Harry’s right. There were people who supported these efforts, and those who didn’t.
Slavery’s a given. It was a Republican who freed the slaves in 1862. But, it goes deeper than that. The Whigs supported slavery ( sorry peeps, it wasn’t the Republicans ). The Democrats of the time opposed slavery. However, in 1850, a “compromise” was reached that was hammered down the Whigs throats that split Kansas into two separate states. The premise one being a “Northern” state and the other a “Southern” state. However, laws dictating their annexation pretty well made being a “Southern” state moot. As such, riots, raids, murders, and general lawlessness overwhelmed the new territories. The ensuing debate pretty well signaled the death of the Whig party. People who were anti-slavery BUT anti-federal imposition formed a new party. They called themselves Republicans. So it’s not just enough to say Republicans freed the slaves, they were formed for that very reason. Ending slavery, sorta, in 1862, didn’t make things any easier for Republicans:
The example here? Those who did not support ending slavery resorted to violence, intimidation, harassment, and using the weight of the federal government to compel others. The difference today is Harry Reid is using the weight of the federal government to harass, intimidate, and coerce people to get what they want. And yeah, you can toss in a little violence as well. There definitely are parallels, but I don’t think that’s what Harry had in mind.
Basically, what Harry’s saying here is they didn’t debate, discuss, or even read the Amendments. They did what he wants done now and just passed them because they sounded like good ideas. Let’s look a little closer at the reality:
| Amendment | Proposed | Ratified | Days | Years |
| 1st | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 2nd | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 3rd | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 4th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 5th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 6th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 7th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 8th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 9th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 10th | 9/25/1789 | 12/15/1791 | 811 | 2.22 |
| 11th | 3/4/1794 | 2/7/1795 | 340 | 0.93 |
| 12th | 12/9/1803 | 6/15/1804 | 189 | 0.52 |
| 13th | 1/31/1865 | 12/06/1865 | 309 | 0.85 |
| 14th | 6/13/1866 | 7/9/1868 | 757 | 2.07 |
| 15th | 2/26/1869 | 2/3/1870 | 342 | 0.94 |
| 16th | 7/12/1909 | 2/3/1913 | 1,302 | 3.57 |
| 17th | 5/13/1912 | 4/8/1913 | 330 | 0.90 |
| 18th | 12/18/1917 | 1/16/1919 | 394 | 1.08 |
| 19th | 6/4/1919 | 8/18/1920 | 441 | 1.21 |
| 21st | 2/20/1933 | 12/5/1933 | 288 | 0.79 |
| 22nd | 3/24/1947 | 2/27/1951 | 1,436 | 3.93 |
| 23rd | 6/16/1960 | 3/29/1961 | 286 | 0.78 |
| 24th | 9/14/1962 | 1/23/1964 | 496 | 1.36 |
| 25th | 7/6/1965 | 2/10/1967 | 584 | 1.60 |
| 26th | 3/23/1971 | 7/1/1971 | 100 | 0.27 |
| 27th | 9/25/1789 | 5/7/1992 | 74,003 | 202.75 |
| Failed ( so far ) | ||||
| CAC | 9/25/1789 | 12/9/2009 | 80,336 | 220.10 |
| Titles of Nobility | 5/1/1810 | 12/9/2009 | 109,338 | 299.56 |
| Corwin | 3/2/1861 | 12/9/2009 | 54,246 | 148.62 |
| Child Labor | 3/2/1924 | 12/9/2009 | 31,237 | 85.58 |
| Equal Rights | 3/22/1972 | 3/22/1987 | 5,478 | 15.01 |
| DC Voting Rights | 8/22/1972 | 8/22/1987 | 5,478 | 15.01 |
Fact of the matter is, Harry’s dicking around with history. Only one amendment ever was agreed upon in 100 days or less. One of the quickest to pass (18th) was even more quickly repealed (21st). Women’s suffrage (19th) would never have been an issue if the 14th hadn’t been so sloppy. Maybe if they had slowed down on those two, things would have been a lot better a lot sooner.
Now, there are two differences between then and now:
- The issues Harry compared the health bill to were Constitutional amendments. He’s trying to pass a law. If he truly thinks this issue is on the same par as ending slavery or women suffrage, make it an amendment. Let the people all across the United States decide whether health care is a right. And, if it is, how much it has to cost.
- And to me this is the biggie, there is no health care bill to even debate. As of last night they’re still changing it. If you thought the public option was the cure, well, think again, it’s toast. So, what exactly is it Harry thinks we should rush through the Senate without discussing?
Sometime in 2007 or so, some people decided the US was too polarized. I’m not terribly sure that’s a bad thing. But, it became a political issue that the Democrats used to some success I suppose. Obama was going to fix that polarization problem. It was change you could believe in.
His people didn’t listen. Pretty much as soon as the swearing in was over, the love was as well. It started rather subtly enough:
Bush flunkies trying to argue that Obama is more polarizing than Bush was.
That was in Time Magazine.
Once the health debate got fired up, the love was completely gone. If you questioned anything about the health care “reform”, you were referred to as:
If you objected publicly to Obama, in his presence, you are a white hood wearing racist.
If you didn’t praise Obama daily on your newscasts, you aren’t a real news organization.
If you protested publicly, you’re a Nazi.
If you’re a Republican, you’re a rightwing extremist.
If you’re religious, you’re a rightwing extremist.
If you’re fiscally conservative, you’re a rightwing extremist.
If you believe in the US Constitution, you’re a rightwing extremist.
If you don’t fully buy into Obama’s cap and trade policy, you’re a flat-earther, you’re in denial, you believe man never landed on the Moon, and you believe Area 51 is real.
And, as of today, if you don’t support health care reform, even if you don’t know what it does, you are against freeing the slaves, allowing women to vote, and against civil rights.
Feel the love?
So far, not one single person has recanted any of those statements. This reminds me of McCarthyism. If they’ve got an issue with you, they don’t want an open and honest discussion ( transparency ), they just go for the jugular. The biggest running joke so far is how many bodies are under the Obama bus. So, you don’t necessarily have to be any of the above to draw their wrath.
I truly think it’s the constant assault of insults and demeaning conversation that is costing Obama any political leverage he had with his election, along with the pass he got being the first African-American president. Broken political promises are the norm, he hasn’t bought any favors there. But, he could very easily rein in the nastiness. He hasn’t, he’s participated, and his underlings are out of control. It’s tasteless, it’s trashy, and it makes everyone look bad. If Obama doesn’t rein it in, it will just add fuel to the polarization he claimed was a Bush problem. I think people are already getting real tired of passing the buck on Bush. Especially when it’s obvious its Obama’s baby. Go back and look at how many times Bush demeaned someone, attacked the press, or blamed anything on his predecessor. Bush wasn’t polarizing, people were. In Obama’s case, that can’t be said.
I get the newsletter from the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. It’s full of all kinds of neat stuff that doesn’t make the news a whole lot. In fact, more often than not I have to just paste the text in here because no media feels like fooling with it. So far, this has been the case with this little piece of information:
Community banks across Kentucky are finding the general economic slowdown and federal regulations their biggest challenges, not foreclosures and other mortgage-related issues, a panel of lawmakers heard today.
The Interim Joint Committee on Banking and Insurance, meeting at Centre College, heard testimony both from industry leaders as well as state regulators on the conditions of banks in the commonwealth.
“Kentucky banks are some of the strongest in the nation,” said Debra Stamper, general counsel to the Kentucky Bankers Association. “Kentucky banks hold firm to a long history of conservative, well-managed banking practices.” The result, she said, is that state banks do not show the headlining results of major banks in other states, both in good times and bad.
Charles Vice, who heads the state’s Department of Financial Institutions, detailed various measures of financial stability for state banks. While Kentucky’s nonperforming assets — generally loans delinquent for 90 days or more — have increased by about three-fourths since the end of 2007, the number across the nation has tripled, he noted.
Both KBA and DFI pointed to the economy rather than irresponsible loan practices as a prime reason for the increase in foreclosures in Kentucky. The nationwide economic meltdown caused in part by Wall Street’s downturn has caused a spike in unemployment, harming otherwise reasonable loans in Kentucky, the Midwest, and other manufacturing-heavy regions.
Rep. Steve Riggs, D-Jeffersontown, asked why subprime mortgages got most of the media attention even though they composed only about 10 percent of all home loans in the state. “What’s being gained by pointing fingers at the wrong group?” he asked. Vice responded that the subprime percentage was higher in some states and that subprime borrowers made convenient scapegoats while noting that subprime borrowers were not necessarily lower-income borrowers, an important distinction that many have failed to note.
The one Kentucky bank failure this year, Vice pointed out, involved an institution that had only moved its headquarters to Louisville this year and was federally chartered and regulated. Of the more than 150 banks the state regulates, he said, about 20 percent are facing some sort of action plan that may be as simple as developing their own program for improvement.
Only 12 Kentucky institutions have received federal TARP funding aimed at troubled banks, with $191 million spread among them — less than the nationwide average for a single bank.
Vice also pointed to a new bank that opened in Kentucky earlier this year, with another group inquiring about opening a new bank despite the increased capital requirements that now are mandated on new banks. “That’s a positive sign,” he said.
Vice, Stamper, and KBA’s Jim Cooper also pointed to increased FDIC requirements as putting a crimp in banks’ profits. Vice noted that the FDIC’s reserves, collected as a fee from member banks and used to cover the assets of banks that go out of business, was down to $10 billion, or 0.22 percent of nationwide assets, because the number of failing banks has sapped the reserve fund. The FDIC minimum is 1.15 percent. As a result, the FDIC has instituted a special supplement that banks must pay along with requiring pre-payment of their insurance premiums through 2012.
“The FDIC assessment is taking 30 or 40 percent of bank profits in some cases,” said Rep. Mike Denham, D-Maysville.
Stamper also railed against federal legislation, not yet passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, to create a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Such a law would overburden an industry that is largely working well, she said.
Denham and House Majority Caucus Chair Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, said legislation to regulate credit default swaps and other derivatives was a more pressing need. “If we don’t fix this core problem, we’ll have another financial crisis in the future,” Denham said.
Damron said the National Conference of Insurance Legislators, of which he is president-elect, will likely pass model legislation in November to put pressure on Congress in that area.
Pretty heady stuff huh? Gotta read it all before we go on. If you don’t, then what I’m arguing here will make no sense at all. What particularly bothered me was:
“The FDIC assessment is taking 30 or 40 percent of bank profits in some cases,” said Rep. Mike Denham, D-Maysville.
That just ain’t right folks. What you’re seeing is a situation where banks that went the high-risk route and got burned are now being propped up by the banks that stuck with traditional, more conservative business practices.
Now, toss in this part:
Denham and House Majority Caucus Chair Bob Damron, D-Nicholasville, said legislation to regulate credit default swaps and other derivatives was a more pressing need. “If we don’t fix this core problem, we’ll have another financial crisis in the future,” Denham said.
Now, what you’ve got is a situation where, for some reason, the Obama administration is worried about some people at financial institutions making any money, while at the same time taking a huge percent of the profits from smaller banks. All the while ignoring the core problems that people who understand all this stuff have complained about for YEARS. Now, the FDIC is compounding and spreading pain as opposed to remedying the problem. That’s just wrong. By taking substantial amounts of cash flow from the areas that should be doing OK, they are risking the smaller economies that otherwise would be propping up the economy right now. You take X amount of capitol from a bank, that reduces their ability to loan by X times a fraction. Now, IMO, rather than punishing banks that did not cause the problem, they should be punishing the hell out of the banks that did. I want to know that every single penny of excess profits at Bank of America and the like are going back to the FDIC before a single penny is taken from a community bank that is otherwise performing in a prudent, profitable manner.
If the FDIC fails, it will be the end of our culture as we know it. I’d like to know one single person in the is country who does not access credit in some form or another.
In a perfect world, the places that caused the problem would be expected to remedy the problem. As such, the burden would fall more like this:
AK 0.05% AL 0.44% AR 3.64% AZ 2.49% CA 26.81% CO 6.42% CT 0.24% DC 0.15% DE 0.02% FL 7.88% GA 24.95% ID 1.14% IL 1.99% IN 0.03% KS 0.23% LA 0.02% MA 0.18% MD 0.51% MI 2.50% MN 0.34% MO 0.77% MS 0.06% MT 0.08% NC 0.98% NE 0.00% NH 0.01% NJ 0.46% NM 0.06% NV 0.46% NY 0.84% OH 0.22% OK 0.04% OR 1.71% PA 0.20% RI 0.03% SC 0.34% TN 0.15% TX 2.95% UT 4.01% VA 1.27% VT 0.34% WA 4.48% WI 0.10% WV 0.09% WY 0.33%
The beauty of this is it spreads the pain where the pain came from. We’ve done a good job in Kentucky, why should we be expected to bail out California again?
Bottom line is once again the only answer the federal government has it to throw more money at a failing concept. The logic behind the FDIC is solid, but the core is the problem. As is noted here, we’ve got a scapegoat, and we’ve got a misdirect. However, even these people can’t pinpoint the overt underlying problem. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 wrecked the concept of shared responsibility. Therefore, the concept of shared risk no longer applies. So, to keep addressing symptoms is just kinda stupid. If the feds are going to compel financial institutions to make loans that make no financial sense, then the FDIC needs to be more of a broker than an insurance entity. They just need to be the federal E-bay. The problem of course, is no one would buy the garbage in the first place. So, they most likely won’t now either.
Disclaimer here, I own bank stock. That’s 30% out of my pocket. I have the right to bitch about it. I also have the right to demand that before I’m forced to give up another penny of my money, the Community Reinvestment Act be ditched or the FDIC dissolved since it no longer serves a legitimate purpose due to the concept of risk management being perverted by said Act. And, of course, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency serves no fundamental purpose either. Drop it.
Oh, BTW, the FDIC is yet another troubled “public insurance option”. Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Those public options are what’s got this public option in such a mess now. Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and President Obama think health care should be run just like all the other public options.
Prostitution used to be illegal in most of the country. Now it’s “performance art”. Child prostitution used to be a crime, now it’s a deduction. Social activism at its best! We must not let one bad ACORN ruin it for all the others though. My problem is figuring which ACORN is the worst. This one, the one who registered the same guy about 75 times to vote. I’ll have to check and see which carries the worst jail time, child prostitution, tax evasion, voter fraud, or falsifying federal documents. Check back with me later on that.
In the meantime, Barney Frank continues to believe in ACORN’s social activism so much that he’s pressured lawmakers to make sure ACORN gets more federal funding ASAP:
Earlier this month, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-MA, sponsored an amendment to the $140 million Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. The Frank measure allowed organizations being investigated by state or federal authorities on corruption charges to receive federal funds as long as they avoid conviction. Frank argued that his amendment, which was approved by the House, protected the presumption of innocence in federal spending.
But federal ethics rules have long stipulated that either an actual or apparent conflict of interest can put a government employee at risk of prosecution for ethics violations. So, if the Frank amendment becomes law, the federal government will have a double standard, ignoring the presumption of innocence for its employees with apparent conflicts of interest, but extending the presumption to its funding recipients
In other words, just give ACORN their money and don’t fret the small stuff like eliminating conflict of interest rules. It naturally passed Nancy Pelosi’s Democrat culture of corruption with a 240-3 margin. Having heard that ACORN might be facing even more federal charges, Frank has amended the Preservation of the Second Amendment in National Parks and National Wildlife Refuges Act to include $500 million for ACORN. Pelosi has scheduled it to be voted on right now. Harry Reid is certain it will pass the Senate, and Obama has already stated how eager he is to reform forests, the status quo will lead to smaller nuts, so we need a bigger acorn. Town hall meetings are scheduled nationwide to allow the SEIU to rough up anyone who dare question why ACORNs are part of a tree bill. People are being coached nationwide on how to post to their favorite social network something to the effect of “If you think trees shouldn’t be left to die, post this as your status”. Fearing a public backlash of people fearing a government takeover of federal forests, Obama schedules a speech for the entire nation, nay world, where he spells out just how important acorns are to forests and how silly it is for anyone to question why ACORN should therefore not receive $500 million so that your trees won’t die. He tells people not to listen to scare tactics given by people wanting to destroy all of your forests, he won’t let them do that, so you have to trust him only. One man with a dull name bursts out in objection that this is all a lie. He is shouted down by Joe Biden for not following decorum and heckling in unison with the Democrats.
When it’s all said and done, the forest fires in California will still rage out of control while a bunch of activist thugs in Illinois teach welfare recipients how to sneak kidnapped illegal children into the US to be sold into sex slavery while skirting paying any taxes, and your tax money will be paying them to do it. That’s not speculation, that’s already happened.
Sounds completely crazy don’t it? I hope so. For some reason a lot of people don’t.
19
Aug
I love Snopes.com. No telling what you’ll find there. Humor, movies, sports, paranormal, extra-terrestrial, politics, you name it, it’s there. One of today’s stories involve an opinion piece written by Charley Reese in 1985.
Politicians, as I have often said, are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Everything on the Republican contract is a problem created by Congress. Too much bureaucracy? Blame Congress. Too many rules?
Blame Congress. Unjust tax laws? Congress wrote them.
Out-of-control bureaucracy? Congress authorizes everything bureaucracies do. Americans dying in Third World rat holes on stupid U.N. missions? Congress allows it. The annual deficits?
Congress votes for them. The $4 trillion plus debt? Congress created it.
To put it into perspective just remember that 100 percent of the power of the federal government comes from the U.S. Constitution. If it’s not in the Constitution, it’s not authorized.
Then read your Constitution. All 100 percent of the power of the federal government is invested solely in 545 individual human beings. That’s all. Of 260 million Americans, only 545 of them wield 100 percent of the power of the federal government.
That’s 435 members of the U.S. House, 100 senators, one president and nine Supreme Court justices. Anything involving government that is wrong is 100 percent their fault.
I exclude the vice president because constitutionally he has no power except to preside over the Senate and to vote only in the case of a tie. I exclude the Federal Reserve because Congress created it and all its power is power Congress delegated to it and could withdraw anytime it chooses to do so. In fact, all the power exercised by the 3 million or so other federal employees is power delegated from the 545.
All bureaucracies are created by Congress or by executive order of the president. All are financed and staffed by Congress. All enforce laws passed by Congress.
All operate under procedures authorized by Congress. That’s why all complaints and protests should be properly directed at Congress, not at the individual agencies.
You don’t like the IRS? Go see Congress. You think the Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms agency is running amok? Go see Congress.
Congress is the originator of all government problems and is also the only remedy available. That’s why, of course, politicians go to such extraordinary lengths and employ world-class sophistry to make you think they are not responsible. Anytime a congressman pretends to be outraged by something a federal bureaucrat does, he is in fact engaging in one big massive con job. No federal employee can act at all except to enforce laws passed by Congress and to employ procedures authorized by Congress either explicitly or implicitly.
Partisans on both sides like to blame presidents for deficits, but all deficits are congressional deficits. The president may, by custom, recommend a budget, but it carries no legal weight. Only Congress is authorized by the Constitution to authorize and appropriate and to levy taxes. That’s what the federal budget consists of: expenditures authorized, funds appropriated and taxes levied.
Both Democrats and Republicans mislead the public. For 40 years Democrats had majorities and could have at any time balanced the budget if they had chosen to do so. Republicans now have majorities and could, if they choose, pass a balanced budget this year. Every president, Democrat or Republican, could have vetoed appropriations bills that did not make up a balanced budget. Every president could have recommended a balanced budget. None has done either.
We have annual deficits and a huge federal debt because that’s what majorities in Congress and presidents in the White House wanted. We have troops in various Third World rat holes because Congress and the president want them there.
Don’t be conned. Don’t let them escape responsibility. We simply have to sort through 260 million people until we find 545 who will act responsibly.
It has now been updated and is being circulated substituting Nancy Pelosi and President Obama. Big whup.
Charley Reese is an idiot.
I say that because he’s falling into the most common cop-out there is in politics and he’s been around long enough to know better. Blame everyone else but yourself. None of those 545 people are annointed. None of them are born to their position. Not one single person is a demi-god or super-power. Not one came from another planet with divine guidance. Every single one of them asked you to send them there. And once you do, it’s generally for a long time if not for lifetime. The last two Congress’s seniority make-ups looked something like this:
| 110 | 111 | |||
| 50+ | 1 | 0.23% | 1 | 0.23% |
| 40-49 | 2 | 0.45% | 3 | 0.68% |
| 30-39 | 18 | 4.08% | 16 | 3.64% |
| 20-29 | 59 | 13.38% | 47 | 10.71% |
| 10-19 | 183 | 41.50% | 143 | 32.57% |
| 0-9 | 178 | 40.36% | 229 | 52.16% |
| 441 | 439 | |||
| Average | 12.47 | 11.17 |
In the 110th Congress, nearly 60% of the members have been there more than ten years. Once the Obama revolution of 2009 was over, 48% of Congress has been there more than ten years. The average seniority dropped one year on average. Two hundred and ten of those members of Congress have served more than a decade. That’s forty percent of Charley Reese’s 545. And you know what, that’s not even counting the Senate. The Senate’s a little different animal, they are there for six years a shot. Congress gives people a chance to decide if they like their Congress or not every other year. Now, you think I’m being harsh on Charley? It gets even worse. A big part of the Obama “revolution” is the fact that seven members died in office. That took out 105 years of seniority. If they hadn’t died, the numbers for the 111th would have mirrored the 110th. John Dingell, the most senior, is now 83 years old. He has been in office for 54 years. That wouldn’t be so bad in my opinion but his district is Detroit, Michigan. Are those people happy with how things have progressed since 1955? Must be, they keep electing him. Bob Byrd is now 92 years old. He has represented West Virginia since 1959. In 1959, West Virginia had one of the worst economies in the country. Fifty years later, it still is with the fifth highest poverty rate in the country. Are West Virginians happy with that? They must be, they keep electing him.
My opinion is, people just don’t want to spend the time to examine candidates. That folks, is laziness. That is why most of the Congressmen, the Senators, and sometimes the President, don’t have to worry so much about what you think. The Democrat Party ran against the 109th Congress and the Republicans who controlled it purely on the irresponsible spending, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, out of control budgets, an economy that wasn’t up to their expectations, and corruption. Since that group took over, they’re throwing money wildly at everyone, still fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, budgets that are unfathomable, a collapsing economy, and several corruption scandals.
And you people keep voting the same ones back in office.
And Charley blames them.
If the public forfeits its right to choose, that’s not Congress’s fault. And, that is what allows all of Charley’s gripes to occur. Power corrupts when it’s absolute. In our case, it’s absolute through laziness.
That’s the conclusion Congressional Budget Office director Doug Elmendorf told Congress Friday:
Nancy Pelosi was so excited to hear this, she went on the offensive against the town hall disruptors:
People must be allowed to learn the facts. … Reform will also mean higher-quality care by promoting preventive care so health problems can be addressed before they become crises. This, too, will save money.
Now, I got a problem with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, obviously. They lie a lot. ( Send that to The White House snitch line. ) In this case, Nancy once again cited stuff with nothing to support it. And, this is the stuff she’s going to punch back with twice as hard. You can’t argue with her, she lives in her own dimension.
Now, the problem I have is this issue has been hijacked by both sides. Both Nancy and Doug are correct to some degree. As things stand now, and as they stand with what I’ve read about health care reform, Doug is correct, Nancy is lying. BUT, the issue I have is that Doug is only correct if there is no real reform. So far, Obama and the Dems are basically just wanting to throw more money into the system and expand coverage. That’s not reform. That’s just making it bigger. Since every little teeny tiny claim is processed no differently than a catastrophic illness, the logic of the CBO is that the labor in processing all the millions of wellness visits by millions of different people will greatly outweigh simply waiting for a catastrophic illness and fixing it among the much smaller percentage of people who will contract a curable disease. He’s totally correct in that assumption.
Now, if they follow my reforms, health clinics would handle the wellness visits and checkups. There would be no claims. As such, Nancy’s vision would be correct. If the wellness visits don’t cost anything, then they are not a drag on the system. THEN, wellness programs would reduce the expenses of a catastrophic illnesses substantially.
But, until Nancy is willing to actually reform health care and not simply socialize health insurance, she is lying.
13
Jul
Today we’ll start one of the most annoying processes in politics I can think of. Nominating a Supreme Court justice will bring us a week of guaranteed partisan political bickering and posturing. No ifs, ands, or butts. Guaranteed.
Now, I don’t have that much of an issue with that aspect of it. I just won’t watch any of it. But, I do have a problem when people forget the first principal of law.
Now, there is a reason that statue represents the fairness of the legal system. When a person walks into court or laws are determined for our entire society, it should make no difference whether a person is white, black, Latin, Asian, mixed, albino, Canuck, short, fat, too tall, or whatever. The law is the law. Period. The law applies to everyone equally. The law is not open to interpretation. When a judge decides it’s open to their own personal interpretation, then bias becomes an issue. Period. Whether intentional or not, a person’s opinions are biased on any subject. Outside of the legal system, that’s called opinion. When one forms an opinion, they have created a bias regarding that opinion. At that point, their judgment is no longer blind. At that point, whatever that opinion is carries the weight of the law. At that point, it is no longer possible to render a fair decision no matter how hard a person tries. That’s why I like very dull, very unimaginative judges. Just take the rules given to them and apply it. How simple can it be?
That however, almost never happens. People are people and they form opinions. Some people try to seperate their opinions from the legal practice, others don’t. I prefer the ones that at least try.
Now, that’s my underlying philosophy. The reason I go to all that trouble is beacuse in the case of confirming Sonia Sotomayor, if a person objects to any aspect of this woman, they’re immediately being put in the position of being an anti-Latina bigot. I’m not. I could care less what her background is. When the nominee renders a decisision, I want whoever it is reading what the laws are and applying them. I don’t want them thinking they are smarter than the law, more special than the law, or, can make that law a little better because of their own personal insight. Sonia Sotomayor just doesn’t fit that philosophy. She obviously feels her being both a Latina and a woman give her special insight that does not apply to anyone else. That’s just bias. As a white male. I would be concerned she would show a preferance to women and minorities. That’s not fair. As such, with her history, if a case conerning my gender or ethnicity made it to the Supreme Court based solely on her vote, I’d ask for her to be recused when rendering a decision due to her obvious bias.
Additionally, this is getting pretty pathetic. Not only has she illustrated repeated examples of bias, but not only does it not bother some legislators, they think it’s great:
“I take enormous pride as a woman in voting for her,” – Diane Feinstein.
Feinstein then states as fact that Sotomayor has a lot of experience. Feinstein won’t discuss the experience. She will however, discuss the fact she’s a woman.
Of course I’m pleased that we will have another woman on the court. I do think it’s important not to just have one. Our nearest neighbor Canada also has a court of nine members and in Canada there’s a woman chief justice and there are four women all told… About half of all law graduates today are women, and we have a tremendous number of qualified women in the country who are serving as lawyers and they ought to be represented on the Court. – Sandra Day O-Connor
Once again, the only issue that matters is that she’s a woman. No discussion on her legal opinions.
The Senate’s top Democrat praised federal judge Sonia Sotomayor Tuesday as an extraordinarily well-qualified Supreme Court nominee whose background as an “underdog” appeals to Americans.
The only discussion about her legal decisions is the fact she attended Princeton and Yale. All of the above basically dismissed Sotomayor’s speech that has drawn a lot of attention:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
None of them want to discuss the reverse discrimination case involving white males. It was a case in which both the judge in the lower court, and the Supreme Court, would side with the victims of discrimination. Being as everyone else thought she was wrong in that decision, it could be argued very easily that her personal opinion on the matter outweighed her concern for blind justice. And, if this were a situation where the law was complicated or obtuse, it would be different. Anthony Kennedy, in the vote to over-rule Sotomayor’s decision, cited this as support for his decision:
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy cited a violation of Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination on the basis of race, gender or religion.
More specifically:
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 USC 2000e, makes it unlawful for an employer to hire or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his/her compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of an individual’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin. This covers hiring, firing, promotions and all workplace conduct.
“I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion than a minority woman who hasn’t lived that life.”
Barack Obama made a huge deal out of ending partisanship in DC.
He then pretty much slammed the door shut once he was elected. Democrats got all the positions of power. When Nancy Pelosi moved to squelch any chance of open, public debate on any issue, Obama was dutifully silent.
Yesterday we got a perfect example of just how partisan things are in DC under Obama’s spirit of bipartisanship. Obama had this opinion on the U.S. Department of Homeland Securitys Intercity Bus Security Grant Program:
“the awards are not based on risk assessment, and the homeland security investments in intercity bus security should be evaluated in the context of the risks faced and relative benefits to be gained.”
That opinion caused either one of two events to occur:
- The super-powerful American Bus Association sprung to action , rallying the voters to apply pressure all over the country. Feeling the pressure from disgruntled inter-city bus riders, Senators all over the country, including states that have no inter-city buses, caved under the pressure, and threw Obama under the inter-city bus and voted to keep the funding in place.
- OR, the fact that the amendment to remove the funding from appropriations was submitted by a Republican was too much to bear for the highly charged partisan Democrats and they couldn’t support it for that reason alone. Again, throwing Obama under the inter-city bus for no particular reason other than they couldn’t vote with a Republican.
Bottom line, Obama’s recommendation failed 51-47. It got so bad that among those voting against the amendment Obama recommended were Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico, Harry Reid of Nevada ( of course ), Max Baucus and Jon Tester of Montana, Thomas Harkin of Iowa, both Daniel Akaka and Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Mark Begich of Alaska. Can anyone tell me why someone from Hawaii would feel they know more about urban bus security than the President of the United States of America? Senators with obviously no dog in this race felt compelled to go against the President, and most ranking member of their party, rather than support a Republican. The world’s not going to come crumbling down because we, according to Obama, are wasting another six million dollars. But, don’t expect any miracles from this leader. When push comes to shove, Obama disappears.
19
May
President Obama recently sent out a very clear message to companies receiving bailout money:
…”You can’t go take a trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on the taxpayer’s dime”
This aggravated the governor of Nevada quite a bit.
The Las Vegas Convention and Visitors Authority reports over 400 conventions and business meetings scheduled to take place in Las Vegas recently have cancelled, translating into 111,800 guests and 250,000 “room-nights,” according to a statement from Gibbons. The cancelled events cost the Las Vegas economy over $100 million, not including gaming revenue, the governor said.
In an effort to get Obama to undo the damage done, Governor Jim Gibbons wanted to sit down and talk to Obama when Obama was in Nevada next week. Obama will be there for a fundrasier for Harry Reid. Now, this ain’t your average fundraiser. It will feature Cheryl Crow and Bette Midler. If you want to go, tickets are from $50 to $250. All of which will go to Harry Reid. And, it will be held at Caesars Palace. Obama will fly there from DC on Air Force One. Here is a pretty cool slide show of what his security detail looks like while he’s there. It’s a pretty big bunch. I imagine they get paid pretty well too.
And, I imagine, most all of it will be on the taxpayer’s dime.
A lot has been made over the collapse of Fannie Mae. For a while, peeps kept insisting it was apparently a short term blip and that a huge infusion of cash would apparently make everything good. Other peeps, like me and a few others, have argued that unless they change the rules and allow Fannie Mae to operate on traditional lending practices, it will never survive. Well, that was nearly five years ago when the alarms started going up:
That started a path of two very divergent political careers that met in the 2008 Presidential Election. You had John McCain who said Fannie Mae was broken, and Barack Obama who said John McCain basically had no right to criticize Fannie Mae. In 2005, it became obvious Fannie Mae was in trouble as federal regulators basically took over Fannie Mae under accusations they were cooking the books to keep it solvent. Daniel Mudd took over in 2005. This is what he had to say during his introduction:
Take a real close look at who’s in the back row. Now, according to Mudd, he answered to, get this, the Congressional Black Caucus. Subsequently, from that point forward, Fannie Mae would not only pay Mudd $80 MILLION to steer it from federal oversight into conservatorship, but they donated lavishly to political candidates. The top recipients of the 2005 cycle included:
Kerry, John (D-MA) Senate $30,000
Daschle, Tom (D-SD) Senate $16,499
Bush, George W (R) Pres $12,745
Carper, Tom (D-DE) Senate $4,889
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) Senate $4,500
Frank, Barney (D-MA) House $4,250
Barney Frank would become Fannie Mae’s staunchest defender as things got messy. In the 2006 funding cycle, their focus shifted:
Allen, George (R-VA) Senate $16,450
Davis, Tom (R-VA) House $14,200
DeWine, Mike (R-OH) Senate $12,450
Burns, Conrad (R-MT) Senate $12,000
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) Senate $11,000
Pryce, Deborah (R-OH) House $10,500
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) House $10,000
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) House $10,000
Stabenow, Debbie (D-MI) Senate $10,000
Then, in 2008, after regulators had seized Fannie Mae, and Fannie Mae was getting BILLIONS in TARP funds, their political donations, yes you heard that right, shifted once again:
Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $41,900
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) Senate $25,500
Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) Senate $19,100
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) House $11,500
Bean, Melissa (D-IL) House $11,249
McCain, John (R-AZ) Senate $10,250
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) Senate $9,000
Bennett, Robert F (R-UT) Senate $8,999
Davis, Tom (R-VA) House $8,999
Boehner, John (R-OH) House $8,000
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) House $7,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) Senate $7,500
As the financial crisis moved from the quasi-governmental sector into the private sector, the focus of the Obama administration jumped all over the private sector. Talk immediately focused on greedy CEO’s makign too much money, banks making bad loans, etc. etc. etc. According to Obama, it’s all bad in the private sector. Citibank, Wells Fargo, all bad. But, no one was saying a word about the bank that was donating to Obama. Fannie Mae suddenly got swept under the rug.
Well, Obama’s poster child of how banks should be managed is back in the news:
Fannie Mae seeks $19 billion aid; uncertain about long-term financial sustainability
According to Fannie Mae’s own people, it may NEVER be financially viable again. In other words, it will be a permanent liability to the taxpayors. In bigger terms, it will be what they envisioned in 1977, with the Community Reinvestment Act. An entitlement program to help “certain” sectors of the US populatuion buy homes they otherwise could not afford with the tax money of those that can. And, according to the previous director of Fannie Mae, that would be whoever the Congressional Black Caucus decides.
And, I doubt it will change any time soon. Even though Fannie Mae is forecast to lose BILLIONS every year for the foreseeable future, they are STILL donating to political candidates:
Putnam, Adam H (R-FL) $10,000
Pelosi, Nancy (D-CA) $10,000
Neugebauer, Randy (R-TX) $10,000
Miller, Gary (R-CA) $10,000
Enzi, Mike (R-WY) $10,000
Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL) $10,000
Cornyn, John (R-TX) $10,000
Collins, Susan M (R-ME) $10,000
Coleman, Norm (R-MN) $10,000
Chambliss, Saxby (R-GA) $10,000
Cantor, Eric (R-VA) $10,000
Brown, Sherrod (D-OH) $10,000
Boehner, John (R-OH) $10,000
Blunt, Roy (R-MO) $10,000
Bean, Melissa (D-IL) $10,000
Bachus, Spencer (R-AL) $10,000
Alexander, Lamar (R-TN) $10,000
Mahoney, Tim (D-FL) $9,500
Roberts, Pat (R-KS) $9,000
Klein, Ron (D-FL) $9,000
Clyburn, James E (D-SC) $9,000
Hoyer, Steny H (D-MD) $8,500
Biggert, Judy (R-IL) $8,500
Reid, Harry (D-NV) $8,000
Tiberi, Patrick J (R-OH) $7,500
Scott, David (D-GA) $7,500
Roskam, Peter (R-IL) $7,500
Reed, Jack (D-RI) $7,500
Murray, Patty (D-WA) $7,500
Kanjorski, Paul E (D-PA) $7,500
Davis, Geoff (R-KY) $7,500
Barrasso, John A (R-WY) $7,500
Marchant, Kenny Ewell (R-TX) $7,000
Gerlach, Jim (R-PA) $7,000
Crowley, Joseph (D-NY) $7,000
Lynch, Stephen F (D-MA) $6,500
Landrieu, Mary L (D-LA) $6,500
Wilson, Charlie (D-OH) $6,000
Van Hollen, Chris (D-MD) $6,000
Frank, Barney (D-MA) $6,000
Barrett, Gresham (R-SC) $6,000
Velazquez, Nydia M (D-NY) $5,500
Pryor, Mark (D-AR) $5,500
Meeks, Gregory W (D-NY) $5,500
Maloney, Carolyn B (D-NY) $5,500
LaTourette, Steven C (R-OH) $5,500
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-FL) $5,500
Baca, Joe (D-CA) $5,500
Smith, Gordon H (R-OR) $5,000
Rockefeller, Jay (D-WV) $5,000
Risch, James E (R-ID) $5,000
Reynolds, Tom (R-NY) $5,000
Rangel, Charles B (D-NY) $5,000
Pryce, Deborah (R-OH) $5,000
Nunes, Devin Gerald (R-CA) $5,000
McHenry, Patrick (R-NC) $5,000
McCrery, Jim (R-LA) $5,000
Matheson, Jim (D-UT) $5,000
Marshall, Jim (D-GA) $5,000
Hill, Baron (D-IN) $5,000
Heller, Dean (R-NV) $5,000
Foster, Bill (D-IL) $5,000
English, Phil (R-PA) $5,000
Durbin, Dick (D-IL) $5,000
Domenici, Pete V (R-NM) $5,000
Dodd, Chris (D-CT) $5,000
Childers, Travis W (D-MS) $5,000
Casey, Bob (D-PA) $5,000
Capito, Shelley Moore (R-WV) $5,000
Bond, Christopher S (Kit) (R-MO) $5,000
Moore, Dennis (D-KS) $4,500
Cazayoux, Donald J (D-LA) $4,500
Baucus, Max (D-MT) $4,500
Spratt, John M Jr (D-SC) $4,000
Miller, Brad (D-NC) $4,000
Melancon, Charles J (D-LA) $4,000
McConnell, Mitch (R-KY) $4,000
Johnson, Tim (D-SD) $4,000
Hodes, Paul W (D-NH) $4,000
Dorgan, Byron L (D-ND) $4,000
Castle, Michael N (R-DE) $4,000
Carson, Andre (D-IN) $4,000
Wexler, Robert (D-FL) $3,500
Tester, Jon (D-MT) $3,500
Slaughter, Louise M (D-NY) $3,500
Larson, John B (D-CT) $3,500
Isakson, Johnny (R-GA) $3,500
Donnelly, Joe (D-IN) $3,500
Davis, Lincoln (D-TN) $3,500
Boren, Dan (D-OK) $3,500
Bennett, Robert F (R-UT) $3,500
Wynn, Albert R (D-MD) $3,000
Watt, Melvin L (D-NC) $3,000
Solis, Hilda L (D-CA) $3,000
Sherman, Brad (D-CA) $3,000
Renzi, Rick (R-AZ) $3,000
Murphy, Patrick J (D-PA) $3,000
Murphy, Chris (D-CT) $3,000
Moore, Gwen (D-WI) $3,000
Knollenberg, Joe (R-MI) $3,000
Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) $3,000
Hinojosa, Ruben (D-TX) $3,000
Herseth Sandlin, Stephanie (D-SD) $3,000
Becerra, Xavier (D-CA) $3,000
Jones, Stephanie Tubbs (D-OH) $2,750
Udall, Mark (D-CO) $2,500
Sessions, Pete (R-TX) $2,500
Schultz, Debbie Wasserman (D-FL) $2,500
McCarthy, Carolyn (D-NY) $2,500
Lewis, John (D-GA) $2,500
Leahy, Patrick (D-VT) $2,500
Gillmor, Paul E (R-OH) $2,500
Fossella, Vito (R-NY) $2,500
Ellison, Keith (D-MN) $2,500
Dingell, John D (D-MI) $2,500
Crapo, Mike (R-ID) $2,500
Bunning, Jim (R-KY) $2,500
Sires, Albio (D-NJ) $2,000
Shays, Christopher (R-CT) $2,000
Serrano, Jose E (D-NY) $2,000
Schwartz, Allyson (D-PA) $2,000
Sanchez, Loretta (D-CA) $2,000
Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D-CA) $2,000
Rogers, Mike (R-MI) $2,000
Rodriguez, Ciro D (D-TX) $2,000
Pomeroy, Earl (D-ND) $2,000
Pastor, Ed (D-AZ) $2,000
Napolitano, Grace (D-CA) $2,000
McCotter, Thad (R-MI) $2,000
McCarthy, Kevin (R-CA) $2,000
Kilpatrick, Carolyn Cheeks (D-MI) $2,000
Kerry, John (D-MA) $2,000
Graves, Sam (R-MO) $2,000
Grassley, Chuck (R-IA) $2,000
Gonzalez, Charlie A (D-TX) $2,000
Feeney, Tom (R-FL) $2,000
Drake, Thelma (R-VA) $2,000
DeGette, Diana (D-CO) $2,000
Cleaver, Emanuel (D-MO) $2,000
Cardoza, Dennis (D-CA) $2,000
Boxer, Barbara (D-CA) $2,000
Berkley, Shelley (D-NV) $2,000
Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) $2,000
Ackerman, Gary (D-NY) $2,000
Ryan, Paul (R-WI) $1,500
Menendez, Robert (D-NJ) $1,500
Hooley, Darlene (D-OR) $1,500
Boyd, Allen (D-FL) $1,500
Wolf, Frank R (R-VA) $1,000
Whitfield, Ed (R-KY) $1,000
Webb, James (D-VA) $1,000
Waters, Maxine (D-CA) $1,000
Thune, John (R-SD) $1,000
Thompson, Bennie G (D-MS) $1,000
Tauscher, Ellen (D-CA) $1,000
Space, Zachary T (D-OH) $1,000
Smith, Adam (D-WA) $1,000
Sanchez, Linda (D-CA) $1,000
Salazar, John (D-CO) $1,000
Ross, Mike (D-AR) $1,000
Reyes, Silvestre (D-TX) $1,000
Pearce, Steve (R-NM) $1,000
Olver, John W (D-MA) $1,000
Nelson, Ben (D-NE) $1,000
Myrick, Sue (R-NC) $1,000
Mikulski, Barbara A (D-MD) $1,000
Michaud, Mike (D-ME) $1,000
McNerney, Jerry (D-CA) $1,000
Martinez, Mel (R-FL) $1,000
Levin, Carl (D-MI) $1,000
Lee, Barbara (D-CA) $1,000
Latham, Tom (R-IA) $1,000
Klobuchar, Amy (D-MN) $1,000
Keller, Ric (R-FL) $1,000
Grijalva, Raul M (D-AZ) $1,000
Green, Al (D-TX) $1,000
Gordon, Bart (D-TN) $1,000
Ellsworth, Brad (D-IN) $1,000
Davis, Tom (R-VA) $1,000
Davis, Artur (D-AL) $1,000
Cuellar, Henry (D-TX) $1,000
Corker, Bob (R-TN) $1,000
Cole, Tom (R-OK) $1,000
Clay, William L Jr (D-MO) $1,000
Carney, Chris (D-PA) $1,000
Carnahan, Russ (D-MO) $1,000
Capuano, Michael E (D-MA) $1,000
Butterfield, G K (D-NC) $1,000
Burr, Richard (R-NC) $1,000
Tiahrt, Todd (R-KS) $500
Ortiz, Solomon P (D-TX) $500
Baker, Richard (R-LA) $500
Harkin, Tom (D-IA) $400
And of course, those candidates are more than willing to take it for the most part.
Now, people with half a brain would pretty much figure out that if something they were doing that was supposed to make them money instead cost them a LOT of money, they’d quit doing it real fast. People with just a little more of a brain would look at who WAS making money with it and do it the same way. Then, there are community activists and socialists.
Expect to shell out another $19,000,000,000 real quick so Nancy, Harry, Barack, and the Congressional Black Caucus can feel safe in that Fannie Mae will continue supporting their causes. And, given who’s running it, the Congressional Black Caucus, expect it to continue making bad loans to people who should never have gotten one in the first place and then trashing the private sector for doing what it is the Community Reinvestment Act forced them to do. But, under no circumstances expect anything to be done about the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act.
