Pat Toomey

The Fed's recent actions raise concerns that it's losing sight of this constraint.

Would you agree that if regional Fed banks engage in partisan advocacy masquerading as research, that advocacy would harm the Fed's credibility?

I sent letters to three regional Fed banks inquiring about what I see as a troubling veer into social policy topics.

As Larry Summers said last week, there seems to be an overemphasis of certain risks like climate change by central banks.

The siren calls of politically charged endeavors should be ignored, in order to preserve the credibility and independence of the Fed.

The good news is we have hundreds of billions of unspent COVID funds that Congress can repurpose to pay for infrastructure.

We should not pay for an infrastructure package by borrowing billions of more dollars.

There are notorious stories of concentrations of poverty and crime and other social ills.

The Administration's so-called infrastructure plan calls for $40 billion more for public housing.

Let me end where I began. In my view, I do think it is possible for us to enact a bipartisan bill that responsibly boosts Federal support for real physical infrastructure.

I met with President Biden and a group of my Republican colleagues to discuss a potential bipartisan infrastructure package.

Isn't it important that we follow the law and the HUD regulation and have processes in place to minimize the risk that these vouchers go to people who are not supposed to have them?

This kind of Government spending is not sustainable. It is contributing to inflation that is already with us.

Only 6 percent of the Administration's $2.2 trillion so-called infrastructure actually goes to roads and bridges.

Some of these projects are such in a state of disrepair that the cost of repairing them is greater than the cost that it would incur of just providing vouchers for people to live in good, decent homes.

It should responsibly boost support for real, that is to say physical infrastructure.

We should not interrupt that progress.

Finding a consensus on reauthorization will be challenging, and time is tight.

Frustratingly, the policies of Congress--not FEMA--are the root causes of NFIP challenges.

Clearly, NFIP systemically underprices flood insurance.

I think these property-based subsidies should be phased out over time.

There is a way to have a sort of independent verification of whether or not the risk pricing is as fair as it can be

I think about the repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss properties in particular.

I think the current system of NFIP is not working properly, it is problematic for taxpayers who have to bail it out, year in and year out.

Let's do no harm. Right now, under existing law, NFIP is moving toward an actuarially sound premium program.