Published on TheHill.com on April 27, 2010
The Republican Party is showing some starch by standing up to Harry Reid on the financial regulation bill. We can only hope they keep it up.
The Obama administration is selling a bill of goods inside the Beltway by saying that the GOP is getting into bed with the worst of Wall Street by opposing its bill. The truth is that the rest of the country fears big government a lot more than they fear big business and recognizes that Goldman Sachs and the other Wall Street giants feed at the Democratic trough as much or more than at the Republican one.
The financial regulation bill now hurtling through Congress sets up a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) to police lending in America. And, as usual, the liberals have fouled it up.
California Republican Congressman John Campbell (no relation to Tom) points out that the bill would “require anybody who makes a loan of any type or amount to any consumer for any reason to register with” the CFPA and get its approval for “the structure of that loan.” So any bank or store or credit card company or merchant or service provider who offered credit in any form to anyone would have to get advance approval from the CFPA.
Only Republicans who have promised not to raise taxes deserve our support. Read who has taken the pledge not to raise taxes in their term! Click here to find out!
As we fight tooth and nail to win back the US Senate, it is vital that candidates not indulge personal ambition to the detriment of the clear national interest in electing a Republican majority in 2010.
In Florida, Governor Charlie Crist — who I have supported and even advised in the past — has been running in a fairly fought primary against Marco Rubio for the Senate. Rubio, backed by major conservatives, has opened a decisive lead over Crist of about 2:1. Now Crist is reportedly considering quitting the primary and running as an Independent, making it a three-way race.
The most important factor in decided whether or not to support a candidate in the Republican primaries of 2010 is whether or not he or she has taken the “pledge” – the commitment not to vote for higher taxes. Americans for Tax Reform, headed by Grover Norquist, is collecting signatures from candidates on this no-holds barred pledge.
When conservatives like Neal Boortz proposed the “Fair Tax” (a levy on consumption not on income), we should have known that the Obama left would seize on the proposal not as Boortz intended it to be, a replacement for the income tax, but as an addition to it! Now Obama has let it be known that the VAT is “on the table” as he casts about for taxes to lock in his gigantic levels of federal spending.
2010: Take Back America — A Battle Plan has hit the New York Times bestseller list in its first week out, opening at number 4!!!
You can still order a signed copy (for Mother?) at Amazon.com or BN.com. (At Amazon.com all the books sent out are still from their signed inventory.)
2010 begins by outlining what is at stake in the election. When Obama raised spending and borrowed the money, he begged the question: How will the deficit be funded? In the election of 2010 we will determine the answer. Obama wants tax hikes, a surtax, a VAT, no cap on FICA taxes, and higher capital gains taxes. We need to elect Republicans who will cut spending and oppose any new taxes.
Published on TheHill.com on April 20, 2010
How odd that when the president’s largest corporate donor, Goldman Sachs, gets indicted it is seen in the wonderful world of Washington as catalyzing his efforts to modify Wall Street regulation. Goldman’s employees, of course, gave Obama just shy of $1 million — a total exceeded only by the faculty and staff at the University of California — making them the second largest bundle of donors to the Obama campaign.
There are so many reasons to oppose Obama’s financial regulation bill.
Former President Bill Clinton yesterday criticized conservatives who are “vilifying” government and its workers warning that such rhetoric could lead to a repetition of the horrific attack on the Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City in 1995 that marred his presidency.
Apart from the absurdity of likening elderly Medicare recipients pushing walkers to the likes of Timothy McVeigh and the right wing militias, Clinton’s comments totally ignore the real history of Oklahoma City.
Larry Kudlow makes the case that the economy is now headed for a traditional V shaped recovery — down fast and up fast. He cites economic growth and jobs data to support his optimistic assessment and warns conservatives not to invest too much political capital in predicting the demise of the economy under Barack Obama.
But, even if we assume he is correct, the real question is whether the V is to stand alone or just be the precursor to a W shaped economy — down fast, up fast, down fast, and then, eventually, we hope, up again.