The United States Preventive Services Task Force this week released a report that encourages women to wait an extra decade before receiving breast cancer examinations.  Eyebrows were immediately raised not only in the cancer research community but also by lawmakers on the Hill.

Turning years of medical guidelines upside down, the report recommends against routine mammograms for women ages 40 to 49, and recommends that women 75 years or older refrain from having mammograms at all. And instead of increasing caution after waiting an extra decade, the Task Force also suggests that women wait a full two years in between screenings, as opposed to having screenings annually.

The timing here couldn’t be more ironic. While the Task Force is advising that less preventative measures be taken, President Obama and congressional Democrats have touted the need for an increase in preventative health care as an excuse to pass legislation which would allow the federal government to take over our nation’s health care industry.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius attempted to disregard public concern surrounding these new recommendations by stating that this Task Force does not determined what services are covered by the federal government.  So why are the Task Force’s findings relevant? According to CNN, “Most of the member companies of America’s Health Insurance Plans, an association of more than 1,300 health insurance providers, look to the task force as the standard.”

Yesterday, I participated in a press conference alongside other women in Congress to express our concerns that this could be the beginning of rationed health care. It’s a fact that the $1.3 trillion health care package passed by the House leaves the door wide open for federal bureaucrats to decide what kinds of health care plans Americans may choose from.  Will the new “Health Care Czar” look to the Task Force’s recommendations when making these decisions, just as nearly 1,300 health insurance providers already do?  Will he ignore recommendations from the American Cancer Society, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, and oncologists across the nation who instead stress the importance of using a cost-benefit analysis to determine which procedures should be covered?

This is simply another example of why the federal government should not be given central control over your health care.  We have made great strides over the years to increase breast cancer awareness and early detection and we do not need the government forcing us to take a step backwards.  The American people deserve 21st century health care reform that mirrors this innovation—a plan that will increase quality and individual control of their own health care—and the Republican plan provides just that.

Michele Bachmann represents Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Cap and trade is based on government setting a cap on the total amount of carbon that can be emitted nationally. Companies will then be allowed to buy or sell permits to emit carbon dioxide. So, at a time when Congress is already grappling with the appropriate solution for restructuring our nation’s financial regulatory system, Congress also wants to simultaneously introduce a new, and potentially the largest, commodity market into the mix? As Tyson Slocum, director of energy for Public Citizen, has stated, “You have to ask yourself if it is wise policy to create a new derivatives market on the heels of the collapse of derivatives markets.”

Some environmental watch groups who support the climate change goals of cap and trade have withheld support for the legislation in part because they know that the financial risked posed by this piece of legislation would shake an already volatile financial market. In a recent report, Friends of the Earth warned that the U.S. carbon market could be the next “subprime market” since it carries the same high-risk characteristics. Their report notes that the high risk comes from the fact that carbon credits can be sold before credits are officially issued. As they become more and more scarce, as the legislation guarantees year after year, these new financial products with essentially no actual value will increase in price. The report continues to warn that this provides the potential for speculators to push up market prices, which will “create a bubble and spur the development of subprime assets,” setting the stage for another potential financial meltdown.

They have good reason to worry. After all, the very same people who created the risky financial products which contributed to our financial collapse helped create and then promote cap and trade. And, those very same institutions will be selling carbon credits on Wall Street. Cap and trade’s creator, Goldman Sachs, which is reported to have spent $3.5 million to lobby on climate issues last year, envisioned it as a tax imposed by Washington with the revenues collected by private interests.

According to the Washington Post, Enron – which has gained a more notorious public reputation than most others in corporate America, was one of cap and trade’s chief promoters because they believed it would bring them a major financial windfall. In an internal memo, according to the Post, Enron stated that the Kyoto Agreement, which would regulate energy use, would “do more to promote Enron’s business than almost any other regulatory initiative outside of restructuring the energy and gas industries in Europe and the United States.” When the Kyoto Agreement failed, Enron executives pushed hard for the implementation of a cap and trade policy.

As hedge fund director Michael Masters told Rolling Stone in its article, The Great American Bubble Machine, “We’re saying that Wall Street can set the tax and Wall Street can collect the tax.” The author of that article, Matt Taibbi, remarks that, “This is worse than the bailout: It allows the bank to seize taxpayer money before it’s even collected.” (Emphasis is the original author’s.)

Of course, with the creation of this new market also comes the creation of a new bureaucracy. Bart Chilton, commissioner of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) estimates that it “could be a $2 trillion market within five years.” And, to handle that expansion and meet its responsibilities to police the new futures market for allowances, the CFTC would have to expand its workforce by at least 31%. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which would be overseeing day-to-day trading, would also have to expand its workforce by 20-30%.

Not to be outdone, the EPA would have to grow to go from regulating 330 million tons of pollution each year to 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide emissions from nearly 7,500 facilities. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the cost of the expanded government alone would be $8 billion over 10-years. It would require about 1500 new regulations and mandates under 21 or more federal agencies.

It is interesting that the same lawmakers who are continuously blaming Wall Street for the financial meltdown are the lead cheerleaders for Wall Street’s plan to buy and sell carbon credits. Perhaps they have bought their own hype and truly believe that this is a plan for climate change. But, the American people are beginning to see through all that. When so many analyses and reports conclude that cap and trade will only result in negligible – if any – changes in the earth’s climate, the American people wonder who is really benefitting from the extra tax they are paying?

Michele Bachmann represents Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Over the past couple of weeks, I’ve spoken with the GM and Chrysler car dealerships from my district that have been targeted for total or partial closure by President Obama’s Auto Task Force. They were given no reason, and really no recourse to challenge their closure. It is as if someone threw a dart at a dartboard to decide which dealerships would be given a pink slip. In fact, we still do not know the formula used to determine which dealers would remain open, and which ones would close.

At one dealership in my district, the owner received an envelope from FedEx with a closure agreement inside, informing them that their highly profitable and nearly century-old business was slated for closure, and that they had twelve days to sign the agreement, or face the consequences.

Unbelievably, if they chose not to sign the agreement by the prescribed date, GM would not offer a warranty on any of the remaining cars on their lot. If they challenged the contract in court, the dealers would not only have to pay for their own legal fees, but GM’s as well, to the tune of $1,500 per hour – and that was whether they won or lost. And, even if they opted to sign the agreement, they were obligated to send GM their customer lists and service customer lists. It is a lose-lose deal for the owners who are taking it on the chin no matter what their decision.

As the owners stressed to me – tactics like this are not the America they know and love. Columnist Michael Barone likened the actions of the Obama Auto Task Force to the tactics of a “gangster government,” and I couldn’t agree more.

In crafting their deals, government trampled long-held legal principles. For instance, unsecured creditors, the United Auto Workers labor union, were jumped ahead of secured creditors, the teachers and police officers’ pension funds in Indiana, in bankruptcy court. Government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. And, government certainly shouldn’t be ignoring established law simply because it suits their political ambitions.

It is unthinkable, but today consumers and businessmen aren’t deciding what cars should be manufactured or what dealerships should be successful or how much advertising is enough. Government is making these decisions.

Simply put, politics and business operate in different ways and are vulnerable to different influences as they strive to reach very different goals. Each Member of Congress in Washington is looking out for his or her own state or district’s interests and sometimes that works against the interest of the company they are now essentially running. When Congress stepped into the Board Room, it set itself up to try to achieve two sometimes contradictory goals – protect their constituents and save this company. Government is simply ill-equipped to try to be both the governor and the governed – and it surely can’t do both well.

I am a proud cosponsor of the Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act of 2009 that would honor a car companies previous commitments to local car dealers.  I have written to both President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and asked them to reverse course. And, I’m looking into whatever legal options might be available for Congress to give these dealerships a fighting chance. These businesses are community landmarks, important job providers, and local economic catalysts. They deserve better treatment from their government than arbitrary pink slips that wipe out a lifetime’s work and investment.

The American Dream is in need of saving, and it’s up to all of us to work hard to save it.

Michele Bachmann represents Minnesota’s Sixth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

After years of promoting green jobs, Spain has the highest unemployment rate of any developed country—currently at 17.5%, and that number is expected to climb to 20.5% by the end of the year.  That’s one in five workers out of a job.

According to a study by Dr. Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at Juan Carlos University in Madrid, on the effect of public aid to renewable energy sources on employment, if the U.S. adopts the Spanish model as proposed by President Obama, for each job created, the “U.S. should expect a loss of at least 2.2 jobs on average, or about 9 jobs lost for every 4 created.”

Dr. Calzada further found that the high-energy costs associated with these policies have driven high-energy reliant businesses, like manufacturing, to cheaper places.  And of the green jobs created, two-thirds were temporary installment and construction jobs.

Other countries have similar job-loss stories to share.  As the economic realities of Australia’s much-heralded cap-and-trade policies began to sink in, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced a delay in its implementation.  A headline in The Australian says it all:  “Carbon Plan Will Cause Jobs Carnage.”

Closer to home, another study conducted by Penn State University, found that replacing two-thirds of U.S. coal-based energy with renewables would cost three to four million American jobs.  In my home state of Minnesota, sixty-two percent of energy comes from coal.  With taxpayers struggling to pay for the higher costs for energy and consumer goods that result from these policies, individuals who rely on coal-based energy for their pay checks will experience a double jeopardy.

The legislation under consideration in the House of Representatives seems to acknowledge the devastating loss of jobs, particularly within the manufacturing sector, in a section entitled, “Climate Change Worker Adjustment Assistance.”  It provides public assistance to individuals who lose their jobs because of cap-and-tax and specifically notes an expectation that those in manufacturing will be hard hit.

Congress committed $1.1 trillion of the taxpayers’ money to create and/or save jobs in the so-called “stimulus” bill.  Yet, the papers are filled with headlines about how those funds for the most part haven’t yet made their way to Main Street employment, getting caught up in the red tape of the federal pipeline.  In fact, Earl Devaney, who was appointed by the President to oversee the “stimulus” funds distribution, recently noted that federal agencies are still drawing up the guidelines and taking in applications for many of the more than 100 separate spending streams even now, three months after passage of the bill.

Even government employees – in one of the few sectors actually stimulated by the so-called “stimulus” package – are finding their jobs in jeopardy.  The $135 billion in the package to plug state budget holes is amongst the money that actually has been distributed, yet states across the country are laying off thousands of state employees.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) just announced that it expects U.S. unemployment to continue to rise and top 10%.  And, in making that announcement, CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf noted that amongst the factors that could temper the strength of an economic recover were “the loss of household wealth…and low utilization of manufacturing capacity.”

We have the evidence that cap-and-tax will both reduce household wealth and kill manufacturing.  To go forward with this energy tax will destroy our hopes for economic recovery.  American workers are already hurting and cap-and-tax will only turn up the pain.

I published an op-ed in the Star Tribune earlier this month highlighting the dangers of this piece of legislation and what it means for Americans. In the piece, I cited an MIT study that found the average American household would experience increased bills of $3,128 per year if this legislation became law.

This statistic has drawn much criticism in the local news and around the nation because the MIT professor involved with the study, John Reilly, questioned the validity of the interpretation used by myself and many Republicans.

But in an interview with the Weekly Standard, Professor Reilly clarified his critique and accepted the Republican use of the statistic.

As reported in the Weekly Standard, “MIT professor John Reilly admitted that his original estimate of cap and trade’s cost was inaccurate…’I made a boneheaded mistake in an excel spread sheet.  I have sent a new letter to Republicans correcting my error.’”

Interestingly, Professor Reilly also assumes that Washington’s better angels will prevail over its need for revenue to pay for its expensive spending habits.

“Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be ‘returned’ to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, ‘the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800].’”

Reilly continued, “If the Republicans were to focus on that revenue, and their message was to rally the public to make sure all this money was returned in a check to each household rather than spent on other public services then I would have no problem with their use of our number.’”

I am more skeptical of Washington’s intentions and I believe that the Democrats have no intention of using a cap-and-trade system to deliver rebates to consumers; they want the tax revenue to fund more government spending.  Key Democrats – including President Obama and Senators Reid & Conrad – have even said they want to use cap-and-trade to fund their government-run health care plan.

The reality is, it’s anybody’s guess as to how the cap-and-trade revenues would end up getting spent. What we do know is that you’ll be paying them but it will be the government spending them — not you — and that’s the problem.

I hope the press is just as quick and eager to correct the report that the GOP’s estimate of cap-and-trade’s cost is a “pants on fire” falsehood as they were in claiming it.

(Cross-posted at Townhall.com and The Hill’s Congress Blog)

Though 92% of mortgage holders continue to pay their mortgages on time, they worry about joining the growing ranks of the unemployed, recovering their savings, and making the next mortgage payment.  The doom and gloom reporting from mainstream media and speechifying from Washington figureheads has the potential to be a self-fulfilling prophecy, pulling us down deeper into the spiral instead of lifting us out of it.  As former President Bill Clinton advised current President Obama:  America’s leaders must project optimism in the face of today’s uncertainty.

And, that would be good advice for President Obama’s friends in Congress as well.  Last week, the House passed mortgage cramdown legislation – a seriously misguided bill that will actually add more instability and uncertainty to the housing market.

Under the current system, it is in the best interest of both borrowers and lenders to rework mortgage terms to prevent foreclosures. Lenders want to be repaid and borrowers want to stay in their homes.  Cramdown removes incentives for struggling borrowers to rework the mortgage terms with the lenders since they could simply go to a bankruptcy judge and get a cheaper deal.  Under the bill, a judge would virtually have carte blanche to wipe out part of their principal, reduce their interest rate, and stretch out the term of their mortgage.

Eventually someone will have to pay for it.  Sadly, it will hurt the very same people this legislation is supposed to assist—middle-income homeowners.  Allowing bankruptcy judges – who will certainly see an increased caseload under this law – to permanently reduce the principal owed on mortgages for primary residences, reduce interest rates, and adjust the mortgage terms at whim could result in a 2% increase on interest rates for all homebuyers as lenders increase their rates to compensate for such unpredictable risks.

Officials at the Federal Reserve and the Federal Housing Finance Agency have raised real concerns about whether giving bankruptcy judges the power to modify home loans could discourage fresh investment in that sector.  Moody’s Economy’s chief economist, Mark Zandi, is reported in Dow Jones Newswires as saying that “tinkering with the bankruptcy code could lead to unpredictable results.”

And I share Mr. Zandi’s fear, as well as worry that it will decrease confidence while simultaneously increasing costs—a blow that hard-working Americans simply can not afford to absorb in this weakened economy.  Rather than creating more affordable mortgage options, it produces the opposite effect—putting millions of homeowners or potential buyers at greater risk of an unstable credit and housing market and sustaining inflated interest rates for the future.

Only weeks ago, President Obama introduced a $275-billion housing plan to refinance high loan-to-value mortgages, pay lenders and services to make loan modifications, and subsidize struggling homeowners—even those who may have committed mortgage fraud. In my opinion, his plan has serious flaws.  For instance, it includes no firewalls to ensure people will not choose bankruptcy over loan modifications. Congressional Democrats’ cramdown bill would almost ensure that outcome.

Some in Congress question the Democrat leadership’s cramdown approach.  They wonder why we wouldn’t make it a measure of absolute last resort.  Why we wouldn’t apply it only to truly risky mortgages.  Why we wouldn’t require some proof that the borrower was truthful when he applied for the mortgage he wants a judge to rewrite.  They even wonder why we wouldn’t require some advance warning to lenders before running into court – an opportunity to allow voluntary negotiations to proceed.

These are perfectly legitimate questions that should be answered before the Congress continues to proceed with its “let’s see what sticks” approach to the economy.  Not to mention the basic questions about fairness raised by this bill.  Is it fair to reward the poor decisions of some when others – namely the ones who will foot the bill for their neighbors’ poor decisions – have been cautious and prudent?  A recent Rasmussen poll showed that 76% of Americans are not willing to pay higher taxes to help people who cannot afford to pay their mortgage on time.  And, Rick Santelli’s spontaneous call for a Chicago Tea Party demonstrated how deep such misgivings run.

Congress passed a $300-billion taxpayer-funded program last summer through which it purported it would assist 400,000 families refinance their mortgages. But with a little over 300 applications in the pipeline, it is clear that this program has been a huge waste of time, energy, money and other taxpayer resources.  In fact, this HOPE for Homeowners program has only helped about 25 families actually refinance.

And, Congress has options that could make a real difference.  For instance, House Republicans proposed a first-time home-buyers tax credit of $7,500 for those buyers who make a minimum down-payment of 5 percent. This not only provides a positive tax incentive, it also ensures responsible underwriting standards.

House sponsors titled the cramdown bill the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act, but it is more likely to hurt families than help them.

The last thing a struggling, hard-working family needs is another Washington bailout which forces them further into debt and financial turmoil – especially during these tough times.

Past bailouts have thus far failed. Whether it was Bear Stearns or the larger Wall Street bailout, these government handouts have not done what they promised. There’s no stability in the marketplace. The Dow continues to plummet or yo-yo, at best. The only goals the bailouts have actually accomplished are to anger the American people and leave them — and their children — to foot a massive bill.

Next week, the Democrat-controlled Congress is expected to call Members back to Washington, with President-Elect Obama’s blessing, to consider a second auto industry bailout. Yes, that’s right, a second one.

In September, Congress passed legislation that established a $25-billion loan program for the automotive industry. And, last month, Detroit automakers jetted back to Washington, asking for another $25 billion. A couple weeks later, the Big Three revised their proposal and are now seeking $34 billion — much of it they say they’ll need by the end of the year. Didn’t their mothers teach them to finish what’s on their plates before asking for seconds?

There’s little doubt that the American auto industry is in trouble. But, the Democrat-controlled Congress appears hellbent on a bailout. They’re reluctant to entertain all the potential reorganization options that may include short-term hardships but long-term, broad-based benefits. In fact, Speaker Pelosi stated that Chapter 11 bankruptcy – a form of bankruptcy that allows a corporation to reorganize their business without killing the company –is off the table.

Some have argued that the auto industry should be drawing on the money from the initial auto bailout instead of siphoning off additional money from the massive Wall Street bailout. In fact, the Administration and a bipartisan group of Senators has discussed restructuring those loans to be more helpful under the current circumstances. But, this commonsense approach gets little notice by Congressional leadership.

I understand that our nation’s auto companies are hurting and that times are tough for many of its employees. But what these companies need are restructuring not bailouts.

The Big Three must readjust their product plans to create vehicles that Americans want to buy. The issue isn’t that individuals are not purchasing cars; it’s that they are not purchasing American cars. Foreign companies are unveiling vehicles that Americans want to buy. They’re using technology and marketing that works. And because American auto dealers costs are so much higher- an estimated $2000 more per car- their competitors are able to put in more extras without pricing their products out of the market.

In addition, a wholesale reorganization of management practices is essential to keeping Detroit automakers alive. Take General Motors for example, GM is drowning under the high costs of employee benefits. Due to the negotiation of long-term retirement and health packages, GM currently supports more retired employees than present employees. Taking care of your retirees is good, but not to the point where it’s forcing you into a hole. The former head of the UAW, Walter Reuther, once said it best: “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

As Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez recently said on CNN, “There’s a line of companies of industries waiting at Treasury just to see if they can get their hands on those $700 billion.” If we use those funds for the automakers now, will troubled mortgage holders ever see any help? To add insult to injury, Congressional Democrats are reportedly working on a plan to send a $500 billion stimulus plan to the Obama White House on Inauguration Day. Clearly, they haven’t learned from their mistakes.

I opposed the massive Wall Street bailout package in October because I didn’t think it was the right remedy for what ails our economy, and I supported serious and fundamental reforms in its place.

Washington needs to stop handing out your money like its Monopoly money. Each dollar is hard-earned and the men and woman who worked so hard for it deserve more respect from their government than to be treated like an ATM. Our economy grew strong on the backs of Main Street; from the ideas and sheer sweat of innovators and entrepreneurs flush with the American spirit. Risk-taking is part of that adventure. But when government guarantees against failure, risk and reward becomes meaningless. Eventually, that will crush our economy- and that eventually may not be that far down the road.

President-Elect Barack Obama recently noted in an interview on 60 Minutes that “we shouldn’t worry about the deficit next year or even the year after,” but I am concerned that it is precisely that type of lax attitude that will pull the taxpayers and the economy into far deeper economic problems. Future bailouts and more debt will break the backs of American taxpayers this is something that our nation cannot afford.