This article appeared in The Washington Post

“The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States.” — Sen. Barack Obama, March 31, 2008

To say President Obama failed to follow through on this promise is an understatement. By appointing a virtual army of “czars” — each wholly unaccountable to Congress yet tasked with spearheading major policy efforts for the White House — in his first six months, the president has embarked on an end-run around the legislative branch of historic proportions.

To be sure, the appointment of a few special officers to play a constructive role in a given administration is nothing new. What is new is the elevation of so many czars, with so much authority on endless policy fronts. Vesting such broad authority in the hands of people not subjected to Senate confirmation and congressional oversight poses a grave threat to our system of checks and balances.

At last count, there were at least 32 active czars that we knew of, meaning the current administration has more czars than Imperial Russia.

The administration has a Mideast peace czar (not to be confused with the Mideast policy czar), a Sudan czar and a Guantanamo closure czar. Then there’s the green jobs czar, sometimes in conflict with the energy czar, who talks to the technology czar, who sometimes crosses paths with the urban affairs czar. We mustn’t forget the Great Lakes czar or the WMD czar, who no doubt works hand in hand with the terrorism czar. The stimulus accountability czar is going through a rough time right now, as is the TARP czar — but thankfully they have to answer to the government performance czar. And seemingly everyone falls under the auspices of the information czar. In a government full of duplicative bureaucracies, adding more layers with overlapping responsibilities hardly seems the way to go.

Even Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.) was fearful enough to pen a letter to President Obama in February highlighting his concerns with the administration’s tactics. The Constitution mandates that the Senate confirm Cabinet-level department heads and other appointees in positions of authority — known as “principal officers.” This gives Congress — elected by the people — the power to compel executive decision-makers to testify and be held accountable by someone other than the president. It also ensures that key appointees cannot claim executive privilege when subpoenaed to come before Congress.

As we move forward, proper oversight of the growing lineup of czars is essential. From orchestrating bailouts to making industrial policies to moving toward government-run national health care, Washington seems intent on sailing into uncharted waters — and the czars are often steering the ship.

The car czar, who stepped down this month amid controversy over his former firm’s role in a scandal, had been managing government’s recent takeover of a huge swath of the domestic auto industry and making decisions for auto companies. The pay czar — also known in White House circles as the “special master for compensation” — has the power to reject or accept any current and future compensation for the top 100 earners at companies that received, in some cases under pressure, money from the Troubled Assets Relief Program. In the coming months he will decide the fate of $235 million in pending retention bonuses at AIG. And the health czar, meanwhile, has become as influential as perhaps anyone in the Obama administration, spearheading White House negotiations with doctors, hospitals and other health providers. She will play a key role in determining which medicines, treatments and cures are deemed necessary for the public.

The point here is not that President Obama’s reliance on czars is illegal (although it does raise significant, unresolved constitutional issues). Nor is it that these czars are bad people. It’s that we have not been able to vet them, and that we have no idea what they’re doing. It’s that candidate Obama made a pledge to keep Congress in the light. Yet less than six months after his inauguration, the president appears intent to keep Congress more and more in the dark. Dozens of czars at a time.

This article appeared in the National Review Online

As we come to the final days of session before the August recess, Democrats are rushing to pass a trillion-dollar government health-care plan paid for by small businesses. This final act comes on the heels of passage of the national energy tax as well as the failed stimulus effort that put pork before job creation.

Republicans recognize that we also must present our ideas directly to the American people, without the typical media filters and pundit analysis. A few weeks ago, Congressional leaders, along with an expert panel of national figures from across the country, came together to launch the National Council for a New America (NCNA). This informal caucus began a conversation with the American people based on the Reagan model of reaching outside Washington to find a way to make our conservative ideas relevant to the American people.

Tonight, NCNA will continue this effort by participating in Pajamas TV’s virtual online health-care forum along with think tanks and outside experts. Using this cutting-edge medium, we will engage voters and respond to their comments and ideas about health reform through e-mail, PJTV.com, YouTube, and Twitter.

To be clear, we do not support the status quo. We understand the need for reform and we have put forward a set of core principles that must be a part of any health-care package:

• A commitment that all Americans who like what they have — choice of doctor, timely care, and access to the treatments prescribed by their physician — can keep it;
• Access to an affordable, basic plan for those who lack coverage;
• A strengthened safety net for those who need it;
• A renewed commitment to the research and innovation that will yield the best treatments and cures.

Sadly, the legislation currently racing through the House to meet the White House’s arbitrary August recess deadline follows us down a far more dangerous course. It’s not only Republicans and spooked Blue Dogs who are saying it. A recent study by the nonpartisan Lewin Group predicts that two out of three Americans who receive their health care from their employer would lose it.

There’s a better way forward for American health care than the one spawned by single-party control over Washington. Conservatives participating in the Pajamas TV forum and other avenues look forward to engaging the American people as we lay out our vision. We hope that you can join us tomorrow evening, prior to the latest presidential press conference.

House Republican Whip Eric Cantor appeared on NBC Today Show this morning to discuss healthcare and President Obama’s address last night.

This article appeared in Politico

Congress has no more important a function than to carry out its power of the purse. But with such tremendous authority comes an equally great obligation to use it responsibly and transparently. That’s why for decades the House has strived to bring forward debate and pass appropriations bills under an open rule. Members of Congress, elected to serve as the voice of their constituents, rightfully had the ability to offer and vote on any germane amendment they deemed necessary.

Under current House Democratic leadership, this reasonable practice is becoming a thing of the past. Minority Republicans face considerable limits on amendments and the time for which they may be debated. It began on the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, this year’s first appropriations legislation. The CJS bill came to the floor under a modified open rule, but during the second amendment, after 22 minutes of debate, Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey shut down the floor and the Democratic leadership switched to a structured rule the next day. Out of over 100 Republican and Democratic amendments that had been submitted, the Democrats allowed only 33 to be debated.

By the time the remaining three appropriations bills are completed later this month, the Democrats will most likely have passed 12 appropriations bills under an eye-popping 12 closed rules. During the 12 years Republicans controlled the House, which ended in 2006, the most appropriations bills to come to the floor in one year under a closed rule was four. That happened in 1997.

Obey and the Democratic leadership justify their heavy-handedness by claiming that when given open rules in 2007, Republicans used dilatory tactics to hold the appropriations process hostage. (In 2008, Congress packaged most appropriations bills in an omnibus, which it didn’t pass until this past February.) Democrats vow not to allow Republicans to engage in this supposed intransigence again.

Yet the facts belie the Democrats’ argument. In 1995, the first year of the Democrats’ last period in the minority, the House considered appropriations bills on 31 days for a total of 205 hours. Yet in 2007, when Republicans were relegated to minority status, appropriations bills took just 23.3 days for a total of 170 hours. Republicans offered amendments we believed were important, and as the facts indicate, we did not engage in any kind of extraordinary delaying.

Despite our overwhelming displeasure with the majority’s ploy, the Republican leadership came to our Democratic counterparts in a good-faith effort to settle our differences. Last week, we made an unprecedented concession by offering time limits on amendments. We also conceded to limit to 20 the number of amendments for the remaining appropriations bills this year.

So far, no word. It’s a shame it has gotten to this point. Democratic leaders have an obligation to commit the House to an appropriations process that allows for open, honest and full debate, affording the public its right to know. If the majority will not open the rules, it should, at the very least, accept our offer and give us the ability to help ensure that Congress is spending scarce taxpayer dollars prudently.

This article appeared on RedState.com

Is there any doubt that President Obama’s economic policies have failed to generate the jobs and healthier economy that they were sold on? Ask the unemployed worker in Canton, Ohio, who is left wondering where their stimulus job is. Ask the worker in Danville, Virginia, wondering if they may lose their job because of the Democrats’ cap-and-trade bill. Ask the mom in Fort Collins, Colorado, wondering if a government bureaucrat will one day stand in her way to getting the timely treatment that her ill child desperately needs. Every job lost is an economic free fall for a family. They weren’t promised a job in two or three years, they were promised immediate results when the Administration asked to borrow your money to pay for its stimulus.

Republicans have put forth thoughtful, serious, and substantive plans of action that put jobs first. Yet, Speaker Pelosi, Senator Reid, Democrats in Congress, and President Obama have repeatedly taken a go it alone approach. It started with the so-called ‘stimulus.’ As if that wasn’t bad enough, Washington’s mortgage handouts punished those who played by the rules and rewarded the reckless – and sometimes illegal – actions of others. The Administration and the unchecked Democrat majorities followed with the most bloated budget in American history, amassing more debt than the previous 43 Presidents combined. Then Washington decided to get into the auto business.

And now we hear from the Administration that Washington needs to spend even more. At what point does it end? We must create an environment that empowers small businesses and American workers to thrive. History proves that our nation’s small businesses and innovators in private industry are uniquely capable of reigniting our economy.

Our country, our families, our workers, and our children simply cannot afford to pay for their spending spree.

And people across this country are starting to realize it. As each day passes, more and more Americans are questioning the President’s policies – understandably so. Washington, especially now, must be reminded of that. Leadership requires making choices – often difficult ones. Our economy is facing tough challenges, and the Democrat monopoly in Washington offers few choices except for borrow, spend, and regulate. I’m here today to let you know there are alternatives—common-sense tax relief; smart and necessary reductions in spending, and intelligent policies that do not bankrupt our nation. That is why we continue our fight, and I hope everyone with growing concerns about the direction Washington is moving does as well.

This article appeared in The Richmond Times-Dispatch

The American health care model is about choice. At its core, it’s about families having the ability to consult with their doctor and choose for themselves the quality health care that best meets their need. This is what distinguishes us and makes our system — however imperfect — stronger than those of nations such as Canada and Great Britain.

American families do not want their health decisions made by someone in the basement of the Health and Human Services building hundreds of miles away from their family member’s bedside. They don’t want to wait for weeks — or even months — on end to see a doctor of their choosing or to gain access to necessary treatments or cures.

Congress must not forget this as it engages in a spirited debate about the future shape of the American health care system. Only through a thoughtful process that seeks to protect and preserve choice and flexibility while expanding access, improving quality, and focusing on affordability can we hope to achieve a bipartisan solution.

To be very clear, Republicans agree that we need to take action to make health insurance more affordable for all Americans. We do not accept the status quo. But we disagree sharply with the administration and the Democrat majority that the government should be firmly in control of the U.S. health system. Such an abrupt turnabout threatens to unravel the elements of our system that work well for millions of Americans — and the long-term risks and costs for taxpayers are great.

House Republicans have put forward several new ideas to make health care more affordable by sparking competition in the private sector. Unlike the House bill, our plans will not lead to higher taxes and fewer jobs.

Our plans focus on the following core principles:

• A commitment to all Americans who like what they have — timely care, choice of doctor, and access to the treatments and cures prescribed by their physician — that they can keep it.
• For those without coverage, access to an affordable, basic plan.
• A strengthened safety net for those who need it.
• A reinvigorated commitment to research and innovation that will yield the best treatments and cures.

Sadly, this is not the direction we appear to be headed. According to a recent Washington Post poll, 83 percent of Americans are satisfied with the quality of their health care. Yet the nonpartisan Lewin Group predicts that two out of three Americans who get their health care through their employer would lose it under the House Democrat plan.

For example, seniors who have signed up for a Medicare Advantage prescription drug plan would fall victim to draconian funding cuts proposed by Congress. Millions of Americans who own health savings accounts will be at the mercy of a government bureaucrat given the power to determine whether an HSA qualifies as “acceptable coverage.” And new mandates for employers to provide insurance would unfairly harm small businesses without adequate help to meet the new costs.

The root of the problem is the House bill’s imposition of the so-called “government option.” President Obama argues that offering a government insurance plan would ostensibly spark “competition” with the private sector, bringing down costs for everyone and increasing the quality of care. Nothing could be further from the truth. This move toward making the government the “single payer” is fraught with risk. There has scarcely been a case in recent history where money has been saved and quality improved by handing over the reins of a massive industry to the government. Think Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s domination of the mortgage market, or more recently, the government’s takeover of the U.S. auto industry.

The natural response from providers of health care — who are already underpaid by existing government programs like Medicare — is to decrease the quality of care or to exit the system altogether.

Ultimately, the patient will lose when the government is forced to choose between two painful options: ration the remaining supply of lower-quality care to a growing membership base; or raise taxes so it can afford to pay a higher price to health providers.

Americans may soon find out why more than 725,000 Canadians idle away on months-long waiting lists for surgery and other critical treatments. It’s no coincidence that the survival rates for breast cancer and prostate cancer in Great Britain lag the United States by 14.2 and 40.8 percentage points, respectively.

But we need not go down that route.

Health care reform is too complex and important to the American people to be rushed through Congress. We must be thoughtful, deliberate, and act in a bipartisan fashion so that we get this right once and for all. But turning to government instead of empowering doctors and patients is not the way to accomplish our goals.