Last week, I was surprised to hear Congressman Tim Walz (MN-1) come out in favor of holding Guantanamo Bay terrorist-detainees at facilities in Minnesota.

Congressman Walz agrees with President Obama that Guantanamo Bay should be closed and he’s willing to house the detainees right here on Minnesota soil.  The President has been unable to get other nations of the world to take them, but apparently Minnesota’s First District will step up to the plate.

Congressman John Kline (MN-2) and I introduced legislation that would keep any detainees from coming to Minnesota – anywhere in Minnesota. I am also a co-sponsor of H.R. 1012, which would prohibit the use of federal funds to transfer these terrorists to anywhere in the U.S.

It is simply irresponsible to shut down a facility that houses dangerous terrorists and transfer them to our neighborhoods. To transfer terrorists anywhere near Minnesota residents – or any American citizen for that matter, is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Earlier this week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke finally spoke up against the reckless spending habits of the Obama Administration and this Democrat-controlled Congress.

In testimony on Capitol Hill Wednesday, Bernanke told the House Budget Committee:

"Unless we demonstrate a strong commitment to fiscal sustainability in the longer run, we will have neither financial stability nor healthy economic growth."

I couldn't agree more -- we need to cut our $2 trillion budget deficit and the current borrowing-spending-taxing cycle is not going to get us there!

Thankfully, Mr. Bernanke also told the Committee that he will not simply print more money – which would lead to inflation – to legitimize greater budget deficits.

It's clear from his testimony that if we want to balance America's budget -- we can either raise taxes or cut government spending. Seeing as how President Obama and Congress are continuing forward with their big spending plans - universal health care and cap-and-trade come to mind - I'm afraid it's the taxpayer who will be stuck footing the bill yet again.

One of the many problems with the federal government controlling a private company like GM is that each Congressman in Washington will be looking our for their own state or district's interests -- even if that works against the interest of the company they are running.

Take, for instance, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank. Congressman Frank put a call into GM CEO Fritz Henderson on behalf of a GM distribution center in Norton, MA that was slated for closure as part of GM's restructuring plan. After talking with the Congressman, the decision to close the center and put about 90 people out of work was reversed. I'm not faulting Barney Frank for his actions--no Representative wants to see closures in his or her district, but this exemplifies how unsuited the federal government is in running private enterprise.

Here's what the Wall Street Journal had to say about it:

"Mr. Frank's spokesman, Harry Gural, says the Congressman discussed, among other things, 'the facility's value to GM.' We'd have thought that would be something that GM might have considered when it decided to close the Norton center, but then a call from one of the most powerful Members of Congress can certainly cause a ward of the state to reconsider what qualifies as 'value.' A CEO who refuses the offer can soon find himself testifying under oath before Congress, or answering questions from the Government Accountability Office about his expense account."

Not only will decisions like plant closures be made now by politicians – politicians vulnerable to political influences particularly when they’re up for re-election every two years – but so will such decisions like what kind of technology to use in manufacturing.

In a great editorial by the Washington Post this week, GM's New Owner: What kind of deal did you get?, the editors write:

"In practice, the political manipulation of the company has probably only just begun; Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel (N.Y), for example, has declared that the government should require GM to install "flex fuel" technology in its cars. If GM still isn't profitable enough to attract private investment a couple of years from now, the pressure will be intense to shovel even more public money into it. Administration officials say they hope and expect that this $30 billion for GM will be the last. But they don't promise, because they can't."

We need to take a good hard look at this government power grab. Not only is it unprecedented and unconstitutional, it will ultimately prove disastrous.

Congress is currently working with the White House to hammer out a funding bill to pay for ongoing military operations overseas, but this war supplemental is becoming increasingly loaded with funding for projects not related to our troops.

New funding requests from the White House Tuesday night along with added-in financing for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) may put the bill over the $100-billion mark. The IMF money is supposed to make good on President Obama’s promise at the G-20 summit in April to help developing countries facing economic crisis.  The deal will purportedly include not only a $100-billion credit line to the IMF, but also an $8-billion increase in the US member contribution to the IMF and authorization for the US to back the IMF’s plan to sell 400 tons of gold.

Republicans in the House are hesitant to support this bill if Speaker Nancy Pelosi's insistence on IMF funds means cutting funds to sufficiently support our troops fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.  As Republican Minority Leader John Boehner made crystal clear:

“A troop funding bill should fund our troops, period. I will oppose this legislation if it is loaded up with billions in spending that is unrelated to our military’s core mission of protecting our nation and our interests. Additional funding for the IMF should be judged on its own merits and in its own legislation. Our men and women in uniform are doing tremendous work to protect our security in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they should not be forced to carry billions in unrelated spending.”

According to Capitol Hill newspaper, Politico, the President has some other non-troop items to add to the war supplemental, including $2 billion to address future bouts with swine flu and an extra $200 million for refugee aid in Pakistan.

Troop funding should be troop funding and that’s it.  The men and women in uniform should not be held hostage to Speaker Pelosi and President Obama’s pet projects.

The Chrysler and GM filings for Chapter 11 bankruptcy are all the headlines, but the sub-headings aren’t getting much notice.  Both deals are happening under the unprecedented direction of the federal government and it’s the little guys that are taking the hit.

This Saturday, I attended an event in Lake Elmo, MN where hundreds of local residents came out in support of a very successful and profitable dealership, Fury Chrysler Dodge. Fury is one of the largest employers in Lake Elmo, as well as one of the most profitable Chrysler dealerships in the metro market.  Yet Chrysler, under the direction of the Obama Auto Task Force, is calling for its closure in an attempt to reduce its inventory nationwide by 25 percent.

This simply makes no sense.  Businesses and consumers should dictate decisions like this, not federal bureaucrats with no expertise in the auto industry.

And, that’s not the only leap into Wonderland that the Obama Auto Task Force has taken.  In restructuring the auto companies, they also turned basic American legal principles upside down. For instance, let’s examine how the Car Czar leapfrogged the unsecured debts of the United Auto Workers ahead of secured debts of legitimate bondholders. Last week, teachers and police officers in Indiana filed to have their claims heard in federal district court in an attempt to protect their pension funds, which had been decimated despite their status as senior secured lenders to Chrysler.

According to Global Pensions, "The Indiana pension funds are holders of Chrysler’s secured debt. The Teachers’ pension fund holds $32.4 million in Chrysler debt and the Police pension fund holds $1.3 million."

Opposing the bizarre and questionable actions of the Obama Task Force, Indiana Treasurer Richard Mourdock rightly said:

“As fiduciaries, we can’t allow our retired police officers and teachers to be ripped off by the federal government. The Indiana state funds suffered losses when the Obama administration overturned more than 100 years of established law by redefining ‘secured creditors’ to mean something less.”

The deal crafted by the Obama White House tramples on the rights of pension fund creditors by giving a bigger share of the pie to more junior, non-secured parties - like the United Auto Workers.
 
What an ugly precedent we've set.

An opinion piece from the Wall Street Journal today does an excellent job summing up the federal government's power grab while detailing what lies ahead for the industry and its owners - you and me, now that we own 60% of GM. Give it a read: The Obama Motor Co.

"Mr. Obama likes to say he's a pragmatist who only prefers a government solution when it will work. But in resurrecting an industrial auto policy that even the French long ago abandoned, the President has made himself GM's de facto CEO. Our guess is that he'll come to regret it as much as taxpayers will."

I couldn't agree more.