Fighting to Preserve Liberty in America
As a conservative, I can’t help but admire Newt Gingrich’s performance in the Republican debates and lust for the opportunity to see him debate Barack Obama head to head. But then I have a nagging doubt that if Newt were to become the nominee, which Newt will show up?
Michelle Bachmann let off the three day CPAC conference with a keynote address that laid out the case against the current administration and the rule of Nancy Pelosi. Most of the focus of her talk was on raising the alarm on our current financial situation and its urgency.
Comments submitted in response to a previous post, “The Progressive War on Federalism,” focused on the Electoral College and a movement called the National Popular Vote (http://www.nationalpopularvote.com) bill. Rather than argue against my point it only seemed to reinforce it. The objective of this movement, which before this commenter’s contribution I was unaware of, is to abolish, or should I say neuter, the Electoral College and replace it with the direct election of the president. This movement looks to further weaken the states and move us away from federalism and toward a strong monolithic central government. Here is my analysis.
The newly elected majority in the House of Representatives has an opportunity to prove that what they campaigned on was not just talk. In the next week or so the Republicans will choose their committee chairman. We will have the opportunity to see if the Republican old bulls lead the party back to the same old, same old, or if the young bulls lead the charge to change.
The injustice of it all. Poor Charlie Rangel ran out of money for his attorneys and stomped off saying he wasn’t going to play anymore, because his fellow House members were being unfair to him. As many a parent has said to their recalcitrant child, “You should have thought about that before you [fill in the offense here].” It is most likely that Mr. Rangel will be censured, just like his predecessor in that same Congressional District, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., was censured.
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money – Unknown (often attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville)
That, in my mind, pretty much sums up earmarks. It is a way for Congress to bribe the public with the public’s money. As Tip O’Neill once said, “all politics is local,” and the way it is made local is that the members of Congress get money from the Treasury, put there by their constituents (the public) to show what a great job the member is doing at bringing home the bacon (bribe).
Congressman John Conyers made this remarkable statement regarding reading a bill before voting on it?
“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.
“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”
Here’s the video: Why would I read health care bill John Conyers. These people are paid $169,300 a year and they are voting on legislation that will alter 1/6 of the American economy and they don’t know what they are voting on? Who demanded that this be done in two days? Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama. If it takes them six months to read the bill, then TAKE THE SIX MONTHS!!! We wonder why there is so much government waste and fraud? It’s really quite simple. All the crooks and lobbyists are reading the bill very carefully, every page, probably 2-3 times. Why? Because as soon as it is passed they will know exactly where all the loopholes are, where the best opportunities for fraud are, so that they can rip off the taxpayers for billions, while Congress says, oh well, we better make the program bigger and put in more regulations and enforcement.
How much money do you make? In your job, what would happen to you if you did your job without following instructions and did so willfully? If you were a nurse and administered medication without following instructions what would happen to you? If you were a fireman and rushed into a building without following safety procedures that are there to protect your fellow firefighters what would happen to you? What is the fundamental job of Congressman, if not writing laws? And they can cavalierly say, they don’t read what they are voting on?
Why does Texas have such a booming economy? Could it be their legislature only meets once every two years? Could it be they are required by law to complete their business in 140 days? Could it be the legislators are only paid $7,200? Think about it.
In the beginning days of 1789, Congress was paid only $6 a day, which would be about $75 daily by modern standards. But by 1965 members were receiving $30,000 a year, which is the modern equivalent of about $195,000.
Currently the average lawmaker makes $169,300 a year, with leadership making slightly more. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) makes $217,400, while the minority and majority leaders in the House and Senate make $188,100.
John Adams made $6 per day, $75 per day in today’s dollars. Nancy Pelosi makes $217,400 per year. Whom do you admire more? If that doesn’t make you ill, you are made of sterner stuff than me.
Code of Hammurabi
When I was in engineering school, I was introduced to this part of the Code of Hammurabi, an ancient Babylonian king:
It was intended to drive home the point that as engineers we should take what we do very seriously as someone may get killed if we get careless. What could be more careless than what Conyers said.
I have said this before, the bill that created the Interstate Highway System, was only 29 pages long. Our tax code is horrendous and incomprehensible, the stimulus bill is a disaster, Cap and Trade is another unread boondoggle, and health care is following. And for this we pay these people, or should I say they pay themselves since we don’t vote on their salaries, more than four times the national average?
Read the 10th Amendment folks, we have got to take back our government and cut it down to size.
“marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties” — Miriam Webster Dictionary
The talk about bipartisanship and the accusations about a lack of bipartisanship are flying back and forth with such intensity, who could blame the casual observer for throwing up their hands and wishing a pox upon both houses?
President Obama and Bipartisanship
I believe that President Obama is sincere in his desire for bipartisanship. His willingness to meet with and listen to conservative columnists, and Republicans is indicative of his desire to change the tone in Washington. On the stimulus bill, I think he just painted himself into a corner by letting Nancy Pelosi write the bill while he held those meetings. Listening to the other side is a start, but it falls short of the definition. It remains to be seen if President Obama recognizes where this approach fell short or if it really is just window dressing.
Democratic Leadership and Bipartisanship
The Democratic Leadership has a very different view of bipartisanship. Their view is, “we stake out a position and you (Republicans) agree with it and that’s bipartisanship.” If they don’t agree, they are rabid partisans, doing it strictly for future political gain. But if you look at the definition of bipartisanship above, the Democratic Leadership is just not interested. The stimulus bill was put together solely by the Democrats and when asked by a reporter if the bill was bipartisan Nancy Pelosi responded, “That depends on how the Republicans vote.” That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.
When President Bush came into office, he brought with him his experience in Texas where he worked very successfully with the Democrats in the legislature. However, the Democrats in Congress were so angry with the outcome of the election in 2000 that they never gave him a chance, voting against anything he proposed.
Republicans and Bipartisanship
The Republican leadership has expressed their appreciation to President Obama’s efforts to reach across the aisle. However, as genuine as the gesture was they were still pretty much excluded from the legislative process. They fully understand that elections have consequences, but they want to be heard, they want to offer alternatives, they want the opportunity to persuade. If denied that by the Democratic Leadership, they will take their case directly to the American people and in 2010 get the public’s decision.
Is Bipartisanship Possible?
Is there such a divide that bipartisanship is just not possible? Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is trying to tackle that issue through a non-profit organization called American Solutions. That organization polled Republicans, Democrats and Independents to find areas of widespread agreement. The key to bipartisanship is to first find areas where you agree. Then look for areas where you differ but not so significantly that there is not room for negotiation and compromise. Lastly, is to recognize those areas where the difference is so wide that you simply have to agree to disagree. This is a list of ten initiatives that a majority of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents agree on.
- English should be the official language of government. (87 to 11)
- We want our elected leaders in Washington to focus on increasing the energy supplies of the United States and lowering the costs of gasoline and electricity. (71 to 18)
- The option of a single rate system should give taxpayers the convenience of filing their taxes with just a single sheet of paper. (82 to 15)
- Every worker should continue to have the right to a federally supervised secret ballot election when deciding whether to organize a union. (79 to 12)
- Keeping the reference to “One Nation Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance is very important. (88 to 11)
- Congress should make it a crime to advocate acts of terrorism, violent conduct, or the killing of innocent people in the United States. (83 to 12)
- We should dramatically increase our investment in math and science education. (91 to 8 )
- We believe that if research indicates we could build clean coal plants in the United States with no carbon emissions, it would be important to build such plants as rapidly as possible. (71 to 8 )
- Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should be deported. (88 to 10)
- We support giving a large financial prize to the first company or individual who invents a new, safer way to dispose of nuclear waste products. (79 to 16)
As you can see by the percentages, the support for each of these ten measures is rather substantial. Bipartisanship on any one of these issues should be very easy to obtain. You just have to ask yourselves: how many of these are supported by the Democratic Leadership or President Obama? You can see that a number of them are not only not supported, but adamantly opposed.
So what is your view of bipartisanship? Is it where you surrender your principles and fall in line with your opponent? Or is it trying to find common ground among all Americans and not pushing a partisan agenda where government runs the smallest aspect of your life?
