Longtime Irish football coach and ESPN analyst Lou Holtz is seriously considering a Congressional campaign against Rep. Suzanne Kosmas (D-Fla.), first reported by the Orlando Sentinel and confirmed to POLITICO by a senior Republican operative.

Holtz met with National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Pete Sessions last week to express his interest in running for Congress.  The meeting was initiated by Holtz, who flew up from Florida to meet with committee officials.

“It’s a lot more than most celebrity-type candidates do,” said the operative.

Holtz is expected to make his decision in the next several weeks.

Holtz is best-known for his coaching success on the gridiron, leading Notre Dame to a national college football championship in 1988, and later turning around the University of South Carolina’s football program before retiring to ESPN as an analyst.

If he runs, Holtz wouldn’t be guaranteed the GOP nomination. Republicans already have three credible candidates running for the seat – state Reps. Sandy Adams and Dorothy Hukill, and Winter Park Commissioner Karen Diebel. And at 72, Holtz would be one of the oldest members in the House – as a freshman (likely) in the minority.

Holtz, a longtime donor to Republican candidates and causes, stepped into the political spotlight in March, appearing on Sean Hannity’s FOX News show where he expressed his skepticism towards global warming and talked about the high tax rates in Europe.   In a recent Sporting News profile, he said running for public office was number three on his “bucket list” — one of the things he wanted to do in his life.

Holtz’s consideration of a Congressional campaign comes as Sam Wyche, another former football coach, is mulling a campaign for Rep. Gresham Barrett’s seat in South Carolina.

Bill Posey

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) was joined by 30 of his colleagues in introducing legislation to amend Rules of the House to  require a 72 hour period of availability before legislation can be brought up for consideration in the House of Representatives. The bill, H. Res. 689, also requires that a print comparing current law with the proposed law be made available to Members of Congress and the public for at least 72 hours before legislation can be considered.  This not only applies to the underlying bill to be considered but also to any manager’s amendment or other amendment that makes significant changes to the bill.

“The first rule of open government is transparency,” said Congressman Posey. “It’s disrespectful to the American people for Congress to ram through thousands of pages of legislation that no one has had the time to read or understand.  Members of Congress must be given the opportunity to read and digest the massive spending increases and complex statutory changes that are included in many of the bills we are asked to consider. This bill simply lets the sunshine in and encourages public debate and involvement in the issues before Congress.”

Specifically, Posey’s bill requires that legislation be made available to Members of Congress and the public for at least 72 hours before the House may begin debate on the legislation. It also requires that a comparative print showing specifically how the proposed legislation changes current law be made available at least 72 hours before consideration of the bill. The legislation is similar to rules put in place by the Florida legislature to ensure no last minute changes could be made to legislation before a vote.

Posey said that it is important that Members of Congress and the public be given sufficient time and information to understand more fully how the proposed legislation or amendments affect current law. “By requiring the comparative print, Members and the public are given a much better understanding of the overall impact of the bill.”

Alan Grayson

U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson, known on Capitol Hill for aggressively questioning key players in the nation’s financial crisis, has suffered a “financial disaster” of his own, he confirmed to WKMG Local 6.

Grayson, D-Orlando, fell victim to a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme operated by Derivium Capital, a South Carolina firm that a federal jury ruled in February defrauded Grayson of $34 million — an amount equal to more than half of Grayson’s 2008 net worth.

“It was very much like the Bernie Madoff situation,” said Grayson, who’s had Madoff’s Ponzi scheme in his crosshairs from his seat on the House Financial Services Committee.

In February, Grayson’s Washington office issued a press release criticizing Madoff’s “penthouse arrest,” calling for the swindler to be jailed while awaiting sentencing.

And in video played thousands of times on YouTube, Grayson on Feb. 4 facetiously asked a financial expert who tried in vain to warn regulators about Madoff’s scheme: “You referred to this several times as a Ponzi scheme. Is that some newfangled thing?”

Of course, Grayson knew better: at the exact time he spoke on Capitol Hill, his lawyers were in a South Carolina courtroom arguing he was a victim of just such a scheme.

“What happened to the victims in Madoff is the same thing that happened to me,” Grayson told Local 6 in an interview Monday. “I lost millions of dollars.”

Scam’s most frequent customer

Between 2000 and 2005, Grayson was the most frequent participant in Derivium’s “90-percent stock-loan” program, transferring about $29 million in stocks to Derivium and promptly receiving 90 percent of it – about $26 million – back in cash as “stock loans,” according to his court filings. In that sense, he lost only about $3 million out of pocket.

But Derivium had promised to pay Grayson profits on his stocks, if they appreciated enough over the three-year loan period to cover the amount of his “stock loans” plus interest. And Grayson picked some lucrative stocks. His $34 million in damages is based on the profits he should have received on stocks that rose in value – had Derivium not run out of cash and filed for bankruptcy.

“The first step is to listen to what folks like and don’t like about their current health plans,” said Congressman Posey. “There are several bills currently floating around Congress, but the process needs to involve individuals who will be impacted the most by reform efforts being drafted by politicians in Washington.”

Thursday’s roundtable discussion brought together representatives from 13 local health care organizations including Health First, Wuesthoff, Physician’s Assistant Associates, MIMA, AARP, Congregations for Community Action, Brevard County Health Department, Pediatrics of Brevard, Brevard Health Care Alliance, Brevard County Medical Society, and constituents from the surrounding community.

House Majority leaders recently put forward a proposal for a government plan which relies heavily on tax increases on small businesses, limited choices and the creation dozens of new entitlement programs. Three other plans have been offered in the U.S. Senate by three different Committee Chairmen as well.

In the past, the House has approved Small Business Association Health Care plans – 6 times in the last 7 years – but special interests have exerted enough pressure to block the idea in the Senate. Association Health Plans allow small businesses owners to pool their resources together with other members of their respective trade associations across the nation to create a larger pool. The larger pool can be used to buy health care in bulk, bringing down the cost much like the way the federal government offers health insurance plans.

Posey said he has already gotten a lot of feedback from his constituents, many of whom like their currents plans and want to keep them. Others say they want to be sure that they can continue to choose their own physicians and the benefits that their plan includes; or that they like their current plan but need some help paying some of the cost. Some seniors say they are worried Congress will eliminate the Medicare Advantage program to pay for new reform proposals. In the 15^thCongressional district more than 40,000 seniors have chosen to enroll in a Medicare Advantage health plan.

“There are several fundamental principles that are going to guide me as we move forward with any health care reform legislation,” said Posey. “First, do no harm – every American should be able to keep their current plan, today and tomorrow. Second, I will not vote for any bill in its final form that I have not been given proper time to read and evaluate.”

Posey added that he wanted to hear from constituents on this issue and folks can contact him through his website www.posey.house.gov.

As Readers may recall, Grayson voted for the Cap & Trade bill after he was allowed to allocate $50 Million for a Hurricane Research center in his district.  When asked if this was the only reason that he voted for the bill he said NO.

Here is the video of his request of the $50 Million for the Hurricane Research Center.

Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite

When the financial markets tumbled and the government worked to stave off panic by pumping billions of dollars into banks last fall, several members of Congress who oversee the banking industry were grabbing up or dumping bank stocks.

Anticipating bargains or profits or just trying to unload before the bottom fell out, some members of the House Financial Services Committee or brokers on their behalf were buying and selling stocks including Bank of America and Citigroup — some of the very corporations their committee would later chastise for greed, an examination of congressional stock market transactions shows.

For example, Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite (R-Brooksville), bought Citigroup stock valued between $1,001 and $15,000 on Oct. 2, the day before the House passed the financial rescue bill and President George W. Bush signed it into law, records show. She opposed the bill.

Eleven days later, she bought $1,001 to $15,000 worth of Bank of America stock. It was on the same day that then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told leading banks that he expected them to accept billions in bailout money to prevent a financial meltdown.

Brown-Waite, who has since left the committee to join the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. The precise value of her investments is not publicly known because financial disclosure reports provide only broad ranges, although some members include detailed brokerage reports.

Many details about the massive financial bailout last fall were widely known outside Capitol Hill. Yet members of the Financial Services Committee were privy to closed-door discussions, staff briefings and political horse-trading decisions between political parties, Congress and the White House. Banks lobbied Congress and the administration heavily.

Banks that received bailout money spent $77 million on lobbying and $37 million on federal campaign contributions last year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The center found that the banks spending the heaviest got the biggest rescue packages.

Brown-Waite, received over $195,000 in campaign contributions from banking related businesses in 2008.  Including Bank Of America, UBS, AIG, American Bankers Association, Goldman Sachs, and Fannie Mae. However these were before the vote on 10/3! Currently we are researching Representative’s who voted in favor of the bill and connections to their donations after 10/3

We have attempted to contact Ginny Brown-Waite and her office, however they have yet to follow up with us regarding this story.

Source of financial info: Center for Responsive Politics

HR-2454 (Cap and Trade Bill) passed the House of Representatives on Friday with a vote of 219-212.  All Florida Republicans voted against the bill.

The 8 Republicans that voted for the bill are:

Mary Bono Mack R (CA)

Mike Castle R (DW)

Mark Steven Kirk R (IL)

Leonard Lance R (NJ)

Frank LoBiondo R (NJ)

John McHugh R (NY)

Dave Reichert R (WA)

Chris Smith R (NJ)

Groundswell has been so huge that there is even a dedicated hash tag for them on Twitter.  They are calling them #capandtr8tors.  It will be interesting to see if any of the members that voted in favor or the bill change their votes by the deadline.

The US government will set a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. Companies or other groups will be issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances (or credits), which will represent the right to emit a specific amount. The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less. The transfer of allowances will be referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions by more than was needed. Thus, in theory, those who can easily reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest possible cost to society.

The only group that is currently doing a cap and trade program is the European Union.

In Central Florida the break down of Representative’s votes is:
Alan Grayson – Yea
Adam Putnam – Nay
Bill Posey – Nay
Kathy Castor – Yea

FULL LIST OF VOTES

His response is most likely the best I have heard so far. Here is his statement which is a Central Florida Politics exclusive.

Congressman Posey’s district covers Brevard, Indian River and some of Polk County.  He was elected in 2008, since that time he has become a valued asset to his area constituents.  Mark Cross is one of those constituents. Here is what he had to say about Congressman Posey

Congressman Posey’s office also released the following statement regarding cap and trade.

Posey Opposes Cap & Trade – National Energy Tax

WASHINGTON, DC – Congressman Bill Posey (R-Rockledge) provided the following statement as he prepared to vote against the Waxman-Markey “Cap & Trade” National Energy Tax legislation.  At press time it was uncertain if the bill would proceed to a final up or down vote as Democrat leaders were lacking the votes among their members to secure passage of the bill.   The 1500 page energy tax bill was amended at 3AM this morning with an additional 309 pages of legislation which has yet to be examined by Members of Congress. Below is Congressman Posey’s floor statement on the “Cap & Trade” National Energy Tax legislation to explain his vote:

“I rise to express my strong concerns about the bill before us – a bill which no one has read.  This morning members of Congress were told about the addition of 309 pages that were added to this bill early this morning.  No one has read it.

“Why the rush?  Why does Congress have to pass this bill today, before everyone can read it and understand what this new language is doing?  When Congress did this with the stimulus bill earlier this year it was discovered after passage of that bill that it contained bonus payments for AIG employees.  But this bill, affecting every segment of our economy, has much broader applications we and the American people have a right to know what is in this bill, how it will affect the American people, and what impact it will have on our economy.   Nobody knows that this morning.  We do not even have a cost estimate on this latest version of the bill from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).  No one knows what it will cost.  My rule is that if you are not going to give Members of Congress the time to read the bill, a cost estimate of the bill, and an ability to understand its impact on the taxpayers and American businesses, I’m going to vote no.

“Supporters of the bill claim that it will only cost the average American $175 per year.  This is a fatally flawed estimate for three reasons (1) this figure is derived from a selective reading of the CBO cost estimate, (2) 3 days after the CBO issued their cost estimate 300 additional pages were added to the bill, and (2) at 3am last night another 309 pages were added to the bill.  This bill has grown by nearly 70% since CBO’s cost estimate was prepared.

“The CBO estimate has serious deficiencies. In fact if you read the entire CBO estimate you would find that they highlight the deficiencies, deficiencies that are being conveniently ignored.  The most critical flaw is that CBO picked a year as the basis for their estimate that is before the most costly parts of the bill take effect.  This excludes hundreds of billions of dollars from the cost estimate.  The footnote on page 4 of the estimate says that they exclude from the costs estimate the “decrease in gross domestic product (GDP)” resulting from the bill.  Most estimates conclude that it will result in $1 – $2 trillion in lost economic activity in the U.S. translating into a loss of over 2.5 million jobs.  The CBO fails to incorporate tens of billions of increased costs to the states which will be passed on through higher state taxes.  CBO lists a number of other cost estimate omissions.

“When you factor in the deficiencies of the CBO estimate most analyses put the cost estimate at between $750 and $3100 per year.  Washington has a habit of underestimating the cost of legislation. They are doing so again today.  That’s why this bill was significantly changed last night and rushed to the floor before Members of Congress have had a chance to read the bill and understand what the changes do.

“This 1200-plus page bill started out as legislation aimed at improving the environment but it has become a means of raising money to pay for larger, more intrusive government while having little impact on the global environment.

“The idea behind “Cap and Trade” is to purposely increase the cost of energy that is produced using fossil fuels like natural gas, coal or petroleum.  Nearly 85% of electricity across the U.S. is generated using these sources of fuel.  The price of everything you buy will go up, from gas to food, because there will be a hidden national energy tax built into the price of everything.

“Senator Cardin (D-MD) told the Washington Post that, “This is the greatest revenue generating [read tax] proposal of our time.”  This bill moves money from the family budget to Washington.

“Estimates are that this bill will have a negligible effect on the global environment.  It is estimated that if enacted, this bill will lower the global temperature by a fraction of a degree, which is consistent with the annual fluctuation in global temperatures.  Also, this fails to acknowledge the fact that China, India and the rest of the developing world are exempt from such regulations and their emissions will far exceed any reductions that result from this bill.

“This costly national energy tax will put American products at a competitive disadvantage and further erode the ability of the American worker to compete with China, India and the rest the developing world.  The result will be the loss of millions of jobs as more businesses move to countries that will not impose these caps on their citizens.  Businesses that otherwise might have built facilities in the U.S. will instead open up factories in countries that are exempt from these regulations.  It’s no wonder China has called for the U.S. to pass this energy tax bill.  With a national unemployment rate nearing 10%, it’s estimated that this tax will cost Americans another 2.5 million jobs.

“I oppose this plan and will vote against it because it is not good for the American worker, small businesses, seniors on fixed incomes, or families struggling to pay their bills and mortgages.  Washington doesn’t need more of your money, it needs to control spending. Europe adopted a similar plan several years ago and it forced jobs to leave Europe, caused electricity prices to skyrocket, and they have little to show for the costs. It’s all pain and no gain.  Check out the non-partisan Tax Foundation’s online energy tax calculator (www.taxfoundation.org/capandtrade) to figure out how much it may cost you.

“Finally, it is a sad day for the Congress and the American people that the Speaker chose to rush this bill through the Congress without an open debate and amendment process.  Members of Congress asked that 224 amendments be allowed to be considered to this bill.  Unfortunately, the Speaker allowed only one amendment to be offered.  Among the amendments denied were one to: (1) suspend the bill if gas exceeds $5 per gallon; (2) suspend the bill if electricity prices increase more than 10%; and (3) suspend the bill if unemployment exceeds 15%.  These and many more amendments were reasonable and worthy of consideration.  They should have been allowed as they are in the best interest of the American people.

“Again, I rise in strong opposition to this bill and urge my colleagues to vote down this bill.  It will further harm our economy and slow our economic recovery.”

“This legislation includes the key principles we established in the bipartisan legislation I introduced with Congressman Jim Costa (D-Calif.) earlier this year,” Putnam said in a news release.

“It expands the authority of the Food and Drug administration (FDA) to quickly respond to threats to our nation’s food supply. It strengthens preventative measures with new science- and risk-based food safety standards. It calls for updated food safety plans within food operations domestically and abroad to identify and prevent potential sources of food-borne illness. And it holds imported foods to American safety standards,” he added.

HR 2749 gives FDA tremendous power while significantly diminishing existing judicial restraints on actions taken by the agency.  The bill would impose a one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme on small farms and local artisanal producers; and it would disproportionately impact their operations for the worse.

HR 2749 does not address underlying causes of food safety problems such as industrial agriculture practices and the consolidation of our food supply.  The industrial food system and food imports are badly in need of effective regulation, but the bill does not specifically direct regulation or resources to these areas.

You can view the entire bill here

Some of the more alarming provisions in the bill are:

* HR 2749 would impose an annual registration fee of $500 on any “facility” that holds, processes, or manufactures food.  [isn't this every home in the US, every garden?]  Although “farms” are exempt, the agency has defined “farm” narrowly.  [What is the definition?]  And people making foods such as lacto-fermented vegetables, cheeses, or breads would be required to register and pay the fee, which could drive beginning and small producers out of business during difficult economic times. [Yes.  There are laws against this corporate-size-destroys-the-little-guy policy, aren't there?  Are home bread or cheese or lacto-fermented vegetable makers who make for their own families included in this?]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to regulate how crops are raised and harvested.  It puts the federal government right on the farm, dictating to our farmers.  [This astounding control opens the door to CODEX.  WTO "good farming practices" will include the elimination of organic farming by eliminating manure, mandating GMO animal feed, imposing animal drugs, and ordering applications of petrochemical fertilizers and pesticides.  Farmers, thus, will be locked not only into the industrialization of once normal and organic farms but into the forced purchase of industry's products.  They will be slaves on the land, doing the work they are ordered to do - against their own best wisdom - and paying out to industry against their will.

There will be no way to be frugal, to grow one’s own grain to feed the animals, to raise healthy animals without GMO grains or drugs, to work with nature at all.  Grassfed cattle and poultry and hogs will be finished.  So, it’s obvious where control will take us.  And weren’t these the “rumors on the internet” that were dismissed but are clearly the case?]

* HR 2749 would give FDA the power to order a quarantine of a geographic area, including “prohibiting or restricting the movement of food or of any vehicle being used or that has been used to transport or hold such food within the geographic area.”  [This - "that has been used to transport or hold such food" - would mean all cars that have ever brought groceries home so this means ALL TRANSPORTATION can be shut down under this.  This is using food as a cover for martial law.]  Under this provision, farmers markets and local food sources could be shut down, even if they are not the source of the contamination.  The agency can halt all movement of all food in a geographic area.  [This is also a means of total control over the population under the cover of food, and at any time.]

* HR 2749 would empower FDA to make random warrantless searches of the business records of small farmers and local food producers, without any evidence whatsoever that there has been a violation.  [If these bills cover all who "hold food" then this allows for taking of records of anyone at any time on no basis at all.]  Even farmers selling direct to consumers would have to provide the federal government with records on where they buy supplies, how they raise their crops, and a list of customers.

* HR 2749 charges the Secretary of Health and Human Services with establishing a tracing system for food.  Each “person who produces, manufactures, processes, packs, transports, or holds such food” [Is this not every home in the US?]  would have to “maintain the full pedigree of the origin and previous distribution history of the food,” and “establish and maintain a system for tracing the food that is interoperable with the systems established and maintained by other such persons.”  The bill does not explain how far the traceback will extend or how it will be done for multi-ingredient foods.  With all these ambiguities, [with all these ambiguities, it is dangerous, period, separate from the money] it’s far from clear how much it will cost either the farmers or the taxpayers.  [It is massive and absurd and burdensome beyond the capacity of people to comply - is this not fascism? - so it is a set up for being used to impose penalties endlessly and/or to eliminate anyone at will.]

*  HR 2749 creates severe criminal and civil penalties, including prison terms of up to 10 years and/or fines of up to $100,000 for each violation for individuals.  [Does it include judicial review, Congressional oversight, a defined and limited set of penalties and punishments for a defined set of “crimes”?  Or is it entirely ambiguous and left to the whim and sole power of “the Administrator”?  Who is that person set to be?  Is it Michael Taylor, Monsanto lawyer and executive, as Food Democracy has said?  That is, do these bills set up an agency by which the entire US food supply will be turned over to the control of a multinational corporation under WTO regulations (and not to US farmers and not to US laws under the Constitution), with boundless freedom to do what it wants, and one infamous for harm to farmers and lack of safety of food?

Action to Take:

Contact your Representative now!  Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food issues.  Tell them you are opposed to the bill.  Some points to make in telling your Representative why you oppose HR 2749 include:

1.  The bill imposes burdensome requirements while not specifically targeting the industrial food system and food imports, where the real food safety problems lie.

2.  Small farms and local food processors are part of the solution to food safety; lessening the regulatory burden on them will improve food safety.

3.  The bill gives FDA much more power than it has had in the past while making the agency less accountable for its actions.

HR 2749 needs to be defeated!!  Please take action NOW.