INTERVIEW: U.S. Rep. Judy Biggert Talks Taxes, Banks and Federal Disconnect

Judy Biggert has a few things on her mind.

The Republican incumbent candidate for Illinois' 13th Congressional District believes there could be big changes ahead as a result of the November elections. She believes the gridlock between Democrats and Republicans that has stalled attempts to reverse the nation's economic downturn could end, pending election results. She thinks the Bush tax cuts should remain in place and that health care reform must be sensitive to the needs of  small business owners.

On a more local level, Biggert says the key to economic recovery is getting unemployed people back to work. While at the Road to Employment Job Fair she sponsored along with Orland Park Mayor Dan McLaughlin and the Orland Park Area Chamber of Commerce, Biggert spoke with Patch before heading back to Washington. She spoke about the strain she said is put on banks by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the need for political parties to cooperate and the federal government's role in education.

 Can the federal government assist people on a local level with finding employment?

One way is holding events such as this job fair. We've done others. But on a bigger level, we are looking at jobs and how that affects the economy. I'm going back to Washington this afternoon, and coming up is the issue of extending the tax cuts that were put in place in 2003. It's very important that passes so there is no tax increase on everybody, which could be $3.8 trillion in increases. 

And not just those with an income less than $250,000 as a single payer. Small businesses are responsible for most jobs in the country. Seventy five percent pay taxes as individuals or single entrepreneurs. If they have to pay more tax, it'll slow down their ability to hire or invest. This is very important that we can pass the bill that way. We'll have to fight for it.

The government has put in so many barriers for the end users, what we call the businesses. Things like raising the capital gains in the health care bill, or the dividends. Businesses don't have the money to reinvest. Things like section 179. A lot of things we got into shouldn't be the business of the federal government.

Has the government gotten into these things recently or earlier?

There's the regulatory reform bill we just passed. Regulators are coming to the banks and are saying, "You have this loan; it's a paying loan. The people are paying on time. They haven't been late or anything, but we think that loan is going to fail in a year or two so you have to devalue it now." Then they can't loan more to small businesses. The whole problem revolves around uncertainty.

Can the federal government find a way to not impinge on banks while still encouraging them to loan?

 I went to Sheila Bair, chairman of the FDIC, and she said, "Oh no." But that's what the field operators are doing. There's a disconnect among the regulators. There's so many times when there's been a crisis, we go overboard with more rules and regulations. A lot of the regulators are being so restrictive in their rules, even if the bills weren't so bad, though some were.

What will it take for the two parties to put aside differences and get to work on solutions?

I think we have a lot of solutions on our side. But there is a disconnect. We're not working together. Maybe this election could change that. I have been voted by my peers as one of the most bipartisan voters in Congress. I'm willing to cross the aisle. We had a bill in financial services that made people stop and say, "Where did this come from?" And I said, "It came when we worked together." That's what we have to do. This is one of my passions. We can't have this ugliness all the time. It's gotten worse as we've gone along.

Both parties want the majority, but if we don't treat each other with respect …we have rules and procedures and we need to make sure those are followed. When we (Republicans) became the minority, all of a sudden there were no hearings on bills. No time to read them. My way or the highway. We made mistakes too, though. But this is the way it was. It's such a disconnect. I think we can do it if we start on the right path, especially with major bills. That's why we haven't gotten things done on what people want. It's because we didn't start up working together.

We had bipartisan support for the education bill when we did No Child Left Behind. Some things didn't work out. But that's why every five years we need to go back and see if things need to be changed or not. But that was something that worked out. Everyone worked on that.

Are you saying No Child Left Behind worked?

It was passed with input from both sides. I was on that committee and we worked together.

Speaking of education, area schools are concerned about funding right now. Is there a greater role the federal government can play in school funding?

Illinois just lost an opportunity with Race to the Top, which was put in by the Secretary of Education. They went ahead and did this without input from Congress. Two states received $418 million apiece. Illinois was one of five finalists, but didn't get it. The second phase, they didn't get it when 10 states got it, because they said superintendents and some teachers unions didn't have enough input ... That all was from the stimulus. Other money from the stimulus went to the states, but I don't know how much went to the schools, and how much went to other things in their budgets.

Funding from the federal government is mostly for Title 1 — disadvantaged kids. We're not the national board of education. I used to be in the Illinois General Assembly. I felt then the states had the preponderance and the duty to fund schools. Obviously, Illinois is in bad shape as are most states. If the economy comes back, everything changes. Revenue goes up without raising taxes, with people earning money and paying taxes they owe. We can't seem to break the cycle we're in.

Since part of what led to the housing bubble was a laxity in regulations, is there a balance between what the government can do and what the market will do on its own?

They keep trying to do foreclosures and see if banks will take on 10 percent off of what was lost, so that the homeowner can rewrite the mortgage and it works for some. But people are still losing jobs. People come to us and say they've been out of work for two years. They are paying mortgages with no job and are out of money. We have to get jobs back first. There's an idea, maybe do the purchased option with rent and keep people in homes. But people were in over their heads. It was the fault of everybody. The Community Revitalization Act told banks to put people in homes. I didn't support that. Everyone wants a home, but you have to be able to afford it.