Mind and Destiny

Untrue

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 08:04:00 +0000

Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post stating: “The use of reconciliation to jam through this legislation against the will of the American people would be unprecedented in scope. And the havoc wrought would threaten our system of checks and balances, corrode the legislative process, degrade our system of government, and damage the prospects of bipartisanship.”

Healthcare reform bills passed the Senate with 60 votes and the House by a slim majority. Today, Democrats are seeking to pass the last fixes to align the two bills by using a process called reconciliation.

Reconciliation has been used 22 times in recent years. Under a Republican-controlled Senate, it was used 16 times and under a Democratic-controlled Senate, it was used six times.

Sen. Hatch admits: “Both parties have used the process, but only when the bills in question stuck close to dealing with the budget. In instances in which other substantive legislation was included, the legislation had significant bipartisan support.”

That is untrue. In 1989, a Republican controlled Senate used the reconciliation process to overhall Medicare for physician payments. In 1996, they used it to overhaul welfare. In 2001 and 2003, Republicans used it to jam through Bush’s tax cuts that exploded the deficit. Republicans passed the first of Bush’s tax cuts with 50 votes, and a vote from Vice President Cheney, who as president of the Senate broke the tie. That certainly wasn’t significant bipartisan support.

In 2005, Republicans used the budget reconciliation maneuver to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for domestic oil drilling and the Deficit Reduction Act. With Vice President Cheney's vote the Deficit Reduction Act passed on a 50 to 51 vote. The 2006, Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed using reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44.

An Ethical Code

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 08:05:00 +0000

Our founding fathers recognized, that they couldn’t predict the future. Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison: “No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth always belongs to the living generation.… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it goes longer, it is and act of force and not of right.”

They wanted the Constitution to be a living document for future generations to make better. Consequently, our founding fathers included Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution, that provides and extensive list of the powers of Congress. The list concludes with: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

The Declaration of Independence was written primarily by Thomas Jefferson. “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Some Americans consider Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Insurance and Universal Healthcare the creation of a cradle-to-grave dependency class, but many of us view these programs as the fulfillment of a promise made by our founding fathers.

Although, versions of: “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” are shared by 21 world religions, many Americans don’t subscribe to this Golden Rule. Lifewise, many members of Congress disregard this ethical code that states one has a right to just treatment, and a responsibility to ensure justice for others. It’s also called the ethic of reciprocity and is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights.

Terrorism of the Minority

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Sun, 07 Mar 2010 09:28:00 +0000

On 3/5/10, W. A. James had a letter published in “The Oneonta Daily Star.” An excerpt from the letter stated:

“I am of the opinion that our civic-minded Congress and Senate will mount a full-court press on the First and Second Amendments. They are already chipping away on the First. If big government can muzzle our freedom of expression and our right to bear arms, there will be nothing to stop them from trashing the rest of the Constitution. Read your history as this happened pre-1940 in Nazi, Germany. More czars, anyone? Be careful what you wish for. You may get it.”

Mr. James may not be aware, that Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution provides and extensive list of the powers of Congress. The list concludes: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

I present the following information to educate not as a scare tactic. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution without the benefit of a crystal ball, and things have changed significantly. In 1787, the Constitution allowed only white, male, literate, land owners to vote. In the early years of our Republic, the population ratio between the most populated state, Virginia and the least populated state, Delaware was 12 to 1. By 2004, that ratio was 70 to 1 between California and Wyoming. Currently, the Senate is skewed in favor of sparsely populated states. In theory, if the 26 smallest states held together on all votes, they would control the Senate, with a total of less than 17% of our population.

Larry Sabato is a Rhodes scholar, who has taught at the University of Virginia since 1978. He has suggested that we expand the Senate to 136 members to be more representative. This could be accomplished by granting the ten most populous states two additional senators each, the fifteen next most populous states one additional senator each, and the District of Columbia one senator.

James has taken a page from Bush/Cheney's playbook by using fear mongering to gain support. A majority of voters didn't buy Republican fear mongering in 2006 midterm elections, nor in 2008, presidential election.

Hopefully, voters have learned, that the Republican Party offers fear, because it’s not interested in solving problems.

Ultimately

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Sat, 06 Mar 2010 08:05:00 +0000

In a letter published on 1/7/10, in the Oneonta Star, Robert Beckman wrote: “…those are just a few examples of the distortions and lies that Mr. O’Leary and his ilk in Congress have resorted to...” The letter was posted on this web site on 1/10/10.

Beckman mischaracterized my statements. He’s referring to a rebuttal letter of mine, in which I disagreed with the assertion: “While there are an unfortunate few that cannot afford health care insurance, most are satisfied with their current plan and doctors. Too bad for them.”

Beckman claimed: “Mr. O’Leary states that 46 million Americans are without health insurance. However, the Census Bureau, in the government’s official report on uninsured, said that of those 46 million Americans, 9 million were people who made more than $75,000 a year and who chose not to buy health insurance.”

We agree, that 46 million Americans are without health insurance. I used that statistic to make the point, that there are more than “an unfortunate few,” that cannot afford healthcare insurance. I made no comment regarding those making $75,000 a year or whether, they should be included in the Census Bureau’s statistic. Still, 37 million Americans are more than “an unfortunate few.”

Beckman continued: “Another claim by Mr. O'Leary is that half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partially the result of medical expenses. Included in Mr. O’Leary’s figures is a person who may owe a hospital $500 and have total liabilities of $500,000.”

I wrote: “Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses.” Apparently, Beckman didn’t understand the “at least partly” portion of that statement.

Ultimately, thoughtful readers will determine whether my statements were distortions and lies, or specific and accurate.

My rebuttal began: “I got mine, you get yours, seems to be the creed of the Republican Party.” That creed isn’t to be confused with the Golden Rule.

Final Proposal

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 08:00:00 +0000

It’s the time to make a decision about the future of health care in America. The debate has lasted a year and every idea has been put on the table. Every argument has been made and both parties agree that the status quo is unacceptable, because the situation gets worst every day.

Our President’s final proposal draws on the best ideas from all sides, including several put forward by Republicans in the nationally televised seven hour healthcare summit. Obama’s proposal will put Americans in charge of their own health care, by ensuring that neither government nor insurance company bureaucrats can ration, deny, or put out of financial reach the care our families deserve.

Congress owes the American people a final vote on health care reform and the President has asked leaders in Congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next two weeks.

Reform has already passed the House with bipartisan support and the Senate with a super-majority of sixty votes. It deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was used to pass both of Bush’s tax cuts.

Obama’s proposal would change three things about the current health care system:

First, it would protect all Americans from the worst practices of insurance companies. Coverage won’t be revoked, premiums won’t be arbitrarily raised and insurance companies won’t be allowed to use a pre-existing condition to deny coverage.

Second, his proposal would give individuals and small businesses the same choice of private health insurance that members of Congress get for themselves. Obama’s proposal says that if you can't afford insurance, our government will offer you tax credits based on your income.

Third, Obama’s proposal would bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and the federal government. It would bring down our deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. Those savings mean businesses small and large will be freed up to create jobs and increase wages. Healthcare costs are skyrocketing, and reform is vital to keeping America economically strong.

Masquerade

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 08:05:00 +0000

Reform bills passed by the House and Senate cuts Medicare by approximately $500 billion. The current Republican party line is to oppose efforts to seek cost savings in Medicare.

The Medicare Advantage plan costs taxpayers on average 14 % more than the traditional Medicare plan. The House proposed changes to make them equal to what the government pays for traditional Medicare services.

Republicans are masquerading as staunch defenders of a program they’ve hated, since Ronald Reagan warned that Medicare would destroy America’s freedom. In 1995, Newt Gingrich tried to ram through deep cuts in Medicare and Republicans went so far as to shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those cuts in Medicare.

Even as Republicans denounce modest proposals to rein in Medicare’s rising costs, they’re seeking to dismantle the whole program. The “Roadmap for America’s Future,” is a the budget plan released by Representative Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member of the House Budget Committee. The proposal is a clear indication of Ryan’s vision and it represent what Republicans would do if the return to power. They would begin with spending cuts of about $650 billion over the next decade.

The Republican economic agenda hasn’t changed one iota in response to the economic failures of the Bush years. Congressman Ryan offers a plan for the privatization of Social Security that is basically identical to the Bush proposals of five years ago.

Rep. Ryan’s roadmap tells those presently or about to be covered by Medicare: “You’ll still be eligible for traditional Medicare,” and the plan “strengthens the current program with changes such as income-relating drug benefit premiums to ensure long-term sustainability.”

The Congressional Budget Office did an evaluation of the roadmap. They report: “Some higher-income enrollees would pay higher premiums, and some program payments would be reduced.” In short, there would be Medicare cuts. The Republican crusade against health reform is utter hypocrisy. They tried to slash Medicare in the past, and still aim to dismantle the program over time.

Payback Time

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:28:00 +0000

When the Obama took office, his immediate duty was to stop the recession from turning into a depression, because economists were warning another great depression was a possibility. He had to make unpopular, but necessary decisions swiftly. It was time to do what was right.

The Obama administration helped stabilize our financial system, not because he felt any compassion for big banks, but because not doing what was needed would have endangered the savings and dreams of many more millions of Americans.
He and congressional Democrats were committed to ensuring that if taxpayers were going to provide temporary assistance to keep our financial system afloat, then it had to be temporary. They were determined to get back every single dime loaned to the banks, that are considered to big to fail.

Obama wants the largest banks to be assessed a fee so that taxpayers are reimbursed for the assistance that they’ve given. Of course, the banks aren’t enthusiastic about that idea.

Although, it wasn’t popular most congressional Democrats helped shore up the American auto industry. They understood, that many Americans felt like those companies should reap the consequences of bad management decisions in the past, just like any other company would. However, if GM and Chrysler were allowed to go under, hundreds of thousands of hardworking
Americans would have paid the price. The employees of those manufacturing companies, suppliers and dealers all across the country would be collecting unemployment insurance.

The Obama administration insisted, that if the management of GM and Chrysler were willing to take the tough, but necessary steps, to become more competitive, our government would invest in their future. Subsequently, auto production in the United States of America is up 69 percent from the first three months of 2009. GM’s CEO recently said that the company would repay $6.7 billion in loans from taxpayers with interest by June.

The steps taken to shore up the banks and auto industry were separate from the Recovery Act.

Wall Street Influence

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 08:00:00 +0000

In 1816 Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter, "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and to bid defiance to the laws of our country."

Last March, during the last round of AIG bonuses, Democrats offered up a bill to get Troubled Asset Relief Program funds back from bailed out banks, automakers and other financial firms. Most of the TARP losses are expected to come from the bailout of insurance conglomerate AIG, American International Group Inc.

The bill passed the House by a huge margin, 328 to 93. Of the 93 Congressmen, who voted against it, 87 were Republicans, including the top Republican in the House, Minority Leader John Boehner, and the number three Republican in the House, Mike Pence. They voted to let those AIG bankers keep their bonus money. Democratic candidates are eagerly awaiting Republican votes in favor of the AIG bonuses, again this time around.

Furthermore, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan released his alternative Republican House Budget Committee’s plan to privatize Social Security as an alternative to Obama’s budget. If Republicans get their way Americans would be able to invest a portion of their Social Security payroll taxes into secure funds consisting of equities and bonds. Thereby, gambling their life savings on Wall Street.

Joe Conason at Salon.com pointed out, that the only annuity fully exempt from the economic ruin brought on by the investment banks and insurance giants is Social Security. If Republicans actually want to talk about doing away with that safety net, Democrats should consider accommodating them with a smile.

The “Boston Globe” noted, that in a six-day span just before the Massachusetts Senate election, Republican candidate Scott Brown collected nearly $450,000 from donors who work at financial companies.

Last month, a Supreme Court ruling allowed corporations to pour unlimited money into American politics. Reportedly, conservative-minded, libertarian-minded tea partiers are disgusted by the Supreme Court ruling on the grounds that it undermines individual freedom to participate in American politics, because individual participation gets crushed by unlimited corporate participation in our political process.

Buffett’s Solution

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 08:18:00 +0000

On Fox News, Warren Buffett recently said: “I would try to get a unified effort saying this is a national emergency to do something about this. We need the Republicans, we need the Democrats. We are going to cut off all the kinds of things like the 800,000 special people in Florida, or the cornhusker kickback as they call it, or the Louisiana Purchase.

“We are going to get rid of the nonsense. We are just going to focus on cost and we are not going to dream up 2,000 pages of other things. And I would say, as president, I am going to come back to you with something that is going to do something about this because we have to do it.”

It is nice to focus on costs, but there are approximately 45,000 Americans dying ever year because they don’t have healthcare. Perhaps, the bill needs to be 2,000 pages long in order to ensure, that Buffett and his friends on Wall street don’t find ways to sabotage the goal of getting most Americans covered. The Republican Party has not and will not cooperate with Obama on a meaningful healthcare bill. This will most likely be the last opportunity to get healthcare for another decade.

Healthcare reform passed the Senate with 60 votes and the House with a slim majority. Now, Democrats are seeking to pass the last fixes to align the two bills using reconciliation.

During the process of reconciliation, the House of Representatives will be responsibility for getting rid of the special items given to the people of Florida, Nebraska and Louisiana.

Reconciliation has been used 22 times in recent years. Under a Republican-controlled Senate, it was used 16 times and under a Democratic-controlled Senate, it was used six times. In 2001 and 2003, Republicans used it to jam through, the mother of all deficit increases, Bush’s tax cuts.

Statesmanship

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 16:25:00 +0000

Today, many Americans have lost faith that our corporations, our media, and our government reflect their values. These institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. However, every time a CEO rewards himself for failure or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, increases our skepticism.

Each time lobbyists corrupts the system or politicians attack each other instead of working together to lift our country up, we become more skeptical. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, viewers turn away and become cynical.

President Obama campaigned on the promise of change, but now many Americans aren't sure if they can believe in change, or that Obama can deliver it. He never suggested that change would be easy or that he could do it alone. Our Democracy is a nation of 300 million people, and lasting change is very complicated. Whenever, our leadership attempts to make controversial changes, it’s to be expected that people will become passionate.

Consequently, those in public office often respond by playing it safe, and avoid telling hard truths or doing what’s best for the next generation. Instead of doing what needs to be done most politicians play it safe, inorder to keep their poll numbers high and get through the next election.

Throughout the course of our nation, difficult decisions were made by statesmen. The only reason, we are a powerful nation today, is because generations of American statesmen were unafraid to do what was hard, to do what was needed even when success was uncertain, to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.

From the very beginning the destiny of our nation has always required, that our political leadership take decisive action, because it was right thing to do. That kind of unselfish leadership is statesmanship.

Stimulus Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:01:00 +0000

Over a hundred Republican governors, senators, and representatives have spent the past year vilify the Recovery Act, while simultaneously requesting funds to create jobs in their districts and taking credit for projects at ribbon-cutting ceremonies.

They're trying "have their cake... and vote against it too." They know the Recovery Act is creating jobs, but they think attacking it will bring them victory in the 2010 elections.

President signing the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act one year ago, and it has saved or created at least 2 million jobs, cut taxes for 95 percent of working families, and made loans to over 42,000 small businesses. It also provided critical relief for state governments facing record budget shortfalls.

Rep. Joe Wilson told the Department of Agriculture that the money he was seeking "would provide jobs and investment" for his South Carolina district. Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty balanced his state budget with the same funds he has often attacked on TV.

Last February, the Republican leadership in both the Senate and House sought to kill the stimulus bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell was able to get all but three Republican Senators to vote against the Recovery Act. Now, he’s bragged about funding for a military project in Kentucky. Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor the Republican House Whip succeeded in getting every Republican member of the House to vote against the Recovery Act, but is now seeking funds for a high-speed rail project in Virginia to create jobs.

President Obama is focused on creating jobs and being honesty with the American people, but Republicans continue to engaged in a hypocritical campaign of attacks. They're proving, that their opposition is about politics, pure and simple.

Dozens of congressional Republicans, who have praised, the stimulus at home are denouncing it in Washington. These hypocrites aren’t at all unembarrassed by attempting to maintain two opposite positions simultaneously.

Oklahoma, Republican Senator Inhofe attacked the stimulus over the course of the past year, but recently in his state he touted the stimulus spending as great news and necessary funds to his constituent.

If you are both praising something as necessary and saying it doesn’t work, you are a hypocrite.

Not This Time

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 09:10:00 +0000

Recently, the Senate voted for closure on a $15 billion jobs creation bill that would give businesses a tax break for hiring the unemployed.

Republican Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and four other Republicans reached across the aisle to approve the procedural measure, which passed by a 62-30 vote. In addition to Brown, the Republican senators backing the measure were Kit Bond of Missouri, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and George Voinovich of Ohio. Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida voted against it.

The 4-prong bill would exempt employers from Social Security payroll taxes on new hires who were unemployed, fund highway and transit programs through 2010, extend a tax break for business that spend money on capital investments like equipment purchases and expand the use of the Build America Bonds program, which helps states and municipalities fund capital construction projects.

The legislation is a scaled-down version of an $85 billion bipartisan draft bill that was crafted by Sens. Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

However, the bill does not extend the deadline to apply for unemployment benefits and the COBRA health insurance subsidy. Some 1.2 million people will run out of benefits after Feb. 28 if the deadline is not extended. Lawmakers are looking to pass a separate, 15-day extension to give them time to enact a longer fix.

The House has passed a similar $154 billion stimulus bill, that unlike the Senate bill provide additional assistance for states. Many governors, who recently held their annual meeting in Washington, want the Obama administration to send more federal dollars to the states so that they can cope with huge budget deficits.

The Obama administration said, that it strongly supports the $15 billion jobs measure, but indicated it is one step in the job creation effort.

Same Policies

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 08:50:00 +0000

This past year has been an uncertain time for the American people. Some of that uncertainty had to do with an economy in free fall. In 2008, our economy abruptly contract by 6 percent and loss of trillions of dollars of wealth in the blink of an eye. Home values dropped 20 percent, thus creating a lot of uncertainty in the business environment and among families.

Over the course of this past year, the stimulus package put a floor under people’s feet. Recovery Act and interventions in the financial markets broke the back of the recession, stabilized the markets, so that, the economy is now growing at a rate of 6 percent. Economists are no longer talking about a market meltdown and although people haven‘t recovered all that they lost in their 401(k)s, they’re feeling better than they did six months ago.

Although most state budgets are still suffering, they didn’t have to lay off teachers, firefighters and police at levels that they would have had to. The stimulus package has provided some stability and certainty. The Democrats in Congress and the
Obama administration took the very difficult, but necessary steps to stabilize our economy.

Many businesses are making a profit, but they haven’t started to hire. Republican naysayers are insisting, that the only way to provide stability is to go back and do what the Bush administration had been doing before the crisis. They want Democrats to continue to give tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans. They want Obama to adopt the exact same polices, that were in place for eight years leading up to the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression. They don’t want any insurance reforms.
They want to let the banks keep on doing what they’ve been doing.

Why would anyone expect a different outcome by pursuing the exact same policies that got us into this fix in the first place? Perhaps, this is because, we have underestimate the ignorance of the American people.

Article I, Section 8

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Wed, 24 Feb 2010 09:03:00 +0000

In a letter published in The Oneonta Star, Dr. Richard J. Ucci on Stamford claims, that our federal government has no constitutional authority to force people to buy healthcare insurance or provide healthcare to all.

Dr. Ucci is entitled to his own unsubstantiated opinions, but not his own facts. In N.Y. State, we’re mandated to purchase auto insurance. Is this a violation of the Constitution? Only in New Hampshire and Wisconsin drivers aren’t require to purchase a minimum level of car insurance. But, in those two states, if you don't buy car insurance you must provide proof of financial responsibility.

Dr. Ucci may not be aware, that Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution provides and extensive list of the powers of Congress. The list concludes with: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.”

Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution without the benefit of a crystal ball, and things have changed significantly. In 1787, the Constitution allow only white, male, literate, land owners to vote. Presently, the Constitution allow, two Senators from several states with about the same number of voters as Staten Island. Therefore, our Senate is dysfunctional, and it doesn’t come close the concept of equal representation. It’s a ridiculous situation and I suspect, the signers of our Constitution would agree.   Obama and most Democrats in Congress are attempting to provide healthcare for every America, so that, 45,000 people will not die each year, because they don’t have access to health care.

Dr. Ucci insists: “We must urge our congressional legislators to not tweak the current “health care” bills, but to abolish these bills. I suspect, that many readers will urge their members of Congress to abolish these bills, because we must never underestimate the selfishness of the American people. I got mine, you get yours, is indeed the creed of the Republican Party.

Filibuster

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 09:53:00 +0000

Senate Republicans have tried to employ the filibuster more over the past year than in all of the 1950s and 1960s combined. Republican are shutting down the Senate over a routine nomination. A presidential nominee for the National Labor Relations Board received 52 votes out of 100, which is a clear majority. The nomination, was subjected to a filibuster, because Republicans are using the filibuster in ways, that it has never been used before in history. They’ve use it to force a 60-vote supermajority for every single substantive vote in the Senate.

When Republicans lost the majority in the Senate in January 2007, they started using the filibuster on nearly every vote. Consequently, the Senate is no longer capable of passing legislation or approving presidential nominees. Our Constitution specifies a supermajority for ratifying treaties, ratifying constitutional amendments, overriding presidential vetoes, expelling members of Congress, and impeachment, because those are the things, that our Founding Fathers believed should be really hard to do. However, the Republican minority in the Senate has decided that a supermajority is required for everything.

The last time the rules affecting the filibuster were changed was in 1975, when the supermajority rule changed from 67 votes to 60. It was changed, because Senators thought it was being abused. The way it was being abused back then was nothing compared to how it’s being abused now.

The House of Representatives is where legislation actually gets done on Capital Hill. A total of 290 bills have already passed by the House and are waiting for the Senate to take action. Some of them were passed last spring. Everyone of those 290 bills were passed by a simple majority in the House and many of them were passed with a lot of Republican support. For example, last September, the Medicare Premium Fairness Act passed 406 to 18, with 161 Republicans voting “yes.”

Obama insists: “If you want to govern, you can’t just say no. It can’t be about just scoring points. The filibuster only works as intended if there is a genuine spirit of compromise.”

Jack Up Rates

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 08:37:00 +0000

In May, Obama signed a credit card reform bill designed to protect consumers from surprise fees and sudden interest rate hikes. The problem was, that the rules didn’t go into effect until February. Consequently, the credit card companies took the opportunity to jack up the rates while they could. Therefore, the House decided to passed a bill that moved that date up, so those rules would go into effect on December 1st.

Democratic Congresswoman from New York, Carolyn Maloney explained: “We got many terrible complaints from consumers across this country, where credit card companies were raising rates, retroactively, on existing balances, any time, for any reason, and for no reason at all. Jacking rates up from 18 to 30%. The Pew Report that came out last fall showed that 100% of the credit card issuers were using some form of unfair and deceptive practices, as defined by the Federal Reserve.”

Rep. Maloney pointed out: “Most cards had hiked their rates by 20%, and 90% of the outstanding balances had seen an interest rate increase since the bill went into effect. What we did on the floor was move the implementation date up to the day after Obama signs it into law, so that these abuses will stop. Just in time for the holiday shopping season.”

Originally, the bill would have been implemented within 90 days, but the credit card companies claimed, that they needed more time in order to put their systems into place. Instead, they used the extra time to get under the wire, to put more abusive increases in practice.

The House bill, that moved the date up had very strong bipartisan support, with 88 Republicans voting with the Democrats. The House wasn’t attempting to protect irresponsible card holders. Instead, it was trying to protect those credit card holders, who had been playing by the rules, by paying on time, and not going over their limit.

The credit card companies were upping rates retroactively on existing balances, and trapping card holders in a never ending cycle of debt. Unfortunately, our dysfunctional Senate was unable to bring the House bill to a vote, therefore instead of taking effect on 12/1/09, the rules take effect today.

Always “NO”

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Sun, 21 Feb 2010 11:10:00 +0000

On 1/27/10, Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana claimed on MSNBC: “House Democrats in this administration have shut Republicans out of the entire process in the House.”

Democratic congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina insists: “That is absolutely not true. We had these bills on the House side go through three committees, and Republicans are on all of those committees. They participated. They put up amendments. Many of those amendments were adopted. And we came out with a bill that had a lot of their amendments in it.

“It is amazing how these people can go to the floor, after going through all of that, and because they decide not to vote for it, then they say they were not consulted. They did not have an opportunity to participate. It is the most ridiculous thing that you could possibly say.

“Now, that’s just the House side. The Senate did two committees. If you look at a big part of this bill, this high-risk pool that the Senate came forward with, go back and look at John McCain‘s campaign ad. He campaigned on creating the high-risk pool. That was his philosophy that we brought into this bill, and they still would not vote for it.

“But we ought not be surprised. You just saw Republicans, seven of whom co-sponsored legislation to do something about the deficit commission. Then when it came time to vote, seven of the people who co-sponsored voted against the bill.”

Obama accepted an invitation from the Republican House leadership to address their retreat in Baltimore. His speech was followed by a question-and-answer session, in which Republicans repeatedly complained, that the White House and congressional Democrats had ignored their ideas, locked them out of the policy-making process and unfairly labeled them as obstructionists.

The party of “No” has repeatedly demonstrated, that they’re obstructionist. They want Obama to fail and are willing to see our country fail in the process.

Shared Prosperity

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 10:07:00 +0000

Millions of American jobs have already been lost to outsourcing, and another 40 million middle class jobs are at risk. A basic component of negotiating a trade agreement should be, that it’s good for middle class working families and that every trade agreement results in shared prosperity.

Before any trade agreement is presented to the Congress, it should be evaluated regarding the impact the agreement will have on the American economy especially on communities and jobs. The president and members of Congress must be aware of the potential negative impact of trade agreements, in order to prepare those communities by helping them with job training or economic diversification.

Our country needs to export more goods, because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs will be created for American workers.

The Obama administration has set a goal of doubling our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support 2 million more jobs. In order to meet that goal, our government will be launching a National Export Initiative that is expected to help farmers and small businesses increase their exports and reform export controls consistent with national security.

Our competitors are aggressively seeking new markets and we have to do the same. America can’t sit on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, because we’ll lose the chance to create more jobs in this country.

In order to realizing the benefits of trade, our government must start enforcing present agreements with our trading partners by insisting that they play by the rules. The Obama administration will continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets and strengthen our trade relations in Asia with key partners like South Korea, and Panama, and Colombia.

Supporting the Military

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 08:13:00 +0000

Since, Obama took office, his administration has focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. Substantial investments have been made in our homeland security to disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives.

Unacceptable gaps were revealed by the failed Christmas attack with better airline security and swifter action by our intelligence. The Obama administration has prohibited torture and strengthened our partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. In the last year, hundreds of Al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed. In Afghanistan, Obama has increased the number of our troops, to train Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011 and our troops can begin to come home.

He’ll reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans, men and women alike. Our allies and partners in Afghanistan have increased their own commitment and we’ve reaffirm our common purpose.

At the same time, that our troops are taking the fight to Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we’re responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. President Obama is committed to having all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of August. America continue to support the Iraqi government, as they hold elections and in a partnership with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity.

The war in Iraq is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. All of our men and women in uniform around the world will know that they have America’s respect, gratitude, and full support. They’ll have the resources they need in war, because we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home.

Last year, the Obama administration made the largest increase in investments in support of our veterans in decades. Retired Army General Eric Shinseki is building a 21st-century Veterans Affairs, and Michelle Obama has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families.

Credibility Gap

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 10:41:00 +0000

We had record surpluses in the 1990s, because of a pay-as-you-go law. A law, that compelled new spending to not add to the existing federal deficit. Any new proposals would have to be, budget neutral or be offset by savings coming from an existing fund.

However, we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many Americans are still hurting. Consequently, a freeze shouldn't take effect until next year, when the economy is stronger.

Economists agree that, if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery, all of which would have an even worse effect on job growth and family incomes.

Most Republicans argue, that we make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. That approach was tried for 8 years under the Bush administration and it didn’t work. That approach is the reason, that we are in an economic crisis. Democrats and Republicans have fought these same battles for decades, and we try something new.

President Obama points out: “We face a deficit of trust, deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap, we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, to end the outsized influence of lobbyists, to do our work openly, to give our people the government they deserve.”

The Obama administration has posted the names of those visiting the White House online, and has excluded lobbyists from policy-making jobs or seats on federal boards and commissions.

He insists: “It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office. With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests or, worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps correct some of these problems. I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform, Democrats and Republicans.”

Year One

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 15:05:00 +0000

Congressional scholar, Norm Ornstein says that this Congress has had a greater level of productivity than any Congress in the last 40 years. A total of 125 bills were passed into law. Among them was the stimulus package and the children’s health care bill. According to Ornstein, Obama has had greater legislative success in terms of significant legislation than Lyndon Johnson or Ronald Reagan.

So many things have gotten done so quickly in the first year, that people have forgotten, those accomplishments. Democrats passed the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, one year ago today, without a single Republican vote in the House and only 3 Republican votes in the Senate. By doing so, they prevented the worst financial crisis from getting worse and turned the economy from contraction to expansion.

Democrats upheld the principle of equal pay for equal work, by enacting the Fair Pay Act, also known as the Lilly Ledbetter Act. Lilly did her job for nearly two decades before discovering that for years, she was paid less than her male colleagues for doing the very same work. They expanded the Pell Grant program; and made the largest investment in clean energy in history, and the largest investment in education in decades.

Obama reversed Bush’s ban on embryonic stem cell research and sent the message, that he’ll restore science to its rightful place in America.

Democrats extended the Children’s Health Insurance Program, by providing health care to 4 million children who didn’t have it before, and passed the strongest veterans budget in decades.

Obama signed a credit card reform bill designed to protect consumers from surprise fees and sudden interest rate hikes.
Democrats have helped consumers deal with the twin plagues of mortgage fraud and predatory lending.

Obama appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and the Senate approved her nomination.

Obama is working with Congress to repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are.

Public Trust

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:09:00 +0000

Congress has trimmed some unnecessary spending, but according to President Obama restoring the public trust demands more. Some members of Congress are posting earmark requests online, but Obama has called on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent.

Public trust won’t happen unless Democrats and Republicans change the way, that they work with one another. Although, there are philosophical differences that will always cause them to part ways, both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched.

The American people are frustrated by the perpetual campaigning, where the only goal appears to be, who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. Many politicians and their supporters think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. However, that approach has stopped both parties from helping the American people, because it’s sowing further division among our citizens and further distrust in our government.

Obama reminded congressional Republicans: “And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, a supermajority, then the responsibility to govern is now yours, as well. Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.”

“I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who’s tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future, for America and for the world.”

Incentives

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 08:23:00 +0000

As a candidate for president, Obama insists that one place where investment would make an enormous difference is in a renewable energy policy. He wants to end our addiction on foreign oil, provide long-term relief from high fuel costs, and builds a green economy that could create up to five million well-paying jobs that can’t be outsourced.

Our government needs to encourage innovation. Last year, the Obama administration made the largest investment in basic research funding in history. Investments, that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells.

Innovations in clean energy is already creating new jobs and the Obama administration intends to create many more. Last year an investments in a North Carolina company, that makes advanced batteries create 1,200 jobs nationwide. Another investment in a California business put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.

America will need to continue to provide greater incentives for more efficient energy production, such as, building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants. Tough decisions will have to be made regarding opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. We must continue to invest in advanced biofuels and clean-coal technologies.

Congress must pass a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will make clean energy a profitable kind of energy. The House of Representatives passed a clean energy bill last year, and Obama is encouraging a bipartisan effort in the Senate.

Many have questioned whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy, and there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. However, even if you doubt the evidence on climate change, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation.

Spending Freeze

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 08:57:00 +0000

In 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion, but when Obama took office, there was a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of the deficit was the result of borrowing money for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. Furthermore, the effects of this recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget.

Ordinarily, Obama would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. Unfortunately, his administration took over amid a sever economic crisis, and their efforts to prevent a second depression added another $1 trillion to the national debt. Obama has proposed specific steps to pay for the $1 trillion that it took to rescue the economy last year.

Starting in 2011, Obama suggests a freezing discretionary government spending for three years. Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security won’t be affected. His administration will work within a budget to invest in what is need and sacrifice what is not needed. He has threatened to enforce this discipline with a veto, if necessary. He’ll continue to go through the budget line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that our country can't afford. His staff has already identified $20 billion in savings for next year.

The cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. Although, healthcare reform would have greatly reduce our deficit, it wouldn’t be enough to dig us out of the massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves.

Therefore, Obama supported the idea of a bipartisan Fiscal Commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad, but seven Republican Senators, who had cosponsored the bill suddenly joined in filibustering their own proposal. The commission would have provided a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.

Obama has issue an executive order to allow a bipartisan commission to move forward, because he refuses to pass this debt on to another generation of Americans.

Middle-class Burden

noreply@blogger.com (Jim O'Leary) — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 08:01:00 +0000

The Obama administration wants to relieve the burden on middle-class families and health insurance reform is an important part of that agenda. Obama insists, that he didn’t choose to tackle healthcare to get a legislative victory under his belt and he knew it would become a political hot potato.

For nearly a century, our representatives in Congress have tried to get healthcare reform and they’re closer to bringing more security to the lives of many Americans, than ever before. The approach, that congressional Democrats are taking is designed to protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market.

The proposed plan would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care. It would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress, reform would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.

Americans lose their health insurance everyday and millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow and premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need and small-business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether.

There are reason why many doctors, nurses and health care experts, who know our system best, consider Obama’s approach to healthcare a vast improvement over the status quo. Obama has pleaded with Congress: “Don't walk away from reform, not when we are so close. Let’s find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people.”

If it’s true, that a majority of Americans actually want to maintain the status quo, I’ve underestimate the selfishness of the American people.