I just watched the Nancy Pelosi weekly press conference (have I mentioned that I love working from home)and healthcare was addressed. The congress is looking mainly for a government run option which would follow their pattern of spending as much money as they can as fast as they can.
When asked about the cost of the public option that the majority support, Pelosi indicated that the Congressional Budget Office has not factored in the savings from prevention and early intervention, and that they need to look for every bit of savings they can find. Savings, savings, savings, is what she said. But that savings would be very difficult to calculate. Should we base the savings on the assumption that if you build it they will come? There are many people, like me, who just don't go to the doctor regularly. And I have preventative care as part of my insurance. How then can we calculate the cost of the savings when we don't know how many people would actually use their new preventative benefit? History has already shown us that their estimates on the costs of their programs is usually way off, and this could be why. If they are going to count on savings that won't actually ever come to pass, we should be concerned.
My other concern is their insistence that a bill, any bill, must be passed this summer. This continues their trend of being more concerned with doing something fast than doing it right. Look at how that worked out with the stimulus package. We had to pass it without reading it so the money could get into the system immediately. And 4 months later only 10% of the money has been spent. Shouldn't we instead take the time to ensure that a program which will impact the country for decades, if not forever, is the best possible bill that it can be? Shouldn't they be looking for a plan that delivers the best solution for the lowest cost instead of trying to cook the books to make the plan they want more palatable to the people? Shouldn't this fall under the old cliche of "if it's worth doing it's worth doing right"?
I am very concerned with the way Congress is spending our money. It appears, to me at least, that they are using our money to fund the growth of the government instead of the growth of the economy. And should we burden an already struggling economy with another $1 trillion in debt?
Delay is preferable to error. - Thomas Jefferson
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Congress. Show all posts
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sex Scandals Different For Republicans
Politicians from the two parties have different consequences for their actions as it involves sex scandals or marital infidelity. Arguments have been made that this is because the every day members of the two parties view these issues differently. However, one man on the news today said this was because Republicans talk about family values while they have a man in the white house who is living them. Uh, OK. And when the had Clinton in the white house and the Dems didn't care that he was a total horndog the reason was what?
I really do believe that the two parties look at infidelity differently. It has been said by some that they don't care who politicians are screwing as long as it's not the people. My problem with it is that if a person will break their oath, their vow, to their spouse, how can possibly trust them to keep their oath to us? If we can't trust them in one thing how can we trust them on anything?
So let's look at some of the big sex scandals of the past and how they've been handled.
Republicans
- Gov Sanford has affair in Venezuela possibly using government funds, run out of town on a rail
- Senator John Ensign - has affair with staffer, apologizes then shuts up about it, stays in office and plans to run for re-election in 2012.
- Sen David Vitter - shows up on phone records for prostitutes, apologizes then shuts up, stays in office and running for re-election.
- Sen Larry Craig - looking for sex in an airport men's room, apologizes but still too much press, run out of town on a rail.
- Rep Mark Foley - sends sexually explicit notes to a 16 year old page, no actual sex but notes are still bad enough, apologizes, run out of town on a rail.
- Candidate Gary Hart - announces affair, withdraws from campaign
So for the Republicans, 4 of 6 are pressured to resign.
Democrats
- Sen Ted Kennedy - has affair, gets woman killed, still in office.
- President Bill Clinton - has affair, commits purjery about it, stays in office because he only lied about sex. Also accused of affair like Gary Hart, does not withdraw, wins presidency.
- Sen Barney Frank - uses tax payer funds to hire male prostitute as "personal assistant"who ran prostitution ring form Frank's home, still in office.
- Sen Daniel Inouye - accused by numerous women of sexual harassment, ethics committee dropped investigation, stayed in office.
- Sen Brock Adams - accused of drugging and rape, stayed in office until more women came forward and he decided not to run for re-election
- Gov Jim McGreavy - announces affair with a man, resigns
Democrats, 2 of 6 pressured to resign.
I really do believe that the two parties look at infidelity differently. It has been said by some that they don't care who politicians are screwing as long as it's not the people. My problem with it is that if a person will break their oath, their vow, to their spouse, how can possibly trust them to keep their oath to us? If we can't trust them in one thing how can we trust them on anything?
So let's look at some of the big sex scandals of the past and how they've been handled.
Republicans
- Gov Sanford has affair in Venezuela possibly using government funds, run out of town on a rail
- Senator John Ensign - has affair with staffer, apologizes then shuts up about it, stays in office and plans to run for re-election in 2012.
- Sen David Vitter - shows up on phone records for prostitutes, apologizes then shuts up, stays in office and running for re-election.
- Sen Larry Craig - looking for sex in an airport men's room, apologizes but still too much press, run out of town on a rail.
- Rep Mark Foley - sends sexually explicit notes to a 16 year old page, no actual sex but notes are still bad enough, apologizes, run out of town on a rail.
- Candidate Gary Hart - announces affair, withdraws from campaign
So for the Republicans, 4 of 6 are pressured to resign.
Democrats
- Sen Ted Kennedy - has affair, gets woman killed, still in office.
- President Bill Clinton - has affair, commits purjery about it, stays in office because he only lied about sex. Also accused of affair like Gary Hart, does not withdraw, wins presidency.
- Sen Barney Frank - uses tax payer funds to hire male prostitute as "personal assistant"who ran prostitution ring form Frank's home, still in office.
- Sen Daniel Inouye - accused by numerous women of sexual harassment, ethics committee dropped investigation, stayed in office.
- Sen Brock Adams - accused of drugging and rape, stayed in office until more women came forward and he decided not to run for re-election
- Gov Jim McGreavy - announces affair with a man, resigns
Democrats, 2 of 6 pressured to resign.
Looking at this is does appear that there is a double standard when it comes to sex scandals. But what I found most interesting about this is how many of the badly behaved are in the senate.
So, is this really that Republicans talk family values while Democrats live them? Doesn't look so much like that to me.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Congress Could Benefit From Some Risk Management Classes
I was watching the news (I don't know why I do that) and the Universal Health Care issue was raised. People from both sides presented and it was stressed that employees happy with their current coverage could keep it. The reporter asked what would keep a company from deciding not to offer benefits to their employees anymore, as there would be another option for them, and thereby eliminating the coverage that the person liked. A reasonable question as far as I was concerned and one that would need to be addressed. What was the response? That's a Republican talking point and not our intent.
Not our intent. How many times do we hear that from Congress. That is just a talking point from the other side and not the intent of our legislation. They even sometimes get hostile over the suggestion that their legislation could have unintended consequences. But risk management is a necessity for the design of any product. And that's what Congress is doing. Designing a product. And yet they do no risk management at all. They make no effort to determine how their legislation could go wrong, how often it would happen, and the impact if it did happen. These are necessary pieces of information to have so that you know what loopholes need to be closed and can figure out how to close them. This is a basic FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) a great tool for risk identification and mitigation. So why won't Congress use it?
Instead of using a simple tool to identify risks, they write legislation that is so long and convoluted that they can't even take the time to read it before voting on it. The stimulus bill for example. An important piece of legislation according to them. Had to be passed quickly. But they paid more attention to doing it fast than doing it right. So what has happened? The money is being misused because they didn't try to figure out how that might happen and how to stop it. And a lot of the money isn't being spent. It had to be passed so quickly so the money could get into the economy but that hasn't happened. That bill was 1,200 pages long. One giant opportunity for unmitigated risk.
To give you some perspective on the absurdity of the length of that bill, and it's just an example of many like it, I have a copy of the Constitution that is pamphlet sized. Pretty small cover and pretty small pages. And yet, that little book is still only 48 pages long. That is our Constitution and all of it's amendments. That's 48 pages to set the rules of our government, but it took 1,200 pages to spend money. And spend it badly.
Is it really so much to ask that our legislatures make an attempt to identify gaps in their legislation before they pass it? Oh, but I guess they'd have to actually read it in order to be able to do that.
Not our intent. How many times do we hear that from Congress. That is just a talking point from the other side and not the intent of our legislation. They even sometimes get hostile over the suggestion that their legislation could have unintended consequences. But risk management is a necessity for the design of any product. And that's what Congress is doing. Designing a product. And yet they do no risk management at all. They make no effort to determine how their legislation could go wrong, how often it would happen, and the impact if it did happen. These are necessary pieces of information to have so that you know what loopholes need to be closed and can figure out how to close them. This is a basic FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) a great tool for risk identification and mitigation. So why won't Congress use it?
Instead of using a simple tool to identify risks, they write legislation that is so long and convoluted that they can't even take the time to read it before voting on it. The stimulus bill for example. An important piece of legislation according to them. Had to be passed quickly. But they paid more attention to doing it fast than doing it right. So what has happened? The money is being misused because they didn't try to figure out how that might happen and how to stop it. And a lot of the money isn't being spent. It had to be passed so quickly so the money could get into the economy but that hasn't happened. That bill was 1,200 pages long. One giant opportunity for unmitigated risk.
To give you some perspective on the absurdity of the length of that bill, and it's just an example of many like it, I have a copy of the Constitution that is pamphlet sized. Pretty small cover and pretty small pages. And yet, that little book is still only 48 pages long. That is our Constitution and all of it's amendments. That's 48 pages to set the rules of our government, but it took 1,200 pages to spend money. And spend it badly.
Is it really so much to ask that our legislatures make an attempt to identify gaps in their legislation before they pass it? Oh, but I guess they'd have to actually read it in order to be able to do that.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
If We're Already Paying For The Uninsured Then Where's The Crisis?
The new plan for covering the cost of health care for the uninsured is to tax our employer paid benefits. Unless, that is, you work for a union. So even though our insurance premium rates are rising at a higher level than our salaries, we should pay more to cover those uninsured people. But the Congressional justification for this is that we're already paying for the uninsured in the high prices of care and, therefore, the high cost of our premiums.
So here's my question; if we're already paying for the uninsured why is this a crisis? Why do we have to pass something immediately if the American people are already paying the health care costs of those uninsured? If those 47 million uninsured, which includes illegal aliens, people who are offered insurance but decline it, and those uninsured for a matter of days through the year, are already getting their costs covered then what's the big deal?
Congress is now trying to tell us it will be a wash. OK. So as soon as they start taxing my employer paid benefits then my premiums will go down, right? Don't think so. It will take years for the premium amounts to change to reflect a lowering in health care costs, if it ever happens at all. Which I doubt. What will actually happen is that the health insurance premiums will continue to rise for years, but we'll just be paying taxes on those higher rates as well. Many of us have already forgone raises or taken pay cuts in order to keep our jobs and the jobs of others within our companies, but now our take home pay will decrease again due to yet another tax.
And what happened to the promise that 95% of the population would not have a tax increase under this administration? This will definitely be a tax increase on people of all levels of pay as long as they are responsible enough to take the coverage offered by their employer. And what will the new tax rate on our coverage be? Too dang high is my guess.
So maybe we just all just opt out of our employer offered coverage so we not only don't get a tax increase, but we get more take home pay and somebody else to pay for our health care. Sounds like a plan to me.
So here's my question; if we're already paying for the uninsured why is this a crisis? Why do we have to pass something immediately if the American people are already paying the health care costs of those uninsured? If those 47 million uninsured, which includes illegal aliens, people who are offered insurance but decline it, and those uninsured for a matter of days through the year, are already getting their costs covered then what's the big deal?
Congress is now trying to tell us it will be a wash. OK. So as soon as they start taxing my employer paid benefits then my premiums will go down, right? Don't think so. It will take years for the premium amounts to change to reflect a lowering in health care costs, if it ever happens at all. Which I doubt. What will actually happen is that the health insurance premiums will continue to rise for years, but we'll just be paying taxes on those higher rates as well. Many of us have already forgone raises or taken pay cuts in order to keep our jobs and the jobs of others within our companies, but now our take home pay will decrease again due to yet another tax.
And what happened to the promise that 95% of the population would not have a tax increase under this administration? This will definitely be a tax increase on people of all levels of pay as long as they are responsible enough to take the coverage offered by their employer. And what will the new tax rate on our coverage be? Too dang high is my guess.
So maybe we just all just opt out of our employer offered coverage so we not only don't get a tax increase, but we get more take home pay and somebody else to pay for our health care. Sounds like a plan to me.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
A Universal Belief in Free Speech?
I've been out of the country for a few weeks so am late in posting my response to President Obama stating that there is a Universal Belief in free speech as he responded to the protests in Iran over their elections.
Free speech may be a truth we hold to be self-evident, but it is not a universal belief. It is what separates us from so many other countries. Iran doesn't believe in the freedom of the people. Pretty much everybody except Obama is aware of this. Iran will deal with these protests very differently than we would, mainly because they don't believe in freedom of speech or the right of the people to protests. This is, I'm convinced, exactly why they are now forbidding foreign press from covering the protests.
The freedom of the people to worship as they choose, speak out against their government, and peaceably assemble in protest is a right of people in a free nation where the government is run by the people. It is not a right in a Theocracy and it is not a right in a Dictatorship. Just ask anybody speaking out against Hugo Chavez what kind of rights of free speech they have.
Stating the freedom of speech and the ability to protest is a universal belief was naive at best and downright stupid at worst. Does Obama really believe that? Does he really believe that all countries agree that the people have a right to speak out? Did he believe that Saddam Hussein felt that way? If so, I guess it would explain why he thinks we're so arrogant for trying to intervene. We do believe that everybody has the right to speak, but not everybody is allowed that right. Some are imprisoned. Some are executed. Some are bankrupted. The whole tragedy of so many countries is that it is not a universal belief.
With legislation regarding hate speech, and the increasing prominence of political correctness, we don't even have the full rights of free speech here anymore. And who is a great component of limiting what we can say and to whom? Obama. Not offending somebody has become more important than our right to say what we like. It's kind of strange because though our Constitution does say we have the right to free speech, it does not say anywhere that I can find that we have a right to not be offended. If what I say offends you, well then, you have the right to say something that offends me but you do not have the right to silence me because you are offended. And you may have the right to speak, but you do not have a right to be heard. Basically, nobody has to listen. And Congress and the White House prove that quite well by not listening to a word we say. So how then, can Obama say that the right of the people to speak is a Universal Belief? Is it because he sees the world as he thinks it should be instead of how it actually is? Possibly.
And I won't even get started on how Achmadinijad was polling behind and ended up winning 2 to 1.
Free speech may be a truth we hold to be self-evident, but it is not a universal belief. It is what separates us from so many other countries. Iran doesn't believe in the freedom of the people. Pretty much everybody except Obama is aware of this. Iran will deal with these protests very differently than we would, mainly because they don't believe in freedom of speech or the right of the people to protests. This is, I'm convinced, exactly why they are now forbidding foreign press from covering the protests.
The freedom of the people to worship as they choose, speak out against their government, and peaceably assemble in protest is a right of people in a free nation where the government is run by the people. It is not a right in a Theocracy and it is not a right in a Dictatorship. Just ask anybody speaking out against Hugo Chavez what kind of rights of free speech they have.
Stating the freedom of speech and the ability to protest is a universal belief was naive at best and downright stupid at worst. Does Obama really believe that? Does he really believe that all countries agree that the people have a right to speak out? Did he believe that Saddam Hussein felt that way? If so, I guess it would explain why he thinks we're so arrogant for trying to intervene. We do believe that everybody has the right to speak, but not everybody is allowed that right. Some are imprisoned. Some are executed. Some are bankrupted. The whole tragedy of so many countries is that it is not a universal belief.
With legislation regarding hate speech, and the increasing prominence of political correctness, we don't even have the full rights of free speech here anymore. And who is a great component of limiting what we can say and to whom? Obama. Not offending somebody has become more important than our right to say what we like. It's kind of strange because though our Constitution does say we have the right to free speech, it does not say anywhere that I can find that we have a right to not be offended. If what I say offends you, well then, you have the right to say something that offends me but you do not have the right to silence me because you are offended. And you may have the right to speak, but you do not have a right to be heard. Basically, nobody has to listen. And Congress and the White House prove that quite well by not listening to a word we say. So how then, can Obama say that the right of the people to speak is a Universal Belief? Is it because he sees the world as he thinks it should be instead of how it actually is? Possibly.
And I won't even get started on how Achmadinijad was polling behind and ended up winning 2 to 1.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Congress To Legislate TP Usage
In the new green environment of Congress and the Obama Administration, legislation is being passed to control how we use products that impact the planet. When the Cap and Trade was proposed, Republican Roy Blunt said, "Taxes on air my ass!" This gave the Democratic leadership in congress what they believe is a brilliant idea.
"Americans use too much toilet paper," said Harry Reid. "They don't consider how these big wads of paper clog up our sewer systems and put strain on our water treatment systems. They also don't consider how many trees have to be cut down in order to wipe their asses. This selfish lack of consideration for our environment is partially responsible for the global warming / climate change crisis."
New regulations are being put on the toilet paper industry so that 2 ply toilet paper will be banned, and biodegradability will be more important than softness. It has also been proposed to put a per sheet tax on the toilet paper to ensure that Americans are not using more than they need. Questions arose on how to manage this in public restrooms and the suggestion was made to install automatic, coin operated dispensers. These will not be installed in the Capital building or in any other restroom utilized by Government officials and their staff. However, Lindsey Graham (R) offered an alternative stating that we use the numerous copies of the stimulus package as a toilet paper alternative. He said, "all that bill was good for was wiping our asses anyway."
The toilet paper industry is just the first in many publicly owned companies that the Congress will now attempt to design products for. They have decided that they can't get us to buy what they want us to so they will ensure that any undesirable products are no longer created. Enjoy that 2 ply soft toilet paper while you can. If Congress didn't chap your ass before, the certainly will soon.
"Americans use too much toilet paper," said Harry Reid. "They don't consider how these big wads of paper clog up our sewer systems and put strain on our water treatment systems. They also don't consider how many trees have to be cut down in order to wipe their asses. This selfish lack of consideration for our environment is partially responsible for the global warming / climate change crisis."
New regulations are being put on the toilet paper industry so that 2 ply toilet paper will be banned, and biodegradability will be more important than softness. It has also been proposed to put a per sheet tax on the toilet paper to ensure that Americans are not using more than they need. Questions arose on how to manage this in public restrooms and the suggestion was made to install automatic, coin operated dispensers. These will not be installed in the Capital building or in any other restroom utilized by Government officials and their staff. However, Lindsey Graham (R) offered an alternative stating that we use the numerous copies of the stimulus package as a toilet paper alternative. He said, "all that bill was good for was wiping our asses anyway."
The toilet paper industry is just the first in many publicly owned companies that the Congress will now attempt to design products for. They have decided that they can't get us to buy what they want us to so they will ensure that any undesirable products are no longer created. Enjoy that 2 ply soft toilet paper while you can. If Congress didn't chap your ass before, the certainly will soon.
Friday, May 15, 2009
I Don't Need A Nanny
The Declaration of Independence says that "history hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provider new guards for their future security." My question is, does becoming my unwanted Nanny count as an abuse and usurpation? Does is count as Despotism?
I've suffered about all I've suffered at this point, and the idea of bailing out other states really chaps my ass. Being middle aged and fully self-sufficient, and at the same time being treated by my government as if I were a drooling infant incapable of running my own life, looks like an abuse and a usurpation to me. I don't need a nanny and the Democratic Nanny party needs to back off, butt out and let me be an adult. They're not even a good nanny. One of the main things a nanny should teach is that there are consequences to your actions. Our nanny government is spending millions and billions of dollars paid by responsible citizens to protect irresponsible citizens from the consequences of their actions.
Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Well, we didn't prevent that. Too many people thought they DID need a nanny. And our Nanny has gone on a major power trip expanding her power to cover every aspect of our lives. Sounds like a Despot to me. And if we start squalling? What happens then? Well the Nanny party offers us a pacifier in the form of a new entitlement program. Wasting the fruit of our labors yet again. And we buy it. But you know the problem with a pacifier don't you? No matter how hard you pull on it, no milk will come out. So while they offer us sustenance and satisfaction, what they give us is empty air.
So I urge you to spit out the pacifier, kick the nanny to the curb, and stop the abuse and the usurpation of our Constitutional rights. They claim to be taking care of us, but all they're doing is taking our money to take care of themselves. Decide whether or not these evils are still sufferable, and if they are, then ask yourself how much farther you'll let them go before you can suffer them no longer.
I've suffered about all I've suffered at this point, and the idea of bailing out other states really chaps my ass. Being middle aged and fully self-sufficient, and at the same time being treated by my government as if I were a drooling infant incapable of running my own life, looks like an abuse and a usurpation to me. I don't need a nanny and the Democratic Nanny party needs to back off, butt out and let me be an adult. They're not even a good nanny. One of the main things a nanny should teach is that there are consequences to your actions. Our nanny government is spending millions and billions of dollars paid by responsible citizens to protect irresponsible citizens from the consequences of their actions.
Thomas Jefferson said, "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Well, we didn't prevent that. Too many people thought they DID need a nanny. And our Nanny has gone on a major power trip expanding her power to cover every aspect of our lives. Sounds like a Despot to me. And if we start squalling? What happens then? Well the Nanny party offers us a pacifier in the form of a new entitlement program. Wasting the fruit of our labors yet again. And we buy it. But you know the problem with a pacifier don't you? No matter how hard you pull on it, no milk will come out. So while they offer us sustenance and satisfaction, what they give us is empty air.
So I urge you to spit out the pacifier, kick the nanny to the curb, and stop the abuse and the usurpation of our Constitutional rights. They claim to be taking care of us, but all they're doing is taking our money to take care of themselves. Decide whether or not these evils are still sufferable, and if they are, then ask yourself how much farther you'll let them go before you can suffer them no longer.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
But Don't You Remember Bush Lied
Nancy Pelosi in her briefing today, in her attempts to explain what she didn't know and why she didn't know it, kept reminding the press that it was Bush that lied. Her comments had common themes, and she repeatedly stated that Bush was misleading them and it was "her job" to change the leadership in congress and the white house which she did. The change in leadership, to her, seemed to be the end of the story. Why question HER when the leadership has now changed and it was all Bush's fault anyway.
So what she's really saying is that this was an excuse for partisanship and none of it is her fault. Again, no personal responsibility or accountability. On one hand she accuses the Republicans of misdirection, and on the other hand she engages in misdirection. A clever and effective practice of the Democrats. Accuse you're opposition of what you're doing yourself.
The press was actually doing their job and Nancy's demeanor started to crack. She was getting more and more pissed off that they would dare suggest that she was misleading or lying when she keeps making it clear that it was Bush who lied. I particularly loved her throwing in the WMD discussion. Misdirection yet again.
And she was briefed on the second briefing because she wasn't at the actual briefing. So why wasn't she there. If she was so concerned about it that she saw it as her job to change the leadership. Oh, and by the why, by the time they changed the leadership these tools were no longer being used. So that change was so critical at that point. Yeah right.
Watching that briefing, I was reminded of the politician from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Ooooooooh I love to dance a little sidestep.....
So what she's really saying is that this was an excuse for partisanship and none of it is her fault. Again, no personal responsibility or accountability. On one hand she accuses the Republicans of misdirection, and on the other hand she engages in misdirection. A clever and effective practice of the Democrats. Accuse you're opposition of what you're doing yourself.
The press was actually doing their job and Nancy's demeanor started to crack. She was getting more and more pissed off that they would dare suggest that she was misleading or lying when she keeps making it clear that it was Bush who lied. I particularly loved her throwing in the WMD discussion. Misdirection yet again.
And she was briefed on the second briefing because she wasn't at the actual briefing. So why wasn't she there. If she was so concerned about it that she saw it as her job to change the leadership. Oh, and by the why, by the time they changed the leadership these tools were no longer being used. So that change was so critical at that point. Yeah right.
Watching that briefing, I was reminded of the politician from The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. Ooooooooh I love to dance a little sidestep.....
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Soda Hits the Fizz
Congress is studying a proposal to tax soda pop. What in the world is happening to us? They believe these sugary drinks are bad for us and should be discouraged. Sounds like behavior modification to me. Does anybody remember "Demolition Man"? There's a line from that movie that comes to mind. "Salt has been deemed bad for you, hence it is illegal." Sounded silly at the time didn't it?
What Congress is really saying is that if they're going to have to pay your medical bills then they're going to make it difficult for you to have anything unhealthy. When did taxation become a punishment or behavior modification tool? Aren't our taxes supposed to be used to support our defense and infrastructure? How did this progress to using taxes to control us? Well, they've been doing it for years.
It started with taxes on alcohol and tobacco but people thought this was OK. After all, people really shouldn't drink and smoke. Punishing those people with higher taxes is fine. But now it's creeping farther out. Taxes on soda will be just a start. And are they looking at what will happen to our soda companies? Will we then need bailouts for Coke and Pepsi because they're too big to fail?
This is one of the most glaring violations of our rights as individuals. When we decide that the government should pay for our health care (which means you're actually paying for it) then they think they have the right to control your behavior in the name of "controlling costs". This is a frightening development. What rights do we really have when the government is trying to control what we drink with our pizza? Oh, and pizza is probably the next thing on the list to tax.
What Congress is really saying is that if they're going to have to pay your medical bills then they're going to make it difficult for you to have anything unhealthy. When did taxation become a punishment or behavior modification tool? Aren't our taxes supposed to be used to support our defense and infrastructure? How did this progress to using taxes to control us? Well, they've been doing it for years.
It started with taxes on alcohol and tobacco but people thought this was OK. After all, people really shouldn't drink and smoke. Punishing those people with higher taxes is fine. But now it's creeping farther out. Taxes on soda will be just a start. And are they looking at what will happen to our soda companies? Will we then need bailouts for Coke and Pepsi because they're too big to fail?
This is one of the most glaring violations of our rights as individuals. When we decide that the government should pay for our health care (which means you're actually paying for it) then they think they have the right to control your behavior in the name of "controlling costs". This is a frightening development. What rights do we really have when the government is trying to control what we drink with our pizza? Oh, and pizza is probably the next thing on the list to tax.
Friday, May 8, 2009
No ACORN Investigation
Today Senator Conyers decided not to launch an investigation into ACORN. Great move senator. Way to cave to pressure. ACORN is facing charges of voter fraud in 14 different states and they have a history of embezlement. But why would we want to investigate them? Instead of that let's give them more money. Yes, that sounds like a brilliant idea.
When Conyers announced that he would not be investigating ACORN what he was really saying was that he could be bought and that ACORN and the other senators on the committee had paid his price. There is no excuse for not investigation this organization.
If ACORN were a publicly traded company instead of a supposedly not for profit group, then they would be all over this in a heartbeat. They'd already have fired the CEO and started congressional hearings and an independent council for review. And the federal government would also own at least 51% of the stock. But instead, it's an organization that gives big campaign contributions and works to get out the vote for them. So does the integrity, or even the legality, of their process really matter? I guess not. We've already heard from strong armed debt holders in the Chrysler mess that Obama is the most "ends justify the means" person ever. Well, this is definitely a case of the ends justifying the means, at least as far as congress is concerned.
This display of congressional corruption is shocking in it's total lack of discretion. Not only are they not going to investigate, but they are pushing hard to give them more of our money.
Write your congressmen and demand the investigation into ACORN and to stop any possible funding.
When Conyers announced that he would not be investigating ACORN what he was really saying was that he could be bought and that ACORN and the other senators on the committee had paid his price. There is no excuse for not investigation this organization.
If ACORN were a publicly traded company instead of a supposedly not for profit group, then they would be all over this in a heartbeat. They'd already have fired the CEO and started congressional hearings and an independent council for review. And the federal government would also own at least 51% of the stock. But instead, it's an organization that gives big campaign contributions and works to get out the vote for them. So does the integrity, or even the legality, of their process really matter? I guess not. We've already heard from strong armed debt holders in the Chrysler mess that Obama is the most "ends justify the means" person ever. Well, this is definitely a case of the ends justifying the means, at least as far as congress is concerned.
This display of congressional corruption is shocking in it's total lack of discretion. Not only are they not going to investigate, but they are pushing hard to give them more of our money.
Write your congressmen and demand the investigation into ACORN and to stop any possible funding.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Nobody Will Abuse This Legislation
A hate crime bill was drafted in Congress yesterday which could potentially give protection to pedophiles. This is not the intent of the bill, but the current wording can be misinterpreted to cover pedophiles. When this potential misinterpretation was brought up, and an amendment to exclude pedophiles was proposed, the drafter became quite angry. She said it was offensive, and I can understand her point, but not her stance.
The potential pedophile protection (say that 3 times fast) would fall under the protection for crimes based on sexual orientation. This is what she found offensive. That both homosexuality and pedophilia are grouped together under sexual orientation. The problem with that is that heterosexuality falls under that same categorical umbrella. She was quite adamant about her offense and waved off the objection by stating that nobody would interpret the bill that way. But who ever would have thought that somebody would argue we have a constitutional right to be naked in public under the 1st amendment? But the ACLU did.
Here's my problem with what happened; a possible ambiguity in the bill was identified and brought up, and instead of changing the wording of the bill to either define sexual orientation or to exclude pedophilia, they left the ambiguous language and just got huffy that anybody would dare find a problem with their wording. So the ambiguous language is still there. A fairly systematic problem with the legislation coming out of congress. When any possibly ambiguity is identified it should be addressed in the wording and the ambiguity eliminated. Our laws should be left open to broad or erroneous interpretations resulting in outcomes the legislation did not intend.
I don't agree with hate crime legislation anyway. I believe that the crimes are already covered under standing legislation. I have a philosophical disagreement with making crimes against certain groups more important than crimes against others. It flies in the face of our "all men are created equal" belief system. Also, I believe it encourages the culture of victimology that we have been descending into for the last 2 decades. But primarily, it encourages us to look first at what makes us different from each other instead of what makes us the same. We are all Americans and in so very many ways we are alike. Over the last few years we have become more and more divided into demographic groups and too many see themselves that way first and as an American second.
We are Americans and we should stand together and see each other as Americans first. Why is it that we can come together with so much tolerance, acceptance and patriotism in a crisis and bicker like ill behaved siblings at other times? And how can we stand united, as one people, one nation, when we pass legislation that separates certain groups from others?
I am an American and I am proud to share my country with other Americans of all races, religions, ethic backgrounds and sexual orientations - excluding pedophiles.
The potential pedophile protection (say that 3 times fast) would fall under the protection for crimes based on sexual orientation. This is what she found offensive. That both homosexuality and pedophilia are grouped together under sexual orientation. The problem with that is that heterosexuality falls under that same categorical umbrella. She was quite adamant about her offense and waved off the objection by stating that nobody would interpret the bill that way. But who ever would have thought that somebody would argue we have a constitutional right to be naked in public under the 1st amendment? But the ACLU did.
Here's my problem with what happened; a possible ambiguity in the bill was identified and brought up, and instead of changing the wording of the bill to either define sexual orientation or to exclude pedophilia, they left the ambiguous language and just got huffy that anybody would dare find a problem with their wording. So the ambiguous language is still there. A fairly systematic problem with the legislation coming out of congress. When any possibly ambiguity is identified it should be addressed in the wording and the ambiguity eliminated. Our laws should be left open to broad or erroneous interpretations resulting in outcomes the legislation did not intend.
I don't agree with hate crime legislation anyway. I believe that the crimes are already covered under standing legislation. I have a philosophical disagreement with making crimes against certain groups more important than crimes against others. It flies in the face of our "all men are created equal" belief system. Also, I believe it encourages the culture of victimology that we have been descending into for the last 2 decades. But primarily, it encourages us to look first at what makes us different from each other instead of what makes us the same. We are all Americans and in so very many ways we are alike. Over the last few years we have become more and more divided into demographic groups and too many see themselves that way first and as an American second.
We are Americans and we should stand together and see each other as Americans first. Why is it that we can come together with so much tolerance, acceptance and patriotism in a crisis and bicker like ill behaved siblings at other times? And how can we stand united, as one people, one nation, when we pass legislation that separates certain groups from others?
I am an American and I am proud to share my country with other Americans of all races, religions, ethic backgrounds and sexual orientations - excluding pedophiles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
