Inhofe Reaction to Obama Afghanistan Plan
Inhofe Fights To Keep Military Strong
Sen. Inhofe and Colleagues Advocate for Robust Defense Budget
Inhofe Presses for Ballistic Missile Defense at Armed Services Hearing
Inhofe Introduces Legislation to Halt Unspent AIG Money
Sen. Inhofe Calls on Budget Committee to Keep Public/Private Student Loan Program
In the News: Inhofe Slams elitists (Ada Evening News)
In the News: Jim Inhofe targets Tim Geithner, AIG funds (The Oklahoman)
In the News: Picher Head Start moved to new home (Tulsa World)
In The News: State groups praise farm trucking bill (The Journal Record)
In the News: Bailouts, Not Bonuses, Are the Real Problem (Human Events)
In the News: Stress Test: Let Congress vote on Gitmo releases (Oklahoman Editorial)
Enid
302 N Independence
Suite 104
Enid, OK 73701
(580) 234-5105
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
McAlester
215 E Choctaw Ave
Suite 106
McAlester, OK 74501
(918) 426-0933
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
Oklahoma City
1900 NW Expressway St
Suite 1210
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
(405) 608-4381
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
Tulsa
1924 S. Utica Avenue
Suite 530
Tulsa, OK 74104
(918) 748-5111
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
Washington
453 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
(202) 224-4721
Map this | Directions To
Washington D.C. Office
Inhofe Reaction to Obama Afghanistan Plan
Today, U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), a Senior Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued the following statement regarding the President’s announcement this morning on his proposal on Afghanistan.
“I am pleased that President Obama listened to General McKiernan and commanders on the ground and I support the President’s plan to deploy an additional 4,000 troops to Afghanistan to continue to prosecute the War on Terror in Afghanistan,” Senator Inhofe said. “In addition to the earlier announcement of a 17,000 troop increase, the added several thousand troops will allow our forces to deny safe havens to Al Qaeda and the Taliban while hunting down their terrorist cells. As we increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, we must ensure we have the right kind of troops and the infrastructure in place to support them. However, as I've stated before, there is no purely military solution in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is an international interest and requires an international commitment and support if we are to bring stability to this country and its people. Support comes in many forms – government-to-government cooperation, military assistance from combat troops to trainers, civilian reconstruction teams, trade, and monetary assistance. Success in the war in Afghanistan is contingent on the cooperation its neighbors to include Pakistan, China, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, and Iran. Finally, we must continue the training and development of Afghanistan security forces and the agricultural and infrastructure development if we are to achieve long-term success in Afghanistan. I urge the President and the Secretary of State to continue to pressure NATO and our allies to sustain and increase their troop and logistical assistance, and for the international community to join us in bringing stability to Afghanistan.
“It should be noted, however, that this announcement comes at the same
time that President Obama has announced severe cuts to the Defense
budget. My
priority has long been to ensure our nation stays committed to
providing the necessary funds to our men and women in the Armed
Services. In fact, all indications are that the only budgetary cuts on
the table are cuts within the Department of Defense and at the expense
of our national security.
“The greatest trust placed upon Congress by the American people is to provide for their security by maintaining a strong national defense. Today, our military is fighting with equipment that is decades old and a force structure that is 40% less than what it was in the 1980s. The Air Force has 2,500 fewer aircraft, the Navy cut its fleet size in half, and the Army reduced its force to half the number of divisions it had during the first Gulf War. For the past 17 years, our military has been asked to do more with much less and much older equipment. So far, the only area in the President’s budget that is considering being cut is defense. We have a responsibility to our troops and the American people to adequately field and fund a military equal to that which we are asking them to do.”
Inhofe Fights To Keep Military Strong
Senator Inhofe on Thursday spoke out on the need to modernize our military and voiced his opposition to major cuts to the defense budget. Senator Inhofe attended two Senate committee hearings, one with recently nominated Department of Defense (DoD) leaders and the other with military and land warfare policy advisors. Senator Inhofe made the case for moving forward with the Future Combat System (FCS), which includes the Non-Line of Sight Cannon (NLOS-C), as the way to adequately modernize the Army and provide the most advanced and survivable equipment for our military at war.
“As Congress begins consideration of President Obama’s budget, my priority is to ensure our nation stays committed to providing the necessary funds to our men and women in the Armed Services,” Senator Inhofe said. “While it may seem outrageous to my constituents in Oklahoma, many here Washington seem to think now is the time to make drastic cuts to the defense budget. In fact, all indications are that the only budgetary cuts on the table are cuts within the DoD and at the expense of our national security.
“The greatest trust placed upon Congress by the American people is to provide for their security by maintaining a strong national defense. Today, our military is fighting with equipment that is decades old and a force structure that is 40% less than what it was in the 1980s. The Air Force has 2,500 fewer aircraft, the Navy cut its fleet size in half, and the Army reduced its force to half the number of divisions it had during the first Gulf War. For the past 17 years, our military has been asked to do more with much less and much older equipment. So far, the only area in the President’s budget that is considering being cut is defense. We have a responsibility to our troops and the American people to adequately field and fund a military equal to that which we are asking them to do.
“Of particular interest to me is fighting for the Future Combat System, which is front and center in Washington. The Future Combat System is Army modernization and without it, our servicemen continue to cross the battlefield with the same combat vehicles their fathers did. FCS-manned vehicles will be an average of 12% more survivable than the current combat vehicle systems based on manufacturer tests of armor. Our Soldiers, and frankly the next generation of Soldiers, deserve better than 50 year-old combat vehicles with seven layers of new paint. FCS will only help enable our Soldiers to fight and win combat operations ranging from counter-insurgencies through conventional conflicts, but it will bring our sons and daughters home safely.
“Training and equipment required to execute the wide range of missions we ask our of Soldiers does not happen overnight. The U.S. Army is the pre-eminent global power in conventional warfare, but this status did not come without the significant investment we made in our equipment during the late 1970s and the 1980s. We have not adequately invested in modernizing our military since the 1980s. We took an acquisition holiday in the 1990s and it appears we are about to do it again. The ‘Peace Dividend’ of the 1990s never materialized; meanwhile, we gutted our military to the point where some suggested that there wouldn’t be a need for a large ground force in the U.S. military.
“The Army’s premier infantry fighting vehicle, the Bradley, is on its third iteration based on 1960s/1970s technology and continues to be updated and modified to meet the developing threat. Our M1 Abrams tank, developed and produced in the 1970s and 1980s, during the Cold War, to fight a conventional war on the plains of Europe, is now on its third update. Right now, our premier artillery howitzer is the M109A6 “Paladin”, with the “A6” indicating the 6th update on the same chassis developed in the 1950s. With the addition of the Army’s Paladin Integrated Management (PIM) program, the Paladin will receive its 7th update.”
Sen. Inhofe and Colleagues Advocate for Robust Defense Budget
Senator Inhofe this week joined Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) and other Senate colleagues to send a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressing serious concerns about the administration’s defense budget for fiscal year 2010 and beyond, which appears to considerably reduce overall defense spending. The administration’s plan could potentially require the cancellation or delay of numerous high-priority weapon systems and may indicate a decreased emphasis on national security as a priority. At a time when our nation is fighting the Global War on Terror on two major fronts overseas, the letter addresses the major expenses on the horizon for the Defense Department, including a substantial troop increase in Afghanistan and a withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq, and asks for an explanation of how these missions will be paid for since supplemental requests will apparently be significantly reduced. They also warn against embarking on a 1990s-style military “procurement holiday,” which could leave our Armed Forces without the necessary tools and capabilities to defend our nation against the full range of potential threats. Sens. Cornyn, Kyl, Murkowski, Thune, Isakson, DeMint, Chambliss, Wicker, Vitter, Bennett, Burr, Sessions and Hutchison joined Sen. Cornyn in sending the letter to Secretary Gates.
“We write today to express serious concern about the administration’s planned national defense spending in Fiscal Year 2010 and beyond, which appears to be insufficient to guarantee U.S. national security in the coming years. Based on the administration’s budget documents submitted thus far, it appears that a marked decrease in overall defense spending is in store for our country. If recent press accounts are accurate, this will be accomplished by canceling or postponing the acquisition of numerous major weapon systems critical to our Armed Forces and necessary to ensure their future ability to defend our country.
“[W]e request that your department provide us as soon as possible with more detailed information on what expenditures, and at what levels, you anticipate moving from the supplemental budget to the base defense budget for FY10 and what defense programs you anticipate eliminating or substantially reducing, in relation to the most recent Future Years Defense Program (FYDP). In addition, it is essential that we hear from our uniformed combatant commanders and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on the potential problems they will face in carrying out their responsibilities under the administration’s proposed defense spending blueprints,” Sen. Inhofe and his colleagues wrote.
Click here to read the entire letter.
Inhofe Presses for Ballistic Missile Defense at Armed Services Hearing
Sen. Inhofe highlighted the importance of missile defense during an Armed Services Hearing Tuesday on the U.S. European Command (EUCOM) and U.S. Joint Forces Command (JFCOM). Senator Inhofe met with General John Craddock, Commander, U.S. European Command, and North Atlantic Treaty Organization Supreme Allied Commander Europe, on Monday in his Washington, D.C. office to discuss the issues of importance before General Craddock addressed the Armed Services Committee today.
“Today, more than 20 countries around the world have a ballistic missile capability,” Senator Inhofe said. “It is imperative that our nation possess the capability to defend itself against a ballistic missile attack. This was reiterated last week by Admiral Keating and General Renuart, and this week by General Craddock who said, ‘Ballistic missile defense must remain a priority so that we are postured to counter threats to the United States, deployed forces and allies.’ Unfortunately, the Obama administration remains uncommitted at this time.
“Every Combatant Commander I have spoken with has supported the
deployment of an integrated ballistic defense. NATO leaders have also
spoken, stating in a December 2008 communiqué, ‘Ballistic missile
proliferation poses an increasing threat to Allies’ forces, territory,
and populations. Missile defense forms part of a broader response to
counter this threat. We therefore recognize the substantial
contribution to the protection of Allies from long-range ballistic
missiles to be provided by the planned deployment of European-based
United States missile defense assets.’
“To go back on our commitment to the Czech Republic and Poland would
send a signal around the world that the United States does not hold up
to its agreements. On Sunday, Polish Foreign Minister Radoslow
Skiorski said, ‘…we hope we don’t regret our trust in the United
States.’ I echo his concern.
“In light of the successful Iranian satellite launch and reports of North Korean missile developments, now is not the time to cut strategic missile defense funding or delay constructing the ‘Third Site’ in Europe. The technology is proven – we have conducted 37 of 41 successfully intercepts – and the threat is real. Furthermore, as the U.S. and allies begin planning for a drawdown of forces in Iraq, Iran is even more likely to continue its ballistic missile development and provocative actions towards Israel and other nations in the region.
“No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, these facts should concern each and every American who believes we are well prepared for attacks of any kind across the spectrum of warfare. We are not. Today, our nation does not have a deployed, operational, multilayered integrated robust missile defense system to defend and protect the United States, its armed forces and its allies from Iran. We are susceptible to ballistic missile attack, and we need to take action now to ensure that we can stand prepared for any future threats.”
Last week, Senator Inhofe questioned Dennis Blair, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), and Lieutenant General Michael D. Maples, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) national security threats, including missile defense, and said, “North Korea has continued its sale of ballistic missiles and associated material to several countries, including Iran. It also continues to pursue its nuclear ambitions in an effort to de-stabilize East Asia. In 1998, our nation was caught off-guard by the ballistic missile capabilities of North Korea. That year, the CIA issued a report claiming that North Korea would not have a long-range ballistic missile capability for at least 10 to 15 years. [Retired] General Shalikashvili testified under oath to the same. And then, about two weeks later, Kim Jong Il, operating under his own timeline, sent a ballistic missile over Japan. The responsibility for protecting the United States against a ballistic missile attack is an increasingly important role. We need to remain vigilant across the globe to ensure we are never caught off-guard again.” To read the rest of the release, click here.
Inhofe Introduces Legislation to Halt Unspent AIG Money
Senator Inhofe this week introduced legislation (S.630) that would freeze that the remaining $30 billion of the initial $150 billion of taxpayer dollar steered to AIG by Congress and the Administration.
“Today, I am introducing legislation that will address the root of the problem, the $180 billion we’ve already given to AIG,” Senator Inhofe said. “It’s my understanding that the last $30 billion for AIG from TARP has been agreed to by Treasury, but has not been drawn down yet. My legislation would prevent that from going forward. The taxpayer has given AIG about $150 billion so far. I think it’s completely reasonable to say that once a single company gets $150 billion from the taxpayer, it should be cut off from getting more.
“The reason many are seeking expedited consideration of an AIG bonus bill is clear enough—to cover up the past mistakes of the majority party and the Treasury Secretary. We should recall the process that created the stimulus bill: no time to review the final bill before passage, a photo op masquerading as a conference committee, hasty consideration, no bipartisan input, and huge decisions about billions of dollars made behind closed doors by the leadership majority party. And it was this process that allowed the provision to give out the AIG bonuses to find its way into law. There was a provision buried deep in the Democrats’ stimulus bill that allowed these bonuses to be paid, and it was inserted at the behest of the Treasury secretary, Tim Geithner.
“Tim Geithner’s bailout approach has taken us too far. Instead of Congress using the AIG bonus issue to cover up Tim Geithner’s mistakes on allowing those bonuses, we should take it as an opportunity to fundamentally reevaluate Geithner’s bailouts thus far and put an end to any more bailouts. With the revelations of how AIG is being used to funnel money to foreign banks to make them whole on bad investments at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer, we need to put an end to the Geithner approach on bailouts. The taxpayer deserves no less.”
To read Senator Inhofe's blog post in The Hill, "AIG Spending Must Be Reigned In With Caution," click here.
Sen. Inhofe Calls on Budget Committee to Keep Public/Private Student Loan Program
Senator Inhofe on Monday joined a group of 16 Senators to send a letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), calling on them to prevent the total elimination of the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL), as is currently outlined in the President’s budget proposal.
There are two major student loan programs through the Department of Education: the Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) program, which is a public-private partnership that allows private lenders to provide federally guaranteed funds, and the William D. Ford Direct Loan (DL) program which provides funds directly from the federal government. The FFEL program has helped more than 60 million Americans pay for college since it was instituted in 1965.
Unfortunately, President Obama has proposed in his budget to terminate the FFEL program. This would have a direct impact on millions across the country, as well as in Oklahoma. With the exception of two, all of the colleges and universities in Oklahoma participate in the FFEL program through the Oklahoma Student Loan Authority (OSLA). The OSLA, a non-profit Public Trust, currently originates and provides lifetime service for over 60% of the FFEL loans made in Oklahoma. OSLA estimates that with the elimination of the FFEL program, 213 individuals would lose their jobs in Oklahoma alone.
For additional information, please visit: http://www.osla.org/
In the News: Inhofe Slams elitists (Ada Evening News)
— By Justin Lofton
Staff writer
March 26, 2009
United States Senator Jim Inhofe stopped in Ada on Friday afternoon to give a rundown of what was going on in Washington. In what his press release describes as “an onslaught of unprecedented policies,” the Obama administration is going to be attempting to increase taxes on the oil and natural gas industry.
“He (Obama) has eight punitive tax provisions in his budget for our oil industry,” Inhofe said. “Most of the independent oil people will tell you that they’re out of business if something like this happens.” Inhofe’s press release said there is a proposed tax increase of $31 billion on the oil and gas industry. Many owners of mineral rights would also face higher taxes, the release said.
“The whole idea of what he’s (Obama) doing is very punitive to almost any business or industry, but specifically to the oil industry,” Inhofe said.
He said those backing these kinds of agendas are “extremists” and “Hollywood elitists.”
“They don’t want oil, they don’t want gas, they don’t want coal, and they don’t want nuclear, either. How do you run this machine called ‘America’ if you don’t have any of that stuff?” he said.
Inhofe also touched on what he doesn't like about $4.4 trillion in new deficits over the next decade, including the recent bail-outs.
“All these things are bad and unaffordable, but at least they’re only a one-shot deal,” Inhofe said.
Inhofe is also opposed to the proposed Cap and Trade tax for carbon dioxide. “The cost of that would be just under $400 billion a year,” he said. “The reason the environmentalists, the extremists, have so much power is that they have all the money. moveon.org, George Soros and Michael Moore, they put millions of dollars into campaigns.”
Inhofe is confident an effective opposition to the “Hollywood elitists” in question could be mounted, although he said in the United States Senate, that group has control over every Democratic vote, as well as a few Republican votes.
Inhofe said another pressing issue is national security. He said there was a recent proposal by the Obama administration to get rid of veterans’ benefits and have them taken care of by private insurers, instead.
“The night before last, (Obama) backed down from that,” Inhofe said. The senator said he is also concerned about the Obama administration’s plans to take the detainees out of Guantanamo Bay and try them in the U.S. court system.
“The ones that are still there are the ones whose countries won’t repatriate them,” Inhofe said. “He (Obama) even said the night before last that we’ll have to assimilate them into the United States of America. If there’s anything that we don’t need, it’s a bunch of terrorists running around.”
In the News: Jim Inhofe targets Tim Geithner, AIG funds (The Oklahoman)
By Chris Casteel
March 25, 2009
WASHINGTON — Saying the public has been "completely fleeced” on the American International Group bailout, Sen. Jim Inhofe proposed legislation Tuesday to cut off the troubled company from federal money.
Inhofe blamed Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for escalating bailouts of various types in the past two months and said the approach has gone too far.
"I believe there is a lack of any transparency whatsoever and a seeming indifference to the taxpayers’ interests.”
Inhofe’s speech came on the same day Geithner told the House Financial Services Committee he should have more regulatory authority over companies like AIG, including the power to seize control over it before it fails.
Inhofe said AIG has already received $150 billion and could draw $30 billion more that has been approved by the treasury secretary. He proposed a bill to keep that remaining money from AIG.
Inhofe also said legislation passed by the House to tax 90 percent of the big bonuses to AIG employees may be unconstitutional.
In the News: Picher Head Start moved to new home (Tulsa World)
by: OMER GILLHAM World Staff Writer & SHEILA STOGSDILL NewsOK.com
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
3/24/2009 3:51:18 AM
QUAPAW — Gov. Brad Henry is applauding Head Start officials for taking swift action to remove a preschool program from the Tar Creek Superfund site in Ottawa County.
Picher Head Start was relocated to Quapaw during spring break and moved into a ready-made building without much disruption in services, a school official said.
The program opened Monday in a building that had previously housed the Head Start program in Quapaw, Head Start Coordinator Jane Hatfield said.
"Everything went real well," she said.
Picher Head Start had been in Picher, a former mining town in the Tar Creek Superfund site, a 40-square-mile area polluted by decades of lead and zinc mining.
Henry and U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., urged Head Start officials to move the preschool program after the Tulsa World reported that young children were being allowed to move into Picher, which has numerous homes and businesses undermined by deteriorating lead mines.
Henry said, "Given the dangers of lead exposure and subsidence in the area, this was the only responsible course of action.
"I appreciate the cooperation of the Picher Head Start program and the quick action it took to relocate its facility," he added.
"Although it may have caused some temporary disruption, moving the program was clearly in the best interest of the children and their families."
Picher is part of a $60 million federal buyout of homes, businesses and public-use facilities within the Superfund site.
Quapaw is a few miles east of Picher.
Head Start officials wanted to wait until the end of the school year to move the program to avoid a potential lapse in services.
However, officials moved up the relocation at the urging of Henry and Inhofe.
By 8:30 a.m. Monday, 17 students already were settled into their morning routine of eating breakfast.
The brightly colored classroom, filled with books and crayons, was a hit with the children, ages 3 and 4.
Hatfield has been a teacher for 39 years.
She said her staff and volunteers worked for two weeks to move everything from the Picher Head Start to their new home so that classes would open without interruption.
The building, which once held the Quapaw Head Start, has not been used for two years. Before the children arrived, the room received fresh paint, new carpet, and an extended playground with a new bicycle track, Hatfield said.
"I am just happy the parents chose to stick with me," she said. "Some have to drive 15 miles."
In The News: State groups praise farm trucking bill (The Journal Record)
The Journal Record: State groups praise farm trucking bill
March 23, 2009
OKLAHOMA CITY - Federal legislation introduced last week aimed to reduce transportation fines for farm truck drivers hauling goods from state to state was praised by the Oklahoma Farm Bureau and other agriculture industry leaders.
Senate Bill 639 by U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe would address a problem for agriculture producers created by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's definition of a commercial motor vehicle and its allowable weight, he said. As it stands now, the agency's limit of 10,001 pounds applies to vehicles involved in interstate commerce; states are allowed to raise that limit to 26,001 pounds for vehicles engaged solely in commerce within a single state.
As long as two neighboring states have reciprocity agreements in place, heavy farm trucks are allowed to cross state lines within 150 miles of their farms without penalty. But not all states have such agreements, Inhofe said - Oklahoma and Kansas, for example - which means the federal government's 10,001-pound limit applies as normal, as well as other regulations. That's the case even if those states have exemptions specifically for farm vehicles.
"Due to an arbitrary federal law, many Oklahoma farmers are being ticketed when they drive their goods across state lines," Inhofe said. "Even though these farmers' trucks are within the weight limits set by their home states and the states to which they are traveling, they are triggering an arbitrary federal weight regulation when they cross state lines in their farm vehicles."
Inhofe said he discussed the issue with several agriculture organizations, including the Oklahoma Farm Bureau and Oklahoma Wheat Commission, before reintroducing legislation he first brought up in July.
Oklahoma farmer and rancher Terry Detrick, who also is president of the American Farmers & Ranchers industry organization, said he supports SB 639 because it would save farmers money and trouble.
"We applaud Senator Inhofe in recognizing the problem and working to find a solution for everyone involved," Detrick said. "Currently, the rules and regulations that farmers and ranchers must follow are designed for over-the-road haulers that travel all across the country; we are only talking about an exemption for farmers and ranchers that drive very few miles to get their products to the first point of sale and to the best market within their area."
Oklahoma Farm Bureau President Mike Spradling echoed Detrick's comments.
"Farmers and ranchers who engage in interstate commerce throughout this nation need the ability to conduct their business in a fair and efficient manner," Spradling said. "We believe that SB 639 will provide much-needed uniformity between state and federal law, which will allow for agricultural commodities to be transported more freely across state lines."
When a truck is considered a commercial motor vehicle, the driver must comply with the federal requirements of a professional truck driver. These requirements include possessing a commercial driver's license and medical examination certificate, having Department of Transportation markings on the vehicle, documenting hours of service and becoming subject to controlled substance and alcohol testing.
"While these requirements serve important purposes for long-haul truck drivers, they are unnecessary for farmers who carry these loads only a few times a year," Inhofe said.
The bill was introduced with the support of fellow Oklahoman Republican, U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, as well as U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).
In the News: Bailouts, Not Bonuses, Are the Real Problem (Human Events)
Politicians are apoplectic that American International Group (AIG) executives received $165 million in bonuses. AIG’s Financial Products unit engaged in credit-default swaps that put the insurance giant on the verge of insolvency before the feds bailed them out. Politicians are steamrolling forward with an initiative to tax their bonuses. Conservatives are outraged by the bonuses, but know that bonuses aren’t the problem -- the bailouts are.
Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and author of the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said, “I think the time has come to exercise our ownership rights. We own most of the company, and [we should] say as owner, ‘No, I’m not paying you the bonus, you didn’t perform.’” Liberals would rather act as managers of AIG than to break it up and privatize profitable units of the company.
Clearly, now is the time to end the bailouts of Wall Street, AIG and the auto industry. As Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) said last week:
"Should we be mad at the executives who are involved in this and who ran a once-great company into the ground? Yes. But that’s not where the blame game ends. That’s not where the buck stops. I know that I will upset some of my colleagues when I remind them, and the American people, that much of the blame should be directed right here, to the members of this body, the U.S. Senate, to the other side of the Capitol in the U.S. House for voting for the original $700 billion bailout."
Another senator advocating a course change on bailouts is Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) who spoke on the Senate floor:
"The more we proceed with policies whereby the government owns 80% of the stock of a private insurance company -- having poured $170 billion of our wealth into it -- the more we are inevitably compelled to direct how the company operates, to the point of deciding who their executives should be, what the company’s salary scale should be, or what aircraft it can or cannot have or where or what kind of corporate retreat they may have, and whether or not it can pay bonuses."
The Heritage Foundation, my employer, wrote last November of Treasury’s bait and switch. Then Secretary Hank Paulson announced that the feds weren’t going to buy troubled assets and instead they bailed out banks and the auto industry. The second half of the TARP monies may be used by President Obama to provide federal financing for investors in securities backed by consumer debt such as car loans, student loans, and credit cards and, further, might provide subsidies to mitigate mortgage foreclosures. According to The Heritage Foundation, “these possible moves, however, would likely exacerbate rather than ease the current financial problem.” The moves by President Bush and potential bailouts by President Obama will do little to give value to troubled assets and free up bank credit for the business world.
Granting bureaucrats unfettered discretion in implementing the TARP program has proven to be a mistake. Conservatives in Congress should use the debate over AIG bonuses to abolish the TARP and forbid future bailouts.
Where’s the Budget?
President Obama hasn’t yet finished his $3.6 trillion budget, yet the House of Representatives appears poised to pass a budget resolution based on his $3.6 trillion outline. The budget will guide how Congress spends your hard-earned money; it’s too important to be debated using an outline and placeholders. For the sake of transparency, Congress should debate the full Obama budget and the implications it will have on our children’s future. The American people deserve to see the details before Congress rubberstamps a plan that spends, taxes and borrows too much of your money.
Conservative Cheers
Cheers to Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ken.), one of the fathers of the Armed Pilots Program, for digging in his heels to save the program from possible elimination or downsizing by the Obama administration. Pilots have expressed deep concern about proposed cuts to the program (and its potential abolition). Bunning told HUMAN EVENTS that “the Armed Pilots program has proven to be the most effective tool in protecting the cockpit from a 9-11 style attack. The program is the first line of deterrence and last line of defense. It would be unwise for the Obama administration to take any action to weaken or possibly even end the program.”
Earlier this month, Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) forced a vote on the elimination of Congress’s automatic annual pay raises. After some political gamesmanship, the Senate tabled his amendment. Last week, though, senators rethought their opposition and passed Vitter’s bill by voice vote. Taxpayers cannot claim victory yet, though -- House leaders seem disinclined to take up the measure.
| Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at The Heritage Foundation. |
In the News: Stress Test: Let Congress vote on Gitmo releases (Oklahoman Editorial)
Published: March 22, 2009
There’s a way to decide whether Guantanamo detainees should be released inside the United States, which U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said last week is being considered by the Obama administration. Vote on it.
That’s it. Put the idea to a vote in Congress and let the people’s representatives show the administration whether bringing some of the "worst of the worst” to the U.S. has popular support.
Doing so, as Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Tulsa, suggests, also will let the people know where their elected representative stands on the idea.
The administration is grappling with what to do with about 250 detainees at the Cuba facility. Holder met last week with European officials who are pressing the United States to accept some detainees as part of a deal in which others are sent to Europe.
Bringing detainees to this country is a bad idea. We’d be surprised if anyone in Congress volunteers his or her state to host one or more of these prisoners.
Even 17 ethnic Uighurs from the central part of China, who are mentioned as examples of detainees who might be turned loose inside this country, aren’t safe for release. Experts say the Uighurs are members of or associated with a jihadist group that’s affiliated with al-Qaida.
The larger idea is too risky, especially, as Inhofe asserts, when there’s already a safe, humane facility — at Guantanamo.
So, before the administration spends any more time studying whether to bring Gitmo detainees to the United States, put it to a vote.