It's amazing to watch the Democrat power players in Washington turning a blind eye to the ACORN controversy, hoping that it disappears in the next news cycle. Unfortunately for them, this ACORN scandal isn't going away, nor should it. When an organization with such a checkered past of nefarious activity is eligible to receive $10 billion dollars in taxpayer funding, and has already received tens of millions, you would think that all legislators, regardless of political party, would want to shut off the funding faucet once and for all.

But, here's what we're hearing from the Democrat majority:
 
    * President Obama told ABC's "This Week" in an interview broadcast Sunday, "Frankly, it's not really something I've followed closely. I didn't even know that ACORN was getting a whole lot of federal money."

    * According to the Hill newspaper, Senate Majority Reader Harry Reid "dismissed a suggestion...that he sanction a probe into the organization's business practices."

    * Yesterday, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank and Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers wrote a letter to Daniel Mullholland, Director of the Congressional Research Service (CRS), to ask them to investigate ACORN’s recent activities, specifically to "research and report on the federal and state laws that could apply to such videotaping and distribution of conversations without the consent of all parties." So, when ACORN workers are caught on film giving legal advice on setting up an underage prostitution ring as a legitimate business, Chairmen Frank and Conyers think we should be investigating the investigators who broke the story?

While both the Senate and House recently took votes to strip ACORN of its funding, having two votes on two entirely different bills in two different chambers against ACORN looks good, but accomplishes nothing when all is said and done.  In fact, these votes haven’t stopped one dime from flowing to ACORN.

Rather than wait and hope the House and Senate come together and pass identical language, President Obama should immediately suspend all federal agencies from doing business with ACORN and using our hard-earned tax dollars to perpetuate their scandalous work.

Washington is on notice: The American people won’t be fooled.  They want ACORN off the government payroll.

If you didn't believe that the President planned on paying for his health care overhaul in part by cutting Medicare, more than $100 billion in cuts, wait until you hear this.

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which runs Medicare, has engaged in what can be argued as government intimidation, plain and simple. Remember when the EPA suppressed an internal report that raised questions about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government? They couldn't let a little thing like facts get in the way of passing their cap-and-trade national energy tax.

Well, gangster government is at it again.

According to the House Ways and Means Committee, "the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) initiated an investigation into at least one provider of a Medicare Advantage (MA) health care plan for informing its enrollees that Medicare cuts proposed by the President and congressional Democrats could alter their benefits.  In addition to this investigation, CMS has since banned all MA health plans from providing similar information to beneficiaries."

Congressman Dave Camp, ranking Republican member of the Committee has taken CMS to task for this gag order. Yesterday, he sent a letter to CMS Acting Administrator Charlene Frizzera, noting that, “no such pressure has been applied to those supportive of the President’s Medicare cuts.” 

In fact, the Committee notes, "AARP, which boasts the largest MA plan, for example, has directly communicated with its members via email, a website and letters.  However, AARP’s pro-Medicare cut stance has apparently received no such scrutiny from the Administration.  CMS’ selective use of its regulatory authority, 'threatens the integrity of the agency and of our democracy.'"

Again, another clear example of the government silencing its critics while letting its allies carry on with their business.  About 11 million seniors use Medicare Advantage for their health coverage.  They deserve to know that the burden of paying for the President’s health plan will be on their shoulders.  They deserve some answers, and so do the taxpayers.

Recently, efforts to audit the Federal Reserve have been gathering steam on both sides of the political aisle, as both Republicans and Democrats are expressing their frustrations with the nearly complete lack of transparency and accountability during an unprecedented time of activity from the Fed. Congressman Ron Paul has been calling for this for years, and his Federal Reserve Transparency Act, of which I'm a cosponsor, is expected to be examined during a full committee hearing of the Financial Services Committee this Friday.

Coincidentally, that same night, Dr. Paul is holding a student town hall at the University of Minnesota to discuss issues like this one.  And, I’m honored to have the opportunity to speak at it as well.  Congress is spending away these students’ future, and they need to be a part of this dialogue.

As a precursor to that hearing and that town hall, we get word today that the Federal Reserve has "rejected a request by Treasury Secretary Geithner for a public review of the central bank’s structure and governance."

Our government's spending and printing money like it’s being used for a board game, and we're bailing out Wall Street and Detroit to the tune of billions of dollars, the least the Federal Reserve can do is open up their doors a crack so taxpayers can take a peek at what they're doing with our money.

As it stands now, the Federal Reserve has very little, if any, accountability to the taxpayer. In the wake of Enron, Congress required corporate America to open its books to their shareholders, yet the Federal Reserve keeps the taxpayers in the dark. They need to be held to the same standard. It's simply common sense.

By having the government take over all federal student loan organizations, it would involve one of the largest expansions of a government program in recent memory. It would dismantle a system that has successfully served generations of Americans. Within a decade the Federal Direct Loan Program would be a trillion dollar operation, making it one of the biggest banks in the world. It would ultimately have responsibility for tens of millions of borrowers...
                       -- America's Student Loan Providers (July 21, 2009)

Another month, and another attempt by the Obama Administration to take over a successful portion of the private sector. Banks, cars, and now student loans. I'm beginning to see a trend here.

Today, the House will complete consideration of the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, otherwise known as the public option for higher education (not to be confused with the public option for health care -- but the similarities can't be overlooked). Advocates like the President maintain that if passed, this bill will bring a "level playing field"  between government and private options. Sound familiar?

However, history tells us that when it's all said and done, the only one left standing on the "level" playing field tends to be the government.

Ending private sector competition in the student loan industry and making the Direct Loan program the sole provider will kill jobs, and greatly expand the control of the federal government. The Federal Family Education Loans (FFEL) program has been the overwhelming choice for student and parents for the past 40 years. In fact, 78% of all new federal student loans from 2007-2008 were administered through this program. Yet, the government wants to end it. It doesn't make any sense.

If nothing else, this bill tells us one thing -- if the government can't succeed on its own merits, they'll eliminate the competition. That should concern us all.

According to a new poll released this week by Investors Business Daily, 45% of doctors would consider quitting the practice of medicine if Congress passed the health care overhaul currently in its sights. Furthermore, more than 70% of responding physicians do not believe that the White House hype that “the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."
 

"Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

"The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

"It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

"The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series."

Click here to see more major findings and read the entire piece.

I’ll certainly be watching this series to see what doctors really think about health care reform.

Kudos to my colleague Ed Royce (R-CA) for sounding the alarm on the international battle to downgrade the dollar. I've said for months now that our penchant for massive spending and our sky-rocketing debt will come back to bite us and Congressman Royce provides evidence seconding that notion.

As he mentions in his recent post, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development has issued a report calling for the U.S. dollar to be replaced as the global reserve currency. This isn't the first we've heard of this.  Other nations, such as China, Russia, India, and Brazil, have been beating this drum for several months now. But this marks the first time the U.N. has jumped on board.

Unfortunately, our government is giving them their best rationalization for these ludicrous proposals. After all, our nation's debt, which is the money owed by our government, currently sits at the highest it's been in our nation's history, at $11.7 trillion. Couple that with our rising deficit which has well exceeded $1 trillion (another record) and is on its way to $2 trillion fast, and our debt becomes a far less attractive purchase to other nations.  China’s even voiced those concerns publicly.  Higher interest rates will be necessary to sell our debt abroad.   And we will soon be confronted with the growing threat of rising inflation - a devastating sign that our nation's economic fortunes are heading in the wrong direction.

This is real money we're talking about here, and your future. Fiscal responsibility must not be a campaign slogan.  It must be a fundamental tenant of our governing philosophy and economic well-being. The welfare of our children and grandchildren depends on it.

In his remarks to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday night, President Obama was certainly trying his best to present an image of bipartisanship in working towards health care legislation. Unfortunately, his actions don’t match his words.

It’s been months since he has met with Republican leaders in the House to discuss the commonsense reforms we have brought to the debate.  It’s hard to imagine how this behavior matches his suggestion that he has been working with us to forge bipartisan legislation. In his speech, he said his door will be open to hear our ideas. I hope that’s truly the case because today I am sending a letter to President Obama asking him to consider my Health Care Freedom of Choice Act, among other Republican alternatives such as the Empowering Patients First Act, as part of a solution to our nation’s health care problems.

My legislation puts patients in charge of their health decisions by tweaking the tax code. Under current law, businesses are allowed to deduct the cost of employee health care from their taxes, while individuals and families cannot. This bias in favor of employer-provided coverage leads to higher costs overall and reduces accessibility to care. My legislation would erase this bias and extend the same tax incentives to businesses and individuals alike. From co-pays and premiums to long-term care, vision and dental, your high out-of-pocket costs would no longer be a barrier to care.

Are you really concerned with reaching across the aisle Mr. President, or was it nothing but rhetoric? The American people deserve to know.

We need to give credit where credit is due. Today, the AP reports that acting under a tip from ACORN, authorities in Florida have arrested 11 individuals accused of falsifying hundreds of voter applications during a registration drive last year. According to the press report, "the suspects collectively turned in about 1,400 registration cards, of which 888 were later found to be faked."

While this was certainly a smart move on ACORN’s part to assist in this criminal investigation, this controversial organization is far too often implicated in these falsified voter registration activities.

In fact, over the years, ACORN and its employees have been the subject of investigations, indictments, and consent decrees in states all across the nation for election-related activities that run afoul of the law. Yet, since 1994, Congress has given it $53 million.  And, legislation passed this year alone will make billions potentially available to this organization.  Could Washington find no more worthy way to spend your money?

I put this to a vote by the House of Representatives with an amendment that said that organizations that have been indicted for voter registration fraud or who employee people who have been so indicted shouldn’t be eligible for taxpayer funding.  On a nearly party-line vote, my amendment failed.  Coincidently, that very week the vote took place, ACORN was hauled into court in two states for voter registration fraud.  If Congress cannot draw the line here, where will it draw the line on how it spends your money?

To add insult to injury, the U.S. Census Bureau has chosen to partner with ACORN for the 2010 census.  Their partnership program is meant to build confidence and trust in the census.  How can partnering with ACORN further these goals?  I am about to introduce the Census Improvement Act, which in part would prohibit ACORN or any organization which has been indicted for election law violations – or who employ individuals who have – from participating in the Planning Partnership Program for the 2010 Census. 

When your government gives out your money, the recipient must be trustworthy. Clearly, ACORN has a lot of work to do before they fit the bill.

While we debate the pros and cons of a trillion-dollar-plus health care overhaul here in the House, it's important to come to terms with the rising financial commitment already facing our nation and future generations.

For instance, according to a report just released by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Social Security is broke.

The CBO now projects that Social Security’s costs will exceed tax income in 2010 (next year!) and 2011, with cash surpluses returning over the 2012-2015 period and becoming negative again beginning in 2016 and later.  In their March 2009 estimates, the CBO projected that the cash surplus would be positive through 2016.  Keep in mind that these projections are based on what many economists of all stripes believe are far-too-rosy White House budget numbers.  It's a very real possibility that a positive cash surplus may not occur at all.

What's worse is what the CBO report reveals about our nation's long-term budget outlook:

"Over the long term (beyond the 10-year baseline projection period), the budget remains on an unsustainable path. Unless changes are made to current policies, the nation will face a growing demand for budgetary resources caused by rising health care costs and the aging of the population. Continued large deficits and the resulting increases in federal debt over time would reduce long-term economic growth by lowering national saving and investment relative to what would otherwise occur, causing productivity and wage growth to gradually slow.

"Last year, outlays for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid combined accounted for about 9 percent of GDP. Outstripping the growth of GDP, spending for those programs is expected to rise rapidly over the next 10 years, totaling nearly 12 percent of GDP by 2019. Under long term projections recently published by CBO, such spending would continue to rise under current laws and policies and could total 17 percent of GDP by 2035.

"If outlays for those programs reached that level, federal spending would be well above its historical percentage of GDP. Unless revenues were increased correspondingly, annual deficits would climb and federal debt would grow significantly, posing a threat to the economy. Alternatively, if taxes were raised to finance the rising spending, tax rates would have to reach levels never seen in the United States. Some combination of significant changes in benefit programs and other spending and tax policies will be necessary in order to attain long-term fiscal balance."

These are very real numbers we're talking about, and it's about time Washington account for its finances rather than pushing them off to our children and grandchildren through continued borrowing and higher taxes.

A couple months back, CBS News reported that "the Environmental Protection Agency may have suppressed an internal report that was skeptical of claims about global warming, including whether carbon dioxide must be strictly regulated by the federal government." 

CBS stated that an " EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an email message to a staff researcher on March 17: 'The administrator [Lisa Jackson] and the administration has decided to move forward... and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.'"  The report's author, a 38 year employee of the EPA, was diverted to other work.

In other words, two weeks before the EPA submitted its pro-regulation recommendation to the White House, the EPA center director suppressed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty "decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data."

Well, now we get word that the EPA may shut down the office in which the internal report originated -- the National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE).

It seems that if you stand in the way of the EPA and their overtly over-the-top global warming agenda that restricts your use of energy, you're going to pay the price.

Last week, in four different public venues across central Minnesota, I heard firsthand the people’s concerns about the future of their health care. While there was certainly a mixed bag of opinion from every part of the political spectrum, fear of and opposition to a government takeover of our health care system was most evident. And understandably so.

Regardless of your political party or ideology, one thing we can all agree on is that reforms must be made to our health care system. We’ve got top-notch medical professionals and high-quality treatments, but too many Americans can’t access that care because of high costs.  It's important that we do not get lost in the glamour of big overhauls and look past meaningful reforms, like association health plans that let small businesses bond together to reduce coverage costs or health savings accounts that let you save for care tax-free. Bigger is not necessarily better.

On Sunday, the St. Cloud Times published an op-ed I submitted detailing the bipartisan reforms that exist that can make care more accessible and affordable without tearing down the parts of the structure that have worked well for millions of Americans. And, one of the reforms I highlighted was tort reform.  If we want to bring true change to our health care system, one of the most clear-cut ways to do so, and one that has not been given much consideration by the Democrat leadership, is to tamp down on frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

Rich Karlgaard with Forbes magazine really lays out the case in a piece he published called: Our Health Care Crisis: Age, Obesity, Lawyers.

"--We are afraid of lawyers. The biggest cost is not malpractice awards, which annually drive up U.S. health care costs by 1% to 2%--$20 billion to $40 billion a year--although that's bad enough. Most costly is the individual doctor's perceived threat of a career-ending malpractice award and his or her incentive, therefore, to practice defensive medicine. This occurs when a doctor, fearing a lawsuit, orders a battery of costly diagnostic tests to rule out the highly improbable, even when the obvious cause of sickness or injury is staring him in the face.

"A Massachusetts Medical Society study discovered that in one year Massachusetts wasted $1.4 billion on defensive medicine. Prorated for the entire U.S. population, the cost would be about $66 billion a year. Another study cited by the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons puts the cost of defensive medicine much higher--$100 billion to $178 billion per year. I believe it."

Read More

Like I said in my op-ed, our nation’s deficit and debt are at all-time highs. Medicare and Medicaid are broke. Social Security is broke.
 
Can we really afford to trust Washington when it asks you to entrust them with your health care saying it will not only reduce costs, but increase both accessibility and efficiency for all Americans? Let’s make reforms, yes, but do so in a way that won’t break the bank.

When we start talking about millions, billions, and even trillions of dollars, it's difficult to comprehend what these numbers actually mean. Congressman Jo Bonner has put together this great graphic to get you thinking in simpler terms about how much money your government is really spending.





Our nation's debt, which is the money owed by our government, currently sits at the highest it's been in our nation's history, at $11.7 trillion. Couple that with our rising deficit which has well exceeded $1 trillion (another record) and is on its way to $2 trillion fast, and our debt becomes a far less attractive purchase to other nations.  That could force the U.S. to pay higher interest rates in order to sell our debt abroad.   We will soon be confronted with the growing threat of higher interest rates, rising inflation, and a weakened dollar – all dismal economic scenarios.

I’ve said all along, every responsible American family knows that you pay back your loans before you take out new ones.  Unfortunately, Washington needs to be reminded.  It’s long past time for Congress to stop talking about tough decisions and start making them.   

As August winds down, Congress will soon be back in Washington trying to slap together an expensive health care overhaul. And whether it entails a "public option" or "co-op," a government take over of our health care system is simply unacceptable. In fact, the latest news in Washington is that the White House and the Democrat majority are so gung ho about passing health care legislation that they will go forward with what's being called a "nuclear option" with no Republican input.

The American public is demonstrating obvious and sincere concern about what a health care overhaul will entail.  And, it seems to me that shoving legislation down their throats will do very little to assuage those concerns, frustrations and fears.

There are too few shining examples of profitable and efficient government enterprise – take a gander at the failing postal service or struggling Amtrak, for example – for us to entrust the nation’s health care system to Washington’s management and oversight.

Ironically, in trying to make the case that private insurers could compete with a government option, President Obama stated himself that it's the government-backed postal service that's failing.  At a townhall in New Hampshire earlier this month, President Obama stated:

"I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems."

If that's the case, why in the world would we entrust our health care system which accounts for 18% of our nation's economy – not to mention the health and well-being of our loved ones – to the federal government?  They can’t even run a used car exchange program called "Cash for Clunkers" effectively.  They’ve got it so wrapped up in red tape that struggling car dealers can’t tell which end is up any more.

What Americans must be weary of is any legislation that gives more power and oversight to the federal government when it comes to your personal health care decisions. And, we must remember to look at long-term consequences as well.  Some of the changes they are peddling will come quickly.  But, others will come gradually over several months and years – and those are the ones to watch most carefully.

As Newt Gingrich points out:

"The point is not that a health care rationing system … will be implemented in the United States tomorrow.

"The point is that, as in the British system, once government becomes the single payer or even the main payer of health care, what were once intensely personal decisions become public decisions.  And as costs rise, government will look for ways to contain them. 

"The inevitable result of this pressure to control costs will be rationing, whether it occurs during this administration or the next.  At some point, the government will be forced to deny care to those who don’t meet the latest “quality-adjusted life years” cost-benefit analysis.

"So the decision on what treatment to pursue that once would have been made by you and your doctor is now made for you by a bureaucrat using a formula -- a formula to literally determine if your life is worth saving."

Rather than increasing government control, we must reform the health care industry by empowering the American people and giving them control over their health and financial destinies.  Allowing the government to make health care decisions for us is just asking for trouble.

One of the issues being overshadowed by the administration's massive deficit spending, cap-and-trade energy tax, and government take-over of our health care system is the effort to diminish freedom of speech on the airwaves by reviving the Fairness Doctrine.

In contrast to its name, the Fairness Doctrine would effectively ensure that the liberal viewpoint is promoted on the air to give a "fair and balanced" take on important issues of the day. It's a ridiculous notion, as today we are blessed with a myriad of news outlets and formats: cable news, the internet, and satellite radio, to name a few. If you don't like what you're hearing and find it biased, you can change the station and you will surely find something to your liking. What the Fairness Doctrine is about is the popularity of conservative talk radio.

The Heritage Foundation points out that "in such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as 'unbalanced' views." The Fairness Doctrine was shelved in the 1980s.

Yet, sadly, the revival of the Fairness Doctrine is a very real possibility – particularly with this Administration.

In fact, Mark Lloyd, a former senior fellow at the George Soros-funded Center for American Progress, has been appointed as “Chief Diversity Officer” of the FCC. It's been reported that "Lloyd is a vocal proponent of the Fairness Doctrine and recently wrote that the Doctrine, and other regulatory tools such as localism and diversity mandates, should be employed by the FCC to limit the number of conservative voices on the air and supplant them with liberal voices.  He also suggests fining conservative radio stations up to $250 million and giving the proceeds to national public radio."

Now, Mr. Lloyd is in a position to make his ideas into policy.  Clearly, while this issue has taken a backseat in the headlines, it remains alive and well.

To learn more about the dangers of the Fairness Doctrine, check out "Don't Touch My Dial," a website and coalition set up by several radio show hosts to counter censorship efforts by the FCC.

I came across a great piece (albeit a very troubling one) in the Washington Times on Tuesday detailing why our nation needs to rein in our overspending because "the United States is functionally bankrupt.” And this column doesn’t even take into account that a trillion-dollar overhaul of our health care system continues to remain a very real possibility.

This is real money we're talking about here, and real people’s futures.  To assume that we can spend as much as we like with little or no repercussions is flat out wrong and irresponsible. I encourage you to take a couple of minutes and give the piece a read. We can no longer afford to pass our financial burdens off to future generations.

"The United States is functionally bankrupt. Our collective capacity to deal with this astonishing fact is seemingly nonexistent. Our national politics have become show business, exhibiting a complete refusal to strategically respond to this reality.

"Let's look at the simple numbers of our national debt. Our on-the-books national debt is $11.6 trillion. But off-the-books federal debt, including Medicare and Social Security, is $107 trillion. This is not a made-up number; this is the money we should have in the bank, according to the federal government's own accountants, to pay for our current promises to our retirees and future retirees, and this doesn't include unfunded obligations that we have to the pensions and benefits promised to federal workers and veterans. Nor does it include huge unfunded pension and benefit obligations for other public employees at levels below the federal government.

"But let's just add the $11 trillion to the $107 trillion, and we get $118 trillion. These are big numbers but still just fifth-grade math. Now our total annual national output, or gross domestic product (GDP), is about $14.3 trillion. Total federal receipts, or income if stated in business terms, are about $2.5 trillion. This means that our debt to federal income ratio is about 47, and that ratio assumes that the federal revenues are free to retire the obligations, which they are not. We must pay for defense and a myriad of other programs. Again, in business terms, there is no free cash flow to pay these massive obligations.”

Read the entire piece