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
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politicians. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
A Reminder
Just a quick post to remind Main Street USA what our political contributions and taxes support.
Obviously this does not happen every day.
Or, at least, one hopes not.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
 |
| House In Session |
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
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
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Mid-term Election 2010
If elected officials ever wondered why many taxpaying members of Main Street USA (i.e., voters) have become (or have been) disenchanted with politics they need only view their commercials that are on the air.
The American public get bombarded with 30 and 60 second high-impact tales smearing opponents with non-stop ads blasting the opposition and few that tell the real story behind a candidate.
Who is this person? In what do they believe? What are their goals? Why should they be elected (instead of why not to vote for the other party)? Will they sign in blood not to add earmarks to legislation just to get the actual bill passed? What are their real, workable ideas to stop wasteful government spending?
Truth be told, politics has become nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Once elected, few people seated on Capitol Hill really give a damn about what becomes of Main Street USA.
Yes, most politicans say the right words, create the proper sound bite, but each and every piece of legislation has earmarks and pork attached to buy votes.
Thus, the cycle is:
1. Politicians (and their backers) buy our votes to become our representative.
2. Politicans buy votes of other politicans with earmarks to pass legislation.
The substantial problem with point two above is that the money used to buy votes within the walls of Congress are taxpayer dollars...dollars that do not exist...dollars that simply create more and more debt.
All in order to buy a vote and where the purchased voter (i.e., senator or house member taking this bribe) may visit their people and show how they enriched the community with a new $100 million dollar hospital, or any of countless examples that earmarks provide.
Unfortunately, our elected reps at the national level have forgotten that the states created the federal government and gave that body a specific mission.
Those mission orders have been trampled and swept under the proverbial carpet.
The bigger question remains: can this mess be fixed?
It is probably not possible for anyone to answer that with certainty.
However, one thing is abundantly clear: the federal government must not be allowed unlimited and uncontrolled spending.
And, one way to curb that is completely eliminating earmarks and excessive pork on any piece of legislation. A bill should be enacted solely upon its merits, nothing more, nothing less.
Anything else masks whether or not something is actually good for the populace, good for the future generations who must attempt resolution of massive debt and obligation created in the here and now.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
The American public get bombarded with 30 and 60 second high-impact tales smearing opponents with non-stop ads blasting the opposition and few that tell the real story behind a candidate.
Who is this person? In what do they believe? What are their goals? Why should they be elected (instead of why not to vote for the other party)? Will they sign in blood not to add earmarks to legislation just to get the actual bill passed? What are their real, workable ideas to stop wasteful government spending?
Truth be told, politics has become nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
Once elected, few people seated on Capitol Hill really give a damn about what becomes of Main Street USA.
Yes, most politicans say the right words, create the proper sound bite, but each and every piece of legislation has earmarks and pork attached to buy votes.
Thus, the cycle is:
1. Politicians (and their backers) buy our votes to become our representative.
2. Politicans buy votes of other politicans with earmarks to pass legislation.
The substantial problem with point two above is that the money used to buy votes within the walls of Congress are taxpayer dollars...dollars that do not exist...dollars that simply create more and more debt.
All in order to buy a vote and where the purchased voter (i.e., senator or house member taking this bribe) may visit their people and show how they enriched the community with a new $100 million dollar hospital, or any of countless examples that earmarks provide.
Unfortunately, our elected reps at the national level have forgotten that the states created the federal government and gave that body a specific mission.
Those mission orders have been trampled and swept under the proverbial carpet.
The bigger question remains: can this mess be fixed?
It is probably not possible for anyone to answer that with certainty.
However, one thing is abundantly clear: the federal government must not be allowed unlimited and uncontrolled spending.
And, one way to curb that is completely eliminating earmarks and excessive pork on any piece of legislation. A bill should be enacted solely upon its merits, nothing more, nothing less.
Anything else masks whether or not something is actually good for the populace, good for the future generations who must attempt resolution of massive debt and obligation created in the here and now.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Happy Birthday, America! Politicians, Wake Up!
Two-hundred, thirty-four years ago, our Founding Fathers together signed a document declaring that a people are free to determine their government and that, in fact, government is only allowed by the will of the people.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
One very key ingredient in the quest for freedom was to break away from an oppressive government in order to establish one which derives its power from the people.
To wit: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The word consent was fittingly and justly utilized by these astute men.
Though not a perfect foundation, as women were not afforded these same rights and all men (people) were not treated as equals as some were, rather, still enslaved.
However, their perception of government was remarkable.
These very learned men knew, through study of history, what a government must and must not do and should and should not do in order to survive.
And so, these 13 individual states united together to establish and form a democracy giving only certain powers to the federal government while keeping anything not specifically granted it to the states and to the people.
As the decades progressed, however, the federal government has grown to the point that individual liberty and the rights of states and citizens have been eroded and become limited. That is exactly what they did not want and, in fact, warned against.
America is still a truly great nation.
However, it is a nation where the will of the people is not followed. It is one where special interest groups wield unusual power over decisions affecting every person living in Main Street USA. It is one where back room deals in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill decide the most crucial of actions and where billions upon billions of dollars are added to legislation to capture votes.
If pork and earmarks are needed to garner the necessary number of votes in order to pass then must not the legislation be flawed?
The taxpaying citizens of these United States of America desire a "more perfect union," not a larger federal government where their voice is no longer heard.
In order to achieve this end our elected public servants (not public rulers as some have tried to become) would be wise to re-study the very documents that were written and are the foundation for this nation and to then act as statesmen, not as politicos whose main objective is to become re-elected.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
One very key ingredient in the quest for freedom was to break away from an oppressive government in order to establish one which derives its power from the people.
To wit: "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
The word consent was fittingly and justly utilized by these astute men.
Though not a perfect foundation, as women were not afforded these same rights and all men (people) were not treated as equals as some were, rather, still enslaved.
However, their perception of government was remarkable.
These very learned men knew, through study of history, what a government must and must not do and should and should not do in order to survive.
And so, these 13 individual states united together to establish and form a democracy giving only certain powers to the federal government while keeping anything not specifically granted it to the states and to the people.
As the decades progressed, however, the federal government has grown to the point that individual liberty and the rights of states and citizens have been eroded and become limited. That is exactly what they did not want and, in fact, warned against.
America is still a truly great nation.
However, it is a nation where the will of the people is not followed. It is one where special interest groups wield unusual power over decisions affecting every person living in Main Street USA. It is one where back room deals in the hallowed halls of Capitol Hill decide the most crucial of actions and where billions upon billions of dollars are added to legislation to capture votes.
If pork and earmarks are needed to garner the necessary number of votes in order to pass then must not the legislation be flawed?
The taxpaying citizens of these United States of America desire a "more perfect union," not a larger federal government where their voice is no longer heard.
In order to achieve this end our elected public servants (not public rulers as some have tried to become) would be wise to re-study the very documents that were written and are the foundation for this nation and to then act as statesmen, not as politicos whose main objective is to become re-elected.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Monday, March 22, 2010
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
"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
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Representing Whom ? ? ?
Those elected representatives who have had secret meetings with the powers-that-be regarding their vote on the proposed Trillion Dollar-plus healthcare reform legislation are NOT representing those who voted for them.
Polls show that Main Street USA does, indeed, desire reform in the health industry.
Polls also show, however, that those tax-paying citizens DO NOT want the reform currently presented.
So, who are those people in the House of Representatives representing?
Certainly not those persons who placed them on Captiol Hill.
At least, as reported by the Associated Press, there are 36 states working on legislation to block many of the extreme, liberty-eroding policies that would be enacted under this "reform."
The worst may be that ALL Americans would be required to purchase health insurance.
At present, it is estimated that some ten million people, who can afford insurance, have elected not to purchase it at this point in their lives. If this law passes, these same individuals must get insurance, or be penalized through fines and/or special fees.
Hopefully, better sense will prevail in the House than what Nancy Pelosi envisions.
Whatever the outcome, those members of Congress who are voting for such sweeping legislation that does far more than is stated, and is chock full of earmarks and pork in an attempt to sway votes, should be voted out in November or impeached.
Their crime is treason.
They are blatantly going against what tax-paying citizens of this country want.
That is betrayal after trust.
That is treason, by definition.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Polls show that Main Street USA does, indeed, desire reform in the health industry.
Polls also show, however, that those tax-paying citizens DO NOT want the reform currently presented.
So, who are those people in the House of Representatives representing?
Certainly not those persons who placed them on Captiol Hill.
At least, as reported by the Associated Press, there are 36 states working on legislation to block many of the extreme, liberty-eroding policies that would be enacted under this "reform."
The worst may be that ALL Americans would be required to purchase health insurance.
At present, it is estimated that some ten million people, who can afford insurance, have elected not to purchase it at this point in their lives. If this law passes, these same individuals must get insurance, or be penalized through fines and/or special fees.
Hopefully, better sense will prevail in the House than what Nancy Pelosi envisions.
Whatever the outcome, those members of Congress who are voting for such sweeping legislation that does far more than is stated, and is chock full of earmarks and pork in an attempt to sway votes, should be voted out in November or impeached.
Their crime is treason.
They are blatantly going against what tax-paying citizens of this country want.
That is betrayal after trust.
That is treason, by definition.
Over For Now.
Main Street One
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
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
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
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
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
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
Sunday, January 24, 2010
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
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
Saturday, January 16, 2010
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
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
Saturday, August 15, 2009
I Wonder . . .
I wonder if it is possible that our elected officials feel a bit like this . . . they work really hard to clean things up and get them presentable only to find out they were working on the wrong thing...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)