Lawmaker News

Next week, the House will consider legislation on credit card reform. I believe that this legislation, while well-intentioned, may have unintended consequences for the financial sector. This bill has the potential to reduce investment in the marketplace, increase rates and fees for all credit card holders, and restrict credit availability. In our current economic climate, as we are trying to resuscitate our markets with pro-growth initiatives, we must be mindful of the effect interventionist legislation can have on the financial sector. Additionally, the Federal Reserve already has consumer protection rules that are on the verge of being implemented. Codifying these rules limits the flexibility of the Fed to make changes to the regulations if needed.

The concern over this bill’s potential to reduce investment in the marketplace is valid. Fewer funds available for lending may contribute to a greater tightening in marketplace liquidity. In addition, the legislation has the potential to increase rates and fees for all credit card holders. As a result of restricting risk-based pricing, the risk will likely be spread to all cardholders, regardless of their level of credit risk.

Read more...

President Obama is proposing a “cap and trade” energy tax that will raise utility costs on every American family to generate $646 billion in new taxes, while shipping millions of American jobs to foreign countries.

I am very concerned about how the liberals in Congress plan to mark-up the climate change bill in the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Energy and Commerce Committee next week. The most important parts of this bill are left blank, and without details, the Demoract leadership on this committee is attempting to hide the true cost that American families will have to pay if this bill becomes law. This process severely lacks transparency and is a disservice to the American people.

Read more...

In the 110th and 111th Congress, we have made significant strides in reforming the appropriations process to make member project requests more transparent and responsible. This year, we expanded our commitment to disclosing earmark recipients, their purpose, and certifying that the requesting member of congress will not personally financially benefit and required members to make all project requests public on each member’s website.

However, there is currently no rule that prohibits a Member’s campaign from accepting campaign contributions from organizations for which the Member is making appropriations requests. This practice has the potential to create at least the appearance of impropriety, and at worse, an ethical and legal dilemma. Worse still, the mixture of earmarks and campaign contributions can erode the people’s confidence in the actions and motivations of their elected representatives.

Read more...

President Obama and Democrat leaders in Congress expect to raise billions of dollars through an unprecedented “cap and tax” proposal. With this money, they plan to accomplish many of their campaign promises and long-standing party goals – health care and education reform, to name a few.

And they may just get their way. Their proposal will raise taxes on American businesses and families by an expected $646 billion over the next 10 years. Coincidentally, that is more than enough to pay for President Obama’s $634 billion “down payment” on an expansion of government-provided health care.

In just a few short years, you may be paying for several others’ health care by simply flipping on a light switch and turning on the coffee pot each morning.

Read more...

I have made no secret of my objections to a proposed cap-and-trade energy tax that will result in increased costs for every single American. The tax would require energy producers and businesses to pay to emit carbon emissions in the hope of reducing greenhouse gases.  You, the consumer, would be footing the bill.

I published an op-ed in the Star Tribune earlier this month highlighting the dangers of this piece of legislation and what it means for Americans. In the piece, I cited an MIT study that found the average American household would experience increased bills of $3,128 per year if this legislation became law.

This statistic has drawn much criticism in the local news and around the nation because the MIT professor involved with the study, John Reilly, questioned the validity of the interpretation used by myself and many Republicans. Read more...

A lot has been said and written about my recent trip to Cuba with my colleagues from the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus. While much of the initial media interest rightfully focused on the historic meeting with former Cuban President Fidel Castro, on April 7, along with my colleagues CBC Chair Barbara Lee and Rep. Laura Richardson, that event marked the end of a productive, five-day series of meetings on America's trade relationship with Cuba. Because I chair a subcommittee that will hold the first congressional hearing that will further examine the status of America's trade relationship with Cuba, I am taking this opportunity to share with you the proverbial 'rest of the story.'

While it is true that I enthusiastically support the Obama Administration's recent announcement of progressive policy changes that ease travel restrictions for Cuban Americans, allows cash remittances from Cuban Americans to family members in Cuba and provides American telecommunications providers the opportunity to establish cable and satellite telecommunications facilities that link the U.S. and Cuba, I believe much more is needed. Far from being ill informed, as some voices on the right have suggested, my views on the inevitable forward march of democracy in Cuba is shared by a diverse, bipartisan array of House and Senate leaders. Read more...

On Earth day, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi promied that a major climate change bill will pass through Congress within a year.

The Obama administration’s decision to begin the process of imposing expensive, cumbersome regulations in an effort to regulate greenhouse gases should alarm all Americans. EPA’s decision will do more to endanger families, farmers and workers with new energy taxes and lost jobs than it does to protect the environment.

EPA carbon regulations will raise the price of energy. Environmentalists do not dispute this point – they welcome it. While they use the euphemism “putting a price on carbon” what they really mean is making energy more expensive so people don’t use it. However, hitting families with more expensive power, heating, cooling, food, and gas bills is a bad idea in good times, but to propose such a plan in the middle of an economic crisis is irresponsible at best. Right now, families all across the country are struggling to make ends meet and now it appears that President Obama is prepared to ask them to suffer an even heavier burden.

Read more...

No one likes to pay taxes, so April 15 typically attracts a range of right-wing Republicans, kooks, and demagogues, all of whom tell us how awful we have it. It did so again yesterday, with relish. Herewith a short citizen's guide (that is, a citizen's guide that's short rather than a guide for short citizens) responding to yesterday’s charges:

1. "Americans pay too much in taxes." Wrong: The United States has the lowest taxes of all developed nations.

2. "The rich pay too much! The top ten percent of income earners pay over 72 percent of all income taxes!" Misleading: The main reason the rich pay such a large percent is they've become so much richer than the bottom 90 percent in recent years. If you look at what they pay as individuals -- the percent of their incomes over and above the highest rate below them -- you'll see a steady decline over the years. When Republican Dwight Eisenhower was president, the marginal rate on the highest earners was 91 percent (after deductions and tax credits, closer to 50 percent); by 1980 it was still up there, at 70 percent (an effective rate of closer to 45 percent); under Bill Clinton, it was 38 percent (an effective rate closer to 28 percent).

Look at the after-tax earnings of families and you'll see what's really going on. Between 1980 and 2000, the after-tax earnings of famlies at the top rose more than 150 percent, while the after-tax earnings of families in the middle rose about 10 percent. The Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 raised the after-tax incomes of most Americans by a bit over 1 percent -- but raised the after-tax incomes of millionaires by 4.4 percent.

Read more...

Poor President Obama. He just can’t win with the far right.

Back when he was running for president, ultra-conservatives had a conniption because he didn’t always wear an American flag lapel pin. There were dark (untrue) hints that he wasn’t patriotic and even (untrue) accusations that he wouldn’t recite the Pledge to the Flag.

That was then. This is now.

Obama is under fire today for liking the American flag too much! When he gave a speech on the economy at Georgetown University Tuesday, his White House advance team arranged for a series of American flags and a blue drape to serve as the backdrop.

As the White House told CBN’s David Brody, “The President appreciated the gracious hosts at Georgetown University where he delivered his speech on the state of the economy. Decisions made about the backdrop for the speech were made to have a consistent background of American flags, which is standard for many presidential events.” http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/581525.aspx

Read more...