Hope For The GOP

John Hinderaker reported this morning at Power Line that Louis Gohmert has announced that he will challenge John Boehner for Speaker of the House. I have no idea if Representative Gohmert can defeat Speaker Boehner, but I sure hope he does.

The article quotes Representative Gohmert:

You deceived us when you went to Obama and Pelosi to get your votes for the cromnibus. You said you’d fight amnesty tooth and nail. You didn’t, you funded it.

In 2010, Boehner and other leaders said if you put us in the majority, we will have time to read the bills. That hasn’t happened. We saw that with the cromnibus, again.

We’ll get back to appropriating and we will go through regular committee process, so every representative from both parties will have a chance to participate in the process and not have a dictator running things.

The House of Representatives is the legislative body that is supposed to represent the will of the people–all representatives have to run for election every two years. Unfortunately, in recent years, the House of Representatives has simply reflected the sort of autocratic rule that our President has exemplified. The voice of the American people has somehow been lost in the shuffle in Washington.The Republicans have been the majority in the House for a few years now, with John Boehner as Speaker. There have been no visible change from the time that Nancy Pelosi was in charge. It is time for a change in leadership.

 

Did The Election Of 2014 Mean Anything?

We are about to find out if the election of 2014 meant anything at all in Washington, D.C. The election was a resounding victory for Republicans at all levels of government. It was also an expression of voter dissatisfaction with the current status quo.

Brietbart.com posted an article today pointing out that it would only take 29 conservatives to unseat John Boehner as Speaker of the House. Recent polls have shown that as many as 60 percent of Republicans would like to see John Boehner replaced as Speaker of the House.

The article reports:

At this critical juncture, the few dozen conservatives in the House have two options.

They can allow themselves and the 2014 electorate to remain disenfranchised, helplessly standing by while Boehner passes crucial legislation on amnesty, budget bills, Obamacare, and debt ceiling increases with Democrat support. Or they can seize control of their own destiny by using the first vote of this Congress – the only vote for which Boehner cannot rely on Democrat support – to veto the Speaker himself and preempt a disastrous two years of lawmaking.

Despite misinformation some Republican members and incoming freshmen have given constituents, the selection of John Boehner for Speaker, unlike the election of the other party leaders, has not been cemented. And in fact, on Tuesday, if every Republican who claims to be frustrated and even appalled by Boehner’s behavior would vote for any other name, they can deny him reelection as Speaker.

The article concludes:

By joining together and organizing a move to deny Boehner the majority, these 29 conservatives can create such an opportunity. This would force a second or third ballot and Republicans would have to reconvene a conference. They would finally be compelled to negotiate with conservatives who would only agree to give their votes for someone who commits to certain fundamental principles and ironclad concessions.

Although this is arguably not a perfect plan, as these members stand before their constituents and gratuitously utter the words “John Boehner,” they will have sealed their own fate for the next two years because they have offered no alternative plan to reestablish a modicum of conservative control over the conservative party. Those self-described conservatives who are reluctant to join this effort have an obligation to put forth other ideas for reestablishing a voice within the party.

On Tuesday, choose wisely and fear no man.

If the Democrats and the Republicans are ignoring the will of the American people, it is time to replace them both.

A Wonderful Suggestion For The New Congress

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. This is the picture of conservatives in the Republican party in recent years. Now, in 2015, we have the chance to do something different. We can take that chance or we can continue our march toward oblivion.

Yesterday, Erick Erickson posted an article at Red State which contained a very good suggestion for the Republicans in the new Congress.

The article stated:

Yes, we need to pick up the flag and force Republicans in February to actually fight as they are now promising when funding for the Department of Homeland Security expires, but there is an even more important intervening event that must draw our undivided attention.

The vote on whether Rep. John Boehner will be Speaker will occur in January, and 30 conservative House members can deny him re-election. It will be an actual public vote—not a behind-the-scenes, paper ballot vote. Although many would have you believe otherwise, Boehner has not yet been elected Speaker for the new term. House Republicans elected him as their nominee for Speaker in November, but the full House of Representatives needs to vote on his nomination in January.

Amen. John Boehner may be a wonderful person to have a beer with, but he has become part of the Washington political class. He needs to be replaced as speaker.

The article reports the incident that convinced me it was time for a change:

One of the main obstacles to unseating Boehner is that House conservatives sort of like him. You hear them say, “He really is a good guy. He just has the worst job in the world.” What they do not realize is that at all times, Boehner and the entire Leadership team are looking to screw and distract conservatives. Leadership has a phrase for this—its called “member management.” It is code to themselves for outright deception towards those they lead. Most of the time they don’t get caught, but occasionally the corruption is exposed. Boehner’s team lied to Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-IN) to get his vote on the all-important procedural “rule” setting up the debate on the cromnibus. He promised to pull the cromnibus if Stutzman voted for the rule. Stutzman gave his vote, and Boehner went back on his word.

We will never have any sort of unity in the Republican party if establishment Republicans are comfortable lying to conservatives. Conservatives have a choice to make–they can either fight to bring the Republican party back to its conservative roots or they can be totally ignored. I prefer the fight.

 

There Are A Few Good Men Still In Washington

The more I watch what goes on in Washington, the more I am convinced that we have two political parties–the first consists of Democrats and establishment Republicans, the second consists of conservative Republicans attempting to force Congress to represent the people who voted them into office. The recent budget debates have done nothing to change my view.

The Hill posted an article on Saturday about recent budget negotiations.

The article states:

Appropriators are expected to roll out the legislation early next week, giving critics scant time to figure out what’s inside before they cast their votes by the end of the week. The government would shut down on Dec. 12 without a new funding bill.

“Here we are doing the appropriations bill the last couple days” before a government shutdown, conservative Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kansas) said in an interview this week. “That’s not to squeeze Harry Reid. That’s to squeeze us.”

Boehner critics say there’s no reason the Speaker couldn’t have brought the spending package to the floor this past week, giving the House more time to consider it.

But doing so would also give more time for the right to build a case against it.

“They don’t want you to read it, that’s why! You think they want you to analyze all the mischievous items in there?” Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)  told The Hill.

Representative Jones has been always been a budget hawk. He has unsuccessfully fought the establishment Republicans to cut spending. It is time for Americans who are concerned about the growth of government and the growth of government debt to take a close look at their voting habits. It is time to stop sending people to Washington simply because they have an “R” or a “D” after their name and to choose people for office who will actually represent us. We are running out of time to avoid American bankruptcy.

An Announcement From A Friend

Marty Lamb has worked tirelessly to repeal the automatic gas tax increase voted in by the Massachusetts legislature last year. He sent out the following email today:

Today I am announcing that I am leaving the Yes on 1 Ballot Question to Repeal Automatic Gas Taxes.

 I still fully support the initiative!

 So why am I leaving????

 You won’t believe this!

 The Office of Campaign and Political Finance says that our ballot initiative cannot tell the public which legislators voted for or against linking the gas tax to inflation. I feel that this a gross infringement on our first amendment rights!

 We could fight them in court…

 But…

 Time is running out for this election cycle.

 So today I am announcing the TankTheGasTax.Net PAC which will educate voters how legislators voted on indexing the gas tax to inflation. We will tell voters if their Representative or Senator voted for Taxation Without Representation. We will tell you who is against indexing before they were for it. We will tell you which members voted to take more money out of your pocket while collecting taxpayer funded per diems.

 If you agree that the public has a right to know, then please click here to make a much needed donation to kick-off this PAC.

 Beacon Hill insiders want to keep us quiet. I am not going to let that happen.

 While I am very sad about leaving the ballot group which I help build, I am hoping that you will show your support for my decision by making a donation today.

 Your financial support will be immediately used to print handouts that will be distributed to voters regarding their votes to automatically tax us.

 Help me hold them accountable!

 Please let me hear from you today!

 Thank you,

Temporarily this automatic tax increase and government transparency on the tax increase is a Massachusetts issue. Don’t count on it remaining only in Massachusetts.

Playing Politics Instead Of Solving Problems

The Blaze posted a story about a statement made in the House of Representatives on Friday night by Representative Tom Marino that evidently hit a sore spot with former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article reports Representative Marino’s statement:

“You know something that I find quite interesting about the other side?” Marino said. “Under the leadership of the former Speaker [Pelosi], and under the leadership of their former leader [Rep. Steny Hoyer], when in 2009 and 2010, they had the House, the Senate and the White House, and they knew this problem existed. They didn’t have the strength to go after it back then. But now are trying to make a political issue out of it now.”

At that point Ms. Pelosi charged across the floor and challenged him. The video of the incident is included in the article at The Blaze.

The article includes the following:

The spokeswoman also claimed that, “Pelosi accepted the Congressman’s apology” — but a spokesman for Marino said there was no apology.

“[Rep. Marino] did not apologize to Leader Pelosi and does not intend to do so as he has nothing to apologize for,” the spokesman told ABC News. “She was entirely out of line in approaching him while he was recognized and delivering remarks on the Floor.”

Marino later tweeted about the bizarre incident.

Please follow the link above to the article and read the tweets–they are hilarious.

However, there is a lesson here. Neither political party right now is looking out for the interests of America–the current members of Congress are only interested in getting re-elected and maintaining and increasing their power. There are a few exceptions, but they are very few. And unfortunately, the blame for this lies at the feet of the American voter. It is time for all of us to take a good look at our Senators and Representative and see how they have voted and if they have truly represented us. If we want Washington to respond to us, we have to send people there who represent us. It is up to us. As Pogo used to say (if you are old enough to know who Pogo is), “We have met the enemy and he is us.”

Exactly Why Is The Law There?

Yesterday the Washington Post reported that Representative John Conyers would be on the election ballot in Michigan. Representative Conyers was originally taken off the ballot by election officials because he had failed to secure enough valid petition signatures. Some of the people who collected signatures were not registered voters, something that is required by Michigan law.

The article reports:

U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Leitman issued an injunction ordering Conyers back on the ballot just hours after state elections officials upheld an earlier ruling that had kept him off for failing to secure enough valid petition signatures. At issue was the question of whether a law requiring signature gatherers to be registered voters is constitutional.

Leitman said he was not issuing an opinion on that question Friday. But because the plaintiffs challenging the law “have shown a substantial likelihood of success” and “because time is of the essence,” he said he opted to order that Conyers be put back on the ballot.

Leitman’s order came the same day the Michigan secretary of state‘s office upheld a decision handed down May 13 by Wayne County Clerk Cathy Garrett. Garrett’s office said Conyers submitted far fewer than the 1,000 valid signatures required to appear on the ballot. Leitman’s decision puts him beyond the threshold.

There is a problem with the logic here–there is a law in place that governs the collection of signatures. If voters or state legislators are unhappy with that law, they need to change it. This is an example of a judge saying he didn’t want that law to apply, so he overruled it. Would the judge have made the same decision for another candidate? Do voting laws apply equally to all candidates? According to the U.S. Constiution and most of the state constitutions, laws are made by legislative bodies–not by judges.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Uneven Treatment, Uneven Coverage

As a former New Englander, I remember when Rhode Island representative Patrick J. Kennedy was driven home in Washington, D. C. after a small automobile accident. His spokespeople reported that he was taking sleeping pills and had suffered side effects. There were other drug-related incidents, and Representative Kennedy eventually entered a short rehabilitation program for OxyContin use. He was re-elected until 2010, when he decided not to run for office.

Fast forward to 2013.

On January 27, 2014, the Christian Science Monitor reported:

US Rep. Trey Radel (R) of Florida, a once-rising star in the tea party movement, resigned from Congress on Monday, following a November conviction of cocaine possession.

Congressman Radel pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of narcotics possession in November, after he was caught Oct. 29 trying to buy 3.5 grams of cocaine from an undercover federal agent in Washington’s Dupont Circle area. During his trial, he reportedly told Judge Robert Tignor that he had “hit a bottom” and realized that he needs help. Radel was sentenced to a one-year probation and a $250 fine.

The story was widely reported.

Today, this story was reported in the Huffington Post:

Rep. Rob Andrews (D-N.J.) will resign his seat Tuesday, a source familiar with the situation told The Huffington Post. The congressman will hold a press conference at 11:30 to make the announcement.

The Philadelphia Inquirer first reported that Andrews was leaving to take a job at a Philadelphia law firm.

Andrews is the subject of a House Ethics Committee investigation over whether he improperly spent campaign cash to pay for personal trips to Scotland and Los Angeles, and over allegations that he used a graduation party for his daughter to raise funds. His legal bills have risen as a result of the investigation.

A resignation would likely end the ethics investigation against him.

The story also appears at ABC News, but Representative Andrews political party is not mentioned in that version of the story.

Above are some examples of why we need alternative media.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Can We Just Replace Congress?

Yesterday the Washington Times posted an article about the farm bill that is making its way through Congress. Included in the bill is a fee (a fee as opposed to a tax?) of two-tenths of a cent on every gallon of home heating oil sold. Last week the farm bill passed the House of Representatives with a  bipartisan 251-166 vote.

The Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune is reporting today that the Senate voted to close debate on a five-year farm bill late Monday afternoon paving way for its passage Tuesday.

The article at the Washington Times reported:

Lawmakers in the House and Senate sponsored bills to try to renew the National Oilheat Research Alliance, but the legislation got bottled up in committee. The farm bill offered them a chance to short-circuit the usual legislative process and avoid the kind of scrutiny that accompanies a stand-alone bill.

Indeed, it was not raised at all during the debate on the House floor last week.

Damn the consumer–full speed ahead! This Congress needs to be very quickly voted out of office!

Enhanced by Zemanta

ObamaCare Has Caused More Problems Than It Has Solved

Today’s Daily Caller posted a story about Emilie Lamb, an accountant who suffers from lupus. She is now working a second job to cover a calculated $6,000 increase in out-of-pocket health care costs per year. She will watch the State of the Union address as a guest of Representative Marsha Blackburn.

The article reports:

She was forced to purchase a more expensive plan after her old policy with CoverTN was canceled. The federal government had denied CoverTN’s request for a waiver to grandfather her plan into Obamacare three times.

Even with a small federal subsidy, her premiums increased from $57 to $373 per month.

Ms. Lamb explained that she voted for President Obama in 2012 because she hoped that ObamaCare would help her with her medical care.

Please follow the above link to the story, which includes a video of Ms. Lamb telling her story.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Is The Vote On The Omnibus Spending Bill

Taken from The Blaze:

Please remember this vote during the coming election. The people who voted yes voted to increase the budget in every area except one–they cut the retirement benefits of our military.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Manipulating The Numbers To Disguise Increased Spending

Breitbart.com posted an article today about the budget compromise recently reached by Paul Ryan and Patty Murray. Congressman Ryan continues to defend the proposed cuts to veteran’s retirement pay. Before I continue, I just want to mention that cutting retirement pay for veterans is breaking a contract that was made with them when they agreed to serve in our military for twenty years or more.

Now, back to the actual point–the spending cuts in this budget do not reduce the deficit–they are math gimmicks.

The article reports:

As Breitbart News has reported, Ryan’s and Murray’s budget deal does not reduce the deficit. In fact, the deal raises the deficit by at least $15.5 billion because of a series of gimmicks that Ryan and Murray employed in the accounting of the deal — namely, double counting of savings like the tactic which was employed in Obamacare, and the failure to include an estimate of the interest on the borrowed money for the first couple of years of increased spending. These are only a few among a series of other misleading statements Ryan has made about the deal.

Congressman Ryan claims that the changes in military pensions are simply a ‘small adjustment.’ The facts do not back up that statement.

The article reports:

Ryan characterized the change as a “small adjustment” in the next paragraph, even though he admitted it could affect veterans by as much as $100,000 or more over their lifetimes, depending on when they retire.

That’s a serious broken promise.

The article reminds us:

In his op-ed, Ryan did not address the proposal in the House of Representatives gaining significant attention already from Reps. Martha Roby (R-AL) and Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA). Roby’s and Fitzpatrick’s plan would restore pensions for all military veterans and offset the savings those cuts create with savings from closing a loophole allowing illegal aliens access to the Refundable Child Tax Credit. Closing that loophole would save $7 billion — more than enough to ensure that the Pentagon gets the money it needs to buy top-notch military equipment.

Why are we taking money away from our military veterans and giving it to illegal aliens? Is this where we want to go?

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

I Wish Someone Had Read The Bill Before They Passed It

There is new bad news coming out about ObamaCare every day. The President has unilaterally changed the law so many times it seems as if he is making it up as he goes along (maybe he is), and now there is a new twist for senior citizens.

On December 12, the Washington Examiner reported that beginning January 1, there will be major cuts to programs in Medicare and Medicaid that help senior citizens.

The article reports:

An estimated 3.5 million poor and ill homebound senior citizens will wake up on New Year’s Day to discover Obamacare has slashed funding for their home health care program.

It will happen because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services quietly issued a regulation Nov. 22 announcing a 14-percent cut over the next four years in funding for the Home Health Care Prospective Payment program.

The rule cuts Medicare payments to home health care providers by 3.5 percent each year beginning in 2014, for a total cut of 14 percent.

…Nearly a half million skilled home care workers are also projected to lose their jobs over the next four years due to the cuts, according to the program’s supporters.

The cuts may also have a disproportionate impact on minorities and those living in underserved rural communities.

A November 2013 study by Avalere Health, a Washington, D.C., health care business analysis firm, found that two out of three home health care recipients fall at or below the federal poverty line.

The study also estimated that one in four seniors getting home health care are age 85 or older.

Federal officials had discretion to keep Medicare home payments at the same level or impose a maximum 3.5 percent cut each year through 2017 to reach the 14-percent reduction.

But CMS opted to impose the maximum reduction, beginning on New Year’s Day 2014.

The cuts that are being made to Medicare are being made to fund ObamaCare. In other words, ObamaCare takes money from the care of the elderly and uses that money to fund a government takeover of the health insurance agency.

The article reports some push-back from Congress on the issue:

Fifty-one senators appealed in a September letter to Tavenner to reject the proposed cuts to home health care agencies, saying enactment “would raise serious concerns about access to care for vulnerable seniors.”

There were 35 Democratic signers of the letter to Tavenner, 15 Republicans and one independent.

Also in September, 142 members of the House of Representatives wrote Tavenner that “home health is a critical service that allows patients to be treated in a cost effective manner in the environment they prefer — their home.”

Sixty-six House Democrats joined 76 House Republicans in signing that letter.

As January 1 rapidly approaches, the promises made about ObamaCare are becoming nightmares for the American public.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Cost Of Compromise

A budget compromise was needed by both sides–establishment Republicans and Democrats for different reasons. The Republicans did not want to be blamed for another shutdown when the Continuing Resolution (CR) expired or when the debt ceiling needed to be raised (that day is rapidly approaching and there are no guarantees that either side will  handle it well). The Democrats needs to pass a budget (for the first time in five years) to change the subject from ObamaCare. Each side had their reasons. However, it bothers me that both side were willing to throw the veterans who served our country and went to war at the request of Congress under the bus.

Yesterday the Washington Free Beacon reported that the budget compromise which has passed the House of Representatives could cost military service retirees as much as $124,000 in retirement pay.

The article reports:

The Washington Free Beacon reported that under the budget agreement crafted by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R., Wisc.) and Senate Budget Committee Chairman Patty Murray (D., Wash.), military retirees younger than 62 will receive 1 percentage point less in their annual cost-of-living adjustment (COLA).

While new federal employees who are hired after Jan. 1, 2014 will be required to pay 1.3 percent more of their pay into their pension plans, federal retirees will continue to receive their generous pension benefits and current employees will not be required to pay more.

Please excuse my cynicism, but note that the federal employees have unions–the military does not. Unions make very large political contributions–the military does not. This is a horrible perversion of priorities. We ask our soldiers to risk their lives, and then we cut their pensions rather than cutting the pensions of civil servants who work in safety. That is simply awful.

The article reports:

A loss of one percentage point in their COLA translates into thousands of dollars in lost retirement income.

For instance, a 42-year-old who retires as an enlisted E-7 could lose a minimum of $72,000. E-7 refers to the ranks of Sergeant First Class, Chief Petty Officer (CPO), Master Sergeant, and Gunnery Sergeant.

A 42-year old Lieutenant Colonel could lose a minimum of $109,000 over a 20-year period.

If an E-7 retires at 40, they would lose $83,000. Commissioned officers could lose much more. Lieutenant colonels and commanders (an O-5 rank) who retire at 40 would lose $124,000.

Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R., N.H.) has also come out against the deal late Thursday.

“I cannot support a budget agreement that fails to deal with the biggest drivers of our debt, but instead pays for more federal spending on the backs of our active duty and military retirees – those who have put their lives on the line to defend us,” Ayotte said in a statement.

“My hope is that both parties can work together to replace these unfair cuts that impact our men and women in uniform with more responsible savings, such as the billions that the Government Accountability Office has identified in waste, duplication and fraud across the federal government.”

It will be interesting to see if this part of the bill gets changed. If not, everyone who voted for the compromise should be voted out of office.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Political Right Is Also Capable Of Using The Popular Culture To Its Advantage!

Yesterday the Washington Examiner reported that Vance McAllister won a special election for Louisiana‘s 5th District seat yesterday. Representative-elect McAllister is new to politics–he has never even visited Washington, D.C. However, Representative-elect McAllister is a friend of the patriarch of TV’s “Duck Dynasty,” Phil Robertson, who endorsed his congressional bid.

The article reports:

Vance McAllister beat establishment candidate Neil Riser, a state senator, in Saturday’s runoff election created when former Rep. Rodney Alexander resigned on Sept. 26 to become secretary of the Louisiana Department of Veterans Affairs under Republican Governor Bobby Jindal.

…A handful of Washington GOP operatives tried to get one of the members of the Duck Dynasty family to run for the seat, but failed.

But the race showed just how powerful the Duck Dynasty trademark is in the area, said an election observer.

Wow. Just wow.

Enhanced by Zemanta

It’s Only A Surprise Because Most Of The Mainstream Media Didn’t Cover It

Yesterday, Byron York posted a story at the Washington Examiner about the shock many people are experiencing when their health insurance policies are cancelled. Byron York posted the transcript of a conversation between Christina Romer, then chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, and Representative Tom Price, who is also a doctor, at a House Education and Labor Committee hearing of June 23, 2009.

This is part of the transcript:

REP. PRICE: I’m asking about if an individual likes their current plan and maybe they don’t get it through their employer and maybe in fact their plan doesn’t comply with every parameter of the current draft bill, how are they going to be able to keep that?

MS. ROMER: So the president is fundamentally talking about maintaining what’s good about the system that we have. And —

REP. PRICE: That’s not my question.

MS. ROMER: One of the things that he has been saying is, for example, you may like your plan and one of the things we may do is slow the growth rate of the cost of your plan, right? So that’s something that is not only —

REP. PRICE: The question is whether or not patients are going to be able to keep their plan if they like it. What if, for example, there’s an employer out there — and you’ve said that if the employers that already provide health insurance, health coverage for their employees, that they’ll be just fine, right? What if the policy that those employees and that employer like and provide for their employees doesn’t comply with the specifics of the bill? Will they be able to keep that one?

MS. ROMER: So certainly my understanding — and I won’t pretend to be an expert in the bill — but certainly I think what’s being planned is, for example, for plans in the exchange to have a minimum level of benefits.

REP. PRICE: So if I were to tell you that in the bill it says that if a plan doesn’t comply with the specifics that are outlined in the bill that that employer’s going to have to move to the — to a different plan within five years — would you — would that be unusual, or would that seem outrageous to you?

MS. ROMER: I think the crucial thing is, what kind of changes are we talking about? The president was saying he wanted the American people to know that fundamentally if you like what you have it will still be there.

REP. PRICE: What if you like what you have, Dr. Romer, though, and it doesn’t fit with the definition in the bill? My reading of the bill is that you can’t keep that.

MS. ROMER: I think the crucial thing — the bill is talking about setting a minimum standard of what can count —

REP. PRICE: So it’s possible that you may like what you have, but you may not be able to keep it? Right?

MS. ROMER: We’d have — I’d have to look at the specifics.

That testimony took place more than four years ago. The mainstream media ignored the testimony, and the American voters were in the dark about what ObamaCare would mean to them. Because of the way the law has been written, Congress can keep their healthcare coverage, the President will keep his healthcare coverage, and most Congressional staffers will keep their healthcare coverage. When did we reach a point in America where there was one set of standards for the average American and another set of standards for the people who write our laws? Keep in mind that one reason a health insurance plan could be cancelled under ObamaCare would be that it did not provide pediatric dental coverage for a single man of twenty-five or a married couple in their sixties. I need someone to explain to me why a plan for those people without that coverage would be considered inadequate.

 

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

An Amazing Statement

This video is from YouTube:

Aside from the total callousness of his statement, Senator Harry Reid is claiming that the House of Representatives has no right to ‘pick and choose’ what parts of the government they will fund.

I would like to point out what the U.S. Constitution says about that (from a website called archives.gov):

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

That is what the U.S. Constitution says. Unfortunately, lately we haven’t been paying a lot of attention to the U.S. Constitution.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Doing What They Were Elected To Do

There is some serious hand wringing and semi-hysteria going on right now on the part of Democrats and establishment Republicans about the vote taken in the House of Representatives to fund the government, but not ObamaCare. First of all, I would like to point out that this whole question could have been avoided if Congress had passed a budget at some point instead of relying on continuing resolutions. But I guess that is beside the point.

I am a little concerned about the vote, but there are a few things I have noticed. First of all, two Democrats voted for the defunding and one Republican voted against it. That’s more bi-partisan than most things that happen in the House of Representatives.

The House of Representatives is elected every two years. They are expected to be responsive to the wishes of the voters and reflect the views of the voters. Well, according to Real Clear Politics (they average everyone else’s polling data), 52 percent of Americans oppose ObamaCare. Thirty-eight percent of Americans support it. (Just for the record, Real Clear Politics also reports that 44 percent of Americans approve of the job President Obama is doing and 50 percent disapprove). These are the current numbers.

So, regardless of how you feel about the vote, the House of Representatives is representing the view of the American people. So what about the Senate? The direct election of Senators by popular vote was established by the Seventeenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Before then, Senators were elected by their state legislatures. They were supposed to represent the interests of their states. Because of the role that money plays in modern politics and the role that parties play, Senators no longer represent their states (or their people for that matter). They represent lobbyists, unions, and big business. Party discipline plays a big role in how they vote (generally speaking, the Democrats are much more disciplined than the Republicans).

There is no way the continuing resolution without funding ObamaCare passes in the Senate. However, the passing of the defunding resolution in the House can be a teaching opportunity to help those who have not been paying attention learn exactly how ObamaCare will impact them. We are already seeing the impact in the reduction of work hours for many people, the loss of company healthcare plans for many people, and the higher premiums for health insurance.

I hope the government does not shut down, but I believe the Republicans in the House were doing their job of representing their constituents when they passed the law funding the government and defunding ObamaCare.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Some Perspective On The Immigration Bill

The video below is posted on YouTube. It makes some very good points about the need for Congress to take a little time to study the immigration bill before voting on it.

On their Pledge to America websites the Republicans promised:

We will ensure that bills are debated and discussed in the public square by publishing the text online for at least three days before coming up for a vote in the House of Representatives. No more hiding legislative language from the minority party, opponents, and the public. Legislation should be understood by all interested parties before it is voted on.

The website states that the promise was kept on January 5, 2011. It might have been kept then, but it is about to be broken now! More than a thousand pages were added to the bill on Friday night. Do you believe anyone will have read and studied them by the vote on Monday? Please email your Senators (and any other Senators you know who are planning to vote for cloture) and ask them to read the bill before voting on it.

Enhanced by Zemanta

A New Wrinkle In One Of The Current Scandals

One of my favorite radio shows is the Hugh Hewitt Show. I can’t listen to him locally, but I can listen to him on Townhall.com. Mr. Hewitt is a California attorney, law professor, and served in the Reagan Administration. His show is always informative, and he posts many of the interviews at HughHewitt.com.

The following is an excerpt from an interview with Congress Devin Nunes that took place on May 15th:

DN: So when they went after the AP reporters, right? Went after all of their phone records, they went after the phone records, including right up here in the House Gallery, right up from where I’m sitting right now. So you have a real separation of powers issue that did this really rise to the level that you would have to get phone records that would, that would most likely include members of Congress, because as you know…

HH: Wow.

DN: …members of Congress talk to the press all the time.

HH: I did not know that, and that is a stunner.

DN: Now that is a separation of powers issue here, Hugh.

HH: Sure.

DN: And it’s a freedom of press issue. And now you’ve got the IRS going after people. So these things are starting to cascade one upon the other, and you have the White House pretending like they’re in the clouds like it’s not their issue somehow.

This whole discussion of abuse of power just got very interesting.

Enhanced by Zemanta

We Elected These People…

This is not a joke. This story appeared in the Washington Times on Tuesday. I thought I had heard everything when Hank Johnson said to Admiral Robert F. Willard, Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize“, to which Admiral Willard replied, “We don’t anticipate that.” The discussion was part of a House of Representatives hearing on increasing troop strength on Guam. The Admiral’s composure when asked the question was amazing. I would like to point out that Representative Johnson has been re-elected twice since that 2010 comment and still serves in the U. S. House of Representatives.

On Tuesday the Washington Times reported:

Rep. Barbara Lee, California Democrat, said in The Hill that “food insecure women with limited socioeconomic resources may be vulnerable to situations such as sex work, transactional sex, and early marriage that put them at risk for HIV, STIs, unplanned pregnancy and poor reproductive health.”

Moreover, climate change could turn entire populations into refugees — again, affecting women the most, the resolution suggested, as Newser reported.

So climate change (which isn’t really established as man-made) could result in increased prostitution. I would also like to note that if famine sweeps the world, everyone suffers–not just women.
We are responsible for electing our Representatives. We have only ourselves to blame.
Enhanced by Zemanta

When The Government Controls Healthcare Bad Things Happen

When the government is allowed to decide what treatment is appropriate for medical problems, bad things happen. Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted a story about one particular incident and a possible solution.

TRICARE is the military’s healthcare program. It covers military personnel, retirees, and military families for all branches of the military. Rep. Tom Cotton is co-sponsoring legislation to make sure our military and their families get the care they need.

The article reports:

H.R. 1705, also known as “Kaitlyn’s Law,” would make sure that Tricare covers doctor-prescribed therapeutic exercises or therapeutic activities. When the doctors and therapists treating a patient covered by TRICARE agree that a particular form of therapy is needed, and can justify their decision on medical grounds, the patient would receive reimbursement for that therapy.

Kaitlyn is the child of a military family. She has numerous physical problems that cause her to be incapable of speaking or walking by herself. One of these problems is severe scoliosis. Without effective treatment, the curvature of her spine is so severe that as it increases her bones will pop out of joint and she will eventually be crushed; The challenge for her family was finding effective therapy.  When conventional therapy failed, they eventually found something called “hippotherapy.” This involved riding a horse in circles to stretch her back muscles and force her to sit upright. The Pentagon decided that this was not a ‘proven’ therapy (despite the fact that it worked) and stopped paying for it.

The article continues:

In essence, then, the government takes the position that it will pay for physical therapy that wasn’t working for Kaitlyn, but won’t pay for the type of physical therapy that does work for her. And it took that position even as it admitted that there is reliable evidence supporting the value of “horse therapy.” In addition, Kaitlyn’s doctors presented sworn testimony as to its effectiveness on her.

Kaitlyn’s law would reverse this injustice, not just for her but for the many military families in need of need of hippotherapy, as well as other non-traditional modalities, such as a ball, balance board, barrel or bench. This tweak would not impose a new mandate on private insurance carriers. It would simply precludes military insurers from second-guessing the treatment choices made by doctors and therapists in the context of rehabilitative therapy.

Please follow the link to the article and read the letter submitted to Congress about this bill. We ask a lot of our military families–we need to take care of them.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Remaining Questions About Benghazi

Benghazi does not seem to be going away. Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line reported that 700 retired special operations military personnel have signed a letter to members of the House of Representatives, asking them to investigate the Benghazi debacle. This is the link to the letter.

The concern of the former special ops personnel is that the American policy of leaving no one behind was not followed during the attack. The Ambassador and three other people were essentially abandoned by the American government that was supposed to protect them.

The letter states:

A longstanding American ethos was breached during the terrorist attack in Benghazi. America failed to provide adequate security to personnel deployed into harm’s way and then failed to respond when they were viciously attacked. Clearly, this is unacceptable and requires accountability. America has always held to the notion that no American will be left behind and that every effort will be made to respond when US personnel are threatened. Given our backgrounds, we are concerned that this sends a very negative message to future military and diplomatic personnel who may be deployed into dangerous environments.  That message is that they will be left to their own devices when attacked.  That is an unacceptable message.

The letter asks that the House Select Committee ask the Obama Administration sixteen questions that have not yet been answered and demand answers to those questions. The families of those Americans killed in the attack deserve at least that much.

Enhanced by Zemanta

This Legislation Is Needed!

There are two bills working their way through Congress right now–H.R.833 in the House of Representatives and S.470 in the Senate. My source for the following information is Thomas.gov. I am not putting up a direct link as their direct links expire in a set time. Both bills deal with the new “The Distinguished Warfare Medal” which would outrank the Bronze Star and Purple Heart. The medal recognizes service members with special training and capabilities that directly impact military operations, regardless of distance from the battlefield. That means that a drone operator in California could get a higher medal than a soldier in the actual battlefield who takes heroic action. Seems a little unfair.

Thomas.gov reports the latest major action on H. R. 833 – 2/26/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Armed Services. Thomas.gov also reports the latest major action on S. 470 – 3/6/2013 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services.

You can find information on how to get involved at the VFW website. I realize that the men and women who fly the drones are important, but they are not on the battlefield being shot at. That matters.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Spiking The Football Before You Make The Touchdown Is Never A Good Idea

I have no problem with victory celebrations in football. It is a competitive sport and in that setting they are appropriate, but I will admit that President Obama is getting on my nerves with his political victory celebrations. Being President does not mean that you have to destroy the other political party–it means that you have to lead the country and create unity. I guess President Obama never got that message.

Last night Breitbart.com reported on the current state of the fiscal cliff negotiations. It appears as if a deal may have been reached (the question is whether or not the deal will pass in the House of Representatives). With passage in the House not a given, it was rather unwise of the President to spike the football–unless he wants the deal to fail so that he can blame Republicans. I hope that is not the case, because that would be putting politics over the welfare of the country, and I don’t like to think any President would do that.

The article reports:

However, there are several reasons a deal could fail. One is the President’s bizarre press conference earlier today, at which he appeared to mock Republicans and hinted at further tax hikes in the future. The event, timed at a sensitive stage in the negotiating process, irked Republicans and damaged whatever trust might have begun. Obama seems to have been torn between the desire to strike a victorious posture, and the real fear–driven, perhaps, by sharply falling approval ratings–that he would be blamed if the “fiscal cliff” caused a new recession.

The article also reminds us that we have already hit the debt ceiling:

Negotiations will also take place about the debt ceiling. The Treasury reports that the U.S. has officially hit the $16.4 trillion limit on what it can borrow, and that the government must resort to “extraordinary measures” to cover additional borrowing, which it can only do for a few more weeks. Congress will revisit the debt ceiling negotiations of the summer of 2011, even as it struggles with the aftermath of the “fiscal cliff.”

The problem is excessive spending–not lack of revenue!Enhanced by Zemanta