Really, Who Has the Time to Read HR 3200?

As we’re all well aware, the health care reform bill has been getting quite a bit of attention while Congress is on their annual August recess.  We’ve all seen the protests and the heated debates on the news on the town hall meetings that are being conducted.  During this period of time, one would like to think that it would be easy to go and read the bill, so we can all become well-informed citizens on this important piece of legislation.

I, for one, truly believe in being an educated citizen, so I can at least know whether or not the media is telling the story straight.  So I finally decided to go to my congressman’s website and see if I could find an electronic copy of the bill.  Come to find out, the bill, H.R. 3200 is available for perusal on the Thomas website, a Library of Congress website.  My congressman’s website provided a link to H.R. 3200 which is here.

I must have been delusional to think that this exercise would be short and that I would be able to get through the bill and actually understand what it completely says.  Boy was I sorely mistaken!  The bill is 1000+ pages in length!  Now, I don’t know about anyone else, but I certainly don’t have the time, nor the inclination to read something as dry as a piece of legislation.  How many people actually do?  That’s why it was most curious to me that President Obama, and members of the do-nothing Congress, wanted to rush this bill through and get it passed by the August recess.  It made me actually wonder if these elected representatives actually know what’s in this particular piece of legislation.  I also wonder if the White House actually does.

Add to the difficulty that Congressional leaders and the White House haven’t done a very good job of selling this reform bill other than to simply state “it’s needed.”  What a terrible sales pitch.  My main question is, why do we need mammoth bills like this one is?  Can’t these things be put together in a fashion where we can all have the time to read them and be able to provide feedback to our elected leaders if we decide to do so?  With the way this bill is structured, no one will have the time to read it and provide any feedback.  Is that just me, or am I going crazy?

When I saw how long this bill was, I actually e-mailed my congressman and asked him if his office could put together a five page version pretty much summarizing everything in a manner that everyone can understand.  This method would also provide him the opportunity to put to bed some of the vicious rumors I’ve been hearing about this bill, such as “death panels” which I don’t think is actually in the bill, but other myths as well.  And, since this bill does include the public option that all liberals want, I want to see some of the nitty gritty details on how that would work, and what safeguards are in place to avoid a single payer system.  And how this public option would allow greater competition, before I can make an educated decision on whether to fully support the reform bill or not.  I don’t think that’s too much to ask, or I could be mistaken.

With something as important as this piece of legislation is, and with how it has become so polarized, I think our leaders owe it to us, to do a better job of explaining this bill in less than 1000 pages.  Perhaps I’m just expecting too much.

Finally! Something Coming from Congress Makes Sense!!

Holy cow!  Finally, something that is coming out of this do-nothing Democratic majority Congress, makes some sense.  After the President’s hour long presser last night dealing with health care, today you have the Senate’s Majority Leader, Harry Reid, saying that they won’t meet the President’s deadline of August 7th.  Let’s just say, I’m not overly disappointed.  You can see Senator Reid’s remarks here.  I will say one thing about this delay, finally they are taking their time in passing a bill, unlike the stimulus package.  I truly believe we need health care reform, but instead of rushing through it, with a partisan bill, like Nancy Pelosi wants, let’s get something that’s bipartisan, that may have a chance of the reform we need, while helping as many people as possible.  Kudos to Senator Reid, one whom I 99% of the time disagree with, for giving the Senate the time to come up with a bipartisan bill.

Caption This!

Secretaries Clinton & Gates, and the Prez

So I’m checking out Politico.com and come across their pictures of the week segment and the picture you see to your left was the first one.  Now, I’m unsure which event this picture was taken at, but I can’t help but notice Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s look during this event.

My goodness, I wonder what got her to be in such a sour mood during that particular event.  Whatever it was, she looks quite upset, or better yet, completely uninterested in what’s going on.  At least Secretary of Defense Robert Gates looks a little more interesting.

Or, could it be that she’s upset at herself for leaving the Senate?  She’s certainly had a lot on her plate since she’s left the Hill.  Between North Korea and their pending missile test launch, the Mexican drug cartel war going on, maybe the lack of experience is finally catching up to her.  On December 8, 2008, I wrote in this post my opinion on how I felt that Secretary Clinton was not qualified for the job in the first place.

Ultimately, I think it’s a combination of both, frustration with all the diplomatic problems she lacks the experience to tackle, and that she disinterested because she’s not the one responsible for making all the decisions.

Reconciliation…. Change You Can Believe In?

So, by now, everyone has heard of the possibility of Congressional democrats making use of reconciliation as  a method of getting President Obama’s budget passed in the Senate to avoid a Republican filibuster.  Fox news has an article about the possibility of reconciliation here.  Yesterday I received an email from the House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, about reconciliation.  According to that email, below is a description of budget reconciliation:

• Budget reconciliation was first introduced in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
• Budget reconciliation is an optional procedure that can be included in the annual Congressional budget resolution process.
• Inclusion in the budget does not mean reconciliation will definitely be used; it merely leaves the option on the table.
• The main purpose of budget reconciliation is to provide Congress the ability to change current law in order to align revenue and spending levels with the policies of the budget resolution.
• Although reconciliation is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980.

I have a major issue with this approach and it deals with our new president and his campaign rhetoric.  President Obama campaigned on a promise of bringing change to Washington, and how politics would not be the same as usual as it has been.  By encouraging reconciliation, the president is encouraging business as usual in the legislative process, specifically when we are talking about cap and trade environmental policies, health care reform, and ultimately the budget.  This process will effectively eliminate the opinion of the minority in order to quickly pass massive changes to the way we approach vital areas of interest.  Silencing the minority, that sounds like an encore presentation of what we went through from 2001 until 2006, where the democrats had very little say in how business was conducted in our nation’s capital.

The president needs to get on the ball here and persuade his democratic colleagues on the hill that we need to have the opportunity for full and open debate from all fronts.  In the Fox News article I cited above, I was surprised at what Senator Robert Byrd had to say about the reconciliation process:

Legislation so far-reaching should be fully vetted and given appropriate time for debate, something the budget reconciliation process does not allow. Using this procedure would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the Obama administration’s stated goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness.

I have found it very difficult to find anything I can agree with Senator Byrd on, but on this occassion I find myself agreeing with him 100% on this issue.

I would like to see the President practice what he preaches because I am sick and tired of seeing business as usual here in the nation’s capital and would like to actually see something constructive accomplished in a bi-partisan manner.

Congratulations to President Obama!

What a historic day!  Even though I do not agree with most of President Obama’s political leanings, I can definitely recognize the historic importance of today’s inauguration.  I will make an additional post about the President’s inaugural address, but overall, I felt it was very centrist in nature, which was definitely a good thing.  It was definitely good to see the throngs of people on television, places I typically pass on my daily commute into Washington.  I have not seen the National Mall that packed before ever, even during the first inauguration of President G.W. Bush, which I attended, in 2001.

Today should definitely serve as an example to the rest of the world, that here in the United States of America, we can peacefully elect, and transition power from one administration to another.

I hope the Obama family and administration enjoys the day, because tomorrow, I expect the new Administration to start working.

Clinton & Rice Meet To Discuss Transition

So yesterday Senator Clinton and Secretary Rice met to discuss the job of Secretary of State.  I sure hope Senator Clinton took copious notes, she’s gonna need all the help she can get.  Perhaps Senator Rice gave her a user’s manual so to speak, since I hold the belief that Senator Clinton DOES NOT have the required knowledge, skills, and abilities to serve as our top diplomat.  President Elect Obama’s statement announcing her appointment says as much:

Over nearly four decades in public service, as an attorney, First Lady, Senator, and presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has become one of the nation’s foremost champions for children and families and advocates for women’s rights and human rights. During the Clinton Administration, she transformed the role of First Lady, fighting for universal health care and helping to lead successful bipartisan efforts to improve the adoption and foster care systems, reduce teen pregnancy, and provide health care to millions of children through the Children’s Health Insurance Program. As a representative of the United States, she championed American interests as well as the rights of women and girls in more than eighty countries around the world. In November 2000, Senator Clinton became the first First Lady elected to public office and the first woman elected independently in New York State; she has since won reelection. In the Senate, she has continued to advocate for equal access to health care, education, and economic opportunity for women and girls around the world. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Clinton has fought for and secured in law improved health care for members of the National Guard and Reserves and worked to bring our troops home safely and responsibly from Iraq. She also serves as the only Senate member of the Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command, working to modernize our military. And Senator Clinton has continued to fight for quality, affordable health care for every American, working to strengthen the Children’s Health Insurance Program and expand the use of health information technology. Most recently, as a groundbreaking candidate for President of the United States, Senator Clinton became the first woman ever to win a presidential primary, receiving more than 18 million votes as an advocate for working families and a voice for millions of Americans who have felt invisible to their government.

The only international experience I see clearly indicated in this statement is the fact that Senator Clinton has championed American interests as well as the rights of women in girls to more than eighty countries around the world, as first lady.  Hmmm…..  During those times where she was championing American interests, and the rights of women in girls in over 80 countries, did she have to interact with world leaders?  Did she discuss serious diplomatic issues during these meetings?  I would like to see more specifics on those achievements that seem to make her oh so qualified to be our top diplomat.  Also, a newsflash, being married to a former president, and traveling with him around the world, does not make you qualified to be secretary of state. I’ve also traveled around the world by virtue of being a military brat, does that make me qualified?  A lot of people would say no. 

The domestic issues that Mr. Obama mentions in his statement have no relevance on her qualifications, or lack thereof, to be secretary of state.  Sure, it’s great that she’s been an advocate for health care for vets, guardsmen, reservists, and children, but those accomplishments are domestic in nature, not international.

Also, how does being the first woman to win a presidential primary make you qualified?  Give me a break, that’s all window dressing.

My advice to Senator Clinton, take some classes, by the way, my alma mater, GW, has the Elliott School of International Affairs, they have classes that can help, and read a lot of books, you’re going to need it, madame Secretary.

My Take On The Auto Bailout

So the latest in this whole saga is that Chrysler and GM will be granted a vehicle for at least $15 billion in loans without any concessions made by American auto makers.  According to an article by the Washington Post, the legislation will include the ability for the White House to appoint a “car czar” to force the Big 3, if Ford indeed accepts money, to restructure or accept bankruptcy protection.  I agree, I think that if the Federal government provides any taxpayer money to the Big 3, that they should be forced to make changes to their faulty business model.  Why simply throw money at something that’s broke and will delay the inevitable, the demise of these automakers.  If the Big 3 are unwilling to make these difficult changes, why give them money, let them fail.

However, what I find most disturbing about these recent revelations, is the following quote from the Washington Post’s article, which can be found here:

…some Democrats want to give the companies the money upfront and let President-elect Barack Obama name a car czar or full oversight board later, after he takes office.

So let me get this straight, Democrats were complaining, just the other day, about the lack of oversight for the $700 billion in bailout funds provided to the Treasury Department, and now they’re talking about providing the Big 3 with bailout money without ANY oversight?  What’s the matter with these people?  Oversight for financial institutions accepting bailout money, but not for the Big 3?  Talk about a major double standard here.

I’m not a dummy, and I realize exactly what this means, delaying any oversight means no oversight anytime soon, that’s Congress’ standard operating procedure.  Then, about 2 months later, the Big 3 CEOs will be back on the Hill asking for even more money with the same level of oversight.

Also, where is the UAW in this argument?  What are they going to give up to ensure that their members don’t lose their jobs?  Shouldn’t the UAW have a seat at the table here?  I seriously doubt the labor unions want to make any concessions, and this is a question that seems to be avoided during these bailout discussions.  If members of the auto labor unions refuse to concede anything, then the business model won’t be repaired, and we’ll be having this same discussion for a long period of time, except, this time, the discussion will be why these workers can’t find jobs now.

Management definitely holds responsibility as well.  I wonder whose idea it was to continue to make gas guzzling cars when gas prices kept soaring to $4 a gallon and more?  Why hasn’t any of the management of the Big 3 been developing alternative fuel vehicles?  It’s discouraging to me that the Big 3 haven’t embraced innovation to a much larger degree than what they have.  Granted, tonight, alone, I have seen 3 commercials for Chevy’s new Volt.  But it’s not enough.  The Big 3 have been declining businesses for quite some time, and finally, poor decision making on both the union’s and management’s parts have finally caught up with them, and now, it’s time to face the music.

Facing the music means paying for your mistakes, not asking for forgiveness from the American taxpayer.  Take your lumps, revamp your product line and business model and let’s see if you can survive.  But don’t count on the American people to bail you out of your mistakes.

Imaginary Pro-Obama Bias?

You’ve got to be kidding me right?  So on Huffington Post’s website, I read this post by Bob Cesca entitled “The Extreme and Imaginary Pro-Obama Bias.“  Before beginning my rant on this subject, I want to clearly point out that I was one of the thousands of independent voters in this country.  As an independent voter, even I could see the pro-Obama bias in the media.  I don’t think I have ever seen the media, in particular NBC and MSNBC, so biased toward one presidential candidate before in my life.  Apparently, Bob wasn’t watching the same news I was watching over the course of the last year.  Even the Ombudsman of the Washington Post, one of the most liberal papers in this country, stated there were more positive stories on Barack Obama than John McCain.  Hmm…..

The basis of his post was a quote that Mark Halperin made during a forum in which he indicated quote:

“It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war,” Halperin said at a panel of media analysts. “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

Now, I must say, I don’t think the media failed the people during this presidential election; however, I do feel that the media must provide “equal” coverage to each candidate.  I would like to call out something though that Bob Cesca does point out in his post, and that’s his claim that Barack Obama was not rated the most liberal senator in the U.S. Senate.  Apparently, the National Journal must be incorrect in their rankings, especially for 2007, which can be found here, and the table clearly indicates that Obama is rated the most liberal.  For what it’s worth, Senator Biden was ranked third in the same year’s rankings.

Now, I will also say that the media did go overboard with some of the negative reporting on Barack Obama.  On Fox News, they did overplay the Jeremiah Wright issue, which I definitely thought they took too far.  I also think they gave too much air to the whole Bill Ayers question.  However, I do think, overall, Fox News was fair to Barack Obama, and I thought he showed a lot of guts to appear on Bill O’Reilly’s show.

Now, did Barack Obama mostly run a positive campaign, yes, was McCain’s negative, yes.  However, the media did act like Barack Obama could do no wrong, and as I have stated in my previous post “Can We Now Ask Serious Questions?”, I will await to see if he will actually be asked serious questions, and if he does make a mistake, that they will be fully reported on by the media, on all networks, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, and Fox News.  When, and if, that happens, I will be happy to acknowledge no pro-Obama bias in the media.

However, until that time, the idea that it is imaginary, is simply inaccurate, as is the notion that Barack Obama was not the Senate’s most liberal member.

Americans Don’t Know Civics

I came across an interesting article on USA Today’s website, “Americans don’t know civics.”  What is really disturbing about this article, is the fact that the average score on the test, given by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, was 49%.  49%????????  In my opinion, given the record turnout in the election earlier this month, this number is highly unacceptable.  More people know who Paula Abdul is than what is included in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address!  I’m afraid, these results don’t surprise me in the slightest bit.

The sad thing about this whole situation is, basic civics lessons are on the decline in America.  I graduated from high school more than a decade ago, and I can tell you even then, basic civics was sorely lacking.  While attending college at GW, there was very little done in the area of basic U.S. civics.  Sure, I took an American Politics class as one of my basic requirements, but even in that class, we did not discuss most of the items this quiz questions you on.

Most of what I learned in civics, I picked up in a book, and did a lot of reading.  I say that because I want to be completely educated when I am making decisions, not only at the ballot box, but when I deal with elected officials, so I can have some inkling of understanding when discussing these items with them.

The USA Today article previews a few questions from the quiz; however, you can take the entire quiz here.

I hope, when my kids go to school, they will see an increase in basic civics knowledge, but I do not have any problem with teaching them those things myself, if need be.  To me, this shows how much our public schools are failing not only us, but our children.

It is purely unacceptable, in my mind, that people have thrown basic knowledge to the curb in favor of video games, the internet, and Ipods.  An uneducated population leads people to make poor decisions when it comes to election time, and other important ballot issues that we, as Americans, need to decide on.  Without this basic knowledge, I feel, that we are trekking through the wildnerness without a guide, nor a compass.

Change You Can Believe In?

I’ve been monitoring the news over the course of the last several days, and I can’t help but notice that President-elect Obama is appointing more and more Clinton staffers to his transition staff and in some advisory roles.  Now, over the weekend, I see that Hillary Clinton may be Barack Obama’s choice for Secretary of State.

First, let me discuss this idea of appointing former Clinton staffers to Obama’s staff.  Barack Obama promised to bring change to Washington.  How does hiring former Clinton staffers indicate change?  To me these appointments seem like we’re going back to the past.  Is this an attempt to recapture magic in the bottle?  To me these appointments do not indicate change, it indicates more of the same.

I completely understand, given the state of the economy today, why some would choose to recapture the “magic” of the Clinton administration; however, that will be difficult given the climate of today’s America.  Plus, going back to the past will not help us solve today’s problems.  Who says yesterday’s solutions apply to today’s complex problems?  We’re in a completely different world than we were during the Clinton administration, so we need to be weary of adopting, verbatim, policies from yester-year.

Secondly, about the speculation of Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State.  How does the saying go, and this axiom definitely applies to politics, keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.  However, that is not my reasoning for discussing this potential choice.  My rationale is, how is she qualified to be America’s top diplomat?  What foreign policy experience does she have?  Sure, for eight years in the 90s she’s traveled with her husband to foreign countries, but foreign policy experience that is not.  Heck, I’ve traveled the world a lot growing up but that does not make me qualified to be secretary of state.

Also, Bill Clinton, as has been the case since she ran for president, will cause her additional difficulties during the vetting process.  It is no secret how much money President Clinton has raked in for his presidential library and through his other endeavors.  He has accepted contributions from the Chinese, a lot of middle eastern royal families, in particular the Saudis and the other emirates in the Arabian Peninsula.  Is this the type of controversy that Barack Obama wants to bring with him to Washington?  He would be much better off choosing NM Governor Bill Richardson.  At least he has experience with foreign leaders due to his work as our ambassador to the United Nations.  That in itself makes him more qualified to be secretary of state than Hillary Clinton.

I hope that Barack Obama will bring in an ideologically varied administration, like Lincoln did in 1861; however, I see more of the same from Barack Obama in the early going, and I’m not sure that’s the change he campaigned on.