DV Journal

Struggling Americans told political candidates early in 2024 that healthcare costs topped the list of their financial worries.

Congress would do well to listen.

Hospital costs have been nothing short of a gluttonous sinkhole of American wealth.  Not only has inflation in those costs outpaced inflation in college tuition, the rate of increase has accelerated, even as Americans continue to pay more into the third-party payer system that is supposed to insure that the costs are “covered.”

In 2019, the Trump administration took an important first step toward solving the conundrum of healthcare costs when it announced an Executive Order—Improving Price and Quality Transparency in American Healthcare. Within months, Health and Human Services announced requirements to implement the executive order.

The order required hospitals to publish an easily readable file of their prices, while group health plans and insurance companies were to provide estimates of out-of-pocket costs and reveal what hospitals and physicians would receive before services were delivered.

When made public, this information would allow Americans, and the nearly 55 percent  of employers who pay for their employees’ health insurance to become consumers without blindfolds.

Accurate information on prices is essential to the functioning of a sane marketplace.

In case you missed it, American healthcare is not sane.

Despite even the Biden administration doubling down on the penalties for large hospitals not complying with the rules, the overwhelming majority of hospitals and healthcare systems ignored them. As of November, one source reported that only 21 percent are in full compliance.

Why have corporations felt free to thumb their nose at the government in this way?

The reason was obvious. The penalty was either negligible or not adequately enforced.

Then, on December 11, 2023, longsuffering taxpayers and abused patients were tossed a promising bouquet from the House of Representatives in the form of a bipartisan bill (H.R. 5378, The Lower Costs, More Transparency Act) that had originated in the Energy and Commerce Committee. When put before the entire House, the bill passed by a whopping majority of 320-71.

But something was off.

The heavy penalty the bill had originally sought to impose on institutions that failed to comply with the law had been greatly reduced. Things were again being set up to favor non-compliance, just as with that executive order of 2019 and the accompanying regulations promulgated later that year.

Even so, that walloping majority voted the way it did in the face of strenuous opposition from the American Hospital Association and other elements of this country’s increasingly corporatized healthcare delivery system.

An entire year has passed since that huge majority in the House voted as it did.

The Senate has taken no action on the bill.

Nothing has landed on the president’s desk for signature.

And now a window of opportunity is closing fast. A new administration and Congress will soon be distracted and buried by an avalanche of other business, and crises.

But if the current Congress—the Senate and House working together—and the Biden White House can act now, before the holidays, to turn this stalled legislation into law—with the original heavy penalty restored—a major victory will have been won in the war to restore sanity to a deranged healthcare system and its wildly distorted economics.

The incoming administration and Congress will have the wind at their backs in the continuing work to restore sanity to a desperately sick healthcare system.

Continued non-compliance with transparency requirements will be so painful that it will be unthinkable.

America wants, needs, and deserves to have a floodlight trained on the serpentine inner workings of its healthcare system and how it is paid for.

Waste, fraud, abuse, and profiteering thrive in darkness.

Legalized thievery thrives in darkness.

Come on, people!

Cram those senatorial voicemail and email inboxes to let your public servants know what they MUST do.

Drive those servants to move speedily—as in now—to restore the heavy penalty to the law that prohibits skulking in darkness and defying the bipartisan will of the nation’s elected political leadership.

Drive them to deliver that legislation NOW to the President’s desk for signature before the initiative is buried under the inevitable avalanche of new political business that will hit the new administration.

We, the People, demand it.

The call for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah (or Hamas) has become a common refrain in the media, diplomatic circles, and public discourse. The latest ceasefire deal championed by the Biden administration is nothing more than a farce. These calls are not just misguided—they are part of the problem.

Ceasefires do not bring peace; they preserve the status quo, allowing terrorist organizations to regroup, rearm, and renew their attacks. There is no scenario where a ceasefire results in lasting peace—it only delays the inevitable. If we want to end the cycle of violence, we need to stop entertaining the idea of a ceasefire and pursue real victory.

A ceasefire is often framed as a “pause” in hostilities. On the surface, it seems reasonable: halt the fighting temporarily to allow for humanitarian aid, broker a dialogue, and prevent further casualties. But in reality, ceasefires are nothing more than a reset button on an intractable conflict. They do not solve underlying issues, nor do they bring lasting peace. Instead, they only serve to maintain the status quo, leaving the door open for future violence.

The failure to acknowledge this is a dangerous delusion. There’s a fundamental difference between negotiating with a sovereign nation and negotiating with a terrorist organization. Nations have an interest in maintaining stability and peace because their survival depends on it. Terrorist organizations, however, are not interested in peace; they seek destruction. For Hezbollah, every ceasefire is just a tactical retreat—a chance to reload, reorganize, and rearm for the next wave of violence. There is no incentive for them to abide by agreements when their ultimate goal is the annihilation of Israel. Negotiating with such an entity on equal terms is not just naive; it’s counterproductive.

Ceasefires are not a victory. Wars are meant to be won, not tied. Conflicts are defined by power dynamics and survival, and any attempt at peace through a ceasefire with Hezbollah is akin to rewarding failure. It’s a participation trophy for an adversary that offers only violence. There is no reason to believe a temporary cessation of hostilities will lead to progress. This also comes at a time when Israel was systematically destroying the enemy and making it difficult, if not impossible for them to regroup. This postpones the inevitable—more violence, more death, and more suffering; or it sends the message that terrorism will be tolerated within certain boundaries.

The truth is that every time a ceasefire is called, Hezbollah wins. It buys them time to rearm, retrain, recruit new fighters, regroup their leadership, and prepare for the next round of attacks. The same rockets that targeted civilians before the ceasefire are fired again after it ends. The cycle of violence continues, and Israel is left with no choice but to defend itself again. This isn’t peace—it’s a vicious circle that keeps turning, consuming lives on both sides but never getting closer to resolution. UN Resolution 1701, which was supposed to keep peace, clearly didn’t work.

What we are witnessing is an illusion being sold as diplomacy by the Biden Administration. A ceasefire does nothing to address the root causes of conflict; it merely buys time for those who wish to destroy Israel. It’s like putting a Band-Aid on a bullet wound. The real solution lies not in negotiating with terrorists but in decisively defeating them. Israel must act in its own self-interest to ensure its survival, and that means rejecting the temptation of short-term appeasement. Victory, not compromise, is the only way forward. Let’s never forget there was a ceasefire on 10/6/23.

Moreover, the constant push for a ceasefire sends a dangerous message to the international community: terrorism is negotiable, something to be appeased rather than eradicated. The United States, the European Union, and other powers must recognize that calling for a ceasefire only rewards terrorism. It strengthens terrorist regimes, emboldens their supporters, and undermines Israel’s right to defend itself. To call for a ceasefire is to ignore the simple reality that Hezbollah will never be satisfied until it has wiped Israel off the map. The idea that this could lead to peace is both naive and dangerous.

There are no shortcuts to peace in the Middle East, and calling for a ceasefire is one of the greatest illusions of our time. The only way to end the madness is through victory. Israel must continue to decisively defeat and eradicate Hezbollah and make it clear that terrorism will not be tolerated. This is not about achieving temporary respite—it’s about ensuring long-term security, stability, and peace for future generations.

The time has come for world leaders to stop entertaining the notion of a ceasefire and focus on what matters: victory. Anything less is a betrayal of those who live under the shadow of terrorism. Wars are meant to be won, and only through victory can we break the cycle of violence and bring lasting peace to the region.

Republican governors gathered in Louisiana to let voters know they’re mad as hell about the Biden administration’s energy policy, and they’re not going to take it anymore.

“The inefficient and often unworkable mandates your administration continues to push are hitting Americans where it hurts the most – their pocketbooks,” the governors said in a letter to the White House.

Govs. Jeff Landry (La.), Doug Burgum (N.D.), Mike Dunleavy (Alaska), Brian Kemp (Ga.), Jim Pillen (Neb.), Chris Sununu (N.H.), Kevin Stitt (Okla.), and Glenn Youngkin (Va.) held a press conference at the foot of a major oil refinery in Chalmette, La. to reiterate that message.

“There is no one who knows more about the needs of Americans than governors,” said Landry. “Every day they’re in their state, every day they’re talking to regular people. They don’t live inside the Beltway. If the federal government took its foot off of the neck of American energy, we could absolutely lower the cost of everyday goods for American citizens.”

The governors say Biden’s energy policies “are costing American taxpayers $1.37 trillion and weakening America’s energy security.”

Pennsylvania’s Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro did not participate, but energy production is a key part of the state’s economy. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Pennsylvania is the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer after Texas, with natural gas output in the state totaling 7.5 trillion cubic feet in 2022.

It’s also the third-largest coal-producing state after Wyoming and West Virginia, and it is the second-largest coal exporter to foreign markets after West Virginia.

Stitt said the federal government “must stop picking winners and losers in this industry and let free markets and innovation flow.”

Burgum, who’s reportedly on Donald Trump’s shortlist for the vice president’s slot, said creating obstacles for American energy production only helps America’s adversaries.

“When you try to shut down an industry where innovation is thriving, you’re creating demand from places like Russia, Iran, and Venezuela – governments who don’t even have an EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) — forget the environment, they’re the ones funding the wars against us,” Burgum said.

“And if you’re on Team EV (electric vehicle), you’re on Team China.”

The Biden administration’s push to force more of America’s economy to go electric is raising risks for the electric grid in Pennsylvania and the surrounding region. The North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) lists the area served by grid operator PJM, which includes the Keystone State, as a region at elevated risk of electricity shortages during periods of high demand.

With more than half of Pennsylvania households using natural gas as their primary home heating fuel, converting to electric heat is only going to increase the risk to the grid. At the same time, the Biden administration’s EPA is shutting down coal-powered and other electricity generation.

“The Biden administration has hamstrung the American energy sector since day one,” said Craig Stevens, spokesman for the GAIN Coalition and former senior advisor to U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman. “De facto mandates for electric vehicles, the continual drawdown of our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and the ban on liquid natural gas export permits are just a few short-sighted policies that could have long-term effects on our energy security.”

Stevens praised the governors for “pursuing an all-of-the-above strategy means utilizing all the tools at our disposal.”

“The U.S. should remove its regulatory barriers against the energy industry and allow the free market to support all types of energy innovation.”

Dunleavy said his state of Alaska is currently facing more than 60 energy-related sanctions from the federal government. “I think Iran has nine,” he quipped.

“If you believe in the Green New Deal, you need to be mining here in America and not overseas,” he added.

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin said abandoning American-made energy efforts would mean “driving this country right into the stranglehold of China.”

“If the Biden administration continues this drive to strengthen our demand for Chinese industry, we are causing a further national security crisis than the one we’re already in,” he said.

The switch from coal to natural gas for power generation has reduced emissions and air pollutants, which has resulted in $450 billion to $1.04 trillion in public health benefits for Pennsylvanians.

The Marcellus Shale Coalition’s results are from data from the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and applied U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards. Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) spokeswoman said it then used EPA methods to assign a dollar value to each ton of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur oxides (SOx) reduced. Increased use of natural gas has improved air quality and helped alleviate respiratory ailments, meaning Pennsylvanians are saving healthcare costs, the group said.

The MSC’s findings come in the wake of new power plant emissions standards from the Biden administration that critics fear will jeopardize the reliability of the nation’s power grid and environmental gains by attacking natural gas generating capacity. As of 2032, baseload coal and new gas plants will be required to meet an emission standard equal to installing a carbon capture and sequestration system and running it at 90 percent efficiency.

As shale gas development became prevalent across the commonwealth and in-state natural gas electric generation increased from 5 percent to 59 percent between 2005-2022, emissions believed to contribute to respiratory ailments – NOx and SOx– are down by 81 percent and 93 percent respectively. The MSC said that yields between $7.9-$18.4 billion in NOx and $445.1 billion – $1.02 trillion in SOx cumulative public health benefits for the Keystone State.

“Pennsylvania’s energy leadership with the sustained development of clean natural gas is generating substantial benefits for our environment, economy and, as this data shows, the well-being of our communities,” said MSC President David Callahan. “Thanks to natural gas, Pennsylvanians breathe cleaner air than ever before, directly translating to improved quality of life for our residents.”

According to DEP data, between 2005 and 2022, the last year of available data, 11,127,515 fewer tons of SOx and 1,317,335 fewer tons of NOx were emitted from Pennsylvania’s electric power sector. These air pollutants are commonly associated with respiratory diseases such as asthma, pneumonia, bronchitis, and lung cancer.

“I’ve seen similar numbers of reduction throughout the entire PJM grid,” said state Sen. Gene Yaw (R-Bradford). PJM is the company that runs the regional power grid. “It reflects similar results since 2005. Carbon dioxide emissions are down by 43 percent, nitrogen oxide reduced 91 percent, and sulfur dioxide reduced 96 percent.  hose numbers are pretty impressive.”

Pennsylvanians are gaining health benefits from “the conversion to natural gas,” said Yaw, who noted so-called renewables will not keep the grid running efficiently anytime soon.

“Our electricity comes from 60 percent natural gas, 32 percent nuclear, 5 percent coal, and all renewables account for less than 3 percent, and 3 percent includes hydro,” said Yaw. “Those numbers are reflective of the benefits of natural gas. Natural gas is a necessary part (of power generation) if we are going to have any reliability.

“Renewables alone will not power our electricity grid. Those numbers are reflective of the benefits of natural gas in Pennsylvania. What we should be doing is promoting the clean energy of natural gas, exploring natural gas for both industry and electricity generation.”

Sen. Tracy Pennycuick (R-Montgomery) said, “The MSC analysis confirms what we’ve known for years: that Pennsylvania’s abundant supply of natural gas is the cleanest, most affordable, reliable fossil fuel and is less carbon intensive than other sources of energy. Pennsylvania is positioned to be a leader in energy development, production, and distribution. We must unleash our abundant supply of natural gas to further drive our economy and ensure our energy security.”

David Marks, the principal of energy consulting firm PA Energy Fuels, said, “The Marcellus Shale Coalition analysis of the benefits of burning natural gas versus coal for power generation requires a lot of number crunching.  But even without market details, we already know that natural gas burns much cleaner than coal or oil.

“And monetizing carbon emissions can be difficult, as the process is tied to moving targets: the fluctuating market value of carbon credits and the long-term effects on the health of people living in a variety of urban, suburban, and rural areas. This monetization process can also include physical carbon reduction activity including installing expensive infrastructure, identifying and realizing any tangible value including carbon capture and resale, and providing the leadership to manage this efficiently and constructively.

“Natural gas is a fossil fuel,” Marks continued, “though the global warming emissions from its combustion are much lower than those from coal or oil. Natural gas emits more than 50 percent, and up to 60 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) when burned in new, efficient natural gas-power plants compared with emissions from a typical new coal plant. This makes natural gas a relatively clean-burning fossil fuel.

“Burning natural gas for energy results in fewer emissions of nearly all types of air pollutants and carbon dioxide emissions than burning coal or petroleum products to produce an equal amount of energy. This makes natural gas, which primarily consists of methane, the cleanest burning fossil fuel. When methane is produced from non-fossil sources such as food and green waste (renewable natural gas), it can literally take carbon out of the air.

“The United States cut its coal power use in half between 2014 and 2022, replacing it with a combination of gas, solar and wind. The decline was largely due to utilities and grid operators relying more on these more efficient natural gas power plants,” said Marks. Not only are gas-fired power plants less expensive to build and operate than coal plants, but the fuel has consistently remained low in price since the Marcellus Phenomenon.  Marcellus production has flooded the market with natural gas, forcing the price down for more than a decade.  he growth of renewable energy has also contributed to coal’s retreat, but not nearly as much as the growth of gas.”

“Natural gas costs less, burns cleaner, is less expensive for power generation, and has always been a healthier alternative to burning coal or oil,” he added.

In Pennsylvania, America’s second-largest natural gas producing state, gas use in the electric power sector led to the largest year-over-year carbon emissions decline on record. Overall, carbon emissions from the state’s power sector are down 46 percent compared to peak 2005 levels. That is equivalent to removing 12.5 million cars from the road for a year – or removing every car in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and several neighboring states combined, the MSC said.

“The undeniable consumer, environmental and energy security gains afforded by Pennsylvania’s natural gas abundance should serve as a wakeup call for those convinced natural gas should not have a role in our future energy mix,” Callahan concluded.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

When the Biden administration in early September cited its “recognition of the Indigenous Knowledge of the original stewards of this area” in announcing the repeal of seven oil and gas leases on the North Slope of Alaska, it failed to mention that federal regulators did not consult with the Native Alaskans most directly affected.

Morrie Lemen, executive director of the Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS), said the leaders of his tribe weren’t informed of the administration’s decision until hours before it was announced by the Department of Interior, even though the Inupiat are the one tribal group who inhabit the land in question.

Moreover, the Inupiat are mandated by a previous executive order to be consulted by Interior about oil and gas leasing issues that affect the North Slope Burrough.

“When the ruling came down, we were contacted by Bureau of Land Management at the eleventh hour, about 45 minutes before the news came down they were canceling the permits,” Lemen said. “It took us by surprise. They said they contacted us for consultation, but they didn’t. We just wish the federal government would be more in tune with the rules.”

Making an end-run around the Inupiat’s opposition to the seven lease cancellations, Interior elicited contrary public statements of support from the Gwichʼin tribe, who don’t live in the North Slope Burrough that’s affected by the lease cancellations.

The Gwich’in inhabit a territory south of the Inupiat and 43 miles from the North Slope coast. Still, the tribe’s statement of support for the lease cancellations gave Interior the cover to sprinkle its announcement with phrases about honoring the traditions of Alaska Natives writ large, “who have relied on the land, water and wildlife to support their way of life for thousands of years.”

Lemen’s tribe of 13,500 people, who live in eight villages near or inside the Arctic Circle, rely heavily on oil and gas revenues to sustain themselves in a frigid climate, where buildings are difficult and expensive to erect, and keeping warm is a matter of life and death. They are a traditional subsistence hunting and fishing culture that depends upon the health of their natural environment, its fisheries, and wild game.

Revenues from oil and gas leases support the Inupiat villages’ basic infrastructure, including schools, medical facilities and public housing. Still, there is a shortage of residential building stock, and many families are forced to live with three generations crowded into small apartments, Lemen said. Without oil and gas revenues and related job opportunities, the Inupiat’s subsistence economy would collapse, he added.

“Fifty years ago, we didn’t even have running water,” Lemen said. “We’ve jumped into the 21st century at light speed and gone from no running water to electricity, but we wouldn’t support any development if we thought it would harm the environment. The oceans and lands are critical to our way of life.”

“We’ve co-existed with oil and gas drilling for five decades now, and it hasn’t spoiled any pristine landscapes,” Lemen said. “You can see caribou walking unbothered along pipelines. We wouldn’t support development if we thought it might damage our environment. The oceans and lands are critical to us. There are extreme drilling permit regulations in place to protect life here.”

Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan, both Republicans, and Rep. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, declared opposition to “two Alaska new anti-development decisions,” including “canceling the lawfully awarded leases to the Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority,” and Interior’s proposal to withdraw millions of acres within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

“Both moves are in direct contravention to Alaska-specific laws, lack scientific backing or consultation with Alaska Native stakeholders, tribes, and communities, and come at the worst possible time, geopolitically,” the joint release stated.

“Not only is this an affront to the rule of law, it’s also a grave injustice to the Inupiat people of the North Slope, especially the people of Kaktovik — the only village in ANWR,” Sullivan said. “As evidenced by this and so many of the administration’s actions negatively impacting the Alaska Native people, the idea of ‘equity’ is being exploited as a hollow political soundbite.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

Antitrust laws are complicated. Most Americans have a simple view of the underlying issue: If we pay higher prices because a big company blocks out all the competition, that’s unfair, and the government must act.

But the Biden administration is ushering in a new era of antitrust, based not on higher prices hurting consumers but on big companies having what the government believes is too much power. Even if consumers are getting services free, the administration argues, companies still need to face antitrust regulation.

That emerging view of antitrust can be found in lawsuits launched in recent weeks. The Justice Department is in court with Google over its phenomenally successful search engine, and the Federal Trade Commission is suing the popular online retailer Amazon over some of its Prime practices.

Those moves came months after both agencies proposed new guidelines for corporate mergers that would drastically expand government oversight by raising new potential regulatory problems. For example, the agencies would be able to rule on whether a merger would involve too many workers in one industry, theoretically hurting competition and leading to lower wages.

Other guidelines ask that mergers “not further a trend towards concentration” or “entrench or extend a dominant position.” What does that mean? Critics say the imprecise language is precisely the problem.

“These guidelines are so vague and expansive that they allow the government to haul up any company or executive on serious charges,” said Robert H. Bork Jr., president of the Antitrust Education Project. His father, the late Judge Robert H. Bork, created the consumer welfare standard that new FTC chief Lina Khan wants to set aside.

“You can get in trouble by raising prices, lowering prices, or leaving them the same. Anything can be defined as ‘predatory,’” Bork said.

The concerns are bipartisan. Two former Obama administration officials, Jason Furman and Carl Shapiro, wrote in The Wall Street Journal that the proposed guidelines “lack an adequate economic foundation. They contain a structural presumption against many vertical mergers unsupported by theory or evidence.”

Bilal Sayyed, who served in the FTC during the Trump administration, had a similar take. “The guidelines appear to reject antitrust economics as it has developed over the last 30 to 40 years. That is bad,” he said. “I think they are doing it in a way that does not rely on new theories and empirical results of advances in antitrust economics but moving back to a very structured analysis of the numbers of firms and maintaining firms and maintaining structures.”

Not so, said Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.

“Competition varies widely across industries and over time, and the nature of competition may be different from one merger to another,” Kanter said at Georgetown University’s annual Antitrust Law Symposium in September. “For example, so-called zero-price markets are increasingly important, with consumers exchanging their personal data and their time. Competition for platforms, on platforms, and to displace platforms is critical. Labor markets ensure competition for workers’ wages. And new forms of competition are frequently emerging, from generative AI to algorithmic pricing.”

Comparing it to the importance of protecting community hospitals from mergers, Kantor rhetorically asked if antitrust is “really working for the public when we reduce human life to a grayed-out triangle?” He said competition benefits the product and people because they are “so much more” than the aforementioned grayed-out triangle. 

“It is the beauty of a rival waking up each morning not knowing what its competitor will do next.”

“Nice emotional appeal, but it’s kind of a straw man argument,” countered Josh Withrow, a resident fellow of Technology and Innovation at R Street Institute. “Even under the consumer welfare standard, price is not the only point of analysis for competitive harm; harms to product quality and innovation are valid considerations as well.”

One explanation for the aggressive new merger guidelines could be Khan’s embarrassing losses in high-profile cases targeting Meta and Microsoft.

Withrow is not surprised by Khan’s record of failure. “Convincing courts to let go of (the consumer welfare) standard, which has been quite successful for the government for the last several decades, is going to be really, really hard without changes to the law.”

Why does the administration constantly go to court on antitrust cases?

“They believe they only have to win once to shift the paradigm, which is why they keep trying, despite defeat after defeat,” Bork said. “Ultimately, it will take a new president with a better vision and the next DOJ, FTC appointees to return FTC back to being a neutral authority.”

Calls for congressional action, always unlikely, appear particularly futile given the current state of D.C. politics and battles over basic actions like passing budgets. That doesn’t mean antitrust is dead, particularly with these merger guidelines.

“The private sector would live in permanent thrall to regulators and the politicians who control them,” said Bork of the administration’s merger guidance. “At its root, this is not about antitrust. It is about the exercise of power by the people in power over all private business.”

Please follow DVJournal on social media:Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal

The Congressional Review Act has proven its importance in holding the Biden administration accountable in a divided Congress. 

Conservatives in Congress won their very first legislative victory in March with a CRA resolution overturning a District of Columbia crime bill that would have reduced penalties for violent offenders. Under political pressure for surging crime in the District, President Biden caved and signed the CRA resolution, leaving progressives high and dry without any executive branch cover for voting against common sense.

Created in 1996 through the efforts of then-Rep. David McIntosh, R-Indiana, the CRA was constructed to empower Congress to keep the executive branch and D.C. in check, which the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority over. 

Rather than the typical 60 votes necessary to advance most policies in the Senate over the potential for a filibuster, CRA resolutions are “privileged measures” requiring only a simple majority. In the current Congress, that has meant that conservatives could hold Biden’s sprawling administrative state in check with the support of only one or two Democrats, and sometimes less than 51 votes. Convince the usual suspects of Democratic senators Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema or Jon Tester that a Biden policy has gone too far, and the CRA can be used to stop that policy in its tracks.

Conservatives also forced the first veto of the Biden presidency through a CRA resolution opposing a 401(k) rule that put progressive values over economic value for American workers. Advancing American Freedom launched a six-figure ad campaign, concentrated in Arizona and Montana (we had already flipped Manchin with a massive coalition letter effort that included key West Virginia stakeholders). As a result, we were able to protect the retirement accounts of hardworking Americans from progressives’ political games.

Last week, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed two CRA resolutions, overturning Biden’s overreach on heavy-duty vehicle emissions and his student loan bailout. The heavy-duty vehicle emissions rule would add thousands of dollars to the cost of every truck on the road, driving up already exorbitant transportation costs for consumers. According to the American Truck Dealers, costs could be as much as $42,000 per truck, and the EPA estimates the rule would impose a $55 billion burden on the trucking industry over the rule’s lifetime. The CRA, which already passed in the Senate with the support of Manchin, received support from four House Democrats in battleground districts.

The student loan rule would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, breaking our already broken higher education system. Rather than helping working-class Americans struggling to get by, this rule rewards the professional class and progressives with overly expensive gender studies degrees. 

The rule isn’t just a slap in the face to Americans who chose not to go to college because of the crippling expenses or those who worked hard to pay off their student loan debts — it’s a deeply misguided initiative that will actively encourage more reckless borrowing and stoke the flames of inflation. Even Biden has acknowledged that his authority is doubtful here. It’s clearly part of a corrupt political spoils system aimed at buying votes. While it did not get as many Democratic votes as the heavy-duty vehicle CRA, the student loan CRA passed with bipartisan support in the House and now moves to the Senate, where its fate will be determined.

Advancing American Freedom has been compiling a list of executive overreach called the Biden Accountability Tracker (BAT). The BAT tracks each significant policy decision made, executive action taken, or regulation promulgated by the administration that hurts the American people. This task has produced 171 entries in the past two years, the latest of which would be ripe for CRA action. 

The administration has aggrandized federal power at the expense of accountability, adopting a radical “whole-of-government” approach to nearly every political or policy issue. Defeating this destructive agenda is top of mind as conservatives look to take back control of Congress in 2024. In the meantime, we should use the CRA vigorously to swat down overreach. Let history remember 2023 as the year of the CRA.

This article first appeared in  The Mortgage Note

Changes to fees for loans backed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are under scrutiny after recent reports that homebuyers with good credit scores and substantial down payments will pay more starting May 1.

Last week, The Washington Times published an article with the headline “Biden to hike payments for good-credit homebuyers to subsidize high-risk mortgages.” Author Dave Boyer, a White House correspondent, wrote that although the changes are part of the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s push to make housing more affordable, they will negatively impact traditional borrowers.

“Mortgage industry specialists say homebuyers with credit scores of 680 or higher will pay, for example, about $40 per month more on a home loan of $400,000. Homebuyers who make down payments of 15% to 20% will get socked with the largest fees,” Boyer wrote.

Boyer reported that “lenders and real estate agents say the changes will frustrate homebuyers with high credit scores and homeowners seeking to refinance because the rule punishes them for their relatively strong financial positions.”

The next day, Fox News cited The Washington Times report and published “Biden rule will redistribute high-risk loan costs to homeowners with good credit.”

Rep. Warren Davidson, R-Ohio, who serves as the chairman of the Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance for the House Financial Services Committee, shared the Fox News article on social media, calling the changes “a socialist redistribution of wealth.”

The Subcommittee on Housing and Insurance has oversight of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and U.S. housing policy, according to a press release from Davidson’s team.

Editors at National Review and The Wall Street Journal have published opinion pieces criticizing the loan-level price adjustment fees.

The editors at National Review referred to The Washington Times and Fox News articles.

“FHFA director Sandra Thompson said the new rules (which would use the redistributed funds to reduce the interest rate paid by less qualified buyers) would ‘increase pricing support for purchase borrowers limited by income or by wealth.’ But income and wealth are and should be limiting factors in lending. It’s not good for borrowers to take on loans that may prove beyond their means to pay back,” the magazine’s senior editors wrote.

They argued that the incentive for potential borrowers to be financially responsible is reduced under this policy.

“This isn’t some hard-hearted nonsense. It’s a reflection of the fact that progressives in government often ignore the effects their decisions will have on the functioning of markets. There’s a place for sensible programs aimed at housing affordability, but if all the ones we already have aren’t working, it’s worth looking into why that’s the case and how they can be improved before adding yet another subsidy with perverse incentives to the mix,” they wrote.

The editorial board at The Wall Street Journal wrote that “income redistribution is an abiding value of the Biden Administration, and now it wants to spread that to mortgage lending.”

“This is the socialization of risk, and it flies against every rational economic model while encouraging housing market dysfunction and putting taxpayers at risk for higher default rates. The 20% down payment is a financial discipline that encourages buyers to seek homes they can afford, and it gives buyers skin in the borrowing game. No one wants to default on a mortgage when they could lose tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity they’ve built up in their homes,” they argued.

The WSJ editors wrote that the biggest problem with the change is fairness.

“Taxpayers already subsidize mortgages for low-income borrowers through the Federal Housing Administration. Now they want to punish those who have maintained good credit while rewarding those who haven’t. In the name of making housing more equal, they are pursuing an inequitable policy,” they wrote.

How will borrowers be affected by these changes?

Under the fee changes, borrowers with high credit scores will still pay less than those with low credit scores. The difference is the penalty for having a lower score will be smaller.

Medora Lee, a financial reporter for USA Today, explained the new loan-level price adjustment matrix in an article published on Sunday.

“For example, if you have a score of 659 and are borrowing 75% of the home’s value, you’ll pay a fee equal to 1.5% of the loan balance. Before these changes, you would have paid a 2.75% fee. On a hypothetical $300,000 loan, that’s a difference of $3,750 in closing costs. On the other end, if you have a credit score of 740 or higher, you would have paid a 0.25% fee on a loan for 75% of your home value before May 1. After that date, you could pay as much as 0.375%,” Lee wrote.

Experian’s analytics team reviewed the loan-level price adjustment fees by looking at a sample population of loans representative of 2022 GSE originations. They found approximately 35% of borrowers would have seen a fee increase over the prior grids, according to Cristian Lopez, vice president of data solutions.

Lopez said the consumers who should expect to see the largest fee increases are borrowers seeking a cash-out refinance, where 60% of the population analyzed using the 2022 data would have experienced higher fees with an average increase of 55bps.

Another FHFA fee change is scheduled to go into effect on Aug. 1 for borrowers with a 40% or more debt-to-income ratio.

What do Silvergate, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank have in common?

They’re all crypto-focused banks being targeted by financial regulators in their latest attempt at “Operation Choke Point,” the dystopian campaign to pressure banks into closing accounts of legal businesses that run afoul of the ideological goals of the White House.

The financial press has spilled plenty of ink over the past month to set the narrative around the “collapse” of these banks. Silvergate faced a liquidity crisis due to “rapidly rising bond rates”; Silicon Valley Bank was subject to a bank run sparked by “greedy tech raider” Peter Thiel; and Signature Bank … well, don’t worry about it — it just needed to be shut down while everyone was distracted by the other two banks!

But none of these narratives hold water given that this liquidity crisis is hitting nearly every bank in America. With the re-opening of the discount window and introducing the new Bank Term Funding Program, Silvergate and SVB could easily have weathered their liquidity crunch instead of being forced into closure and auction. Why these properties are being auctioned instead of receiving the relief all other banking institutions are now getting is a question for the ages.

Or, more specifically, it may be a question for newly re-appointed FDIC Chair Marty Gruenberg, who spearheaded the original Operation Choke Point and seems to have been called back to finish the job. This time, the surging cryptocurrency market is in the crosshairs. The barrage of recent anti-crypto sentiment is no coincidence, such as President Biden’s “Economic Report,” which disparages crypto a staggering 255 times. Thankfully, the White House is meeting some serious opposition to their crusade against crypto, as evidenced by Minnesota Republican Rep. Tom Emmer’s incisive letter to Gruenberg last month.

Yet, the greatest resource in understanding the Choke Point 2.0 agenda is Silvergate Bank’s official auction documents. Reuters reported that a requirement for any purchaser would be to abandon any crypto business activities formerly provided by the bank. Amazingly, this report was swiftly contradicted by an official FDIC comment claiming that crypto restrictions were not part of the deal, only for the world to learn days later that the new owner of Signature Bank (New York Community Bancorp) would, indeed, be dropping all of Signature’s existing $4 billion crypto ventures.

They say where there’s smoke, there’s fire. But in this case, there was already plenty of smoke, fire and a mountain of public evidence showing an apparent authoritarian attack on legal crypto businesses providing customers with a much-desired service. Perhaps nothing makes the truth clearer than former Congressman Barney Frank opining that the shutdown of Signature Bank (for whom he provided Board oversight) was clearly motivated by anti-crypto animus.

Many legal crypto companies have lost critical services (or folded altogether) in response to the White House’s regulatory tightening. OKcoin has lost its U.S. funding rails, Kraken has suspendedits ACH deposits/withdrawals (but still has other U.S. funding options), and Bittrex has pulled out of the United States altogether. To add insult to injury, crypto juggernaut Coinbase — which has been in active compliance dialogue with the SEC for years — was just served a Wells notice.

Amazingly, Bitcoin leaped to a 40 percent gain within days of the banking decision (with the broader cryptocurrency market following closely behind) and has held on to these gains a full month later. This is perhaps the strongest proof that the promise of Bitcoin — a decentralized currency outside of the control of governments and big banks — is finally strong enough to stand up to the rigged insiders who have long overstayed their welcome. Bitcoin is now “too big to fail” (in terms of the belief of its millions of adherents) and has finally “called the bluff” of overzealous regulators, responding to massive attacks with even more massive spikes in the price for the anti-fragile asset class.

The harder governments try to tame crypto, the more they prove why it is so necessary in a world fully captured by a few legacy financial interests. It is more fitting than ever to reflect on the message encoded in the first Bitcoin block on January 3, 2009, a headline from The London Times: “Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks — billions may be needed as lending squeeze tightens.” 

It seems that the whole world is awake to this never-ending magical thinking masquerading as sound financial policy, and Bitcoin is leading the pack by loudly proclaiming the emperor indeed isn’t wearing any clothes.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal