Democrats Think There’s Been Transparency?

The level of hypocrisy in Washington just doesn’t amaze me anymore.  As you’re probably aware by now, the head of CSPAN sent a letter to President Obama and Democratic congressional leaders to press them to fulfill the President’s campaign promise of full transparency on the health care debate.  This snippet goes to show how much politicians these days have to fear:

I still can’t get over the fact that because Democrats say the bill has been posted online for review, and all the markup time, and debate, that we’ve had full transparency.  I just can’t get over the fact as how dismissive Speaker Pelosi was in this clip, as if we should expect her to be transparent at all in this debate.

As I posted late last year, transparency means the entire process, so everyone can see what backroom deals people are getting to buy votes.  Obviously our elected leaders have something to fear, and don’t want us to see how the real process works.  All just so the democrats can get a major legislative victory for the President for the state of the union later on this year.  It’s really quite sad the level of effort our leaders are going to to really hose us over.  I sure do hope we hold these people accountable in November so we can finally have some real change and maybe some transparency in Washington.  The Democrats should be ashamed of themselves; however, they aren’t going to lose any sleep over it I’m sure.

Transparency, We’ve Got Transparency!

So I was browsing around the news, and I found this gem from Jake Tapper on abcnews.com:  “Gibbs Passes on One Last Chance to Make Health Care Negotiations Transparent.”

Who here remembers the President’s campaign promise that the CSPAN cameras would be in the room when negotiations were conducted on the health care, I mean, health insurance, reform bill?  Quick, raise your hands!  I sure as heck do.

Who here also has seen all that transparency?  Let’s see those hands!  As I suspected.  No one saw any CSPAN cameras when Harry Reid and Ben Nelson were negotiating a compromise to the Senate’s version of the health care reform bill that passed on Christmas Eve.  As a matter of fact, there weren’t any cameras present during any of those meetings amongst senators, Lieberman, Landrieu, or Nelson.  That’s transparency for ya!

So, in this blog post, Tapper references some questions that he asked White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on ABC’s This Week.  The specific question was:  “Will the President open up the doors for this final negotiation?”  Here’s Gibbs’ response:

Well, Jake, first of all, let’s take a step back and understand that this is a process legislatively that has played out over the course of nine months.  There have been a countless number of public hearings.  The Senate did a lot of their voting at 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning on CSPAN….  And I think if you watched that debate — I don’t know — I wasn’t up at 1:00 or 2:00 in the morning for a lot of those votes, but I think if the American public had watched — has watched the committee process play out in both the House and the Senate, watched the process play out on both the floor and the — the floor of the House and the floor of the Senate, you’d have seen quite a bit of public hearing and public airing, and I think quite frankly, people have a pretty good sense of who is battling on behalf of thousands of lobbyists that are trying to protect drug profits and insurance profits, and who’s fighting on behalf of middle-class Americans hoping once and for all to have access to affordable insurance and removing insurance company restrictions like discriminating against people that are sick.”

Hold on a second…..  You mean to tell me that the White House views transparency during the negotiation of the health care reform bill as the Senate voting at 1:00 and 2:00 in the morning on CSPAN?  When everyone was asleep! 

Hold on a second….  So Mr. Gibbs wasn’t up for any of the votes, I know I wasn’t up for any of the votes, I believe in getting a good night’s rest for my job, and he expects that people have stood up as well?  That isn’t transparency, that’s voting in the middle of the night when no one is paying attention.  That also isn’t transparency as we were led to believe by the President during the 2008 campaign.

Let me explain something to Mr. Gibbs, what we understood about transparency, was the cameras being in Harry Reid’s and Nancy Pelosi’s office during these negotiations, not seeing the debate and voting going on on CSPAN like they normally do.

Jake Tanner goes on to ask a question, “Is President Obama upholding his pledge of transparency?”  That is a big emphatic no!  I’ll even follow that up with another earth shattering tidbit….  When the President hosts these final negotiations to get a merged bill, no cameras will be in the room until those discussions have been completed, and there won’t be any Republican representation in the room.  In essence, the liberal triumvirate of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, along with maybe “Botox” Joe Biden, will negotiate the final bill that will ultimately hose us all.

We should definitely book this debate to another case of Washington pulling the wool over everyone’s eyes, because, as we can tell, the more things change in Washington, the more they remain the same.  Heck, who needs transparency when we’ve got great trustworthy leaders like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi????

Napolitano on Fox News

This morning, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was on Fox News on the Fox and Friends Show.  Let’s put aside the fact, for a moment, that she was on every major network’s Sunday morning talk shows except Fox News, and concentrate on one thing in particular that she spoke of this morning.  She didn’t want to go into too many details about the Nigerian individual, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, based on the fact there is an ongoing criminal investigation going on, in response to a question about whether he had boarded the plane without a passport.

While I’m concerned about the allegation that he boarded a U.S. bound plane without a passport, and that security protocols failed, I’m more than slightly miffed at the fact that Secretary Napolitano referred to this case as a ‘criminal investigation.’

What is this administration afraid of?  Are they afraid of being tough on terror, or taking drastic actions against potential terrorists?  This man claimed to have connections to Al Qaeda.  To me, this case isn’t a criminal act, it’s an attempted act of terrorism.  When is the Obama administration going to realize that these types of situations can’t be dismissed as “criminal activity?”  These people are out to kill us, to destroy our way of life.  They will stop at nothing to scare us into staying in our country and not pursuing our national interests.

When will they realize these people are at war with us, against our way of life.  This individual needs to be turned over to a military tribunal and be held as an enemy combatant, not a common thug.  Instead, what do our leaders decide, that he should be charged in our criminal justice system to make sure, before the eyes of the world, that we are understanding and that we will treat this man with respect and dignity and that he’ll have a fair trial.

Instead of pursuing criminal charges, we should be interrogating this guy, find out where he was indoctrinated, what his true ties to Al Qaeda are, get as much information from him as possible, and if he truly is connected with Al Qaeda, pursue those cells and destroy them.  But instead, this administration is being soft on terror, and believe he should be treated like every other American and go through our justice system, all to show the world, we’re nice guys.

I’m sorry, but we shouldn’t be portrayed as being nice when radicalized individuals are trying to commit acts of terrorism on our homeland.  These people need to be aggressively rooted out, the cells destroyed, with vengeance.  It’s the only way they will realize that they shouldn’t mess with us.  However, by showing these terrorist organizations that we won’t fiercely pursue and prosecute an all out offensive, covertly and overtly, these terrorists organizations will increase their attacks on us knowing that they won’t be punished, and that, will make our country less safe.  To me that is unacceptable.  It should be unacceptable to all Americans, and it should be unacceptable to our President and his Administration, who’s primary responsibility, and President Obama has stated it himself, most recently in Oslo, that his primary duty is to protect us.  I feel, with his current actions, that he is only paying lip service to that responsibility, in an attempt to maintain a great image to the international community.  I’m personally very disappointed in our President and his Homeland Security Secretary, for the perception that they’re being soft in a critical national security area.

Health Insurance Reform Brings President Political Victory

Before I even turned the television on this morning, I see that the Senate had voted to pass their version of Health Care Reform, even though President Obama refers to it as “Health Insurance Reform.”  In my opinion, the Senate’s actions give the President a much-needed victory in his first year in office.  He was desperate for some sort of political victory.  The type of victory that he hopes will allow him to keep his party’s majority in both chambers of Congress.  But at what cost?

As I wrote yesterday, in my post “60 Votes Reached…”, who really knows what’s in this bill?  In my opinion, this President has just been going through the motions since this past January, lacking any major domestic or foreign accomplishments of note.  The stimulus bill aside, he, nor the remaining members of his liberal triumvirate, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid, had anything to hang their hats on.  This accomplishment gives them something to campaign on.

However, based on my perusal of the far left leaning progressive Huffington Post, it would seem the cost of this political victory could very well be those liberal progressives that helped elect President Obama.  Not that I would be overly disappointed if the President, or his allies, would lose a lot of political clout over a highly unpopular bill, but as Speaker Pelosi put it, she’s willing to lose 20 seats for this piece of work.

I, on the other hand, see another entitlement that will drain precious tax dollars out of our Treasury being stood up.  I think it’s fantastic that we’re going to raise taxes on a slew of health care related items, along with the possibility of my family’s plan being taxed because we very well may have one of those cadillac plans.

Harry Reid has called the passage of this monstrosity a victory for the American people.  I don’t feel like I’m going to really benefit from the passage of this bill.  I sure do hope this liberal triumvirate enjoys their much deserved time off this holiday season, because 2010 is going to be very difficult for them.  I expect to see some backlash from the people because of this bill.  Republicans will use it as something to rally the base and perhaps independent voters around, and the Democrats will say, look at what we did, we’re giving you affordable health care and if you wait for another generation, you too can have socialized medicine!

Senator Chuck Schumer from New York had these fine words to say about the passage of this bill:

As people learn about all the good things in the bill, they will like it more and more.

How would he know?  We all  probably know he hasn’t taken the time to read the bill, and he knows, that us Americans won’t take the time to read the monstrosity.  Some political victory…..  Just enough to get all their faces in the papers, and to campaign on.  In the process, the rest of us get hosed.  It’s all wrapped up in a grand package of coal for us the people, so the big politicians can smile.

Merry Christmas everyone!

60 Votes Reached….

And how many of those democratic senators have actually read the 2000 page plus bill that was voted on in the Senate today to end debate?  My guess is a big fat ZERO!  This action was also taken before the American public could get a chance to read the bill.  (Really, who has the free time to read 2000 pages of legal mumbo-jumbo, that probably most Senators and/or Congressmen don’t understand?)

And to top off this fleecing, the Senate is scheduled to vote on Christmas Eve for final passage of the bill.  I keep on asking myself the same question over and over again….  What’s the rush?  Is the rush to get the President a bill so that he and Democrats can have a political victory going into the mid-term elections?  If that is truly the case, the Congress is doing a poor job of handling not only our tax dollars, but of not handling our business very well.

Remember when the President stated that the CSPAN cameras would be present for all negotiations?  Wow, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  Senators Reid, Dodd, Durbin, Lieberman, and Nelson, were all crammed into Harry Reid’s office on the Hill, no CSPAN cameras present, and a deal was hammered out.  What does this action say about transparency?  Absolutely zippo.  The Dems are no better than the Republicans have been.  Secret deals in dark backrooms.

This bill is such a great Christmas present for all us taxpayers.  I’m sure going to enjoy seeing my taxes go up to pay for reform that may or may not be true reform at all.  Raise the taxes to pay for something that won’t see any immediate results until 3-4 years down the road.  Lemme tell you, something about that doesn’t pass the sniff test.  The President has just about declared victory, along with his advisors.

Who wins here?  Senior citizens, nope, not with those drastic cuts in Medicare….  The rich, no again….  The unions, definitely not, not with a tax on so called “cadillac” plans.

Essentially, my main beef is, there really hasn’t been any transparency during this whole process.  If there had been more transparency, there wouldn’t be the need for early morning Saturday votes and Christmas eve votes when no one is really paying attention.

I’m calling the President and his Democratic allies in both the House and Senate out on this one.  What a complete lack of transparency, this isn’t change we could all believe in by any stretch of the imagination.  The way this bill has been handled is “more of the same.”  It has essentially confirmed my belief, that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

So we’re going to get a crappy bill because of the crappy effort our elected leaders have done for us.  Whatever happened to the concept of taking your time and doing it right the first time, so as few mistakes as possible can be made.  Apparently, that’s not the mantra of our political leaders.  Instead, we’re still in an era of gotcha politics, where we have to get political victories at any cost, even if it screws us the people, so our elected leaders can ensure their re-election bids.

I’m sick and tired of the way things are conducted in Washington, but I also don’t have any hope that the way things are done is going to change either.

Balanced Budget Amendment…Is the Time Right?

With all the large spending bills in the last year and some change, and with more on the way, such as potential health care reform, a jobs stimulus bill, etc, it has finally got me to thinking….  Are we ready to finally have a serious discussion on a balanced budget amendment for our Constitution?

I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m really beginning to think that this Democratic Congress’s PAYGO rules really are nothing but a lot of cloak and dagger stuff.  With a $787 billion stimulus, approximately $80 billion for jobs creation, more than $500 billion for health care reform, and however much cap-and-trade will cost.  PAYGO, in my opinion, really isn’t getting the job done here.

We have a $12 trillion debt, and Congress, just earlier this week, passed a bill to increase our debt limit so our government can continue to operate.  This fiscal year alone we have a $1.5 trillion debt according to usdbetclock.org.  This issue becomes even more complex once baby boomers begin retiring and collecting social security benefits and also enroll in Medicare.  We already have so many unfunded liabilities in these entitlement programs, and with not enough younger workers to keep the system afloat, we are coming up on some dire financial straits.

Here in the Commonwealth of Virginia, we have a balanced budget amendment in our state constitution.  Our biennial budget is required to be balanced, and if we have any shortfall from tax revenues, the state is required to cut spending on programs, or find other ways to save costs.  This approach has allowed our Commonwealth to continually be named as one of the best states ran in the country.  I, as I’m sure many other Virginians, are pleased to know our state isn’t allowed any deficit spending in our budget.

I truly believe such an approach would work on the Federal level and would bring more fiscal responsibility to our country.  Our elected leaders on Capitol Hill would think several times before enacting spending legislation.  Now, how much support this amendment would have with our liberal Democratic friends and their Progressive allies, that remains to be seen.

Speaker Pelosi and the President and his OMB Chief Peter Orszag have indicated their willingness to address our ever-increasing deficit, but I realize, with a progressive liberal agenda, that our current leaders envision, a balanced budget amendment doesn’t necessarily fit into those plans.

I truly hope our political leaders can truly begin to discuss with a sense of seriousness a balanced budget amendment to our Constitution.  Not only would it bring us a more fiscal security with the Treasury, but it would also have benefits for our domestic economy, that should eventually trickle out to the global economy.

Obama’s Message to GOP….

So on The Hill’s website, I come across a posting that’s entitled:  “Obama to GOP:  ‘Stop Trying to Frighten the American People.’  You’ve got to be kidding me right?  This notice coming from the President?  He thinks the GOP is frightening us?  That very well may be true, but let’s not throw stones at glass houses Mr. President.  As recently as Monday, Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader from Nevada, had these wonderful remarks:

 

So let me get this straight, Harry, you want to lump together those who were opposed to banning slavery, opposed to granting women suffrage, and those opposed to the Civil Rights Act, to those who oppose health care reform?  I truly believe this is an unfair comparison.  This language could create a feeling of guilt by association in order to pass a bill that a great number of people in this country are against, in its current form.  Way to go Harry!  Way to try to scare moderate members of the GOP, and from your own caucus into voting for your 2,000 page + brick of legislation.

Let’s continue with another example of how democrats are trying to scare those who oppose either the President or the health care reform package.  Remember this video from this past September?  Here’s Speaker Pelosi:

So Speaker Pelosi was concerned about the tone of the rhetoric and making a veiled reference to the Harvey Milk assassination.  Gotta love how the Speaker just goes ahead and tries to intimidate those who speak loudly against health care reform and linking them to violence….  Hmmm……..

And how about this nugget from former President Jimmy Carter:

So according to President Carter a lot of the opposition is due to his race, and that is a concept that isn’t without merit.  You so much as mention racism, it gets people’s attention, and no one wants to be labeled accordingly.  If people are going to be called racist for opposing the President and/or his policies, it would put some fear into people from speaking up.

Essentially, I believe that both parties shouldn’t be in the business of fear mongering us into silence because we may oppose the majority party in their policies.  Let’s have a healthy debate because that’s part of what makes our system work so well.  When one party or another instills fear into the populace for voicing opposition, or debate, our republic will suffer as a result.

Emma Question 5 Answer and Final Thoughts

These are my thoughts on the fifth, and final, question I wished to explore when reading Emma:

It is often stated that good literature bears re-reading. In what ways is this particularly true of Emma?

To begin with, the descriptions of each social situation could have many different meanings, from many different points of view.  That is a main reason why this book should probably be read more than once in order to grasp the full meaning of the social aspects of this novel.

The same could be said of much of the dialogue of this novel.  It could be taken many different ways, that a second, or maybe even a third reading may be required.  It is even stated in the introduction to the novel that readers pick up something new with each reading of the novel, and I truly believe this to be the case.  I’m confident, that if I were to tackle this novel again, there are many other points that I missed  that I would pick up again.  Perhaps, one day,  I will return to Emma to discover new concepts that I missed in my first reading.

My final thoughts are, that this novel was definitely worth the time.  I had never tackled Jane Austen before, and I think Emma was a good introduction for me to the world of Jane Austen.

Emma Question 4 Answer

These are my thoughts on the fourth question I wished to look at from reading Emma:

Even Jane Austen’s most devoted fans agree that she does not deal with extreme passions, heroic tragedies, or world historical events.  What is it in her work that can appeal to street tough guys, jaded sophisticates, and over-educated academics?

This novel can appeal to street tough guys by showing that women in Emma are tough, and can handle a heck of a lot, injury, being jilted by men, etc.  It also shows how tough of a world, at least in the social arena, that Jane Austen’s world, culturally was.  It’s clear that both men and women needed to have thick skins in order to survive socially.

For jaded sophisticates, this novel shows that English high society keeps things fresh and upbeat.  You never know what can happen in Emma’s world from one day to the next.  It will keep those jaded sophisticates interested with the day-to-day activities.  From the secret engagement of Miss Fairfax and Mr. Churchill, and Emma’s daily activities.

For over-educated academics, this novel can appeal to people because it is displays so many aspects of culture that causes you to scratch your head.  From all the talking about parties, and the social norms, there is enough symbolically to keep one guessing.

It is amazing to me at how many different levels, this novel can be attractive to many different types of people, and how anyone could be pulled into the world of Emma.  This novel clearly demonstrates how it has stood the test of time and is enjoyed by many different types of readers.

Emma Question 3 Answer

These are my thoughts on the third question I wished to look at for my trip through Emma:

At the end of the novel, do Emma and Knightley deserve each other?  Why or why not?

Sure Emma and Knightley deserve each other.  Mr. Knightley deserves Emma because he is the only man who would be able to put up with all her character flaws.  He clearly has no problem pointing out her poor behavior, and Emma only allows Mr. Knightley to get away with those comments.  Mr. Knightley is also the only man willing to move into Emma and Mr. Woodhouse’s home and deal with Mr. Woodhouse and his rapid rise into old age, and his ever decreasing amount of patience.

Emma deserves Mr. Knightley because he is the only one that accepts her for who she truly is, flaws included.  This acceptance allows her to be herself at all times, without any fear of being ostracized.  As mentioned previously, Mr. Knightley is also amenable to accommodating Emma’s persistence in remaining in her father’s home so she can continue to care for her father.  She has also always looked up to Mr. Knightley, and respects him terribly.

They make a perfect match as they clearly understand each others’ points of view, and share a common vision of how their lives going forward should be.