wide array of expensive policies.  Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget remarked that, “This is like quitting drinking, but making an exception for beer and hard liquor.”  And, Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee has criticized the plan, adding, “I’m not for waiving PAYGO for $3.5 trillion of items, much of which I think ought to be paid for.”

The spending spree of the past 6 months is proof that Congress needs to get serious about saving money.  But, simply saying you support PAYGO is not proof that they are serious.  I’m not too optimistic that this Administration or this Congress is keen on cutting spending and I have real concerns that this PAYGO will not be used to enforce fiscal responsibility, but will instead be used as an excuse for raising taxes.

Yesterday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg rightly put a hold on the Obama Auto Task Force’s plan for selling Chrysler to Italian automaker Fiat  in order to take a closer look at the claims made by teachers and police officers that their rights as secured creditors were violated in the way this plan was put together.

As I've discussed in earlier posts, the question in all this is whether the Obama Administration had the right to violate established bankruptcy law to give unsecured lenders like the United Auto Workers priority in place of secured lenders like the Indiana pension funds who brought the case forward. According to established law, secured lenders have first priority in bankruptcy cases to recover debts owed to them.

Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock also argued that the Treasury Department should not have been allowed to use money in the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to help Chrysler and General Motors reorganize.

David Skeel, a professor of corporate law at the University of Pennsylvania, says that the pension funds have a legitimate case:

"I'm very encouraged that they did decide to at least take a closer look because the one thing that nobody has really done yet is that. Everything has been so rushed from the minute the sale was proposed. It sure looks like the sale promises [the union] a fair amount more than they would get in a normal bankruptcy."

We can't choose to follow the law sometimes, and then sidestep it when it gets in our way. The rule of law is an important principle that should not be ignored when it is inconvenient. This case is just another example of Washington’s arrogance.  They chose to side with their political allies in the UAW over the rights of hard-working Americans.