On May 16, 2011, the United States reached the current debt ceiling, $14.3 trillion. In essence, that number represents our national credit limit – the United States government is unable to borrow any more money unless Congress increases the debt ceiling. Thanks to a few short term accounting tools, the Treasury Department says that current funds will last until August 2nd. If the debt ceiling is not increased by that time the Administration warns of serious consequences, since other countries and individuals who have invested in U.S. debt may fear that they won’t recoup their investment.

Usually, when the federal government is about to reach the debt ceiling, Congress just raises the ceiling and continues spending dollars that future generations will have to pay back. That’s why I’ve voted “no” the last seven times the House has considered raising the debt ceiling, under both President Bush and President Obama. I voted “no” last year. I voted “no” again last month, when the House considered legislation requested by President Obama to increase the debt ceiling by $2.2 trillion without any reductions in spending.

The call to raise the debt ceiling is an obvious indicator of our national spending addiction. It is also a warning that our national credit card bill is coming due.

(more…)

Should military hospitals be used to save lives or to kill unborn babies? The U.S. Senate may soon take action to overturn long-standing policy by sanctioning the performance of abortions in domestic and overseas military facilities–effectively turning military hospitals and other facilities into abortion clinics. This would be the largest expansion of abortion availability since the original Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973. Overnight, your tax dollars will create 423 new abortion clinics. While much of the media attention on this bill has focused on the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” debate and now amnesty for illegal aliens, many Americans should be deeply concerned that this bill turns our military healthcare system into domestic and international abortion providers.

This past May, when the Senate Armed Services Committee considered the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) offered an amendment to end the current prohibition on performing abortions in military hospitals. If enacted, this amendment would overturn a law that has been in place since 1996, signed into law by President Clinton.

Military healthcare centers — which are dedicated to healing and caring for life — should not facilitate the taking of an innocent human life: an unborn child. Allowing abortions in military facilities will continue to strain already burdened medical personnel who are working to save the lives of our men and women in service. At a time when our nation is at war, are we really going to divert scarce personnel and resources for elective abortions?

This change in policy will also likely hurt recruitment and retention of military medical professionals—possibly driving many health care providers out of the military if they have conscience objections to performing abortion. When President Clinton allowed abortions in military facilities from 1993 to 1996, many military physicians (as well as nurses and support staff) refused to perform or assist in elective abortions. In response, the Administration hired civilians to do abortions. If the Burris amendment were enacted, not only would taxpayer funded facilities be used to support abortion on demand, but tax dollars could also be used to search, hire, and transport new personnel just so abortions could be performed.

(more…)

How do you fix a problem? Well, in Washington, there is a sure-fire solution to any crisis: pass reactionary legislation without knowing what is in it to show you really “care” about the problem. Then, claim the problem is solved. Wait until the next crisis. Repeat.

The current crisis is big, overly exposed financial institutions; some of which have taken enough risks that they are now insolvent. Unfortunately, the regulatory reform (a Democratic metaphor for regulatory expansion) being considered by the House and Senate in response to the recent financial crisis will not solve the problem.  In fact, it may make them worse by cloaking the real issues with new regulations but without addressing root causes. These misguided political ambitions are especially obvious in H.R. 4173, the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.

Here are just a few examples of why H.R. 4173 is very effective at expanding government regulation but very ineffective at providing for the substantive reform needed to fix the failure points of our financial institutions:

Contrary to claims made by the Democratic majority:

• H.R. 4173 perpetuates financial bailouts. In reality, the bill allows the FDIC to bail out selected creditors.  To pay off the creditors of a “too big to fail” financial institution, the bill gives the FDIC the authority to borrow an amount equal to the value of the firm being liquidated. For some larger institutions this could amount to $2 trillion (of taxpayer money) per institution.  This “solution” actually incentivizes failure, as mismanaged institutions have a taxpayer bailout as a safety net. In contrast, House Republicans have pressed to end taxpayer-funded bailouts by creating an enhanced form of bankruptcy for large non-bank financial institutions, forcing participants to plan for the possibility of failure and face stiff consequences for mismanagement.

• H.R. 4173 Fails to Address the Biggest Single Cause of the Financial Crisis. Mismanagement of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were among the root causes of the housing and financial market melt-down, costing American taxpayers more than $145 billion so far.  The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicts that the cost could reach $380 billion or more if the Obama Administration continues using Fannie and Freddie as a place to store bad loans made by banks.  And yet, despite this, H.R. 4173 virtually ignores these problem areas – authorizing only a study.  Such a study will only delay reform and limit any opportunity for meaningful recovery in the housing market.

(more…)

Remember when you couldn’t turn on nightly newscasts without hearing something about CIA employee Valerie Plame being “outed” by the Bush Administration? Democrat House Chairman held hearings. Grand juries were impaneled. A special prosecutor was appointed and the media pursued every possible angle.

Now consider a similar case, but with different actors. Have you heard of the group of lawyers associated with the American Civil Liberties Union self titled the “John Adams Project”? These folks apparently hired private investigators to take pictures of CIA agents they believe may have interrogated terrorists after September 11th. They then passed these pictures on to the lawyers defending said terrorists in hopes that one of them will accuse the agents of torture. These photos of covert CIA agents were later found in the cells of al-Qaeda members being held at Guantanamo Bay.

The Obama Justice Department is quietly investigating the lawyers associated with the John Adams Project who may have violated a number of laws in place to protect our covert operatives and their families. But so far, with few exceptions, the media and their friends on Capitol Hill haven’t found this case nearly as interesting as Valerie Plame. Could it have anything to do with the ideological bent of the perpetrators?

(more…)