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.

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.

It's no secret that this White House and Congress are putting the pedal to the metal when it comes to government spending. While Republicans unfortunately did their fair share when they were in power, President Obama is making President Bush look like a skinflint.

Today, USA Today reports that as a result of the government's increased financial commitments in just this past year, Americans are on the hook for $55,000 more per household to pay for our nation's debt. Furthermore, to make good on our nation's financial commitments to Medicare, Social Security, military and civil service retirement, and other obligations, the federal government has put each American household on the hook for a total of $546,668. USA Today notes that this figure is "quadruple what the average U.S. household owes for all mortgages, car loans, credit cards and other debt combined."

Our nation is on an unsustainable course that will force future generations of American to pay, and pay dearly, for our irresponsible ways. We can either raise taxes to account for this debt, we can borrow and go into more debt to pay off the debt we have -- which seems self-defeating, or we can put down the taxpayers credit card here in Washington.

How in the world are we going to take on a government-run health care program and implement a cap-and-trade energy tax, as our Democrat leaders propose, without increasing both the average household’s personal debt and the average household’s share of the federal debt? Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are persistent in getting these big government programs through while passing the bill for this spending spree off to our children and grandchildren. This is exactly what we are doing, and it’s simply not sustainable. Something’s got to give.

I am looking forward to learning more about Judge Sotomayor, President Obama’s first nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, during the confirmation hearings.  While the House doesn’t get a vote on this; like many Americans, I want to know more about her record on the bench, her qualifications for this very important post, and her understanding of the proper role of the Supreme Court in protecting our Constitution and our laws.
 
In fact, I think the confirmation process is a wonderful opportunity for all Americans to reflect again on our Constitution and appreciate the very special roles of all parts of our government in preserving our liberties.  Senators must ask tough, substantive questions to determine if the nominee respects the Constitution and laws as written or is instead inclined to rewrite them to fit with her own political worldview, the traditional purview of the legislative branch.

We know from past statements that President Obama's ideal nominee is one "who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."
 
In fact, explaining his vote against the confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts, Obama declared that deciding the "truly difficult" cases requires a judge to resort to "one's deepest values, one's core concerns, one's broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one's empathy. The critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge's heart." 

One wonders what he found lacking in Chief Justice Roberts’ heart; but still more disconcerting is the fact that a Justice's role is to interpret the law, not make it based on feelings and emotions.
 
Judge Sotomayor has admitted that she applies her feelings and personal politics when deciding cases.  In a 2001 speech at Berkeley, she stated that she believes it is appropriate for a judge to consider their “experiences as women and people of color,” which she believes should “affect our decisions.”  She went on to say in that same speech “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” 

She reiterated her commitment to that judicial philosophy at Duke Law School in 2005 when she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made.”
 
If this is truly her view of interpreting the law, and I do hope we’ll learn more through a thorough evaluation and confirmation process, then President Obama’s nominee appears lacking.

Small businesses are the backbone of our nation's economy, yet the Obama Administration Auto Task Force is planning to eliminate more than 3,000 Chrysler and GM auto dealerships. Sadly, these closings are expected to put more than 150,000 people out of work, devastating many small towns.

These aren’t necessarily unprofitable dealerships.  In fact, many of them have been doing quite well even in the economic downturn, yet the Administration finds it necessary to close them down. This is unprecedented and simply astonishing, as neither the Administration nor any government official should have any authority over the management of private companies.

My staff and I have been in close contact with the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA), which represents auto dealers’ interests in Washington.  NADA has hired a firm to represent the legal interests of those auto dealers that have been chosen by the Task Force to close.  Any such auto dealer should call 703-821-7000 for more information.  I shared that information with several Chambers of Commerce throughout the Sixth District of Minnesota so that businesses that are hurting or worried can look for concrete help.  And I urge you to get it to anyone you know that might need such assistance.


The Administration’s Car Czar has put theory above real hard-working Americans, while simultaneously standing rock-solid American legal principles on their head.  If he can throw a dart at a map and determine which car dealers don’t deserve to be open, what business is next?  Will the drive for socialized medicine mean that a “health czar” in Washington will determine which hospitals can remain open or which doctors can keep their practices?   The precedents we are setting are scary and we must consider them carefully now before the consequences gain too much momentum to stop.

I've talked extensively about my recent ACORN amendment to the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act – an amendment that would keep tax dollars from flowing to organizations that have been indicted, or employ individuals who have been indicted, for voter fraud or related crimes. As you may remember, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank worked to gut my amendment, lowering the bar so that an organization would have to be convicted of voter fraud – not just indicted – before we turn off the flow of tax dollars.  

Chairman Frank was undeterred by the fact that the language of my amendment was identical to language passed by Congress in 2008 as part of another housing bill.  He essentially pleaded that he’d been forced to accept that language in a compromise with the Senate.

Well, lo and behold:  Just yesterday, the House passed – with Chairman Frank’s vote -- the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act with a provision that sets new eligibility requirements for lenders to be approved Federal Housing Administration (FHA) lenders.  One of the standards is that the lenders may not employ individuals that are “under indictment for, or have been convicted of, an offense that reflects adversely upon the applicant’s integrity, competence or fitness to meet the responsibilities of an approved mortgagee.”  This was in both the original House-passed bill and yesterday’s Senate version.  There’s no blaming this on a compromise with the Senate.

So, it appears that Democrats think it is O.K. to set the bar high when deciding who can make FHA loans but the same standard shouldn’t apply to groups directly receiving taxpayer dollars? 

Just another example of the Democrats' inconsistency when it comes to distributing your tax dollars, particularly when ACORN is the recipient.