Do 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).
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."
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.
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.
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."
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? Send Ted Deutch an email and tell him that H.Res.30 is not good enough.
Friday, March 4, 2011
GOP 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 being criticized for posing an unnecessary risk to our economy.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Thursday, March 3, 2011
Bold, Young Senator
Greetings, Friends,
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."
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."
So just what does he propose we do? The simple, earmark-free, 11-page bill proposes a total of about $500 billion 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?
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:
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).
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.
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."
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."
So just what does he propose we do? The simple, earmark-free, 11-page bill proposes a total of about $500 billion 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?
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:
- Cuts the legislative branch by about $1.3 billion
- Cuts the judicial branch by about $2.4 billion
- Cuts the Dep. of Agriculture by $42 billion, completely annihilating things like the Agriculture Research Service, and the National Institute of Food & Agriculture
- Cuts the Dep. of Education by about $16.2 billion
- Completely defunds & destroys the Department of Housing & Urban Development
- Cuts the Dep. of State by about $20 billion
- 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 federal government to care about the "arts"?
- Among others
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).
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.
Heartless 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.
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.
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).
FACT #1: (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."
FACT #2: 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.
There are 4 main things the bill is proposing to change:
CHANGE #1: 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.
CHANGE #2: 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.
CHANGE #3: 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."
CHANGE #4: 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.
Now here's some of my interpretations, and opinions on this matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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:
1. It is a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain!
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 most definitely not a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain, at all.
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!
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.
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?
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.
This one comes from my father:
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.
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).
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!
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? At least. 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.
Truth of the matter...
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 not 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.
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 so sick 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.
Welcome to the real world, where there is a sense of personal responsibility, personal accountability, and a bit of maturity. Oh, there's just one thing ... here in the real world, nothing's free.
Sources / Further Reading:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/22/6106569-do-public-employees-have-a-right-to-collective-bargaining
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166034245532792.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/21/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-has-a-choice-union-buster-or-real-l/
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.
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).
FACT #1: (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."
FACT #2: 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.
There are 4 main things the bill is proposing to change:
CHANGE #1: 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.
CHANGE #2: 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.
CHANGE #3: 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."
CHANGE #4: 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.
Now here's some of my interpretations, and opinions on this matter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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:
1. It is a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain!
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 most definitely not a constitutional right for workers to collectively bargain, at all.
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!
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.
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?
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.
This one comes from my father:
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.
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).
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!
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? At least. 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.
Truth of the matter...
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 not 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.
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 so sick 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.
Welcome to the real world, where there is a sense of personal responsibility, personal accountability, and a bit of maturity. Oh, there's just one thing ... here in the real world, nothing's free.
Sources / Further Reading:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/22/6106569-do-public-employees-have-a-right-to-collective-bargaining
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703408604576164290717724956.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704150604576166034245532792.html?mod=WSJ_newsreel_opinion
http://politicsdaily.com/2011/02/21/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-has-a-choice-union-buster-or-real-l/
Friday, February 5, 2010
Congressional 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.
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.
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.
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 not 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 not 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.
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
9/11 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 here).
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.
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.
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.
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
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 here). 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 here). 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.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The 72-Hour Rule
The 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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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 here.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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 here.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)