I posted the following on my Freedom's Wings blog in April and the media is just now covering it:
There are two bills in the Senate that have been read twice and sent to committee for review last week. Both were co-sponsored by Senator Jay Rockefeller. They are S773 and S778 and they could grant the Obama administration far reaching powers – as if they have not overreached already. Both bills are part of the Cybersecurity Act of 2009.
World Net Daily is reporting that these bills “would grant the White House sweeping new powers to access private online data, regulate the cybersecurity industry and even shut down Internet traffic during a declared ‘cyber emergency’.”
WND also reported that “a working draft of the legislation obtained by an Internet privacy group also spells out plans to grant the Secretary of Commerce access to all privately owned information networks deemed to be critical to the nation’s infrastructure ‘without regard to any provision of law, regulation, rule or policy restricting such access’.
The description of S773 is as follows: “A bill to ensure the continued free flow of commerce within the United States and with its global trading partners through secure cyber communications, to provide for the continued development and exploitation of the Internet and intranet communications for such purposes, to provide for the development of a cadre of information technology specialists to improve and maintain effective cybersecurity defenses against disruption, and for other purposes.” The bill has been referred to committee and the full text is not available yet.
The description of S778 is as follows: “A bill to establish, within the Executive Office of the President, the Office of National Cybersecurity Advisor.” It has been referred to committee and the text for that is also unavailable.
Keep your eyes on these bills.
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
S1060 - Government Coming After The Obese
This bill is formally called Obesity Prevention, Treatment and Research Act of 2009. They are setting up a board or counsel to oversee the program which will deal with food labeling and contains several amendments to the Social Security Act(?). The program will be funded at least by $300 million dollars and will expand coverage under both MediCare and MediCaid to cover smoking cessation and proper eating education. The food police are coming and they are getting you whether you are old, poor or just your average citizen. Keep an eye on this as well as the tax that will be used to pay for this bill on sugary foods and drinks.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
HR3427 - Government Mind Control In Green Economy
HR3427 reads as: "To establish asocial and behavorial sciences research program at the Department of Energy and for other purposes." Exactly what purposes? And why does the Department of Energy need to study our behavior? The government would not want to actually control our behavior would it? This obscure bill must be stopped! This bill was introduced on July 17th, 2009.
The introduction states, "In General- The Secretary shall establish a social and behavioral sciences research program to identify and understand social and behavioral factors that influence energy consumption and acceptance and adoption rates of new energy technologies, and to promote the utilization of the results of social and behavioral research to improve the design, development, demonstration, and application of energy technologies."
The Director of this program will have the following duties:
Develop tools, practices, and information to apply and integrate the results of social and behavioral research into programs that--
(A) design, develop, and demonstrate technologies that supply energy and improve energy efficiency; and
(B) provide information on energy consumption to consumers
Basically, the government wants to figure out how to control your thinking when it comes to the Green Industrial Complex and indoctrinate you and your children. And this Director will basically be the Behavorial Sciences Czar.
The introduction states, "In General- The Secretary shall establish a social and behavioral sciences research program to identify and understand social and behavioral factors that influence energy consumption and acceptance and adoption rates of new energy technologies, and to promote the utilization of the results of social and behavioral research to improve the design, development, demonstration, and application of energy technologies."
The Director of this program will have the following duties:
Develop tools, practices, and information to apply and integrate the results of social and behavioral research into programs that--
(A) design, develop, and demonstrate technologies that supply energy and improve energy efficiency; and
(B) provide information on energy consumption to consumers
Basically, the government wants to figure out how to control your thinking when it comes to the Green Industrial Complex and indoctrinate you and your children. And this Director will basically be the Behavorial Sciences Czar.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Blue Dogs Cave To Socialist-Lite ObamaCare
Today Congressman Mike Ross, who has been negotiating on behalf of the Blue Dog Democrats with Rep. Henry Waxman, announced that a deal had been struck on ObamaCare. The Blue Dogs were bought for a price. That price entails a trimming of ObamaCare to the tune of $100 billion (not much when we are speaking about $1 trillion in expenses), exemption for most small businesses and a requirement that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has to negotiate public plan rates with providers. There is also word that the public option has been replaced with co-ops that will be run on all levels: state, regional and federal. Just a nice cover for nationalized healthcare. If these people were serious, they would drop the co-ops and allow people to cross over from one state to the next to buy insurance making the market more competitive and affordable. But that takes common sense, which is lacking in Washington.
What this really boils down to is that the Blue Dogs caved to pressure and have bought into a Socialist-lite healthcare plan. There is an agreement to wait until after the recess to vote on this new bill, which still needs to be marked up in the House, so we have time to put their feet to their fire - and we will!
What this really boils down to is that the Blue Dogs caved to pressure and have bought into a Socialist-lite healthcare plan. There is an agreement to wait until after the recess to vote on this new bill, which still needs to be marked up in the House, so we have time to put their feet to their fire - and we will!
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
HR2743 - The Fight For GM Dealers
When General Motors became Government Motors with a bailout and then subsequent bankruptcy filings, the decision was made to close down hundreds of GM dealerships across the country. The criteria for choosing which dealerships were to close appears to be arbitrary and in some cases has been revealed as support for Republican Party equals the closing of a dealership. Successful dealerships that had been around for generations were forced to close their doors. Now legislation has been introduced into the House to get the rights of these GM dealers back in the form of HR2743.
The Act is formally named "The Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act". It was introduced into the House in June and basically is suppose to restore the rights of GM dealers to open and run their private businesses. It has been referred to the House Committee On Financal Services. Something sinister is taking place behind the scenes though, as the United Autoworkers lobbies and strongarms the GM dealers who were allowed to keep their franchises to contact their Representatives and get them to vote against the measure.
The government, specifically Barack Obama, has told us that they do not want to run the car companies and yet they have fired the CEO of GM, told dealerships they needed to close and picked which ones and have steamrolled the bankruptcy through the courts. Now they are attempting to threaten those they allowed to stay in business to do the dirty work for them. This is what happens in a country that allows the government to take over corporations. This is corporatism - this is facism.
The Act is formally named "The Automobile Dealer Economic Rights Restoration Act". It was introduced into the House in June and basically is suppose to restore the rights of GM dealers to open and run their private businesses. It has been referred to the House Committee On Financal Services. Something sinister is taking place behind the scenes though, as the United Autoworkers lobbies and strongarms the GM dealers who were allowed to keep their franchises to contact their Representatives and get them to vote against the measure.
The government, specifically Barack Obama, has told us that they do not want to run the car companies and yet they have fired the CEO of GM, told dealerships they needed to close and picked which ones and have steamrolled the bankruptcy through the courts. Now they are attempting to threaten those they allowed to stay in business to do the dirty work for them. This is what happens in a country that allows the government to take over corporations. This is corporatism - this is facism.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Sonia Sotomayor Confirmation Hearings Coming
Supreme Court Justice nominee Sonia Sotomayor will be facing confirmation hearings this week. Her confirmation is assured, but this is an opportunity for Republicans to shine a light on the Constitution and the dictates within which a sitting SCOTUS Justice is suppose to conduct him/herself. Those parameters do not include empathy or personal experience. The law is the law and the requirement of a Justice is to judge laws according to the Constitution. How would Sonia Sotomayor conduct herself as a Justice? Here are her words:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, ‘to judge is an exercise of power’ and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states ‘there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,’ I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”
“Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]… believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons… we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning…”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…. I am… not so sure that I agree with the statement. First… there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
“All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.”
Judge Sotomayor appears willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution and many of her statements strike me as racist against white men. The most direct example of her ideas on judicial activism can be found in her decision in Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 229 F. 3d 374 (2d Cir 2000), rev'd 534 U.S. 61 (2001). In that case, Judge Sotomayor attempted to expand the liability of individual federal agents who violate constitutional rights to include corporations. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the plaintiff was "seek[ing] a marked extension of Bivens, to a context that would not advance Bivens' core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing." Correctional Services Corp v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).
She also was recently overturned by the SCOTUS in her decision to not rule on Ricci v. DeStefano in which white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter did not have test results for a promotion counted because no black firefighters passed the test. Her decision to not rule in the case left the firefighters without promotions and thus the case continued to the SCOTUS.
Judge Sotomayor does not support U.S. sovereignty and wrote in a foreword to a book called The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases, that she believes foreign case law and statutes have a role in the adjudication of U.S. cases. And her track record with the SCOTUS is not positive either. She has drawn criticism and only received 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning in five cases not including the Ricci case, which now brings her to 15 out of 53.
This woman should not be confirmed, but our hands appeared to be tied.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, ‘to judge is an exercise of power’ and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states ‘there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives—no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,’ I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that—it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others. Not all women or people of color, in all or some circumstances or indeed in any particular case or circumstance but enough people of color in enough cases, will make a difference in the process of judging.”
“Judge [Miriam] Cedarbaum [of the federal District Court in New York]… believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law. Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum’s aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society. Whatever the reasons… we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning…”
“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice [Sandra Day] O’Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases…. I am… not so sure that I agree with the statement. First… there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
“I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.”
“All of the legal defense funds out there, they’re looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is — Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don’t ‘make law,’ I know. [Laughter from audience] Okay, I know. I know. I’m not promoting it, and I’m not advocating it. I’m, you know. [More laughter] Having said that, the Court of Appeals is where, before the Supreme Court makes the final decision, the law is percolating. Its interpretation, its application.”
Judge Sotomayor appears willing to expand constitutional rights beyond the text of the Constitution and many of her statements strike me as racist against white men. The most direct example of her ideas on judicial activism can be found in her decision in Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 229 F. 3d 374 (2d Cir 2000), rev'd 534 U.S. 61 (2001). In that case, Judge Sotomayor attempted to expand the liability of individual federal agents who violate constitutional rights to include corporations. In a 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit's decision. Chief Justice Rehnquist noted that the plaintiff was "seek[ing] a marked extension of Bivens, to a context that would not advance Bivens' core purpose of deterring individual officers from engaging in unconstitutional wrongdoing." Correctional Services Corp v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61 (2001).
She also was recently overturned by the SCOTUS in her decision to not rule on Ricci v. DeStefano in which white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter did not have test results for a promotion counted because no black firefighters passed the test. Her decision to not rule in the case left the firefighters without promotions and thus the case continued to the SCOTUS.
Judge Sotomayor does not support U.S. sovereignty and wrote in a foreword to a book called The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World's Cases, that she believes foreign case law and statutes have a role in the adjudication of U.S. cases. And her track record with the SCOTUS is not positive either. She has drawn criticism and only received 11 out of 44 possible votes for her reasoning in five cases not including the Ricci case, which now brings her to 15 out of 53.
This woman should not be confirmed, but our hands appeared to be tied.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Audit The Fed - S604
S604 reads as "A bill to amend title 31, United States Code, to reform the manner in which the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is audited by the Comptroller General of the United States and the manner in which such audits are reported, and for other purposes." This is the Senate's version of a bill sponsored by Rep. Ron Paul in the House to Audit the Fed. Senator Bernie Sanders sponsored the bill and Sen. Jim DeMint had taken the full text of S604 and attached it as an amendment to HR2918, the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, which contains provisions for GAO audits on certain agencies like the Federal Reserve. The amendment was now numbered as 1367. This occured on Monday July 6th.
When HR2918 was brought up for a vote though, Sen. DeMint's amendment was no longer attached because the Democrats used a parliamentary procedure to shut down the amendment and have it tabled. That procedure was issued by Sen. Ben Nelson who raised a "point of order" to prevent the vote and claimed that the amendment violated Senate Rule 16 by "legislating" an appropriations bill. When Sen. DeMint pointed out that HR2918 contained several similar amendments, the Senate president agreed with him, but left the other amendments as they were indicating that the Democrats were specifically blocking an audit of the Fed. The Senate voted to pass HR2918 minus the "Audit the Fed" portion.
The government under the leadership of Obama is once again blocking transparency. The people of America deserve to know what the Federal Reserve has done with trillions of our dollars. Call your Senators and tell them you want S604 to receive a final vote.
When HR2918 was brought up for a vote though, Sen. DeMint's amendment was no longer attached because the Democrats used a parliamentary procedure to shut down the amendment and have it tabled. That procedure was issued by Sen. Ben Nelson who raised a "point of order" to prevent the vote and claimed that the amendment violated Senate Rule 16 by "legislating" an appropriations bill. When Sen. DeMint pointed out that HR2918 contained several similar amendments, the Senate president agreed with him, but left the other amendments as they were indicating that the Democrats were specifically blocking an audit of the Fed. The Senate voted to pass HR2918 minus the "Audit the Fed" portion.
The government under the leadership of Obama is once again blocking transparency. The people of America deserve to know what the Federal Reserve has done with trillions of our dollars. Call your Senators and tell them you want S604 to receive a final vote.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Supreme Court Overturns Ricci v. DeStefano
The Supreme Court has overturned the ruling upheld by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in the case of Ricci v. DeStefano. The court case had several white firefighters filing suit against the city of New Haven over a promotional test that was given that several white firefighters and one hispanic firefighter passed, but the results were thrown out and no firefighters were promoted because no black firefighters passed the test. The case revealed the bias created by affirmative action. Several lower courts ruled against the firefighters until the case was finally heard by the Supreme Court. The close 5-4 ruling reveals the bias and racism of the Supreme Court. The fact that four justices could not see past the color of people's skin to look at character and test results is an atrocity and pulls away the blindfold that is over Lady Justice's eyes.
The city of New Haven argued that it threw out test results to avoid litigation from minorities groups. Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote and wrote that "fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotion." The ruling reverses an earlier unsigned opinion on the case in which Sonia Sotomayor concurred when she sat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor's opinion on the case is a black mark that conservatives and moderates alike find hard to swallow and could be an area of contention in her upcoming confirmation hearings.
The Supreme Court ruled on the side of justice in this case, but the close vote reveals how far our country has fallen from principles, particularly Constitutional principles.
The city of New Haven argued that it threw out test results to avoid litigation from minorities groups. Anthony Kennedy was the deciding vote and wrote that "fear of litigation alone cannot justify the city's reliance on race to the detriment of individuals who passed the examinations and qualified for promotion." The ruling reverses an earlier unsigned opinion on the case in which Sonia Sotomayor concurred when she sat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Sotomayor's opinion on the case is a black mark that conservatives and moderates alike find hard to swallow and could be an area of contention in her upcoming confirmation hearings.
The Supreme Court ruled on the side of justice in this case, but the close vote reveals how far our country has fallen from principles, particularly Constitutional principles.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
H.R. 2454 - Cap & Trade Bill
The Cap & Trade Bill formally known as H.R. 2454 that states, “To create clean energy jobs, achieve energy independence, reduce global warming pollution and transition to a clean energy economy” is coming up for a vote this Friday, June 26th. Nancy Pelosi scheduled the vote because she feels that Farm Belt Democrats will get on board now that Henry Waxman has offered a verbal promise that people in rural areas – farmers – will not face a large increase in their energy bills. President Obama has touted this bill as a job creator. But conservatives know that this bill is an economy slower.
The legislation, co-sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), had stalled last week due to some push back from Farm Belt. The Cap & Trade bill will cap greenhouse-gas emissions at 17% of 2005 levels by 2020 and at roughly 80% by 2050, creating a market for companies to buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide and other gases. This is true money maker for whoever sells carbon offsets. People like Al Gore and companies like General Electric will profit nicely. Greenhouse gas emissions have yet to be proven as the cause for global warming and yet Americans will be forced to suffer at the hands of this bill. The typical American family will pay $2,000 more in energy bills each year. Jobs in coal will be lost. Our economy will slow as the use of solar and wind blocks progress.
The bill mandates a new renewable electricity standard and establishes new national building codes. Governor Sarah Palin has come against these new building codes which will not work for Alaskans. President Obama claims that the bill is "extraordinarily important for our country." The President also sent out his propaganda machine to convince the country that Cap & Trade is a good thing for us via his Energy, Interior, Transportation and Labor secretaries.
Steny Hoyer is promising that the bill will be passed by late Friday or even a special meeting on Saturday despite the most contentious part of the bill which is the climate change portion. Republicans and some Democrats are promising that the measure will drive jobs overseas. And it does not take a rocket scientist to know that China will leave America even further in its dust since they will not abide by any regulations and use as much oil as they want. John Boehner summed the bill up well in his op-ed piece for the Washington Times writing, "Under the guise of reducing carbon emissions, Democrats are poised to force anyone who drives a car, buys an American-made product, or flips on a light switch to pay a national energy tax."
Contact your representatives before Friday!
The legislation, co-sponsored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D., Mass.), had stalled last week due to some push back from Farm Belt. The Cap & Trade bill will cap greenhouse-gas emissions at 17% of 2005 levels by 2020 and at roughly 80% by 2050, creating a market for companies to buy and sell the right to emit carbon dioxide and other gases. This is true money maker for whoever sells carbon offsets. People like Al Gore and companies like General Electric will profit nicely. Greenhouse gas emissions have yet to be proven as the cause for global warming and yet Americans will be forced to suffer at the hands of this bill. The typical American family will pay $2,000 more in energy bills each year. Jobs in coal will be lost. Our economy will slow as the use of solar and wind blocks progress.
The bill mandates a new renewable electricity standard and establishes new national building codes. Governor Sarah Palin has come against these new building codes which will not work for Alaskans. President Obama claims that the bill is "extraordinarily important for our country." The President also sent out his propaganda machine to convince the country that Cap & Trade is a good thing for us via his Energy, Interior, Transportation and Labor secretaries.
Steny Hoyer is promising that the bill will be passed by late Friday or even a special meeting on Saturday despite the most contentious part of the bill which is the climate change portion. Republicans and some Democrats are promising that the measure will drive jobs overseas. And it does not take a rocket scientist to know that China will leave America even further in its dust since they will not abide by any regulations and use as much oil as they want. John Boehner summed the bill up well in his op-ed piece for the Washington Times writing, "Under the guise of reducing carbon emissions, Democrats are poised to force anyone who drives a car, buys an American-made product, or flips on a light switch to pay a national energy tax."
Contact your representatives before Friday!
Monday, June 22, 2009
President Obama Signs Bill Giving FDA Unprecedented Control
Today, President Obama signed a bill recently passed by Congress that gives the Food and Drug Administration unprecedented authority to regulate what goes into tobacco products, to make public the ingredients and to prohibit marketing campaigns geared toward children. The government now runs the tobacco industry. Never mind that the President himself continues to be a smoker - an irony not lost on me. The President claimed that this new bill will keep kids away from starting the habit of smoking. As if ads, which do not run on television or cable, were the main reason kids pick up the habit.
Peer pressure is the main reason many kids start smoking and the power of nicotene addiction grabs them and holds them. But is it the governments job to keep kids from smoking? Is it the government's job to regulate the tobacco industry? When will the government start telling the alcohol industry how much alcohol they can have in their offerings? Or how much caffeine coffee and soda can contain?
This is all about power and control. Particularly, since the President pontificates about the bad habit of smoking while continuing to hold onto the habit himself. The President discussed the merits of the bill and the shortcomings of the tobacco industry. And yet, our government needs more people to take up the bad habit to fund their healthcare plans for children and adults through increased tobacco taxes. Talk about Schizophrenic!
Peer pressure is the main reason many kids start smoking and the power of nicotene addiction grabs them and holds them. But is it the governments job to keep kids from smoking? Is it the government's job to regulate the tobacco industry? When will the government start telling the alcohol industry how much alcohol they can have in their offerings? Or how much caffeine coffee and soda can contain?
This is all about power and control. Particularly, since the President pontificates about the bad habit of smoking while continuing to hold onto the habit himself. The President discussed the merits of the bill and the shortcomings of the tobacco industry. And yet, our government needs more people to take up the bad habit to fund their healthcare plans for children and adults through increased tobacco taxes. Talk about Schizophrenic!
Saturday, June 20, 2009
House Tables Resolution To Investigate Pelosi
A month ago, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi claimed that the CIA had misled her as well as the rest of Congress on the topic of interrogation techniques used on terrorist suspects. There have been calls for the release of documents describing the use of these techniques and the information acquired from using techniques such as waterboarding. This release of documents was to coincide with an investigation into Nancy Pelosi's claims against the CIA. Last week, the House GOP drafted a priviledged resolution that would establish a select subcommittee under the Intelligence Committee to "review and verify the accuracy of the speaker's aforementioned public statements." The resolution was packaged as a "priviledged resolution" so that the House would be forced to vote on it. Democrats quickly tabled the resolution on a 247-171 party line vote. Not a single Democrat crossed party lines meaning they all backed the Speaker and thus are inclined to believe that the CIA is lying.
Republicans had wanted to use the resolution as a way to create a special committee that would be comprised of four members of the Intelligence Committee — two appointed by the chairman and two appointed by the ranking Republican on the panel. This subcommittee would have been able to use subpoena power to obtain documents and testimony. “I am disappointed that, once again, rank-and-file Democrats have refused to join Republicans in establishing a bipartisan investigation into these serious allegations,” Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said.
Republicans had wanted to use the resolution as a way to create a special committee that would be comprised of four members of the Intelligence Committee — two appointed by the chairman and two appointed by the ranking Republican on the panel. This subcommittee would have been able to use subpoena power to obtain documents and testimony. “I am disappointed that, once again, rank-and-file Democrats have refused to join Republicans in establishing a bipartisan investigation into these serious allegations,” Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Cash For Clunkers Passes Senate
Congress approved a "cash for clunkers" program today that will provide government incentives of $3,500 to $4,500 to motorists if they trade in their clunkers, which are defined as gas guzzling vehicles. The money is to be used to pay for a more fuel efficient car. Republicans strongly opposed the measure except for RINOs like Susan Collins. Who exactly is paying for these clunkers - the taxpayers.
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden pushed the measure hard by making calls to Democrats who were considering voting against the measure like Senator Maria Cantwell. Senator Debbie Stabenow said, "This is an emergency for families and small businesses -- for an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation."
Let's keep in mind that a newer fuel efficient car costs more than $4500 and so people will be saddled with more debt and these types of cars cost more as well. Not to mention the increase in insurance costs and upkeep. And all of this increases the national debt even more. This measure was hidden in the $106 billion war supplemental bill.
The House passed the bill on a vote of 298-119. Next stop is the White House for Obama's signature which is sure to come since he was pressuring Senators to pass the bill. Four Republicans -- Kit Bond of Missouri, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio -- voted with two independents and 54 Democrats in favor of the clunker measure, while Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska was opposed along with 35 Republicans.
President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden pushed the measure hard by making calls to Democrats who were considering voting against the measure like Senator Maria Cantwell. Senator Debbie Stabenow said, "This is an emergency for families and small businesses -- for an industry that has been the backbone of our economy for a generation."
Let's keep in mind that a newer fuel efficient car costs more than $4500 and so people will be saddled with more debt and these types of cars cost more as well. Not to mention the increase in insurance costs and upkeep. And all of this increases the national debt even more. This measure was hidden in the $106 billion war supplemental bill.
The House passed the bill on a vote of 298-119. Next stop is the White House for Obama's signature which is sure to come since he was pressuring Senators to pass the bill. Four Republicans -- Kit Bond of Missouri, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, Susan Collins of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio -- voted with two independents and 54 Democrats in favor of the clunker measure, while Democrat Ben Nelson of Nebraska was opposed along with 35 Republicans.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
CBO Tells Truth About Government Healthcare
The Congressional Budget Office Director sent out letters to both Senators Kent Conrad and Judd Gregg this week detailing the budgetary concerns over healthcare costs. The Director wrote, "The federal government’s budgetary commitments to health care (including both spending programs and tax preferences) total more than $1 trillion in 2009. Many proposals to significantly expand health insurance coverage would add to federal costs by providing large subsidies to help lower-income individuals and families purchase insurance. Such proposals could permanently boost the government’s budgetary commitments to health care by something in the vicinity of 10 percent. Improving the long-term budget outlook would require addressing that added cost in addition to the budgetary strains anticipated under current law. Health care legislation might include provisions that would make it budget neutral over the first 10 years, but such legislation might nevertheless add to budget deficits in later years." The CBO's analysis on health care spending did not include the potential bill being pondered in the Senate.
This basically informs us that the cost of government healthcare will be great and keep in mind that these estimates do not include the public option part of government healthcare. The CBO included the estimate that many people would leave their employer health plans and buy into the government plan and that this healthcare plan will leave thirty million people still without healthcare. The report states, "Most expansions of insurance coverage that are under consideration would leave a moderate number of people uninsured, in part because some people
would be ineligible for subsidies or would choose not to buy insurance even with large subsidies. Therefore, any current problems arising from the lack of insurance could be reduced but not eliminated." The concern in the Congress is so great over this CBO report that Max Baucus who drafted the original legislation is starting over with the bill.
The CBO also projects that "Medicare’s Part A trust fund—which pays for inpatient services,
post-acute care, and hospice services and receives revenues principally from the
payroll tax—will have insufficient funds to pay for all covered services starting in
2017." The Congress and President have offered no option with how to reform Medicare. The CBO also maintains that offering broader coverage will not reduce costs or produce net savings in national or federal spending on health care.
"This bill costs too much, covers too few and will force about 10 million people to have to lose their employer-provided coverage," Senator Michael Enzi of Wyoming, the ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, told CNN. And despite the President claiming that the AMA is with him, the president, Nancy Nielsen said, "We're not sure that the government is very good at running a health plan."
The CBO report can be found here.
This basically informs us that the cost of government healthcare will be great and keep in mind that these estimates do not include the public option part of government healthcare. The CBO included the estimate that many people would leave their employer health plans and buy into the government plan and that this healthcare plan will leave thirty million people still without healthcare. The report states, "Most expansions of insurance coverage that are under consideration would leave a moderate number of people uninsured, in part because some people
would be ineligible for subsidies or would choose not to buy insurance even with large subsidies. Therefore, any current problems arising from the lack of insurance could be reduced but not eliminated." The concern in the Congress is so great over this CBO report that Max Baucus who drafted the original legislation is starting over with the bill.
The CBO also projects that "Medicare’s Part A trust fund—which pays for inpatient services,
post-acute care, and hospice services and receives revenues principally from the
payroll tax—will have insufficient funds to pay for all covered services starting in
2017." The Congress and President have offered no option with how to reform Medicare. The CBO also maintains that offering broader coverage will not reduce costs or produce net savings in national or federal spending on health care.
"This bill costs too much, covers too few and will force about 10 million people to have to lose their employer-provided coverage," Senator Michael Enzi of Wyoming, the ranking Republican on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee, told CNN. And despite the President claiming that the AMA is with him, the president, Nancy Nielsen said, "We're not sure that the government is very good at running a health plan."
The CBO report can be found here.
Monday, June 1, 2009
H.R. 1444 Mandatory Servitude Bill
H.R. 1444 was introduced on March 11, 2009 and was referred to committee where it continues to sit as Congress takes on more important powergrabs like universal healthcare. H.R. 1444 would establish the Congressional Commission on Civic Service to study methods of improving and promoting volunteerism and national service, but in reality it promotes the idea of involuntary servitude. Originally H.R. 1388, which has already passed, contained the language that made service mandatory and that language now appears in H.R. 1444:
"Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
Mandatory service is prohibited by the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment says:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
H.R. 1444 is unConstitutional and we need to keep watch over this amendment when it moves out of committee and comes up for a vote.
"Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds."
Mandatory service is prohibited by the 13th Amendment. The 13th Amendment says:
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
H.R. 1444 is unConstitutional and we need to keep watch over this amendment when it moves out of committee and comes up for a vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)