Government Waste - Pelosi Burned Many Air Miles and Taxpayer Dollars

During Nancy Pelosi's reign as Speaker of the House she took advantage of, and seriously abused, her position. All at taxpayer expense.

According to documents obtained from the US Air Force, through the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch discovered that during the first nine months of 2010 Pelosi flew 90,155 miles on Air Force aircraft 43 different times. That is an average of almost five flights per month.

An example of one roundtrip flight: A May 6-10, 2010, Congressional Delegation to Afganistan and Germany "to discuss issues of mutual interest in Qatar and Afghanistan, as well as conduct oversight on women’s issues (troops) in Afghanistan and to visit with US troops and meet with government officials in Germany."

The total cost of military travel was $204,135.00. Makes one wonder what other costs, aside from military, Main Street USA incurred during that trip.

A blazing question is even more basic, however. Why on Earth did Pelosi have to fly to these countries to speak to others about these topics? And a visit to US troops? What could possibly have been achieved by her appearances that would have been of great benefit to American taxpayers?

Perhaps visiting those countries were on her bucket list.

Even more evidence of her blatant disregard towards American citizens is the fact that many of the trips she took were to visit her San Franciso-area home.

Sorry, but this blogger feels that if someone runs for national office they know well in advance that they will have to live in Washington DC and if their family elects not to move then that elected person should foot the bill, through commercial air travel, to visit home. Either that or they can charter a private jet, out of their own pocket, to do so.

Afterall, it is not as if they do not earn a few dollars for talking the talk in DC for several months a year.

It is about time that Capitol Hill discovers webinars and cuts down on excessive and abusive travel, as well as other perks, that they seem to enjoy all too much.

Of note, is that during one two-year period as House Speaker Pelosi racked up military travel expenses of $2,100,744.59. Not a bad perk, Nancy. But, of course, you do feel our pain, don't you?

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Congress Must Be Held Accountable

Where is it that elected representatives feel that they can take their leave without finishing urgent business, causing financial loss and unemployment, two major issues facing their "people."

Only in America.

It is most disturbing that members of the House and Senate take their four week leave prior to dealing with the expired FAA taxation.

This serious lapse by Congress is estimated to cost the government approximately one billion dollars in revenue.

Isn't there a financial crisis still facing the United States?

Does Congress feel that dealing with the loss of a billion can wait?

Or, is that number too small to worry about?

The time is past due when all individuals elected to represent the people perform their jobs as professionals, not as politicians.

They (members of Congress) need to balance the budget. They need to totally eliminate earmarks as a "way of life." They need to trim their own office expenses. They need to quit spending more than is collected by the myriad sources of income they collect. They need to be held 100% accountable.

In short they need to put our house in order.

Main Street USA should not have to continue paying for the excesses and irresponsibility exhibited year after year on Capitol Hill.

America does not need more politicians. America needs leaders. America needs people who take full responsibility for their actions.

Over For now.

Main Street One

The Washington DC Finger Pointing Game Does Not Produce Viable Results

Finger-pointing, which the White House and Congress seem to enjoy, especially concerning spending or budget cuts, does not show Americans any form of responsibility or concern for Main Street USA.

It is a childish activity that does not result in any viable product. Ever.

The only end products of this adolescent behavior are minutes of airtime or inches of press and seeing themselves on prime time.

Politicians of all sizes, shapes and political affiliations are too much engaged in the blame game.

Few are willing to cut spending, especially in areas where the federal government should not be allocating dollars in the first place or to make cuts in their own backyard.

Not to mention the full elimination of earmarks. Each citizen should not have to contribute to an individual community walking path or the like that is attached to a piece of legislation to buy a vote.

Congress and the White House should lead by example.

Each member must begin making cuts in their own house. They have far too many benefits, expense accounts, overseas trips, staff and perks that are paid by taxpayers.

That is where representatives of the people should have started if they were truly serious about handling an economy that the Congressional Budget Office reports faces a $1.5 trillion budget deficit for 2011.

If the newly elected members of Congress (Nov 2010) really believed in cutting the size and shape of government they would have done so when they assumed office and slashed their own individual office budgets (pay freezes, hiring freezes, cuting perks, cutting travel expenses, eliminating waste, etc.).

That would be leading by example.

That would be the only valid time the president, a member of the Senate or House of Representatives could point fingers, telling their colleagues that they must do the same.

Those who occupy seats on Capitol Hill are not some sacred anointed masters. They are elected officials who are servants of the people, though it appears that none truly remember this, if they knew it in the first place.

Servants of the people.

Perhaps each and every one of them should intently and earnestly study the writings of our Founding Fathers and learn what it means to serve.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Atlantis - NASA STS 135 - The Final Space Shuttle Flight

The final flight of the three decade long Space Shuttle program, featuring STS 135 Atlantis, launched just before noon on Friday, July 8, 2011.

For many members of Main Street USA, especially those who grew up in the 1950’s and have watched the evolution of space travel and exploration, STS 135 marks the end of an era that may never be replaced. Below photo: Credit: NASA/Kim Shiflett.



This blogger was with a group of friends at Cape Kenney for the launch of STS 86 Atlantis, on Sepember 25, 1997, and we all watched in awe as the boosters propelled the craft from the launch pad into space. It was truly a spectacle to behold.

However, it appears that those fortunate individuals witnessing STS 135 will be the last of the breed.



Hopefully, Congress, in its infinite wisdom, will rapdily bring back a space program that has contributed in many ways to America.

Until then: R.I.P. Space Shuttle.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Congress Must Lead By Example

There is a lot of ink, talk and webline space devoted to the White House/Congress budget wars. And, rightfully so.

The United States is in much too far in debt, and projected to be so for years.

Why is it so hard for Congress to understand that to lead they must do so by example.

The amount of taxpayer money spent (read: out of the pockets of Main Street USA citizens) to maintain the lifestyle they have been accustomed to is obscene.

Folks on Capitol Hill have become used to too many staff, exorbitant expense accounts, lavish (in this blogger's opinion) foreign travel (to accomplish what exactly?), and benefit and retirement plans that dwarf anything seen in the private sector.

Thus, as a very first step to balancing a budget, Democrats and Republicans (and Independents) should take the proverbial ax to their own house. Not just tiny gestures but meaningful reduction of waste.

Eliminate all foreign travel at taxpayer expense. If someone in Congress feels that they really must visit another country and observe first-hand the circumstances then they should put the tab on their personal credit card. They are, afterall, quite well-paid by any standard.

Make an across-the-board (huge) slash in "office expenses." Large and small businesses alike must do this when running in red ink or risk going out of business. Congress seems to lose sight of this fact. Their solution is simply voting to increase the amount of "legal" national debt and move on, spending as they go.

And, sorry to say this, but staff reductions are a must. Elected representatives need to get back to reality of what it means to work, not have others do their work for them.

While it is probably not the case every day, taxpayers should not be paying for the likes of this:

Members of Congress (and the White House) must lead by example by tightening their oversize (elastic) belts and show (prove to) all Americans that they are serious about cutting costs and saving money.

And one last point: elected officials should not be paid one cent for any days they spend campaigning to be re-elected. Every day away from the Hill should be docked from their paycheck. Period.

Who will be the first brave elected (or appointed) soul to stand up and declare that government waste must end and lead by example.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

The Affordable Care Act & The Constitution

The stage is set for the Supreme Court to become involved, whether they wish to or not, in the decision of whether or not forcing citizens of Main Street USA to purchase health insurance is unconstitutional.

While there certainly is debate centered around other portions of the incredibly massive piece of porked-out legislation, the rulings of two Federal judges that Congress has overstepped its authority by relying upon the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution (while two others ruled the opposite) all but guarantees the highest court's involvement.

Simply put, the Commerce Clause (Article I) grants Congress the power to "...regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."

Throughout the decades the Supreme Court has used that particular clause very very broadly, including rulings on Depression-era farm quotas as well as bans on racial discrimination in the 1960s.

This Main Streeter finds it extremely difficult to fathom exactly how racial discrimination fits into the Commerce Clause. Whether one is Democrat, Republican or Independent, how could it be that human beings are considered as commerce?

In reality, the court used this clause because a company that was discriminating earned a majority of it's revenue through interstate commerce. That still seems a stretch when, in fact, the country was founded in the belief that all people are created equal. Consider that the 14th Amendement (1868) guarantees equal protection under the law and racial discrimination would quality as something which is not equal. It seems, therefore, that the 14th Amendment offers a quite superior legal standing to ban racial discrimination.

In an attempt to determine what may or may not have been included in the thoughts and intentions of our Founding Fathers regarding the Commerce Clause, the reference used was the American Dictionary of the English Language, by Noah Webster, 1828.

It was thought that perhaps by using a dictionary from that time period there could be some light shed on the issue at hand today (and perhaps even some of those earlier court decisions that do not quite seem to fit).

The definition of Commerce is: "In a general sense, an interchange or mutual change of goods, wares, productions, or property of any kind, between nations or individuals, either by barter, or by purchase and sale; trade; traffick." It further defines inland commerce as: "...the trade of commodities between citizens of the same nation."

Turning a page, the definition of Commodity is: "...anything that is useful, but particularly in commerce, including everything movable that is bought and sold, goods, wares, merchandise, produce of land and manufactures. Unless perhaps animals may be excepted, the word includes all the movables which are objects of commerce."

Based upon the above definitions, which were used by those responsible for writing and implementing the Constitution it seems clear that mandating that a citizen of the United States purchase health insurance through the vehicle known as the Affordable Care Act is, indeed, unconstitutional.

It really is not even debatable.

That, coupled with the actual wording of the Article in question ("regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes"), indicates that Article I gives absolutely NO power to Congress to force citizens (i.e., individuals) to purchase anything.

Undoubtedly someone will be called upon, when all is said and done and attorneys for both sides have voiced their last convincing words, to write a decision. And that document will more than likely be scores and scores of pages, when, in fact, it boils down to just a couple.

And, as a last thought, allowing Capitol Hill to mandate what an individual must purchase opens the door for future edicts by those elected representatives who are supposed to be serving the interests of Americans, not dictating them.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

What's Another $1.5 Trillion ? ? ?

Per The Associated Press, the Congressional Budget Office today projects another $1.5 Trillion budget deficit for our Federal Government, i.e., Main Street USA. (That is the equivalent of spending $1.5 million dollars each and every day for one million days.)

In realistic terms those on Capitol Hill will be borrowing 40 cents for every one dollar they want to spend.

And that $1.5 Trillion will bring our national debt close to the $14.3 Trillion allowed by law.

Not that nearing the debt ceiling has ever bothered Congress or the White House, regardless of who is in power, in office, etc.

Whenever the debt reaches that number allowed by law, they have almost always just amended the law and raised the glass ceiling.

Too bad those of us living on Main Street cannot do that - just write a letter to the credit card companies and tell them (i.e., change the law or rule) that our credit limit was just raised another ten thousand or so.

Politicians should learn, through looking at the past with clear 20-20 vision, that they need to let American business get on with it. There is really very little Congress can do to stimulate the economy compared to business.

The reason for a lot of prosperity in the 1990's was due, in very big measure, to the dotcom boom, not to anyone sitting in Washington D.C., just as the recession experienced following that high tide was caused by the dotcom collapse.

That boom in the 90's also set the stage for a lot of state budget woes as their income kept going up and so followed their next year's budget. However, the bust that followed caught many states with their proverbial pants down and they have never recovered, especially in the wake of the economic collapse of 2008.

While Republicans speak of all manner of budget cuts to assist in the problem, it will take more than that, as they cannot realistically cut the budget by thirty or forty percent, which is about what it would take to balance a one year budget, let alone make a dent in the existing deficit.

Perhaps each and every elected official (Democrat, Indpendent, Republican) needs to start at home.

How much of their office budget can (and should) be cut? Probably a good amount.

How many perks should they do away with that taxpayers foot on their behalf? Probably in the billions when it is all added together.

Congress should quit mandating what Main Street must do and mandate on themselves first.

Set a good example at your home state office as well as your digs on Capitol Hill.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

28th Amendment ? ? ?

While Main Street USA struggles to make ends meet, our elected representatives continue with their lifestyle, complete with full staff and expense accounts. 

Curious that I have never heard of layoffs happening on Capitol Hill. Perhaps there have been during this economic downturn, and, if so, this American missed the notices.

But, more to the point, our leaders create rules and regulations that apply to everyone but themselves. The most blatant was when they voted to exempt themselves from last year's healthcare reform bill. If it is such a great piece of legislation, why are they not taking part with the rest of us?

Another why-on-Earth-do-they-get-this-perk is that staffers of Congress members and family are exempt from having to pay back student loans. That, quite frankly, is unjust and criminal.

More annoying, perhaps, is that those sitting in Washington DC can mandate a retirement age for all, except, of course, themselves.

To ensure that all citizens are on equal footing, there should be a 28th Amendment.

It should read (not my wording, it was received in an email forward):

Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and, Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States.

Unfortunately, as Congress would have to pass this, it more than likely will never come about.

Perhaps it could be an initiative voted on by the people to become law.

One can hope.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Headline: Panel Leaders Urge Retirement Age Of 69

President Obama's bipartisan deficit reduction panel delivered their report a week after the mid-term elections.

According to the Associated Press, "The plan would gradually increase the retirement age for full Social Security benefits -- to 69 by 2075 -- and current recipients would receive smaller-than-anticipated annual increases. Equally controversial, it would eliminate the current tax deduction that homeowners receive for the interest they pay on their mortgages."

Admittedly the year 2075 is six-and-one-half decades from now in terms of collecting social security benefits. However, it is perplexing that this panel could recommend something of this sort to be mandated on Main Street USA when elected officials can work, at the public's expense, until any age they like.

How much would be saved if legislation was enacted immediately to require public servants to retire at age 65? Probably quite a bit, as members of Congress who have served 40 or 50 years most assuredly earn substantially more than a freshman Senator or House member.

And, how about taking a look at benefits of these public servants.

And their expense accounts.

And their retirement packages (including their COLAs).

If a committee was truly bipartisan (and, more importantly, non-political) that issue would be addressed at once.

Someone should dig up all the facts and figures and publish a report concerning each and every expense that comes directly out of the pocket of the taxpayer to keep our elected members of society gainfully employed.

The other point in that AP paragraph had to do with eliminating the tax deduction for interest paid by a homeowner.

Absolutely brilliant. Not!

One has to wonder if the group considered how that one act could potentially destory the housing market.

Aside from hoping to earn equity by owning a home, people are also attracted by the additional benefit of being able to deduct that interest.

This report should simply be sent to the circular file.

The members presenting such an atrocity should be escorted (quickly) away from Capitol Hill.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

A Reminder

Just a quick post to remind Main Street USA what our political contributions and taxes support.

House In Session

Obviously this does not happen every day.

Or, at least, one hopes not.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

The Day After - Just A Thought

There was a lot of channel surfing during the mid-term election coverage last night in an attempt to stay on top of the results.

One particular comment caught my attention.

Unfortunately, I do not recall which Democrat was chastizing which Republican saying, basically, that the Republican candidate was "not for the people" as that person was dead-set against earmarks, defined right then and there as those funds that "bring money to states."

Two years ago candidate Obama promised Main Street USA he would not pass legislation with earmarks attached. Taxpayers very much liked that idea, but that particular promise was not kept.

To the thought...

How much money has been spent by Capitol Hill, even just during the last several years, on earmarks to buy votes for a larger piece of legislation?

If that amount of money, which surely is a rather large number, had not been attached to buy votes then would it not be safe to say that big government would not be quite as big?

In order to pay for earmarks that the Senate and House tack on to bills the federal government requires more money in order to fund those pieces of pork. The same money that, if Main Streeters did not have to send vast sums to Washington DC to cover vote-buying, would be spent bolstering the economy.

Individuals would spend that money not sent to DC on consumable goods and for services that they might need or want. Companies, large and small, would spend it on expansion of their business, which, in turn, generally means more jobs. And a healthier economy.

When firms and people spend more money states receive greater revenues through all manner of taxes and fees.

Any politician who says that not backing earmarks means that a person is not "for the people" is spouting wasteful hot air and that particular elected representative should look for other means of employment.

Earmarks are NOT for the people.

Earmarks are a means for Congress to buy votes for legislation that, quite obviously, cannot stand on its own merits.

Earmarks are wasteful spending and a continued expansion of excessive government requiring more and more funds with which to operate.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Where Else But America

As much as I love America and Main Street USA, it is amazing to me that we allow our elected representatives, those who earned our treasured vote to serve us on Capitol Hill, to abandon their jobs in an attempt to gain our vote.

In other words, we, the taxpayer, are paying members of the Senate and House of Representatives to lobby Americans into keeping their comfortable job (and add to their exhorbitant benefits packages) when there is much to do on Capitol Hill.

The Associated Press just issued an article titled: "And they're out! Congress flees DC to campaign"

The first paragraph says: "Battle-weary members of Congress are coming soon to neighborhoods near you to press for re-election, more willing to campaign before angry constituents than to compromise in Washington on tax cuts, child nutrition or a federal budget."

Battle-weary?

Please.

Is someone attempting to gain sympathetic ears with Main Street USA?

It is understood that major changes and reversals in economic conditions do take some time. However, it also very much depends on how one goes about accomplishing those tasks.

From this armchair, it seems that the public sector has reaped far more benefits than those in private industry or the self-employed - from the stimulus and various other programs that have been enacted.

However, it is the private sector that has always made turn-arounds possible.

Those persons elected to do specific jobs, been granted the public's trust, would be better off had they taken historical lessons into account. Then maybe, just maybe, they would be able to be re-elected without leaving their jobs.

To pay these people, and more than likely many of their expenses, to plead their case to continue their stay in Washington DC is absurd.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

"Culture Crisis" NOT "Health Care Crisis"

The below is posted on Facebook.

It provides an interesting point of view from an emergency room doctor treating someone on Medicaid.

 Dr. Roger Starner Jones

Dr. Jones recently wrote a short, two-paragraph letter to the White House where he accurately puts the blame on a "Culture Crisis" instead of a "Health Care Crisis" . . .

It's worth a quick read.

"Dear Mr. President:

"During my shift in the Emergency Room last night, I had the pleasure of evaluating a patient whose smile revealed an expensive shiny gold tooth, whose body was adorned with a wide assortment of elaborate and costly tattoos, who wore a very expensive brand of tennis shoes and who chatted on a new cellular telephone equipped with a popular R&B ringtone.

"While glancing over her patient chart, I happened to notice that her payer status was listed as "Medicaid"! During my examination of her, the patient informed me that she smokes more than one pack of cigarettes every day, eats only at fast-food take-outs, and somehow still has money to buy pretzels and beer. And, you and our Congress expect me to pay for this woman's health care? I contend that our nation's "health care crisis" is not the result of a shortage of quality hospitals, doctors or nurses. Rather, it is the result of a "crisis of culture" a culture in which it is perfectly acceptable to spend money on luxuries and vices while refusing to take care of one's self or, heaven forbid, purchase health insurance. It is a culture based in the irresponsible credo that "I can do whatever I want to because someone else will always take care of me". Once you fix this "culture crisis" that rewards irresponsibility and dependency, you'll be amazed at how quickly our nation's health care difficulties will disappear.

"Respectfully,
ROGER STARNER JONES, MD

"If you agree...pass it on."
 
Very well and accurately stated by Dr. Jones.
 
Food for thought.
 
Over For Now.
 
Main Street One

State Pension Plan Fallout

As reported by the Associated Press, the Pew Center on the States released a report citing that there is at least a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR deficit in state pension plans.

The article by AP begins by stating, "States may be forced to reduce benefits, raise taxes or slash government services..." due to the billion dollar gap.

More than likely, it will be a combination of all three.

The study, unfortunately, does not include any county, city or municipal pension programs.

The most troublesome news about the study, however, is that AP says the report does not necessarily include pension plan losses from the 2008 economic downfall.

Thus, the trillion dollar gap is, in all reality, much more.

According to the AP article, "The report said policy makers have exacerbated the problem by expanding benefits, relying on overly optimistic assumptions about investment returns and failing to sufficiently fund the programs."

That phrase "relying on overly optimistic assumptions about investment returns" is scary.

This sort of financial mis-management, regardless of the 2008 financial market crash (as the Pew study does not take ramifications of that into account), heightens concern for Main Street USA that the public sector (i.e., the federal government) should take over healthcare or any other services they may be considering, for that matter.

The phrase "expanding benefits" is also worrisome. Why is it that public sector executives feel that they have the right to expand benefits if money is not there to cover the obligation?

Does the thought process during public sector budget meetings run along the lines of, "Oh, not to worry, we can always raise taxes, or charge new fees for services to make up for that gap."

And then to top it off, "failing to sufficiently fund the programs" simply means that, come budget time, those in charge decided that certain budget items would be covered with money that is currently available while leaving the pension plan with less money than called for, thus widening the deficit even more.

That sort of "planning" is simply policy-makers not taking any responsibility for actions taken, but, rather, pushing the problem off to the next generation.

That is criminal.

As more and more services are performed by the public sector, which seems to have no real rules against operating with massive debt obligations or not meeting financial projections, the burden will ultimately fall on the US taxpayer.

And, while the White House Administration and Congress continue to implement, or strongly suggest the need for, more government oversight in and on the private sector, who is it that is running oversight on their own financial misdeeds?

Food for thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Time for Our Elected Representatives to Listen

According to a report by the Associated Press, earlier this month there was a New York Times/CBS poll regarding how Main Street USA views the size of government. 

Not surprizingly, the poll showed that 56 percent of the Americans surveyed said that they prefer "a smaller government providing fewer services," compared to 34 percent who are in favor of "a bigger government providing more services."

Considering that, as envisioned by our Founding Fathers and framed in our country's most valuable documents, our government is doing a whole lot more than it should be doing.

And, in some cases, doing it very badly.

According to James Madison, and the very laws and spirit underlying all of our guiding principles, "Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one."

If that is the case, why are not our elected officials listening to what Main Street USA has to say?

It has to do with job security.

As newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh stated in a recent interview, our politicians are in full-time campaign mode, i.e., "permanent campaigning."

And, much of the time, that operating basis by those who "serve" Main Street USA includes giving away the farm in order to buy votes and stay in their comfortable DC offices, with a substantial paycheck, job perks the likes of which we will never experience, a great healthcare and insurance package and a fabulous retirement plan.

All of which we, the US taxpayers (i.e., voters), underwrite.

We have spoken.

We continue to speak.

So, please, listen up, WH Administration and Congress, the people desire a smaller government, not a larger, more-controlling one.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

For The Good of Main Street USA

Something you do not see every day, or shall we say, any day...

The following is an excerpt from the Yahoo! newsroom:

"In an interview on MSNBC this morning, newly retiring Sen. Evan Bayh declared the American political system "dysfunctional," riddled with "brain-dead partisanship" and permanent campaigning. Flatly denying any possibility that he'd seek the presidency or any other higher office, Bayh argued that the American people needed to deliver a "shock" to Congress by voting incumbents out in mass and replacing them with people interested in reforming the process and governing for the good of the people, rather than deep-pocketed special-interest groups."

Dysfunctional.

Brain-dead partisanship.

Permanent campaigning.

Voting incumbents out in mass.

Governing for the good of the people (that would be Main Street USA).

He has hit the nail on the head!

What happened to the Statesman (i.e., a person who exhibits great wisdom and ability in directing the affairs of a government or in dealing with important public issues)? 

Why do we have so many Politicians (i.e., a seeker or holder of public office, who is more concerned about winning favor or retaining power than about maintaining principles)? 

Former President John F. Kennedy summed the above up in a short quote: "Mothers all want their sons to grow up to be president, but they don't want them to become politicians in the process."

A LOT of food for thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Short and Sweet from James Madison

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

"All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."

"Equal laws protecting equal rights are the best guarantee of loyalty and love of country."

"Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one."

"The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security."

"There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."

"It is the reason alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government."

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

Over For Now.

Main Street One

House Healthcare & The Bill of Rights

In the two previous posts, there were quotes from retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly, a man who has read the entirety of House Bill 3200, regarding what the proposed legislation contained in the Bill passed by the House contains and how three of our original 10 Rights could potentially be destroyed.

Here are two more of those Rigths potentially devastated:

"The 9th Amendment provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

"The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

"Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

"This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.

"Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to 'be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution.'  If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

"For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us."

Taken from us...

Main Street USA, please wake up!

If the healthcare bill as proposed by either the House or Senate passes (with ample pork that President Obama promised each and every American would never be in legislation that he signs) our Rights are lost.

Our Privacy is lost.

This is the ultimate in political corruption...far worse than just accepting bribes. Those voting in favor of this legislation on Capitol Hill are committing Treason at the highest level.

If it passes, America as you know it (or have known it) will simply cease to exist.

Is it any wonder why there are Democratic Senators who have decided to retire.

Why should they worry about another election and the possibility of losing when America finds out that the country has been sold down the river.

They have a VERY cushy retirement (AND benefits!).

Unlike most of us.

Thomas Jefferson said this, "Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

Over For Now.

Main Street One

House Healthcare Bill & Your Rights

More from Retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly (who has read, in its entirety, proposed House Bill 3200), regarding the Rights and Privacy of all of Main Street USA:

"I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law, or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

"The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

"The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.

"This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital, a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

"If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law."

Time to raise your collective voice, Main Street USA!

Your Rights, as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, are in serious jeopardy under House Bill 3200.

Yes, we do need health reform.

But we do not need this Bill or anything resembling this Bill.

Why cannot our elected officials start with Tort Reform? (Probably because attorneys and law firms are huge contributors to campaigns and spend massive amounts of money lobbying Capitol Hill.)

Remember what Patrick Henry says, "The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests."

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Giving Up $155 Billion?

It is hard for me to comprehend that hospitals are willingly going to “give up” over $155 Billion in future Medicare and Medicaid payments as is right now being reported all over the web.

Granted this is over a span of several years, but given that the health care proposal is hundreds of pages long I wonder if anyone really, with 100% certainty, knows every little financial detail involved in nationalizing health care.

So, let’s take a quick look at this $155 Billion hospitals are “giving up.”

As reported, there would be a reduction of federal payments of between $40 and $50 Billion that hospitals would normally receive for treating low income and uninsured individuals. But from what I read, that does not start until 2015. Hmmm.

And, is that really a loss if this national health care coverage plan is intended to provide care for currently uninsured individuals? Does that mean that hospitals “give up” $40 Billion here to receive an equal amount there? And, on top of that, start receiving it earlier? I think more information and, certainly, clarification is needed and required.

Then there is anticipated to be $100 Billion in “savings” that comes from “slowing down” increases in Medicare payments to hospitals.

Not having all of that paperwork here in front of me I am not sure exactly how that works, other than surmising there must be some sort of built-in annual increase in Medicare payments that is going to be slowly reduced in size.

Of course, if that purported savings of $100 Billion is stretched out over a decade or so it really does not seem to be that much of a savings, although it is between 5% and 10% of what the projected national health care system will cost Main Street USA.

Of the other hand, government budgets, unfortunately, do not have a sterling reputation for coming in at what is projected.

However, and this may be a huge however, if the public health insurance plan (as currently envisioned by the Finance Committee) passes, it will allow higher future hospital reimbursement rates from Medicare and Medicaid.

Wait a minute . . .

Are the higher reimbursement rates essentially a trade-off for this $100 Billion?

If so, why are these provisions even in the legislation?

Why is it that Congress cannot write and enact less complicated and cumbersome legislation?

Do they think they are getting paid by each and every word that they write? That was quite snide, I will admit. But, I do not, for the life of me, understand why Congress must write volumes and volumes of pages, books really, to become law. That said, back to my original point.

Are we (Main Street USA) really going to save anything by asking hospitals to “give up” $155 Billion when it seems that we may be handing them an equivalent amount in another way. (Note: I have not read what the fine print says about all these financial dealings.)

Or, is this some kind of Public Relations ploy to make it seem like hospitals are taking some sort of burden off of Main Street USA and that the administration is negotiating really hard on our behalf.

At this point, only time will tell.

Over For Now,

Main Street One