Perspective

The Good, the Bad, and the Predictably Ugly

Mon, 13 Feb 2012 20:40:00 GMT

The long awaited announcement last week that the Obama Justice Department and state attorneys general have reached a settlement with five of the largest mortgage lenders over foreclosure practices contains a mixed bag of consumer benefits: a regrettable lack of connection between the alleged legal violations and remedy provided, coupled with the all too familiar grandstanding by the Democratic attorneys general. As Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt indicated when his state refused to join the settlement, this settlement went beyond the actual alleged legal violations. It contains generous terms for those who may have fallen victim to shoddy foreclosure practices, but equally generous benefits for those who were never subject to any such practices. While I suspect that many of his fellow Republican attorneys general agree with Pruitt's assessment, it is completely understandable given the dire housing market that some conservative attorneys general would reluctantly sign on to the settlement. And so it is that this settlement, which even the Washington Post described as "rough justice", is firmly located in the American political neighborhood at the intersection of "Principles Street” and "Pragmatism Avenue.”

The banks should not be faulted for being willing to settle. Like all businesses, the mortgage lenders need regulatory certainty and predictability. In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Congress did not enact laws requiring "cram downs" on mortgages and other features included in this settlement. The American public was truly divided on wanting to help get the housing market back on its feet and not wanting to reward irresponsible behavior - after all, while there were lenders that were making ill-advised and irresponsible loans, there were also consumers on the other side willing to accept them. (Yes, yes, I realize that some consumers probably could not understand the complex terms of the mortgages, but who, making $35,000 a year, would not wonder why they were being lent enough money to buy a $500,000 home with no money down and a poor credit history?)

Nonetheless, when the "robo-signing" controversy erupted, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller saw an opening to force a policy outcome Congress was unwilling to implement using the leverage of substantial yet more narrow legal violations. At first, many Republican attorneys general balked at this clear overreach, but the banks were willing to negotiate because they began to see a path to regulatory certainty and predictability much like the tobacco companies in the early 1990s. Thus, another industry participates in an historical settlement, this one with a $26 billion price tag, second only to the tobacco settlement of 1998 that officially positioned state attorneys general as the "cops on the beat" for corporate America.

In the tobacco settlement, conservative Democrat and Republican attorneys general (particularly from tobacco growing states) initially refused to join in the litigation. In the end, they reluctantly signed on because of tremendous long-term financial benefits to their states. With last week’s settlement, history has repeated itself for Republican attorneys general in states with record foreclosures and still suffering housing markets. How do you not participate in a settlement that will provide relief to consumers and even possibly boost the housing market itself? Understandably, these Republicans participated, while equally understandable, General Pruitt negotiated a separate, smaller settlement for his own state of Oklahoma, which is not in as bad of shape as Florida or Arizona. Republican attorneys general respect the rule of law, fight for their constituents, and, at the same time, recognize that federalism does not necessarily mean that one size must fit all for every state. In contrast, the Democratic attorneys general led by Tom Miller investigate by press release, ignore the constraints of the law they are sworn to enforce, and focus exclusively on policy outcomes to legal matters.

General Miller's frustration - Harvard law degree notwithstanding - is that he is just the Attorney General of Iowa, while New York is the financial capital of the world and California is, well, just big. So while Iowa is nationally important on a cold January night every four years, many watched with amusement as General Miller booted Attorney General Schneiderman off the vaunted Executive Committee for negotiations with the banks, only to then have President Obama appoint General Schneiderman as co chair of a joint task force to investigate the financial crisis on national television. This drama unfolded just as General Miller was putting the finishing touches on his grand settlement. As for New York and California’s concerns about a settlement precluding future civil or criminal claims being brought, I think the average American would say “if you have a case, bring it.” Otherwise, it has been over three years since the financial crisis, and it is time for closure.

This all just points to the absurd and predictably ugly outcome that occurs when a government investigation becomes unhinged from the facts of law and becomes a search for a grand policy outcome. So as the Democrat attorneys general take yet another trip down "Grandstanding Boulevard" in our American political neighborhood, we should be grateful that consumers will get some relief and that the banks were truly cooperative - while fully expecting another spectacle to arise alongside the next economic crisis in our country so long as these Democratic attorneys general go unchecked.

Walking Out On Leadership

Tue, 24 Jan 2012 15:38:00 GMT

Democratic Legislators Defy Voters and Constitution by Refusing to Govern.

Democrats in state legislatures across the country are picking up in 2012 precisely where they left off in 2011 - with brazen "election nullification" tactics. The Democrats participating in these undemocratic and unlawful election nullification exercises do so under the guise of protecting a "fundamental policy issue." I am talking about, of course, the practice of legislators not coming to the chamber floor to deny a legislative body the required quorum of members present. The most recent case is in Indiana, where Big Labor is opposing Republican efforts to enact a right to work law. While some might question the term "election nullification" as too dramatic, it's actually the simplest way to describe the intent of the actors here: to prevent public policy changes enacted by lawfully elected Republican majorities. Perhaps the Democrats would have a defense to this election nullification claim if they could show that quorum requirements were intended for these instances of "fundamental policy" as an additional "check" in a state's constitutional system of checks and balances.

Let's take a look at the quorum requirement to see if anything suggests a justification of the Democrats' actions. First, quorum requirements are not unique to legislative bodies – corporate boards, membership organizations, and other entities that require collective action all necessitate them. The quorum requirement is meant to protect "against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons," according to Robert's Rules of Order. Per West's Encyclopedia of American Law, "the purpose of a quorum rule is to give decisions made by a quorum enough authority to allow binding action to be conducted." Quorum requirements are meant to be a shield against action by a minority of representatives that do not constitute a sufficient number of elected officials to say that the body as a whole participated in the action. In contrast, we've recently watched Democrat legislators in Indiana and last year in Wisconsin use the quorum requirement as a sword to prevent the legislative process from moving forward. Whether the legislators are physically in their home Capitols but refusing to come to the floor or holed up in hotels just across the state line – the willful acts of this minority of legislators, ironically enough, are effectively doing the exact same harm to the constitutional system of government that quorum rules seek to prohibit. And, that is, the tyranny of the minority.

It's time to call a spade a spade. Democratic legislators who flee their states or fail to come to the floor in order to deny a legislative quorum are engaging in election nullification. Having lost the 2010 elections, the Democrats are simply "taking their ball and going home." Acting as a sore loser and playing the martyr is something that Americans on a bipartisan basis disdain. On the issue of election nullification, the Democrats themselves are not even united in philosophy. Having taken control of the Virginia Senate in the 2011 elections by virtue of a Republican Lieutenant Governor to break ties between a 20-20 partisan split, Virginia Senate Democrats have consistently ruled out not showing up for Session to thwart the Republicans' efforts to pass reform legislation this year. The actions of these Virginia Senate Democrats make it clear that there is bipartisan rejection of election nullification in this country. Let's keep it that way and call it what it is. Today, I will start tweeting more examples of election nullification tagged with #electionnullification and encourage others to follow suit. The press, business leaders, and advocates of good government should start calling this behavior what it is: anti-democratic and fundamentally corrosive to constitutional government.

Federal Failure on Immigration

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 18:47:00 GMT

In multiple states, state leaders are courageously stepping in to address illegal immigration, one of the federal government’s biggest policy failures since, well, since the federal government assumed control of immigration on April 18, 1890. It is well understood that no matter how carefully crafted one’s words are on this issue, there will be those from both the right and the left who take exception. Nonetheless, when it comes to the federal government’s role, the recent actions of the Obama Administration – as reported by the Washington Post require a response on behalf of the Republican state legislators and attorneys general who are actually facing the problem daily and working to address it in their states.

After nearly three years of refusing to take action and doing nothing to push a comprehensive immigration reform bill, the Obama Administration has finally decided to act. And what is the Administration’s plan? The plan boils down to blocking state efforts to address immigration that are born solely, and not ironically, from the Obama Administration’s failure.

While President Obama may be cynically trying to lift the hopes of Hispanic voters with soaring rhetoric of immigration reform, those hopes have been dashed by the reality of a near full-term passing without any kind of real push for reform. Hispanic voters know what a real effort to reform immigration looks like because President Bush showed them in a concerted effort from 2006-2007. Whether one agrees with the former President’s approach, there is no denying he put some “skin in the game” by sending cabinet secretaries to the Hill and launching a full and sustained campaign that combined public events with private working groups to try and forge a consensus.

While the efforts ultimately came up short on June 28, 2007 when the bill was defeated in the Senate, Hispanic voters now have a clear comparison between one President who took action and another who talks action.

This egregious failure at the federal level has led Republican state legislators, governors, and attorneys general to work in earnest to pass reforms and defend them in court. No fewer than 22 states introduced Arizona-like immigration legislation in 2011. Five of these 22 – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah – now join Arizona in having passed stringent immigration laws.

To be clear, like so many issues in both parties, there is not a consensus among Republicans about what should be done to address illegal immigration. What is clear, though, is simple – the Republican Party is united in favor of legal immigration and opposed to illegal immigration. Our country was built on a series of immigration waves over the past 200 years. So many immigrants to America, then and now, come for the opportunities this country provides not for entitlements. The Republican Party knows this and celebrates this fundamental strength of America. But Republicans also know that a free society must honor the rule of law and this means a zero-tolerance policy for rewarding illegal immigration.

The Republican State Leadership Committee is supporting leaders as they govern and fight back against the Obama Administration's dearth of pro-active steps and trampling of state’s rights. The RSLC leadership’s recent focus has been to launch The Future Majority Project this year, a three-tiered effort to recruit and support 100 new Hispanic candidates at the state legislative level. For too long, policymakers have failed to accurately communicate a conservative Republican message to Hispanics, or worse, have proposed policy decisions without understanding. The RSLC recognizes that by bringing representation to an inherently conservative Hispanic community Hispanics will have a louder voice within the Republican Party. There are no better emissaries of public policy than Hispanic Republicans who know their communities and can bridge the gap in communication and understanding.

It is time the President stop attacking states that take action on immigration. The pandering must end and the federal over-reach most stop. Republicans have an opportunity to show leadership on this issue and, on the state level, they are doing just that. After November 6, 2012, there will be many more Hispanic Republicans joining that effort, and this is terrific news.

The National Dems' identification crisis

Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:31:00 GMT

Check out the latest piece by RSLC President Chris Jankowski as published in the Politico.

Former President Bill Clinton, addressing a liberal group Wednesday, likened Republican state legislative efforts to address voter fraud to the days of Jim Crow and poll taxes.

Aside from the fact that his charges are designed to distract and manipulate public opinion using the worst kind of racial politics, his line of attack is only the latest attempt to shift the nation’s focus from the Democrats’ failure to address critical economic problems facing American families and businesses.

It will not work.

The reality is that Democrats can’t seem to grasp that voter fraud is a crime and a fundamental danger to our democracy. Every time voter fraud is committed, the value of every vote is diminished and the fundamental principle of one person, one vote is undermined.

Or, according to the report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker, “fraud in any degree and in any circumstance is subversive to the electoral process.”

Clinton’s assertion — like the one from the Democratic National Committee chairman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), that “You’re more likely to get hit by lightning than you are to see an instance of voter fraud in this country” — shows just how out of touch national Democrats are with state legislative issues.

As the law professor James Woodruff, of the Florida Coastal School of Law, wrote in an op-ed article last year, “the practice of vote fraud is alive and well in the 21st Century.”

From ACORN registering Mickey Mouse, to illegal payments for people to vote multiple times, to dead voters casting ballots, state legislators of all political stripes can attest that the list of voting crimes across the country is a problem that needs to be addressed. Countless cases of voter fraud are identified, investigated and prosecuted annually, while scores more go undetected.

The Carter-Baker Report concluded, “states need to do more to prevent voter registration and absentee ballot fraud.” Like many state legislatures across the country, the panel called for a uniform photo ID voting requirement.

States, whether Republican and Democratic controlled, aim to implement simple, common-sense voter protection provisions that could help restore public faith in voting.

Georgia is a good example. Secretary of State Brian Kemp noted that instances of voter fraud decreased, and turnout of Latino and African American voters significantly increased, after Georgia implemented a photo ID requirement for in-person voting in 2007. Comparing the 2006 to the 2010 general election, voter turnout among African Americans outpaced the growth of that population’s pool of registered voters by more than 20 percentage points.

From 2004 to 2008, Latino and African American voter turnout increased by 140 percent and 42 percent, respectively — rates that align with the growth rates of voter registration in those demographics.

The judicial system has supported state efforts to protect law-abiding voters through common sense regulations. The most notable example was the Supreme Court’s decision recognizing Indiana’s “valid interest” in requiring photo identification. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the 6-3 majority, noted “the flagrant examples of voter fraud in American history.”

Clinton was off base in his remarks and he should retract his statements and apologize. More important, national Democrats need to recognize that voter fraud is a reality, that the solutions being presented work, that they empower the electorate and have been deemed effective by national leaders, scholars and the courts.

Only when we set aside these divisive, emotionally based sidebars can we collectively return to a productive discussion of how to provide concrete solutions to the real problems that America’s families and businesses face everyday.

Redistricting will shore up GOP gains

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 03:22:00 GMT

Check out the latest article written by RSLC President Chris Jankowski that appeared in the Daily Caller.

With record high unemployment and endless Democrat tax-and-spend plans, it is no wonder Democrat insiders are looking to conjure up good news. Early redistricting maps coming into focus from their favored states — particularly heavily gerrymandered Illinois, where Democrats surrendered any pretext of staking out the moral high ground — have Democrats boasting that they can spin straw into gold.

However, the raw numbers and political realities clearly demonstrate that Democrats have no path to a House majority in the near future. They have even less chance of reversing state-level Republican gains.

Thanks in part to the Republican State Leadership Committee’s REDMAP project, there are more state-level Republicans now than in nearly a century. These include many new majorities that will be drawing fair and legal Congressional and state legislative lines at a four-to-one advantage over Democrat-controlled states.

The Democrats’ spin ignores the fundamental fact that one of the first priorities is always to protect sitting members, particularly vulnerable freshmen. In the wake of the 2010 landslide that led to the largest Republican majority in nearly 60 years, Democrats are targeting 61 House members who were elected in districts carried by Obama. However, the GOP will be redrawing 29 of those districts, while Democrats will only redraw eight — all in Illinois. Of the 31 GOP freshmen who represent districts won by Obama, 16 are in states where the RSLC helped flip a chamber to Republican control.

Democrats then took another “strategic” route, revising their target list down to the 13 House districts carried by both Obama and Kerry. Fortunately for taxpayers and the GOP, Republicans draw lines in eight of those districts, while Democrats control only two. It is difficult, if not impossible, at this point to see where the Democrats can hope to find the pickups necessary to even close the gap, much less pick up the 24 seats they need to pick up in order to take back control of the House.

When citing redistricting, D.C. Democrats conveniently ignore the 55 Republican state-level majorities (up from 36 prior to the 2010 elections) that will be redrawing state senate and assembly districts, in addition to Congressional lines.

While it is too early to estimate the outcome across the 50 states, Republicans’ control of 15 more chambers than the Democrats should lead to more favorable conditions for GOP races in states across the nation. The strategy outlined and executed in the 2010 midterms has resulted in a solid state-level base that will provide strong support in key battleground states in the presidential contest as well as key Congressional and state-level races.

The product of all these efforts will be the continuation and expansion of the GOP state-level farm team of strong, competitive future Congressmen, governors, senators and other vibrant candidates for years to come.

Republicans will continue their leadership in Congress and state capitols, because they are providing the kind of responsible, sensible, restrained government that Americans demand and deserve.

The RSLC will continue to ramp up its efforts to support and advise Republican state leaders on how to maximize their opportunities in a fair and legal way all the way through the redistricting process. Republicans are on target to fulfill our goal of solidifying the expectations-exceeding gains from 2010, while creating new opportunities for 2012 and beyond. Meanwhile, the Democrats will have to look elsewhere for the silver lining in the rain cloud they have created over America.

Notes from the States, March 21, 2011

Sat, 07 May 2011 13:51:00 GMT

Democratic legislators in Wisconsin and Indiana did not flee their jobs because Republican Governors proposed bold comprehensive reforms to balance their budgets and create job growth in their states. These Democratic legislators fled their jobs because there were new Republican legislative majorities poised to enact these comprehensive reforms in Wisconsin and Indiana. State legislative elections matter.

Elections for state Attorneys General also matter as we saw when Republican Attorneys General rallied to challenge the overreaching Obama healthcare law. As home to the Republican Lieutenant Governors Association (RLGA), the RSLC knows elections for Lieutenant Governors matter as we cheered just weeks ago when Republican Lt. Governor Bill Bolling of Virginia cast the tie breaking vote on an amendment to Senate Bill 924 that will require new regulatory standards to protect the health of patients in Virginia’s abortion clinics.

And, yes, elections matter in how our state and federal elections are conducted in this country. The RSLC is home to the Republican Secretaries of State Committee (RSSC), a caucus of Republican Secretaries of State, including new Secretaries in key 2012 swing states such as Ohio, Iowa, and New Mexico. These Secretaries believe in fair elections, including recounts that only seek to recount the actual votes cast in the election and not abuse the recount system to look for "new" votes to help the Democratic candidate cross the finish line first. The Republican Party will not soon forget the debacle that was the recount in Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman’s re-election campaign in 2008. We hope the taxpayers of Wisconsin don't soon forget the actions of Democratic Secretary of State La Follette last week when he publicly declared that he would stall for the legally permitted ten days before performing his ministerial role of publishing the new law reforming the government employee collective bargaining system. La Follette said he was delaying enactment of the law for the sole purpose of allowing more gold plated employee pension and benefits plans to be jammed through by the unions and their local elected officials who are in collusion with the unions. Secretary of State La Follette just potentially cost the taxpayers millions in future obligations that government can't afford to keep.

As the President of the RSLC, I intend to highlight the importance of state elections and the national impact the RSLC makes one state at a time. I am honored to have this opportunity to serve with the great team at the RSLC and under the leadership of our Chairman Ed Gillespie and the experienced Board of Directors. Keep an eye out on the states. Our work has only just begun.