Opinions and Other Rants
The Real Obstructionists
by Wayne D. Wasion
February 8, 2010
President
Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and other Democrats, with plenty of
help from the media, keep characterizing Republicans as oppositionists
and
obstructionists with no ideas of their own. The President has
repeatedly invited
Republicans to present their ideas, implying that they have not yet
done so,
but just continue to block any health-care legislation simply because
it's a Democratic bill - accusing Republicans of blind partisanship.
However, prior to the seating of
Senator Brown from Massachusetts, the Republicans were unable to block
anything, as the Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority. So the
problems
getting this legislation passed cannot be the fault of the
Republicans. The
Democrats have failed to rally their own troops, despite Harry Reid's
closed-door
bribery and chicanery. (Which begs the question: If the legislation
was so great it would stand on its own with plenty of votes for passage
- so why was it so necessary that legislators be bribed for a yea vote,
e.g. Nebraska and Louisiana?)
As for Republicans refusing to cooperate and trying to kill the bill out of blind partisanship, the following document links from the
Republican Study Committee illustrate that Republicans have been trying to participate in the debate by presenting
amendments to the health-care legislation, but have been consistently blocked by
the Democratic majority. Interestingly, there have been no less than 46
Republican amendments that attempted to protect President Obama's own promises
regarding health-care reform, and even those have been rejected by Speaker
Pelosi and the Democratic majority.
They applauded the President in speeches and addresses that make these
promises, and then obstructed any amendments that fulfill those very
promises. Are the Democrats guilty of the blind partisanship that
seeks to kill any amendment or bill proposed by Republicans because they were proposed by Republicans, even though their own man in the Office of President insists that these must be included?
Here is a summary of the linked documents:
Summarizes 46 Republican
amendments that support President Obama by guaranteeing his promises regarding health-care
reform are fulfilled, namely: keeping existing coverage, ensuring health-care
access, no federal funding for abortion, will not add to the deficit, will
protect Medicare, will eliminate Medicare waste, will protect small business
and support economic recovery, will not include illegal aliens (remember “you
lie”?), will give Americans the same opportunity to health insurance as
enjoyed by Congress, public option will not impact Americans who already have
insurance, will enact tort reform, and will promote choice and competition.
The President’s promises are stated under each section heading.
As this document concludes:
“In his speech, Obama told
Congress that “now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties
together and show the American people that we can still do what we were sent
here to do.” If Democrats truly want to enact health-care reform, they
must stop ignoring the positive solutions that Republicans continue to offer.
Partisan politics provide a poor excuse for rejecting amendments that support
the principles the President himself outlined. Obama himself pledged to “seek
common ground in the weeks ahead,” emphasizing that his “door is
always open,” though he cautioned, “I will not waste time with
those who have made the calculation that it’s better politics to kill
this plan than to improve it.” The amendments offered by Republicans
demonstrate that they have tried to seek common ground and improve the
Democratic plan. Unfortunately, Democrats have turned a deaf ear.”
Now who are the
obstructionists?
The real test will come if the
bill ever reaches the President’s desk. Will he sign a bill that not
only fails to fulfill his promises, but a bill in which the Democratic majority
deliberately defeated amendments that would fulfill his promises? If he does
sign such a bill, he would not only break his promises of what the bill would
contain, but his signature would itself be a broken promise, as he explicitly
stated that he would not sign such a bill.
Summarizes 70 Republican amendments that seek to protect the patient in health-care reform. These
amendments would help ensure that the legislation is more patient-centered than
bureaucratic – that those who are
ostensibly supposed to be benefiting from this legislation are, in fact, the primary
beneficiaries, rather than bloating the government more while decreasing the
quality of health-care. All these amendments were rejected by Speaker Pelosi
and the Democratic majority. So much for bipartisanship.
Summarizes 60 house bills
proposed by Republicans up to November 2009, illustrating that
Republicans have
been actively trying to engage in this debate all along, but have been consistently and deliberately obstructed by the Speaker and Democratic
majority. Of these, one was attached as an amendment to the House
healthcare
reform bill. Another was offered as an amendment, but failed. Yet
another was
offered as a Motion to Recommit but failed. The other 57 bills were not even
considered in committee or on the House floor by Pelosi and the Democratic majority.
Whether or not one agrees with
all Republican-proposed amendments or bills, it can hardly be argued with any
amount of integrity and honesty that Republicans have been obstructionists with
no ideas of their own. If one were to try to make the claim that all Republican amendments and bills were bad ideas, then that would present another
problem: 46 of those amendments were promised by the President himself and
subsequently rejected by the Speaker and the Democratic majority.
I think we’re beginning to
see who the real obstructionists are.
Raising Taxes on the Middle Class
by Wayne D. Wasion
August 2, 2009
President Barack Obama's treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.
This is from the Yahoo news article
2 Obama officials: No guarantee taxes won't go up, published today (August 2). I remember very vividly that, during the campaign, McCain warned us that Obama's proposals would require tax increases, to which Obama adamantly and repeatedly promised that he would not raise taxes on the middle class - anyone making less than $250,000. Yet we now find out that key administration officials are warning of middle class tax increases for two - count 'em - two different reasons.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers
both sidestepped questions on Obama's intentions about taxes. Geithner
said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the
federal deficit; Summers said Obama's proposed health care overhaul
needs funding from somewhere.
So Geithner wants to raise taxes to lower the deficit, while Summers wants more taxes to pay for socialized health-care.
Let me get this straight. Obama rams a multi-trillion dollar "economic stimulus package" down our throats and now expects us to pay for it with higher taxes. And how much higher must the taxes be raised to bring this deficit down?
This is all so typical of liberal democrats (and increasingly
typical of republicans, as well) - create a crisis so they can exploit
it by imposing more taxes and government intervention.
Currently (as of July 30, '09), our national debt is $11,581,201,791,282.14. In case you're confused by all the commas, that's a whopping 11.5
trillion dollars. $7,240,039,191,481.46 is debt held by the public, while the intergovernmental holdings total $4,341,162,599,800.68 (see
TreasuryDirect.gov).
At the time of this writing, according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the United States, projected to August 3, '09, is 307,070,638 (
Census.gov). This means that, in order to pay off our national debt, they would have to take an average of $37,715 from
every man, woman, and child - including newborns! Discount those in the lower-income tax bracket as well as minors that don't pay taxes, and the debt responsibility increases dramatically for the taxpayers.
To say that this level of taxation is not practical would be a monumental understatement. The problem is not that we are not taxed enough - it's the out of control government spending (another understatement). And remember something else - because of our further out of control deficit spending, the debt will only increase.
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Douglas Elmendorf said the
plans already released by the House and Senate would keep costs rising
at an unsustainable pace, fueling criticism from Republicans and some
conservative Democrats that the overhaul will bankrupt the country.
Raising taxes is one thing, but raising them just to dump down another waste-ridden government program is criminal.
Had enough hope and change yet?
Mass Legislative Irresponsibility
by Wayne D. Wasion
The order of the times in the Obama Administration seems to be to pass any legislation without reading it.
- The nation was saddled with a trillion-plus dollar debt with a stimulus package that not one of our elected legislators read. They had no idea where all that money was going.
- Nancy Pelosi rammed the health-care bill through the house before anyone had a chance to thoroughly read the 1,000+ pages.
- Senator Harry Reid, while lauding the "hundreds of opinions" Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor wrote, said that he had not read even one of them, and was hoping to be fortunate enough to not have to read any before her confirmation (and this was supposed to be an affirmation of her qualifications).
- I'll add to this list as more examples come up.
This has to be the most irresponsible administration to date. And President Obama is not discouraging this practice of ignorant voting. In fact, he applauds it, as long as his liberal - and increasingly socialist - agenda gets pushed through.
Congressional members have been asked as they are leaving the Capital Building whether they have read certain bills. Their response is to laugh - after all, these bills are over 1,000 pages long! We can't seriously expect them to read them, can we?
Yes we can! These bills, as long as they may be, will potentially be imposed upon us as laws and public policy. It is shameful that one who was elected to be a public servant can brush off such a responsibility with a chuckle. Such a person has no business occupying such a position.
But do they have the time to read all these bills? Crises loom! We need to fix them! Now!
Mark my words - whenever someone pushes for a decision without granting the opportunity for further research, there is a hidden agenda involved. And Washington is full of hidden agendas, this administration being no exception. And hidden agendas are not what we can even remotely call the "transparent government" we were promised.
I will take every opportunity to spread this word: that not one single elected official who does not first thoroughly read a bill before voting "yea" should be reelected. That means that every legislator that passed the stimulus bill without reading it gets the Trump treatment: slap the table and point the finger and say, "You're fired!" Do not vote for them again! (Which means that we should be voting in a virtually brand new bunch of representatives and senators. Not a bad idea at all, when you think about it!)
And send this message to any newly-elected officials: you had better be more responsible, or you are bound to be a "one-termer".
