While the dicentennial census is intended to be a decidedly non-partisan activity – and has been even before this new “post-partisan” world, much concern has been raised of-late over the infamous ACORN's new role in the process.

According to a Fox News report:

"The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now [ACORN] signed on as a national partner with the U.S. Census Bureau in February 2009 to assist with the recruitment of the 1.4 million temporary workers needed to go door-to-door to count every person in the United States -- currently believed to be more than 306 million people.

"ACORN, which claims to be a non-partisan grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people, came under fire in 2007 when Washington State filed felony charges against several paid ACORN employees and supervisors for more than 1,700 fraudulent voter registrations. In March 2008, an ACORN worker in Pennsylvania was sentenced for making 29 phony voter registration forms. The group's activities were frequently questioned in the 2008 presidential election."

While ACORN maintains its non-partisan tax status, it's no secret that they are a strong ally of the Democrat Party. The census is used to determine distribution of taxpayer money through formula grants and more, as well as the apportionment of the 435 seats in the House of Representatives, so a skewed count can have clear ramifications for the political make-up of our federal legislative body.

Partisan politics must not be an issue in compiling the results of our 2010 census, and I hope the necessary safeguards are in place to crackdown hard on any violations that may arise throughout the process.

It turns out that Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee and the largest single recipient of campaign contributions from AIG, has found himself embroiled in the recent AIG bonus scandal and is quickly trying to reverse course, in both his policies and rhetoric.

First, Dodd inserted language into last month's “stimulus” package that specifically prohibits the government from stopping the taxpayer-funded $165 million in executive bonuses at AIG to happen.  Now that there is a political firestorm rising over these very bonuses, he is calling for a 91% excise tax on those bonuses.

According to a Fox Business report:

"While the Senate constructed the $787 billion stimulus last month, Dodd unexpectedly added an executive-compensation restriction to the bill. That amendment provides an “exception for contractually obligated bonuses agreed on before Feb. 11, 2009,” which exempts the very AIG bonuses Dodd and others are seeking to tax. The amendment is in the final version and is law."

When trillions of your hard-earned tax dollars are at stake, we need leadership that does not reward political allies. The American people are struggling, and despite what rhetoric you now hear from Senator Dodd and the Democrats who proposed and led the charge on approving this so-called “stimulus” package, they were clearly not looking out for you.

Despite his repeated pledges, first on the campaign trail last fall and then again in his address to the Congress last month, President Obama is once again talking about tax increases that will firmly impact America’s struggling middle class.  For instance, his budget includes a cap on the mortgage interest deduction, a limit on charitable donation deductions, and a newly created tax on carbon emissions that could cost the average American family about $4,000 a year.  

And now, the Obama administration is discussing with Congress the possibility of taxing employee health benefits - an action that he criticized last fall as being “the largest middle-class tax increase in history.” In fact, he went on TV denouncing Senator John McCain's proposal to do just that. But as the New York Times notes, the "advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage."  No word yet about whether President Obama would allow that same trade-off.

Clearly, the President’s message of personal responsibility and fiscal restraint has yet to make it from the teleprompter to the policy pen. For a President who was elected on the sound bite of being a watch dog for the middle-class American taxpayer, his administration and Democrat colleagues sure have a funny way of expressing their appreciation.

Diana Furchtgott-Roth with Real Clear Markets did a very detailed analysis of President Obama's tax hikes as outlined in his new budget for 2010 and the impact these increases will have on working wives. It’s not promising, at all.

President Obama has promised us that taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 will not be raised by "one single dime," to give you the illusion that the only ones being hit will be the rich while the middle class is shielded from his revenue hikes. As I explained in my post about the carbon tax, this is simply not the case. And other examples of how the middle class will feel the tax hike pinch abound. For instance, the marriage penalty will also be on the rise if President Obama gets his way.

Remember that when you get married and start filing a joint tax return, your taxable income may substantially increase simply as a result of combining your incomes. Additionally, taxpayers may not receive the full value of their itemized deductions, further adding to the fiscal disadvantages of marriage for some couples. So if it were all just a matter of tax codes and finances, essentially, it's in your interest as a taxpayer to stay single instead of getting married.

But the institution of marriage is good for society, so this is not exactly the trend we want to be setting here in the United States.  Unfortunately, President Obama's 2010 budget is more concerned about generating money for his proposed expansion of the government. With the economy in the rough condition that it's in, a fiscal policy of higher taxes and more government spending is certainly not a recipe for success.

Today, the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009 failed to pass in the U.S. House – but only by a very small margin. Its defeat today is a rare, fiscally responsible action in a Congress that has been gung-ho on spending since being sworn into office in January. The Democrat majority had hoped to sneak this 1,200-page, $10-billion package through with no more than 40-minutes of debate.
 
This omnibus bill today cobbled together over 170 different bills, including 75 measures that we never even reviewed in the House.  Hidden amongst its pages are 19 provisions to restrict American-made energy production and jobs by withdrawing federal land from mineral leasing - such as oil, gas, and coal exploration. It withdraws 3 million acres from energy leasing and recreation use. And, it eliminates 331 million barrels of recoverable oil and 8.8 trillion cubic feet of natural gas resulting from energy exploration in Wyoming.

Whether you agree with these measures of not, you cannot argue that a bill like this should be brought to the floor and voted on with just 40 minutes of discussion and no ability to offer amendments. Thankfully, this measure did not pass, but the bipartisanship that the Democrats promised on the campaign trail continues to remain nonexistent.  Their procedural maneuvers and failure to require proper vetting continue to show a level of disrespect not only to the Congressional minority – but the American taxpayer.

This is something I've heard very little reported about in the mainstream media. Minnesota is becoming the first state to make new mortgages available to individuals based strictly on their faith. While there are a few private banks and lenders who offer this type of mortgage in the U.S., Minnesota’s state-agency-provided “Islamic mortgages” are a first - and they raise some interesting questions.

For instance:  Is faith a precondition for these mortgages?  Would any prospective homebuyer – Jewish, Christian, atheistic -- be able to take this deal if she wanted to?  And, do these homebuyers qualify for the home mortgage interest deduction – that is, until President Obama takes it away as recommended in his budget?

According to reporting by the Minnesota Public Radio, essentially, the way the program works is that the state buys a home and resells it to the buyer at a higher up-front price.  The borrower supposedly pays the same amount as everyone else in the end but without “paying interest,” which is against Islamic law. According to MPR,  Islamic law makes exceptions to the ban on interest "if one's family is at stake," but many faithful worshipers of Islam would rather stay clear.

Give the story a read for yourself. I applaud private lenders for filling this niche in the market – such innovation is what makes a capitalist economy strong, but when government takes the reins and taxpayers assume the costs, we should answer all the questions first.

Amongst the several revenue-raising proposals in President Obama’s $3.9-trillion budget proposal is a carbon tax that will impact all American families.  His budget aims to raise $646 billion through a cap-and-trade tax on energy.

Last year, Peter Orszag, who was then Director of the Congressional Budget Office and is now President Obama’s Director for the Office of Management and Budget, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on a similar proposal.  Speaking about a cap-and-trade proposal to cut carbon emissions by 15%, he said it would cost the average household about $1,300 a year through higher energy costs.  He also noted that working class families would be hardest hit.

President Obama’s current proposal aims to cut carbon emissions by more than 3 times that of last year’s proposal – 83%.  John Feehery, writing in The Hill's Pundits Blog last week, noted that using Director Orszag’s analysis, this would mean that the average family will pay close to $4,000 a year, or $333 a month.

The White House seems to acknowledge that the costs of this tax will impact low-income families hardest and suggests a $500-a-year subsidy.  But, that doesn’t even cover two-months cost for the average family.  And, it doesn’t take into account the increased costs for everything from groceries to school supplies that a carbon tax will also impose on everyone.  We had a little taste of that last summer with the increased fuel costs adding to the costs of just about all consumer goods and I’m not sure American families want to return to that budget-busting scenario.

Earlier this week I told you about  the growing list of banks that are choosing to opt out of the TARP program and give the money back. Today, TCF Chief Executive Bill Cooper appeared on Fox News to explain his reasons for doing so.

If you had any doubts about the impact and effectiveness of the $700 billion TARP funding approved by Congress last year (which I opposed), look no further than the growing list of banks that are choosing to opt out of the program and give the money back.

The Minneapolis Star Tribune reported yesterday that TFC Financial Corp. has joined Northern Trust and Iberiabank Corp. as financial institutions who are staying clear of the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program.

The way TCF Chief Executive Bill Cooper views it:

"I don't want to be part of the new regulatory regime that's growing up around TARP. Congress is now talking about putting their oar in the water on just about everything we do. That puts us at a competitive disadvantage."

There's been much criticism of TARP, going back to its origins late last year, that this was not the best way to assist our struggling financial institutions. Sadly, the trademark of Washington, D.C. during a moment of crisis is that we have to do something. It's not as important to grasp the ramifications of what exactly we're doing, but as long as we're doing something, then we can't be blamed for doing nothing.

This is a dangerous philosophy.

In a recent letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders, Chairman Warren Buffet, a proponent of the TARP program said:

"Economic medicine that was previously meted out by the cupful has recently been dispensed by the barrel. These once-unthinkable dosages will almost certainly bring on unwelcome after effects.

"Their precise nature is anyone’s guess, though one likely consequence is an onslaught of inflation.

"Moreover, major industries have become dependent on Federal assistance, and they will be followed by cities and states bearing mind-boggling requests. Weaning these entities from the public teat will be a political challenge. They won’t leave willingly."

If we continue to let the government grow in its power and influence, the end result will be the decline of our tradition of entrepreneurial spirit. We must always remember that government is not the end-all-be-all of our nation’s prosperity; the people are.

I've got a great article that I came across over the weekend. CNBC did a thorough analysis of where the wealthy folks live whom President Obama is targeting for tax hikes as prescribed by his budget for fiscal year 2010. The President's budget raises tax rates on those couples making over $250,000 a year and individuals making $200,000 a year. The article reports that it will impact about 3% of all U.S. Households.

Among those states that will be most affected by the President's tax hikes is Minnesota:

15. Minnesota

% of Households Earning $200K : 3.8%
Total Households: 2,062,681
Households Earning $200K : 77,772
Median Income: $57,932

Election Results:
Obama: 54%
McCain: 44%

I hope you can take a few minutes and give this great editorial in today's Wall Street Journal a read: The 2% Illusion -  Take everything they earn, and it still won't be enough.

To pay for the trillions in spending that President Obama and his Congressional Democrat allies have passed and are about to pass in the months ahead, our President has assured us that taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 will not be raised by "one single dime." His plan is to increase the tax rates on Americans making more than $250k a year to offset the spending. But is this even statistically feasible was the question the Wall Street Journal set out to answer?

You've got to read this for yourself to get a firm grasp of the numbers and statistics we're talking about here. But this sentence really stuck out to me:

"The bottom line is that Mr. Obama is selling the country on a 2% illusion. Unwinding the U.S. commitment in Iraq and allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire can't possibly pay for his agenda. Taxes on the not-so-rich will need to rise as well."

Give it a read for yourself, and see what you think.

You've heard me recount a Bloomberg report that said with the passing of the economic stimulus package, you the taxpayer-- will be on the hook for $9.7 trillion dollars in total government commitment to carry out all the economic bailout/stimulus/relief plans of the past year.

This is what Bloomberg reported earlier this month:

"The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve."

Well, now it's gotten even worse. In just two weeks, Bloomberg has been forced to revise its analysis and increase that burden by almost $2 trillion. Bloomberg issued another report today that now raises the federal commitment to $11.6 trillion. That's real money, money that future generations have to pay for.

The spending spree has to stop, and I've joined with House Republicans in calling for a spending freeze. If families across America are tightening family budgets and cutting expenses, Washington must learn to do the same.

President Obama has not wasted any time since being sworn in as President in pursuing a truly liberal agenda. From the mega-"stimulus" package to a multi-hundred-billion-dollar mortgage plan - The Hill newspaper reports that his next target is health care reform. 

If the theme continues from his prior legislative accomplishments, we should anticipate a health care plan that spends more of your money and calls for greater government authority over your health care decisions.

It's already been reported that the recently signed economic "stimulus" package has laid the groundwork for a greater government stake in our health care system. As a result, I have no reason to believe that when the Democrats’ health care plans are revealed, the end result will be greater federal involvement. After all, government knows best -- doesn't it? Sadly, the Democrat majority in Washington thinks exactly that.

If you have not seen the Governors v. Congress piece in today's Wall Street Journal, I highly encourage you to give a read. It does a great job dissecting the very principled and rational reasoning as to why some Governors are rejecting their state's share of the funding from the recently passed economic stimulus package.

"These Governors -- Haley Barbour of Mississippi, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Butch Otter of Idaho, Rick Perry of Texas and Mark Sanford of South Carolina -- all have the same objection:

The tens of billions of dollars of aid for health care, welfare and education will disappear in two years and leave states with no way to finance the expanded programs."

As fair and sensible as this objection might seem, it may do no good because the Governor's will not have the final say as to whether or not they will accept the additional federal dollars. The article points to a "little noticed provision" that allows the state legislators to override the decisions of their governors as to how the state should spend or not spend the stimulus money.

So at the end of the day, despite not only principled objections but even empirical proof that these dollars will do more harm than good to a state's long-term economic vitality - these dollars could be spent whether a Governor likes it or not.

The WSJ piece concludes:

“Don't be surprised if two years from now states are still facing mountainous deficits. They will have their Uncle Sam to thank.”

At least these Governors did their part to warn us.

When President Obama released his plan this week to prevent home foreclosures, the point he wanted to get across to everyone watching was that money from folks who have been making their payments on time will not just be handed over to those folks who got in over their heads and bought a house they knew they couldn't afford.

But as the Wall Street Journal points out, it looks like President Obama's plan may do just that.

It's estimated that around four million homeowners are in danger of foreclosure, and in order to help them out, part of the President's plan creates a $75 billion program that would go towards reducing a homeowner's monthly mortgage payment. That breaks down to about $18,750 per home.

Now, we can debate whether this is the right thing to do as it may seem that you're rewarding the irresponsible while punishing those who have been playing by the rules; but what's most interesting are the statistics that show what happens if you were to drastically slash mortgage rates to make it a more feasible number to pay each month.

According to the December report by the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Office of Thrift Supervision:

"The number of loans modified in the first quarter that were 30 or more days delinquent was 37 percent after three months and 55 percent after six months. The number of loans modified in the first quarter that were 60 or more days delinquent was 19 percent at three months and nearly 37 percent after six months. One very troubling point is that, whether measured using 30-day or 60-day delinquencies, re-default rates increased each month and showed no signs of leveling off after six months and even eight months."

While this plan spends a heck of a lot of money, it doesn't fix the loan problem for the long term. As the Wall Street Journal points out: after all of this money, we still may not have fixed the problem.