THE SLAUGHTER SOLUTION

As a member of the Democratic majority in the House, Representative Louise Slaughter of New York is the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and it looks like she is in the process of taking advantage of the aforementioned House rule. First mentioned last week and being termed The Slaughter Solution, it basically does the following, as reported in National Journal’s Congress Daily, via The Washington Examiner.

“House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul through the House and potentially avoid a direct vote on the Senate overhaul bill, the chairwoman said Tuesday.

“Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.

“Slaughter has not taken the plan to Speaker Pelosi as Democrats await CBO scores on the corrections bill. ‘Once the CBO gives us the score, we’ll spring right on it,’ she said.”

Am I understanding this right? Slaughter wants to write a rule that will deem the Senate version of health care reform passed by the House, without actually voting on the legislation itself? They want to be able to pass a bill that will correct some of the “problems” they have with the original legislation and call it good? Maybe there is a rule in the House that allows them to make rules that will benefit the majority, but does it allow them to go completely against the Constitution of the United States? As is being reported by Forgotten Liberty and The Current, doing so would go against Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution. The quote below is from Forgotten Liberty.

This scheme to pass a bill without voting on it violates article 1 section 7 of the United States Constitution, which states that before any bill can become law, it most be passed by both houses of Congress with a Yea or Nay vote. If the Democrats go through with this rule change, it will be a bold faced attack on our Constitution and system of government. In effect, the role of Congress and our history of representative government will be done away with because a vote will no longer be required to pass a bill.

It seems that the Democrats, especially the leadership and the more progressive members of the party, are bent on passing this legislation and to the devil with the consequences. I suppose in one way, I can admire their determination to get this done, even if I do not agree with the need for such a massive piece of legislation. What I can not admire is this bold faced attack on the Constitution. How can they ignore such a blatant breech of the document that has served our country well for over two hundred years?

Heretofore, my arguments against the health care reform wanted by the Democrats have been based on the substance of the reform. That argument still holds true, as I do not believe either piece of legislation will do what they say they will do. Reform may be needed, but not on such a massive scale and certainly not in the way the Democrats are trying to dictate. That argument pales however, in comparison to the constitutionality of what they are attempting to do.

Over the weekend, I was reading an article at Conservative Hideout 2.0 that concerned the authority to manage our money supply and other related items and read a comment that has really stuck with me. You can read the article and the following comments for yourself, but here is what Matt said in the fourth comment on the article.

The fact is, as uncomfortable as it might be right now, that the Constitutional authority to coin and regulate lies with the Congress. If we pick and choose which parts of the Constitution we want to embrace, we are no better than Obama, Pelosi, and Reid.

Even if we disagree with Congress on monetary matters, they still have the Constitutional authority to do so and I think that applies to health care reform as well. No matter how badly the Democrats think we need or want health care reform, they do not have the right to ignore the Constitution of the United States, but that is exactly what they are trying to do. We can not stick our heads in the sand on this, as it threatens the very foundation upon which our country is established. Louise Slaughter and anyone else who goes along with this needs to be publicly called out and held accountable for their actions.

This has all been going on in the Middle East and in Europe, but you would be wrong if you said it hasn’t also came to America. Flash forward almost three years and we find the desire to kill Lars Vilks not only has persisted, but it has grown. Seven people have been arrested in Ireland for allegedly plotting to kill the cartoonist, with two of them being American women who have converted to Islam. Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, of Colorado, her husband, and Colleen Larosa, of Pennsylvania, were among those who were taken into custody. Ramirez has since been released, but her husband and Larosa are still being held. U.S. authorities have already charged the Pennsylvania woman with terrorism charges for her part in the plot.

There is something about this that I find very troubling. We have grown somewhat accustomed to hearing about radical Muslims who kill people in the name of Allah and there has been a few Americans who have joined in the cause by joining terrorist training camps. What we are not accustomed to is hearing about two American women, both blond-haired and blue-eyed, who have somehow became so radicalized that they were evidently willing to commit murder, all because of some supposed transgression against their adopted religion. How did Jamie Paulin-Ramirez go from being a 4.0 nursing student with a good job to a radical Muslim willing to commit murder, in a span of about a year? Putting it as succinctly as I know how, it makes no plausible sense.

I am glad America has freedom of religion. Anyone can worship their God or gods as they see fit, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. I am not advocating the banning of a particular religion, but more and more, I am convinced radical Islam poses a real danger to America and the rest of the world. When this violent religion is able to persuade anyone, American or not, to completely change their lifestyle and make them willing to commit murder, then we have to admit there is a problem. It makes me wonder how any religion can be so persuasive.

During each one of our lives, there are things that stick out to us, things that may never be forgotten, images that are ingrained in our brains forever. One such image is that of the twin towers falling to the ground and the massive cloud of smoke and dust that bellowed up from ground zero. It was unlike anything I have ever seen and that was just on a television screen. I can only imagine what it was like to be there in person. The horror of what had happened must have been overwhelming.

Another such image is that of the untold number of people who came rushing to help those who were in trouble at ground zero. Tens of thousands of rescue workers worked countless days, trying to find and help survivors and to clean up debris that was left by the attacks. They worked as hard as they knew how and what they achieved is nothing short of amazing. I say that with as much sincerity as I have ever felt. They did a fantastic job of dealing with an impossible situation.

Following the attacks and the cleanup and rescue operations that followed, there a lot of reports of the rescue workers coming down with various and sundry illnesses. Some of them reported what became known as the “World Trade Center Cough” and others came down with cancer. Some of these rescue workers have since died from their illness and others have filed lawsuits against the city of New York, claiming they were sent to ground zero without the proper protective equipment.

During the aftermath of the tragedy, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a $1 billion grant to help insure New York City against litigation that was sure to follow. From the information that I have been able to gather, the only money that has been paid out to date has been to the lawyers who are representing the different parties. Am I the only one who finds that somewhat troubling?

NPR is reporting today that there has been an agreement reached that could pay as much as $675 million to the rescue and recovery workers who responded to the attacks. According to their report, there will be a set of complicated procedures to determine how much each person would receive, based on the type and severity of their illness. The agreement must be approved by 95% of the workers, before it can be implemented.

This was a disaster on an unprecedented scope, of an unprecedented magnitude. Is there any possible way anyone could have known that the smoke and dust would cause so many illnesses? How could they, given the fact that they had never faced something like this before? There were a lot of decisions that were made during that time, decisions that were made with one purpose in mind; to help as many victims as possible.  I don’t see how those in charge can be faulted for that.

Again, let me stress that I bear no ill will towards those who worked and sacrificed to help the victims of 9/11 and to help clean up the total destruction that was left behind. I think they should receive all of the help that we can give them, but I have to wonder about how this has been handled. Is this what our litigation system was designed for? I am not so sure it is. What I find to be so tragic is that we have been unable to move past the litigation and onward to helping those who need help. So far, the only ones that seem to be doing good in all of this are the lawyers.

Since the Democrats lost their super majority in the Senate with the election of Scott Brown, talk has centered around using reconciliation to pass their legislation. As I have mentioned earlier, that would require the House to pass the Senate bill and then pass a second bill to “fix” the problems that are in the first bill. Part of the negotiations that are now under way has to do with the second health care bill that the Democrats want to pass, after the first bill is signed into law by President Obama. Looking at what some of the Democrats are wanting to include in that second bill makes me wonder if this is really a health care bill or just another massive piece of legislation that groups everything under the sun into one bill.

Here is a little tidbit from The Associated Press, via FOX News.

Pelosi and other House Democrats want to include Obama’s proposed overhaul of the nation’s student loan programs in the second, fix-it health care bill. The measure would require the Education Department to originate all student assistance loans, effectively eliminating a role for banks and other private lenders. That idea has run into opposition from several Senate Democrats.

First of all, I do not care at all for the idea of cutting out banks and other private lenders from lending money for education. Do we really want the federal government to have complete control over the loans a lot of students have to acquire for education? I am not convinced that is a good idea at all. Second, someone needs to explain to me what student loans has to do with health care reform. I can’t quite make the leap to connect the two items.

So, the Democrats are having closed door negotiations over how to pass health care reform. At least that is what we are being told. It sounds more like they are cooking up another piece of legislation that is going to include several other items that have nothing to do with the debate at hand. What I wouldn’t pay to be behind those closed doors, hearing what they are discussing. At the risk of sounding overly sarcastic, I wonder what else they are thinking of including in this second bill? I’ll bet it’s something we all “need”.

Much of the speculation that has surrounded the death of this little girl has centered on two things. It was at first unclear what charges would be filed against Jeremiah, who only shot at the two men after they beat and robbed him. Since his life was not in eminent danger when he started shooting, we see the resulting charges. The mother was also the center of attention, as many wondered how she could have allowed her daughter to be put in the middle of this situation. As of this time, no charges will be filed against the mother. Here is what John David Luton, first assistant district attorney in Sequoyah County had to say.

At this point, we do not have submitted evidence indicating she had knowledge of what they planned to do when they went over there.

The tragedy of Elaine Keene’s death is not lessened by the news of these charges, but it is some small comfort that justice is in the process of being served. In the day and age we live in, it should also remind us all of the importance of making sure our children are safe.

Now isn’t that a novel idea? We have all bemoaned the way Congress has acted at times. That goes for Democrats and Republicans alike and I have been as guilty as anyone else, maybe more so. Congressional approval ratings are at a very low level, with Rasmussen reporting that 71% of those polled believe Congress is doing a poor job. Any way you look at it, 71% is a lot of people who do not like what Congress is doing or the way they are doing it.

One of the loudest battle cries over health care reform has been the one that has called for Congress to accept and enroll themselves in whatever health care plan they come up with for the rest of us. There seems to be a consensus among the general population of America that Congress provides it’s members with things that most us have no hope of obtaining, health care being chief among them, along with the salary and retirement they receive. What’s more, most members of Congress act as if they are entitled to all of it. Imagine my surprise to learn that one member of Congress has put forth legislation to cut the salary of our Representatives.

Ann Kirkpatrick

Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona has introduced legislation that will give Congress a 5% cut in pay and it already has 21 cosponsors, from both political parties. With congressional salaries standing at $174,000, with leaders earning more, that amounts to $8700 per year. Kirkpatrick has already taken it upon herself to cut her own pay, putting her money where her mouth is, as it were, giving back $870 per month, which is a little extra to make up for the first two months of 2010. If her proposal is passed by Congress, it would give a savings of $4.66 million per year.

Now, I know what most people will think and say about this and they would be correct. $4.66 million is a very paltry sum, compared to the trillions of dollars of debt our country has occurred. By itself, the pay cut and resulting savings would amount to a drop in the bucket of our massive debt, but it is at least, a start in the right direction. Sometimes, a gesture of good intentions counts for a lot and I would have to say Ann Kirkpatrick’s gesture is a good one.

The $12.5 trillion debt the United States now carries is a very large burden. Mike has written a number of times about the need to reduce that debt and has been very diligent in pointing out that it is going to take a concerted effort on all fronts to cut the debt down to size. He has mentioned spending cuts and tax increases and while most of us have applauded any mention of cutting spending, we have not been so fond of increasing taxes. However, if Congress follows the lead of Ann Kirkpatrick and puts their money with hers, that could be a good beginning. I am not fond of tax increases, but I would be much more inclined to give some of them another look, if I see better action out of Congress. I think it is worth considering, not as a means of punishing Congress, but as a means to help our country. As always, your comments are welcome.

If you’re PressSec — White House press secretary Robert Gibbs’ username on Twitter — you join the powerful social media platform and push your message across the Internet, 140 characters at a time.

Blending behind-the-scenes nuggets with a defense of President Barack Obama’s record, White House and administration officials increasingly are communicating through Twitter.

The popular social network is operating as a Web-based clearinghouse for public statements on weighty subjects (the federal budget) and the mundane (personal grocery lists). It’s similar to a bulletin board where anyone can post short notes and users cull the pieces they see by choosing to “follow” individuals’ account.

Forget press releases. Gibbs and his deputy, Bill Burton, are now sharing news in Twitter messages. So far 33,000 people have signed up to follow Gibbs and more than 6,000 are tracking Burton. Those two officials have a ways to go to catch actor Ashton Kutcher and his 4.6 million followers.

There obviously is a fun side to all of this, as  a lot of people are following Gibbs and his deputy to get an “inside” look at life in the White House. In other words, what President Obama, his family, and others who reside in the White House are doing in their downtime. For some, that is more interesting than what they are doing while working and I am sure makes for a pleasant distraction. I find it a little interesting myself, hence this article, instead of something more serious.

Honestly, I don’t have a problem with Gibbs or anyone else using Twitter as they are using it. They have to know of it’s popularity and they are using it as a means to an end. More power to them, I say, but I have to ask one question. Just how much real information can anyone send or receive in 140 characters? I can see a tweet being used as a teaser, to get someone interested and get them to start digging into the story, but not much else.

So, I will be tweeting this article after it is published, hoping to attract more readers. I may even read a tweet or two or three, but for real news, I think I will read a newspaper or blog article. They may be harder to digest the information, but it will be worth it in the end.

“I also would like to know who he thinks he is. He is supposed to act on the will of the people, not enact laws against the will of the people just because he feels it is right. He needs to remember that he works for us, we pay his salary.” 

Generally I think we all agree with the intent of that statement but it has given me pause and I thought I would play a little devils advocate here. The basic question I’m wrestling with is whether we elect our government representatives to vote our views or their views? That is, is an election a determination that the winner best represents the majority view of the public even if we disagree with him on certain positions, or have we elected a person who is expected to represent the majority view of his constituents regardless of his personal position on the issue? If, for example, a candidate presents himself in support of a ban on assault weapons in a district overwhelmingly opposed to such a ban, is the candidate, upon election, expected to vote in support of or in opposition to the ban? For me that question is a no-brainer – he was elected despite his view on the assault weapons ban and he should vote in favor of the ban as he campaigned. Does anybody disagree with that? 

Assuming the majority of you agree with me on voting for a well-articulated position then we move on to the vast majority of voting – those which come up in the course of governing that were not anticipated or expressed in the campaign. Let’s take health care. Both Obama and McCain were big supporters of health care reform during the campaign though they approached it in different ways. In general, the American people support health care reform even if they oppose the specific legislation now before Congress. At the time of the election a huge majority of the public supported health care reform. A Dem congresswoman who campaigned in strong support of health care reform but now finds her constituents opposed to the President’s proposal finds herself in a bit of a pickle. She agrees with the President and wants to see health care reform pass but she has a constituency which, according to the latest poll, is opposed to the plan by 60-40 percent. Her experience suggests that when she holds small meetings and is able to articulate her position and explain the bill many people find themselves in agreement because they didn’t understand the specifics of the plan. So how should she vote? Let’s assume for the moment that she is retiring so there is no concern about reelection. What is her responsibility? I think her job is to vote as she thinks right. If she votes only the way the polls tell her to vote then she is nothing but a puppet. There are very few issues that are pre-polled and, if she has a strong opinion, then she needs to vote her view. If she is not strongly impressed by either side then she should vote her expectation of the view of her constituents. I think that is what she is paid for. Unfortunately, what we see much too often, on both sides of the aisle, is that she votes the view of her party leaders — and THAT has got to STOP. I’m sure many of you will disagree with my conclusion and I’m very interested to hear your rebuttals. 

Let’s return to Mr Pink Eyes’ comment about Obama: “He is supposed to act on the will of the people, not enact laws against the will of the people just because he feels it is right.” The American people are a fickle lot. We are quick to change our focus and change our minds. The House “feels” that change more rapidly than the Senate and is quicker to express the changing will of the people. The day before the underwear bomber incident national security was well down on the list of America’s priorities (an enormous and continuing mistake, in my opinion). The day after it shot up, Congress was screaming over the incompetents at Homeland Security, and the GOP wanted Janet Napolitano’s head on a platter. Today, not so much noise about that. The Senate is a more deliberative body and less likely to get caught up in the swirl of public reaction. Is that elitist or is that the proper role of the Senate? When the House is screaming “we need to act now” in response to similar screams from the people, and the Senate says “remain calm – we are taking all precautions but we must think before we act” is the Senate ignoring the will of the people or acting responsibly to avoid panic? Again, I see this as a no-brainer – we don’t want a paternal, elitist response saying “be quiet, we know what is best” but we do want cooler heads to prevail because the people doing all the screaming are very often a bunch of hotheads who simply need to be ignored. I may have just carved out a very fine line but it’s one our representatives in Washington are paid to manage. 

OK, so that leads me to the role of the president and whether, in fact, his job is to act according to the will of the people or to act in a fashion he thinks represents the best interests of the country regardless of popular opinion. I confess I am currently undecided on this issue. I find it much easier to take a stance on the role of Congress because they generally represent a more homogeneous set of interests within a congressional district or a state. Congressmen in particular come up for election every two years (too often in my opinion – it’s a constant campaign) so they are regularly subject to electoral review. It’s much more difficult when you have the entire country as your constituency and your election victory was anything but a landslide. George W. Bush failed to win the popular vote but governed as if he had a broad electoral mandate. Is that the way a president needs to govern? “I won and now here’s what I’m going to do.” Is that why we elected him or did we elect him to follow the shifting sands of our priorities? Is health care really the nation’s top concern or has that case been made through political prioritization? Jobs and the economy should be number one and it is for many people; but would you know it by reading the paper or listening to the news? Obama himself seems to be focused on those critical issues right now while the media stays focused on health care and Tiger Woods. 

As I said at the start, I’m writing this more from a devils advocate position than out of a firm conviction in my argument. I hope others of you will chime in with your thoughts.

To the best knowledge of my friends in Asheville there are four such communities in town with different religious affiliations. They house hundreds of residents and they pay no property taxes. Clearly they require and receive public services – they just have the luxury of not having to pay for it. UMRC is over 100 years old and has many similar facilities all over the country so this is not a recent innovation. Yes, there is religious element but it’s not like this is a group of people who have chosen to devote their life to God. This is a retirement community, no different than any other secular community, except all the residents share a single faith and there are religious programs available. Yes, they provide “outreach ministries in the larger region” but by a show of hands who really thinks that’s what this place is about? I thought so. No, this is a very nice set-up that takes complete advantage of the deduction for religious institutions, imposes upon the other members of the Asheville community the burden of financing the public services provided to the Givens Estates residents, and advertises its devotion to Christian values. Is it just me or is something seriously wrong here? 

A charity is supposed to be just that – charitable. That means it’s supposed to give things away for free. The idea of nonprofits is that they do things that local and state government would otherwise have to do. They provide a public benefit and therefore they are granted a tax deduction. Off the top of my head the only tax exempt organizations that don’t fit that description are religious based and they are granted tax exemption in order to avoid any church/state conflict. But it seems that there are an inordinate number of nonprofits that claim tax exemption that simply don’t meet the criteria. Just because a group operates with a goal of not earning a profit doesn’t mean it’s a tax-exempt nonprofit organization. Some hospitals are nonprofit while others are for profit – I wonder how many people even realize there is a difference and know which hospitals in their region are which. Are the services any different? Is the care any different? 

There is a very expensive private school in a neighborhood not too far from where I live. They wanted to expand their playing fields and provide housing to some senior members of the faculty. When two homes bordering the school were put up for sale the school dug into its endowment war chest and bought them. It added the back yards to the playing fields while offering up the homes to faculty. Terrific right? Yes, except the town, which had been receiving very nice property taxes from the homeowners, suddenly lost those taxes because the school is a tax-exempt organization. 

In recent years several nonprofit day care centers have been denied property tax exemption when they were found to operate without offering anything back to families who used the facility. The fee for all children, regardless of the family’s ability to pay, was the same. Basically the property tax commission said “no financial aid, no tax exemption.” By definition, to get tax exemption you must give something back – for free or at a steep discount. 

I fully support continuing to provide public schools, public hospitals, churches and synagogues, and genuine charitable organizations (United Way, Red Cross, soup kitchens, halfway houses, etc) with complete tax exemption. But it seems to me that there are groups that are simply using the advantages the tax code offers to nonprofits without meeting the standard we should demand from such organizations. My town and state are suffering in the current economic climate just like every other town and state in the country. We need to reduce spending and find tax dollars in places we’ve not looked at closely before. I deeply resent the residents of Givens Estates, and others like them, abusing the tax system for their benefit and leaving the rest of us to pay for the public services they expect on demand. Next time a house is on fire in such a community I hope they are reminded that they contribute not a cent to the fire department that just saved their homes. It’s wake up time!

Has it really been over a year since the first emergency loans were provided to General Motors and Chrysler? In fact, it was a year on December 19, 2009. It was then that President George W. Bush and his administration decided to give both automakers the money to keep them out of bankruptcy, at least for the time being. Billions of dollars were extended to both companies by the Bush administration and later in 2009, the Obama administration agreed to give billions of dollars more, all in the name of keeping them viable. Eventually, it became clear that the bailout was not working and both automakers declared bankruptcy. Both companies have since restructured themselves, but the stigma remains. It is not uncommon to hear GM called Government Motors.

In 2003, my family and I purchased a 2003 Chevrolet Venture and were well pleased with it. We paid it off a little over a year ago and we discussed getting something different to drive, but decided against it. Oh what joy it was to not have a vehicle payment every month. When we were having those discussions, we both found ourselves thinking about buying a Ford vehicle, something that I had not done for a very long time. It’s not that I disliked their automobiles, but I just liked GM vehicles better, maybe for reasons unknown to me or anyone else. Because of the government bailout for GM and Chrysler and the fact that Ford refused to accept government funds, we both felt Ford deserved another look.

This is not our's but it is the same color.

After Tammy and Randi had their accident on the night of February 14, we had no choice but to purchase another vehicle and we settled on a 2008 Ford Edge. It is much more vehicle than I expected to buy, but we are very satisfied with it so far. Great gas mileage and performance and very comfortable to drive and ride in. With our granddaughter nearly here (any day now), that was very important to us both, as Alexia Danae will be riding with us at times. I know the government would have probably chosen a different vehicle for me to purchase, as it doesn’t get nearly enough gas mileage for them and it probably isn’t green enough for their tastes. However, it suits me and my family and the purpose for which we purchased it.

I would be lying if I said the fact that General Motors solicited government loans and bailout funds did not play at least a small part in my decision to purchase a vehicle from Ford. Not only that, but I know of one man who is a die hard GM man, (he really likes their trucks and has had the same one for years) but he is taking a very serious look at Ford and their lineup of vehicles. His stated reasons are that they didn’t have to be bailed out by the government and they have a good looking truck, in that order. Hearing him talk like that made me wonder if this feeling was widespread or if he and I were just off our respective rockers?

So I would like to ask a question, in the form of a poll. It is just a yes or no vote, but please feel free to elaborate in the comment section.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.