Real Budget Negotiations--or Just More Pork

As a budget compromise occurred on Capitol Hill late Friday night, just before the looming "government shutdown," one wonders what kind of deals were made between President Obama, Senate leader Reid and Speaker Boehner.

In other words, "Where's the pork?"

While claiming an overall $38.5 billion budget cut, "forged amid bluster and tough bargaining" (according to The Associated Press), there was a report that Boehner was able to keep something that was dear to him in tact, allowing students in Washington DC to use "federally funded vouchers" to attend private schools.

Federally funded vouchers?

That certainly means Main Street USA residents get to pick up the tab for DC students to attend a private school.

Where do elected representatives get the idea that this kind of expense using taxpayer dollars is appropriate?

It is just as bad as an item in the disastrous national healthcare reform bill where all Americans will be contributing their money to build walking parks in certain communities. That pork bought certain votes in order to pass the trillion dollar piece of legislation.

Is it possible that those persons who have been elected to serve in the best interests of their constituents have lost sight of those best interests? Allowing any special interest fluff to remain in a budget already filled to the brim with waste is criminal.

Earmarks have cost this country dearly. They should be illegal.

It certainly seems as if Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and any who hold a public office or position (elected or appointed), have forgotten exactly who signs their paycheck. It is, after all, coming directly out of the pocket of each and every taxpaying citizen in the country.

And, as a final note, Harry Reid called this budget work "historic." Historic would actually be when not one earmark gets tacked on to any piece of legislation coming from the Senate and House of Representatives.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Canned Responses From Elected Officials

Following is an email exhange I had with Senator Arlen Specter (Dem-PA) regarding health care. Of particular note is the fact that my concern was not addressed in either exchange, as well as the time between my second email and his reply.

Feb 11, 2000  1:11PM

Dear Mr. Welch:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding health reform. On December 24, 2009, I voted in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the Senate passed by a vote of 60-39. This legislation is an important step in ensuring adequate health care becomes a right in America and not just a privilege.

This legislation extends coverage to 31 million more Americans. It also has important insurance reforms: no longer can an insurance company reject a claim because of a pre-existing condition; no longer can there be a lifetime limit on insurance coverage. It also provides subsidies to those who need assistance and tax credits for small businesses that offer health care to their employees. Notably, it is projected to reduce the deficit by $132 billion in the next ten years and by greater amounts in the following decade. However, the bill lacks provisions that I would have preferred. I would like to see a strong, robust public option. I would like to see more clear-cut language on a woman's right to choose.

I consider the legislation similar to the Civil Rights Act of 1965. It was a very good law, but it took a preliminary legislative enactment in 1957 and another in 1964 - each an incremental step - to set the stage for what was satisfactory and adequate civil rights legislation. This bill is the first step in health reform and I look forward to continuing to improve this legislation in the future.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this issue to my attention. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter


My reply, Feb 11, 2010  7:38PM

Dear Senator Specter,

Thank you for taking the time to respond. I am in favor of healthcare reform, however, I must, respectfully, state again that current legislation is not the proper answer for, nor in the best interests of, Main Street USA.

According to information I have found, of the 31 million people you mention below needing health insurance, there are included slightly over 10 million who earn more than three times the stated "poverty level" but have decided, for whatever reasons, not to purchase insurance. If they have elected not to pruchase insurance how is it that we will now, per the language of legislation proposed, force them to do so?

I have also read that somewhere near six million people already on Medicare were undercounted.

Those two groups account for over half of the current healthcare reform number.

And why is it that Tort Reform is not uppermost in the House and Senate Bills? Curtailing outrageous settlements will reduce the cost of insurance as well as healthcare.

I do agree with the pre-exisiting conditions portion of the bill and certain other aspects but the majority of the two bills presented do transfer too much authority and power to government.

That was not the intention of the Founding Fathers.

To wit:

"Most bad government has grown out of too much government." and "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." Thomas Jefferson

"Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe 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." and "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." James Madison

Please take another look at what is proposed. I, and virtually everyone I know, do not believe that it is in our best interest to follow the current path of reform.

I trust that my communication is taken in the spirit in which it is offered. That of a Patriot. A proud member of Main Street USA.

Respectfully,

Scott Welch


His canned response (much of which is contained in the first email), just now received, May 26, 2010 1:19PM, approximately 3 1/2 months after his receipt of my email:

Dear Mr. Welch:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding health reform. On December 24, 2009, I voted in favor of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which the Senate passed by a vote of 60-39. The House of Representatives passed this bill on March 21, 2010 and President Obama signed it into law on March 23, 2010. This is an important step in ensuring adequate health care becomes accessible to all Americans.

The Senate and House of Representatives have also passed the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, which improves upon the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Together, both pieces of legislation extend coverage to 32 million more Americans, which means that 95% of Americans will have health insurance.

Health reform is also important for those who already have health insurance. In the first year, health insurers will be prohibited from imposing lifetime limits on benefits or rescinding coverage when individuals get sick. Insurers will also be required to cover pre-existing conditions for children and extend coverage to adult children under their parents' insurance until age 26.

By 2014, state-based exchanges will be established to help individuals and small employers purchase health care coverage. Consumers will be able to easily compare plans based on prices and benefits, which will help to increase competition. Insurers offering plans in the exchanges will be required to offer a minimum set of benefits and spend at least 80% of premium dollars on medical coverage. They will also be required to cover pre-existing conditions and prohibited from enacting annual or lifetime caps on benefits.

There are also provisions to help people who may not be able to afford health insurance coverage. Premium and cost-sharing tax credits will be available to assist low- and middle-income families with purchasing health insurance. This will help up to 904,000 Pennsylvanians afford vital health insurance. Tax credits are also available for small businesses that offer health care to their employees. These tax credits will help to alleviate some of the costs of health insurance and make it more affordable for small businesses and their employees. According to the Small Business Majority, approximately 3.6 million small businesses will qualify for the tax credit in 2010. In Pennsylvania, up to 151,000 small businesses will be eligible for these tax credits.

The legislation also makes important improvements to federal health care programs, including closing the Medicare donut hole and providing annual wellness visits and preventive benefits, such as cancer screenings to Medicare beneficiaries without any cost-sharing requirements. There are provisions to better identify and prevent fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid. The Act also increases payments to providers under Medicaid and makes substantial investments in Community Health Centers to expand access to health care in communities where it is needed most.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes important provisions to focus on prevention and health promotion. Funding is provided to promote individual and community health and to prevent chronic disease, along with research in public health services and best prevention practices. It also eliminates cost-sharing for recommended preventive care to encourage individuals to seek out this care and catch diseases and disorders in early stages.

To address the current need for more health workers, the legislation makes vital investments in the future of our health care workforce. It addresses shortages in primary care and other areas of practice, including providing greater investments in the National Health Service Corps' scholarship and loan repayment programs and incentives for providers to practice in underserved areas.

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to bring your views on this issue to my attention. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter


Is it any wonder why people are disillusioned with government?
 
This taxpayer is not naive enough to think the senator reads all correspondence. However, the people who have been tasked with doing so, and responding, should, at the very least, address the concerns of the voters.
 
Over For Now.
 
Main Street One.

Voters Issue Strong Rebuke of Incumbents in Congress

This latest Gallup Poll should tell those on Capitol Hill to Wake Up.

Voters Issue Strong Rebuke of Incumbents in Congress

One has to wonder whether or not they will listen to Main Street USA.

Supposedly they are elected to serve the people.

The people are saying, rather loudly and clearly, that our elected representatives are not serving us properly or correctly.

Main Street USA does not want more and more deficit spending, our alleged trillion dollar Heath Care Rights Bill, usage (or other types of) taxes to help pay for under-funded programs, borrowing from government agency trust funds to cover "shortfalls" in other areas, earmarks and pork, etc., etc.

Senator Reid, Speaker Pelosi, take heed the warning.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

The Polls Continue To Speak

Following is a short summary of recent polls after passage of the Main Street USA Health Care Rights Bill (taken from reports published by the Christian Science Monitor) and, of course, some commentary.

Washington Post poll: Some 55 percent of Americans expect their own costs for healthcare to be higher because of the reforms, and 60 percent say the nation's overall health tab will rise.

Rasmussen Reports: 49 percent said they think the quality of care will be adversely affected.

Washington Post Poll: Nearly half of Americans say the law "creates too much government involvement in the nation's health care system."

USA Today/Gallup Poll: 65 percent said the law "will expand government's role in health care too much."

Rasmussen Reports: Americans favor repeal of the Health Care reform by a 54-to-42 margin.

So, on the whole, this action by Congress and the White House is not what is needed and wanted by Main Street USA.

However, it is interesting to note that Main Street USA seems to feel that erosion of our rights by the government is okay with them.

In a Newsweek Poll a strong 59 percent surveyed felt that they were "open to a mandate on individuals to buy coverage" (with government subsidies available) if they are currently uninsured. In a similar poll by CNN/Opinion Research, 45 percent favored this action.

A Mandate to Buy Coverage?

Certainly no one I know falls into the above category. Allowing our elected representatives on Capitol Hill the power to fine someone for not exercising a supposed right to have something, while they have everything they need served to them on a silver platter (courtesy of the taxpayer), is frightening. (Please read previous post, March 23, 2010, The Concept of Rights.)

Main Street One warned that allowing our government the authority to fine taxpayers via the IRS for not exercising what is being defined as our Health Care Right will surely open the door to fines being levied for not exercising other rights, perhaps even those guaranteed in the Bill of Rights.

This is dangerous territory, America!

Attesting to how rhetoric can skew polls (for either side), a USA Today/Gallup showed 51 percent of Americans saying the law doesn't go far enough in regulating health insurers.

This may be true.

Unfortunately, the legislation is so cumbersome that it may take some time to see how far anything and everything reaches in this bill.

Needless to say, Democrats made the insurance company out to be the bad guy and succeeeded to a remarkable degree.

Many folks, however, feel that ambulance chasing attorneys (and their cousins in the field) earning millions upon millions upon millions by being allowed to extract outrageous amounts in punitive damages and, thus, increasing all forms of insurance, as some of the truly basic culprits.

Yet, those voting in the majority on this colossal package turn a deaf ear when Tort Reform is mentioned, brushing it aside as if it were merely a petty annoyance.

And those same members decided, as part of Health Care Reform, that the government should take over student loans and not allow banks and financial institutions to partake in this activity.

Excuse me. What on Earth do student loans have to do with Health Care?

Wake up Main Street USA.

The amount of pork and the number of earmarks on this one piece of legislation is probably unfathomable.

Why is it that people that WE elect think that they know what is best for all of us despite the fact that the majority of us did not want, do not want, our Health Care Right in the manner and in the form in which it was signed.

We do want and need reform.

We do not want and do not need THIS reform.

Especially at this cost, both in dollars and the further erosion of our civil liberties.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

The Concept of Rights

In this case, the concept of the Rights of Main Street USA.

Following is the lead paragraph in an Associated Press article published after the ONE TRILLION DOLLAR* health care reform was signed:

"Claiming a historic triumph that could define his presidency, a jubilant Barack Obama signed a massive, nearly $1 trillion health care overhaul on Tuesday that will for the first time cement insurance coverage as the right of every U.S. citizen and begin to reshape the way virtually all Americans receive and pay for treatment."

Let us take a close look at a critical portion of this paragraph.

"...cement insurance coverage as the right of every U.S. citizen..."

According to the dictionary, right, as used here, is defined as: "a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral."

The interesting fact about the so-called Health Care Right is that if one does not exercise said right the IRS will come calling to collect a fine for not passing go (i.e., obtaining insurance coverage whether you desire to have it or not, such as the ten million Americans right now who can afford it but have elected not to purchase it).

So, yes, that does reshape how we will pay for treatment, as mentioned in the paragraph above.

The question all Americans should be asking is: How is that a "right?"

According to the Bill of Rights, Americans have the right to/of:

-Freedom of speech. Our Founding Fathers, however, did not see fit to fine anyone if they did not exercise their right to talk.

-Freedom of Religion. Have never read about a person being fined for not exercising their right of practicing a religion.

-To petition. When was the last time someone was fined for not submitting a petition?

-To keep and bear arms. We know darn well that no one is fining us for not having firearms in our possession. Fact is, there are those trying to destroy this right.

You get the idea, I am sure.

Politicians cannot have it both ways.

They cannot, sanely and logically, promote to the populace that something is a right if a person will be fined for not exercising that right.

That is an interesting encroachment upon the rights of Main Street USA.

A reversal of the norm.

What comes next?

As it is every citizen's right to vote, will there be legislation (or better yet, a simple earmark to a larger bill) allowing the IRS to fine people who do not exercise their right to vote.

What a concept.

Great fundraiser for the IRS.

Actually it is a double-barrelled fine...you would also pay for not registering to vote.

Food For Thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

* to spend One Trillion Dollars you need to buy a million dollar house each and very day for One Million Days.

Quotes That Will Make History

For posterity, these quotes are being saved for future reference:

"We proved that this government — a government of the people and by the people — still works for the people." President Barack Obama

"We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans." Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi

"This is the civil rights act of the 21st century." Representative Jim Clyburn

"The president was and the Congress were sent here to address the problems that people face in this country, and that's what voters want us to see." WH Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

"We have failed to listen to America and we have failed to reflect the will of our constituents." Representative John Boehner

"It's very unusual that you have a major policy that doesn't have a majority of support in the public." George Edwards, Texas A&M University presidential historian

For the record (from the Associated Press):

A Gallup poll showed more Americans believe the measure will make things worse rather than better for the country as a whole and for them personally.

And most polls show most people don't like the plan although some surveys showed Americans giving high marks to individual elements.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Any Bets ? ? ?

While campaigning for the Oval Office, President Obama made this promise to all of Main Street USA:

"When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as president, you the public will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it, so that you know what your government's doing."

Any bets on whether or not the massive pork and earmark-filled healthcare reform bill will even make it to the WH website, let alone be on it for five full days prior to his signature?

Within the first two months of his presidency, of 11 major bills that the president signed, only six of them (55%) made it online for review prior to his signing them and none of them (0%) were posted a full five days.

And it has not gotten any better.

With the number of votes that had to be purchased to push this legislation through the House it is this taxpayer's opinion that most of us will not see the full bill for quite some time.

As has been stated, the Congressional Special Interest Group (the buying of Senate and House votes through legislation earmarks especially for them) is much more dangerous than any single SIG in existence.

This bill proves it.

The government will now be responsible for over 50% of our gross domestic product.

Certain civil rights, such as the right to choose if one wants healthcare coverage or not, are gone.

That all members of Main Street USA must pay for walking parks in some town in a state many have never even visited is not what this country should be doing.

Ad infinitum.

At a time when unemployment is over 10% nationwide, when state officials are unable to raise enough funds to cover bare necessities of what government should be doing, when city municipalities are not able to honor bonds issued and where our own federal government has been "borrowing" from the social security trust fund (to the tune of over three trillion dollars), our elected representatives should be focused on making effective financial cuts, not spending yet another trillion dollars we do not have.

Our Founding Fathers may have had it right placing "In God We Trust" everywhere.

Because politicians continue to prove they cannot be trusted.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

House Speaker Speaks Up, Defies Polls

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, on ABC television's "This Week," stated, without any doubt, that if President Obama decides to use the reconciliation method of political maneuvering she will deliver the votes without the support of any Republicans.

Make no mistake, polls also show reform is needed and wanted.

However, poll after poll bring into the open that the majority of Americans do not approve of either of the bills that passed the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The strong-arm tactic that will apparently be used on these earmarked pieces of legislation that will affect 17% of the U.S. economy is not representative of what Americans need or want.

Why won't our elected representatives listen?

It has been voiced by some Democrats that objections regarding the healthcare reform bills are due to mis-information delivered by Republicans.

There probably does exist some of that.

However, Democrats are guilty of the same activity.

Consider that the bills are supposedly going to provide coverage for some 30 million Americans who do not currently have any form of healthcare insurance.

Yet, one third of that total, ten million people, have elected not to carry insurance, despite the fact that they can afford it. These people are exercising their own free will and making their own decisions about what they need and want.

Not if this legislation passes.

They will be forced into obtaining and paying for insurance, or be fined.

This type of political activity, economic ramifications aside, erodes our Bill of Rights.

This type of political activity drastically increases the role of government in the lives of all Americans.

It used to be that when the People speak those who have been elected to follow the will of the People respond to that will.

Evidently, no longer.

As Pelosi stated on ABC TV, "We're here to do the job for the American people -- to get them results that gives them not only health security, but economic security, because the health issue is an economic issue for America's families."

If she truly believed those words, then the Speaker would respond to, and support, the People, Main Street USA. She would champion their cause and scrap the thousands of pages of pork-filled legislation that currently exist and start anew with something meaningful and truly helpful.

Instead of ducking their responsibility on Tort Reform by passing it off to the individual states (which, as previously discussed, would become a national matter in the U.S. Supreme Court), the House and Senate should pass legislation immediately in this area.

Taxpayers do not need to pay for frivolous lawsuits that clog the Court system and, in the end, raise insurance rates each and every time they succeed. That is a double-whammy to the pocketbook of Main Street USA.

One last note.

Most of the articles that appear regarding passage of healthcare reform state that "Obama has the votes to pass reform" the way it is currently written.

Since when did the White House become more important than the collective voice, opinion and will of Main Street USA?

Yes, President Obama, we do need healthcare reform.

But not in the current state as presented.

Eliminate Medicare and Medicaid fraud-NOW.

Stop frivolous lawsuits with Tort Reform-AT ONCE.

Then, and only then, should we move forward with legislation that is significant and does not trample on the Rights of Americans to choose what they need and want.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Pre-Health Care Summit Arrogance by Dodd

In an Associated Press release regarding today's Health Care Summit being held by President Obama there is a quote from Senate Democrat Chris Dodd (CT) which I found quite offensive.

Not that it was vulgar in the four-letter word way.

Vulgar in Dodd's arrogance.

Dodd said, "We'll have that meeting. But far more important, after that meeting, you can either join us or get out of the way."

Excuse me, did he say, "Join us or get out of the way?"

Interesting terminology from an elected representative of the People.

The People being Main Street USA, of course.

That the People have spoken in opinion poll after opinion poll that they do not need or want a Trillion dollar healthcare overhaul, where some of the provisions do not even kick in for eight long years (after President Obama no longer occupies the WH), where Billions in earmarks were added to achieve votes from within their own party (earmarks that were promised would not be in any legislation), where buying healthcare coverage may be forced on 10 million Americans who may not want it at this point in their lives (or risk being "fined"), and where it does appear that non-citizens may be afforded coverage (ambiguous wording, at best), to name but a few points of contention.

Thus, for senator Chris Dodd to state, "Join us or get out of the way" is arrogance at its best (or worst, actually).

An elected representative of the People speaking in this manner does not deserve to be in public office, does not deserve the perks and benefits he is given (or takes), does not deserve his fabulous healthcare plan nor his retirement benefits.

More to the point, though, as was mentioned earlier, Americans do not want what has been proposed by the House or the Senate.

Yes, we do want and need healthcare reform.

But not at the price that is forecast (and, we all know, our government does not always make its budget projections).

And, not without Tort Reform, first.

In this American's opinion, Dodd simply deserves to be shown the door and asked to leave (without retirement benefits). That kind of arrogance has no place in statesmanship, from a "representative" of the People.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Americans Are Dissatisfied With Government

According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll surveying 1,004 randomly selected citizens on February 11, 2010, "two-thirds of Americans are either dissatisfied or downright angry about the way the federal government is working."

The poll further revealed, per the article appearing in the Washington Post, that, "on average, the public estimates that 53 cents of every tax dollar they send to Washington is wasted."

The level of dissatisfaction by Main Street USA with our government (and, hence, the elected officials "leading" us) is at its highest level in 14 years.

Of significant note is that eight in 10 people who identify themselves as conservative Republicans hold negative views about the way our government is currently working, while just shy of six in 10 (59%) of the people who called themselves liberal Democrats responded they were "enthusiastic or satisfied about the role government was playing."

In order to have the total poll results at 67% negative that leaves the middle ground, the moderate Democrats, Republicans and Independents, as the group of citizens who tipped, and kept, the dissatisfied balance at a "super-majority-plus."

As stated earlier, it would be nice if our elected officials, from President Obama, to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, as well as each and every member of Congress, listened to what America has to say.

Main Street USA does not want, or need, a super-size government that regulates every little thing or decides that a government-run activity can do something better than the private sector.

The most recent examples are state-run pension plans, now one trillion dollars in debt. And, that is not from the 2008 economic collapse.

The super-majority-plus of taxpayers does not desire a government that does not spend within its budget with no thought of the future consequences and has, in reality, absolutely no accountability.

That an elected representative may get voted out of office due to voters being upset with their actions is not really accountability. Afterall, that deposed member of Congress will still reap the rewards of handsome retirement pay and benefits (courtesy of Main Street USA).

A person who uses credit to the maximum, and more, pays the piper in the end, either in the form of excessively high interest rates with loans and cards never being paid in full, or ends up having to file bankruptcy.

And, based on months of polling American citizens, it is not a desire that the federal government be our healthcare provider. Period.

So, why is Washington trying to ram this down our throats?

Whose agenda is it that this occur?

The US Government, in the immortal words of President Abraham Lincoln, is supposed to be of the people, by the people, for the people.

Does today's leadership, despite Main Street USA flatly stating that we do not want government-run healthcare, feel that American Citizens do not know what is in our own best interest? That only those who sit on Capitol Hill know what is good and best for its voting public (i.e., taxpayers)?

Wake Up Everybody!

The people have spoken.

Many times.

Start listening to your constituency.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Media Spins

Whenever I read an article that speaks of the unanimous (or near unanimous) Republican opposition to something that is proposed by President Obama I have to chuckle.

Why?

Because the media never mentions the unanimous (or near unanimous) Democrat support for the proposal.

And, to me, that is humorous.

Let's face it, when you are talking about one hundred or several hundred people discussing hot issues, it is very rare that there is 100% consensus on a given project, especially when one is dealing with a mix of conservatives, moderates and liberals.

Add to that the fact that the proposals are dealing with the economy, healthcare, and other major factors concerning Main Street USA and it is virtually guaranteed that there will be division amongst such a large group. Especially when the items under consideration are viewed as mostly liberal.

Do not forget that there was a group of moderate House Democrats who were not in favor of healthcare until earmarks were added (or whatever other secret deals transpired) and that the Senate only achieved their needed 60 votes with huge pork additions for a couple of holdout Democrats.

Thus, my chuckles whenever I see the phrase "near unanimous opposition" being voiced by the other party. Let us not forget the near unanimous support from the ruling party.

A final point...those that point the finger at the opposition are thus declaring that everything being proposed is the greatest good for America.

And, that may not always be the case.

Over For now.

Main Street One

State of the Union 2010

President Obama delivered his State of the Union 2010 address tonight.

There were several items he spoke about with which I agree.

What remains to be seen is how they will get implemented, how they will ultimately affect the national debt, especially in light of the fact that starting next year he is proposing a three-year freeze on government spending, and "the pay as you go" plan.

However, I will not take up time speaking about those things that would be nice to achieve for Main Street USA.

Well, except for education.

I agree that there needs to be reform, but with the power that the teacher's unions and others wield I am unsure how that will be achieved.

While there are those who do not feel that the No Child Left Behind Act, passed and implemented under President Bush but co-authored by the late Senator Edward Kennedy, is working, it is interesting to note that one of the reasons is that there were those within the education community at the local level who, basically, did what they could to thwart "outsiders" coming in to assist their most needy students.

Case in point, when Paul Vallas was Superintendent of the School District of Philadelphia (one of the largest in the country) he implemented something new every year that not only discouraged but made it nearly impossible for companies, community centers and churches to provide Supplemental Educational Services to their students. And today, Philadelphia is feeling the pain of those actions.

And there are many other cases like that of Vallas.

Thus, unless and until the internal obstacles are dealt with agressively, education reform, of any sort, will fail. I truly hope that President Obama and Secretary of Education Arne Duncan can accomplish this task they seek.

On to the few points where what is proposed is not good for Main Street USA.

First and foremost are the infamous earmarks.

Even though the President stated, while campaigning, that he would not pass legislation that contains earmarks, it continues. What is now being requested by him is that there be a website listing all earmarks so the people can see where their money is going.

And while the President states he does not like or approve of earmarks, had certain pieces of pork not been added to the senate version of healthcare reform, behind closed doors with Senator Harry Reid, it would not have achieved the super-majority vote of 60 US Senators in favor of the bill.

It is still this taxpayer's opinion that earmarks are nothing more than a Congressional Special Interest Group.

And, while the President feels that the US Supreme Court decision allowing companies to fund political advertising was wrong and would open up all kinds of problems for the country, the amount of money corporations would spend would still, more than likely, be a pitance to the massive sums of earmarks offered to politicans (for their states) to secure their vote for a particular bill.

Yes, Main Street USA those are your tax dollars at work-in another state.

There is also too much evidence to show that the healthcare reform that has been proposed will not achieve what is being promised.

One major point that would definitely reduce healthcare and insurance costs overall is Tort Reform.

Again, no one, not President Obama, not any Senator nor member of the House, is proposing such an action.

What exactly do they fear?

Will they lose previous campaign contributions?

Tough if they do. These elected representatives, every single one of them, are supposed to be serving Main Street USA.

So, yes, President Obama is right, we need healthcare reform.

No, we do not need what has been proposed.

Republicans and Democrats need to come together and draft legislation that provides most of the basics the President wants, but does not force people into buying health insurance, by fining or taxing them, if they do not wish to do so. (As a note, between 25% and 30% of the total number of people being counted as uninsured fall into this category.)

Food for thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

What Is A Special Interest Group?

Special Interest Groups (SIGs) may be good or may be bad.

That, of course, would depend upon a particular SIG promoting what you believe in and support, or (more coarsely) your agenda—or not.

According to Wikipedia: "An interest group (also advocacy group, lobby group, pressure group or special interest group) is an organization that seeks to influence political decisions."

And from Brittanica Concise Encyclopedia: "Any association of individuals or organizations, usually formally organized, that, on the basis of one or more shared concerns, attempts to influence public policy in its favour."

The question, then, is this:

Are not both branches of Congress Special Interest Groups?

Did not Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, on Dec 19, 2009, admit to such things as: "You will find a number of states are treated differently than other states. That's what legislation is all about. It's compromise."

To be clear, Reid, in closed sessions, offered Senators from a few states (who were not going to vote for the Senate’s version of healthcare reform) additional benefits, tacked on to the already massive bill, in order to secure their votes and reach that high and mighty number 60.

Would the actions of Senator Reid not qualify as "special interest?"

Would not the billions and billions of dollars of earmarks added on to various pieces of legislation that have passed through Congress and the White House (from both parties) be considered as the work of a SIG, or even a group of SIGs working together?

Granted, certain (probably many) pieces of pork may have been the work of an outside SIG (i.e., association SIG, labor union SIG, business SIG, etc.) over the years, but the work done on Capitol Hill with healthcare reform, was really the work of the Congressional SIG.

Thus, when politicians (or anyone for that matter) complain about SIGs and the influence they may wield upon the political and legislative process, and how it may threaten our Freedom and Liberty, it seems that Main Street USA only has to look (if that were literally possible) at what goes on "behind closed doors" to find the truth.

Food For Thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Banking & Insurance Regulation

It is unclear to this taxpayer why there is such a disparity between the handling of banks that were viewed as causing the Financial Collapse of 2008 and the healthcare reform proposals aimed at insurance companies.

The one similarity that does jump out is that our government is attempting to super-regulate both industries, and, in the case of House Bill 3200 (healthcare reform), possibly even eliminate the insurance industry altogether.

Case in point, as reported in the New York Times this morning, President Obama has called for an overhaul in the banking arena: "Mr. Obama said the banks had nearly wrecked the economy by taking 'huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses.' The administration wants to ban bank holding companies from owning, investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds and from engaging in proprietary trading, or trading on their own accounts, as opposed to the money of their customers."

That in itself may not be a bad thing. Afterall, the entirety of Main Street USA suffered the consequences.

The NYT also reported, "Mr. Obama also is seeking to limit consolidation in the financial sector, by placing curbs on the market share of liabilities at the largest firms. Since 1994, the share of insured deposits that can be held by any one bank has been capped at 10 percent. The administration wants to expand that cap to include all liabilities, to limit the concentration of too much risk in any single bank."

That one does seem logical.

However, the ideas being formulated and, indeed, legislation that has already been written (fortunately, not passed) actually amount to more and more government regulation occurring in every large industry. 

Should there be more scrutiny placed in the discovery, and prosecution, of criminal activities by, perhaps, a handful of over-zealous, greedy people? That would certainly send a message throughout the financial sector.

As this topic relates to the banking industry, there are either too many existing loopholes in current law allowing financial institutions to be reckless with OPM (other people's money) or certain individuals at those businesses simply broke the law executing their plans for profit.

Either way, there does not appear to this taxpayer enough reason to completely overhaul and, eventually, over-regulate the entire banking extablishment.

As to healthcare reform, which is needed, one reason why insurance costs what it does is due to X-Tort (extreme tort) compensation awarded in litigation. 

However, not one person in the White House, Senate or House of Representatives has proclaimed that Tort Reform (which would affect the income of attorneys) is needed in an attempt to scale back the cost of insurance. (At least, if there are any elected officials talking about this aspect they must be whispering.)

Yet, Tort Reform is definitely a large component of what is needed, not government-run healthcare.

There are still too many ideas floating around Capitol Hill these days that amount to government over-regulation of our lives and the eventual erosion of America's Bill of Rights.

If our elected officials really believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they should pay much more attention to the words of our Founding Fathers.

To wit:

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. Patrick Henry

Most bad government has grown out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

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

House Healthcare Bill and Truth

Retired Constitutional Attorney Michael Connelly has read, in its entirety, proposed House Bill 3200.

I doubt any of our elected officials can boast of doing the same.

Here is one interesting point that Mr. Connelly discovered when comparing the Bill with what is being said and the Truth:

"To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

"The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government."

Mr. Connelly says more, however, let Main Street USA dwell on the above.

House Bill 3200 is nothing as presented by those trying to push this healthcare reform through.

Again, why cannot our elected officials, who are supposed to be doing everything in our best interest, do something about Tort Reform?

That alone would lower health and insurance costs.

Think about it.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

FAA Five Million Dollar Bash

Seems the Federal Aviation Administration can throw a manager meeting that dwarfs the commotion created by the Social Security Administration earlier this year (that one was reportedly only $700,000).

In this age of video conferencing it is unimaginable that the FAA needed this gathering of 3600 people to explain a contract with a union that has already been in place for more than two months.

FAA Bash On ABC

Main Street USA gets tapped once again for government excess.

However, this type of activity makes one wonder if these meetings are in already-approved budgets. And, if so, one can only imagine the meeting budgets contained in our pork-ridden, earmarked healthcare reform bill with the House and Senate. Food for thought.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Despite Public Opinion - And The Divide

Do our elected officials even care what we here in Main Street USA think, other than about our vote for them to remain in office, collect their salaries, benefits and, ultimately, a fantastic retirement package?

As reported by the Associated Press, "Public support for the legislation continues to sink in opinion polls, even as the Senate advances."

Wake up, please, Senators!

Yes, many Americans want reform but not at this cost (One Trillion Dollars), not with many provisions now contained in the two-thousand-plus page bill and amendments and not with earmarks and pork (which we were promised would not exist in legislation under this President, by POTUS, himself).

Seems the only opinions they are interested in are their own.

To wit: (AP) "Senate moderates have served notice they won't support a final deal if government-run insurance comes back. And Democratic abortion opponents in the House say a Senate compromise on the volatile issue is unacceptable."

Gridlock?

Perhaps.

Or, maybe there will be hundreds more pages of amendments between the two bills, which, when added together, will make some 4,000 pages of legislation (that not one person will have fully read and understood) and, lo and behold, there will exist many loopholes that some clever attorneys will find. Which will, undoubtedly, cost the taxpayer even more.

Time will tell.

Unfortunately it is a short time as Senator Harry Reid continues to push this atrocity through before Christmas.

Over For Now.

Main Street One

Unveil Some Pork

As reported by the Associated Press, here is a glimpse of a few pork items in our massive healthcare reform bill in the Senate:

"Reid cut numerous last-minute deals to get the votes he needed and powerful Democrats also inserted home-state provisions in a 383-page package of amendments Reid filed this weekend to the 2,074-page bill.


"Among other items, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., included a provision allowing residents of the town of Libby, Mont., who are suffering asbestos-related illnesses from a mining operation to get Medicare benefits. Nelson won a list of benefits for Nebraska including a commitment for the federal government to pick up the full tab of an expansion of Medicaid. And Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., who faces a difficult re-election, inserted a $100 million item for construction of a university hospital that his spokesman said he hopes to claim for the University of Connecticut."

Can't wait until all is revealed.

Over For Now.

Main Street One