tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24006667406881093062024-02-08T04:21:30.996-06:00Conservative for AmericaPreserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-36953322814200086962012-11-15T22:03:00.000-06:002012-11-15T22:03:11.124-06:00Electoral CollegeEver since the beginning of the United States of America, we've used what's known as the "Electoral College" for Presidential elections. While some states (like Nebraska & Maine) complicate it slightly, the Electoral College is very simple and straightforward. The candidate who wins the popular vote in a state receives the electoral votes that state is worth. For example, Florida is worth 29 electoral votes. Whichever candidate wins the state of Florida receives 29 electoral votes. The candidate to receive 270 electoral votes wins the election. In every state (except Nebraska & Maine), the candidate that receives the majority of the popular vote receives <u>all</u> electoral votes for that state, regardless of their margin of victory. In Florida, for example, a candidate can win by 1,000 votes, or by 2,000,000 votes, and receive all 29 electoral votes - the margin of victory is irrelevant.<br />
<br />
This has led to some controversy over whether or not this is "fair," or even democratic. The electoral college system gives swing states a disproportionate ability to influence the election. It's even possible for one candidate to receive more votes, but still lose the election if those votes aren't in the "right states." This has happened four times in history, most recently in 2000, when Al Gore received half a million more votes than George W. Bush, but still lost the election because Bush had more electoral votes.<br />
<br />
In the 2012 election, Obama received approximately 61 million votes, compared to Romney's 58 million - which, by the way, is very close. I would argue that it's <i>so</i> close that it's not entirely fair for Obama to claim this as evidence the American people agree with his plan of raising taxes. But, that's a different topic for a different day.<br />
<br />
For the last couple of weeks, I have been perusing the web reading about this topic trying to get a feel for what people think. It seems that a lot of people felt that if Romney lost the election but won the popular vote, that would have been the end of the electoral college as we know it. But, now that we know Obama won both the E.C. and the popular vote, it will be interesting to see what happens to this peculiar system of election.<br />
<br />
While reading about this topic, I found one individual who calls the electoral college "<span class="commentText">a form of taxation without representation" - arguing that if you live in a state which is majorly one side or the other (democrat or republican), but you differ from the norm, your vote is meaningless. For example, if you are a liberal living in the state of Texas, your vote in the presidential election counts for <u><b>nothing</b></u>, because your state's electoral votes will most certainly go to the republican candidate, and you have accomplished <u><b>nothing</b></u> by voting for your democrat-candidate. Likewise, if you are a conservative living in the state of California, your vote counts for <u><b>nothing</b></u>, because your state's electoral votes will most certainly go to the democrat candidate. Therefore, a lot of people in these types of states choose not to vote, knowing their vote will not sway the masses, or earn any electoral votes for their candidate of choice.</span><br />
<span class="commentText"><br /></span>
<span class="commentText">If the conservative from California, or the liberal from Texas, were to move to a state like Florida, or even Ohio, suddenly their vote is HUGELY important, and a great asset to either side. If we were to abolish the electoral college completely, and have the presidential election be based on popular vote only (like every other election nation-wide), everybody's vote would be an equal vote, and everyone would have an equal say. Wouldn't that be the way to do it in a democracy? I would say, without hesitation, "absolutely."</span><br />
<span class="commentText"><br /></span>
<span class="commentText">Interestingly enough, I stumbled across a bill in the House of Representatives that offers an amusing solution. H.J.Res.121 was introduced in October by Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) does not abolish the electoral college, but it does award the winner of the national popular vote an additional 29 electoral votes - a huge bonus to the candidate that wins the popular vote. In 2000, Gore received half a million more votes than Bush, but lost the election by 5 electoral votes. The additional 29 electoral votes for popular vote would have led to a Gore victory in 2000.</span><br />
<span class="commentText"><br /></span>
<span class="commentText">It's an interesting concept, though I do not believe this will lead to the Constitutional amendment that Rep. Israel is seeking. It's been sitting in committee for nearly a month, still with no co-sponsors. I would suggest that we should just do away with the electoral college completely, and have the presidential election be determined entirely by popular vote.</span><br />
<br />
<a href="javascript:window.print()">Print Page</a>Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-44388865644800893852012-11-12T16:39:00.002-06:002012-11-13T18:08:31.327-06:00Fiscal Cliff Standoff: Who's at Fault?For the better part of 2012, everyone has been discussing this "Fiscal Cliff" which has a fast-approaching deadline.<br />
<br />
In 2001 and 2003, two separate laws were passed that have earned the name "Bush-era Tax Cuts," and it is basically a two-part package of across-the-board tax cuts. The tax cuts were created to spark economic growth.<br />
<br />
Those tax cuts are set to expire at the end of the year, and if nothing is done to renew them, taxes on every American citizen and small business will increase in 2013. Being that our economy is still inching along at the pace of a snail, tax increases are not going to be good for anyone. The health of the economy, which is largely determined by the amount of consumer spending, would suffer if individual tax rates increased.<br />
<br />
When taxes increase, people have less money to spend on products and services, whether they are necessary or not. If my federal income tax increases by, say, $1,000, that makes my daily coffee run to Starbucks no longer affordable. If Starbucks all of the sudden had a hit like that, with a lot of daily "regular" customers starting to make their own coffee, think of how many people might get laid off. Maybe Starbucks would have to reduce their hours of operation, meaning less employment. That would also hurt Starbucks' suppliers. Whoever they buy the coffee beans from would lose business. A catastrophic chain of events always follows any increase in tax rates. If the government takes more money out of my pocket, that equals less money for me to spend and support somebody's job, a local business, etc. My analogy with Starbucks is assuming my taxes would increase by about $1,000 - if the fiscal cliff is not avoided, the average household would face an increase of $3,500 per year in taxes. Three THOUSAND dollars per year. Since the government and Congressional Budget Office always put things in terms of a decade, that's $35,000 over the next 10 years that an average family would lose in added taxes. Think of what else that family could do with $35,000.<br />
<ul>
<li>A brand new car, with money left over for gas</li>
<li>An annual vacation (average family vacation is between $3-4,000)</li>
<li>20% down payment on a house</li>
<li>College education</li>
</ul>
When you add $35,000 to a family's 10-year tax burden, they might decide not to buy that new car, or not to take that annual family vacation. They might be stuck in an apartment, because they can't afford the 20% down payment on a home. They might have to put college off, because they can no longer afford it. These are all negative effects on our economy, as well as individuals' quality of life.<br />
<br />
So how do we avoid it? Or what's the solution?<br />
<br />
Congress and the President have until Dec. 31 to decide how to handle it. Now that the election is passed, and "America has spoken," it's time to get to work on addressing this matter.<br />
<br />
The issue is with a disagreement between the Republican-controlled House of Representatives and Democrat-controlled Senate. The Republicans want to extend all Bush-era tax cuts, while the Democrats want to extend them for middle class only, allowing the tax cuts on wealthy Americans (over $250,000/yr) to expire.<br />
<br />
So it looks like one of three possible things will happen.<br />
<ol>
<li>The Republicans will win, and all tax cuts will be renewed. </li>
<li>The Democrats/President will win, and middle class will keep their tax cuts, while wealthiest Americans will see a tax increase. </li>
<li>Neither side will throw in the towel, causing everybody's taxes to go up.</li>
</ol>
Remember, both the GOP-House & Democrat-Senate have to agree on the same solution, and the President has to sign off on it. If all three bodies can't come together on a bi-partisan solution, option #3 will happen, and we all get screwed with higher tax rates, starting in January. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty worried, because if there's one thing we've learned over the last 4 years, it's that both sides are stubborn, and few politicians are willing to work together on a "bipartisan solution." Looks like we should prepare for higher taxes beginning in January.<br />
<br />
President Obama had something to say about it last week (read the transcript <a href="http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2012/11/09/transcript-president-obama-remarks-the-economy-fiscal-cliff/SqGiKBKS3p8aw3LZ1J7QkM/story.html">here</a>).<br />
<br />
Obama: "At a time when our economy is still recovering from the Great Recession, our top priority has to be jobs and growth." Excuse me, Mr. President, but how does increasing taxes on our wealthy job-creators encourage job growth? If I was a wealthy job-creator (which I am not, so no need to accuse me of protecting my own money out of greed), if my taxes went up, I'd have less money to hire employees and expand my company. Our economy would be healthier if I, as the job-creator, had more money in my pocket to invest, expand, and create jobs.<br />
<br />
Obama: "I worked with Democrats and Republicans to cut a trillion dollars’ worth of spending that we just couldn’t afford." Mr. President, this is just a numbers game to make your politics seem better than it really is. Let's be honest, and look at the nation's history of recent budget deficits.<br />
<ul>
<li>2009 (Bush's last budget): $1.51 trillion </li>
<li>2010 (Obama's first budget): $1.36 trillion</li>
<li>2011: $1.32 trillion</li>
<li>2012: $1.10 trillion</li>
<li>2013: $0.88 trillion</li>
</ul>
However, realize that here in November of 2012, the real-time annual deficit is still about $1.12 trillion <i>(according to <a href="http://usdebtclock.org/">usdebtclock.org</a>).</i><br />
<br />
So in 4 years of budgets, Obama has reduced the deficit from $1.36 trillion to roughly $1 trillion; hardly the 50% decrease he promised to complete during his first term.<br />
<br />
Obama: "In fact, the Senate has already passed a bill doing exactly this [extending tax cuts for middle class], so all we need is action from the House." If there's one thing Obama has always done consistently, it's pointing the finger of blame towards the GOP; in this case, he's accusing the House of inaction, while he's waiting to sign a bill the Democrat-Senate has already passed. Mr. President, are you aware that the House is not "dragging its feet" as you imply...<br />
<br />
The Senate's bill to extend middle class tax cuts (S.3412) cleared the Senate in July on party lines. Every Republican voted against it, because it did not extend existing cuts for wealthier Americans. In fact, even Sen. Jim Webb, a <u><b>democrat</b></u> who historically votes with his party 9 out of 10 times, voted against this plan. The Senate's plan is by no means a bi-partisan plan, let alone anything that will ever clear the House of Representatives.<br />
<br />
But, don't be fooled into thinking what the president wants you to think. It's not that the House is ignoring this completely. Obama didn't mention this in his speech last week, but are you aware that the House passed its plan for this fiscal cliff several months ago (H.R.8). The only real difference is that the Republican plan extends all existing tax cuts - it's not even trying to cut taxes further, just maintaining the current levels. The Republican plan has been sitting and waiting for the Senate to act on it since early September. So, Mr. President, if you're ready to sign something, why don't you encourage the Senate to act on what the House passed? Instead, he would rather try to intimidate the House into agreeing to HIS plan. So much for bi-partisanship...<br />
<br />
As I said, the Senate bill received no bi-partisan support. But, the House bill actually was slightly bi-partisan, receiving support from 19 House Democrats. Now, I'm not suggesting that makes this bill "bi-partisan," but consider that against the Senate version, which has ZERO bi-partisan support. I would suggest that if the President is ready to sign <i>something</i>, maybe he should encourage the Democrats in the Senate to consider the House plan, or something that's actually something of a compromise. If you have a bill with no Republican support, and another bill with an element of bi-partisanship, wouldn't it make more sense to start with the somewhat bi-partsan bill? After all, you do need to work with <u>both parties</u> to get something passed. But, it looks like the President would rather intimidate the House into doing it his way, which will never lead to success. Way to go, America... last week you selected yet another 4 years of this partisan politics which simply does not work.<br />
<br />
My prediction is clear: This fiscal cliff will not be avoided, and taxes will increase on 100% of Americans in 2013, and I blame the democratic party for not willing to play nice with the Republicans.<br />
<br />
Please share your thoughts in the comments..<br />
<br />
<a href="javascript:window.print()">Print Page</a>Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-22647945332247055692011-12-07T15:24:00.004-06:002011-12-07T15:59:43.484-06:00Milwaukee Public Schools: Prime Example of a Failing School DistrictWhat is it about Milwaukee Public Schools that it just keeps failing? Is it the fact that it's an urban school district? Is it the fact that the teachers are over-worked? Is it the fact that the kids who live in the city of Milwaukee just don't care about school? Or, perhaps it's the fact that parents who send their kids to MPS don't emphasize the importance of education at home.<br /><br />Regardless of which of these you might side with, the truth of the matter is simple: Milwaukee Public Schools is a prime example of a failing school district.<br /><br />The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has an <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/135138913.html">article</a> in today's paper revealing new studies that show MPS Students consistently score lower than most other urban districts in the country. According to the study, only 38% of MPS 4th graders perform at a "basic or above" level in reading. Only 13% of MPS 4th graders are at a proficient reading level, and only about 10% of 8th graders are reading-proficient.<br /><br />But what does MPS do best? If it's not giving A's to the kids who can barely read, it's the fact that they continue to think it's not a big deal. MPS Chief Academic Officer Heidi Ramirez defended her schools and students when she said, "The work is complicated and difficult for everybody [other school districts], but Milwaukee is starting from farther behind than other districts." So, is Ms. Ramirez defending her failing statistics by saying "We've always been a failing district, so of course we're going to continue to under-perform national standards." And who is this again? Let me remind you: The Chief <span style="font-weight:bold;">ACADEMIC</span> Officer - so isn't her job to improve and meet ACADEMIC standards? But what does she do instead? She admits that Milwaukee Public Schools sucks, has always sucked, and there's no plan to change that. But wait, that's not entirely true...<br /><br />She says that teachers are starting to be trained in new techniques for teaching math and reading. The <a href="http://mpsportal.milwaukee.k12.wi.us/portal/server.pt/comm/mps_home/335">MPS Home Page</a> has in its "Programs & Resources" section information about the new comprehensive literacy plans, and comprehensive math and science plans, to bring students to a proficient level in these academics. But, if the Chief Academic Officer doesn't think this is a big deal that only 10-15% of her students can proficiently read, maybe we need a new CAO, or a new game plan. Isn't it the job of schools to teach students to, among other things, READ? And this is not a nationwide problem, this is a MILWAUKEE problem. The Journal Sentinel article says that most of the other districts have been steady & consistent from year to year, and several even saw improvements in Math & Reading. This is the first year MPS has participated in this test, so we don't know which direction we're going, but according to the boss of Academics, Ms. Ramirez, we've always been a low-performing district, so of course we're going to do poorly on these types of standardized testing.<br /><br />What kind of society would we live in if less than 25% could read? What kind of world would we live in if less than half of the population could add and subtract? Well guess what, if we don't step up our game in places like Milwaukee Public Schools, that anti-utopia world could be just around the corner, certainly within our lifetimes.<br /><br /><a href="javascript:window.print()">Print Page</a>Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-82285995243476317852011-03-12T02:20:00.006-06:002011-03-13T16:31:39.128-05:00Wisconsin Has Done It: Restricted Collective Bargaining. But What's That Mean?Wisconsin has done it - Governor Scott Walker signed into law historic legislation today that essentially removes most collective bargaining privileges for most public employees in Wisconsin.<br /><br />Couple things in that sentence above that I want to draw your attention to... first of all, the new law removes <span style="font-weight: bold;">most</span> collective bargaining, not all. I can't tell you how many news headlines say something to the effect of "Walker Ends Union Rights" or "Walker has Busted the Unions." Here's one example from the over-the-top liberal newspaper, the <a href="http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/article/20110311/WRT0101/110311027/1861/WRT06/Walker-makes-official-ends-union-rights?odyssey=mod%7Clateststories">Wisconsin Rapids Tribune</a><span style="font-style: italic;">.</span> He did not "end union rights" - if you think he did, move to a state like Texas, and you'll see a big difference between the public unions in Texas and the public unions in Wisconsin, even after this new law.<br /><br />Secondly, note the word "privileges" - most people call it "collective bargaining rights" - what rights? The only collective bargaining rights that exist in America are those in the private sector. Every private sector employee in the United States of America has a true right to collective bargaining, as provided by the National Labor Relations Act from the 1930s. However, when we start talking about the public sector, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. As you probably know (at least you would if you read about the <a href="http://conserve4america.blogspot.com/2011/03/heartless-wisconsin-governor.html">Heartless Wisconsin Governor</a>), not all public employees even have collective bargaining at all. For example, in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia, there is <span style="font-weight: bold;">absolutely no</span> collective bargaining in the public sector - <span style="font-weight: bold;">period</span>.<br /><br />Thirdly, I said "most public employees" -- local police, fire, and state troopers are not affected by these changes.<br /><br />Something else I've heard a lot of... "Walker Hates the Middle Class!" Oh yeah, like the "middle class" is made up entirely of public employees; let's just ignore the other millions of people in the "middle class" that work in the private sector, who will not be affected by this new law. Don't sit there and tell me "Walker's against the Middle Class/Working Class" when all he's doing is restricting the privileges for what can be negotiated for a very small part of the working class (public employees are probably between 35 and 40% of the middle class).<br /><br />Here's the underlying major problem with all of this... Collective Bargaining in the public sector does not work. It doesn't. Period. Why? In order to answer this question, we have to understand exactly what are the purpose(s) & objective(s) of collective bargaining, and how they are accomplished. Collective bargaining is when a group of employees "unite" (form a union) to negotiate with the employer together. "There's safety in numbers." It's a very practical set-up.<br /><br />A union elects representatives to go sit down at the table with the employer, and negotiate a contract (pay, benefits, working conditions, etc) on behalf of the entire union. The workers' union has its goals (more pay, better benefits, likable working conditions, etc), while the employer has goals of its own (keep costs as low as possible, whatever that might entail). In a perfectly balanced equation, the two party's are "polar opposites," and they sit down together at this table to find a middle point -- it's a compromise. Now let's look at an example...<br /><br />If my 12 employees decide to form a union, and wish to collectively bargain with me, their employer (a private-industry company), there are certain limitations to that bargaining. For example, as an employer, I cannot realistically bargain and agree to add $1,000 per month towards each of their compensation packages ($12,000/mo), when my average net income is only about $10,000 per month. If I did, my business would lose $2,000 every month, and we'd be out of business within a year. No matter how badly the union wanted it, or how long they wanted to strike, as an employer, I simply cannot afford them that benefit -- it's not possible. That's how it works everywhere in the private sector. The company and the union bargain, and things certainly change (either in favor of the union or the company, depending on the variables), but <span style="font-weight: bold;">no matter what</span>, there are limits as to what the company can give the union, regardless of how hard the union fights. That's how it works everywhere... in the private sector.<br /><br />In the public sector, however, it's a different ballgame. The employer is no longer a private company (like in the example above), but the government (whether local, state, or federal). When the government's playing the role of 'employer,' things change, because who's sitting across the table from the union? In my example above, it would be me, the business owner. I have a personal interest in my own business, and that's why no matter what, I'm not going to allow my employees to take that extra $1,000 per month in compensation, because that would drive me out of business. But when it's the government, it's not someone who has a personal interest sitting across from the union - it's an elected official: a politician. And what do we know about all politicians? They want to get... re-elected. Right? For many politicians, everything they do centers around one simple question: "How do I get re-elected?" And part of the answer, no matter who you are, involves getting financial contributions to use in your campaign. What's the largest contributor to, say, political candidates of the democrat party? Public unions. So who never want to upset those public workers? Democrats. And rightfully so - that's where a lot of their money comes from!<br /><br />So why is all this relevant? Why is this a problem? Because there are many politicians who are willing to give the unions what they want, with no real consideration of what they can afford to give, because they know that if they do, that union will continue to contribute to his/her political campaign. And that is the reality of all this.<br /><br />The democrat party and public employee unions depend on each other. The unions are strong when democrats are elected into power, because (chances are) the democrat received lots of funding from the union, and is now "paying them back," both as a thank-you, but also to keep the union's support, so that when they are up for re-election... you get the picture.<br /><br />So the major problem with collective bargaining <span style="font-style: italic;">in the public sector</span> is that instead of sitting across the table, with two different interests, and two different goals, they are actually on the same side of the table, with the same goal. "You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." When unions get too powerful, the inevitable result is a state that's not governed by the people, but by the unions. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what I believe is happening all over the country, especially in Wisconsin.<br /><br />Something else that Walker has done in Wisconsin along these same lines is he's cutting state aid to school districts throughout the state as part of his budget. Now these two things work hand in hand, the collective bargaining changes, as well as cutting the state aid. The state is in a massive financial crisis, and Walker's solution has two parts. First, you reign in the power of the unions. Then, you cut the amount of money the state is going to give to local governments. Why are both aspects important? Because by cutting state aid, he is essentially forcing the local governments to realize they don't have an unlimited supply of money to share with these public employees, like they feel like they've had in the past (think about that example from earlier with me as the business owner). By realizing they have finite financial resources, they MUST reign in the unions. However, history has shown that just telling localities to "do it" doesn't necessarily get the job done. I said it before, and I'll say it again: Wisconsin is being controlled by these unions, so even if there's no money, the politicians will STILL give the unions just about whatever they want, and the state will eventually be responsible for funding those bad deals. So what's the second part from Scott Walker? Remove the collective bargaining privileges that allow the union to make these demands that are driving the state (and local governments) towards bankruptcy.<br /><br />Scott Walker is tying their hands, and he's a genius in how he's doing it. Both parts are necessary in order for it to be successful.<br /><br />Don't believe me? I can imagine SO MANY of you reading this, probably thinking, "The politicians are controlled by unions? Is this <span style="font-style: italic;">really</span> about the budget at all?" If you're still doubting me, take a look at local governments across the state of Wisconsin. People say the 14 democrat senators were staying away "to give people time to read and understand the bill" and to "stick up for the protesters" - bull! They were staying away to give these local governments and unions time to pass new contracts BEFORE the collective bargaining changes passed, so their contracts could be exempt from that! If that's not proof of what I'm telling you, I don't know what is! There is really only one of two possibilities here. One, these local governments are sticking up for the unions (remember the analogy... they are sitting next to the unions instead of sitting ACROSS from them), which means the entire purpose of collective bargaining has failed, or two, the government officials who are entering these new contracts with the workers are just too stupid to realize what they're doing. Some of these cities signed contracts with their unions through 2013! Why else would they do that? If they've been fighting since 2009, unable to sign a contract, which many of them have, why would they do it NOW, right before this bill passes, taking away A LOT of what the employees get? Why would they do that, KNOWING that the locality is going to suffer major decreases in state aid based on the state budget? How can these localities promise teachers, for example, all these benefits through 2013, when they don't even know what the state is giving them aid-wise, because the budget for the next fiscal year hasn't even been passed yet?!? Does this make sense to ANY of you? Why else would they do this? These cities are no-doubt screwing themselves on this one, and nobody seems to care! What is wrong with this?<br /><br />Here's a story on <a href="http://www.fox6now.com/news/politics/witi-20110301-union-contracts,0,1465046.story">teacher unions all across the state hurrying to get their contracts signed</a> before the new law takes effect.<br /><br />Once this whole thing blows over, people will see the world has not come to an end, and Wisconsin will slowly start to recover from years of poor government-spending habits.<br /><br />Now, wait and see what happens during the next state election cycle. The next time we see democrats campaigning, we all know they will remind us of this day when the republicans "ignored" the public employee protests -- we all know that will be part of their political advertisements. However, something else I think they will try to make everyone believe is that local school districts are left in financial ruin because of "Governor Walker's devastating state budget," when in reality, those of us informed people know the REAL reason those school districts are broke: because they refused to reign in the unions when Gov. Walker gave them the ability to do so. Instead, those school districts CHOSE to make the STUPIDEST decision possible and enter contracts through 2013, despite the fact that they KNEW about losing state aid, and they KNEW that within a short time, unions would have more restrictions on what they could bargain for. But, you watch - the democrats will lie and blame Scott Walker, saying that the school districts are in financial ruin because of his devastating budget - I know it already.<br /><br /><a href="javascript:window.print()">Print Page</a>Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-20553126766867715172011-03-04T03:31:00.005-06:002011-03-04T03:55:26.583-06:00Sufficient Time for Legislation to be ReadDo you remember a while back when the democrats were trying to ram health care reform through the legislative process so fast that nobody could read the bill and see what was in it? Well, that one was probably the most hated one at the time, but there have been other bills rushed through the process so fast that people don't even know what's being proposed before it's being voted on (granted, usually not a bill that's over 1,000 pages, like the health care reform law).<br /><br />So what do we do to fix this problem? Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has an idea, and proposed a resolution to the Senate a few days ago. S.Res.82 is a short and to-the-point resolution that will require 1 session day per 20 pages of legislative text, plus another session day for "anything less than 20."<br /><br />So, for example, a 20-page bill would require 1 session day of "reading time" before it could be considered for a vote on the Senate floor, and a 25-page bill would require 2 session days.<br /><br />Of course, there's always a way around it, if for example, something major happened, and we needed to act *now* - what would we do? With a 2/3 vote in the Senate, they could waive these requirements and consider a bill earlier than the mandated time. Now, this is just a resolution in the Senate, which means it will not affect actual law, or the House of Representatives - just standard procedures for the Senate.<br /><br />So is the House of Representatives doing anything similar? Kind of. The closest thing we could find was H.Res.30 which would require that a "plain English section-by-section" analysis of every legislation be posted publicly online for 72 hours. But, we feel the wording of this resolution is weak at best. For instance, the resolution doesn't say who writes the "plain English analysis," so it could be very biased, or miss points, or misinterpret points. Also, no where does the resolution actually require the official bill text to be available for 72 hours, just a "plain English analysis."<br /><br />Why is this resolution worded so weakly, when Rand Paul's resolution in the Senate is quite descriptive, forward, and strong? Well, H.Res.30 was proposed by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a democrat. So, our Republican majority in the House can't come up with anything to mirror Rand Paul's legislation, and all we have to go on is Deutch's garbage, full of possible loopholes, and not very demanding? <a href="https://teddeutch.house.gov/Forms/WriteYourRep/default.aspx">Send Ted Deutch an email</a> and tell him that H.Res.30 is not good enough.Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-64826893050356970512011-03-04T01:15:00.003-06:002011-03-04T03:09:19.578-06:00GOP Destroying Jobs?Well, it's happening again, ladies and gentlemen, the liberal party is pointing the finger at the Congressional Republicans for "posing an unnecessary risk to the economy" with their planned spending cuts. The House has already approved several billion dollars in spending cuts through the remainder of the fiscal year, and Speaker John Boehner is <a href="http://technorati.com/politics/article/john-boehners-job-killing-budget-cuts/">being criticized</a> for posing an unnecessary risk to our economy.<br /><br />Let's take a look at the facts here... the REAL "unnecessary risk" here is not Boehner's proposed spending cuts, it's the danger of a government shutdown, which everyone's been so worried about for the last week or so. As you may know, Congress did pass a joint resolution (H.J.Res.44) to extend the funding through March 18th (another 2 weeks). The problem is, these "temporary fixes" are not going to solve anything. Our Congressional leaders need to start working on a real solution, one that will last us until September 30.<br /><br />A stalemate between the Senate and the House could be detrimental to our already devastated economy, but perhaps a stalemate would show people how big of an issue this is. If Harry Reid and the Senate is not willing to budge, then why should Boehner and the House? It's about time somebody put Reid in his place, why not have it happen March 18, when we're on the verge of a government shutdown?Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-65698640984971156902011-03-03T03:56:00.004-06:002011-03-03T04:45:03.319-06:00Bold, Young SenatorGreetings, Friends,<br /><br />It is with a speck of hope that I write to you today about a bill that was introduced in the Senate on Jan. 25, S.162 "Cut Federal Spending Act of 2011."<br /><br />Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) introduced S.162 hoping to make a much bolder point than the GOP-led House of Representatives has been talking about. Paul has openly criticized plans to cut Federal Spending in the next fiscal year by around $35 billion. The problem, according to this rookie, is that "We spend $35 billion in five days. We add $35 billion to the debt in nine days. It's not enough and we will not avoid financial ruin in our country if we do not think more boldly."<br /><br />So just what does he propose we do? The simple, earmark-free, 11-page bill proposes a total of about <span style="font-weight: bold;">$500 billion</span> in cuts... for one fiscal year. I have got to say that is the boldest proposal of any of the 535 "leaders" on Capitol Hill. $500 billion in spending cuts. How does he do it?<br /><br />S.162 cuts the budget of NUMEROUS federal programs and entitlements, and different branches of the federal government. Some of the proposed changes are as follows:<br /><ul><li>Cuts the legislative branch by about $1.3 billion</li><li>Cuts the judicial branch by about $2.4 billion</li><li>Cuts the Dep. of Agriculture by $42 billion, completely annihilating things like the Agriculture Research Service, and the National Institute of Food & Agriculture</li><li>Cuts the Dep. of Education by about $16.2 billion</li><li>Completely defunds & destroys the Department of Housing & Urban Development</li><li>Cuts the Dep. of State by about $20 billion</li><li>Destroys things like the "National Endowment for the Arts" and the "Commission on Fine Arts" - did you know we were previously spending billions of dollars on things like these? Is that necessary for the <span style="font-style: italic;">federal</span> government to care about the "arts"?</li><li>Among others</li></ul>Now, this is the kind of thing that the Republican Party should be moving towards. During the last few years, we may not have had enough Congressional Seats to influence anything, but holding a 56% majority in the House of Representatives is certainly enough to make some demands, and get things done. The problem is, if the Republicans in the House don't start acting more like Rand Paul, we're going to lose big time in the 2012 elections, and have a de ja vu experience from the 111th Congress. If you recall, during the 111th, the democratic party controlled the House, Senate, and the White House - do you remember what that allowed them to do? First and foremost, it allowed them to continue to trash our economy, and devalue the dollar, leaving us with a $1.3 trillion budget deficit, the largest in American history. We cannot let that happen.<br /><br />Now, the question is, will Rand Paul's bold bill ever see the Senate Floor? Probably not. We already know Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will do whatever he can to keep this from passing. When this bill was introduced on the floor, he (obviously) objected to taking it up, which means it was placed on the Senate's calendar. As of today, the bill has not even been assigned to a committee for review. So how's the future look? As explained, probably not good. If this bill every does see the Floor again, it will likely be a completely different bill, proposing like $3 billion in cuts (even that probably wouldn't satisfy Harry Reid, who apparently feels government spending of any kind is a good thing).<br /><br />Paul's introduction of S.162 is certainly a bold statement, one that demonstrates the growing presence of the anti-big government Tea Party in Congress. All we need now is more people like Rand Paul, in both chambers, and eventually, as a candidate for the 2012 Presidential race.Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-68516137630950248082011-03-03T03:39:00.003-06:002011-03-03T03:50:00.514-06:00Heartless Wisconsin Governor...Governor, Scott Walker, the heartless Republican from Wisconsin, has asked Public Employees to start chipping in towards their own health insurance policies. Greetings, my friends, I apologize it's been some time since I've updated you on modern issues in our nation.<br /><br />Unless you've been living under a log for the last couple of weeks, you are no doubt aware (at least in part) of what's been going on in Madison, WI. "No - I don't live anywhere near Madison. I don't even live in WI!" This issue has received NATIONAL attention in the last few weeks. There's no reason you should have no clue about what's going on. Wake up, and learn how to flip on the TV once in a while, and watch something actually worth your time; by that I mean something other than MTV or ESPN.<br /><br />In case you are part of the ignorant minority (or even part of the group that THINKS they know what's going on, but really doesn't), I'm going to give you a crash course on what's been going on. Why? So that you can make a semi-educated opinion, instead of just a "political opinion" (i.e. "I'm a democrat, so I'm against what Walker's doing," or "I'm a republican, so I support Walker's decisions"), or the "emotional opinion" (i.e. I'm a teacher/public employee, so I hate what Scott Walker is doing). So I'm going to first, do my best to educate you on some simple, but important, facts that are surrounding this issue. (That's right, for starters, I'm just going to give some FACTUAL information, not opinion or political. I'll share my interpretation later).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FACT #1</span>: (if you think these are "just opinions," go back to school... if your teachers are still there): The state of Wisconsin is currently facing an estimated $3.3 billion deficit over the next two years. (some figures say 3.6, for our purposes, we'll just use 3.3... that's what I've heard more of). Now, sometimes "big numbers" get so big that they are just meaningless, and we don't realize how big it really is, so I'll illustrate that for you: $3,300,000,000 over two years; or, $137,500,000 every month (over 24 months). That's the equivalent of spending $188,356 EVERY HOUR of EVERY DAY, and bringing in absolutely NOTHING. That's like buying a new house every hour, every day, for 2 years straight, without ever bringing in a penny. Hopefully now the "$3.3 billion" figure has a little more meaning than just "some big number."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">FACT #2</span>: The proposed budget repair bill is estimated to save the state approximately $300 million over the same two year period. Granted, that's not a lot compared to the massive deficit, but it's the single-biggest saving that has been proposed and investigated. Sure, there might be something else we could do, but right now, THIS is the single most significant change we can make.<br /><br />There are 4 main things the bill is proposing to change:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">CHANGE #1</span>: The bill will require state employees (police & fire exempt) to pay approximately 12.6% of the overall health insurance premium for the individual or family plan the employee is currently enrolled in. The government will continue to pay approximately 87.4% of the cost of these health insurance policies. The average Wisconsin state employee (prior to this bill) contributes closer to 6% of their health insurance policy. Therefore, their health care costs (on average) will double. Nationally, the average cost to the worker is around 27%, meaning on average, employers pay only 73% of the health insurance policy costs.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">CHANGE #2</span>: The bill will require state employees (police & fire exempt) to pay approximately 5% of their pay into their state pension fund. This will be an increase from the almost-nothing that state employees currently pay into their own retirement fund. That means the government (prior to this bill) pays nearly 100% towards state employees' retirement. The national average for government contributions to similar pension funds is approximately 83%. Under the new bill, the state of Wisconsin would decrease its payments into this pension from nearly 100% to around 94/95%, still 10% higher than the national average.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">CHANGE #3</span>: The bill will restrict collective bargaining rights (police & fire exempt) to wages only. According to Scott Walker and the GOP, removal of these rights will "give local governments the tools they need to balance their own budgets, making it easier for the state to balance its budget."<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">CHANGE #4</span>: The bill will decrease the power of a union over its members, by making it illegal to force employees of a specific job to join a union and union dues, against their will. Instead of mandatory, union membership will be voluntary, and a decision that the worker can make. If they want, they can keep that extra $1,000/year (or so) in union dues in their own pocket, instead of automatically having that deducted and sent to the union. This will also require unions to be re-certified, ensuring there is still a proper majority in order for the union to continue to exist and operate.<br /><br />Now here's some of my interpretations, and opinions on this matter.<br /><br />The first thing I want to say is this: Asking people to contribute 5% to their OWN retirement, and 12% towards their own health care, when these are still very generous (comparably), is not a ridiculous request. People are calling Scott Walker and the GOP horrible, horrible things, when (at least this part of the bill) is not an unreasonable request. This is his solution to making sure we don't have to make cuts in employment. He spent like 15 years in Milwaukee County, constantly trying to find ways for people to keep their jobs. He has proven that he will do what's necessary to prevent people from losing their jobs. This bill proposes nothing in the area of job cuts. So, when the people get to keep their job, they shouldn't be complaining about these changes, when the alternative is losing their job.<br /><br />The next thing to note is that this is exactly the thing Scott Walker campaigned on. If you are surprised by what Scott Walker is attempting to do here, you have been asleep for the last 15 years when he was the County Executive, and during his campaign. Unions have always been his enemy, and he has always believed and been open about his feelings that public unions are the biggest enemy to the taxpayer. If you are surprised by this, you are simply just waking up to Scott Walker: This is who he is. And for the most part, this is why he was elected, and that is why he is not negotiating. In his experience, you cannot do both: Balance a budget, and leave the unions in their reign of power. You cannot do both. For the longest time, we have allowed them to rule this state, and the people of Wisconsin have elected Scott Walker to make some changes. But, in the words of my friend, Pam Akey, it certainly shouldn't be impossible, because there should be accountability for the government to negotiate only what they can afford, and we should be able to both allow the unions bargaining power, and keep a balanced budget. It should work. Yes, in theory... it *should work* just fine. But, in theory, communism looks beautiful, too. Things that *should work* (in theory) don't always work on the practical level. Scott Walker is doing what he's doing because it's what the people of Wisconsin elected him to do. He was duly elected, with a fair, true majority of voter turnout. Same holds true for everyone in the State Assembly, and the State Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike.<br /><br />Now, I have heard time and again, from many different people, that "This is not about the money! If it were, then why are you busting the unions? The unions will accept the pay cuts and other things, just don't take away the collective bargaining rights! Separate the two issues! The unions are willing to make concessions on pay, if the collective bargaining remains in tact." I have heard this by many different people, including my own father, a veteran teacher in the Milwaukee Public Schools system. This issue has hit home for me, because both my parents are teachers, as well as my sister. My father and sister disagree with me on this issue, so it has made it difficult for me to hold the position I do, seeing the argument first-hand from my close family.<br /><br />Anyways, this claim of "accepting the pay cuts" is a bit naive, in my very humble opinion. First of all, there are over 1,000 different public employee unions in the state. There is no way that every single union has already agreed to these pay cuts. Some of the larger ones, perhaps, or the state-wide ones, but about all the little local ones? In the words of 620-WTMJ host Jeff Wagner, it's an "easy deal for many unions to get out of... 'I never made that agreement!'" Even if *most* of the unions did accept these concessions, how long would it be before we end up in the same fiscal mess we're in now? Everyone knows unions won't give up on fighting for better benefits, so it's only a matter of time before we end up in the same mess we're in now.<br /><br />The Wall Street Journal has some interesting information on the history of collective bargaining in Milwaukee Public Schools. It says "the magic number is 74.2, for MPS." That's the number of cents the employer (district/government) pays in benefits to each employee per dollar of salary. The "benefits package" is equal to 74.2% of the salary. What's the average in the rest of WI that an employee benefits package will be? About 24.3%. Nearly three times more in benefits awarded to teachers in MPS. The article goes on to digest the number, explaining all the different benefits - feel free to check it out if you're interested, but I'm not going to bore everyone else with the nitty gritty details. The point of the article is in its conclusion: "What these numbers ultimately prove is the excessive power of collective bargaining ... As the costs of pensions and insurance escalate, the governor's proposal to restrict collective bargaining to salaries - not benefits - seems entirely reasonable."<br /><br />Now, to switch to a slightly different issue... What about these 14 Senators that just decided to take off? Are you kidding? Because something is happening in government that they don't like, they just leave? Is that fair at all? I live in the city of Milwaukee, and my state senator is Tim Carpenter, one of the democrats Missing in Action. When he (along with the rest) decided to flea to another state, my representation in the State Senate ceased to exist. And in my very humble opinion, he, along with the rest, should be fired for failing to do their job: representing me (and the rest of us) in the State Senate. You don't just put an illegal stop to democracy because you don't like what's happening. Doesn't work that way. They should be fired, and we should hold special elections to replace them. Flip the coin... what if the tables were turned, and when the Republicans in the US Congress were against health care reform, say, what if they all decided to flea Washington DC to halt future legislation? Would that be any different? NO! SAME THING! Their job is to be in Madison, and vote on legislation, and if they lose, move on to the next piece of legislation. That is your JOB.<br /><br />OK, now in the course of discussing this with numerous people, I have encountered some common myths, and I want to spend a moment addressing (and correcting) five of them here:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. It is a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain!</span><br /><br />No, you're an idiot, and you're wrong. No where in the constitution is there anything of the sort. Stop using big words and thinking you sound intelligent, because you are just plain wrong. It is <span style="font-style: italic;">most definitely not</span> a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain, <span style="font-style: italic;">at all</span>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. There are federal laws preventing this sort of thing! Sure, it's not in the constitution, but there are federal laws that give rights for workers to collectively bargain! What Walker is doing is illegal, because federal law allows workers to collectively bargain!</span><br /><br />Again, wrong. There is not one single federal law making it illegal to do what Scott Walker is doing. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (what most people cite when they say what Walker is proposing is illegal) relates to employees in the PRIVATE SECTOR. It leaves it up to STATES to decide how to handle collective bargaining within the public sector. Laws at the STATE level govern what issues are subject to bargaining. All Walker is doing is changing the allowed bargaining rights - he's not even removing them all together. There are 5 states - Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia - that prohibit collective bargaining by public employees - period. So, don't sit there and tell me this is "illegal" and "in violation of federal law" - the fact is, YOU are the one not aware of the true facts, if you think Walker's proposal is "illegal." Like I said before, go back to school... if your teachers are still there.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. But, if we change these laws, things will go back to the way they were in the 30s with really crappy working conditions! After all, that was the purpose of unions: fixing working conditions so they were better for the employees. Now we want to remove them? That means we will go back to the way things used to be, with crappy working conditions, 12-hour work days, no vacation, etc. etc.! Why on earth would we want to do that?</span><br /><br />The National Labor Relations Act (which deals with the private sector) was in response to these poor working conditions IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR (i.e. factories, etc). That is why the federal laws regarding collective bargaining relate directly to the private sector, never the public sector (at the state level). State employee bargaining rights are ALWAYS (and always have been) governed by the individual state, or non-existent in some states. Therefore, to suggest that we'll go back to the way things were in the 30s would mean overturning the NLRA, which is not even close to what this issue is about.<br /><br />This one comes from my father:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. We need the union. Without it, they could tell us, as teachers, that we have to work a 12-hour work day, or even come in on Saturdays without extra pay. The union is a good thing, and without it, there will be ridiculous demands on us, as teachers, demands which would not be fair.</span><br /><br />That is a very irrational argument against what Walker is doing. While it theoretically could happen without a union, it also could theoretically happen WITH a union. A union *guarantees* nothing. In response to the irrationality, I would use the same irrational logic, saying that "with a union, it's possible to drain the state so much when public employees work 2 days a week for a full salary." Same logic. You can't argue against what Walker is doing by saying what "could" theoretically happen as a result. Any one of us could die in a fatal car accident - does that mean the rational person will never get into a vehicle? Secondly, keep in mind that not every single work place has unions or collective bargaining at all. It's extremely irrational to start any sentence with "we need a union, because without it ...." when only 11.9% of the working population in America are union members (2010 Bureau of Labor Statistics). The rest of us 88% not paying union dues are doing just fine without the help of da union. If the 88% "really isn't doing fine without a union," they'd unionize (at least, most of them would. The point is there is a HUGE majority, not just a small majority, like 55/45, that are not involved with unions).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. So, his proposal involves all public employees in Wisconsin, except for fire and police personnel? Come on - if that's not a political move, I don't know what is. Those are the unions that supported him in the election, so of course he's going to reward them! I told you this is all political, and has nothing to do with money!</span><br /><br />OK, excuse me if I get a little condescending in this paragraph, because this particular claim against Scott Walker is one that especially offends me, as a future police officer. There is nothing more annoying than an ignorant idiot that thinks he knows what's going on, and then he says something like this. Are you kidding me? Don't even speak on this matter anymore if you refuse to learn at least a little bit about what you're talking about. Do NOT think Scott Walker is exempting the police & fire unions because they supported him - you're an idiot who doesn't have his facts straight. Of the 314 fire & police unions in the state of Wisconsin, do you know how many supported Walker? If this claim of yours was right, it would have to be a huge majority, right? So, maybe like 200 at least? <span style="font-style: italic;">At least</span>. Nope - not even close. FOUR. That's right, 4 out of 314. That's like 1%. Don't sit there and tell me (or anyone else) that this is a "political move" because those unions supported him, so he's protecting them. That's BS, and if you did a little research before talking, you wouldn't have sounded like a complete moron who doesn't even understand what's going on. OK, that's my rant on that issue... returning to civil discussion.<br /><br />Truth of the matter...<br /><br />As a whole, unions are self-serving bodies that do not care about the public, taxpayers, or the well-being of anyone else. When you abandon your classroom, walk off your job, and break the law, you are doing anything BUT setting a positive example for our children. Teachers are to be held to a moral standard, and are supposed to care about the well-being of others. If you are a teacher, and you protested in Madison, SHAME ON YOU for setting a very poor example for the people you are supposed to be teaching. You abandoned your students, screwed the parents who had to come up with another form of child care for the day, or call in the sick themselves, and for what? So you could protect your greedy pensions, health insurance, and privileges? (That's right - privileges, not rights). In the words of Mary Bell, the President of the Wisconsin Education Association Council (state teachers' union), "This is not about protecting our pay and our benefits. It is about protecting our rights to collectively bargain." Ah yes, Ms. Bell - *clears throat* - and what "rights" are those? As explained previously, you do <span style="font-style: italic;">not</span> have any right to participate in collective bargaining. If you collectively bargain in the public sector, you are given a privilege, and that privilege is not a guarantee to last. It is the decision of the state whether or not you keep those privileges, or whether or not those privileges are restricted, revoked, etc. Just because you held a privilege at one time does not mean tough economic times will allow you to keep those exact same privileges. It doesn't work that way - sorry.<br /><br />One of the reasons my father believes this is so unfair is because "these are all things we've fought for over the last 30 or 40 years, and now they're all going to be taken away. Is that fair?" Yes, dad - we, the over-taxed taxpayers (the ones who pay the bill) cannot afford at this time to continue paying for your over-generous, fat pensions and health insurance plans. We cannot afford it. "What part of 'broke' do you not understand?" "Well we'll take the pay cuts!" That's not the point - we cannot afford to have your union collectively bargain the way it has in the past, and get us in the same fiscal mess we are now in the next 30/40 years. It's not just about today, it's about tomorrow, next year, and in the year 2020, and beyond. The fact that you, as a union, "have bargained for something for the last 40 years" does not guarantee that it will always be there. Once again, this is not a right of yours, it's a revoke-able, or award-able privilege. I am <span style="font-style: italic;">so sick</span> of the American "entitlement mentality." "I'm entitled to ______," "I have a right to ______" - no, you don't. This is the United States of America, not the United States of Entitlement, where you can work for 25 years, and have a 25+ year tax-funded retirement, of which you contributed almost nothing toward.<br /><br />Welcome to the real world, where there is a sense of <span style="font-style: italic;">personal</span> responsibility, <span style="font-style: italic;">personal</span> accountability, and a bit of maturity. Oh, there's just one thing ... here in the real world, nothing's free.<br /><br /><br /><br />Sources / Further Reading:<br /><br />http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/22/6106569-do-public-employees-have-a-right-to-collective-bargaining<br /><br />http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html<br /><br />http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166034245532792.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion<br /><br />http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/21/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-has-a-choice-union-buster-or-real-l/Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-2784958860540308162010-02-05T10:34:00.000-06:002010-02-05T14:40:21.315-06:00Congressional Term Limits??According to the Constitution of the United States, there currently are no term limits for members of Congress. If Robert Byrd wants to run for a 13th Senate term, there is nothing in the Constitution preventing that from happening. He has been in the Senate since 1953, and his current term is good until 2012. Nothing prohibits him from being elected yet again, that is, if his constituents will elect him again.<br /><br />Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) proposed an amendment back in December to the Constitution that would change this. His proposal (H.J.Res.63) would amend the Constitution to limit terms to 18 years (3 terms in the Senate, 9 terms in the House). Opencongress.org gives this proposal a 93% user approval, but I am skeptical about this resolution.<br /><br />The reason that there currently are no term limits is because we, the people, hold our representatives and senators accountable. If they fail to represent my district or my state, we hold him/her accountable by not re-electing them. The motive for these politicians to represent the people is that they know they will not get re-elected if they fail. If this resolution were to pass, representatives/senators in their final term have absolutely no motive to do what their constituents want, because they have no possible way of running again. This is evidenced simply by the fact that presidential approval ratings (traditionally) fall in the president's second term, because they have no reason to please the people, because they already know they aren't going to campaign again.<br /><br />This is the problem I have with it - I want the ability to hold our congressional leaders accountable. A senate term is 6 years. That's a long time. Can you imagine how bad it could be if we had a senator in his/her last term, not able to run again, and they were in there for SIX YEARS representing themselves, and not their constituents. I think that could cause some problems. Because representatives only have 2-year terms, I think there is more of a likelihood of that succeeding, and being beneficial. But still... if they are representing their constituents well, and they are liked in their district, why <span style="font-style:italic;">not</span> let them run continuously? They're doing their job, why not?? They still have to run every 2 years, and get re-elected every 2 years.<br /><br />The purpose of differing terms is simple. Let me explain what I mean by starting with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life - they never have to get "re-elected." The purpose behind that is we don't necessarily want the Supreme Court's opinions swaying with the people - we want their opinions solidly based in the Constitution. They don't have to worry about being unpopular, because they never have to run for re-election. We want their emphasis not on being liked, but on doing what's right.<br /><br />Members of the House of Representatives, on the other hand, are up for re-election every two years. The purpose behind this is simple: their job is to REPRESENT, not do whatever they want, or randomly doing "this or that." We hold them to a high accountability, because if they fail to represent, they won't be re-elected, and that's the point. Their number 1 job is to represent the common interests of their district. If they fail at doing that, they won't stick around very long.<br /><br />A final interesting point about H.J.Res.63 is that it has been in the House Judiciary Committee since it was first introduced, and the chair of that committee is Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who has been in the House since 1965 - he's serving his 23rd term. Do you honestly think Conyers, the 45 year veteran, is in a hurry to pass a bill through his own committee that will force him to retire? Fat chance.Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-1621222999730570152010-02-03T16:13:00.003-06:002010-02-04T02:06:40.293-06:009/11 Conspirators: Civilian Trial?Whether you've been following the story in the news or not, 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others are about to be tried for their crimes of terrorism against the USA. Back in November, President Obama announced that KSM (and possibly several others) would be tried in a federal court under normal civilian court procedures (read the NY Times story <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/14/us/14terror.html">here</a>).<br /><br />Many were opposed to having KSM and other 9/11 terrorists stand trial just blocks from the former location of the World Trade Center. Sources indicate it would be unnecessarily expensive, and they did not know if court officials and NYPD could secure a location in lower Manhattan, where the trial was set to take place.<br /><br />However, despite Obama's attempts to have KSM tried in civilian court, several key Senators may have found a way to stop it. On February 2, Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC] and at least 20 co-sponsors introduced a bill to prevent these terrorists from seeing a federal court on U.S. soil. S.2977 has an ambitious goal of blocking the use of any federal funds appropriated for the Department of Justice for civilian trials of the alleged 9/11 conspirators, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the 9/11 mastermind himself.<br /><br />This bill is still very new, as it was introduced less than 24 hours ago. It is slowly gaining popularity as the American public is becoming aware of its existence. Sites like opencongress.org are slowly beginning to indicate that a bill like this is favored by the American public.<br /><br />Currently, the bill has 23 sponsors and co-sponsors, from both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately for those of us who support this bill, it is currently sitting in the Senate's Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]. Leahy has gone on record in at least one occasion indicating that he is strongly opposed to S.2977<br /><br />This bill could be stalled in the Senate's judiciary committee, so we need as much support as we can for this bill. The people who have the most say on this bill are the members of the Senate's Committee on the Judicary (click <a href="http://judiciary.senate.gov/about/members.cfm">here</a>). Luckily, the bill's original author (Graham) also holds a seat on the Judiciary Committee. With your support, and a little bit of luck, this bill can be brought to consideration by the Senate floor.Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-46199475840068650352010-01-16T20:36:00.002-06:002010-01-17T12:57:12.763-06:00The 72-Hour RuleThe House of Representatives may soon be required to publicize all legislation at least 72 hours before considering a final debate on the bill. Current House Rules include no such thing, but as we all know, Obama campaigned on "political transparency" in Washington, and allowing the American people the opportunity to read bills prior to consideration, as well as televising on C-SPAN key floor debates and conference committees.<br /><br />The most likely of these to pass, (H.Res 554), was introduced last June by Brian Baird, a Democrat from Washington. Since its initial introduction into the House, the proposed resolution has received 215 co-sponsors, from both sides of the aisle.<br /><br />By definition, this bill has bi-partisan support. On OpenCongress.Org, H.Res 554 has 449 members in favor, with only 4 opposed. I think it's safe to say this bill has a lot of support. So, the question is, why has this resolution not been considered by the full House yet? It has been around for seven long months, but why has nothing been done with it??<br /><br />Lately, democrats in both chambers have violated their own promise (and Obama's promise for transparency), as negotiations over Health Care reform between House democrats and Senate democrats has been done behind closed doors, after hours, during "informal meetings," instead of the more traditional, more transparent conference committees.<br /><br />With so much support, H.Res 554 has an almost guaranteed passage in the House, but it would certainly make what the House is doing against the rules, and the House would be out of order. I guess this is the problem you have when you have people voting on their own rules and restrictions.<br /><br />You can bet this much-liked resolution will not reach the House floor for consideration before the final Health Care bill is considered; you have Nancy Pelosi to thank for that one.<br /><br />But, passing a resolution like this would mean that the House would have to change the way they do things. As you may or may not know, there were about 25 bills passed in 2009 that were rushed through in less than 72 hours. These are major legislations, including cash for clunkers, the estate tax, the stimulus bill, among others. You can view the full list of them by clicking <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/bill/readthebill?types=all">here</a>.<br /><br />Let's hope people like Nancy Pelosi are not re-elected for yet another term. We have one more year to suffer through this, then hopefully we can get some politicians in who are ready to do their job: represent the people.Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-62547135431269746652009-12-10T12:39:00.003-06:002009-12-10T12:56:50.031-06:00Spending In Washington Never CeasesAs you no doubt are well aware, the national debt continues to skyrocket. Today, the national debt is just over 12 TRILLION dollars. That comes out to nearly $40,000 per citizen! Every day, the debt increases by almost $4 billion. That is absolutely amazing, considering Barack Obama campaigned on fiscal responsibility, cutting the deficit, and lowering the national debt. That's a rather ambitious goal, considering what he's done so far. After promising America that he would "cut the deficit in half" by the end of his first term, he quadrupled the deficit with his stimulus package. It might be safe to say our President is not so good at mathematics. To review, after claiming he would cut it in half, he's already multiplied it by 4 (and that doesn't even factor inflation).<br /><br />So, it's clear that Obama is spending ridiculous amounts of money. What does Congress plan to do? Well, back in April, the House of Representatives approved a bill to increase the national debt ceiling by another $1.8 trillion. Democrats are attempting to finish passing this through Congress before the New Year, likely out of fear for the 2010 elections to come next November. Essentially, they know it's a bad idea, so they want to pass it now instead of right before the election, because they don't want to be voted out of office next November.<br /><br />Obama has made it almost one full year with his democrat-run Congress. We can only hope that we only have one more year of this. November 2010, the entire House of Representatives will be up for re-election. We can only hope the people of this country begin to realize that the Democrats, led by Obama, are not very good at keeping their promises. Hopefully, for the 112th Congress, starting in 2011, there will be a more conservative/republican House of Representatives.Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-26550192546581797652009-11-30T00:20:00.001-06:002009-11-30T00:53:10.439-06:00Health Care: What about Illegal Aliens?Although no one really knows for sure, most reasonable estimates believe there are well over 15 million people living in the United States illegally. One can only imagine that it would be quite expensive for tax-payers to insure these 15+ million people.<div><br /></div><div><div>So what does the House-approved bill (H.R. 3962) plan to prevent illegal immigrants from gaining federal funds for health insurance? As we know, President Obama and other democrats have said on numerous occasions that their reform would not insure those who are in this country illegally. What, specifically, does H.R. 3962 do to prevent illegals from gaining health insurance? Nothing.</div><div><br /></div><div>OK, let's be fair to Nancy Pelosi... Section 342 does specifically say that the affordability credits are for legal citizens and immigrants only. That's good news... right? Wrong.</div><div><br /></div><div>Section 302 of the bill, when talking about eligibility for the exchange programs and the public option, the bill text clearly says "all individuals are eligible to obtain coverage" through the exchange programs and/or public option. So, the first thing that needs to be re-worded is Section 302. It should say something more along the lines of "all legal citizens are eligible to obtain coverage." That's a simple change, right? Would that be enough? Of course not. In a bill that's over 2,000 pages long, one simple change is never enough to "fix it."</div><div><br /></div><div>Later on in the bill, when the public option is created (Title III, Subtitle B), it clearly states that all individuals eligible for the exchange are also eligible for the public option. If everyone is eligible for the exchange (like Sec. 302 says), then everybody is eligible for the public option.</div><div><br /></div><div>Now, you're probably scratching your head, and wondering about this, because as many have said, "Illegals will not be covered, because Sec. 342 clearly outlaws affordability credits being given to illegal aliens." You're right, but if Congress passes a bill that says the minimum age to consume alcohol is 25, and leaves it at that, there's no enforcement or regulation. That's essentially what Sec. 342 of the House-approved bill does: it clearly outlaws covering illegal immigrants, but how does it enforce this law?</div><div><br /></div><div>The verification process is essentially absent from this 2,000 page bill. 2,000 pages, and there's no clear way to verify a person is who they say they are. The most anyone has talked about for verification processes is matching a social security with a name. But, there are lots of loopholes to that method. What if the individual produces a SSN and matching name, but they are not that person? That will open the door to massive identity theft.</div><div><br /></div><div>The bill also allows people to "correct their mistake," should they submit a SSN and name that do not match. They are first given the chance to check for a "misprint." The bill even goes as far to allow a change to the SSN database to match your records, should the database be in error! Even further, the bill will give you up to 4 months to "correct the discrepancy" with the Social Security Administration. During this whole process, the individual will be eligible for affordability credits.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even further, if a person is caught using an invalid SSN/name combination, there's no punishment for them -- they are simply denied coverage, and turned away empty handed. That's it. Now, think about this for a second... If you're an illegal alien, and you make up a random name and SSN, you'll get up to 4 months of affordability credits that easily. During those 4 months, you'll have the chance to create a false entry (or change an existing entry) in the Social Security database. If, for whatever reason, that fails in the 4-month "free trial period," you'll be turned away, and sent home. Then, it's as easy to go back the following day with a newly created name and SSN, and (provided the guy doesn't recognize you), you start over again, and get another 4 months (at least) free.</div><div><br /></div><div>Under the current language of the House-Approved H.R. 3962, there are major, <i>major </i>problems with potentially covering illegal aliens.</div><div><br /></div><div>The final bill needs to do more than make it illegal to cover illegal aliens -- there has to actually be a way to enforce that.</div><div><br /></div><div>So, what can you do? Same thing I always say... contact your Senators and Representative, identify yourself as one of their constituents, and as someone who will not vote for them if they don't support strengthening the bill's language against illegal aliens. If you don't know how to contact your Rep and Senators, go to <a href="http://opencongress.org">http://opencongress.org</a> for links to email them. It's that simple!</div></div>Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-10827707945657269732009-11-28T15:46:00.000-06:002009-11-28T15:50:12.651-06:00Abortion funding as part of health care reform?One of the most controversial parts of health care reform is the issue of abortion. Because of the Hyde Amendment in 1976, federal funds have never been used to fund abortion. This was one of the most controversial issues in the health care debate.<div><br /></div><div>The House bill (H.R. 3962) initially did not address the issue of abortion at all, but it was implied that individuals on the proposed public option would be able to exercise "reproductive care" which would have included abortions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Pro-Life Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich) threatened Nancy Pelosi saying that he and 40 other democrats would derail the bill before ever reaching the House Floor if she did not allow a vote on his amendment, known as the "Stupak Amendment." His proposed amendment explicitly prohibits all federal funds from being used in abortions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Specifically, his amendment prohibits the proposed public option from covering abortion services of any kind. It also prevents individuals who receive "affordability credits" from purchasing a private plan that covers elective abortions.</div><div><br /></div><div>Pelosi, fearing that the bill would never reach a full vote, was forced to allow a vote on Stupak's amendment. On November 7, the House passed Stupak's amendment, with a vote of 240-194. This represents a victory in the House for conservatives. There were 64 democrat representatives who voted in favor of the amendment, and at least 40 of the 64 claimed they would vote against the bill if the amendment failed.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ironically, the notably more conservative Senate is ignoring the House's decision. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is caught in yet another lie. On November 10, Reid told LifeNews.Com that he is confident the Senate "will ensure that no federal funds are used for abortion." Contrary to Reid's statement, Douglas Johnson, Director for National Right to Life said there's no reason to believe Reid when he says there will be no federally-funded abortion.</div><div><br /></div><div>A little over a week later, Reid was revealed as a liar, and Douglas Johnson was correct. On November 19, the Senate's health care bill as revealed by Harry Reid himself showed massive spending for abortion funding.</div><div><br /></div><div>Pages 116-124 give explicit outlines requiring at least one insurance plan in every market exchange to contain abortion coverage, allow abortion coverage in the public option, and create new tax-funded subsidies to purchase private health plans that will cover abortion.</div><div><br /></div><div>Ironically, the Senate has had little discussion over the wording in Reid's bill. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) originally planned to propose an amendment that would read much like Stupak's amendment in the House bill. However, it is unlikely that he will receive 60 votes in the Senate to override the likely pro-abortion filibuster that would result from his amendment proposition.</div><div><br /></div><div>Although conservatives see it as a danger that the Senate may pass a bill that allows tax-funded abortions, it actually may be what it takes to shoot down health care reform all together... at least for now.</div><div><br /></div><div>If the bill does pass the Senate, allowing federally funded abortions, it's likely that those 40 democrat representatives in the House would vote against the bill. As you may know, the Senate and the House must both agree to exactly the same bill, and there are 40 House democrats who have previously threatened to vote against any legislation that will allow for tax-funded abortions.</div><div><br /></div><div>There is still light at the end of the tunnel for conservatives. If, after reading this, you're asking "What can I do to help?" I have an answer for you. Write your Representative and Senators and urge them to oppose tax-funded abortions of any kind. We already convinced at least 40 democrats in the House to vote against any tax-funded abortions, but the Senate may have a hard time. Go to http://opencongress.org to find links to email your representative and senators. Contact is key. Share your thoughts, and tell them you will not vote for them in the next election if they support tax-funded abortions.</div>Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2400666740688109306.post-90247241598291297582009-11-26T23:45:00.003-06:002010-01-16T20:11:08.563-06:00What's happening with health care reform?America is going down the path to socialism, and fast. The far left, led by Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and of course, Barack Obama, are continuing to advance their liberal, dangerous agenda through Congress.<div><br /></div><div>As you probably know, the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed their version of the bill, "Affordable Health Care for America Act" (H.R. 3962), but, they can't stop there. From there, the United States Senate is working to pass their version of health care reform as soon as possible. The dems hoped to have a health bill on Obama's desk by August, here it is November, and they still don't have it. The good news for conservatives is simply that it will not pass this year. I'll say it again... It will NOT be on the President's desk before 2010.</div><div><br /></div><div>When the Senate finally finishes debate on the bill, and the bill is amended on the Senate floor, voted on, and likely passed, there still is work to be done. The Senate version, "America's Healthy Future Act of 2009" (S. 1796) is quite a bit different from the House's H.R. 3962. As you may know, both the House and the Senate must pass <i>identical</i> bills <i>without amendment</i> before ever being sent to the Oval Office for Obama's signature. Because S. 1796 and H.R. 3962 are so different, when the Senate version eventually passes, there still needs to be what is called a Conference Committee.</div><div><br /></div><div>The Conference Committee will be a group of Representatives (probably chosen by Pelosi) and Senators (probably chosen by Reid) who will get together and try to mesh the two bills into one. As of now, there's NO TELLING what will come from the Conference Committee. There are so many differences between the two bills, there's no way to know what will be left alone, changed, removed, etc.</div><div><br /></div><div>After a successful Conference Committee, the bill must come before the whole Senate and whole House, and both chambers must pass it on majority vote. If either of the two chambers fail to pass (or if both fail), the process eventually starts over. That's why we can say with confidence that there's no way a final bill, approved by both chambers, will find Obama's desk by the end of 2009.</div><div><br /></div><div>But, the real question is... why does this need to be forced through Congress so quickly?? After all, nothing in the result will take effect until at least 2011. So why now? Because Congress is running scared. We, the conservative people of this great nation, are not intimidated by this BS, and we are not afraid to speak out against such drastic changes to our current health care system. Nobody... NOBODY wants to pay more taxes. Not the rich, not the middle class.</div><div><br /></div><div>Who is in favor of the proposed legislation? Three types of people...</div><div>1) Representatives and Senators of the far left (Reid, Pelosi)</div><div>2) Members of Congress who are so damn concerned with party loyalty that they won't vote against anything that the Democratic Party stands for, regardless of their own views, <i>or</i> the "valued views of their constituents."</div><div>3) The sheepish public who hear "lower costs AND higher quality" (that's not possible, by the way) and get orgasmic over the concept. Never do they consider reading the bill, or looking into things themselves... Just listen to the idiots you elected, hear them talk about things that don't exist (lower costs = higher quality), and avoid using your own intellect at all costs.</div><div><br /></div><div>Do not fall into any of the three categories above.</div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(34, 34, 34); font-family: 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; line-height: 16px; "></span></div>Preserve Americahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00037878082950378207noreply@blogger.com0