Tag Archives: Congress

Posted on by

sign the petition to tell millionaire jane harman to pay for the special election she created

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/janeharman

Former Representative Jane Harman was the second-wealthiest member of the United States Congress, with a fortune estimated at nearly $300 million. And yet she served only 33 days of a 730 day commitment after winning re-election in November 2010.

Now, California voters will be forced to foot the bill for a special election – at a price tag in the millions of dollars. She hasn’t been upfront about when she started looking for a new job and it seems unlikely she didn’t know she’d be leaving Congress before the election.

Why should Californians pay for her cavalier attitude towards public service?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

barbara boxer has spent 28 years in washington representing radical ideas

United States Senator Barbara Boxer — she insists on being called by the full title — not only doesn’t work with Republicans in Washington, she doesn’t work very well with members of her own Democratic Party.  Unlike our other U.S. Senator, Diane Feinstein, Boxer consistently advocates for radical views and fringe issues.  Boxer is antagonistic towards California’s business community, votes exactly the way the unions instruct her, rarely meets with people and groups she disagrees with and is known for her grand ego and mean-spirited temper.  Boxer has spent 28 years in Washington and is considered by many to be the consummate self-serving politician insulated from everyday people.  If you think Washington, DC, is broken, Barbara Boxer’s radical tenure is one of the main reasons. 

Boxer has for years blocked oil drilling on land and in shallow waters.  It was Boxer who helped lead the effort to push oil drilling into deep waters — so far out that it was next to impossible to stop wells from leaking or do necessary repairs in the ocean.  But for Boxer, as long as her radical environmentalist friends couldn’t actually see the drills then she was ok with drilling.  Boxer’s policy wasn’t based on philosophical beliefs or actual concerns for the environment; she just wanted it out of sight.  Sadly, we saw the repercussions of Boxer’s radical drilling views during the BP Gulf Coast oil disaster when even the government couldn’t make the necessary repairs to the oil rig because of the depth of the ocean waters it was in. 

Boxer has also not just been pro-choice but has worked to make abortions federally funded.  Boxer has advocated the use of tax dollars to support women who want their abortions paid for by others.  Boxer hasn’t just wanted healthcare reform to better serve those that get sick and can’t pay for healthcare, she has advocated and worked hard for a public option to replace our current system.  Boxer has pushed for a federally run healthcare system similar to how the federal government runs the post office — federal control with local service centers.  Boxer also continues to believe in an economic plan that is based around more federal spending and higher taxes to pay for the spending.  Boxer is advocating for even more stimulus money than the $900 billion already spent by the Obama Administration. 

Californians who expect politicians to work with others to find solutions to our problems must not support Boxer for re-election.  And moderate and independent voters who believe we must stop the bickering in Washington and end partisan roadblocks must recognize that Boxer is abig part of the problem.  The San Francisco Chronicle, the most liberal newspaper in the state and Boxer’s hometown newspaper, said it best when it decided NOT to endorse Boxer for re-election.  The editorial read:

“The incumbent, Democrat Barbara Boxer, has failed to distinguish herself during her 18 years in office. There is no reason to believe that another six-year term would bring anything but more of the same uninspired representation. … Her most famous moments on Capitol Hill have not been ones of legislative accomplishment, but of delivering partisan shots. … (Californians) deserve a senator who is accessible, effective and willing and able to reach across party lines to achieve progress on the great issues of our times. Boxer falls short on those counts. … Boxer’s campaign, playing to resentment over (Carly) Fiorina’s wealth, is not only an example of the personalized pettiness that has infected too much of modern politics, it is also a clear sign of desperation.”

It is time to change Washington and that means making sure the bitter and partisan Barbara Boxer is not there representing the largest of the United States.  Each state gets only two people to represent it in Congress. Boxer has done nothing to suggest she’ll serve the people of California any better in the next six years than she has in the last 18, which is not at all.   Californians should step out and be the first to send the message that Washington politicians must stop being bitter partisans and start working together.  Defeating Boxer will send that message.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

ed schultz wants congress to regulate talk radio

Ed Schultz Wants Congress to Regulate Talk Radio

This week, Ed Schultz from MSNBC’s The Ed Show invoked the idea that Congress should use the Fairness Doctrine to regulate talk radio.

In a laughable attempt to control ratings through government manipulation of the radio airwaves, Schultz says that conservatives are “low information voters” and therefore, the government has a responsibility to break up the free market supply and demand system used by radio station owners. Schultz claims that because the 5 largest commercial talk radio station owners run a majority of conservative shows on their stations, the government should step in to balance the numbers out – a kind of liberal affirmative action program for talk radio.

But this was no April fool’s joke – it was March 31. Schultz was serious.

Let’s start by setting aside Schultz’s pathetic hypocrisy that talk radio should be regulated by the government but the main stream media’s 50 years of liberal bias goes without a mention. And let’s also set aside his ridiculous elitism that assumes conservatives blindly follow radio hosts by being easily manipulated and hood-winked with “low information”. And let’s also set aside the fact that Schultz is actually attacking America’s free-market system when he suggests that private companies should offer talk radio programs even though there are few listeners and advertisers to support it. If we set all that aside, the fact remains that liberal chatter doesn’t sell in America. It’s just not popular. It’s like Schultz didn’t know that Air America, the highly marketed liberal talk radio network, failed. Newsflash, Ed: Air America went bankrupt. Either the liberal owners of Air America were bad at business or there wasn’t a demand for their experiment. Schultz would like people to believe that conservative talk radio stations have little listenership, make no money but stay on the air anyway.

Schultz thinks the traditional supply and demand model for talk radio should be replaced with government intervention programs that “even out the playing field”. I guess taking over 1/6 of the Nation’s economy wasn’t enough for Schultz. With healthcare hijacked he’s moving on to talk radio.

The Ed Show asked viewers this week to respond to the question, “Should congress take action to balance talk radio?” And to “debate” the issue of imbalance on the airwaves, Schultz invited two liberals but no conservatives. The irony was brilliant! There they were; Holland Cooke and Bill Press, the pseudo-journalist, discussing fairness with Ed Schultz. Talk about low information…

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

media matters attacks cbs and fox over report of unsolicited white house emails sent to federal employees

Media Matters Jumps to Defend Unsolicited White House Emails to Federal Employees

Media Matters, the defender of liberal media, today jumped into the developing controversy and debate over White House Health Reform Director Nancy-Ann DeParle’s unsolicited White House emails to federal employees. Media Matters scolds and makes fun of CBS News and Fox News for highlighting the issue, calling the claims “pure speculation”. Ironically, Media Matters doesn’t deny that the unsolicited emails have been sent but rather they defend the emails by saying, “it appears they are sent out to everyone on the whitehouse.gov mailing list.” Well, duh. That’s the problem. Why are federal employees on the whitehouse.gov email list? And why are federal employees being hounded to do the White House’s political bidding for a trillion dollar entitlement program?

Building support for President Barack Obama’s health reform package by sending consecutive emails to federal employees’ official government email inboxes and instructing them to forward the emails to their “friends, family and online networks” is not only unethical but possibly illegal.

Media Matters also complains that the story has no anonymous quotes from frustrated federal employees in order to prove the story. Which is a fair point. I’ll give them that. So here are two anonymous quotes from State Department employees that didn’t sign up for the White House emails but are still receiving political musings from Nancy-Ann DeParle and the White House:

Anonymous Quote #1:

“ I didn’t sign up for this. Why do I have to bother with political fights from work. This is inappropriate and distracting to REAL issues.”

Anonymous Quote #2:

“I have been receiving these emails at my state.gov address, unsolicited e-mails such as the one below on a near weekly basis. Kinda threatening dontcha think? Budget problems if it doesn’t pass?”

Department of State employees receive hundreds of official government emails every day on pressing issues like the Israeli-Palestinian issue or the Iranian nuclear weapons issue. Should they have to worry about partisan political emails threatening budget complications if Obama’s bill isn’t passed?

DeParle’s language in one email flatly states that there will be budget problems for federal agencies if the Obama bill isn’t passed. DeParle uses scare tactics that are clearly meant as threats:

“No ifs, ands or buts about it — if we do nothing to reform our broken health care system, costs will continue to skyrocket and break the budgets of American families, small businesses and the Federal Government,” read the March 12th email from DeParle.

Since Media Matters is trying to dismiss the issue as “pure speculation”, here are 2 examples of the emails. Decide for yourself:

Email #1:
From: Nancy-Ann DeParle, The White House [mailto:info@messages.whitehouse.gov]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 12:10 PM
To: (Name Withheld)
Subject: 625

Good morning,

625 — that’s the number of people who lost their health insurance every hour in 2009.1

A statistic like that tells a frightening story — losing insurance can happen to anyone. How many more Americans have to lose their health insurance and how many more businesses have to drop coverage before we fix our broken health care system?

We’ve been debating what to do about our broken health care system for decades — not just this past year. Every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made. Everything there is to say about health reform has been said. It’s time to decide how to reform our health care system to give American families and businesses the security and stability they deserve.

As the President has said, “In the United States of America, no one should have to worry that they’ll go without insurance — not for one year, not for one month, not for one day.”

The millions of Americans who lost their insurance last year can’t wait any longer. The time is now for health insurance reform.

625 is the latest digit in ‘Health Reform by the Numbers,’ an online campaign to spread the word about the need for health insurance reform. You can help raise awareness by sharing this email with your friends, family and online networks.

Let’s get it done.

Nancy-Ann DeParle

Director, White House Office of Health Reform

1The Wonk Room, ThinkProgress.org, UPDATE: 15,000 People Lost Health Insurance Per Day In 2009

This email was sent to (name withheld)@state.gov

Unsubscribe
Privacy Policy

Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

Email #2:
To: (Name Withheld)
Subject: “There but for the grace of God go any one of us”
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:05:48 -0400
From: info@messages.whitehouse.gov

Good afternoon,

If you’re an American under the age of 65, there’s roughly a 50/50 chance that you will find yourself without coverage at some point in the next decade.1

Simply put, losing insurance can happen to anyone.

At yesterday’s health reform event, President Obama told the story of Natoma, a self-employed woman in Ohio who found herself in the position of losing her health insurance after yet another rate hike from her insurance company:

“She realized that if she paid those health insurance premiums that had been jacked up by 40 percent … she couldn’t make ends meet. So January was her last month of being insured. Like so many responsible Americans — folks who work hard every day, who try to do the right thing — she was forced to hang her fortunes on chance… And on Saturday, Natoma was diagnosed with leukemia…

“Part of what makes this issue difficult is most of us do have health insurance, we still do…. But what we have to understand is that what’s happened to Natoma, there but for the grace of God go any one of us.”

For Natoma and the millions of other Americans forced to face the burden of medical bills they can’t pay while at their most vulnerable — the time is now for health insurance reform. Watch the video of Natoma’s story and learn what more you can do to help spread the word about the need for reform.

50/50 is the latest number in ‘Health Reform by the Numbers,’ our online campaign to raise awareness about why we just can’t wait any longer for health insurance reform. Help spread the word by sharing this message with your family, friends and online networks.

Let’s get it done.

Nancy-Ann DeParle

Director, White House Office of Health Reform

1 Department of the Treasury, The Risk of Losing Health Insurance Over a Decade

This email was sent to (name withheld)@state.gov

Unsubscribe
Privacy Policy

Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

the bill includes health insurance for slackers!

If President Barack Obama gets his trillion dollar healthcare bill passed this week by the Democrats in Congress, parents will be required to pay for their unmarried kids’ healthcare coverage until the age of 26. And Generation Y will be enticed to continue slacking, without a job, well past college graduation. While ski bums everywhere are cheering the news that the federal government will be forcing parents to pay for their health insurance through age 26, parents are questioning why the federal government is enticing a whole generation to stay unemployed.

America has always been a place where hard work is rewarded regardless of one’s age, family status or educational background. If you have an idea you are committed to and make sacrifices to further the idea, you can be wildly successful in our capitalistic system. In America, you can launch a multi-billion dollar computer company from your garage, you can grow up homeless and make it Harvard and you can create a world-wide social networking movement while still in college. But you can also be a slacker if you have the means to slack. Spending a year skiing, hanging out on the beach and surfing or traveling the world are options for the few lucky ones who have parents wealthy enough to pay for such endeavors.

But should the U.S. government encourage college kids to become slackers? Does Generation Y need any more encouragement to feel entitled? And should society guarantee a 5 year hiatus from responsibility after college graduation for millions of college kids? While it is true that many college graduates today will be self-motivated to find a career, make their own money and contribute to society, Generation Y has been the most entitled generation in history. Should the American taxpayer tempt these kids further into believing that the American dream is easy to fulfill?

Obama’s healthcare bill is being celebrated on the slopes of Colorado and the surf shacks of California but is a dangerous precedent for future generations. Here is the exact wording:

SEC. 2714. EXTENSION OF DEPENDENT COVERAGE.

`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage that provides dependent coverage of children shall continue to make such coverage available for an adult child (who is not married) until the child turns 26 years of age.

One could understand extending another entitlement program through age 26 in countries where the average work week is 30 hours per week and vacation time is guaranteed at 8-10 weeks per year. But is this new proposal anti-American? We aren’t supposed to reward people who don’t work hard and make sacrifices to get ahead. And we aren’t supposed to guarantee anything in America but a fair shot. America is a place where you prove your commitment to your family and your community through hard work and sacrifice. It is this ethic that we call American values.

But the American free-market system is under intense assault from President Obama and his partners in the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Obama has proposed massive new programs to give money, guaranteed jobs and entitlements to millions of Americans. In 2008, 36% of Americans paid no taxes. Think about the fact that more than 1/3 of our neighbors paid zero taxes. Did you pay any taxes last year? If you were part of the working group that paid for the slackers, do you really think they need another entitlement program that you will have to pay for?

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

obama’s popularity isn’t translating into progress

huffington post/front page

Obama’s Popularity Isn’t Translating Into Progress

The White House staff should never allow Barack Obama to go to Copenhagen again. The last time Obama went to Copenhagen the United States got thrown out of the 2016 Olympic bidding process in the first round. This last week, Obama went to Copenhagen for the UN Climate Change Conference and he lost an international agreement on one of his priority issues. If Obama can’t convince the international community to go along with one of his signature issues then the President’s clout isn’t what some Americans claim it is. Other than healthcare reform, President Obama has talked about global warming and climate change issues more than almost any other issue during the campaign and since taking office. The Copenhagen disaster is a real sign of Obama’s shallow influence internationally.

The biggest news coming out of Copenhagen, but not covered by the American media, is that Obama hasn’t been able to convince other Countries to act even though he is the most popular Head of State. One year into Obama’s Presidency and the international community has yet to take action on any U.S. priority. You have to wonder why world leaders claim to love him but won’t follow him.

Obama’s popularity and charisma failed to convince the world to bring the Olympics to the U.S., to sign the Copenhagen agreement, to produce new additional NATO troops for Afghanistan or Iraq, to produce any additional action on confronting Iran’s continued uranium enrichment and even to convince his own Democratic party to support some of his priority issues.

Candidate Obama received the media’s overt support throughout the primary and general elections and became an international super star. Today, Barack or Michelle Obama continue to appear on large and medium sized magazine covers from health and fitness publications to news periodicals to cooking and sports magazines and in nearly every language.

But Copenhagen has shown that we shouldn’t confuse Obama’s popularity with progress. He is clearly popular in other countries but it is because he isn’t asking them to act. Or if he is, he isn’t strong enough to convince them. They love the easy ride.

Iran’s illegal enrichment of uranium is a perfect example of Obama’s weakness. During the Bush Administration, President Bush and his team were able to isolate Iran and organize the international community to produce Security Council sanctions and a total of 3 UN resolutions. Although forcing the Security Council to negotiate and ultimately vote on tough resolutions is never easy and always unpopular, it is an important leadership test. China, Russia and others weren’t happy to be forced to confront Iran – but ultimately Iran sanctions were passed with unanimous support.
The Obama team has chosen to take the easy and popular path. There has been no increase in sanctions or additional UN resolutions on Iran since the Bush Administration ended. In fact, multiple deadlines have passed without repercussions for the Government of Iran. Enrichment continues at multiple sites in Iran even though the UN Security Council has demanded the Government suspend enrichment with verification.

Obama’s popularity may produce large crowds and warm compliments, but one thing I learned while serving 8 years at the United Nations is to be suspicious when you are the most popular guy in a room full of international negotiators.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

pelosi ignores the gay marriage issue because there are no consequences

cbsnews.com/pelosi and grenell

So What Will Pelosi Do About DC Gay Marriage?

By Richard Grenell

Nancy Pelosi represents the gayest congressional district in the United States. She also happens to be the most powerful person, woman or man, in the House of Representatives. With one simple directive she can force 435 Members of Congress from across the United States to vote on any piece of legislation she wants. Healthcare legislation, immigration reform, tax increases or gay marriage are all issues that Speaker Nancy Pelosi can choose to have voted on by Congress. She could schedule a vote at 3 a.m. and members would be expected to appear. She alone gets to decide what the House of Representatives votes on and when it votes. But will Pelosi pass the DC gay marriage bill — one of her district’s most important issues — before the end of the year? What is she waiting for? She has the power to do it immediately and DC needs Congressional approval to move forward with equal rights for all citizens.

Nancy Pelosi also has a Democratic partner over in the Senate in Majority Leader Harry Reid. Reid has the same power in the Senate with the 100 members that Nancy Pelosi has in the House of Representatives. Together, Pelosi and Reid have a Democratic President in Barack Obama. It isn’t an overstatement to say that these three Democrats – Pelosi, Reid and Obama – can force any issue to a vote and make that issue a law. All Pelosi, Reid and Obama have to do is get their own party to go along with their ideas – no Republicans are needed to go along with the Pelosi-Reid-Obama agenda. Not one Republican is needed to enact new laws. None. Zero.

So why aren’t these three Democrats passing new laws and making changes? Where is the gay marriage law they promised when they were put in charge and the Republicans were run out of office?

The answer, of course, is and has always been that America is not ready for gay marriage. Nearly every public poll taken has shown that the electorate, albeit the public at large, is not ready. Pelosi, Reid and Obama are only reading public opinion surveys when they delay votes on gay issues. Even California, the most liberal state in the nation, wasn’t able to get the electorate to see the value of equal rights for all. But the Nation’s Capital has and now needs Pelosi’s support.

What is needed to pass gay marriage is not a Democratic majority – this past year has proven that to be true – but politicians and judges comfortable enough to ignore what the majority of the voters want and do what is uncomfortable, unpopular – and morally right. Equal rights should not be debatable and certainly should not be put to a vote of the people. Would we ask the electorate to vote on whether or not Catholics and Protestants should marry? Of course we would not. The Catholic Church or the local evangelical church should not be forced to bless the new union of a divorced woman if they don’t want to. But civil governments don’t make the same distinctions. While religious institutions should be able to pick and choose which unions they bless, civil governments should issue marriage licenses to all couples.

But the more that the gay leaders raise money for and give unconditional support to Democratic politicians, the more Democratic leaders are encouraged to take gay marriage voters for granted. Anyone who is still holding out for the Democrats to be the gayest political party is now part of the problem. The more gay marriage is made a political issue the longer gays will be treated as less than and unequal. Equal rights should not be a partisan political issue so why are all gay leaders in one political party?

Nancy Pelosi doesn’t have to pay attention to gays because there is no price to pay for ignoring them.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Posted on by

home healthcare on the chopping block

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/07/opinion/main5927600.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Home Healthcare On The Chopping Block

In confronting healthcare reform, President Obama and his team have intellectualized a change that may seem to make sense on paper but doesn’t conform with the reality of our current system. President Obama continues to focus on cutting waste and fraud from Medicare while insisting that his budget cuts will not cut services to the millions of older Americans that rely on Medicare for their healthcare. “Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits,” Obama recently said.

But the simple fact is that the President and The White House have no control over how Medicare service providers prioritize their spending or service delivery. The President can insist that he doesn’t want Medicare services to be cut but when he greatly reduces the amount of money the federal government will pay for Medicare; service providers alone get to decide how to deal with that revenue loss. It is the private sector service providers, not the President, that decide what to cut and how to cut. For example, Medicare providers will decide if they continue to pay their workers the same amount of money but cut services – or – if they cut the number of workers delivering the services – or – if they just take less profit. Obama has envisioned a free-market system that will just take less profit. The President is either intellectually naïve because of his lack of experience outside the classroom or strategically trying to manipulate our way of life.

But this is America and we have a free-market system that is more about supply and demand than it is about altruism. As much as the President has intellectualized a healthcare change that will act collectively, his plan is impractical in a capitalistic society. Obama’s healthcare reform efforts are, in fact, a dangerous assault on America’s current system. My Harvard Economics Professor taught me that whenever government mandates a price or manipulates the market the entire model gets flipped upside down. Professor Obama should know that any kind of government intervention in the free-market system causes the system to act irrationally, not collectively.

Home healthcare is the perfect example of Obama’s academic thinking. Over the last 10 years, home healthcare services have dramatically increased in an effort to decrease expensive hospitalization costs. Home healthcare has become a relatively inexpensive way to care for patients who do not need round the clock care from a hospital or nursing home. If we are trying to save money within the healthcare system we should be advocating for more homecare not less. However, the Congressional Budget Office says that the Democratic plan currently being debated drastically cuts homecare spending. Home healthcare services would absorb more than 13 percent of the proposed Medicare cuts to the tune of $43 billion.

If Obama and company want to keep healthcare costs down then home healthcare should be expanded not cut. If older Americans or active people want to recover in the comfort of their home rather than in a hospital or nursing home then we should encourage their decision.

But yesterday, the Democratically-controlled Senate followed President Obama’s plan and put home care on the chopping block. President Obama, however, continues to insist that Medicare services and patient options will not be diminished even though providers will have a $43 billion hole to fill.

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post