So, as reported it is being reported today, Obama has made a "surprise" visit to Afghanistan to meet with Hamid Kharsai. It is also being reported that Kharsai is being told he MUST (and the emphasis here is mine, although apparently it is the underlying purposed of the visit), MUST do more clean up the corruption in the Kharsai government. The old saying of "the pot calling the kettle black" came instantly to mind. If you don't like old cliche's. Here's a better descriptor: Hypocrisy.
Here is a man who implants and empowers czars to run the government who are neither confirmed by Congress nor elected by the people. These czars have control over large portions of the nations economy (the automobile industry, banking industry, etc.) not to mention how the affectation of their decisions impact the daily lives of ordinary individuals. In fact, just this week, he has put 15 more people into important positions while Congress is on a 2-week break, blaming the GOP for the timing of it. How absurd is that? These positions are not that critical that they can't be put off two more weeks.
So, how is this different than some of the shenanigans that are done in countries like Afghanistan or Venezuela or Russia any other country where there is supposed to be some form of democractic practices? Rather than being standing apart, being " a light in a dark world", being an example to be followed, the Omaba-nation (once known as the USA) has made enormous steps toward blending in, being just like any other country that suppresses the wishes of the majority of its people. Who can now distinguish corruption in countries. It is all the same, but known only by different monikers, depending upon country and leader.
While the US is a downward spiral in regards to the corruption that is becoming commonplace in the highest level of government and places like Afghanistan are "supposedly" on an upward spiral, will that mean that our countries will meet somewhere in the middle - but still corrupt in its government? How can that be a good thing? With the obvious corruption in his own administration, how can Obama in good conscience demand better from Kharsai? There's another quote that comes to mind: "How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye."
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congress. Show all posts
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Thursday, October 15, 2009
More on the Healthcare Issue ...
Just a thought here: Let's say that the House and Senate can come up with a single plan and it goes to Obama and he signs it - with or without the public option. How much do you think that Congress can change that healthcare program between now and 2013 when it actually takes effect? The thought is more than I can comprehend just based on the "mind-boggling" actions Congress has done in passing these huge deficit inducing bills over the past year.
Right now there really isn't a single healthcare plan. There are at least five proposals out there right now. Some pet aspects from each of the versions will have to be cut when they put the different versions together - but they will not be forgotten. So, you could expect "disgruntled" Democrats to come back time and again to get those added to whatever version gets passed into law. This scenario is not so far fetched with the healthcare plan that is being shoved through our Congress right now and given how much debate is going on - even within parties. However, none of the proposed plans will contain the crucial elements that most Americans are adamant about - those being tort reform, capping drug and insurance costs, and cutting waste in Medicaid and Medicare.
No one is saying that malpractice shouldn't be litigated, but there should be some restrictions in place in such a way as to what constitutes frivolous lawsuits, time limits for litigation should also be shortened, and there should be caps placed on the awards. Drug companies should not be allowed to rob US citizens in favor of citizens of other countries to make their businesses profitable. The insurance companies should also be held accountable for running premiums costs up just to increase their bottom line. Waste in the administration of Medicare and Medicaid and fraudulent claims should be addressed and dealt with, too. And you know what? If these things were added to the legislation, that would be real healthcare reform!
Right now there really isn't a single healthcare plan. There are at least five proposals out there right now. Some pet aspects from each of the versions will have to be cut when they put the different versions together - but they will not be forgotten. So, you could expect "disgruntled" Democrats to come back time and again to get those added to whatever version gets passed into law. This scenario is not so far fetched with the healthcare plan that is being shoved through our Congress right now and given how much debate is going on - even within parties. However, none of the proposed plans will contain the crucial elements that most Americans are adamant about - those being tort reform, capping drug and insurance costs, and cutting waste in Medicaid and Medicare.
No one is saying that malpractice shouldn't be litigated, but there should be some restrictions in place in such a way as to what constitutes frivolous lawsuits, time limits for litigation should also be shortened, and there should be caps placed on the awards. Drug companies should not be allowed to rob US citizens in favor of citizens of other countries to make their businesses profitable. The insurance companies should also be held accountable for running premiums costs up just to increase their bottom line. Waste in the administration of Medicare and Medicaid and fraudulent claims should be addressed and dealt with, too. And you know what? If these things were added to the legislation, that would be real healthcare reform!
Monday, September 7, 2009
Tea Parties - We Will Be Heard
Contrary to what liberals are saying about the "Tea Party" idea, the Tea Party rallies are events where genuinely concerned people can come together to express their frustration over excessive government spending, government takeover of private corporations, pervasive governmental intrusion into our very lives, and where they can demonstrate a genuine concern over the challenges to some of our individual freedoms. And make no mistake, the people are "conservatives" who are Democrats, Independents, Republicans, and non-committed to any political party and from several racial backgrounds as well.
The Tea Party rally I just attended had quite a crowd for a small state; I'd estimate it was close to 1,500 people. I spent an hour and a half reading all the handmade signs and t-shirts that I could. No one wore swastikas or carried signs with racial slurs. There was nothing hateful about the rally. Instead, I saw signs that said things like "I fought for my country once, and I'll do it again!" "I've seen your change, now change it back." "No Obamacare." "Haste Makes Waste" "Term Limits Now!" "Stop spending my grandchildren's money!" "Silent Majority - No Longer Silent". Some were catchy like "I'm an anti-socialist" or "Astroturf made in [name of state]; Anger manufactured in Washington" and other signs expressing their desire for responsible spending, imposing term limits on Congress, the requirement of the teaching of the Constitution in public schools, as well as for Congress and the President to return to the Constitution as the ultimate guide writing and applying all laws.
All pretty innocuous, I'd say. But regardless of what was printed on their signs or shirts, their belief in their Constitutional rights to be heard is what brought them all to one central place to make a statement. And if I were to boil it all down to a few simple statements, it would be these: President Obama, we don't like path to socialism you have us going down and we are determined to go no further. Congress, since you work for us, we demand you listen to us. Preserve our individual freedoms now!
Obviously, since we elected our US Representatives and Senators to represent us (their home states) in Washington DC, it is natural for us to expect them to listen to us whether they are at home or when we contact their Washington offices, and then to express our wishes on the floor of the House and Senate or in committee meetings and to protect our interests. Unfortunately, many of them have truly forgotten that. Here's a prime example of that:
So, there you have it. Their constituents have become a vehicle to get elected, to gain power, and then they are no longer necessary because "everybody knows that it's hard to get an incumbent out of office." Perhaps that cliché' has long past. Ya think? We shall see. We shall see.
But in Washington, here's what is happening. Our representatives are hearing some things from their colleagues that they think has merit (or is a good deal that they can get in on or that they can line their pockets with or trade favors for), they conduct "legislative swap-meets", in order to gain support on issues that would profit them in some way. It's has become abundantly apparent that in Washington DC, and specifically in the halls of Congress, it's all about special interests groups, or how much money and favors change hands in order to get certain legislation passed, how it is going to benefit their own personal wealth, or give them position and/or power on committees, and so on. If you don't believe that's what it's all about, just look at how many lobbyists there are there in DC!
An example of what goes on might look something like this: If you help me get this bill passed, I'll support you in getting that widget manufacturing company to locate in your state and the company will pay out a bonus of a gazillion dollars which we will split. Or, if you help me get this legislation passed, I'll see that you get on such and such committee. But it starts back home. State legislators vote to lower taxes or give tax breaks/credits or make other conciliatory arrangements to lure business to their state. That brings jobs - a good thing - and it brings revenue in taxes - not a bad thing - but most importantly from a Tea Party perspective is the backroom dealings that go on that ultimately line the pockets of politicians who are sponsoring that company's relocation - a bad thing! There is corruption at every level of government beginning even in municipal government.
It is imperative that House and Senate members remember that they are sent Washington with a mandate from their voters, and should not come back home to lecture their constituents on what they have doing in Washington "for their good". Who, in the world, gave them the idea that they would get some epiphany while in Washington, that the socialistic ideas of a particular group of people, or the special interests of certain lobbyists would be best for their people back home?
Do they believe these conservatives from all political backgrounds are so stupid as to not know what has been going on for years and years on end? No, I don't think that's it - at least all of it. Rather, I think that they know that we were lulled into lethargy, perhaps feeling that we couldn't do anything to change the system - a feeling of hopelessness and oftentimes despair.
But those of us who are attending these Tea Parties do know what's going on, we have become well informed, and we have grown extremely tired of politics as usual, and we're not going to sit quietly by and let the erosion of our freedoms continue any more. We're going to start at ground zero and make a difference. We are going to "get in their faces", if necessary, and remind all of our elected officials that they work on our behalf, that we elected them to do a job for us. It is not their job to take office so they could barter and trade their votes on programs and policies and to line their pockets. They need to be reminded that people who elected them want to what they were mandated to do, to protect their Constitutional rights, to protect their interests and to represent them before the House and Senate. We certainly did not send our legislators to change the Constitution, to gain personal wealth while relieving us of our own, or to convert this nation to socialism or fascism or communism.
We Tea Party goers value our freedoms, we value free enterprise, and we value the system that allowed a bi-racial kid to rise to the rank of President of the United States without the benefit of wealth or birthright. That is what needs to be stressed -- how, under the freedoms that are afforded to the American people under the US Constitution, that can happen for anyone born under those liberties that we have enjoyed for over 200 years. Abraham Lincoln used to be our example for a poor, self-educated person's ability to become the leader of the free world. But today, we have a modern day model who had humble beginnings, managed to get a good education, and run and ascend to the highest office in the land. And in regard to Obama's School Speech to be delivered on Tuesday, that is all the politics that needs to be shared with elementary students.
But this same President seems intent on bringing us as quickly as possible to socialism. At every turn, he stresses socialistic policy where the hardest workers are required to share with those who don't put forth equal effort, or won't work at all. I'm not talking about people who cannot work. There are government programs (though improperly run) and charities in existence to assist those with their needs. But to say that if we work very hard and make a very good living and provide a comfortable life for our families, that we will be penalized by having to dole out part of our means to others who don't put forth equal effort. Or if we start a business and it finally becomes successful, that we'll have to pay a high tax level which will be diverted to the poor (if it really ever reaches them). That only encourages lazy, non-productive individuals who are content to just "exist" to sit back with hands out. It discourages those like Obama with humble beginnings to reach for a higher plateau than they were born to. And there are lots of people out there that don't have any drive or ambition in life.
So, Tea Parties are popping up with a unified agenda to do whatever they can peacefully and lawfully to protect our Constitutional rights to enjoy life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. They're people who are simply concerned citizens, concerned over what they see happening to their country. Some are "wealthy" small business people, but most are middle class, blue-collar workers who have worked very hard for years and years to get to some level of comfortable living and who pay their fair share of taxes. Most of them have never been political before, never made a public stance on any issue, but they have now come together to form a coalition of grassroots patriots who will be a force to be reckoned in 2010 and 2012 and thereafter.
What they believe and what they're feeling - what's motivating them is captured in The Tea Party Anthem. Enjoy!
The Tea Party rally I just attended had quite a crowd for a small state; I'd estimate it was close to 1,500 people. I spent an hour and a half reading all the handmade signs and t-shirts that I could. No one wore swastikas or carried signs with racial slurs. There was nothing hateful about the rally. Instead, I saw signs that said things like "I fought for my country once, and I'll do it again!" "I've seen your change, now change it back." "No Obamacare." "Haste Makes Waste" "Term Limits Now!" "Stop spending my grandchildren's money!" "Silent Majority - No Longer Silent". Some were catchy like "I'm an anti-socialist" or "Astroturf made in [name of state]; Anger manufactured in Washington" and other signs expressing their desire for responsible spending, imposing term limits on Congress, the requirement of the teaching of the Constitution in public schools, as well as for Congress and the President to return to the Constitution as the ultimate guide writing and applying all laws.
All pretty innocuous, I'd say. But regardless of what was printed on their signs or shirts, their belief in their Constitutional rights to be heard is what brought them all to one central place to make a statement. And if I were to boil it all down to a few simple statements, it would be these: President Obama, we don't like path to socialism you have us going down and we are determined to go no further. Congress, since you work for us, we demand you listen to us. Preserve our individual freedoms now!
Obviously, since we elected our US Representatives and Senators to represent us (their home states) in Washington DC, it is natural for us to expect them to listen to us whether they are at home or when we contact their Washington offices, and then to express our wishes on the floor of the House and Senate or in committee meetings and to protect our interests. Unfortunately, many of them have truly forgotten that. Here's a prime example of that:
So, there you have it. Their constituents have become a vehicle to get elected, to gain power, and then they are no longer necessary because "everybody knows that it's hard to get an incumbent out of office." Perhaps that cliché' has long past. Ya think? We shall see. We shall see.
But in Washington, here's what is happening. Our representatives are hearing some things from their colleagues that they think has merit (or is a good deal that they can get in on or that they can line their pockets with or trade favors for), they conduct "legislative swap-meets", in order to gain support on issues that would profit them in some way. It's has become abundantly apparent that in Washington DC, and specifically in the halls of Congress, it's all about special interests groups, or how much money and favors change hands in order to get certain legislation passed, how it is going to benefit their own personal wealth, or give them position and/or power on committees, and so on. If you don't believe that's what it's all about, just look at how many lobbyists there are there in DC!
An example of what goes on might look something like this: If you help me get this bill passed, I'll support you in getting that widget manufacturing company to locate in your state and the company will pay out a bonus of a gazillion dollars which we will split. Or, if you help me get this legislation passed, I'll see that you get on such and such committee. But it starts back home. State legislators vote to lower taxes or give tax breaks/credits or make other conciliatory arrangements to lure business to their state. That brings jobs - a good thing - and it brings revenue in taxes - not a bad thing - but most importantly from a Tea Party perspective is the backroom dealings that go on that ultimately line the pockets of politicians who are sponsoring that company's relocation - a bad thing! There is corruption at every level of government beginning even in municipal government.
It is imperative that House and Senate members remember that they are sent Washington with a mandate from their voters, and should not come back home to lecture their constituents on what they have doing in Washington "for their good". Who, in the world, gave them the idea that they would get some epiphany while in Washington, that the socialistic ideas of a particular group of people, or the special interests of certain lobbyists would be best for their people back home?
Do they believe these conservatives from all political backgrounds are so stupid as to not know what has been going on for years and years on end? No, I don't think that's it - at least all of it. Rather, I think that they know that we were lulled into lethargy, perhaps feeling that we couldn't do anything to change the system - a feeling of hopelessness and oftentimes despair.
But those of us who are attending these Tea Parties do know what's going on, we have become well informed, and we have grown extremely tired of politics as usual, and we're not going to sit quietly by and let the erosion of our freedoms continue any more. We're going to start at ground zero and make a difference. We are going to "get in their faces", if necessary, and remind all of our elected officials that they work on our behalf, that we elected them to do a job for us. It is not their job to take office so they could barter and trade their votes on programs and policies and to line their pockets. They need to be reminded that people who elected them want to what they were mandated to do, to protect their Constitutional rights, to protect their interests and to represent them before the House and Senate. We certainly did not send our legislators to change the Constitution, to gain personal wealth while relieving us of our own, or to convert this nation to socialism or fascism or communism.
We Tea Party goers value our freedoms, we value free enterprise, and we value the system that allowed a bi-racial kid to rise to the rank of President of the United States without the benefit of wealth or birthright. That is what needs to be stressed -- how, under the freedoms that are afforded to the American people under the US Constitution, that can happen for anyone born under those liberties that we have enjoyed for over 200 years. Abraham Lincoln used to be our example for a poor, self-educated person's ability to become the leader of the free world. But today, we have a modern day model who had humble beginnings, managed to get a good education, and run and ascend to the highest office in the land. And in regard to Obama's School Speech to be delivered on Tuesday, that is all the politics that needs to be shared with elementary students.
But this same President seems intent on bringing us as quickly as possible to socialism. At every turn, he stresses socialistic policy where the hardest workers are required to share with those who don't put forth equal effort, or won't work at all. I'm not talking about people who cannot work. There are government programs (though improperly run) and charities in existence to assist those with their needs. But to say that if we work very hard and make a very good living and provide a comfortable life for our families, that we will be penalized by having to dole out part of our means to others who don't put forth equal effort. Or if we start a business and it finally becomes successful, that we'll have to pay a high tax level which will be diverted to the poor (if it really ever reaches them). That only encourages lazy, non-productive individuals who are content to just "exist" to sit back with hands out. It discourages those like Obama with humble beginnings to reach for a higher plateau than they were born to. And there are lots of people out there that don't have any drive or ambition in life.
So, Tea Parties are popping up with a unified agenda to do whatever they can peacefully and lawfully to protect our Constitutional rights to enjoy life, liberty, and to pursue happiness. They're people who are simply concerned citizens, concerned over what they see happening to their country. Some are "wealthy" small business people, but most are middle class, blue-collar workers who have worked very hard for years and years to get to some level of comfortable living and who pay their fair share of taxes. Most of them have never been political before, never made a public stance on any issue, but they have now come together to form a coalition of grassroots patriots who will be a force to be reckoned in 2010 and 2012 and thereafter.
What they believe and what they're feeling - what's motivating them is captured in The Tea Party Anthem. Enjoy!
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
What's Good for the Goose...
Representative Charles Rangel (D), the House Ways and Means Committee chairman -- you know, the committee that writes the tax laws -- well, he owes a lot of money in back taxes, but he is now wanting to impose "double penalties" on the rest of us even if we make honest mistakes.
Somehow, he conveniently didn't report rental income from his vacation home he's owned in the Caribbean since 1988. He has now disclosed $75,000 in income over the past five years only, but what about those other years? His excuse for failure to pay his fair share on this income was: "While over the years I delegated to my staff the completion of my annual House financial disclosure statements, I had the ultimate responsibility." Ya think?
But there's more discrepancies in Mr. Rangel's income reporting. Seems he, or someone else, found somewhere between a half million and three-quarters of a million dollars tucked away in a checking account. Hmmm? That's not easy to forget about since you get monthly statements on this type of account, right? DOH! So he's now disclosed some of these "mistakes", but has he adjusted his income and revised his tax return and paid any additional taxes that were due, not to mention the penalties?
Wait, that's not all. There are some questions about nondisclosure of his sizable investments in JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock. WHAT? And what about not paying property taxes on a couple lots he owns in New Jersey that have been valued at "as much as" $15,000 each. Where can you buy land anywhere in the northeast at that price? Really, I'd like to know.
So, Mr. Rangel wants to punish you with double penalties for not paying all your taxes, even if there was an honest mistake made. And guess what, he's trying to get that clause slipped into the healthcare bill. Give me a break! Give us all a break! Everything gets back to that albatross healthcare bill, doesn't it?
I guess that's because this healthcare bill is so complex, no one would notice. You think? And since we already know members of Congress have a Golden Parachute in regards to their own healthcare and they won't be affected by this bill, perhaps the new IRS penalties wouldn't either?
Under the Congress's healthcare plan, they have full coverage and no out of pocket expenses. Yet, they are wanting the rest of us to have this healthcare plan that, when restructured according to their imposed guidelines, will produce reduced care quality. Never mind philosophically, just logistically that's true. You cannot provide the same quality health care we presently are getting to the majority of people when you add 45, 46, 47 million people (depending on which politician you listen to). There aren't enough doctors available. The daily calendars of doctors are already triple booked, as you can attest to by your long waits already. It stands to reason that you can't force that many more people into the system without additinonal doctors. Ah -- but I digress. Sorry.
As questions about Representative Rangel's tax indiscretions was coming to light, Republican Congressional leaders called for him to be replaced as chairman of Ways and Means saying that Mr. Rangel's tax indiscretions had grown to the point where he "cannot effectively carry out his duties as chairman."
In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D), Rep. John Boehner (R), the House Minority leader, wrote, "You, as the speaker of the House, must insist that Representative Rangel step down from his Ways and Means chairmanship pending an investigation of his ethical lapses." Her response through a spokesperson was, "The American people would be better served if Republicans would stop playing politics and allow the bipartisan ethics committee to do its job." Well, I'd like to see them actually do their job! Perhaps they're impeded by their own unethical behaviors or perhaps they're indentured in some way to their own parties. Whatever the issues may be, it takes an enormous amount of time to act against a member of the House, the resulting penalties for offense have generally amounted to a slap on the wrist or a censure. OUCH! That hurts, right? And the IRS doesn't even seize their assets.
And let's not forget that there's plenty of Senators that need to be investigated and properly reprimanded as well. Unethical behavior is not occurring in just one party; it's both. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have their share of offenders and they need to be held accountable. They have got to realize that they are not above the laws that they have imposed on the country at large.
So, I'm declaring that Congress has got to be reigned in. Let me reiterate that. Congress has got to be reigned in and held accountable. They have gotten so far out there that they aren't even orbiting the rest of us. They must be made to realize that they are not immune to prosecution for violations of the very laws they have written and enacted.
You know what? Congress works for us, the people. They really do. And most of them, because of having held office so long, have forgotten that. So, it's no wonder they feel as if they can write their "own ticket". They have learned how to fly just under the radar as they build wealth and political power. They get in bed with lobbiests. They barter their votes.... our votes.... for political gain. It's just wrong. It's all wrong. It's really unethical behavior all around. We must demand that they represent us and not the interests of lobbyists or their colleagues. Why are we allowing this behavior to continue?
Besides our own complacency, what gives Congressional members who violate the very laws they enacted immunity against prosecution? What gives them a lesser penalty than what we would be charged? In regards to these issues like Rangel's, it is up to us to get tough on Congress and demand that they adhere to these laws that they are imposing on us? All the laws. And if they don't, we need to make sure that the Ethics Committee will follow through with appropriate action. We all should be held responsible for our own actions and face the consequences for our irresponsible behavior. No one, regardless of who they are and what position they hold should get a free pass. This preferential treatment given to office holders in Washington, DC has got to stop! This has got to stop - now!
Somehow, he conveniently didn't report rental income from his vacation home he's owned in the Caribbean since 1988. He has now disclosed $75,000 in income over the past five years only, but what about those other years? His excuse for failure to pay his fair share on this income was: "While over the years I delegated to my staff the completion of my annual House financial disclosure statements, I had the ultimate responsibility." Ya think?
But there's more discrepancies in Mr. Rangel's income reporting. Seems he, or someone else, found somewhere between a half million and three-quarters of a million dollars tucked away in a checking account. Hmmm? That's not easy to forget about since you get monthly statements on this type of account, right? DOH! So he's now disclosed some of these "mistakes", but has he adjusted his income and revised his tax return and paid any additional taxes that were due, not to mention the penalties?
Wait, that's not all. There are some questions about nondisclosure of his sizable investments in JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Oppenheimer and BlackRock. WHAT? And what about not paying property taxes on a couple lots he owns in New Jersey that have been valued at "as much as" $15,000 each. Where can you buy land anywhere in the northeast at that price? Really, I'd like to know.
So, Mr. Rangel wants to punish you with double penalties for not paying all your taxes, even if there was an honest mistake made. And guess what, he's trying to get that clause slipped into the healthcare bill. Give me a break! Give us all a break! Everything gets back to that albatross healthcare bill, doesn't it?
I guess that's because this healthcare bill is so complex, no one would notice. You think? And since we already know members of Congress have a Golden Parachute in regards to their own healthcare and they won't be affected by this bill, perhaps the new IRS penalties wouldn't either?
Under the Congress's healthcare plan, they have full coverage and no out of pocket expenses. Yet, they are wanting the rest of us to have this healthcare plan that, when restructured according to their imposed guidelines, will produce reduced care quality. Never mind philosophically, just logistically that's true. You cannot provide the same quality health care we presently are getting to the majority of people when you add 45, 46, 47 million people (depending on which politician you listen to). There aren't enough doctors available. The daily calendars of doctors are already triple booked, as you can attest to by your long waits already. It stands to reason that you can't force that many more people into the system without additinonal doctors. Ah -- but I digress. Sorry.
As questions about Representative Rangel's tax indiscretions was coming to light, Republican Congressional leaders called for him to be replaced as chairman of Ways and Means saying that Mr. Rangel's tax indiscretions had grown to the point where he "cannot effectively carry out his duties as chairman."
In a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D), Rep. John Boehner (R), the House Minority leader, wrote, "You, as the speaker of the House, must insist that Representative Rangel step down from his Ways and Means chairmanship pending an investigation of his ethical lapses." Her response through a spokesperson was, "The American people would be better served if Republicans would stop playing politics and allow the bipartisan ethics committee to do its job." Well, I'd like to see them actually do their job! Perhaps they're impeded by their own unethical behaviors or perhaps they're indentured in some way to their own parties. Whatever the issues may be, it takes an enormous amount of time to act against a member of the House, the resulting penalties for offense have generally amounted to a slap on the wrist or a censure. OUCH! That hurts, right? And the IRS doesn't even seize their assets.
And let's not forget that there's plenty of Senators that need to be investigated and properly reprimanded as well. Unethical behavior is not occurring in just one party; it's both. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have their share of offenders and they need to be held accountable. They have got to realize that they are not above the laws that they have imposed on the country at large.
So, I'm declaring that Congress has got to be reigned in. Let me reiterate that. Congress has got to be reigned in and held accountable. They have gotten so far out there that they aren't even orbiting the rest of us. They must be made to realize that they are not immune to prosecution for violations of the very laws they have written and enacted.
You know what? Congress works for us, the people. They really do. And most of them, because of having held office so long, have forgotten that. So, it's no wonder they feel as if they can write their "own ticket". They have learned how to fly just under the radar as they build wealth and political power. They get in bed with lobbiests. They barter their votes.... our votes.... for political gain. It's just wrong. It's all wrong. It's really unethical behavior all around. We must demand that they represent us and not the interests of lobbyists or their colleagues. Why are we allowing this behavior to continue?
Besides our own complacency, what gives Congressional members who violate the very laws they enacted immunity against prosecution? What gives them a lesser penalty than what we would be charged? In regards to these issues like Rangel's, it is up to us to get tough on Congress and demand that they adhere to these laws that they are imposing on us? All the laws. And if they don't, we need to make sure that the Ethics Committee will follow through with appropriate action. We all should be held responsible for our own actions and face the consequences for our irresponsible behavior. No one, regardless of who they are and what position they hold should get a free pass. This preferential treatment given to office holders in Washington, DC has got to stop! This has got to stop - now!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Cash for Clunkers - Are the Car Dealers Getting Clunked?
Hmmm. The Obama administration is claiming huge success with the Cash for Clunkers program. Well, it seemed a success, but the backwash is going to be extreme. Has this program been a cardboard cake form with thick sugary frosting on top? Apparently some dealerships are thinking so and are pulling out of the program. Why? Because they sold thousands of cars with a rebate of $3500 to $4500 per car from their lots but have received only 2% of $3 million dollar funding. So, can you blame them for pulling out now?
First, the government has placed a heavy shadow on these dealerships (the shadow of being closed down by the government, not based upon profitability but on ambiguity which some say is based upon political positions and favors).
Second, these dealerships have had a lot of their money tied up in loans for their business infrastructure as well as for their inventories for quite a while. Now, they're supporting the government's Cash for Clunkers Program by "loaning" the government these enormous amounts of money with no interest for an indefinite amount of time. (The agreement originally said there would be a maximum of 10-day wait for the reimbursement.)
So, it's easy to understand that these dealerships which had been allowed to continue their automotive business after the first White House "whack-down", signed up in the first place -- perhaps for fear of reprisal if they didn't. However, they're now paying interest on money that was passed on to these "clunker" customers and the White House isn't following through on their end of the deal. I'm sure they're wondering which situation is worse, going out of business because the Great and Mighty White House can arbitrarily shut them down, or having the banks foreclose on their business because they sold too many cars under the government's program for which they have not been reimbursed. I'm sure some of them dealers are finding it very difficult to make their mortgage and loan payments while they wait on the government to reimburse them. They're being screwed. How sad!
The White House says that the problem came about because the program was more successful than they'd anticipated. That's no excuse. No program should be implemented until it is thought through, and certainly given much more thought than this one was. That is not to say there won't be a few glitches because a new program always has some issues. However, in my opinion, this was a huge - and I mean huge! - miscalculation with no alternate recourse to be made available.
Okay, here's what a lot of folks are saying now after this fiasco: If the government can't run a simple program - and it is simple; customers trade an old car for a new one, the dealer files a claim online, and is supposed to get the rebate back in 10 days for the money that he's already passed on to the customer - then how in the world can we trust the government to handle more complex medical issues? They can't, primarily because they have no clue about the nuances of medical care. They don't have a clue about running a successful, profitable business. (This is not to say that they don't know how to get their hands on money and lots of it.... just ask Axelrod!)
Americans have to wake up from their fairytale dream and realize that the present administration is not their friend. It is not in power to benefit anyone other than those within the administration. And it's their intent, proven by their efforts to take over and destroy every part of American life, to gain as much power as they possibly can which will bring them great wealth at the expense of all the rest of us. When the majority of the people are against something proposed by the Administration, that should tell them something. But not this administration. Not this Congress. They are pushing through with each one of their agendas at the peril of destruction to this nation. Obama is not Prince Charming and this story cannot have a "live happily everafter" ending. That is, unless we as a nation step forward and begin right now to rewrite the story and its ending!
First, the government has placed a heavy shadow on these dealerships (the shadow of being closed down by the government, not based upon profitability but on ambiguity which some say is based upon political positions and favors).
Second, these dealerships have had a lot of their money tied up in loans for their business infrastructure as well as for their inventories for quite a while. Now, they're supporting the government's Cash for Clunkers Program by "loaning" the government these enormous amounts of money with no interest for an indefinite amount of time. (The agreement originally said there would be a maximum of 10-day wait for the reimbursement.)
So, it's easy to understand that these dealerships which had been allowed to continue their automotive business after the first White House "whack-down", signed up in the first place -- perhaps for fear of reprisal if they didn't. However, they're now paying interest on money that was passed on to these "clunker" customers and the White House isn't following through on their end of the deal. I'm sure they're wondering which situation is worse, going out of business because the Great and Mighty White House can arbitrarily shut them down, or having the banks foreclose on their business because they sold too many cars under the government's program for which they have not been reimbursed. I'm sure some of them dealers are finding it very difficult to make their mortgage and loan payments while they wait on the government to reimburse them. They're being screwed. How sad!
The White House says that the problem came about because the program was more successful than they'd anticipated. That's no excuse. No program should be implemented until it is thought through, and certainly given much more thought than this one was. That is not to say there won't be a few glitches because a new program always has some issues. However, in my opinion, this was a huge - and I mean huge! - miscalculation with no alternate recourse to be made available.
Okay, here's what a lot of folks are saying now after this fiasco: If the government can't run a simple program - and it is simple; customers trade an old car for a new one, the dealer files a claim online, and is supposed to get the rebate back in 10 days for the money that he's already passed on to the customer - then how in the world can we trust the government to handle more complex medical issues? They can't, primarily because they have no clue about the nuances of medical care. They don't have a clue about running a successful, profitable business. (This is not to say that they don't know how to get their hands on money and lots of it.... just ask Axelrod!)
Americans have to wake up from their fairytale dream and realize that the present administration is not their friend. It is not in power to benefit anyone other than those within the administration. And it's their intent, proven by their efforts to take over and destroy every part of American life, to gain as much power as they possibly can which will bring them great wealth at the expense of all the rest of us. When the majority of the people are against something proposed by the Administration, that should tell them something. But not this administration. Not this Congress. They are pushing through with each one of their agendas at the peril of destruction to this nation. Obama is not Prince Charming and this story cannot have a "live happily everafter" ending. That is, unless we as a nation step forward and begin right now to rewrite the story and its ending!
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
What About All This Health Care "Chatter"
I've been watching the reporting on several media outlets on these townhall meetings. The reporting appears, of course, to be a bit slanted depending upon which media outlet you pay attention to. So, rather than give comment on either of the various reports, I'll speak of what I saw and what I think about what I saw.
Time was that the townhall was used as a place where the people had a chance to tell their representatives what was on their minds and to ask for clarification on issues being discussed in the US Congress and get straight answers! But more recently, townhalls have become successful stumping grounds for political candidates in putting forth their political agendas prior to election. Thus, because that was so successful, townhalls have become a place where the well-entrenched politicians can come and tell us what they're doing and spin their actions such as to either confound their constituents further or to make "an appearance" of being a real representative for what is best for their constituents.
These more recent healthcare townhall meetings started with Arlen Specter and Kathleen Sebilius.... the first thing I noticed was that what came out of Specter's mouth was the excuse about not having time to read bills due to the rush put on them to pass the legislation, and then the same old rhetoric that has been spouted by healthcare proponents in the halls of Congress in Washington DC. At that point it became very clear that he and Kathleen were going to present the same old "blah-blah-blah" that had been spouted by all the healthcare reform supporters, and that's when those in attendance who are fed up with the same ol', same ol' began forcefully speaking out.
Yes, it was loud... and why? Because Specter and Sebilius had the microphones and they didn't, and they were determined to make their points. They saw that these two people came to present the same old propaganda with which they disagreed, and that these two standing in the front of the room really had no true answers to the legitimate questions the people had. So, their hopes of hearing something different, something to which they could ascribe, were dashed immediately and the result was that their frustration quickly grew.
I don't blame them. I've sent messages to my senators and representative and all I get for my effort is a thank you for contacting us form letter. There is no genuine statements of concern or that they were affected by my or anyone else's misgivings, nor did they give direct answers to my questions. So, if we call, email, or write letters and receive no real acknowledgement, is there any wonder that we're frustrated to the point of "getting in their face" just to be heard?
Today, I watched another of Arlen Specter's townhall meetings. Approximately 200 people or so were allowed into the hall and of those only 30 were allowed to draw numbers to ask questions. I applaud his attempt to control his meeting, but actually I found myself watching political "dodge ball" in some of the exchanges, meaning that I heard some pat "political non-answer answers" to a few of the questions to which he knew he'd get the most pushback or those he didn't want to directly box himself in on. I did hear a few promises made to not vote for certain provisions which were of concern to the audience members. Whether he keeps those promises is yet to be seen. After all, he abandoned those who put him in office, didn't he? All in all, it was a fairly respectful exchange with some passionate and pointed statements and questions. But I was still left with the feeling that Arlen Specter wasn't changed in his position by the concern and types of questions he was being asked. Rather, I feel that he was just relieved that he made it through this townhall meeting in one piece!
I feel it is really important to state that in the first townhall, I noticed the absence of what appeared to be an organized demonstration. I saw no pre-printed placards, I saw no group T-shirts. The only "union" I saw was when someone made a point that was shared by others in the audience, they stood up and applauded. For the most part they remained in their seats and a few stood to make their point before sitting down again. In the second one, I noticed the presence of law enforcement.... still no printed placards, no group T-shirts... no angry fists pumping in the air... just really concerned citizens. (But that's not what the far left and liberal media is claiming happens at these meetings.) Rather than troublemakers, I saw people who looked to be uber-mainstream... though somewhat older than those you normally see in a rowdy demonstration. No one advanced on the podium, no one shook angry fists in the speakers face, though there was some pointed fingers driving home their points. They were determined that this meeting was was not going to be a "just sit there and listen while I tell you what it is that's best for you," but the people in the smaller second townhall audience were more respectful and thanked him for showing up.
The atmosphere in these townhalls was charged no doubt, but they certainly weren't threatening. If the senators and representatives and cabinet members felt threatened, it must have come from within, knowing that what they were trying to sell wasn't a "genuine" product. And it wasn't until the White House called for their "paid grass roots" people - who are stupid enough to wear identification in the form of apparel and pre-printed placards - to attend and make their presence known - and were given preferential seating in the halls so as to present a more favorable appearance to the media - did there appear anything resembling violence. That's how they've been trained in these community organization camps - to disrupt through civil disobedience if necessary which means they can be violent, they can smack people around, they can shove and push, injure, and intimidate, etc. They better watch out, though. I've heard that little old grannies and old vets can be forces to be reckoned with!
I'm now watching Obama's townhall meeting and listening to him restate himself on some things he already said he wanted his healthcare plan to do. Standing behind him on stage are about a hundred obvious Obama supporters. The first several rows in the audience appear to be more of the same. Certain people are being selected from the audience to give their questions. In spite of the insistence that this isn't staged, it has all the appearances of an orchestrated townhall where he can relive his campaign glory days in a loving atmosphere and regurgitate his "charming" rhetoric to the viewing audience in an attempt to reset the tone and regain support for his healthcare/insurance plan.
I'm not the only one who's noticed a change in some of the terms he's using now. I'm not sure if it's due to the pressure he's feeling from some of these outspoken townhall attendees.... or a just reaction to the polls that are moving more and more to the negative. In an effort to win back those who have grievances against the original plan as published by the House of Representatives in their bill HR3200, Obama is now shifting from calling it "healthcare reform" to "insurance" reform.... just like he did when he changed the term the "stimulus" to "recovery". And why was that? Because the effects of the "stimulus" have not been evident. Recovery is a prolonged and less quantifiable term.
So far, the House and Senate leaders are sticking to their guns, though, and calling it healthcare reform. Some of these terms and other "volatile" terms continue to come out of the mouths of the House leadership. They're not following Obama's precedence. Perhaps Obama's Communications Director (or Czar or whatever) needs to communicate with the Senate and the House of Representatives about what the "term of du jour" is because they aren't saying the same things...
And it also appears that no one in Washington has actually read HR3200, or if they have, they don't know what actually is or isn't in it. You can tell that by the blank stares or excuses they're getting when asked about specific passages in the bill. Even Obama doesn't know what's in it and has said as much. No one has been able to answer what the actual cost of this legislation will be and where the funds to pay for it will come from. In fact, they want to pass it way before they know this information. That seems an asinine move. Would you commit to making a major purchase without knowing the cost and how you're going to pay for it? So I ask, are we surprised that we are somewhat confused about what is contained in this bill, what effect this healthcare/insurance plan will have on us, and what it's going to cost us not only in the immediate but down the road???
Regardless of what this piece of legislation is called it doesn't change the content of the bill and the things are that the townhallers are incensed about. I can't help but wonder. The majority of the people do not want this particular bill in either version. What they do want is tort reform, changes in insurance companies' control over cost and coverage, and they want affordable insurance premiums and healthcare. Why then are these congressmen embracing all these other things that are in this bill? Well, the answer is that's Washington. Slip whatever you can in under the radar so that you get what you've been paid for or repay those to whom you owe favors. I heard a report that pharmaceutical companies struck a deal with the White House within the last few days. Hmmm. There's only one answer for that I can think of.... lobbyi$t$!! What do you think?
I can only assume that Congress really doesn't care about how it affects everyone else because it doesn't touch them in a personal way. Well, hopefully those things are being watched more closely by the citizenry from now on, and those in the Senate and House will be held more accountable after this. Not only do we need to keep pressuring our representatives with questions for clarity on the healthcare issues, but we need to hold them accountable for all the promises they have made in their campaigns and in these townhall meetings.
Time was that the townhall was used as a place where the people had a chance to tell their representatives what was on their minds and to ask for clarification on issues being discussed in the US Congress and get straight answers! But more recently, townhalls have become successful stumping grounds for political candidates in putting forth their political agendas prior to election. Thus, because that was so successful, townhalls have become a place where the well-entrenched politicians can come and tell us what they're doing and spin their actions such as to either confound their constituents further or to make "an appearance" of being a real representative for what is best for their constituents.
These more recent healthcare townhall meetings started with Arlen Specter and Kathleen Sebilius.... the first thing I noticed was that what came out of Specter's mouth was the excuse about not having time to read bills due to the rush put on them to pass the legislation, and then the same old rhetoric that has been spouted by healthcare proponents in the halls of Congress in Washington DC. At that point it became very clear that he and Kathleen were going to present the same old "blah-blah-blah" that had been spouted by all the healthcare reform supporters, and that's when those in attendance who are fed up with the same ol', same ol' began forcefully speaking out.
Yes, it was loud... and why? Because Specter and Sebilius had the microphones and they didn't, and they were determined to make their points. They saw that these two people came to present the same old propaganda with which they disagreed, and that these two standing in the front of the room really had no true answers to the legitimate questions the people had. So, their hopes of hearing something different, something to which they could ascribe, were dashed immediately and the result was that their frustration quickly grew.
I don't blame them. I've sent messages to my senators and representative and all I get for my effort is a thank you for contacting us form letter. There is no genuine statements of concern or that they were affected by my or anyone else's misgivings, nor did they give direct answers to my questions. So, if we call, email, or write letters and receive no real acknowledgement, is there any wonder that we're frustrated to the point of "getting in their face" just to be heard?
Today, I watched another of Arlen Specter's townhall meetings. Approximately 200 people or so were allowed into the hall and of those only 30 were allowed to draw numbers to ask questions. I applaud his attempt to control his meeting, but actually I found myself watching political "dodge ball" in some of the exchanges, meaning that I heard some pat "political non-answer answers" to a few of the questions to which he knew he'd get the most pushback or those he didn't want to directly box himself in on. I did hear a few promises made to not vote for certain provisions which were of concern to the audience members. Whether he keeps those promises is yet to be seen. After all, he abandoned those who put him in office, didn't he? All in all, it was a fairly respectful exchange with some passionate and pointed statements and questions. But I was still left with the feeling that Arlen Specter wasn't changed in his position by the concern and types of questions he was being asked. Rather, I feel that he was just relieved that he made it through this townhall meeting in one piece!
I feel it is really important to state that in the first townhall, I noticed the absence of what appeared to be an organized demonstration. I saw no pre-printed placards, I saw no group T-shirts. The only "union" I saw was when someone made a point that was shared by others in the audience, they stood up and applauded. For the most part they remained in their seats and a few stood to make their point before sitting down again. In the second one, I noticed the presence of law enforcement.... still no printed placards, no group T-shirts... no angry fists pumping in the air... just really concerned citizens. (But that's not what the far left and liberal media is claiming happens at these meetings.) Rather than troublemakers, I saw people who looked to be uber-mainstream... though somewhat older than those you normally see in a rowdy demonstration. No one advanced on the podium, no one shook angry fists in the speakers face, though there was some pointed fingers driving home their points. They were determined that this meeting was was not going to be a "just sit there and listen while I tell you what it is that's best for you," but the people in the smaller second townhall audience were more respectful and thanked him for showing up.
The atmosphere in these townhalls was charged no doubt, but they certainly weren't threatening. If the senators and representatives and cabinet members felt threatened, it must have come from within, knowing that what they were trying to sell wasn't a "genuine" product. And it wasn't until the White House called for their "paid grass roots" people - who are stupid enough to wear identification in the form of apparel and pre-printed placards - to attend and make their presence known - and were given preferential seating in the halls so as to present a more favorable appearance to the media - did there appear anything resembling violence. That's how they've been trained in these community organization camps - to disrupt through civil disobedience if necessary which means they can be violent, they can smack people around, they can shove and push, injure, and intimidate, etc. They better watch out, though. I've heard that little old grannies and old vets can be forces to be reckoned with!
I'm now watching Obama's townhall meeting and listening to him restate himself on some things he already said he wanted his healthcare plan to do. Standing behind him on stage are about a hundred obvious Obama supporters. The first several rows in the audience appear to be more of the same. Certain people are being selected from the audience to give their questions. In spite of the insistence that this isn't staged, it has all the appearances of an orchestrated townhall where he can relive his campaign glory days in a loving atmosphere and regurgitate his "charming" rhetoric to the viewing audience in an attempt to reset the tone and regain support for his healthcare/insurance plan.
I'm not the only one who's noticed a change in some of the terms he's using now. I'm not sure if it's due to the pressure he's feeling from some of these outspoken townhall attendees.... or a just reaction to the polls that are moving more and more to the negative. In an effort to win back those who have grievances against the original plan as published by the House of Representatives in their bill HR3200, Obama is now shifting from calling it "healthcare reform" to "insurance" reform.... just like he did when he changed the term the "stimulus" to "recovery". And why was that? Because the effects of the "stimulus" have not been evident. Recovery is a prolonged and less quantifiable term.
So far, the House and Senate leaders are sticking to their guns, though, and calling it healthcare reform. Some of these terms and other "volatile" terms continue to come out of the mouths of the House leadership. They're not following Obama's precedence. Perhaps Obama's Communications Director (or Czar or whatever) needs to communicate with the Senate and the House of Representatives about what the "term of du jour" is because they aren't saying the same things...
And it also appears that no one in Washington has actually read HR3200, or if they have, they don't know what actually is or isn't in it. You can tell that by the blank stares or excuses they're getting when asked about specific passages in the bill. Even Obama doesn't know what's in it and has said as much. No one has been able to answer what the actual cost of this legislation will be and where the funds to pay for it will come from. In fact, they want to pass it way before they know this information. That seems an asinine move. Would you commit to making a major purchase without knowing the cost and how you're going to pay for it? So I ask, are we surprised that we are somewhat confused about what is contained in this bill, what effect this healthcare/insurance plan will have on us, and what it's going to cost us not only in the immediate but down the road???
Regardless of what this piece of legislation is called it doesn't change the content of the bill and the things are that the townhallers are incensed about. I can't help but wonder. The majority of the people do not want this particular bill in either version. What they do want is tort reform, changes in insurance companies' control over cost and coverage, and they want affordable insurance premiums and healthcare. Why then are these congressmen embracing all these other things that are in this bill? Well, the answer is that's Washington. Slip whatever you can in under the radar so that you get what you've been paid for or repay those to whom you owe favors. I heard a report that pharmaceutical companies struck a deal with the White House within the last few days. Hmmm. There's only one answer for that I can think of.... lobbyi$t$!! What do you think?
I can only assume that Congress really doesn't care about how it affects everyone else because it doesn't touch them in a personal way. Well, hopefully those things are being watched more closely by the citizenry from now on, and those in the Senate and House will be held more accountable after this. Not only do we need to keep pressuring our representatives with questions for clarity on the healthcare issues, but we need to hold them accountable for all the promises they have made in their campaigns and in these townhall meetings.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
America Has a Long-Term Memory Problem
In regard to making a change in the politics of our country, there is something that bugs me about Americans. And that is they like to whine about situations... nothing more, just whine! Whichever party is in power, everything is their fault.
But what that really bugs me is that people have such short memories when it comes to following up at election time. Oh, they get upset or angry in the moment and threaten to make a difference when the time comes to "vote the bums out" -- but do they follow through with their threats? Never! Rather, they get wrapped up emotionally in the most current issue(s) of the moment when making their decisions, forgetting that these issues which have been brought to the forefront at that particular moment are only a portion of the greater problem. And most often, it's the same issues that have been with us since the early days of our country.
Why do we not follow through? Is it because we're a "forgiving" nation? I'm all for being forgiving, but I personally adhere to the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." So, I forgive.... but I don't forget. Or, could it be that we just expect people in Congress to change? Perhaps it's both. Will people actually change? Well, no they won't. They adjust or re-adjust, but they don't change. And if they're left alone out of the spotlight, so to speak, and are shielded for a while from the pressures that predicated the adjustments, they regress. So, since this is the pattern of human nature, we need to become mindful that making a difference in our politics requires being determined to follow through when the time comes to exercise our only avenue for change. Let's not be hoodwinked by sweet, but empty promises, a winning smile, or eloquent speeches.
Soon, some of us will have an opportunity to have our say when we cast ballots next year in local elections. It will be a time for actions to line up with words. It will be a time to be heard. It will be a chance to create a real change for this nation. That is, if we will remember to follow through.
If we cannot get a law through to limit terms for our elected officials, our votes can limit them. Vote those out of office who are not listening to the wishes of the people they represent. Vote those out of office who sell their votes to gain favors for their own benefit. Vote those out of office who vote along party lines because of a party label only. To make the difference, to get the kind of change we really want in our country, we must begin requiring our senators and congressmen to actually represent us and our best interests and not special interests of a small group of people or organizations or face us at the ballot box.
So, put up or shut up! When the time comes to make your voice heard, don't let the issues of the moment cause you to whine and complain and forget what it is you must do to begin to change the situation we are finding our country is in. Don't vote based on personality or looks, or God forbid--- just because of a political party label....follow through and vote the bums out!
But what that really bugs me is that people have such short memories when it comes to following up at election time. Oh, they get upset or angry in the moment and threaten to make a difference when the time comes to "vote the bums out" -- but do they follow through with their threats? Never! Rather, they get wrapped up emotionally in the most current issue(s) of the moment when making their decisions, forgetting that these issues which have been brought to the forefront at that particular moment are only a portion of the greater problem. And most often, it's the same issues that have been with us since the early days of our country.
Why do we not follow through? Is it because we're a "forgiving" nation? I'm all for being forgiving, but I personally adhere to the saying, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me." So, I forgive.... but I don't forget. Or, could it be that we just expect people in Congress to change? Perhaps it's both. Will people actually change? Well, no they won't. They adjust or re-adjust, but they don't change. And if they're left alone out of the spotlight, so to speak, and are shielded for a while from the pressures that predicated the adjustments, they regress. So, since this is the pattern of human nature, we need to become mindful that making a difference in our politics requires being determined to follow through when the time comes to exercise our only avenue for change. Let's not be hoodwinked by sweet, but empty promises, a winning smile, or eloquent speeches.
Soon, some of us will have an opportunity to have our say when we cast ballots next year in local elections. It will be a time for actions to line up with words. It will be a time to be heard. It will be a chance to create a real change for this nation. That is, if we will remember to follow through.
If we cannot get a law through to limit terms for our elected officials, our votes can limit them. Vote those out of office who are not listening to the wishes of the people they represent. Vote those out of office who sell their votes to gain favors for their own benefit. Vote those out of office who vote along party lines because of a party label only. To make the difference, to get the kind of change we really want in our country, we must begin requiring our senators and congressmen to actually represent us and our best interests and not special interests of a small group of people or organizations or face us at the ballot box.
So, put up or shut up! When the time comes to make your voice heard, don't let the issues of the moment cause you to whine and complain and forget what it is you must do to begin to change the situation we are finding our country is in. Don't vote based on personality or looks, or God forbid--- just because of a political party label....follow through and vote the bums out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
