Archive for April, 2010

The Democratic National Committee recently released a video of President Obama rallying the troops for the 2010 elections and promising to reconnect with young people. But the question isn’t whether President Obama will make good on his promise to connect with young people (he’ll keep that promise!) but whether young people will reconnect with President Obama.

Young people are upset and disappointed with President Obama. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 52% of 18-29 year olds think that our country is on the wrong path. And with health care reform that will raise costs, a stimulus that didn’t create jobs, and more and more talk of additional bailouts…who can blame them.

The youngest member of Congress and the only member under the age of 30, Congressman Aaron Schock will fire up young conservatives and College Republicans on May, 10 at 7:00 p.m. at Ohio State University (2201 Fred Taylor Drive, Columbus, OH) as part of the College Republican National Committee’s Capitol Hill to Campus program.

Former College Republican National Committee Executive Director and Chairman Karl Rove graciously takes a few minutes out of his busy schedule to chat with Ohio College Republican Chairman Jonathon Snyder about his new book and his time as a College Republican.

If there is one thing that all Americans can agree on is that filing taxes for April 15 is more unpleasant than watching an episode of Jersey Shore. Unless you’re Timothy Geithner that is, in which case you fail to pay your taxes despite being advised by your employer to do so. The sense of unpleasantness America feels in seeing their hard earned dollars go to fund things like anti-capitalist puppet shows is only likely to get worse. In fact, as the Obama administration continues its exorbitant spending habits American may look back at their 2010 tax forms with fondness.

There are many factors that will that lead to the increasing burdens that taxpayers are going to have to face. One of them is their non-taxpaying counterparts. Due to a bevy of loopholes, carve outs, write offs, and exemptions 47% of Americans do not pay taxes. Many poor and middle class families are exempted from paying income taxes because of the combination of the child tax credit and the Earned Income Tax Credit.  They were further protected by Obama’s Making Work Pay tax credit, which was $400 for single workers and $800 for a couple. The single credit phased out at $75,000 income and for couples it phased out at $150,000 respectively. The massive federal deficits will likely mean that this credit will likely expire.

Another major concern is the gap between future retirees and the future work force. The baby boomers will soon retire, bringing with them the enormous costs of funding their entitlement benefits such as Social Security. The cost of the benefits of the boomers, combined with the cost of the Democrats health care bill, and interest payments to pay for all the Democrats’ new projects will raise the federal deficit to unprecedented levels. The Congressional Budget Office recently estimated that Obama’s policies will lead to deficits of $12.7 trillion from 2009 to 2020. America will eventually be forced to balance its checkbook. This means that increases in spending must be balanced with increases in revenue. “Increases in revenue” is a euphemism for higher taxes.

There are however solutions to this problem. Repeal, reform, and stop unnecessary spending. The government needs to repeal the current health care bill, and start over with bill that will be truly beneficial to the American people and save money in the long run. Of course, political realities will likely get in the way of this reality. Nevertheless, Republicans must strategically attack the most egregious provisions in the legislation such as the increases in Medicaid eligibility. The focus must be achieving enrollment gains by making health care affordable – not forcing people into a broken system. The government also needs comprehensive reform of entitlement programs so that future generations are not paying the bill but getting none of the benefits. Finally, and relatedly, the federal government must stop recklessly jumping in to problems with its checkbook wide open. Recognizing and fixing problems in a financially stable and fiscally responsible way must be the mantra of all future governments.

There are solutions to the problem and that do not have to include raising taxes. Admittedly many of these solutions are hard and politically difficult. But we, as voters and as citizens, must understand that if we fail to make the hard choices now there won’t even be a choice later. Failure to act will bankrupt future generations, dooming them to higher taxes and fewer government services. The choice is up to us. Do we want to let the government place a millstone of tax and spend policies around our neck, or do we want to continue to enjoy the ability to create, innovate, and lead. In November 2010, the choice we make will determine what kind of future is in store for us.

By Ricky Fraxedas

I hate to say we told you so. Really…we hate it. The first comprehensive report of the recently passed health care law was unveiled today. The study, done by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), shows that many Republican criticisms of the health care law are likely to become reality.

We told you so. Representative Paul Ryan said

“Cost containment underpins the entire argument for reform. You’ve all been assuring us: ‘This plan will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses, and our government.’ Here again – the substance falls short of the rhetoric.”

The public agreed with Ryan. A Rasmussen poll taken directly before the health care reform vote found that 57% of voters believed that the costs of health care would go up while only 17% believe costs would go down if Democrats’ reform passed.

The CMS report showed these fears were not unfounded. The economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department found that the new reforms will do little to curb the runaway health care costs. In fact, they argue that it will bend the cost curve up, raising baseline spending by 1% over 10 years. The report states that,

“In aggregate, we estimate that for calendar years 2010 through 2019, [national health expenditures] would increase by $311 billion, or 0.9 percent, over the updates baselines projection that was released on June 29, 2009.”

CMS admits that even this figure may be more generous than the reality due to some unrealistic cuts being made to Medicare. Again, we told ya so. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell repeatedly said that

“Medicare is already in trouble. The program needs to be fixed, not raided to create another new government program.”

According to the new report we were right. CMS says that cuts to Medicare could drive 15% of hospitals into the red and thus possibly lower the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries.

“Over time, a sustained reduction in payment updates…would cause Medicare payment rates to grow more slowly than…the provides cost of furnishing services to beneficiaries. Thus, providers…could find it difficult to remain profitable and, absent legislative intervention, might end their participation in the program (possibly jeopardizing access to care for beneficiaries.”

Cutting access to Medicare would be political suicide. The government will be unwilling to accept this reality and will be forced to act to restore Medicare payment rates. But by doing so the Democrats’ claim that the reforms actually reduce the deficit would fall by the wayside.

The question everyone should be asking is why we are only hearing about this now. Before the bill was passed Democrats knew that the CMS was going to release a report analyzing the costs of the bill. At the time the CMS lamented that under the “very tight time frame” and due to the “complexity” of the reform legislation they would not be able to analyze the costs before the House voted on the legislation.

Instead, Democrats touted the score by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office as showing everything they needed to know before a vote was taken. Unfortunately for democracy, the CBO score was gamed. Unlike the CMS report the CBO is not a neutral calculator of costs. The CBO was forced to use unrealistic assumptions in determining the cost of the legislation, a constraint not shared by the CMS. It is little wonder then that today’s report provides a much less flattering picture; one that actually increases health care costs and decreases the quality of care.

We told you so. But we take no satisfaction in saying it. The sad reality is that this bill was sold to America based on faulty numbers. It was forced upon taxpayers without a full understanding of what it would truly cost. Democrats could have delayed the vote. With trillions of dollars in taxpayer money at stake they should have delayed the vote. Whether they didn’t do so because they wanted the debate to be over, or worse, because they expected the CMS report would show their savings claims were false, the victim is the American people. Regardless of whether Democrats’ motivations were naïve or insidious they must pay the price in November. We may be stuck with an overpriced health care reform package, but we aren’t stuck with Democratic majorities.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

When you think of the Republican Party do you think of it as the party of yes or the party of no? It might be surprising to hear this, but many Republicans have mixed feelings about what the Republicans should be perceived as in this day in age.

What do you think of being the party of no? Are you like Sarah Palin who believes that “there is no shame in being the party of no.” Are you even more passionate about the idea like Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal who says we should go one step further and be the party of “hell no.” Of course not all agree with the approach. Newt Gingrich said that “what the left wants to do is say we’re the party of ‘no.’ I think we should decide we’re going to be the party of ‘yes.’” It’s all enough to make your head spin.

A recent Vanity Fair article entitled the “Cost of No” tries to outline the cost of a Republican “no” votes. Their argument is that Republicans “continue to pull down their taxpayer-funded salaries, enjoy their government sponsored benefits, and accept tax free donations to think tanks” despite their “commitment to doing exactly nothing.” Clever premise. Poor execution. After all, it literally begs for someone to look at just how much Democrats spent being the party of constant “yes.” Should we bailout the banks. Yes! Should we throw money to the wind in the hopes it will help the economy? Yes! Should we pass a trillion dollar health care reform bill that we aren’t sure we can afford and are absolutely sure nobody likes? Yes, yes, yes!

So let’s take a look at the cost of “yes.” Something tells me it will make Republicans look like an absolute bargain.

THE STIMULUS: Democrats have waivered on their measure of success. Whether it is jobs created or saved the results do not justify the $816 billion price tag.

HEALTH CARE: Forget all the gimmicky savings that the Democrats claim. Forget the first ten years of implementation that uses 10 years of taxes to pay for 6 years of new services. The true ten-year bottom line is $2.3 trillion. Moreover, people still don’t like it. The latest Rasmussen poll finds that only 35% of voters feel that the new health care law will be good for the country while 52% believe it will be bad.

DISCRETIONARY SPENDING HIKE: In December President Obama signed a $1.1 trillion spending bill including six appropriation bills which pushed total non-stimulus, non-defense appropriations at $583 billion – an 8.2% increase over the previous years domestic spending.

INTEREST: With a record shattering $1.4 trillion federal deficit in 2009 (the previous record, also held by Obama was $458 billion) and a mind numbing $11.9 trillion national debt its getting more and more expensive to afford interest payments. This year’s price tag for our government’s largesse: $199 billion.

SALARIES: Vanity Fair made it a point to focus on the salaries of Mitch McConnell and John Boehner (roughly $174,000/year) but failed to mention that Nancy Pelosi makes $217,400 or that Harry Reid makes $193,4000. Democrats’ share of total salaries paid since the start of the 111^th Congress $69.1 million

STAFF: The article laments that Congressional entourages have grown in recent years. The article picks on Republican Senator James Inhofe for employing 62 people in 2009. Gasp! It is admittedly a lot and possibly too many. But it overlooks the fact that Democrats do the same thing. For instance Harry Reid has a staff of 65 or Charles Schumer who has a staff of 90! Using Vanity Fair’s own metric, a conservative estimate of Democrats’ staff salaries is $333.3 million.

BENEFITS: Democrats’ share of benefits including, on site doctors office, health plan, parking, meals, memberships to the house gym, etc: $235.2 million

EXPENSES: Democrats’ total – $769 million

KEEPING THE LIGHTS ON: Democrats total – $406 million

THINK TANKS: Ok, I’m leaving this one off the list. Although Vanity Fair may have felt it necessary to include the “cost” of policy institutes in terms of tax losses from their tax exempt status so as to make their bottom line more eye-popping, I think Democrats number will speak for itself. Plus, what on earth does this have to do with the cost of a Congressman? L

TOTAL OF THE DIRECT TAXPAYER COSTS OF “YES”: $3.898 trillion

That makes the cost of saying “no” about $3.87 trillion cheaper than saying “yes.”

The point is that “yes” or “no” doesn’t mean a thing if only taken in the abstract. Saying “yes” to a bad policy that pushes our nation closer to the brink of bankruptcy is not an admirable trait. Republicans are not the party of “no” but we are happy to be the party who says no to bad and expensive policies. The government must make tough choices to get this nation’s fiscal future back on track. If you want Republicans to start saying “yes” then start proposing some spending cuts, changes to the tax code, or entitlement reforms.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

The failure to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the financial regulatory reform bill ignores the key role they played in the financial crisis. Worse, omitting them from the bill may portend another financial calamity. For once, could our leaders heed to the words of George Santayana when he said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

There is little doubt, and there seems to be bipartisan agreement, that financial regulatory reform is needed. We as a nation must do everything we can to avoid the same pitfalls that led to the financial crisis that has so many young adults worried about their future. Crafting a solution requires understanding the problem. This is where Democrats’ reform plan begins to veer off-course.

Investor’s Business Daily recently wrote that

“Democratic plans don’t address government’s fundamental role in the crisis. Politicians and regulators pressed lenders to vastly expand credit to shaky borrowers and looked the other way as standards went out the window.”

The problem may have started with the Community Reinvestment Act, which encouraged banks to make riskier loans with the hopes of allowing more people to own a home. The problem was that the program also led to banks taking on the subprime mortgages that later led to the crash. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as government sponsored entities, were encouraged to buy up the sub-prime loans to meet affordable housing requirements. For instance in 1999 the New York Times reported that,

“Fannie Mae, the nation’s biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people.”

Fannie and Freddie then assembled these risky loans into mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that were backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. Wall Street investors then felt free to buy MBS knowing that Congress would bail them out if the loans ever fell through.

The ultimate irony in all of this is that Republicans have proposed setting regulation on Fannie and Freddie long before the financial collapse occurred. As a recent Wall Street Journal article notes,

“In July 2005, when the Senate Banking Committee, then controlled by the Republicans, adopted tough regulatory legislation for the GSEs on a party-line vote—all Republicans in favor, all Democrats opposed. The bill would have established a new regulator for Fannie and Freddie and given it authority to ensure that they maintained adequate capital, properly managed their interest rate risk, had adequate liquidity and reserves, and controlled their asset and investment portfolio growth.”

Guess who was in line opposing this reform? Then senator Barack Obama voted against the bill. He was also the third largest recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie. Author of the current reform bill Chris Dodd also voted against the 2005 bill and was the second largest recipient of campaign contributions from the GSEs. Makes you wonder who is really on the side of special interests?

Regardless of the past, it is Congress’ job today to create a reform bill that prevents another financial collapse. Unfortunately, the Democrats’ attempt fails miserably. A letter by Democrats insiders and left leaning economic experts says that,

“Neither the bill passed earlier this year by the House, nor the one currently under consideration in the Senate would have prevented the crisis. Without serious restructuring, they will not prevent a future crisis.”

Part of that restructuring is “establish[ing] a timeline for the resolution of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.”

Fannie and Freddie played a significant role in the financial collapse. Whether they were the cause or simply another bad actor is a debate which glosses over the fact that they need reform. Omitting them from a financial regulatory reform bill neuters the purpose of the legislation. It also calls into question Democrats’ commitment to true reform. Americans can only hope that the large campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie to Chris Dodd is not the reason those institutions were able to escape oversight in the new legislation. If Democrats really wanted to prevent another crisis they would be wise to look at all of the causes that got us into this mess. After all, those who “cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

What do you think of federal taxes? Do you pay too much? Too little? More importantly, do you think you are getting value out of what you pay?

I would guess that most people feel that they pay too much in taxes. This belief seems likely given the Pew Research poll published over the weekend showing that only 22% of Americans feel they can trust Washington almost always or most of the time. Tough to pay taxes to a government you don’t trust. The poll also finds that nearly 50% of the population feels that government programs are run inefficiently. But are they right?

Professor Tom Schaller would argue they are not. In a recent article he contends that,

“Dollar for dollar, America offers the most effective and efficient government on the planet, doing so for about 20 cents on the dollar nationally, 28 cents if you include state and local taxes. If you ask a conservative to name a country that provides as many quality services for less, or more and better services for the same price, they can’t name one.”

There are two obvious flaws in Schaller’s logic that undermine his attempt to bait conservatives into an argument. One, the government of the United States is sadly rather unique in today’s world given the proliferation of the European nanny-state. This makes it hard to find any of the comparables he asks for. Hard to name a country that does more with less because that is not the name of the game in European style welfare states who are built around the principle of high taxes and more services.

Second, and more pertinent to the national mood, our huge national debt and operating deficits suggest we are not providing programs efficiently as he suggests. The national debt has reached a staggering $12.8 trillion and 2009s budget deficit was a record $1.4 trillion – figures which Schaller failed to include in his analysis. Eventually this unsustainable spending spree must be dealt with. The two clear paths are either higher taxes or cuts in government programs. Given that this choice is an inexorable part of our future, the efficiency and effectiveness of our tax dollars will wane greatly.

In contrast to Schaller’s argument, that we are getting bang for our tax buck, another liberal strategy has been to extol the virtues of Europe. This argument, exemplified in a recent article by noted political writer Steven Hill, posits that the European style welfare state actually delivers more. In the piece Hill recalls a conversation between a fiscally conservative Senator and a man who lived in Sweden.

“The problem with Americans and their taxes is that we get nothing for them.” He then told the senator about the comprehensive services and benefits that Swedes receive.

“If Americans knew what Swedes receive for their taxes, we would probably riot,” he told the senator. The rest of the ride to the theater district was surprisingly quiet.

Hill goes on to list all the things they receive including health care, affordable child care, retirement pensions, subsidized university educations, job retraining, paid sick leave, ample vacations, etc.

Hill and Schaller both approach the problem from the liberal perspective but take two completely different sides of the argument. Schaller argues that the United States government is incredibly efficient at using our tax dollars to fund programs for Americans. Hill on the other hand argues that the European welfare state model deliver an enormous amount of services at a comparatively modest cost in taxes. Despite two opposite positions they are both used to gird the same conclusion – that we should drop our fears of “big government” and pay more in taxes.

Talk about a heads I win, tails you lose argument. No matter which position conservative adopt to limit the size of government liberals have an answer. But only one of them can be right…right?

Frankly, in my view they are both wrong. The problem is they start from the wrong premise. Why should we compare ourselves to European welfare states at all? We are not Europe and we should not seek to be Europe. America was built on a foundation of limited government and personal freedom. As Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

A nanny state and a mommy government in the mold of Europe is just not in our DNA. From the absence of those traits has sprung a United States that is different and blessedly unique in its vision of government. We want it to pave the road for individuals to succeed but not be driving the car. Why now should not now feel the need, or allow anyone to impress upon us the need, to stray from the principles that made us great in the name of mirroring what other nations are doing?

In returning to the words of our founders, George Washington wrote that “[s]ome day, following the example of the United States of America there will be a United States of Europe.” How sad would he have been to find it turned out just the opposite.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

“Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.”  Capitol Hill would be wise to listen to the words of Winston Churchill. However there is still the notion of the “too big to fail” that has been dictating the way congress has been handling the finical system since the recession. The current Financial Regulation overhaul that is being proposed in the Senate appears to be another continuation of the government’s acceptance for failure at the taxpayer’s expense.

The current legislation being proposed contains a $50 billion dollar fund that big banks would finance and that the FDIC would use to liquidate giant, interconnected financial firms on the verge of collapse. Essentially, the same firms those were largely responsible for getting us in this crisis in the first place. Minority leader Mitch McConnell stated that the very existence of the fund “would of course immediately signal to everyone is ready to bail out large banks.” One could also argue that it would give these interconnected financial firms little incentive to change their practices if they know that the government is on standby to bail them out by providing them this insurance from banks that have been acting responsibly.

The criticism is just from Senate Republicans has been backed from various groups and individuals who come from a broad range of the political spectrum. Jeffery Lacker, President of Reserve Bank of Richmond argues that the legislation “just perpetuates the dynamic that gave us ‘too big to fail’ to begin with.” Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the international monetary fund also contends that Obama and the Democrats have done almost nothing to get rid of the “too big to fail firms.” A coalition of former regulators and left-leaning economists issued a letter to the Democratic leadership saying that “[w]ithout serious restructuring, [the Senate bill] will not prevent a future crisis.”  The primary goal the group felt the Senate bill failed to address was eliminating “a perpetual system of government sponsored corporate bailouts financed by the government or private industry.”

Ezra Klein tries to rebut many of these fears saying that the “$50 billion pot o’ cash that Mitch McConnell and the Republicans have decided to call a ‘bailout fund’ is really no such thing. He argues the fund will merely be used for an orderly wrap up once a bank has been placed into receivership. The first problem with his argument is that receivership does not mean that the firm be liquidated. To prevent a systemic crisis from a “too big to fail” institution going into receivership the Dodd bill allows the $50 fund to be used to make creditors whole. Klein also makes the point that $50 isn’t a lot of money and thus couldn’t possibly be intended as a bailout. Instead the fund will be used to “keep the lights on” while the liquidation happens. $50 billion to keep the lights on! That’s an expensive energy bill. Even if we include payroll and other day-to-day expenses, that seems an unusually high amount for pure wind-up expenses. Focusing on the $50 billion also removes the focus from the FDIC’s ability to guarantee the debt of any solvent bank subject only to limits set by the Treasury Department.  Opening up such credit to “systemically important” banks thus does give them a comparative advantage in the eyes of investors who view them as safer firms to lend to. As Democrat and House Financial Services Committee member Brad Sherman said, “the bill contains permanent, unlimited bailout authority.”

In dealing with financial regulation, the administration should not be under the illusion that distorting the financial market will bring us economic harmony. Encouraging Wall Street to continue gambling with taxpayer money will only put us on the path toward another crisis. Wall Street must be made to accept that their future will not be guaranteed by the American taxpayer. In a capitalist system you must accept the consequences of your gamble. If you fail then it should be a lesson to the next generation of lending institution that rises to take your place. Lessons are not learned by continuing to subsidize businesses bad decisions. Most importantly we all must realize that failure is not fatal and that as long we are able to accept the consequences and push forward, than there will be a bright future that awaits us.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director

(hat tip Ricky Fraxedas)

The implementation of Obama’s health care reforms, the new plan to socialize the American health care system, was cause for celebration across the nation for the left. It sounded wonderful to have 30,000,000 uninsured Americans now covered, and according to Democrats, it wouldn’t cost an extra dime in raised taxes. Quite the contrary, we’d actually be able to cut the deficit. Insuring millions of new people for less money? Sign us up!

But while the prospect of free health care sounds wonderful, President Obama has said himself that

“[T]he American people have to recognize that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Right? So, we can’t just provide care to everybody that has no cost whatsoever.”

Much to the chagrin of those people wanting to know where their “free Obama care” is, insuring millions of new people will impose some costs.

Numerous companies have already projected massive additional taxes, brought upon by mandated changes in tax law.  Caterpillar has forecasted $100 million in additional costs.  John Deere has forecasted $150 million in additional costs, 3M has forecasted $90 million in additional costs.  AK Steel has forecasted $31 million costs.  AT&T has forecasted $1 billion in additional costs.  The list goes on and on.

These companies are just the tip of the iceberg. The increased costs for businesses are universal. In a down economy taxing the private sector job creators is not always the best idea, especially for college aged students nearing graduation day. Democrats, not happy that the public’s attention was being drawn to costs, have attempted to sweep the issue under the rug.

In response to cost forecasts of large businesses, House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman Henry Waxman angrily demanded CEO’s appear before his committee to show concrete evidence justifying supposed costs. He apparently forgot that the disclosures of additional costs were required under federal accounting rules. Whoops. Unsurprisingly, Waxman quietly canceled his scheduled CEO-grilling in a memo acknowledging,

“These one-time charges were required by applicable accounting rules. Under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles as determined by the FASB, companies are required to take a noncash charge against current earnings to recognize a tax liability for the estimated future tax effects of a new law.

Democrats are going further than hiding the impact on companies, they’ve let their “landmark” achievement slide completely off the front pages. Health care poll numbers have been dismal since last May. But Democrats didn’t listen; seemingly content in their belief the animosity would fade after the bill was finally passed. They were wrong. The latest Rasmussen pollya finds that just 35% of voters believe the reforms will be good for the country while 52% believe it will be bad. For once, Democrats seem to be paying close attention to the polls. There hasn’t been a peep about health care in some time.  Rather than “running on health care” as David Axelrod suggested they would, many Democrats appear to be running for the hills. As a recent Politico story noted,

Before Congress left town for the spring recess, Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged rank-and-file Democrats to return home and tout the benefits of the landmark health care bill.

But instead of barnstorming their districts celebrating their historic accomplishment, some have been content to remain beneath the radar, reluctant to advertise their role in passing the centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s domestic policy agenda.

What Democrats once wanted to be their historic achievement they now want to be a mere historical footnote. Republicans must seize the opportunity. This was Democrats defining piece of legislation and voters have consistently said they think it will increase the cost and reduce the quality of our health care. A trillion dollar bill should not be allowed to fall through the cracks of news coverage or swept under the rug by enforcers like Henry Waxman. The GOP has the momentum with the American people but it doesn’t mean we let Democrats off the hook.

by Brandon Greife, Political Director