As Americans hit the road for their family vacations this summer, they're undoubtedly noticing the money they leave at the gas pump.  AAA's Fuel Gauge Report has the national average at $2.58 for regular gas.  That's a far cry from the $4.11 we were paying a year ago.  But, the need for an all-of-the-above strategy for energy independence remains just as great now as it did then.

So, it's puzzling that the Obama Administration is trying to restrict our ability to tap into American oil and natural gas resources.

Robert Bryce, Managing Editor for Energy Tribune, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on July 7, 2009 that President Obama is calling for the elimination of two tax incentives that encourage oil and natural gas exploration.  President Obama calls them "unjustifiable loopholes" for big, bad oil and gas.  The facts show that these two tax provisions more than pay their way all the while opening up American supplies that make us more energy independent.

One allows for the expensing of "intangible drilling costs," which are things like wages, fuel, and pipe.  The other provides an allowance for percentage depletion, so well owners can deduct a portion of the value of the production of their wells.  Together, these two provisions make up the bulk of the total $1.92 billion in federal oil and gas subsidies.  An investment banking firm, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., analyzed the impact of eliminating the intangible drilling cost tax incentive and found that it alone could lead to an increase in the cost of U.S. natural gas by 50 cents per thousand cubic feet. 

But, together, these tax provisions helped us to make advances in energy technology and to tap into natural gas reserves in Texas and Pennsylvania that were previously thought to be too expensive to reach.  A report by the Department of Energy this April found that these newly available resources total 649 trillion cubic feet of gas.  That is the equivalent of 118.3 billion barrels of oil, which is more than the proven oil reserves of Iraq. 

As Bryce points out, "Simple arithmetic shows that eliminating the drilling subsidies that cost taxpayers less than $2 billion per year could result in an increased cost to consumers of $11.5 billion per year in the form of higher natural gas prices."

When you're gassing up the car for your next family outing, think about what it will take to make energy more affordable and energy independence more attainable.  It's got to be an all-of-the-above strategy.

You would think that any health care bill brought forth in Congress would actually be focused on reforming health care. Alas, it seems that both House and Senate proposals are packed with pork as well.

As the Boston Globe has reported, tucked into bills in both chambers are provisions funding what Senator Ted Kennedy’s staff calls “Community Transformation Grants.”  Essentially, we’re talking about federal funding for bike paths, lighting, jungle gyms, and even farmers markets.

In the House bill, at least the spending is capped -- $1.6 billion per year.  The Senate bill leaves the sky the limit – leaving the amount of spending up to the Obama Administration.

While these projects may have merit, they certainly don't belong in a health care reform package.  With priorities like this running amok on Capitol Hill, is there any doubt that health care costs will only continue to skyrocket under government-run health care?

This morning I came across a great piece by Ron Christie on the Hill's Pundits Blog commenting on President Obama's speech this past Tuesday to the graduates of the New Economic School in Moscow.

As Mr. Christie notes, President Obama provides quite the revisionist take on the Cold War and how communism met its ultimate demise.

According to the President:

"And then, within a few short years, the world as it was ceased to be. Now, make no mistake: This change did not come from any one nation. The Cold War reached a conclusion because of the actions of many nations over many years, and because the people of Russia and Eastern Europe stood up and decided that its end would be peaceful."

Sounds great, but too bad it didn't happen that way. First off, communism's reign was not a short and sanguine one, and its end did not come arbitrarily. As Mr. Christie notes:

"The ignorance of American and world history, evinced in just two short sentences, is shockingly revealing. First, Mr. President, I daresay the people of Russia and Eastern Europe hardly decided to stand up and decide that the Cold War's conclusion would be peaceful. You might ask the citizens of Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria to name a few countries if their polite request for the Soviet Empire to withdraw from their borders was met with a peaceful response."

Second, there was one nation that can be credited above others for the fall of communism, and that's the United States:

"The United States held the Russians at bay while supporting the Solidarity movement led by Lech Walesa in Poland and others who dared to rise up against the Soviet Union in their quest for freedom and democracy."

I don't understand why the President can not give our nation the credit it's due when he travels abroad. There's nothing to be embarrassed about, Mr. President; we live in the greatest country in the world.
 

With the federal government about to take majority ownership of GM by the end of the week, it's imperative that we as a nation examine the unprecedented role our government is taking in private industry.

The Washington Times sums it up like this:

The takeover, which is the most extensive federal intervention into the operations of a major industrial company, follows in quick succession a government-assisted bankruptcy reorganization of Chrysler LLC, the assumption of partial ownership of two of the nation's biggest banks -- Citigroup and Bank of America -- and the seizure of mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as insurance goliath American International Group Inc.

That's quite a portfolio.

According to William Boyes, an economics professor at the W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, "the government now owns or controls businesses that generate about one-third of U.S. economic activity."

It's shocking to see the ever-expanding role that government is taking over the private sector under the guise of crisis. The White House says it wishes it didn't have to do what it did, and that it is acting to save the economy from total collapse.  Time will tell how genuine that “duress” was. 

But in the mean time, the private economy as we once knew it has radically changed.

As Mr. Boyes notes: "I didn't think I would ever see the United States move to a primarily government-controlled economy, and its happened in just a few months."

We need to assess whether the actions of the government are working now and whether they are really in the best interest of our nation and future generations of Americans.

Today, the House of Representatives returns to work after a week of district work – outside of the beltway – and the next challenge facing the body will be making crucial reforms to our health care system. As the American people struggle to make ends meet, too many also live with the challenge of affording basic health care for themselves and their families.  Any time a child or a parent goes without the care they need, it is a personal crisis for that family. However, there are two very different views emerging from the Democrats and Republicans as to the appropriate and most effective course to take in making these essential reforms.

Democrats are pushing for a government takeover of health care that sounds nice but would have devastating consequences for families and small businesses.  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 doctors.

Republicans want to make quality health care coverage affordable and accessible for every American, and let those who like their current health care coverage keep it. Republicans support health care reform that puts patients and their health first, and protects the important doctor-patient relationship.

The Democrats' government-takeover of health care will deny access to medical care and life-saving treatments. An estimated 100-million-plus Americans would lose their current health care under the Democrats' government-run plan. Government mandates in health care already encourage waste, fraud and abuse that result in higher costs and more families without care.  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.

Last month when speaking to the American Medical Association, President Obama praised countries that "spend less" than the U.S. on health care. For instance, the British system is often touted as spending half as much per capita on health care as here in the U.S. But as the Wall Street Journal explained today, you get what you pay for. The very real consequence in the U.K. is the rationing of specific drugs, tests, and treatments dictated by a government-regulatory body known as the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

As the WSJ notes:

"Mr. Obama and Democrats claim they can expand subsidies for tens of millions of Americans, while saving money and improving the quality of care. It can't possibly be done. The inevitable result of their plan will be some version of a NICE board that will tell millions of Americans that they are too young, or too old, or too sick to be worth paying to care for."

Clearly, this isn't the path to effective reform we should be choosing.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey climate change bill, also referred to as cap-and-trade, or cap-and-tax, or the national energy tax, on the premise that if we don't act now to cut carbon emissions, our planet's environment will incur irreversible damage.

Now, we know that cap-and-trade is an absolutely disastrous economic policy, resulting in higher costs for every single American on energy and all manufactured goods. It is an economic time bomb for our nation's already struggling economy that will serve merely as a huge revenue booster for the federal government. We know that.

So supporters of this legislation claimed that we had to pursue this disastrous public policy because science says we must do it to save the environment. Enter the EPA, and its new administrator Lisa Jackson.  You’ll recall that the EPA made a similar announcement not long ago, making an endangerment finding and stating that it would have to regulate carbon dioxide if Congress didn’t.

Last week, 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 states that "the EPA official, Al McGartland, said in an email message to a staff researcher on March 17: 'The administrator [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."

But, wait, there’s more.

If we go back to January of this year, it was the EPA's Lisa Jackson who said, " I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and programs, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency."

It seems to me that Jackson substituted ideology in place of scientific integrity in this case. If Jackson really meant what she said, this report should not have been quashed but instead given ample consideration and debate. But in rushing through a major policy initiative of this White House and Congress, I guess you can't let the facts and the truth get in the way of action.  

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.