House Republicans Press Treasury Secretary Geithner for TARP “Exit Strategy”

House Republican leaders today wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, inquiring about the Obama Administration’s “exit strategy” from the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). The letter comes as Geithner and other Administration officials are determining how to use the second $350 billion installment of TARP funds President Obama requested last month and whether to request additional taxpayer funds beyond the initial $700 billion authorized last year.

“Because the Administration has committed itself to assisting the auto industry, satisfying commitments made by the previous Administration, and devoting up to $100 billion to mitigate mortgage foreclosures, it has been reported that President Obama might need more than the $700 billion authorized by the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (‘EESA’) to fund a ‘bad bank’ to absorb hard-to-value toxic assets,” wrote the leaders. “In light of these commitments – which come at a time when the Federal Reserve is flooding the financial system with trillions of dollars and the Congress is finalizing a fiscal stimulus that is expected to cost taxpayers more than $1.1 trillion – it is not surprising that the American people are asking where it all ends, and whether anyone in Washington is looking out for their wallets.”

Specifically, the leaders asked Secretary Geithner to provide answers to six questions before the Administration determines the next steps for the TARP program, including:

1. How does the Administration plan to maximize taxpayer value and guarantee the most effective distribution of the remaining $350 billion of TARP funds?

2. How is the Administration lending, assessing risk, selecting institutions for assistance, and determining expectations for repayment?

3. Will the Administration opt for a complex “bad bank” rescue plan? How can the “bad bank” efficiently price assets and minimize taxpayer risk? Will financial institutions be required to give substantial ownership stakes to the Federal government to participate in the program?

4. Is a “bad bank” plan an intermediate step that leads to nationalizing America’s banks?

5. Can you elaborate on your plans for the use of an insurance program for toxic assets? Specifically, will you seek to price insurance programs to ensure that taxpayer interests are protected? If so, how will you do so?

6. What is the exit strategy for the government’s sweeping involvement in the financial markets?

“Indeed, a bipartisan majority of the House – 171 Republicans and 99 Democrats – recently expressed the same concerns, voting to disapprove releasing the final $350 billion from the TARP,” the leaders concluded. “As we noted in our December 2, 2008 letter to then-Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke, we realize that changing conditions require agility in developing responses. However, the seemingly ad hoc implementation of TARP has led many to wonder if uncertainty is being added to markets at precisely the time when they are desperately seeking a sense of direction.”

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Bauer Congratulates Michael Steele on GOP Chairmanship

PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Former presidential candidate Gary Bauer on Friday congratulated Michael Steele on becoming chairman of the Republican Party.

The chairman of the Campaign for Working Families made the following statement regarding Steele's win: "I offer my sincere congratulations to Michael Steele with high hopes and confidence that he will lead the party forward, emphasizing the GOP's core philosophies of small government, lower taxes, pro-life, pro-family and pro-strong national defense. I look forward to working with him."

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Senate Republicans May Use Filibuster to Block Stimulus

Senate Republicans May Use Filibuster to Block Stimulus
(CNSNews.com) – Republican senators who oppose the $819 billion economic stimulus plan passed in the House Wednesday declined to say whether they personally would lead a filibuster to try to stop the legislation in the Senate. But they said a filibuster is an option and they are developing a strategy to stop the bill.

Clintonista Already Dishing Out Oppo Hit Pieces on Steele

Michael Steele is the new RNC Chair. It took six rounds of voting (roughly 5 1/2 hours) to select the new chair from a field of five.

Clintonista Already Dishing Out Oppo Hit Pieces on Steele
Posted by: Amanda Carpenter at 5:43 PM
Well, that didn't take long.Hillary Clinton's former research director dished up a nasty hit-piece memo on Michael Steele hours after he was elected the GOP's first black RNC Chairman.

He cites shaky resources like Think Progress, a blog for the lefty Center for American Progress for his research. This would be like me linking to comments on FreeRepublic to back up my facts.

Steele clearly got the Dems scared.

http://townhall.com/blog/g/85e8b7c9-83ef-48ca-b946-34132414bef4

Few Articles re: Dems vs Rush Limbaugh

Democrats Launch Petition Against Rush Limbaugh
(CNSNews.com) – The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition for readers to express their outrage at conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh for saying last week that he wanted President Barack Obama to fail.

Democrats Edit: Take Limbaugh's 'Want Obama to Fail' Comment Out of Context(CNSNews.com) - The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is running an audio clip on its Web site that misrepresents what radio host Rush Limbaugh meant when he said on his Friday, Jan. 16 radio program that he wanted President Obama "to fail." The audio clip, as played by the DCCC, omits a key sentence.

RNC: A 40-Year Wish List

The following is an excerpt from an editorial by The Wall Street Journal, and is being released today by the Republican National Committee:

The 647-page, $825 billion House legislation is being sold as an economic "stimulus," but now that Democrats have finally released the details we understand Rahm's point much better. This is a political wonder that manages to spend money on just about every pent-up Democratic proposal of the last 40 years. ...

There's $1 billion for Amtrak, the federal railroad that hasn't turned a profit in 40 years; $2 billion for child-care subsidies; $50 million for that great engine of job creation, the National Endowment for the Arts; $400 million for global-warming research and another $2.4 billion for carbon-capture demonstration projects. There's even $650 million on top of the billions already doled out to pay for digital TV conversion coupons. ...

Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus. ...

Most of the rest of this project spending will go to such things as renewable energy funding ($8 billion) or mass transit ($6 billion) that have a low or negative return on investment. Most urban transit systems are so badly managed that their fares cover less than half of their costs. However, the people who operate these systems belong to public-employee unions that are campaign contributors to ... guess which party? ...

Congress also wants to spend $7 billion for modernizing federal buildings and facilities. The Smithsonian is targeted to receive $150 million; we love the Smithsonian, too, but this is a job creator? ...

As for the promise of accountability, some $54 billion will go to federal programs that the Office of Management and Budget or the Government Accountability Office have already criticized as "ineffective" or unable to pass basic financial audits. ...

Any Blue Dog Democrat who votes for this ought to turn in his "deficit hawk" credentials.

This is supposed to be a new era of bipartisanship, but this bill was written based on the wish list of every living -- or dead -- Democratic interest group. As Speaker Nancy Pelosi put it, "We won the election. We wrote the bill." So they did. Republicans should let them take all of the credit.

To View The Entire Article, Please Visit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123310466514522309.html

-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page

Rep Gingrey Steps Into The Limbaugh Brouhaha

Commentary:

A few days ago Mr. Obama told GOP leaders, "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done."

Recently Rush Limbaugh was criticised, out of context, for saying he wanted Obama to fail. Limbaugh actually said he wanted him to fail IF he pursued socialist policies, if he pursued policies that were bad for the country. What freedom loving American wouldn't want someone to fail if they were going to destroy the underpinning of our country? if they were going to move us from a democracy to socialism or worse?

Mr. Obama's showed his ignorance regarding how conservatives think, and he showed his bias, when he made his remarks. I seriously doubt if Mr. Obama has listened to Rush Limbaugh enough to have formed a balanced opinion of the show. I would bet that all he ever hears are the snippets played by the media when there's a controversy. I'd guess some of his staff and friends have reported things second-hand to him, also.

Of course, no one likes having holes poked in their policies. The Democratic caucus would prefer that conservative talk radio die a quick death. Talk show hosts across the country present an opposing view that raises the hackles of some.

I liken talk radio to the two party system. The mainstream media is the Democratic Party, talk radio is the Republican Party. Just like our current situation, the Dems are in the majority.

One of the best, and possibly worst, things about conservatives is our independent thinking process. We can listen to Rush and others, but we're not going to follow like sheep. Gosh, just look at the divergent views expressed by the most popular talk show hosts! They disagree with each other.

On the negative side, it's rather hard to get us all to rally around one candidate or issue simply because we are so independent minded. We'll stick to our principles to the detriment of the overall goal of electing Republicans at times.

I believe Mr. Obama and the Democratic caucus have a long term goal to shut down talk radio. They're very openly trying to enact the un-"Fairness Doctrine" which would do just that.

The so-called Fairness Doctrine is on the near-horizon. Conservatives and proponents of free speech should be concerned. Like Limbaugh or not, once the government successfully shuts down talk radio, they'll go after the next bastion of opposition be it newspapers, television or the Internet. In fact, with the growth of blogradio and similar on-line quasi-radio ventures, one has to wonder if they'll be included.

This is not a Rush Limbaugh issue, this is a free speech issue.

I don't think this is the last time Obama will paint Rush as a wedge that divides. I don't believe he's going to stop until he quiets all those who point out the flaws of his policies.

Yesterday Georgia Rep Phil Gingrey was interviewed by Politico and the current flap was brought up. Here are links to a blog about the interview and to the actual Politico article. I've also included some information on the "Fairness Doctrine" and encourage all everyone to learn more about this issue. - Janet McGregor Dunn

House GOP member to Rush: Back off
Rush Limbaugh may command a large following, but his caustic comments Monday about the GOP’s congressional leadership have at least one Republican House member defending his colleagues and offering an unusually candid critique of the talk radio powerhouse and his fellow commentators.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/18049.html

Rep Gingrey Steps Into The Limbaugh Brouhaha
Posted by: Danny Garner 01/28/2009 5:21 AM
In an interview yesterday with Politico Rep Phil Gingrey (GA-11) stepped into the dust up between Rush Limbaugh and Barack Obama. This whole soap opera started a couple of days ago when when Obama warned Republicans not to listen to Limbaugh.
"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
http://www.redcounty.com/cobb/2009/01/rep-gingrey-steps-into-the-lim/

Great site that "talks" you through the Fairness Doctrine: http://www.aclj.org/FairnessDoctrine/default.html

Petition to voice your opposition to the Fairness Doctrine: https://www.aclj.org/Petition/Default.aspx?sc=3293&ac=1

Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair
Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.

The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views....
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm