Posts Tagged ‘Congress’

NYT/CBS Poll- Who are the Tea Partiers?

April 16, 2010

Liberals have taken the “results” of this poll as a way to characterize the Tea Party as being controlled by a bunch of rich people who are just looking out for themselves. They also want to portray them as being on the fringe and not reflective of the way America really thinks.

So, I thought that I would look at the actual poll results itself. Here is a link– http://documents.nytimes.com/new-york-timescbs-news-poll-national-survey-of-tea-party-supporters?ref=politics You can even download the results as a PDF.

I’m not a pollster, but all of the Tea Party responses were marked with TP. All other stats provided were from prior national polls (CBS) to, as liberal pundits on MSNBC would call it, reflect the view of mainstream America.

So, on to question #1 (slight paraphrase), do you approve of the way Obama is doing his job?

  • Tea Party- 7% approve, 88% disapprove
  • However, all of the CBS polls conducted before that, shows that “mainstream America’s” approval of Obama has dropped from 62% down to 50%. But liberals will tell you that America is absolutely thrilled with him as president even though his numbers are dropping.

Questions #2/3 (slight paraphrase), what do you like/dislike about him?

  • 46% of America say that they just like him or they don’t what they like about him. (Hmmm…I thought liberals and progressives were supposed to be educated, and they don’t even know why they like him.)
  • 48% of Tea Partiers have the same opinion. (Maybe the Tea Party does reflect mainstream America?)
  • 46% of America say they just don’t like him or don’t know why.
  • 26% of Tea Partiers have the same opinion. (Maybe they are better educated? Who knew?)

Question #4 (slight paraphrase), is the country going in the right direction? Note: They provided CBS polling data going back to 1991. I am going to focus on the timeframe from 1/2009.

  • Tea Party- 6% right, 92% wrong
  • America- Peaked at 45% (May 2009) in the right direction and has gone down ever since. (Maybe the Tea Party is leading the way…oh, yeah, by educating the public.)

Question #5 (slight paraphrase)- what’s the biggest problem facing the country?

  • Tea Party- 56% Economy, Jobs, and Deficit
  • America- 55% Jobs, Economy, and Deficit (Tea Partiers are such fringe extremists.)

I could go on, but even the most ardent liberal can see the point. The New York Times is clearly pushing their own agenda while polls are supposed to reflect views of the public at large.

If one looks closely at the data, the Tea Party seems to reflect the views of mainstream America. It is progressives (like Obama) who do not reflect the views of mainstream America.

Questioning Progressives?? How Dare I?

April 7, 2010

In an op-ed disguised as an article on the Huffington Post, Robert Creamer, a self-proclaimed progressive, lays out the reasons he thinks that Democrats will be able to maintain control of the government because of health care reform.

I decided to respond to them…

Because it’s passed into law, Democrats are now the ones who will be in a position to demand that Republicans keep their “hands off our health care.” And we can be very specific about provisions that go into effect right away. — OK. Please note that he did not mention any of the specific provisions for starters. By most reports, there are only three effects that will kick in this year– 1) Keep children on parents’ health insurance until age 26; 2) Closing the loophole prescription drug coverage for older Americans, and 3) Not denying children because of pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, the bill that had to be passed quickly will not provide insurance for most of  “the 32 million” until 2014.

Does Congressman Boehner really want to repeal the 35% tax credit that helps small business buy health care for their employees? — What Mr. Creamer forgets to mention is the rest of Section 1421 where it says that the credit would “the lesser” of the costs if 1) all of the employees who were covered by the employer’s group plan or 2) if all of the employees had  enrolled whether or not they actually did. This would also be for the prior tax year. Hmmm….what will happen to the small business who had the misfortune of expanding just prior to the passage of this bill? Simple, the tax credit would be nowhere near enough for the employer to absorb the costs. He also does not mention that the credit will be redcued based on the number of employees and average wages.

Does McConnell really want to repeal the provision that prevents insurance companies from denying benefits to children who have “pre-existing conditions?” — Aaahhh, the morality angle. Stating the obvious is the only thing healthcare supporters can do. Fine! Repeal this monstrosity and pass a simpler bill saying insurance companies can not deny children on the basis of pre-existing conditions. There problem solved without creating a massive new bureaucracy. Man, I think I deserve the Nobel Prize for Medicine for solving such a complex issue.

Does Steele really want to kick all the recent college grads off their parent’s health insurance policies?— No, but do progressives want to create a culture of underachievers? The only way this reform would work is for people to continue to be productive and thereby maintaining the tax base necessary to fund this monster. Where’s the incentive for these young adults? Or could this be a backdoor way to cover their political backsides because the unemployment rate is still high and will probably go higher once this goes into effect.

Does the Republican caucus really oppose closing the “donut hole” of coverage for senior citizen drug benefits — or forcing seniors to send back the 250 check they will get this summer as a down payment on making drugs more affordable?— Again, the morality angle, but in two parts no less. Close the “donut hole”, but do it without reinventing the wheel. (See my point about children and pre-existing conditions.) As for the $250 check, how long does that last? A month, maybe two… Let’s not forget the increased costs for businesses will be passed onto the consumer– in this case, the senior citizen.

Do Republicans want to side with the big insurance companies and eliminate the provision that will limit the amount of our premium dollars that insurance companies can spend on CEO pay, armies of bureaucrats who do nothing but deny claims, TV ads and limousines full of lobbyists?— So, the argument here is that we need the reinvent the entire wheel to reign in runaway insurance companies. Mr. Creamer does not mention that the health insurance industry was a willing participant at the start of this debate over a year ago. However, that was before they were considered the true “evil” behind this problem.

…the bill did not – as the Republicans claimed — cut their Medicare. In fact they will find that it has strengthened their Medicare – that the only thing cut was a subsidy to big private insurers. — OK, the $500 billion cut strengthens Medicare. So, the insurers get less money from the government as reimbursement for covering Medicare patients. Notice the costs of the treatment did not go down, just the reimbursement. So, that means the insurer is losing money on every single Medicare patient. What would happen if the costs of the treatment goes up? That’s right, the insurer would lose even more money. The logical conclusion being that all private insurers would eventually go out of business– leaving only the government. Obama has said that he is an advocate of the single-payer system. Google it!! The video is out there.

He then goes on to belittle the leadership of the Republican Party (McConnell, Boehner, and Steele) as being beholden to big business, Wall Street, the insurance industry, etc. He condemns the accumulation of wealth (especially by a few) as being the root of all evil and that it takes a courageous leader– i.e. Obama– to use the power of the government to level the playing field by taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor.

So, Mr. Creamer, what would be my incentive to be productive if the government will just give it to me because it’s the right thing to do? This whole healthcare debate is not about the morality of the issue. It’s about the economics of the issue which carried out to its logical conclusion would have everyone doing nothing to get something.

Sorry, but I’m not buying.

The Emergency Healthcare Army

April 2, 2010

According to Section 5210 of HR 3590, titled “Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps,” the force must be ready for “involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises.”- Source WorldNet Daily

So, the healthcare bill literally spends millions of dollars for people to act as an emergency health army. I thought the healthcare bill was supposed to make life better because people had access to good healthcare. If this is true; then why do we need a healthcare army?

Probably for the shortage of doctors…

Cost of Doing Business with Saul Alinsky

March 29, 2010

As I mentioned in a previous post, I wondered if the Democrats were using Saul Alinsky’s rules for radicals as their political playbook. Another rule Alinsky has is:

Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

Now that the healthcare bill is now law, several major companies have publicly spoken about the effect this law is going to have on their bottom line. Remember, the Democrats have repeatedly said this is going to control– if not bring down–costs. So, this law is supposed to be a good thing.

According to a WSJ article, this is what the new healthcare is going to cost the following companies:

  • AT&T- $1 billion dollars (No, that’s not a typo.)
  • John Deere- $150 million
  • Catepillar- $100 million
  • 3M- $90 million;
  • AK Steel, $31 million;
  • Valero Energy- up to $20 million

So, that would be a total of $1.391 billion dollars for just these six companies. Six, only six companies and it’s already that much. (I do think AT&T may be slightly exaggerated, but I’m not one of their corporate accountants. That means I’ll have to take them at their word.) Other companies will probably come out with a wide range of numbers in the not so distant future.

The Democrats, in typical Alinsky fashion, have some issues with these companies. Commerce Secretary Gary Locke took to the White House blog to write, “…for them to come out, I think is premature and irresponsible.”

Premature and irresponsible? Seriously?

Premature, in simplest terms, means to be done too early. It would have been premature for these companies to state the costs of these healthcare changes when the bill had not been passed, much less finalized. Common sense should tell anyone that these companies were calculating costs for the past year. Waiting for the bill to be passed before announcing the costs is common sense– much less good business sense.

Irresponsible, again in simplest terms, is a careless action or a lack of personal ownership. (Never mind that I find it hilarious that a Washington politician is lecturing anyone about irresponsibility.) Any publicly company traded has a responsibility to its shareholders to identify any change that will affect the business either positively or negatively. The company also has a responsibility to determine the benefit or severity of that change. So, it would seem to me, these companies have acted responsibly by telling their shareholders what the cost and impact of the new healthcare law will be.

Since these companies had the audacity to do this, Henry Waxman is going to have these companies testify in Congress on April 21, because their judgement “appears to conflict with independent analyses, which show that the new law will expand coverage and bring down costs.”

One second…need to stop laughing before I continue. OK,  that’s better.

“Bring down costs”— On what planet??? Common sense logic should tell you that insuring additional people will costs money. That’s how it works! Using my own healthcare costs ($2400/year) as an example, it would costs approximately $77 billion a year to insure 32 million people. That is basic and simple math. It is NOT a partisan viewpoint.

“Independent analyses”— Pray tell, whose? The CBO’s??? The Congressional Budget Office has so many limitations and constraints they have to work within that their accounting practices bear no semblance of reality. However, in the real world where companies like AT&T are, they have to keep accurate books so they can make a profit. Failure to do so, e.g. Enron, tend to have corporate executives spending a lot of quality time in prison.

However, the Democrats intend to have a hearing where they will humiliate the companies for speaking out against the healthcare bill and the mainstream media will be there to act as cheerleader. The companies are being responsible stewards and they are going to be burned at the stake for it.

Alinsky would be proud.

Alinsky’s Rule #10

March 26, 2010

First off, let me say that violence against anyone for their opinion is wrong. No flowing rhetoric, no long-winded diatribe. It’s just wrong. So, if the recent rash of violence or threats of violence against Congressmen is even remotely true; then the people who are committing these acts should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

However, with my current distrust of the media, this got me thinking about the entire situation. There’s an old joke– How do you know when a politician is lying? His lips are moving– which spurred me to find out more about the incidents of violence and see if there is more to the story.

According to an Associated Press article (on MSNBC.com), at least 10 Democrats and a few Republicans, Eric Cantor being the highest ranking among them. Why such a disparity? Then I remembered something I read during the campaign. Saul Alinksy, one of Obama’s “heroes”, wrote a number of rules for community activists to adhere to if they want to be successful in implementing the change they want.

The one in question is rule #10 which says: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)

I had to wonder if the Democrats were making a conscientious effort to implement this rule in an attempt to win public opinion. So I decided to dig further.

Threats against Congressmen:
In response to Cantor, DNC spokesman Brad Woodhouse said, “Let’s be clear: Calling on Republican leaders who have contributed in part to this anger by wildly mischaracterizing the substance and motives of health reform to condemn these acts is entirely appropriate.”

Cantor had said the Democrats were using the incidents as political weapons to “fan the flames.”

So, let’s keep going.

“…anyone would make threats against me or my family,” said Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, D-Pa.

Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said his office received a letter with white powder (possibly anthrax) in it.

Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH) said he had received threats. Just like Weiner, he posted it on his congressional website.

E-mails sent to Rep. Suzanne Kosmas, D-Fla., another member who switched her vote, urged her to commit suicide and said she and her family should rot in hell.”

Rep. Louise Slaughter, a New York Democrat and chairwoman of an influential House committee, said someone had left her a voicemail that used the word “snipers.” In a written statement, she said GOP leaders have been “fanning the flames with coded rhetoric.” (She mentions Sarah Palin by name.)

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who had opposed the healthcare bill until he caved to party leadership, received threatening phone and fax messages. Here are examples released by the congressman:

* “I hope you bleed … (get) cancer and die,” one caller told the congressman between curses.
* A fax carried a picture of a gallows with “Bart (SS) Stupak” on it and a noose. It was captioned, “All Baby Killers come to unseemly ends Either by the hand of man or by the hand of God.”
* “Stupak, you are a lowlife, baby-murdering scumbag, pile of steaming crap. You’re a cowardly punk, Stupak, that’s what you are. You and your family are scum,” an unidentified caller said. “That’s what you are, Stupak. You are a piece of crap.”
* “Go to hell, you piece of [expletive deleted]” another called said.

Someone cut a propane line leading to a grill at the home of Rep. Tom Perriello’s brother after the address was posted online. Perriello also said a threatening letter was sent to his brother’s house.

House Democratic Majority Whip James Clyburn, who is African-American, said he has received a fax in his office with a picture of a noose drawn on it and had threatening telephone calls at his home. The CNN article portrays this one as appearing to be racially based.

Now, there may be hope if it had stopped here, but there is more. Prior to the healthcare vote, Rep. John Lewis (D-GA), Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and others brazenly walked through a crowd of protestors. Immediately afterwards, the Democrats stated that the protestors hurled various epithets, and one protestor spat on Rep. Cleaver.

However, the Capitol Police said Cleaver could not identify the individual. There are numerous YouTube videos of the encounter where no one is seen or heard using an epithet. In the case of Frank, several protestors have stated that Frank initiated the cursing. The mainstream media is now continuing the story without attempting to verify any of the circumstances.

Wait, there’s more…

As I mentioned in a previous post, the Democrats characterized Tea Party protestors as being “Nazis”, “Un-American”, and “sabotaging democracy.” This is among a whole hosts of other unsavory names. The mainstream media carried on the fight for the Democrats as a willing accomplice. Don’t believe me– Watch MSNBC news. Chris Matthews has stated that it’s his job “to make this presidency work.”

So, while violence against a person is reprehensible, one has to question the authenticity of some of these events. How many were real? How many were concocted to gain public sympathy? Or to ostracize opponents of the progressive agenda of the Democrats? The reason I say this is because it seems that Democrats have an established pattern of negatively characterizing anyone who opposes their agenda.

One has to question this especially since Saul Alinsky is someone President Obama admires…

The Socialist Agenda

March 26, 2010

According to Dictionary.com, socialism is:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

According to Marxist theory, socialism is an intermediate stage betweem capitalism and communism characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

So, the question I have is this. Do you think that Obama has a socialist agenda based on this definition? Let’s cite a few facts.

The healthcare bill is an attempt by the federal government to provide insurance coverage for all Americans if you were to only listen to the news reports. However, if you were to read the actual bill itself, the government is mandating insurance coverage, setting minimum standards for coverage and quality of care, dictating types of research that must be conducted, and ensuring access to end-of-life care. (…tell grandma whether to get the treatment or take a pill…)

The automotive industry was the benficiary of a huge bailout. The U.S. government is now the current owner of approximately 60% of General Motors.  They forced out one CEO and installed another one in his place. So, not  only does the government own the company; they hired the new CEO. They also provided backing for warranties offered by both GM and Chrysler. They also determined GM was too big to fail while Chrysler was too small to survive.

According to a New York Times article written in 1999.  The housing industry takeover was initiated by the Clinton administration in an attempt to expand home ownership. According to Franklin Raines, ”Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions…”Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required…” So, this was clearly initated by the Clinton administration. Now, the Obama administration now proposes taking on these loans, on behalf of people who truly didn’t qualify in the first place, according to an Associated Press article.

FYI- The Bush administration attempted to correct the problem, but did not have enough control over Congress to stem Democrat opposition. It started in 2001 when the Bush administration warned that the “…financial trouble of a large GSE (such as Fannie and Freddie) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity.”  In 2003, the Bush administration asked Congress to enact legislation to provide supervision over Fannie and Freddie. Barney Frank (D-MA) responded by saying, “these two entities – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – are not facing any kind of financial crisis … The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.” Thomas Carper (D-DE) stated that the GSEs did not need to be reformed saying,  “…if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”  The Bush administration repeatedly asked Congress to pass reform legislation which the Democrats opposed, led by Barney Frank, until July 2008. 

This can easily be construed as a means for individuals to shirk their own personal responsibilities and to increase their reliance on the federal government. If these people did not qualify for a mortgage, why would the government force Fannie Mae (and Freddie Mac) to extend financing to these people? Why would the government clean up the mess left by people who should have known better than to purchase something they could not afford?

The Democrats also took over the student loan industry by including provisions within the healthcare bill. Now, any college student needing a loan to go to college will have to get that loan from the Department of Education. The banks have now been removed as “the middlemen” so millions of students can afford to go to college.”

Is the government takeover only limited to these areas? According to Nancy Pelosi, now that healthcare has passed “…there’ll be more legislation to follow.”

So, what is next industry that needs to be taken over by the government? The widely accepted answer is Wall Street needs to be subjected to government oversight and regulation to ensure this financial crisis does not happen again. The House of Representatives has already passed this act. The bill would create a new agency dedicated to consumer protection, establish a council of regulators to police the financial landscape for systemic risks, install oversight of the vast derivatives market and give the government power to wind down large, troubled firms whose collapse could endanger the entire financial system.

So, as you can see, the process has already begun. The question becomes– Where will it end?

10 Facts about Health Care

March 24, 2010

There was an article in the St. Petersburg Times where they list ten facts about healthcare. I decided to check their facts against the Senate healthcare bill itself. Here is my response to them. (I’ll add #2 and 7 when I have time. 2074 pages would take a long time to read, and I have a life.)

__________

#1 is so pathetically sad it’s not even funny. Isn’t a “takeover” the entire point of this bill? Doctors may not become government employees like they are in Britain, but the entire system (insurers, hospitals, doctors, and individuals) would be accountable to the government or face penalties of varying amounts. So, not only is the government managing and enforcing involvement in the system; it is also setting minimum standards for coverage, quality of care, and the development of alternative therapies (wonder why– could it be for costs reasons?). And to quote “the annointed one”, it will also provide information (through your doctor) concerning the likelihood that a health care treatment will result in disability. — How many seniors go against the advice of their doctors? “…tell grandma if she should seek treatment or take a pill…” (Google Obama + ABC + healthcare on the videos page.)
 
#3 is also wrong. It is not an individual mandate, but a shared responsibility payment where it states that an individual who fails to maintain minimum coverage will have a penalty imposed upon them.
 
#4, on the surface, is irrelevant and contradictory. If the individual would have to pay a fine for not having insurance, who would care about the employer? (But I digress…)
Employers with more than 50 full-time employees (30 hours or more) would be required to offer insurance or pay a fine. (Do notice that I listed an example of what it means to be a full-time employee. There are several other examples detailing how any business could circumvent this requirement, including firing people.) Also, realize that employers who do not meet this requirement would force employees to buy insurance through the government exchange and therefore lose control over what types of insurance they could get. Not to also mention, what do you think would happen if it would be cheaper for a business to pay a fine than offer insurance? (Which would probably apply to large employers)
 
#5 is wrong as well. Federal subsidies will be provided for people making less than $88K/year. People making more than that will see increases in their premiums on somewhat of a sliding scale
#6 is subject to interpretation. Providing insurance coverage to 32 million, at government expense, will cut costs. That ia obviuosly a political statement if there ever was one. There is no logical explanation for this. Conservative estimates have the deficit increasing by at least a half a trillion dollars, somewhat similar to Medicare costs which is, oh yeah, run by the federal government.
 
#8- This one depends on how you define poor. The bill defines it ass people who are below the poverty line. The bill states people with an income no more than 133% of the poverty line would be covered. It also states that parents of children enrolled in Medicaid would also be eligible without mention of income limits. It also says that any state could expand coverage to include anyone they deem appropriate. It also says that states must submit a report, disaggregated by population, including children, parents, nonpregnant childless adults, disabled individuals, elderly individuals, and such other categories or sub-categories of individuals eligible for medical assistance under the State plan or under a waiver of the plan as the Secretary may require. So, it seems that anyone who qualifies for medical assistance would qualify for Medicaid.
 
#9 violates the Hyde Amendment which says that federal funds can not be used to fund abortions. Since federal subsidies will be used to purchase insurance, that would make it in violation of the Hyde Amendment. This is why Stupak (D-MI) opposed the bill until he caved. (Don’t forget the executive order the “annointed one” is about to sign.)
 
#10 is interesting because it is so vague and open-ended. The immigrant’s status seems to play into determining eligibilty for healthcare with a social security number being the only stated form of identification. This means that if the immigrant can document that they are a “citizen”; then they would be eligible. I can tell you that the primary way illegals enter the country is through the use of falsified documents. It also states that an employer shall not rescind coverage with respect to an enrollee once the enrollee is covered. So, if the illegal is covered; then they can keep that coverage. Also, each health insurance issuer that offers health insurance coverage in the individual or group market in a State must accept every employer and individual in the State that applies for such coverage. So, while it may not mention giving illegals coverage outright, I can see numerous ways for an illegal to circumvent the law, including, but not limited to, simply showing up at an emergency room in need of medical attention since it is illegal for a hospital to deny treatment.
 
__________
 
Another tidbit…
 
So, you can keep your current insurance– are you sure? A quote from the bill—
 
 
Except as provided in subparagraph (B), coverage of eligible individuals under a high risk pool in a State shall terminate on January 1, 2014. The Secretary shall develop procedures to provide for the transition of eligible individuals enrolled in health insurance coverage offered through a high risk pool established under this section into qualified health plans offered through an Exchange.

So, if you’re considered “high-risk”; I guess that means you will be on the government insurance plan as of 2014.

 
 
 
 

An Open Letter to Democrats

March 23, 2010

This is in response to Michael Moore who wrote an open letter to all Republicans.
_____________________________

There is an old saying: “Three things you should never talk about: Sex, Religion, and Politics.” I would like to announce the demise of true political discourse in this country. It did not go out with a bang or a whimper. It was extinguished by individuals who think they know what is best for you.

To Democrats- liberals in particular:

Bush/Cheney are not in office. They could not have served for third term even if they wanted to do so. So, please do the American public a favor and stop talking about what Bush/Cheney did. They are gone and they are not coming back. This is nothing more than a political smokescreen and enough is enough. Complaining about the war and playing the race card to deflect attention from your real agenda is an old and pathetic manuver.

Next, it’s the economy stupid!!! To paraphrase the “annointed one”, on numerous occasions, “We are in the middle of the worst recession since the Great Depression.” So, a 3.6 trillion dollar budget does not make sense. Where is the money coming from? Government spends what they take in in taxes. So, this budget must have a corresponding tax increase so it is paid for. Otherwise, the government is increasing the national debt. Do not quote talking points and tell me the money will come from reallocating existing funds and taxing the rich. That still wouldn’t be enough money to pay for the budget.

The president said in another interview, I think with CNBC: “We are out of money.” Fine, so please explain to me why the U.S. is going to reform health care? According to the Democrats, it is going to cost 938 billion. If we are out of money, how is this going to be paid for? The president stated today that this must happen to ensure the stability of families. Hmmm. Part of the way Democrats say this is going to be paid for is with a payroll tax, up to 8% of total payroll, on any small business which does not offer health care to its employees. Small businesses will cut jobs to maintain their financial viability. Please explain how this will maintain family stability if they do not have the means to provide for their day-to-day needs because they lost their job.

Finally, can you please display some honest character? The president, members of Congress, and all federal employees are public servants. This means they are supposed to serve the best interests of the entire public.

The president campaigned on how he would change the culture of Washington. He then went on to appoint in his cabinet either long-standing members of Congress or members of the Clinton administration. Where’s the fresh perspective? He said he would reinvent the image of the U.S. abroad. We are still dealing with Iraq and Afghanistan, but the president added Iran and North Korea to the mix. So much for security. He said he would cut taxes for 95% of Americans and they would all receive a “stimulus” check. I still have not gotten mine, but 10,000 dead people have received theirs. Now, the president is proposing taxes on everything from sodas to health care benefits to energy. So, I can’t have a coke, see the doctor, or watch television. That will do wonders for my “stability.”

The members of the president’s cabinet (and those who withdrew their name) have admitted to or may be convicted of the following: 1) failed to file taxes; 2) worked as a lobbyist for the department they were nominated for; 3) accused of taking kickbacks just to name a few. These are the people the president selected to help him run the country. Then there are the ‘czars.’ What???!!! I won’t even go into detail, but the president has chosen people to oversee areas where they do not have any previous experience. This is the utmost in lunacy.

I almost forgot. DO YOUR JOB!!! In more specific terms, this refers to things such as read the bill before you vote on it. (The entire bill not just the highlights as an Obama adviser said on Fox News about the healthcare bill.) Also, if a bill can not withstand rigorous debate; then it should not become law. The country will not implode if you actually take some time to consider the merit of a bill. And last but not least, the character assassinations or political blackmail you have done on Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbuagh show you to have no firm belief in your own ideas. They need to stop before the public turns on you.

This is not politics; this is plain common sense. Actually, do the research for yourself. The information is out there.

Healthcare reform for all Americans??

March 23, 2010

In making his sales pitch for health care reform, “the annointed one” said that it would benefit all Americans. However, he failed to mention that he would be exempt. There was no mention that members of Congress would be exempt. When pressed, several members of Congress said (and I’m paraphrasing here) that they shouldn’t be made to take it.  Also, there is the deal “the annointed one” made with the unions to exempt them from this as well.

Now, it seems that even the staffers who work for these people are exempt from buying healthcare from the government as well.

“…on page 158 of the legislation, which appears to create a carveout for senior staff members in the leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same way as other Americans.”— Source: The New Ledger

Then the supporters of this have the nerve to insist that everyone should be on board with this because it would benefit all Americans. Pelosi said, right before the vote on the bill, that this “would release the entreprenurial spirit” of Americans and “would allow them to pursue their dreams” without the overriding concern of providing healthcare for themselves and their families.

If this is the case; then why so many exemptions? Why isn’t everyone, and I mean everyone, forced to get their healthcare from the same spot? Especially since it would release the “entreprenurial spirit of all Americans.”

And to say that the opponents of healthcare is politicizing the issue. If you read the relevant text (p. 156 of the linked PDF),  an average American would think that members of Congress would have to take the same healthcare as the rest of us. Don’t be fooled! It was written that way, but look again. Notice the following:

“Notwithstanding any other provison of law, after the effective date of this subtitle”  

Two questions– When is the effective date of this subtitle? If I were to venture a guess, it would be far enough in the future that the furor over this insanity would have died down.  If this is good for all Americans, why would they need to put in a qualifier? All they would have to do to exempt themselves from this is to pass another bill.

Again, I ask why? Could it be because Congress does not want anyone to make that choice for them?

If you would like to read the text of H.R. 3590, click here.

Term Limits for Congressmen

March 22, 2010

In recent days, one thing should be apparent. Our “representatives” in Congress are snake-oil salesmen who will do whatever it takes to maintain the status quo for them not us. They will attempt to spin everything and anything as being responsive to the needs of their constituents. They simply do this in the hope they can get reelected.

I think that is something we need to change. Roosevelt had been reelected to his fourth term as president when he died. Shortly thereafter, a constitutional amendment was passed which said presidents can only be elected to two terms. The general idea is to prohibit one man, i.e. one party, from holding the reigns of power to long.

The question one must ask is why isn’t this same principle applied to members of Congress. Joe Biden was a senator for over 30 years before he became vice-president. John McCain, who just ran for president, has also been a senator for 22 years. Strom Thurmond served as a senator for South Carolina until he was 100 years old. I even took a political science class in college from a professor who was a former nine-term representative.

Does anyone think Thurmond was really doing senatorial work for his last term? I didn’t think so. So, why did he continue to run for relection? Simple, he wanted to continue to enjoy the power he had accumulated over the years, as well as untold benefits and perks that came with his political position. Also, to say that he was the only one who did so would be simply ludicrous.

Representatives are supposed to work on the behalf of the people they represent. So, we need to change the rules so those who run for Congress remember that very point. If service is limited to twelve years, only altruistic and idealistic individuals would seek to serve.

As the old saying goes: “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Term limits would diminsh the corruption within the political system. Influence peddling would not work because politicians would be forced to retire before they could wreak too much havoc on the country, if they were inclined to do so. It would also severly limit, if not eliminate, the influence of lobbyist and special interests groups.

Reform the system. We need to install term limits for all members of Congress.