July 16, 2009
Something both sides can agree on: Let the earmarking begin!
As the Wall Street Journal reports, the military budget is the perfect opportunity for earmarking for members on both sides of the aisle:
WASHINGTON — Despite cries for reform, the earmark process is alive and well in Congress.
As lawmakers write the military budget for fiscal-year 2010, every member on the House defense-appropriations subcommittee has requested funds for contractors and other organizations with employees who have donated money to their campaigns.
The 18 members of the subcommittee are seeking a total of about $2 billion on behalf of such companies, universities and nonprofit groups, according to a review of campaign-finance data and nearly 400 earmark requests in the 2010 defense-spending bill by the nonpartisan Taxpayers for Common Sense.
Employees of those entities donated nearly $1 million to the 11 Democrats and seven Republicans since the beginning of 2007.
In the blue corner:
Chair: John P. Murtha (PA)
Norman D. Dicks (WA)
Peter J. Visclosky (IN)
James P. Moran (VA)
Marcy Kaptur (OH)
Allen Boyd (FL)
Steven R. Rothman (NJ)
Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA)
Maurice D. Hinchey (NY)
Carolyn C. Kilpratrick (MI)
David R. Obey (WI), Ex Officio
And in the Red corner:
Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (NJ)
Todd Tiahrt (KS)
Jack Kingston (GA)
Kay Granger (TX)
Harold Rogers (KY)
Jerry Lewis (CA), Ex Officio
I guess they’re still working toward bipartisanship on The Hill. Good for them! They are finally finding common ground: screwing us out of our tax dollars to buy votes in the next election. Awesome! Way to screw over America! I think that’s exactly what we elected you to do.
Comments (0)
So, this is why they don’t want the public to read the bills!
According to an article on IBDEditorials.com the health care bill outlaws private insurance:
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
But, as Instapundit reports:
UPDATE: Reader Patrick Ying disagrees:
Investor’s Business Daily did not continue to read the bill to page 19. “Individual health insurance coverage that is not grandfathered health insurance coverage under subsection (a) may only be offered on or after the first day of Y1 as an Exchange-participating health benefits plan. ” It does not outlaw individual private coverage – you can still buy the plan on the Exchange where they will compete with the public option, not be replaced by it. The advantage of the Exchange, is that the coverage no longer has one of the problems of individual coverage – skyrocketing premiums should you become ill.
Hmm. We should have more time for all this stuff to be sorted out. Instead they’re ramming it through as quickly as possible. That makes me suspicious.
Now, I don’t know what the reality is here, but I’m going with this bill is too large for them to pass it before it is fully read and every paragraph scrutinized for it’s real meaning. I mean, we’re only into the first 20 pages here and there’s already a problem.
We all understand the urgency, don’t we? They have to pass this bill before anyone realizes what is in it or it won’t get passed at all. They know it and we know it.
And, note that the name of this bill is “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act 2009.” Are they laughing when they write this stuff? From what we have seen so far, this bill will result in our choices in health care being taken away. The joke is on us if we allow them to get away with this!
For more on this: theblogprof, QandO, Maggie’s Farm, and THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS.
(H/T: Memeorandum)
Comments (0)July 14, 2009
Brooklyn, 3; The Bronx, 0!
Although Big Sexy (AKA Jason Mattera for those unfamiliar with the history) has just informed me that he’ll be blowing me off for my 28th Birthday Bash Kickoff Weekend, he did tip me off to this piece he wrote about the fight he’s picking with Sotomayor. It’s the Bronx vs. Brooklyn, and Brooklyn is going for the win:
You see, I’m perfectly comfortable mocking the notion that Sotomayor is somehow better qualified for the Supreme Court because of her early days in The Bronx. For the life of me, I don’t see how living in public housing enhances one’s understanding of the Constitution. As a kid in NYC, I remember the crackheads, the hookers, the gang-bangers, the robberies, etc. Sure, it gives me interesting stories to tell over drinks, but would it heighten my ability to uphold the integrity of the United States Constitution? I’m gonna say no.
In reality, not only is the Constitution color blind (which Sotomayor is not), it is also ghetto blind. Judge Sotomayor’s story of “overcoming obstacles” is admirable, but irrelevant. This isn’t Oprah. It’s the Supreme Court.
But since Obama’s in the business of nominating people who have storybook narratives, may I suggest he give Ellen DeGeneres a chance to fill the next vacancy? She’s got one hell of a personal story (and she’s also gay—a twofer people!).
You should check out the whole thing, posted by Ed Morrisey over at HotAir.
I don’t know how much “shanking” goes on in the ‘hood. I mean, I didn’t grow up in The Bronx or Brooklyn, but I did spend some time on the mean streets of BPT (that’s Bridgeport, CT…yeah, I was reppin’ the Port back in the day. Yo, wassup?). I think shanking is more of a jail thing. The ‘hood is all about drive-bys and beat downs. And, drinking 40 oz. of Olde English and smoking Newports. But, I’m getting away from the point.
The point is, being a self-proclaimed affirmative action baby who grew up in the projects does not qualify her to sit on the Supreme Court (Why not just nominate Jay Z? I mean, he’s got 99 problems but a b**** ain’t one!). Her job will be to enforce the Constitution. The only thing she seems willing to enforce are unconstitutional racial quotas and discrimination against whites. America just ain’t down wit that, homes!
Admitting that she’s an affirmative action baby negates all that people claim does qualify her because she’s already admitted she got into the schools she got into and made her way in life by having things handed to her based on her gender and race. That’s what affirmative action does. It rewards protected classes with benefits at the expense of the unprotected classes (read: white males) based on their status as a member of that protected class, rather than their qualifications or accomplishments (kind of like she wanted to do with those fire fighters up in CT).
Unfortunately, since I don’t think she is going to have a ”meltdown,” she is more than likely to be confirmed. The only thing now is to see how many Republicans, in their quest to appear bipartisan and get adoring coverage from the MSM, slap their constituents in the face by voting to confirm her.
Comments (0)July 10, 2009
Hey Michelle, What the hell are you wearing?
Michelle Obama has been hailed in the press as some sort of Fashionista. I just don’t see it. Admittedly, I didn’t attend the Fashion Institute of Technology in New York for my undergraduate or graduate studies, but this “outfit” looks dumb. She looks she got dressed to be married at a funeral. The Pope might be old, but he isn’t dead, yet!
Comments (3)July 9, 2009
Shocker of the Day: Sotomayor may have overstepped her bounds!
As the Washington Post reports, Sotomayor pushed the limits of the traditional role of an appellate court judge:
Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s opinions show support for the rights of criminal defendants and suspects, skepticism of corporations, andsympathy for plaintiffs alleging discrimination, an analysis of her record by The Washington Post found. And she has delivered those rulings with a level of detail considered unusual for an appellate judge.
During nearly 11 years on the federal appeals court in New York, Sotomayor has made herself an expert on subjects ranging from the intricacies of automobile mechanisms to the homicide risks posed by the city’s population density. Her writings have often offered a granular analysis of every piece of evidence in criminal trials, and sometimes read as if she were retrying cases from her chambers.
Legal experts said Sotomayor’s rulings fall within the mainstream of those by Democratic-appointed judges. But some were critical of her style, saying it comes close to overstepping the traditional role of appellate judges, who give considerable deference to the judges and juries that observe testimony and are considered the primary finders of fact.
“It seems an odd use of judicial time, given the very heavy caseload in the 2nd Circuit, to spend endless hours delving into the minutiae of the record,” said Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor and an authority on federal courts.
Someone once asked me why I was against Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination. Let me point you to the opening paragraph. Things I don’t look for in a judge: sympathizing with the criminals rather than the victims, anti-capitalism tendencies, and inherent sympathy for alleged victims of racism.
Beyondthat, what did they expect to find in this woman’s record? She openly admitted, with a laugh, they judges should be legislating from the bench. Of course she was practically retrying every case in her own mind and basing her rulings on that. Activist judges is how the Democrats roll. And, unfortunately, she’ll be sitting on the highest court in the land in a very short period of time. Any politician who votes to confirm her will be added to my list of members who need to be voted out of office.
In other news–let’s look for that silver lining–at least we might finally have someone in Washington willing to read through something. If our elected officials would examine every piece of legislation like Sotomayor apparently did for every piece of evidence, perhaps our country would be in a better place.
Comments (0)
Read an entire bill before voting? That’s hilarious!
Apparently, the idea of our elected representatives actually reading a bill in its entirety is so absurd as to be laughable to those same elected representatives:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill before voting on it.
“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.
Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.
In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.
“Members clearly–and staff and review boards, they read them in their entirety. They go over it with members, and members read substantial portions of the bill themselves, but the issue is–I don’t know who signed this (pledge), but frankly the opposition has been very vociferous, not of the verbiage and bill, but on the concept that it incorporates,” Hoyer said.
Our representatives are laughing right in our faces. They are refusing to do their jobs, voting on bills they haven’t even read, and destroying our country. If the bills being proposed are too large for them to read they should write shorter bills. If they won’t shorten them, they should allow more time for members of Congress to read them.
If they aren’t reading the entire bill, they can’t possibly grasp the entire bill and all of its implications for our country. Think about it. These politicians have forgotten who their bosses are: WE THE PEOPLE. They are laughing in our faces while they make up excuses refusing to do their jobs.
We didn’t elect their staffs to read these bills for them and give them a short summary. We elected these politicians to represent us. How can they truly represent us if they don’t even know what the heck they are voting on? That’s like if I made a recommendation to my boss without doing any background research. The recommendation would be garbage because I wouldn’t know what I was talking about.
These politicians don’t know what they’re talking about. They prance around acting like their experts and jamming one America-killing bill after another down our throats, even while we protest them. They laugh at us for asking them to at least read the bill before voting on it and they won’t even let us see the bill before they vote on it. This is disgusting.
Their flagrant misuse of their power coupled with their flamboyant abuse of their constituents is sickening. They think they can do whatever they want and get away with it. This is insulting to every American. In what other circumstance could you imagine an employee laughing at a boss’s request for them to do their job (that they are getting pretty well paid for, and let’s not get into all of the perks!)? Try laughing at your boss the next time he asks you to do something. You’ll be lucky if you still have a job.
And therein lies the problem. Members of Congress, especially those who have been there since God created man (seriously, don’t any of these people ever want to retire and just enjoy old age?), aren’t scared of losing their jobs. They don’t consider the American people to be their boss. They think they are invincible. It is our duty as Americans to remind them they are not.
Steny Hoyer is the House Majority Leader. He thinks he can do what he wants, say what he wants, and laugh in the face of the American people without consequence. I am calling on the people of Maryland to vote this one out at the first chance they get.
(H/T: Michelle Malkin)
Comments (0)
Health Care Reform = Subsidizing Abortion
Time magazine reports how health care reform could lead to your tax dollars paying for or subsidizing abortion:
If an explicit ban on abortion coverage were imposed, say sources involved in writing the legislation on Capitol Hill, it could have much further-reaching implications than the Hyde Amendment ever did. It could, in fact, have the effect of denying abortion coverage to women who now receive it under their private insurance plans. Nearly 90% of insurers cover abortion procedures, according to a 2002 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization whose statistics are relied upon by both sides of the abortion debate.
Under the legislation being worked on by three committees in the House, Americans earning up to 400% of the poverty level — $43,000 for an individual; $88,000 for a family of four — would be eligible for government subsidies to help them purchase coverage. But if the antiabortion legislators get their way, those subsidies would have a big string attached; they could not be used to purchase a policy that has abortion coverage. For many women, that would mean giving up a benefit they now have under their private insurance policies. And it would raise all sorts of other questions if insurers were allowed to discriminate among their customers based on whether or not they are using federal dollars to pay for their policies.
As someone who is vehemently opposed to the slaughtering of the unborn, I am equally opposed and outraged that my government would steal money from me in order to hand it to some woman so that she can slaughter her unborn child.
For these women who would be “giving up a benefit,” there are a couple of options. Option A: don’t take government subsidies. If you’re making $43,000 a year, you should be able to cover your own health insurance. I covered my own health insurance when I made much less than that and was consumed with student debt. Prioritize!
Option B: Don’t get pregnant. I know that this is a revolutionary idea. Fortunately, in this day and age, there are so many birth control options that there really is no reason for any woman to end up pregnant accidentally.
Option C: In the event you do get pregnant, because you are too retarded to swallow a pill and tell your man to put on a condom, bring the baby to term. At this time you have options, like raising the child that you brought into this world or giving it up for adoption. Why should your child die because of your carelessness?
As the article reported, the current legislation does not address the abortion issue at all. This can only lead to trouble. The first thing you learn in contract law is put everything in writing, no matter how obvious it seems. If they don’t explicitly state federal funds for this health care “reform” are not to be used to procure abortions, then you can bet they will be used to procure abortions.
I know the government enjoys buying votes with my money. I understand that our government likes to reward the irresponsible by punishing the responsible. How far are they willing to take this? Any politician who supports a bill that authorizes the use of my tax dollars to cover the costs of abortion for some woman who couldn’t keep her legs closed or use birth control, needs to be voted out of office, immediately. Let me make this clear: I do not want my money to pay for the killing of the unborn. And, I’m sure I don’t stand alone on this one.
Comments (1)