Instead of dealing with the high jinks of big Wall Street banks, the bill is going to take over Main Street lending and on top of it create a new czar to make decisions about millions of Main Street transactions across America.  It looks like Washington is about to start regulating your daughter’s dentist bill, the plumber, and the storeowners up and down Main Street who give you flexible credit.  That’s going to make credit harder to get because the dentist or the plumber or the storeowner is going to say, “I’m not going to fool with it.  I don’t want to be regulated by some Washington bureau, so if you want to buy my goods, go to the bank and get some money or get another credit card.

That’s going to slow down the economy.  That’s going to make jobs harder to create because it’s going to make credit harder to obtain and harder to offer. If our real intention in Congress on both sides of the aisle was not to interfere with Main Street lending, then we should have actually done that.  Republicans offered an amendment that would have done that, but it was defeated by the Democratic majority.

And we don’t need another czar.  But suddenly, we have this new Washington agency not only possibly regulating Main Street lending, but with an unaccountable person running it who writes the rules and regulations.

On top of all this, the United States’ total debt is about to reach $13 trillion. That means we’re racing past a yellow flag to a large red flag that’s waving in the wind and saying, “Stop the train before we run off the fiscal cliff.”

The Democratic Congress seems to be totally unaware of this big red flag and this fiscal cliff toward which we’re headed.  It continues to take steps to pass the president’s budget, which will double our debt in five years and triple it in 10.

The elections this May are one more reminder that the November election will be primarily about too much spending, too much debt, too many taxes and electing Republican senators to put a check and a balance on a runaway Washington government.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, (R-Tenn.), can be reached in his Washington, D.C. office at (202)224-4944.

During 2009, America’s national energy policy looked more like a national windmill policy — the equivalent of going to war in sailboats. If we were going to war, the United States would not think of putting its nuclear navy in mothballs. Yet, we did mothball our nuclear plant construction program — our best weapon against climate change, high electricity prices, polluted air and energy insecurity. Although 107 reactors were completed between 1970 and 1990 producing 20 per­cent of our electricity today — which is 69 percent of our carbon free electricity — the United States has not started a new nuclear reactor in 30 years.

Instead of using our own invention to catch up with the rest of the world, President Obama in his inaugural address set out on a different path: America would rely upon “the sun, the winds and the soil” for energy. There was no mention of nuclear. Windmills would produce 20 percent of our electricity. To achieve this goal, the federal government would commit another $30 billion in subsidies and tax breaks.  To date, almost all the subsidies for renewable energy have gone to windmill developers — many of whom are large banks, corporations and wealthy individuals. Last year’s stimulus bill alone contained $2 billion in windmill subsidies — nearly 80 percent of which went to overseas manufacturers. And despite the billions in subsidies, not much energy is being produced. Wind accounts for just 1.3 percent of America’s electricity, available only when the wind blows since wind power can’t be stored except in small amounts.

Also, conservation groups have begun to worry about “renewable energy sprawl.” For example, producing 20 percent of U.S. electricity from wind would cover an area the size of West Virginia with 186,000 turbines and require 19,000 new miles of transmission lines. And these are not your grandmother’s windmills. Turbines are up to 50 stories high. Their flashing lights can be seen for twenty miles. And yet an unbroken line of giant turbines along the 2,178-mile Appalachian Trail (except for coastlines, ridge tops are about the only place turbines work well in much of the East) would produce no more electricity than four nuclear reactors on four square miles of land — and, of course, you’d still need those reactors for when the wind doesn’t blow.

The simpler possibility that exists for producing lots of low-cost, reliable, green electricity is to build 100 new nuclear plants, doubling U.S. nuclear power production. Unlike wind turbines, 100 new reactors would require few new trans­mission lines through suburban backyards and pristine open spaces. They would also require much less taxpayer support. At current rates of subsidy, taxpayers would shell out $170 billion to subsidize the 186,000 wind turbines necessary to equal the power of 100 reactors. While federal government loan guarantees are probably necessary to jump-start the first few reactors, once we’ve proven that reactors can be built without delays or huge cost overruns, no more loan guarantees will be needed.  In fact, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) just finished rebuilding the $1.8 billion Browns Ferry reactor on time and on budget, proving it can be done — and the project has shown to be so successful that TVA now expects to have the project paid off in half the time originally anticipated.  Yet even if all $54 billion in loan guarantees defaulted — which isn’t going to happen — it would still be less than one-third of what we’re putting into wind.

Fortunately, with the arrival of 2010 has come a more welcoming environment for nuclear power. In his State of the Union address, President Obama called for “a new generation of safe, clean nuclear reactors.” His 2011 budget request recommends tripling loan guaran­tees for the first reactors, and in February his administration announced the awarding of the first two loan guarantees for nuclear power. He has selected distinguished members, both for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and for a new Blue Ribbon Commission to figure out the best way to dispose of spent nuclear fuel. Democratic senators — several of whom, in fairness, have long been supporters of nuclear energy — have joined the 40 Republicans to create bipartisan sup­port. Last December, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia, a former Navy secretary, and I introduced legislation to double nuclear power production and to accelerate support for alternative forms of clean energy.

One day, solar and other renewable energy forms will be cheap and efficient enough to provide an important supplement to our energy needs and can do so in a way that minimizes damage to treasured landscapes. Today, nuclear power beats windmills for America’s green energy future.

For more information, please visit my Web site http://alexander.senate.gov and read my book, Going to War in Sailboats.

Sen. Lamar Alexander, (R-Tenn.), can be reached in his Washington, D.C. office at (202)224-4944.

In my letter to the president, I pointed out that under the president’s health insurance plan, millions of Americans’ individual premiums would go up, because of many reasons, including one-size-fits-all government mandates and taxes that are passed on to consumers.  Further, when you dump 15 to 18 million people into a program called Medicaid, which doesn’t pay the doctors and the hospitals well enough to take care of those folks, then the hospitals will shift the costs onto people with private insurance. In other words, their private premiums will go up. Also, premium costs for young people will go up under this plan, because if you put in a rule that says my insurance at my age can only be a certain amount higher than my son’s insurance, then his insurance will charge him more to make up the difference.

Not everyone will buy insurance

Finally, a scheme like the Democratic plan depends upon requiring everybody to buy insurance, but their penalty to encourage that is weak, and I suspect many young and/or healthy people would just rather pay the $750 fine rather than buy the $2,500 insurance policy, which they can’t afford.

The president made the point in his usual, persuasive way that you’d be getting better insurance. But as George Will said on ABC’s This Week last Sunday, “If the government required you to buy a better, more expensive car, even if it was better than the car you’ve got, it would still be more expensive.” And that’s the case with the president’s health care plan.

In fact, individual premiums will go up for millions of Americans — even more than they otherwise would over the next several years, and we all know how rapidly they’re rising. The whole exercise that we’ve been going through over the last year with health care reform was supposed to bring premiums down — not help drive premiums up.

Common sense tells us that if you tax an insurance company or a medical device company or a manufacturer of drugs, they’ll pass the taxes on to whom? To us, who are buying the insurance policies, or medical devices or drugs. In fact, the president’s proposal does just that.

His plan has a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost private insurance plans which we call “Cadillac Plans.”  Congress’ Joint Committee on Taxation, on February 24, said that a 40 percent excise tax will raise $7 billion, all of which will be passed along to consumers in the form of higher insurance premiums.

More taxes

And there are other taxes in the president’s proposal — up to half a trillion dollars in new taxes, which will be passed on to consumers: $20 billion on excise taxes on lifesaving medical devices, $33 billion on drugs, $60 billion on health insurance companies.

The American people have tried to say in every way they know how that they don’t want this bill — through elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and Massachusetts; through surveys and townhalls — that they would like for us to start over.  If we do that, we can write a good health care bill — one that sets as its goal reducing, not increasing — costs, both to individuals and their government. It means putting aside this idea of jamming the president’s bill through in a partisan way.  And it means going step by step together to re-earn the trust of the American people.

200,000-plus Tennessee students to be overcharged on student loans – to pay for health care

The Obama Administration’s philosophy seems to be: “If you can find it in the Yellow Pages, the government ought to be doing it.”

While health-care reform occupies the spotlight, the Obama administration is pushing for another Washington takeover — this time of the student loan system. And here’s something you probably haven’t heard: this takeover of student loans will help pay for the Democrats’ health care bill.

A preliminary CBO estimate released on March 18th indicates that not only will the health care bill cut Medicare, raise taxes, raise individual premiums for millions of Americans, and send to states big new costs that likely will require state tax increases. It will also overcharge 19 million students on their student loans — as I said, to help pay for the Democrats’ health care bill.

This is how it will work: the federal government will borrow money at 2.8 percent and then lend it to students at 6.8 percent — spending the difference on health care and new government programs. In Tennessee, more than 200,000 students have student loans, so what this latest takeover means is that those Tennessee students will, on average, pay $1,700-1,800 more in interest over 10 years — to fund the Democrats’ health care bill, instead of using that money to reduce college costs for students. According to the preliminary CBO estimate, the new bill will take $9.1 billion over 10 years from students’ interest payments to pay for this health care takeover.

Unfair overcharging for loans will help pay for health care

This latest Washington takeover would deprive 15 million students — who voted with their feet and chose private instead of direct loans last year — of choosing among 2,000 community lenders and nonprofits. Washington will throw out of work 31,000 Americans who are now helping students apply for loans. They’ll replace these lenders with the equivalent of four federal call centers, making the process of getting their loans about as friendly as going to the Department of Motor Vehicles for a driver’s license. And Washington will do this by adding half a trillion dollars to the federal debt — and worst of all, by overcharging students for their loans.

Today, roughly 2,000 lenders offer government-backed student loans on more than 4,000 campuses. One lender, Edsouth, offers Tennessee students college and career counselors, financial-aid training, and college-admissions assistance; performs hundreds of presentations at Tennessee schools; and works with 12,000 Tennessee students to improve their understanding of the college-admissions and financial-aid process.

If this latest Washington takeover goes through, Edsouth and other nonprofit lenders will no longer be able to provide these services, depriving students of real choices in lending.

The student loan “Banker of the Year” will be the only student loan banker left: the education secretary in Washington. Imagine trying to get all Edsouth’s services from a federal call center.

I was education secretary for President George H.W. Bush when, in 1991, Congress offered students a choice to borrow from a local lender or the Education Department. In 2008, 15 million students chose nongovernment lenders — and only 4 million students chose to get their loans from Washington.

If this Washington takeover happens, I propose that all 19 million-plus student loans made by the government carry this warning label: “Beware: Your federal government is overcharging you so your representative can take credit for health care and more government programs. Enjoy the extra hours you work to pay off your student loan.”

Sen. Lamar Alexander, (R-Tenn.), can be reached in his Washington, D.C. office at (202)224-4944.

Senator Reid’s bill — which he has been writing in secret for the past six weeks—is appropriate for the season: It’s the same turkey you didn’t like in August, and it’s not going to taste any better on Thanksgiving. Not much has changed. The bill still means higher premiums, it still means higher taxes, and it still cuts Medicare. It’s still 2,000 pages, and it still costs more than $2 trillion when fully implemented — and that doesn’t take into account a quarter-trillion-dollar doctors’ Medicare reimbursement. And it still sends struggling states new Medicaid costs that will force states to raise taxes or damage higher education or both.

It still leaves 24 million Americans uninsured.

There are also $28 billion in new taxes on employers who have to pay a fine when they don’t provide employer-based insurance. Under this bill, the chances are very good you could lose the insurance you have today. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says about five million Americans will lose their employer-sponsored insurance. It could be a lot more since employers will read this big, complicated bill and say, “I don’t want anything to do with that. I would rather pay the fine. I will write a check to the government. Then I will write a letter to all of my employees and say: ‘Congratulations, there is a new government plan, and you are in it.’”

You might be asking what that government plan will look like. Well, take the largest one we have, Medicaid (which we call TennCare in Tennessee), for low-income Americans. Fifty percent of doctors will not see new patients in that program because of the low government reimbursement rates.

Senator Reid’s bill relies on the states to pay for some of Medicaid, which concerns me greatly as your former governor. Our current Democratic governor said earlier versions of this bill would add $1 billion or more to state taxes or spending over the next five years which could require a new state income tax or seriously damage higher education — or both.

There is also a new Medicare payroll tax. The money that is raised from that is not spent on Grandma; it’s not spent on fixing Medicare. It is spent on a new program. So we are going to cut Medicare and tax Medicare and not spend it on Medicare, which is going broke in 2015. We need to start over.

We should move step-by-step to reduce to re-earn the trust of the American people and lower health care costs. There’s still time to act on those steps which Republicans have repeatedly proposed: let small businesses pool resources for health insurance; allow purchasing of health insurance across state lines; end junk lawsuits against doctors; eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse; expand health savings accounts; and promote wellness and prevention. n

In 1971, Chuck Colson, who was then a member of President Nixon’s staff and today is admired for his decades of selfless work in prison reform, presented to John Dean, the White House Counsel, a list of what he called “persons known to be active in their opposition to our administration.” Mr. Dean said he thought the administration should “maximize our incumbency … [or] to put it more bluntly” — and I am using his quotes — “use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.”

Now make no mistake, politics was not such a gentlemanly affair in those days, either. What was different about Colson’s and Dean’s effort, though, was the open declaration of war upon anyone who seemed to disagree with administration policies. Colson later expanded his list to include hundreds of people, including Joe Namath, John Lennon, Carol Channing, Gregory Peck, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Congressional Black Caucus and Alabama Governor George Wallace. All this came out during the Watergate hearings. You could see an administration spiraling downwards. And, of course, we all know where that led.

I have an uneasy feeling, only 10 months into this new administration, that we’re beginning to see symptoms of this same kind of animus developing in the Obama administration.

According to Politico, the White House plans to “neuter the United States Chamber of Commerce,” an organization with members in almost every major community in America. The Chamber had supported the president’s stimulus package and some of his early appointments, but has problems with his health care and climate change proposals.

The Department of Health and Human Services imposed a gag order on a large health care company, Humana, who had warned its Medicare Advantage customers that their benefits might be reduced in Democratic health care reform proposals — a piece of information that is perfectly true. The White House communications director recently announced that the administration would treat a major television network, Fox News, as “part of the opposition.”

The president has not stopped blaming banks and investment houses for the financial meltdown even as it has become clear that Congress played a huge role, too, by encouraging Americans to borrow money for houses they couldn’t afford. He was “taking names” of bondholders who resisted the GM and Chrysler bailouts. Insurance companies, once the allies of the Obama health care proposal, have suddenly become the source of all our health care problems — because they pointed out, again correctly, that if Congress taxes insurance premiums and restricts coverage to those who are sicker and older, the cost of premiums for millions of Americans is likely to go up instead of down.

Because of the insubordination, the president and his allies have threatened to take away the insurance companies’ antitrust exemption. The president himself, in his address to Congress on health care, threatened to “call out” members of Congress who disagreed with him.

This behavior is typical of street brawls and political campaign consultants.

It is a mistake for the president of the United States and the White House staff. If the president and his top aides treat people with different views as enemies instead of listening to what they have to say, they’re likely to end up with a narrow view and a feeling that the whole world is out to get them. And as those of us who served in the Nixon administration know, that can get you into a lot of trouble.

As any veteran of the Nixon White House can attest, we’ve been down this road before and it won’t end well. An “enemies list” only denigrates the presidency and the republic itself.

These are unusually difficult times, with plenty of forces encouraging us to disagree. I offer the Obama administration a gentle suggestion that it not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list. The administration needs to push the street-brawling out of the White House and work together on the truly presidential issues: creating jobs, reducing health care costs, reducing the debt and creating clean energy.