Last week, the U.S. Treasury released the Fiscal Year 2008 Financial Report of the U.S. Government.

According to a Treasury press release:

"Revenue results in this year’s Financial Report were $2.7 trillion, increasing slightly by $34 billion or just over 1 percent, compared to last year. Total costs were $3.6 trillion, an increase of $.7 trillion or 25 percent compared to last year. Net operating cost increased to $1 trillion, up from last year’s net operating cost of $275.5 billion."

During the last session of Congress, I introduced H.R. 3958, the Truth in Accounting Act, which would require the Treasury to calculate the long-term budget figure in this report to create greater transparency in the budgeting process and provide a more accurate assessment of our nation's real financial standing.

It would do this by requiring the Treasury to include a program-by-program calculation of : (1) the generational imbalance; (2) the fiscal imbalance; and (3) the total amount of the fiscal imbalance plus the public debt. The President, in preparing the federal budget, would then have to take this financial statement into consideration, including the effect of the overall budget upon: (1) the generational imbalance calculation and the fiscal imbalance calculation; and (2) the net present value of the overall fiscal exposures of the federal government.

In other words, our government would have a more accurate number from which to work when creating the federal budget, which could hopefully help to avoid irresponsible spending. In the not-so-distant future, our nation will be faced with making essential reforms to large domestic programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, to make them fiscally sustainable. However, we can’t do this responsibly without an accurate forecast of not only the short-term, but also the long-term financial standing of our nation. If we don’t get a grip on our finances, we will continue to spend more than we have. And our children will pay the price.

It’s no secret that when President Obama gets sworn into office, among his top priorities will be to guide Congress through an $850 billion economic stimulus package. As a result, this astronomical number has created a tsunami of activity from special interest groups looking for their piece of the pie. $850 billion is simply an astonishing figure - not only exceeding the hefty $700 billion price tag of the financial sector, but also dwarfing the annual budget for the Pentagon.

What does Obama intend to do with all of your hard-earned money? According to today's Washington Post, the 850 billion "would include at least $100 billion for cash-strapped state governments and more than $350 billion for investments in infrastructure, alternative energy and other priorities..."

You've got to wonder if the infrastructure investments that Obama is going to include in his package might come from the list of 11,391 projects that the U.S. Conference of Mayors recently submitted to Congress.  The list includes things like a $4.8 million polar bear exhibit at the Providence, RI zoo and a $1.5 million water ride in Miami, FL. 

According to a recent CNN article, other abuses of taxpayer dollars found within the report include:  "a proposed $20 million minor league baseball museum in Durham, North Carolina; $6.1 million for corporate jet hangars at the Fayetteville, Arkansas, airport; $20 million for renovations at the Philadelphia Zoo; and a $1.5 million program to reduce prostitution in Dayton, Ohio."

If nothing else, the next four years look to be a spending bonanza and a pork barrel free-for-all. Hold on to your wallets!

Paul Weyrich was a leader and a pioneer.  In co-founding the Heritage Foundation, Paul not only built one of America’s great grassroots organizations, but helped to change the course of the Republican Party and the country itself.  His fingerprints can be clearly seen on so many of the great conservative victories over the years.

Paul’s political conscience was like a guiding rudder through even the foggiest policy debate.  And in the rough-and-tumble world of politics he never backed down.  He was a fighter – but he always waged his battles with warmth, grace and good humor.

We will miss Paul dearly.  And our prayers are with the Weyrich family at this most difficult time.

But we can take heart in knowing that, even years from now, as memories fade, his legacy will grow ever brighter in the light of the freedoms he fought for, the principles he stood for, and the noble ideas he so eloquently and passionately championed. 

The Hill newspaper's Congress Blog posed a question today to Capitol Hill's influential lawmakers, pundits and interest group leaders in their weekly "Big Question" feature:

"What’s the next step for the GOP on the path back to electoral competitiveness?"

Here's what I had to say:

"The results of the 2006 and 2008 elections have forced the GOP to refocus their efforts to restore the conservative brand. Instead of just talking about fiscal responsibility (yet acting contrary to this message), we must once again restore the trust of the America voter through action."

Read the full post here.

A front page story in Thursday's USA Today newspaper caught my attention:

Late Wednesday night, Congress passed the Auto Industry Financing and Restructuring Act.  Like bailouts in the past, I firmly opposed it, as it offered no assurances that it would fix the failing business models that put the Big Three in this position to begin with, while offering no protection for the taxpayer's investment.

Last night's vote proved that the Bush White House and Democratic leadership are working lockstep to put taxpayers on the line for another irresponsible bailout without making the necessary structural changes and without renegotiating labor contracts. Throwing taxpayer money at Detroit's spiraling problems will not fix their long-term management and productivity troubles and they will only be back for more time and time again.

My Republican House colleagues and I presented an alternative to help the American automakers stabilize their industry while they execute long-term restructuring and reorganization.  That alternative would set hard benchmarks for reducing their debt and renegotiating money-pit deals with Big Labor and would set up the financial assistance as interim insurance instead of a taxpayer-financed bailout.  Unlike the proposal Congressional leadership has brought before Congress, which essentially nationalizes the auto industry, this alternative would maintain an outlet for private investment in the American automakers. 

However, Democratic leadership dismissed consideration of alternative proposals that could truly restructure these companies over the long-term and help them rein in costs.                                                                  

Late Tuesday night, the White House and the Congressional Leadership reached a general agreement on a $15-billion bailout bill for the auto industry. There are still some points that reportedly need to be worked out, and some Senate Republicans remain reluctant to support the package, which could threaten its passage by that body.

But, from what we've seen of the bill so far, here's a quick overview:

*       Calls for a $15 billion package of short-term loans for U.S. automakers taken from the Dept. of Energy “retooling” loan program already signed into law.   (Few recall that Congress already passed a $25 billion loan program for the automakers in September.)

*       Includes a provision that would ALLOW the government to demand early repayment of the loans if the firms were not making adequate progress toward reinventing themselves. This is an option, not mandatory.

*       Allows the President to choose whether to appoint a single administrator — referred to as a “car czar” — or a board of Cabinet officials to oversee the loan program. 

*       Speaker Pelosi has conceded to WH demands that any bailout come from an Energy Dept. loan program already passed for the auto industry, not TARP.  However, she has stated that the bill must specifically include provisions to replenish the retooling program -- and do so within weeks.   Furthermore, she's been quite vocal about her expectation that Congress will have to send additional funds to Detroit in the new year.  Speaker Pelosi hasn't hidden the fact that she considers this just a first step in Detroit's bailout.

*       Speaker Pelosi wants the package to include a provision prohibiting the Big Three from opposing state fuel emissions rules.  Basically, they'd have to drop their lawsuits in CA and elsewhere against state emissions laws that require the automakers to meet standards that are certainly not cost effective and often not even technologically feasible.                                                                                      

Senate Republicans are right to question the plan's ability to put the Big Three automakers on a viable, sustainable path that protects the taxpayer’s investment. The underlying problem in all this is that the law already provides for judicial oversight of such matters in the bankruptcy courts.  What is being proposed here is that the government make special concessions to the auto industry to walk them through a special bankruptcy program administered by a 'car czar,' rather than a judge as in a normal bankruptcy case. Our government will have a controlling stake in yet another significant portion of our economy.

I understand that our nation’s auto companies are hurting, but the last thing these companies and our economy need is a multi-billion-dollar bailout that does nothing to reform the failing business model that put them in this position in the first place.

For instance, GM is drowning under the high costs of their employee benefits. Due to the negotiation of long-term retirement and health packages, GM currently supports more retired employees than present employees. Because American automakers’ costs are so much higher than their competitors- an estimated $2000 more per car- their competitors are able to put in more extras without pricing their products out of the market. It's not that no Americans are buying cars; it's that foreign companies are producing cars that Americans want to buy.

Senator Voinovich, an Ohio Republican who has been a strong advocate for an auto industry rescue, summed up our concerns over the proposed plan the best:“One of my concerns is that this bill doesn’t go far enough to secure viability plans from the auto companies that would best ensure that the money will be paid back to the taxpayers."

I'll keep you posted as things develop throughout the day and week.  

When the 111th Congress convenes in January, one of the first pieces of legislation Congressional leadership will bring to the floor is the Employee Free Choice Act, also known as "card check."

The House passed the bill last year 241 to 185 – over my opposition, but it was hung up in the Senate as the Democrats were unable to get the votes needed to pass it. Having made substantial gains in the House and Senate, "card check" is going to be a top priority in the new Congress. It's also another reason to keep your eyes on the outcome of the Senate races in Minnesota and Georgia. Democrat victories in both of those states likely means smooth sailing for the bill.

The Coalition for a Democratic Workplace has launched a nationwide campaign to educate the public on how dangerous this legislation really is.  It eliminates the secret ballot for workers.

In states like Minnesota, they have launched individual websites. Check out My Private Ballot - Minnesota to learn more about "card check," and to find out how you can take action and stand up for worker's rights. Also, if you're a Sopranos fan, I think you'll get a kick out of who they have as spokesman for the campaign.

Fresh off the $700 billion-plus financial service sector bailouts, including the most recent dole to AIG that upped their bailout total from $85 billion to $150 billion, the Democrat-controlled Congress is trying to rationalize a new $25 billion bailout for the auto industry.

For years, the American auto industry has struggled to keep up with foreign manufacturers like Toyota, Honda, and Nissan. CEOs at Ford, GM and Chrysler  have operated using outdated business models, failed to invest wisely in new products and technology, and were not prepared for the massive rise in gas prices that scaled back their truck and SUV sales dramatically. 

But besides the Big Three’s lack of innovation and mismanagement problems, the Big Three have labor costs that are far higher than their global competitors.  Their CEOs failed to take on union bosses – and as a result millions of jobs could be in jeopardy.  Ironic, isn’t it?

The Big Three pay out an average of $30/hour more than their competitors, including pension and health care costs for hundreds of thousands of retirees.

Take GM for instance, as Michael Levine from NYU School of Law wrote in the Wall Street Journal yesterday:  “GM is contractually required to support thousands of workers in the UAW’s ‘Jobs Bank’ program, which guarantees nearly full wages and benefits for workers who lose their jobs due to automation or plant closure.  It supports more retirees than current workers.”

Taxpayers are once again being asked to throw their hard-earned money behind a short-term, unproductive investment which will only prolong the companies’ failures at a cost that could be even greater later on down the road.  Throwing taxpayer money at Detroit’s spiraling problems will not fix their long-term management and productivity problems. Any urgency that would force the Big Three to make tough restructuring choices would be lessened if federal money is available. Like AIG, they will be back at the taxpayer’s trough in no time.  Let’s not forget that Congress already approved $25 billion in auto industry loans only a couple of months ago.

There are alternatives.  For instance, if the Big Three were able to restructure and reorganize under the protection of the bankruptcy courts, they could be saved without a taxpayer bailout and could fix many of their long-term management and labor problems.  Filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy does not mean a company has gone belly up, that it will be broken up and that all jobs and productivity are lost – it means a company actually has the ability to make structural changes to keep it afloat without the threat of outside lawsuits and through a comprehensive payment plan.

Once you cross this line and bail out the auto industry, where does it end? Are the airlines next?  We have already spent more than a trillion dollars in bailouts this year.  We must take a hard look at why the auto industry is in this position in the first place. Only then will our economy regain the stability it desperately needs.


Cross-posted at the Hill's Congress Blog

If you haven't applied for your bailout yet, what are you waiting for? The way the government's handing out money, why not jump on board the bailout train?

The World Newser, ABC World News' Daily Blog does a great job detailing how the Treasury Department is using the recently passed $700 billion appropriated for the "TARP," or Troubled Asset Recovery Program, to buy up bank stock.  As you will recall, Congress was sold on the bailout as a plan to buy up troubled assets, but that plan appears to be on a far back burner. That's one heck of a bait-and-switch.

Secretary Paulson even said on Wednesday that when the $700 billion bailout bill was signed into law he knew that purchasing troubled assets wasn't the right solution to the problem.

Remember the "urgency" to pass a bailout bill to buy up troubled assets or else face economic ruin the likes the world has never seen? Good thing we rushed to pass a bill on premises that we now know were wrong from the very start.

I voted against both versions of the bailout bill that came before the House of Representatives because they did nothing to address the fundamental root of the crisis, and that was the credit crunch. But the bill is now law, and America is paying for it dearly.  And, our children will pay still more dearly for it.

AIG hit us up for $85 billion in September, but apparently that wasn’t enough because they recently hit the taxpayer up again, upping the ante to $150 billion. And now the auto industry is knocking on the door for their next bailout. Could the airline industry be next? There is no end in sight and no rationale to determine who is and who is not deemed credible to be "bailed out." There is no oversight, and no accountability.  And, taxpayers deserve better.

Over the weekend, Obama's Transition Team Co-Chair John Podesta said on Fox News Sunday, “There is a lot that the President can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we will see the President do that.”

What's being considered?

According to the Chicago Tribune, this could include locking up much of our nation's oil and gas leases.

When President Bush ended the executive moratorium on off-shore oil and gas leasing, it paved the way to accessing these resources. Allowing the Congressional moratorium on offshore and shale exploration to lapse on October 1 was the final step to unlocking these vital energy reserves. But just when gas prices have become affordable, Democrat leaders are about to lock up our energy resources once again, this time possibly even tighter.

This is not progress, and it's certainly not the change we deserve.

With Democrats about to take over the White House and control the Senate and House in greater numbers during the next session of Congress, the threat of the fairness doctrine becoming a reality is very, very real.

Here's what Senator Schumer has to say about it:



According to the Politico newspaper:

"Schumer’s comments echo other Democrats’ views on reviving the Fairness Doctrine, which would require radio stations to balance conservative hosts with liberal ones.

"In 2007, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), a close ally of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told The Hill, 'It’s time to reinstitute the Fairness Doctrine. I have this old-fashioned attitude that when Americans hear both sides of the story, they’re in a better position to make a decision.'

"Senate Rules Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) last year said, 'I believe very strongly that the airwaves are public and people use these airwaves for profit. But there is a responsibility to see that both sides and not just one side of the big public questions of debate of the day are aired and are aired with some modicum of fairness.'"

Seeing as how the Democrats can not compete on the radio airwaves with conservative viewpoints, they are now pulling out all the stops. Remember Air America? It failed miserably. So essentially, liberal leaders in Congress are saying to America -- So you don't like what I have to say? Well, I'm going to make you listen to me anyway!

Driving through the district today, gas station after gas station displayed gas prices around the $2 mark. The lowest price I saw today was $2.06 in Elk River. It seems like only yesterday papers and pundits in my district and around the country were mocking the mere notion of $2 gas -- but here we are.

What happened the past few months to lower the cost of gas? Several things, but perhaps most importantly, Congress has let the ban on offshore oil exploration and oil shale expire, sending a signal to the markets that the United States may finally be ready to up their supply. Also, the collapse of the global markets has stabilized the American dollar. In other words, we're now getting more bang for our buck.

But to forget about the heavy strain that gas prices have had on the American household and economy over the past year - from filling up the gas tank to buying groceries - would be setting ourselves up for another fuel crisis in the near future.

Today I met with local inventors and innovators in St. Cloud to discuss their work on clean and renewable energy technologies and to discuss my legislation, H.R. 6716, the Promoting New American Energy Act, that would help us pave the way to American energy independence.  

The Promoting New American Energy Act would launch a wave of energy research, investment and innovation by aggressively accelerating tax depreciation for cutting-edge and renewable energy technologies – making America’s energy production more competitive with foreign nations.

Present at the St. Cloud meeting were Dave Wendorf from Sartec, a company developing algae for use as an alternative fuel; Dan Stevens, Director of Regulatory Affairs at CDC Enterprise, Inc.; David Tripp, Executive Director of Metro Transit, which adapted a bus to run on french fry oil; and Diane Moeller, principal of the Kennedy Community School in St. Joseph, where they are exploring a variety of innovative energy technologies on campus.

We need to take an All-of-the-Above approach to energy and open up our onshore and offshore oil and natural gas stockpiles, as well as pursue alternative forms of energy. To do one without the other would be self-defeating.

Last Thursday, the Washington Times published an op-ed I wrote about the effects of the $700 billion bailout bill passed by Congress a few weeks back.

Whether you agree or not that the bailout bill was the way to go, there are many issues that still need to be addressed to get our economy back on track. For instance, the bill did nothing to address the underlying problem affecting our economy, and that's the credit crunch.

I hope you'll take a few minutes and give it a read.

"Recently, in a series of incredibly bold moves over the course of a week, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury took historic steps to intervene in the American economy. And, the American public barely batted an eye.

"First, the Fed took the nearly unprecedented step of buying up unsecured debt. While the Fed hasn't announced how much commercial paper it would buy through this program, it did say it would be "substantial" and that $1.3 trillion of the $1.75 trillion in outstanding commercial paper comes from eligible issuers."

Read the full op-ed

Last Friday I sent a letter to Stephen Johnson, the Administrator of the EPA, regarding newly proposed EPA regulations of greenhouse gases.

As a result of the Supreme Court's ruling on April 2, 2007 in Massachusetts vs. EPA, greenhouse gases are now considered an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. The problem with this is that the EPA now has a vast swath of power in which they can implement and regulate emissions standards, a power that has been long reserved to the United States Congress. Essentially, the EPA can now make overly broad regulatory pronouncements that could devastate our current fragile economy.

The proposal goes so far as to make specific engineering and design specifications, including how many grass clippings a lawnmower must make per gallon of gas.  It would impact American farms, businesses, and homes.  The authority assumed under this proposed rule would raise the price on energy, causing a domino effect that increases the costs of transportation, food manufactured goods and more.

This massive regulation could cost the American economy an estimated 7 trillion dollars in lost GDP in just 20 years, undoubtedly resulting in massive job losses. During this current economic crisis, we cannot afford to put the American economy in any further turmoil or hardship that could hinder its recovery. 

For more information on the EPA's proposed regulations, check out the Heritage Foundation's Stop the EPA website.