Another letter from my Congressman

I received the following letter, dated April 10, 2012, from my representative in the United States House and wanted to share it with those who might follow this blog.  Rep. Akin is a good man and running for the Republican nomination to replace Claire McCaskill in the United States Senate.  We certainly need her replaced!

Dear Bruce:

This year's budget battle outlines a stark difference in ideologies that are fighting to win the hearts and minds of the American public.  My colleagues and I on the House Budget Committee have produced a sound budget that will direct our nation toward a sustainable path that effectively sustains our mission as a country and is efficient in maintaining its obligations.

As you may be aware, the President's budget results in the fourth consecutive annual deficit exceeding $1 trillion.  In contrast, the House Republican budget saves $5 trillion relative to the Administration's proposal and charts a sustainable path in an effort to save our children and grandchildren from paying for our generation's reckless spending.  Under the plan, we will reduce our deficits to below 3 percent of GDP and reduce the burgeoning size of the federal government to 20 percent of the economy by 2015.

Our responsible budget makes the hard choices that some politicians have chosen to ignore.  The Republican budget prevents the President's $1.9 trillion in tax increases while reforming the tax code to make it more fair and competitive and eliminates special interest tax loopholes.  Our budget simplifies the current Tax Code by creating two tax rates of 10 and 25 percent, repeals the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), and broadens the tax base.  Furthermore, it reduces the corporate tax rate to 25 percent, allowing our companies to remain competitive in a growing global marketplace.

The House-passed 2013 budget also repeals the President's health care law, advances bipartisan solutions that take power away from government bureaucrats and put patients in control.  Furthermore, it ensures that there are no disruptions under Medicare for those in or near retirement while ensuring a strengthened Medicare program for future generations.

While the Senate has not passed a budget in over 1,000 days, the House has made good on its obligations to the American people, and on Thursday, March 29, 2012, passed our second consecutive budget (H.Con.Res 112), by a vote of 228-191.  I was proud to vote for this legislation and look forward to the months ahead as we begin this new phase in getting our country back on a sound fiscal path.

Please visit www.roadmap.republicans.budget.house.gov to see our budget plan in complete detail.  I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me regarding any matter where I might be of assistance.  You may visit http://www.house.gov/akin to find more information in issues or to subscribe to my e-newsletter.

Sincerely,

W. Todd Akin

A Letter from my Congressman on the "Stimulus" Bill

I received another letter from my Congressman today and, since it included his thoughts on the "stimulus" bill (which did pass the House), I thought I would share it with you. I pray my Senators would listen to Congressman Akin's facts and wisdom.

Dear Bruce,

Thank you for your correspondence regarding H.R.1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It was good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, this legislation represents the largest spending increase ever foisted on the American people by Congress. Despite initial talk of a measured, infrastructure focused stimulus package, the Democrat majority has created a debt spending bill estimated to cost at least $825 billion. Worse yet, most of the money contained in the stimulus will not be spent soon enough to impact people who are struggling today.

I greatly appreciate the insight and concern of my fellow Missourians on the critical issues before the House of Representatives. An overwhelming majority of those who contacted my office asked me to oppose this spendthrift measure. When it came to the House floor on January 28th, I voted against it.

Even the Washington Post criticized the Democrat's spending bill, saying:

"Some in Congress and the new administration apparently see the country's present recession as an opportunity to change the federal government's spending priorities more generally or simply to reward loyal political constituencies."

Six hundred pages long and a top priority of the majority party, H.R. 1 already appears ineffective at its stated goal: adding stable new jobs to the economy, averting job loss, resolving the housing crisis and lifting the U.S. economy out of the current recession. I am more than willing to support an effective stimulus package, but I refuse to substitute doing "something" for doing the right thing.

To give you a sense of just how large the stimulus package is, the House-passed version is:

o Almost the size of Mexico's economy ($893 billion in 2007).
o 33.7% larger than all spending on Social Security
o 33.4% more than the defense budget.
o 24.6% more than federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined.

Additionally, allow me to list a few of my personal concerns with the Democrat's bill:

o It will cost $10,520 per family in debt spending. In fact, some economists say it would be cheaper to give every working family in America a one-year tax holiday.

o Only $26 Billion or 7% of the proposed stimulus funds will be spent in 2009.

o Only $30 Billion or 3 percent - throughout the life of the entire stimulus package would be directed towards "shovel ready" road and highway projects.

o The bill also circumvents the regular budget process by creating 32 new programs at a cost of $136 billion.

o It contains $16.4 billion in new spending for federal agencies - including office furniture at the Public Health Service.

o It spends $54 billion on 19 programs rated by the Office of Management and Budget as "ineffective" or "results not demonstrated." President Obama has said that we can no longer afford to be "squandering billions of tax dollars on programs that have outlived their usefulness." Unfortunately, Speaker Pelosi's House majority has chosen to put forward legislation that is inconsistent with the President's vision for "smarter" government.

Finally, I could not support H.R. 1 because I believe history demonstrates that when government removes billions of dollars from the economy in the name of "stimulus," the result is not a shortened recession but a prolonged depression.

Instead, I supported the Republican substitute measure on the House floor that would have created 6.2 million jobs and provided tax relief to small businesses and working families. In fact, in Missouri alone, the Republican alternative would have had the potential to create 128,000 jobs compared to 73,000 in the Democrat stimulus plan.

The Republican alternative included across-the-board tax cuts for all working American families in the 15% and 10% tax brackets. It also provided immediate tax cuts for small businesses which employ more than half of all American workers. In addition, the substitute would have extended unemployment benefits and eliminated income taxes on those benefits, allowing struggling Americans to keep the entire amount of their unemployment assistance while they are out of work. Unfortunately, the Republican alternative was defeated by a vote of 266-170 and the Democrat package passed by a vote of 244-188.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office. Please know that I will continue to work for positive legislation that benefits all Missourians.

It is a privilege to represent you and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me regarding any matter where I might be of assistance. I would also encourage you to visit my website, where you can find more information on current issues, share further thoughts with me via email and subscribe to my e-newsletter for updates on issues you care about.

Sincerely,
W. Todd Akin
Member of Congress

A Letter from my Congressman on FOCA

I wrote a letter to my Congressman and Senators last week asking them to reject any attempt by this administration to pass the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Today I received the following response from my Congressman, Rep. Todd Akin.

Dear Reverend Walker:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA.) It was good to hear from you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, FOCA would establish, as the official policy of the United States that every woman has the "fundamental right to choose" to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; or (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her life or her health. It also prohibits any federal, state, or local governmental entity from: (a) denying or interfering with a woman's right to exercise such choices; or (b) discriminating against the exercise of those rights in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information - and it makes that prohibition retroactive. It further explicitly authorizes civil suits under the Act, including against federal, state or local governments.

Sadly, this is one of the most divisive pieces of legislation I have seen in all my years of public service. The effects of this legislation would be sweeping and devastating for women who face unplanned pregnancies. It would, in short, codify Roe v. Wade and subsequent related Supreme Court decisions as public law - enshrining abortion on demand: any time, any reason, as U.S. policy. Worse, it would overturn all state laws (including laws currently allowed under Roe v. Wade) designed to protect the health of the mother, prohibit certain late term abortion procedures or recognize medical professionals' rights of conscience. In addition, it could have a far reaching "chilling effect" on the provision of life-affirming services in the non-profit sector.

One of the beliefs on which I will never waiver is that life begins at conception and that we should do all we can to protect the lives of innocent children while they are still in the womb. Because of this conviction, I am committed to ensuring that no woman is forced or coerced into an unwanted or unnecessary abortion. FOCA would eliminate state laws that guarantee women full and accurate information about abortion and further erode the social support system that helps many women make life-affirming choices.

Since Roe v. Wade, thousands of lives have been prematurely ended by various forms of abortion. The numbers of abortions in the United States have been declining for more than a decade due to increased access to (a) practical, life-affirming support, (b) protections for minors, and (c) information about the serious physical, psychological and spiritual after effects of abortion. FOCA would roll back many of these protections and increase the number of abortions nationwide. It would send the message to women that abortion is easy, safe and completely acceptable - while having a child, especially in some circumstances is difficult and irresponsible. In fact, states that already have FOCA-like laws see much higher rates of abortions than those states that do not have similar statutes.

I am an active member the Pro-Life Caucus which leads the way in working for life-affirming legislation. In my time in Congress, I have supported a number of pieces of pro-life legislation. Last Congress, I was an original cosponsor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (H.R. 1063) and I supported an increase in abstinence education funding for fiscal year 2009. I also co-sponsored the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act (H.R. 3442).

I appreciate the time you took to share your thoughts with me. I believe the Freedom of Choice Act is bad public policy and I will actively oppose it in the 111th Congress. I have also signed a letter to President Obama, calling on him to join me in opposing radical legislation - like FOCA - which would increase abortions across the nation.

It is a privilege to represent you and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me regarding any matter where I might be of assistance. If you would like more information on issues or would like to share further thoughts with me via e-mail, you may visit my website.

Sincerely,
W. Todd Akin
Member of Congress

If you want to see the letter signed by Rep. Akin (and many others) and sent to the President, let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy.

An e-mail from my Congressman

Today I received a response to an e-mail I wrote to my Congressman, the Honorable Todd Akin, during the time of the economic bailout discussions in Washington. My e-mail encouraged Congressman Akin to vote against the bailout plan of Secretary Paulson which he did. I thought you may be interested in the Congressman’s response to my original correspondence.

Dear Reverend Walker:

Thank you for contacting me regarding my vote on Secretary Paulson's proposed $700 billion bailout plan. My office has received more correspondence on this question then on any issue in the past 8 years.

For this reason, and because of the technical nature of the issue, I have prepared a more lengthy response than I would for most issues. The bottom line is that I voted "NO" on the proposal. A more detailed explanation follows.

In mid-September, U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson came to Congress with an unprecedented demand. He told us that the American economy was on the brink of catastrophe. Our only hope was to give him $700 billion, immediately, with no strings attached. Seven hundred billion dollars amounts to an indirect tax of $7,551 per taxpayer. It is the cost of the war in Iraq for five-plus years, and it is close to what America spends on foreign oil in a year. Paulson's plan was to use the money to buy "toxic assets" from banks and other financial institutions. These assets were considered "toxic" because their value was so uncertain that there was no market for them.

Paulson's demand placed Congress on the horns of a dilemma. One was financial Armageddon. The other was a $700 billion indirect tax on American taxpayers. Common sense dictates that when two bad alternatives are proposed, one should look for a better alternative. Unfortunately, Secretary Paulson was not interested in discussing any alternatives.

Over the next few days, Congressmen of all political stripes scrutinized the nature of the problem and possible solutions. Conservatives were concerned about the massive increase in deficit spending and what precedent would be set if the Federal Government purchased bundles of private loans. Many Members of Congress were skeptical that the government could be trusted to come up with a satisfactory pricing mechanism for the toxic securities because there was no way to establish a value. Some Democratic Members of Congress also had serious concerns regarding the Wall Street bailout.

There is no doubt that we need to insure the soundness of the American dual banking system and our markets with:

1)The least amount of bad government regulation, - Fannie & Freddie along with suspension of the Mark-to-Market rule when no market exists.

2)The most amount of disclosure, - no naked short selling without the "up-tick rule."

3)More accountability for bad actors - if they make bad loans, poor investments or borrow what they cannot repay - then they should pay the price.

4)Rewards for those who behaved responsibly and penalties for those who didn't - no golden parachutes.

Early in the last decade, Congress mandated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac increase the number of purchases of mortgages made to lower-income borrowers. Under President Clinton, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) gave Fannie and Freddie even higher numeric goals for low-income borrowers. At the same time, banks were also forced to implement loan quotas for lower income households through the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA).

Additionally, early in 2001, as the economy headed into recession, the Federal Reserve began a series of interest rate cuts, bringing the interest rate down to 1% and holding it there for a year. These actions drastically expanded lending; particularly in the real estate market. However, because housing prices were rising, the defaults stayed relatively low. In the meantime, mortgages and loans were being made, sold, and bundled without regard to the likelihood that the borrowers would be able to repay. The bundled securities, called "mortgage backed securities," were incorrectly given AAA ratings and sold all over the world.

In 2003, an article in the New York Times reported, "The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago." Unfortunately, many Democrats argued that there was no impended crisis. In fact, at the time, the current Democratic Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Barney Frank ,stated, "these two entities, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, are not facing any kind of financial crisis."

By 2004 and 2005, the Republican-controlled Congress saw the danger and passed legislation to tighten regulation of Freddie and Fannie. I voted in favor of this legislation. Unfortunately, Senate Democrats blocked any effort to improve the law.

Over the past year, increasingly more homes came onto the market than buyers and the homebuilding industry began to show signs of stress. Home values started to drop and builders could not find buyers for their new homes. Before long, the value of homes was dropping below the cost of loans. As a result, some consumers who were overextended on their credit started defaulting on their mortgages. Investors began to lose confidence in Freddie and Fannie, causing their stock prices to tumble (down about 80%) over last year. Because so many banks and financial institutions were invested so heavily in these securities, it resulted in the need to bailout Fannie and Freddie. Furthermore, these same banks and investment firms that had bet on mortgage backed securities began to be in serious trouble - and so were their customers. Banks that were rumored to be in trouble began to see an increase in withdrawals by their customers - triggering fears of bank runs. With so much money tied up in bad investments, even healthier banks were reluctant to make new loans.

When banks stopped buying mortgage backed securities because they could no longer determine their real value, this placed the banks that owned these securities at risk.. Federal accounting rules state that a capital asset on a bank's books must be daily "marked to market." However, when there is no market, law requires these assets to be shown as "zero" in value. This causes problems for banks by depressing their capital reserves value. For example, if a bank owns 1 million dollars of mortgages on houses that used to sell for a total of $1 million but now are worth $800,000, then the bank has a manageable problem. However, if under the "mark to market" rule, that value is artificially re-set at zero, the rule can actually cause a bank failure. If a bank's capital gets too low, the bank must be closed or sold as we saw in the case of Wachovia Bank.

Secretary Paulson proposed a $700 billion taxpayer funded "solution" to this problem. I and about one hundred other conservative Members of Congress sought other alternatives. We met former FDIC Chairman Bill Isaacs who was in charge of handling the Savings and Loan crash under President Ronald Reagan. He explained that we did have tools to solve the banking problem without this massive public bailout.

One of Chairman Isaacs' suggestions included changing the current accounting rules (mark-to-market) so that assets owned by the banks could be more reasonably valued. This would help the banks' capital problems, preventing unnecessary tightening of the credit markets. This approach also meant that owners of riskier assets would be responsible for their own financial decisions.

Much to my disappointment, this approach to dealing with the financial crisis was largely ignored. The first high profile bailout vote took place on Monday September 29th. Surprising Republican and Democrat leadership, the bailout package failed, rejected by over two-thirds Republicans and over a hundred Democrats. This vote reflected the tenor of what a majority of Congressional offices were hearing from their constituencies including my own.

Over the next few days, the Senate approved the bailout and added a bunch of tax extenders - authorizing the extension of various tax breaks that were set to expire The House voted to approve this package on Friday, October 3rd, after an unprecedented level of lobbying by financial groups and the White House. Once again, I voted against the bailout.

Our economy is in critical condition, and the price tag on the "bailout" could add nearly a trillion dollars to our national debt. During these tough votes, I try to set politics aside and consider what is best for my constituents and the country. In this case, I asked myself if the legislation would:

 solve the problem it was meant to address? Doubtful

 prevent the types of investment practices that had caused the problem in the first place? No

 solve the problem using the simplest and least expensive solutions first and only spending billions in public money as a last resort? No

 punish those who made financially responsible decisions? Yes

 reward those who made poor financial choices? Yes

 represent a major intrusion by the Federal Government into private markets? Yes

 increase the national debt? Yes

 set a pattern for future public bailouts of private losses? Yes, I believe it would.

Based on these questions, a "NO" vote was the principled position for a conservative. Like other high profile votes I have taken since being in Congress -- including the 2005Medicare Modernization Act - this vote placed me at odds with President Bush and leadership in my own party.

I appreciate the serious nature of our economic situation. However, it is dangerous to abdicate principles under pressure. For that reason, I co-sponsored H.R. 7223 which represents a reasoned response to our economic challenge. H.R. 7223 would have reformed the financial market regulatory system and empowered private investors to fund the financial market's recovery. I believe this plan represented a "workout" rather than a bailout by leveraging limited tax dollars to encourage private investment and stabilize our markets.

I hope this information is helpful in understanding my perspective on this important legislation. Once again, I appreciate the time you took to contact my office.

It is a privilege to represent you and I hope that you will not hesitate to contact me regarding any matter where I might be of assistance. If you would like more information on issues, or would like to share further thoughts with me via e-mail, you may visit my website.

Sincerely,W. Todd Akin
Member of Congress