Technology is key to achieving 21st century transparency in government

Published: October 26, 2010

Publication: Washington Examiner

D.C. children deserve better

Published: March 9, 2010

Publication: The Daily Caller

Posted By Rep. Darrell Issa On Tuesday, March 9th, 2010 @ 12:00 AM

In 1954, a unanimous Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Brown v. Board of Education, effectively closing a tragic chapter in American public education that had confined disadvantaged minority students in substandard schools. Yet today—more than 50 years later—the Obama administration has erected new roadblocks on the path of equal opportunity paved by this landmark decision.

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program was launched in January 2004 with bipartisan support to give district schoolchildren the chance for a quality education rather than force them into classrooms known more for violent crime than academic achievement. According to recent test scores, two-thirds of children in the D.C. public school system lack basic reading proficiency, and a recent study of D.C. school violence found an astounding 846 incidences of violent crime, armed robbery and aggravated sexual assault in the past year.

On the other hand, the Department of Education released last year an annual report of the program that demonstrated how scholarship recipients are statistically outperforming their public school counterparts in basic skills.

But despite the program’s measured success, President Obama has effectively killed it. To the thousands of children who are trapped in dead-end D.C. schools, the “Yes We Can” president has defiantly said, “No You Can’t.”

The reasons to continue funding the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program are convincing—just ask the children who receive them, their parents, members of the D.C. State Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court who affirmed the constitutionality of such programs and the independent board appointed by Congress to oversee them.

First, the program worked. Since 2004, more than 3,000 underprivileged students received the opportunity to pursue their dream of a better education. When asked why they wanted their children to attend private schools of their choice, parents cited safety and higher academic standards as primary factors. A recent study by The Heritage Foundation found that when scholarship recipients are given the chance to learn in safer schools, they achieve higher test scores.

Second, the scholarships served to mitigate the many cultural and economic pressures that keep the majority of disadvantaged students in failing public schools. It’s true that public education in America needs comprehensive reform, but there is no reason why deserving children in the worst schools should continue to suffer while President Obama dreams up other ways to solve the systemic problems.
Third, the bipartisan support that the program has received demonstrates its popular appeal. Senators from Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) to Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio) are standing together for the program’s reauthorization. Former D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams called the program “a lifeline to hope for thousands of families,” and the head of Sidwell Friends—the private school where President Obama sends his daughters—has urged Congress to “keep the windows open…and unlock even more.” Surely the president is willing to give these voices as much consideration as he does the powerful teachers’ unions who vehemently oppose school choice.

It is troubling that the Obama administration pushed so hard to end a program that cost a meager $13 million to benefit thousands of poor children. It is appalling that he was willing to do so while dumping hundreds of billions of dollars into failing insurance giants, bankrupt auto manufacturers and the government-backed mortgage lenders who caused the current economic crisis, all the while driving our federal budget to the highest deficits in history.

One wonders where, exactly, this president’s priorities lie.

Justice Clarence Thomas has rightly noted that “the failure to provide education to poor urban children perpetuates a vicious cycle of poverty, dependence, criminality, and alienation that continues for the rest of their lives.”

With this in mind, Congress should reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program and prudently invest taxpayer dollars in the promise of quality education for America’s children.

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Geithner's Time to Give Answers

Published: January 7, 2010

Publication: The Huffington Post

Secretary Timothy Geithner needs to start giving some answers. Will the Congress compel him to start answering questions? In recent weeks, Republican investigators on the House Oversight Committee unearthed troubling evidence that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, while under the leadership of Secretary Geithner, pressured American International Group (AIG) to conceal critical information from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about billions of dollars in counterparty payments made with taxpayer money.

Inadvertent reporting errors are one thing. Directing a bailed-out company to withhold crucial information from a government agency in order to keep the American public in the dark is another. Whether or not the United States Treasury Secretary was directly implicated in the scheme is a key question. Either he didn't know and he was negligent or he did know and presided over a blatant attempt to withhold information from the American people.

In late 2008, while the U.S. taxpayers were on the hook for billions of dollars in cash infusions to float the toxic debt owed by AIG, Tim Geithner made the decision to cover AIG's credit default swaps at full value. Those payments -- made to counterparties like Goldman Sachs, Société Générale, and Deutsche Bank that had purchased AIG's credit default swaps -- were made at 100 cents on the dollar, instead of the reduced rate that AIG was actively negotiating with these firms.

The record of correspondence between representatives of the New York Fed and AIG now demonstrates that Geithner's team was concerned about the controversy that full disclosure of the payments would create. So the New York Fed instructed AIG to delete references to the counterparty payment rate from its SEC filing, thus obscuring the full measure of the bailout bonanza made possible by U.S. taxpayers. In a move that has become altogether too familiar, a government agency run by Tim Geithner decided to keep the whole truth from the American people. Someone needs to be held accountable.

When then President-elect Obama announced his decision to appoint Tim Geithner to run the United States Treasury, he noted that Geithner was "an honest broker" who had "earned the confidence and respect of business, financial and community leaders; members of Congress; and political leaders around the world."

At his confirmation hearing, Geithner was introduced to the Senate Finance Committee by Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) as the "very best" person to run Treasury and someone who "tried to raise awareness" and "call Congress' attention to the inadequate powers and authorities of the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve."

I'm not sure what the President's definition of the word "honest" or Senator Schumer's understanding of the word "best" may be, but I sincerely doubt this is what the American people have in mind.

Secretary Geithner may have very reasonable and legitimate justifications for the role he's played in the bungled AIG matter, or the forced merger between Bank of America and Merrill Lynch, or the problematic bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, or the chronic failures of the Treasury Department to deliver basic transparency to the American people. The problem is the rigorous oversight that was promised by this Administration and by the Democrats who control the Congress have failed to yield the opportunities needed to get to the truth.

Over the past twelve months, the House Oversight Committee has held hearings on the numerous flaws in the AIG Trust Agreement and the reports of the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP). The Committee has held five separate hearings and multiple panels of witnesses on Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch, yet Secretary Geithner has been noticeably absent from all of these proceedings. His absence, of course, is due to the fact that he's never been invited to testify.

After a year of hearings and investigations, it is time for the Oversight Committee to hold Secretary Geithner accountable for the decisions he has made that continue to affect entire sectors of the American economy and the lives of millions of Americans. The American people deserve answers, and they deserve them now. Secretary Geithner must appear before the Committee to give those answers.

Census and Sensibility

Published: November 24, 2009

Publication: The Ripon Forum

In the face of the growing challenges, Congress must scrupulously guard its Constitutional responsibility to ensure a fair, accurate and trustworthy count for the 2010 Census.

Since antiquity, nation-states have needed a reliable headcount of the population to know what size of army could be raised, what taxes could be levied, and to keep governing officials apprised of the customs, habits and social structures of the citizens living in remote areas of the empire.

Today, the Census is just as important to our Republic. It is the very foundation of our representative system of government, and it is not surprising that it presents a source of incredible political controversy. Professional partisans seeking to influence the apportionment of Congressional seats based on Census results or manipulate the distribution of federal dollars arise to advocate the use of dubious mathematical estimates rather than an actual headcount. Elected officials from states and cities large and small, urban and rural, marshal tremendous efforts to make sure their constituents get counted.

Indeed, the American Census is the largest peacetime mobilization of resources, both human and otherwise, undertaken throughout our history. Along with the Census come regular threats to subvert a full and fair counting.

…the American Census is the largest peacetime mobilization of resources, both human and otherwise, undertaken throughout our history. Along with the Census come regular threats to subvert a full and fair counting.

The frontal assault comes in the form of “statistical adjustment,” or the use of estimates to achieve population counts. Proponents of statistical adjustment argue that no Census can count every single person within the United States – a fact that everyone readily acknowledges. Because the undercounted population typically lives in poor, urban areas, it is argued that complex mathematical estimates should be employed to achieve a more equitable representation in Congress for these urban areas.

Of course, these arguments aren’t the result of the phenomenon of urbanization in modern American life. During the public debate over the ratification of the Constitution, our nation’s Founding Fathers wrestled with the issue of using estimates to count the fledgling country’s citizens. Then, it was the virgin wilderness, dense forests and primitive modes of transportation that made an actual headcount difficult. Nevertheless, the Founders overwhelmingly rejected the use of estimates in favor of an actual headcount, realizing the only fair way to enumerate the people was house by house, head by head.

There are other routine challenges to overcome. This month, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report that highlighted various problems that are facing the 2010 Census, including weaknesses in the Census Bureau’s information technology, problems with the equipment used in canvassing, and uncertainty over the ultimate cost of the Census – now estimated at $14.7 billion. Simply put, the Bureau created to conduct the Census every ten years struggles to keep pace with technological advances that occur every ten minutes. Remarkably, however, GAO reported that the Census Bureau is making “noteworthy gains in mitigating risks and in keeping the headcount on-track.”

This year, there were new, yet unsurprising challenges that threatened the Census. Early in his administration, President Obama stepped up efforts to cut out the Census Bureau’s superiors at the Department of Commerce and have the Census Director report to his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. This plan raised the concern that politics would interfere with the Census Bureau’s work and thus jeopardize the independence needed to carry out a Constitutional mandate. After the public outcry over the politicization of the Census escalated, the White House walked back the President’s power grab.

More subtly, then, the President seemingly ran afoul of the Constitution’s requirement of Congressional advise and consent when the man publicly acknowledged to be his original choice for Director of the Census, Kenneth Prewitt, withdrew his name from consideration. Shortly thereafter, Prewitt was hired by the Administration as a paid consultant for the 2010 Census, reinforcing concerns that President Obama was circumventing the proper nomination and confirmation process in the U.S. Senate to give his political ally a place of key influence over the Census.

In the great sea of partisanship that is the seat of federal government, a lone island of nonpartisan calm must always be the United States Census Bureau.

Other scandals have fed an atmosphere of doubt about the legitimacy of the 2010 Census under President Obama’s watch. Earlier this year, it became known that the notorious and largely discredited Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) had received a Census Bureau contract. Thanks to the diligent efforts of my colleagues on the House Oversight Committee, particularly Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) and Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), the ACORN contract was withdrawn, but only after the now-infamous ACORN videos became public.

Washington, DC is by its nature a very political environment. In the great sea of partisanship that is the seat of federal government, a lone island of nonpartisan calm must always be the United States Census Bureau. Any effort to colonize it with party loyalists – whether Republican or Democrat – or tinker with the Census results must be stopped if the American people are to have confidence in their government.

Government Intervention's High Cost

Published: August 6, 2009

Publication: The San Diego Union Tribune

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced to federal government intervention in the U.S. housing market intended to help provide homeownership opportunities for more Americans. This intervention began with two government-backed corporations, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which privatized their profits but socialized their risks, creating powerful incentives for them to act recklessly, and exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses.

Government intervention also created “affordable,” but dangerous, lending policies that encouraged lower down payments, looser underwriting standards and higher leverage. In the short run, this government intervention was successful in its stated goal – raising the national home ownership rate. However, the ultimate effect was to create a mortgage tsunami that wrought devastation on the American people and economy. While government intervention was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.

Recently, I have released a report that tells the coherent story about the real causes of the financial crisis and examines, “The Role of Government Affordable Housing Policy in Creating the Global Financial Crisis of 2008.” The report chronicles how Fannie and Freddie's unique relationship with the federal government created an environment in which the market viewed them as an extension of the U.S. government and therefore “too big too fail.” Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's dominance in the secondary mortgage market was made possible by numerous competitive advantages stemming from their unique relationship with the federal government. At their height, they controlled more than three-quarters of the secondary market for prime mortgages in the United States.

Their chief advantage began with their government sponsored mission: Fannie and Freddie were charged by Congress with keeping the secondary mortgage market liquid and increasing the availability of affordable housing. They enjoyed a $2.25 billion line of credit from the U.S. Treasury. The fact that they directly answered to the federal government and its elected officials created an environment of “crony capitalism” similar to that in Russia or China. They were exempt from key regulatory and market oversight, the only publicly-traded corporations exempt from Securities and Exchange Commission oversight. It was not until scandals in 2003 and 2004 revealed that the companies had used non-approved accounting practices to manipulate earnings that they agreed to “voluntary” SEC filings.

Clinton-era policies extended a pattern of behavior of lowering mortgage underwriting standards in order to drive up the national homeownership rate. It was this politicization of Fannie and Freddie that paved the way for today's financial crisis. Emphasis began to be placed on the volume of lending versus the quality and sustainability of loans. In 1995, a pivotal year, the Clinton administration implemented a major reform of the Community Reinvestment Act and issued its National Homeownership Strategy, both of which increased pressure on Fannie and Freddie to loosen their lending standards.

This new emphasis on “performance-based evaluation” meant that regulators would no longer rate banks based on their efforts to lend to customers using equitable procedures but rather on the volume of their lending. As demonstrated time and again by congressional advocates of affordable mortgage lending, “innovative and flexible” means reduced down payments and riskier, unsustainable lending. This began the pattern of lowering mortgage underwriting standards in order to drive up national homeownership to support a political goal.

Risky mortgage lending, particularly loans with very low down payments, contributed directly to the rise of a housing bubble. However, these “innovations” in “flexible” loan products spread beyond just affordable lending into the entire U.S. mortgage market. Borrowers – regardless of income level – took advantage of the erosion of underwriting standards that started with government affordable housing policy, but failed to grasp the effect of a government policy that had quietly eroded the prudential limits on mortgage leverage, creating a dangerous speculative bubble.

All told, the government experiment in unsustainable affordable mortgage lending based on low down payments and “flexible” credit criteria has sucked the equity out of the U.S. housing market, trapped millions of Americans under crushing debt and seriously damaged global financial markets. Millions of these borrowers, who were supposed to have been helped by federal affordable housing policy, have now been forced into delinquency and foreclosure, destroying their asset base, their credit and, in some cases, their families. The consequences of these policies have also brought the entire global financial system to the brink of collapse, destroying trillions in equity and untold numbers of lives.

Nexus of Political Influence and Special Interests Deals Paved Way to Financial Crisis

Published: July, 2009

Publication:A Line of Sight from Bob Beauprez

This passed week, I’ve released a report that chronicles how the politicization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac paved the way for today’s financial crisis. The truth is, Fannie and Freddie had a unique relationship with the federal government that created an environment in which the market viewed them as an extension of the U.S. government and therefore ‘too big too fail.’ The fact that they directly answered to the federal government and its elected officials created an environment of ‘crony capitalism’ similar to that of Russia or China. Emphasis began to be placed on volume of lending vs quality/sustainability of loans meaning a policy of reduced down payments and riskier unsustainable lending. Clinton-era policies extended a pattern of behavior of lowering mortgage underwriting standards in order to drive up the national homeownership rate.

There were no limits that Fannie/Freddie officials and their allies would go to prolong their charade. In a number of cases, political officials even engaged in unethical conduct, helping their political allies, family members and even themselves obtain lucrative positions in the mortgage lending industry and other benefits. At a time when government intervention in private markets has become alarmingly common, government “affordable housing” initiatives offer important lessons about the dangers of government efforts to manipulate or conjure outcomes in the market.

They hired well-known academics to write papers that gave an aura of academic rigor to policy positions favorable to Fannie Mae. For example, one paper coauthored by now-Director of the Office of Management and Budget Peter Orszag, concluded that the chance was minimal that the GSEs were not holding sufficient capital to cover their losses in the event of a severe economic shock. The authors suggested that “the risk to the government from a potential default on GSE debt is effectively zero,” and that “the expected cost to the government of providing an explicit government guarantee on $1 trillion in GSE debt is just $2 million.” As of May 14, 2009, the taxpayers had already been exposed to $700 billion of GSE bailouts.

The report also details the symbiotic relationship that developed between Fannie/Freddie and the nexus of political advocates of affordable housing, non-bank mortgage lenders like Countrywide, the homebuilding industry and Wall Street firms that came together to create a powerful coalition led by Fannie/Freddie and their congressional allies. This group of vested interests used its money, power and influence to protect its political prerogatives and profits, blocking repeated attempts at reform and distorting the relationship between government and business. Between 1998 and 2008, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac spent over $176 million on lobbyists. They paid lobbyists to influence Members of Congress to block legislative proposals that would have stripped them of their preferential advantages.

When Congressman Jim Leach (R-IA) proposed assessing a fee on the GSEs to offset the federal subsidy they receive on their cost of borrowing, “it took just twelve hours for Fannie to blow the idea out of the water.” Fannie Mae also forced then-Treasury Secretary Larry Summers to “tone down” a report that was originally going to criticize the cozy relationship between the federal government and the GSEs.

When Congressman Paul Ryan (R-WI) sought to increase regulation of the GSEs, Fannie Mae sent lobbyists to harass him in his Wisconsin congressional district, going so far as to call his constituents and accuse him of seeking to increase mortgage rates, generating 6,000 angry responses to his office. When Ryan transferred to a committee without direct oversight of the GSEs, Fannie CEO Raines sent him a “congratulatory” note. “He meant good riddance,” said Ryan.

When Congressman Christopher Shays (R-CT) introduced legislation to end the GSEs’ unique exemption from SEC registration, he “had lobbyists literally barging into my room,” while Fannie CEO Raines reportedly called the lawmaker to ask, “What the hell have [you] done?” The GSEs retaliated by ending their home-buying forums in Shays’ congressional district in an attempt to hurt him politically.

Just as the perils of opposing the vested interests of the affordable lending coalition were rife, so the rewards for supporting them were lucrative. From 1998 to 2008, GSE employees contributed nearly $15 million to the campaigns of dozens of Members of Congress on key committees responsible for oversight of Fannie and Freddie. At the time federal regulators seized the insolvent companies, sitting Members of Congress had received over $4.8 million in political contributions since 1989, with over $3 million of that coming from the GSEs’ political action committees. Not all of this fundraising was in compliance with federal law. In 2006, Freddie Mac paid the largest fine in Federal Election Commission history – $3.8 million – for improperly using corporate resources to hold 85 fundraisers for Members of Congress, raising a total of $1.7 million.

The housing bubble that burst in 2007 and led to a financial crisis can be traced back to this nexus of influence that put a premium on profit for the few with no regard for the future implications that would follow. Government intervention incentivized by special interest led to reckless actions exposing taxpayers to tremendous losses brought about by politicians, lenders and lobbyists who profited from the “affordable” housing market and acted to kill reforms. While government intervention and special interest peddling was not the sole cause of the financial crisis, its role was significant and has received too little attention.

Mr. Issa, a Republican, represents the 49th Congressional District of California, which includes the cities of Oceanside, Vista, and Temecula. He currently serves as the Ranking Member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Congress Gets Serious About Countrywide Scandal

Published: October 27, 2009

Publication: The Flash Report

Congress is now one step closer to uncovering the full scope of the collusion between reckless mortgage lenders and high-ranking government officials that ultimately inflated the U.S. housing bubble and brought the world economy to the brink of total collapse. One of the chief offenders in the mortgage meltdown was, doubtlessly, Countrywide Financial, a now-defunct corporate giant that exploited lax government policies to issue trillions of dollars in subprime mortgages on the guarantee that the burden of these toxic assets would ultimately fall on the shoulders of the American taxpayer.

For years, Countrywide’s successful strategy went undetected. Profits were good. The economy was booming. Everybody was happy.

And then, the bubble burst and the rains of economic hell began to fall on every American. At that point, Americans began wondering how Countrywide had managed to escape scrutiny. Then they began to learn about Countrywide’s VIP loan program that provided special deals and treatment for Members of Congress and other government officials who oversaw U.S. housing policy. Among the many who received the sweetheart deals were Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND), Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT), and former HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson.

The mastermind behind Countrywide’s VIP loan program was its former CEO Angelo Mozilo, and the beneficiaries of Mozilo’s program became known as “Friends of Angelo.” The plan was simple: Countrywide would execute a strategic lobbying effort to purchase political favor with high-ranking government officials and other influential leaders who in turn could block attempts to reform the federal housing policies that hatched Countrywide’s trillion-dollar golden goose.

Until last week, it appeared that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrats in Congress were circling their wagons to block a full-scale investigation into the program, perhaps because some of Countrywide’s more notable VIPs were also Democratic Party VIPs. And then, in a commendable decision to break party ranks, two Democrats on the House Oversight Committee – Reps. Mike Quigley (D-IL) and Paul Hodes (D-NH) – joined Republicans and backed my call for a subpoena.

After months of mounting pressure, our committee finally prevailed upon my Democratic counterpart, Congressman Edolphus Towns (D-NY), to issue a wide-ranging subpoena to secure a majority of the records from Countrywide’s VIP Program. It was, to be sure, a complete reversal for Chairman Towns, who himself received a Countrywide VIP loan – albeit unwittingly, he has stated publicly.

The question of how Countrywide Financial sought to cultivate a network of political allies that could forestall congressional oversight and short-circuit needed reforms to government housing policies must be answered. The degree of collusion between Countrywide executives and CEOs at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must be determined. The scheme to grease the skids for Countrywide to unload their junk mortgages on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac once they became unprofitable must be exposed.

Already, we have learned that Fannie Mae CEOs received their sweetheart loans from Mozilo’s VIP Program while they were simultaneously negotiating the terms of Fannie Mae’s financial relationship with Countrywide. This conflict of interest came at the ultimate expense of taxpayers, who are now on the hook for all of the mortgages that Fannie Mae purchased from Countrywide. Moreover, it is clear Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s record profits were made at the expense of the American people who provide the company’s implicit taxpayer guarantee. These profits were distributed to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives in the form of exorbitant salaries and bonuses, but until now the full reach of the corrupt tentacles that extend between Countrywide, public officials and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has been elusive.

Clearly, growing public outrage and the threat of political embarrassment have provided an opportunity for a truly bipartisan investigation. As that investigation proceeds, it will be important for both Republicans and Democrats to remember one eternal truth about Washington politics: While the crime doesn’t get you, the cover-up will. Former political leaders had to learn this lesson the hard way, and while it appeared at first that some Congressional Democrats were content to repeat history, voices of reason prevailed. As Congressman Mike Quigley explained his decision to support the probe of Countrywide in an interview with the Wall Street Journal:

“The right thing to do is the smart thing to do.”

Congressman Darrell Issa represents California’s 49th Congressional District.

An Airport for Somebody

Published: May 26, 2009

Publication: The American Spectator

President Obama spent loads of political capital early in his administration to push a behemoth $787 billion "spendulous" bill through Congress. In this promised era of transparency and accountability, Americans were supposed to rest safely in the assurance that the President would hold the line against fraud, waste and political kickbacks.

Apparently, Congressman John Murtha (D-PA) didn't get the memo.

The John Murtha Johnstown-Cambria County Airport is tucked away on the outskirts of Johnstown, PA, a town with a population of approximately 21,000. On any given day the airport handles an average of 20 passengers on a total of three flights -- all to Washington Dulles International Airport. A recent exposé by ABC News found the airport "virtually deserted" and dubbed John Murtha's airport the "Airport for Nobody."

Over the past decade, Congressman Murtha has secured at least $150 million in federal funding for his airport, in addition to a $147 per passenger annual government subsidy. Included in Murtha's earmarks are an $8 million state-of-the-art radar system that has never been used and a $6.5 million three-story National Guard and Reserve training center that resembles a ski lodge. In 2006, Murtha siphoned off $17.8 million of defense spending to replace a 7,000 foot asphalt runway with a concrete reinforced bed. Add it all up, and so much pork has flooded into Johnstown, PA, that somebody ought to call FEMA.

Bottom line: Since 1999, American taxpayers have spent approximately $1200 per passenger to operate John Murtha's little airport. It would have been considerably less expensive if we had provided passengers a free shuttle to nearby Pittsburgh, purchased them a full fare ticket on a regional flight and picked up their meal expense along the way.

But things weren't looking so good earlier for John Murtha's namesake airport when the economy took a downturn and declining passenger traffic resulted in a smaller slice of the taxpayers' pie. Along the way, Mr. Murtha tried unsuccessfully to squeeze a few more federal dollars for his pet project, though it wasn't until the stimulus money started trickling down the federal pipeline that he got the cash.

Once the stimulus funds were available, however, the administration designated an additional $800,000 of taxpayers' money to pave a second runway at John Murtha's airport. Apparently, one runway isn't enough for three daily flights and 20 passengers.

In the best case scenario, this decision appears to contradict the president's commitment not to allow stimulus funds "to be distributed…in response to improper influence or pressure." In the worst, it looks like the President is now a willing party to the very system of political paybacks he so vehemently opposed.

Yet President Obama has repeatedly stressed the need "to make sure that every single dollar" of the stimulus money is "well spent." A single dollar of waste, the President admonished, will be exposed and stopped. Stimulus funds in an Obama administration were supposed to target only those projects that demonstrate the ability to "deliver programmatic results" and "achieve long-term public benefits."

Congressman Murtha's airport does neither.

As the ranking member on the oversight committee, I've formally requested that the acting administrator at the Federal Aviation Administration provide a full account of this egregious waste of taxpayer money. How repaving John Murtha's second runway in Johnstown, PA, stimulates anything but the congressman's name recognition is a mystery to me, and I'm confident that it's infuriating to taxpayers.

This is precisely the kind of waste that Washington has to stop, and time will tell if the President has the political muscle to match his rhetorical strengths. Until then, feel free to book your ticket on PorkAir to Northwestern Pennsylvania, compliments of Congressman John Murtha and U.S. taxpayers.

The One Hand Giveth, the Other Taketh Away

Published: March 9, 2009

Publication: Politico

As Congress has been deliberating legislation that would give Washington D.C. residents representation in the House of Representatives, Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats have touted this effort as a defense of democracy bill. Ironically enough, they are making this argument in defense of democracy at the same time they are driving an effort to take away one of our most fundamental and sacred expressions of our democracy – the right to a private vote.

The one hand giveth, the other hand taketh away.

The secret ballot is the cornerstone of how our democracy works. It is the right to vote your conscience – without fear of retribution, intimidation, or bribery.

It is at best hypocritical for Democrats to claim that the secret ballot process is not good enough for the workers who are deciding if a labor union should represent them at the workplace. These workers are the foundation of our nation’s prosperity, and yet, the Democrats want to deny them one our most fundamental rights – a vote free from fear and undue influence.

First used in Ancient Greece, secret ballots were used to keep people from seeking favors. Later established in France in 1848, Australia in 1854, and Britain in 1872, the secret ballot has become the foundation of a free and open election process. In his rise to dictator and the fall of the Republic, as one of his first acts, Napoleon Bonaparte abolished the secret ballot in France.

Winston Churchill extolled the value of the secret ballot in his Iron Curtain speech in 1946 saying, "All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell..."

The 1972 Democratic presidential nominee George McGovern wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “voting is an immense privilege…as a longtime friend of labor unions, I must raise my voice against pending legislation I see as a disturbing and undemocratic overreach not in the interest of either management or labor."

This history is both forgotten and ignored as Congressional Democrats plan to soon call for a House vote on the deceivingly titled "Employee Free Choice Act." Under current law, union elections can be held by private or by public vote, known as card check. Should this bill become law, a private vote will no longer be an option.

Workers will be exposed to possible intimidation tactics and outright bribery. Union representatives will be able to lobby employees outside of the workplace to gather signatures or votes. Elections will be held open as long as it takes to secure the appropriate number of votes.

In 2001, Rep. George Miller, D-Martinez, the author of the Employee Free Choice Act and chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, led 15 Democratic members of Congress in signing a letter urging "the use (of) the secret ballot in all union recognition elections," and stating that "the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise choose," because they were so concerned with protecting workers from intimidation. However, that letter was addressed not to then U.S. Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, but to Mexican labor officials. The employees they were trying to protect were not American workers, but Mexican – with the Mexican Supreme Court ruling to protect the secret ballot process.

This assault on our democracy is outrageous and promotes the kind of election corruption we are supposed to fight against. Preserving and protecting our fundamental right to a vote free of harassment is an obligation that springs from our national conscience. All this bill does is send the message that the value of a secret ballot will be good enough for other countries, good enough for Democrats in Congress, but not good enough for American workers.

Mr. Daley Comes to Washington

Published: February 22, 2009

Publication: Human Events

The embarrassing exit of ex-Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich, removed for auctioning off President Obama’s old Senate seat, gave America an inside look at the notoriously corrupt Chicago Democrat machine. In their world, elections are just another means to an end – a mechanism to provide plum jobs and kickbacks in return for lifetime loyalty from their allies.

Corruption, of course, happens everywhere in almost every industry, but the unparalleled success of machine men like Blagojevich, former Representative Dan Rostenkowski and Chicago Mayor Richard Daley breeds imitation – just take a whiff of Congressional Democrats “stimulus” package and it’s easy to see that the “Windy City” had blown into the heart of Washington.

President Obama asked for a timely, targeted and temporary bill that was to achieve one thing: create jobs. Such a task, he said, demands bipartisan solutions and tough choices. Instead, Boss Pelosi and her ward captain David Obey made the easy decision to reach into the Chicago machine’s bag of tricks, shutting out the minority to rush through a cool $1.1 trillion down payment on dynastic Democrat rule.

Ironically enough, the bill signed into law by President Obama does just about everything but focus on creating jobs. A mere nine cents of every dollar in the package will actually put people back to work on shovel-ready projects. Inside that sliver of stimulus spending, House Democrats stuffed all the pork their cronies had been denied for the past eight years – equating to the largest and swiftest political payoff in history. America’s time of need morphed into a chance to settle scores and benefit political allies.

Or, as White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel – a three term Illinois congressman who ran the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee – put it, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” (Nov. 20 Emanuel Press Conference Transcript)

So where do the non-stimulating goodies go? As Watergate informer Deep Throat said, follow the money.

The package is “a classic case of pent-up demand – demand by Democrats for the kinds of programs that they could never get passed during the Bush years,” said an article in the New York Times. That is, programs by Democrats and for Democrats. There’s $54 billion for state education programs ruled by iron-fisted teachers unions. $170 million to research climate change. The effete are toasting the $50 million funneled to the National Endowment for the Arts.

And who can forget Barney Frank’s baby? Not the party bosses. Public housing gets $3 billion, with billions slated for a slush fund to suckle election year allies like ACORN. Even an organization that employs the son of the bill’s author, Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey, managed to slide in a $750 million dollar earmark that would balloon the budget for the organization’s pet projects in National Parks. When the party bosses sit down to gorge, nepotism pairs well with a fat piece of pork.

Mayor Daley gave out trash collecting contracts. Boss Pelosi whips up $792 billion in new spending and tax provisions, including a $1 billion sexually transmitted disease education program. That certainly stimulates something but it isn’t the economy.

It gets worse. A whopping $212 billion masquerades as income tax rebates. The problem is the recipients don’t have to pay income taxes, meaning a quarter of the package might as well be delivered in briefcases – unmarked bills please. Only the grease on the edges of this package, designed to squeeze it past public outrage, is stimulus. It borders on outright theft. Will the majority now add provisions to legalize posthumous voting?

The coup de grace, however, is the timing. Every day we are reminded that we need quick action to stave off a depression. That’s right – but the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports that only 21 percent of the funds would be injected into the economy by the end of fiscal 2009. Thirty-eight percent comes next year. That means today’s stimulus will be feeding Democrat special interests for years to come. Money will still be flowing in 2019, says the CBO.

Even Mayor Daley couldn’t buy a decade of elections in one fell swoop.

In his first weekly radio address, President Obama laid all the cards on the table, saying the bill sold to taxpayers as timely, targeted and temporary “is not just a short-term program to boost employment.” Senator Judd Gregg, before saying thanks-but-no-thanks to becoming the President’s Commerce Secretary, panned the bill because it is “replete with programmatic expansions that will be very hard to keep temporary.”

It will in fact be impossible to keep this Trojan horse temporary. Why would you set a time limit when the goal is to remake America in the image of the House Democrat machine?

Other news reports say plans are afoot to bring the Census Bureau, in charge of the decennial reapportionment of congressional representation, under senior White House management. Since buying votes isn’t enough, the bosses are stuffing a national gerrymander in their back pocket – just in case.

The Democrats, indeed, have learned from Chicago’s best and done them much better. In 2002, Emanuel bragged to the New Yorker that he and Obama “participated in a small group that met weekly when Rod [Blagojevich] was running for governor. We basically laid out the general election.”

Blagojevich is gone but the Democrats in power are working hard to turn America into Cook County, Illinois. Somewhere, Mayor Daley is smiling.

Census Should Be Fair, Independent and Free from Politics

Published: February 12, 2009

Publication: Politico

The Obama Administration’s recent actions regarding the Census are outrageous and unprecedented. Commanding the Census Director to report directly to the White House is a naked political power grab and transparently partisan. There is only one possible reason for it – political interference in the 2010 Census and partisan manipulation of the results. This ill-conceived proposal undermines a constitutionally-obligated process that speaks to the very heart of our democracy.

While there are unanswered questions about the legality of such a move, there is no question as to the motives. Under this plan, the President would grant his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel the authority to manage the census. Consider that in a 2006 article in USA Today highlighted his thoughts on the 2010 Census and subsequent redistricting, Mr. Emanuel stated, “If you think redistricting is always partisan and political, which it is…it’s going to be on steroids this time.” Surely, President Obama recognizes the need to leave the census in the hands of those who understand its importance beyond political gerrymandering.

The need for an independent Census Bureau is recognized by Republicans and Democrats alike – and every living former Census Director is on record supporting an independent Census Bureau. President Obama’s calls for bipartisanship are severely damaged when reports indicate he is maneuvering to stab Republicans in the back through a national gerrymander orchestrated directly by the White House. In short, this power grab completely jeopardizes and undermines the President’s mandate of “post-partisanship.”

The 2010 Census is a huge undertaking – the largest peacetime mobilization the country has ever seen – and its results will determine the Congressional makeup for the next decade. Both governments and businesses rely on accurate census data to make critical decisions about how to spend resources.

Already, troubling signs of a politicized census are emerging. We were disappointed to see that there are some on the other side of the aisle who are resorting to inflammatory and counterproductive rhetoric. We all share the goal of ensuring that every individual in America, regardless of race or socioeconomic status or any other characteristic, will be counted. Fully, fairly counted.

However, we were greatly encouraged by Census Subcommittee Chairman William Lacy Clay’s statement that his objective is “to count every American.” Partisanship has motivated others in his party to suggest that some form of statistical “adjustment” or extrapolation should be used. This would open the door to the political manipulation of census data. If your objective for the census is accuracy, then you want to count. If your objective is a redistricting advantage, then you want to employ statistical sampling models. Anyone familiar with public opinion polling can tell you that statistical sampling carries a margin of error. And error is the enemy of a full and accurate census.

The manipulation of census data is prohibited by federal law. In a case stemming from the 2000 Decennial Census, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the adjustment of census data violates the 1980 Census Act. If the Obama Administration or Congressional Democrats were to seek the authority to use statistical sampling for census data, they would undoubtedly encounter a long, bruising, and ultimately losing legal battle.

Working with our Democrat counterparts, we will develop a comprehensive strategy that leaves no justification for unconstitutional tactics. A component of that strategy must be to dramatically improve the engagement of local community organizations and church groups. We will offer approaches that increase the frequency and effectiveness of traditional outreach efforts such as phone calls, direct mail, and door-to-door. All ideas brought before the Subcommittee will be fully considered. We are confident that together we can formulate a plan that ensures a full and accurate count.

The only thing that threatens this effort is the injection of Chicago-style politics into the Census process. Last year, seven former Directors of the U.S. Census Bureau, appointed by Presidents Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, Clinton, and G.W. Bush, wrote, “…it is vitally important that the American public have confidence that the census results have been produced by an independent, non-partisan, apolitical, and scientific Census Bureau.”

We urge President Obama to heed their advice and keep the census process fair, independent and free from politics.