Dear Friend,The Democrat National Committee (DNC) released a memo late yesterday attacking you as a right-wing extremist. We saw this sort of vitriolic rhetoric this past April when Democrats smugly dismissed grassroots protests against their out-of-control spending. These Tea Parties were ruthlessly mocked by the liberal elites and the mainstream media. Now as public support for the Obama Democrats’ government-run health care plan unravels, they’re using this fear-and-smear tactic to silence ANY American who disagrees with their risky scheme to nationalize one-fifth of our economy and limit your health care choices. It’s a page out of their standard playbook of name calling and outright lies to stifle all debate. Friend, Republicans want responsible health care reform that makes health care more affordable and accessible, and keeps you and your doctor in charge of your medical choices — but we want to get it right and we want to do it without ramming it through Congress on a trumped-up deadline. Sincerely, Michael Steele Chairman, Republican National Committee

I wonder if Congressman Doggett (D-Texas) ever got a chance to talk?

Washington Post

Obama’s 32 Czars By Eric Cantor

“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.

The writer, a Republican from Virginia, is the House minority whip.

This past year, we passed H. 3018, legislation that gives a property tax exemption to new homes that haven’t been sold yet (“spec houses”). The logic for this legislation was the thought of unoccupied property should not be taxed. A home should not taxed until it is occupied.

There was a very strict process in order for the builder/realtor to receive the exemption.

The legislation reads:

In lieu of other exemption application requirements, the owner of property eligible for the exemption allowed by this item shall obtain the exemption by notifying the county assessor and county auditor by written affidavit no later than thirty days after the certificate of occupancy is issued and no later than January thirty-first in subsequent exemption eligibility years that the property is of the type eligible for the exemption and unoccupied and if found in order, the exemption is allowed for the applicable property tax year. If the unsold residence is occupied at any time before eligibility for the exemption ends, the owner shall so notify the auditor and assessor and the exemption ends as provided in subitem (a) of this item.”

So, the builder must obtain the exemption by the county assessor and county auditor within 30 days from receiving the certificate of occupancy. If this exemption is not obtained within the 30 day window, the property taxes must be paid on the property.

By SEN. SAM BROWNBACK | Posted Friday, July 24, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Small businesses have always been the engine of the American economy and the heart of the entrepreneurial dynamism that characterizes our society.

Even today, in our age of globalization and multinational corporations, small businesses make up more than 93% of all business in the U.S., employ more than half of U.S. workers, and are responsible for 63% of all the new jobs created.

In economic downturns, small businesses are even more important; in the current and most recent recessions, small businesses have been responsible for three out of every four new jobs created.

This makes it all the more disturbing that the Democratic health care reform proposal emerging from the House is funded in part by a surtax of up to 5.4% on high earners. A full third of this new tax revenue would come from small businesses.

As the president has repeatedly said, creating jobs right now is our No. 1 priority.

Why in the world, then, would the Democrats suggest paying for health care reform by raising taxes on the majority of small businesses with more than 20 employees?

Higher tax bills for small businesses could force them to lay off employees or reduce the number of new employees they hire. Job-killing tax hikes are not a prescription for economic recovery.

And the small-business surtax is not the only tax increase being proposed at this perilous time for our economy.

In addition to a graduated surtax on the two top brackets, the Democrats’ proposal includes raising the upper-income brackets from 33% and 35% to statuary marginal rates of 36% and 39.6%, as well as bringing back the “hidden tax increases” of PEP (the Personal Exemption Phaseout) and Pease (the limitation on itemized deductions), which raise the effective marginal rates in the top two brackets to 41% for a family of four.

Three-fourths of those affected by these rate changes are small-business owners.

All in all, a risky new burden to place on some of the most productive players in our economy at a time when we need their entrepreneurial spirit the most.

All combined, small businesses could be subjected to federal marginal tax rates as high as 49%, and this does not include state and local tax rates.

A Tax Foundation study found that effective marginal tax rates for small businesses would exceed 50% in 39 states under President Obama’s proposal.

At a time when creating jobs should be our first priority, it is vital to minimize harm to small businesses.

According to the Small Business Administration, one-third of new employer establishments fail within two years, and a major factor in the viability of any small business is its ability to hire employees.

As businesses pass on the plethora of new taxes proposed by the administration in the form of lower wages to workers and higher costs for consumers, the resulting reduction in demand for products and services will lead to further job losses.

The simple fact is that businesses cannot hire new employees — or keep the ones they have — if Uncle Sam takes away more than half of their profits.

And the multitude of tax increases President Obama has planned will harm the economic environment in which businesses operate and workers seek employment.

We must remember that the proposed new tax increases — on everything from energy to small business — will inevitably be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, which could reduce the demand for businesses’ products and services and force businesses to further scale back on operations and employment.

The bottom line is that the Democrats’ proposed tax increases will make it more costly for small businesses to hire and keep people on the payroll.

Congress and the administration should look at policies that promote job growth.

Sen. Brownback, a Republican, represents the state of Kansas.