Rep. Neugebauer on Afghanistan, IED's, EPA, and Banks

Open E-Mail to Rep. Neugebauer:

Randy,

Here are just a few comments on your latest newsletter.

Our Afghanistan troops are undoubtedly the best in the world, but they shouldn't be there. We are not in the business of nation building. There is no need for ground forces to eliminate terrorist activities as a threat to the US mainland. And, I'm glad to see you are talking with the Ambassador and General about the troop draw down. The sooner the draw down the better.

My heart bleeds for our troops who have been disabled by improvised explosive devices (IED's). This is a special shame, because it is so unnecessary. A little concentration on how to control these IED's through technology involving premature explosion or identification would have saved a tremendous amount of heartache and expense in rehabilitating the disabled. Don't tell me that this isn't a solvable problem. It is. We have tremendous technical capability and while it has not been duck soup, it could've been accomplished several years ago.

I am pleased to see that the House is considering two bills involving EPA limitations on mercury and other pollutants from cement plants and industrial boilers.

Mercury is not a hazard and should never have been considered as such. Mercury is released to the atmosphere primarily through the burning of coal, of which mercury is a minor contaminant. The atmospheric mercury eventually lands back into the soil from which it came, and where it caused no harm. A very small amount falls into swampy areas, where biological process involving microorganisms convert the elemental mercury to methylmercury. Methylmercury is toxic and is at the very low concentrations in swampy areas. The fact that swamps are not usually inhabited by human beings makes the health problem of minor or no significance.

With respect to "other pollutants", and since they cannot be specifically named, they must not be important, and we can quickly dispose of that.

I also need to comment on your new Question of the Week. You asked whether Bank of America's five-dollar fee for using a debit card would expand to other banks and the answer was a resounding "yes". My comment does not involve the "yes", but questions whether you as a member of Congress should have even raised the subject.
Let's have a quick rundown of what the banking business is all about. We need a medium of exchange for ease of negotiations in exchanges of goods and services. Hence, the development of the currency system. Government is best able to do this, and we have the Federal Reserve to establish a currency base by printing money. Banks have charters and because of their charters, they are able to borrow from the Federal Reserve at a low interest rate. They then use the borrowed money to lend to other borrowers at a retail level and at a higher interest rate. The difference between the interest rate they pay the Federal Reserve and the interest rate they collect from retail borrowers is the primary source of revenue from which they pay their rent, employees, and hopefully make a profit for the owners who originally put their money into establishing the bank. In addition, banks perform other services, for which they usually charge fees. Some services may not involve separate fees and are built into their general expense. The result is the same. Banks need to make a profit to stay afloat.

My question to you is why you and presumably other members of Congress even look at bank fees as a source of revenue. There's nothing wrong with them. There are many banks in competition. Let them work out their own fee schedules. If on the other hand, we see a number of banks going out of business, because the spread in borrowing and lending interest rates is too low, then you may want to do something with respect to the Federal Reserve.