July 21-23, 2009
Jul 21 00:35 He's Wounded Jul 21 06:22 Answering the 'George Bush Question' Jul 21 11:29 Thirty Pieces of Silver Democrats? Jul 21 14:03 Whip Blogger Conference Call Highlights Jul 22 07:16 The DFL/Democrats' Health Care Myths Jul 23 01:25 They Rescued the Economy??? Jul 23 02:07 Emmer Visit Roundup Jul 23 08:07 Obama Fatigue Setting In? Jul 23 10:25 Publish The Bills
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
He's Wounded
Last Friday, Gov. Strickland signed into law a 3,120 page, $50,500,000,000 budget for which he'll get criticized by Republican gubernatorial candidate John Kasich. Here's the most sobering line in the article :
"The budget has not been a plus for him," said Jerry Austin, a Cleveland-based Democratic consultant. "He's wounded."Mark Caleb Smith is of the opposite opinion:
"I don't think Strickland is leaving much room for attack," said Mark Caleb Smith, director of the Center for Political Studies at Cedarville University.There are several reasons why I'm not buying into Smith's arguments. First, let me say that he's right in most races. The biggest reason why I agree with Mr. Austin is because John Kasich isn't a cookie-cutter politician who's only chance for victory is by exciting 'the base'. Kasich's charismatic appeal will help him enlarge the Ohio GOP's base. FOOTNOTE: A Kasich victory will definitely hurt President Obama's chances of winning that state in 2012.
"Politically, this is like a boxer fighting a tall opponent with longer arms. The best hope for victory is to get close and take away your opponent's advantage. Strickland's choices have the potential to take away many of the Republicans' traditional arguments."
The other reason I'm not buying this opinion is because Gov. Strickland has to run for re-election during tough economic times. Gov. Strickland's been in charge for almost three years. He can't avoid being blamed for the economy. What's he gonna say? I was here but I didn't have an impact?
Good luck selling re-election with that slogan.
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 12:38 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 21-Jul-09 06:09 AM
Hasn't Kasich already had his fifteen minutes of fame?
Answering the 'George Bush Question'
Stuart Rothenberg has been covering elections for a long time. Still, that doesn't guarantee that he always asks the right questions. He clearly didn't ask the right question in this article :
Democrats ran against Herbert Hoover for decades. Republicans ran against Jimmy Carter for years. Can Democrats make 2010 another referendum on George W. Bush, or at least use the unpopular former president to demonize Republicans in competitive races?At this point, it's difficult to picture people caring that much about former President Bush. At this point, it isn't difficult picturing people passionately disagreeing with President Obama's agenda. I'll be paying more attention to how many Democrats distance themselves from President Obama.
President Obama attacked Jim DeMint yesterday for saying that government-run health care might be President Obama's Waterloo. I'm not alone in thinking that Sen. DeMint is right, that defeating government-run health care might start an extensive losing streak for President Obama. Nothing will cause Democrats to distance themselves from President Obama than the perception that President Obama's policies are unpopular.
The DSCC put out a new ad trying to tie Rob Portman to President Bush:
Last week, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee released a Web video, "Insider," and an accompanying press release hanging the former president around the neck of former Rep. Rob Portman (R-OH). Democratic insiders say that the video was a response to Portman's invitation for voters to look at his record.The time-tested rules are that elections are (a) a referendum on the sitting president and (b) about the future. While it's possible Democrats might pick of a seat or two using the Bush boogeyman, it strikes me that the DSCC's strategy is a defensive strategy. It can't plausibly be argued this strategy is about a compelling vision of the future.
On the other hand, it's entirely plausible to criticize Democrats using this message as negativists. The Republican's counterpunches should be to say that this is just the Democrats' desperation bubbling to the surface because (a) they don't have an appealing message on the economy and (b) they want to distract voters from the economic disaster that they've helped create.
If Republicans use these time-tested tactics, the 'George Bush Question' will be muted, if not irrelevant.
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:25 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 21-Jul-09 06:59 AM
I'm thinking that the obvious retort is that these are Congressional races, and even if you vote for a Republican, George Bush will NOT be the President. But if you vote for a Democrat, Barack Obama WILL still be the President, and that may not be a good thing. I can see Bush's "rehabilitation" barreling down the track, fueled by Obama's reign of terror.
Comment 2 by Walter Hanson at 21-Jul-09 09:55 AM
There were two reasons why Americans didn't like George Bush:
One, is that they were sick and tired of everyday hearing stories about how bad things were going in Iraq. So what if Bush stuck his neck out and got the military to kick butt. Obama has learned and unfortunately left wing nuts haven't that america is always going to be a target from Bin Laden type terrorists unless we act to keep them on the defensive.
And two, the economy was preceived to be bad. Okay wow look at how much better it is. Unemployment soaring to 10%. Real unemployment (taking into people working less hours than they want or not looking) approaching 20% in Michigan. People vote for the democrats because they get checks from the democrats.
What happens when government can't afford to write that check?
That will be Obama's vault not George Bush's.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Thirty Pieces of Silver Democrats?
Color me shocked. The Democrats can't reach agreement on how to reform health care :
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer says House Democrats are struggling to reach consensus on overhauling health care, a divide that could delay House approval of a plan beyond lawmakers' scheduled vacation in August.In an attempt to win over Blue Dog Democrats, President Obama is lobbying Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee :
House leaders have said they wanted to pass a plan before they leave on a monthlong break. But Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday there is still disagreement on proposed tax increases on the wealthy, and whether to establish a government-run insurance program to compete with private plans.
Hoyer said House Democrats will continue to negotiate in private, with the goal of passing a plan next week. He downplayed the idea of keeping lawmakers in session while negotiations continue, but wouldn't rule it out.
Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce panel are headed to the White House, not their committee room, on Tuesday.While Democrats aren't as intimidated by President Obama as they were when Preside Obama's ratings were through the roof, I'd be surprised if he isn't able to persuade them to supporting the House legislation. If he's able to win them over, the Blue Dogs on the committee will be left in a vulnerable position. Mike Ross has been critical of the House bill, going so far as to say that he has the votes to stop the bill in committee :
Instead of continuing their markup, Energy and Commerce Democrats will be lobbied by President Obama at the White House. Tuesday's continuing markup was canceled, but the panel is scheduled to meet again on Wednesday.
The delays and intense effort by the White House cast more doubt on whether the House will meet its deadline of voting on the landmark bill before the August recess.
Conservative Democrats on the panel have criticized the healthcare reform bill's costs, and complained it does not do enough to reduce long-term healthcare spending. Freshman Democrats have also been worried about growing fiscal deficits and the risk the healthcare bill could add to them, while members from wealthy districts are upset about a surcharge on the wealthy that would be used to pay for some of the bill's costs.
The White House meeting is scheduled at 12:45 on Tuesday.
Democrats outnumber Republicans 36-23 on the Energy and Commerce committee, which contains eight Blue Dogs, including Ross. If seven Democrats vote with Republicans against the bill, it would fail to advance to the House floor. Asked whether the Blue Dogs on Energy and Commerce are considering voting as a group against the bill if it remains unchanged, Ross replied, "absolutely."If those Blue Dogs give in to President Obama's persuasion, they'll look like they're just as easily bought as Collin Peterson looks after getting a couple minor concessions on the National Energy Tax. Frankly, I'd make a motion to bloggers that we stop calling them Blue Dog Democrats and start calling them Thirty Pieces of Silver Democrats.
If they don't object to having that moniker attached to them, that's fine. I'll certainly do everything within my power to apply that nickname to them. If they're only principled until they're pressured by party leaders, should they be thought of as principled politicians? I don't think that's justified if they cave again.
Let's be clear about this. If the Blue Dogs win some major concessions, then they've earned the title of being principled politicians. That said, I don't see that happening today. I can picture them having a kumbayah press conference after the meeting, with everyone praising each other for the frankness of the discussion and the sharing of ideas.
I won't care about the photo op, though. I'll want to see what, if any, concessions the Blue Dogs won and how they vote on the legislation. All the happy talk in the world doesn't mean anything if disastrous legislation gets passed with their help.
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:36 AM
No comments.
Whip Blogger Conference Call Highlights
I just finished participating in another blogger conference call hosted by House Chief Deputy Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy. This week's topic was the America's
Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. Drs. Burgess, Fleming and Gingrey participated, as did Rep. Lynn Jennkins.
Rep. McCarthy said that the Mayo Clinic criticized the Obama administration. Here's what the Mayo Clinic's statement said:
Minnesota's not-for-profit Mayo Clinic, which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hailed as offering top quality care at affordable costs, blasted the House Democrats' version of the health care plan as lawmakers continue to grapple with several bills from each chamber and multiple committees.Rep. McCarthy said that the AMA's endorsement of the House bill wasn't as potent as the Democrats are playing it up to being. He said state chapters had distanced themselves from the legislation.
The Mayo Clinic said there are some positive elements of the bill, but overall "the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients."
"In fact, it will do the opposite," clinic officials said, because the proposals aren't [R]patient-focused or results-oriented. "The real losers will be the citizens of the United States."
One of the key topics discussed was whether Blue Dog Democrats would stick together and present principled opposition to the bill currently being debated in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. It was mentioned that Blue Dogs have a history of not sticking together regardless of the issue. The impression left was that there's no reason to think that the results of this legislation will be any different.
Drs. Burgess and Gingrey serve on the House Energy and Commerce Committee so I asked them their opinion of what this legislation would do to rural health care. Dr. Gingrey said that this is a major concern because of some anticipated changes to Medicare. Dr. Gingrey said that hospitals that have a disproportionate amount of people who are either on Medicare and Medicaid or who aren't insured get reimbursed more by law. President Obama has said on the record that that won't be necessary because of the reforms being put in place.
Dr. Burgess said that he held two conference calls yesterday, one with rural hospital administrators, the other with orban/suburban hospital administrators. He said both groups said that the uncertainty has put them on hold in terms of hiring and for putting next year's budgets together. Until this issue gets properly resolved, they'll be "frozen in time."
Additionally, Drs. Burgess and Gingrey said that the current legislation has the potential to severely hurt rural hospitals.
Dr. Fleming chimed in, too, saying that administrators are telling him, too, that the wrong types of changes could hurt hospitals for quite some time.
Another question asked was about the significance of Democratic governors like moderate Bill Richardson of New Mexico and ultraleftie Christine Gregoire of Washington criticizing the various reform plans. The response was that there's a very practical reason for their objections.
There is a provision in the Affordable Health Choices Act that initially provides for the additional costs that states would incur. States wouldn't be affected by the additional costs initially. The costs that they will incur will happen after the first five years that the program is in place.
In other words, the legislation would give the states some carrots initially to entice them to support the plan. After the states got addicted to the money, however, the federal government would eliminate those enticements, leaving governors to foot the bill.
I expect the Affordable Health Choices Act to eventually pass in the House because enough Blue Dogs will support the legislation. I also expect that alot of Democrats will lose in November, 2010, partially because they will be portrayed as not being principled politicians after taking a number of difficult votes in both the committee and on the House floor and partially because the legislation is terrible legislation that would hurt families, doctors and hospitals.
Posted Tuesday, July 21, 2009 2:07 PM
No comments.
The DFL/Democrats' Health Care Myths
Every day for the last two+ weeks, one special interest group or another has had an LTE in the St. Cloud Times, each repeating the same myths. This morning's LTE was submitted by Marybeth Juetten, the President of the Central Minnesota Trades and Labor Assembly. The first myth was in the third paragraph:
The best way to fix the current health care crisis is to provide quality, affordable health care for all. A public insurance plan will do just that. A public insurance option would be available for everyone alongside private health insurance plans.Where do I start? When did government-run health care provide "quality, affordable health care" for anyone? Has Ms. Juetten seen the VA hospitals lately? Medicare is available to all seniors but I'll bet that Medicare wouldn't be seniors' first choice if they had different options.
Secondly, the public option would soon be the only option because the government doesn't need to make a profit. Before people say that that's reason enough to choose the public option, it's important that people understand that there's a catch. While the government doesn't need to make a profit, government can't afford to provide health care without raising taxes.
Here's another DFL/Democrat myth:
Keep your private insurance you have if you like it, or choose a public plan that guarantees coverage without a private insurer middleman.That isn't exactly true :
"When I say 'If you have your plan and you like it,, or you have a doctor and you like your doctor, that you don't have to change plans,'" the president said after we asked him about this, "what I'm saying is the government is not going to make you change plans under health reform."The House and Senate plan on writing what minimum coverage policies must have. Think of it as the biggest unfunded/underfunded mandate in U.S. history. Considering that the Obama administration's and the Democrats' House and Senate leadership control freak tendencies, and considering all of the state and federal mandates already in place, shouldn't everyone think that they'll put even more mandates into this legislation?
Minnesota alone has more than 60 mandates that insurers must include. Why would any thinking person believe that Ted Kennedy, Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi would write a bill that didn't include a ton of mandates?
While those things are myths, this is an outright lie:
Costs could decrease and quality of services should increase across all plans.The CBO reports that the House legislation would add $239,000,000,000 to the deficit over the next decade. That's not counting the tax increases that they'll need for reforming health care. That's before considering the justifiable worries that rural hospitals have about government-run health care.
Ms. Juetten also wrote this whopper:
The national movement for a public insurance plan is building and has a broad coalition of supporters.That isn't a fact according to polling done by Rasmussen and Gallup. In fact, support for health care reform is slipping dramatically with no end in sight for the slippage. The 'movement' Ms. Juetten is talking about is nothing more than an astroturf campaign put together by the SEIU, the AFL-CIO, Health Care for America Now (HCAN) and the Center for American Progress . It's a movement built by lobbyists and Washington insiders, most of whom have served in the Clinton administration. That isn't an honest person's definition of a grassroots movement.
There isn't a dime's worth of difference between what Kennedy, Pelosi and Waxman are doing and what the DFL has quietly advocated. In January, 2008, I attended a health care forum hosted by Tarryl Clark. Sen. Marty was the featured guest. Sen. Marty told the audience that we needed to look at health care as a "community need, just like we look at the fire department and the police department."
Within minutes of the gavelling the forum to order, a woman named Loretta Linus made this statement:
"The doctors are wonderful. You get good care. And it just makes me mad when they talk about how they have to come over here to get good care & that's not true."Another woman who identified herself as working for the Greater Minnesota Health Care Clinic made this outlandish statement:
" Now they say that Canadians have to come over here for good treatment. Well don't you believe it. Don't you believe it one bit . That government is so good to all its people. I don't care if you're rich or poor. They take care of you. And so many of the people come & they talk crap about how awful their system is. Well, don't you believe it. Single payer is wonderful if it's run right ."
"We don't need health insurance. We need health care."I went to a health care forum and before I knew it, a single-payer convention broke out. The only difference between St. Cloud's 'single-payer convention' and the public option that Kennedy, Pelosi and Waxman are dreaming of is that Kennedy, Pelosi and Waxman are being devious about how they talk about the subject.
People aren't buying President Obama's pitch because they don't trust him after the stimulus/4,000,000 new jobs created sales pitch fiasco. They want to read the billover the August recess so they know what they'd be getting. They want to know that their representatives and senators are listening to them. Most importantly, they want to know that their representatives and senators are being responsive to them.
The last thing they want is for their senators and representatives to hold high profile photo ops, then return to DC and vote the way Speaker Pelosi and President Obama tell them to vote, especially if their senators and representatives admit that they didn't read the legislation.
The Democrats' and DFL's myths are being debunked. The momentum has clearly shifted in this debate. That's why President Obama wanted the House and Senate to pass their bills ASAP.
Posted Wednesday, July 22, 2009 7:24 AM
No comments.
They Rescued the Economy???
Lately, the White House has been amazingly tone deaf. Recently, President Obama said that the stimulus bill was "working as intended." In a recent interview with the NY Times, WH Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel bragged that "we rescued the economy from the worst recession."
With unemployment creeping towards double digits and with the auto bailouts causing additional layoffs, I can't imagine why the Obama administration would want to say anything that they're turning things around.
What's certain is that House GOP Leader John Boehner didn't let Emanuel's statement slide without responding :
Madam Speaker, American families and small businesses are hurting. The economy has been hurting, but this morning in previewing the President's speech tonight, our former colleague, the President's Chief of Staff, said this: '[W]e rescued the economy.'Ohio unemployment is 11 percent. Michigan's is 15 percent and climbing towards 20%. California's economy is in shambles but the Obama administration has rescued us from the Evil Bush economy? Why should people think that their lives have significantly improved? By what measure have middle class Americans benefited from President Obama's policies?
Now, I'm sure that the 9.5 percent unemployment rate that we have in our country today and from most economic experts on its way up don't believe that we've rescued the economy. The 11.1 percent unemployment rate that we have in Ohio, I'm sure those people are looking up today wondering, wait a minute, the President is going to say we rescued the economy? I don't think so.
Not only has the stimulus not worked and the economy not been rescued, the President continues to promote policies that will create more unemployment in America. The national energy tax that went through this House last month will cause millions of Americans to lose their jobs over the next 10 years, at 2.5 million per year. And we're debating the health care plan, the government takeover of health care, which according to the President's council of economic advisor's model will cost five million more Americans their jobs.
I don't believe that the economy has been rescued. I yield back.
Here's a set of questions that I'd love to see answered:
- Does the parent whose child needs an operation feel like she's already been rescued?
- Does the scientist whose high tech company just left Minnesota for Wisconsin feel rescued?
- Does the small businessman who's bracing to get hit with a variety of major tax increases from the Obama administration feel like he's been rescued?
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 1:27 AM
No comments.
Emmer Visit Roundup
Wednesday night, Rep. Tom Emmer paid a visit to St. Cloud in his campaign to be the GOP gubernatorial nominee. The room full of conservative activists certainly heard alot of things that got them fired up.
The part of his presentation that got the best response came when Rep. Emmer said that this isn't the time for shades of gray, that it's a time when conservatives can win independent voters by articulating conservative principles and explaining why limited government, lower taxes and putting a greater emphasis on local control is the best way to return Minnesota to the prosperity it once knew.
Rep. Emmer also drew praise for saying that Minnesotans will welcome a governor who will use the bully pulpit that's part of their office. Emmer said that he'd use that bully pulpit to rally people to setting the right priorities.
Rep. Emmer noted that one of his first committee assignments was when Republicans still were the majority party in the House. He read a bill crafted "by Republican legislators" that "included the word tariffs." He immediately asked why a Republican bill would include such isolationist language.
Rep. Emmer said that he's proud of the record he's compiled in St. Paul. He said that he's prepared for the slings and arrows that will come while he fights for Minnesotan's liberties. Emmer also cited his work on the issue of re-establishing the Tenth Amendment.
According to Rep. Emmer, "every time we let the federal government do what the state should do and every time we let the state do what the city council should be doing", we lose a little liberty and alot of accountability. Emmer said that "it's easy for someone in Washington or St. Paul to spend your money" because they don't have to worry about meeting the voters "at church on Saturday night."
When I asked him if zero-based budgeting was a worthwhile tool in reducing the scope of government, Rep. Emmer tested me by asking if that's how they put this year's budget together. I replied by saying the DFL-dominated legislature always used baseline budgeting because it allows them to not scrutinize past spending.
Emmer's next question was to find out what our priorities should be. After giving him my answer, he said our goal should be to reduce spending by 10%. He said that he was a co-author of a bill along with Mark Buesgens, Laura Brod and other conservatives that balanced the budget by spending less than $30,000,000,000.
Rep. Emmer praised the work Gov. Pawlenty did this session in vetoing the DFL' spending and tax increases. He then said that our next goal should be to retake the majorities so we can put Minnesota back on a pathway to sustainable prosperity.
Finally, he said that he'd refuse federal money for education because NCLB costs states more than they receive. Rep. Emmer said that anything that comes with that many strings attached to it is the federal government's prefered pathway around the Tenth Amendment.
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 2:07 AM
Comment 1 by Liberty at 23-Jul-09 10:15 AM
Every time I read something about Tom Emmer, the more I like him. "Run Tom Run!"
Obama Fatigue Setting In?
I haven't seen the ratings for how many people watched President Obama's primetime snooze conference but I can't believe that those who watched it changed their minds to support this monstrosity.
I think that because I'm getting the sense that people are just getting tired of seeing President Obama make the same tired appeals on health care. What struck me is that he still can't articulate what his plan is. He hasn't shown he understands the myriad of components involved in health care.
Another thing that's becoming apparent is that he's crying wolf again. Again, we're being told that the economy will collapse unless we get something done ASAP. That's insulting because people are questioning whether getting something done ASAP will produce a bill that gets it right the first time.
This isn't like setting the wrong trade policy or bad tax policy. Getting health care wrong is a life-and-death matter. We get this wrong and it'll take a generation to rebuild the private sector health insurance infrastructure, if it can be done at all.
I appreciate Captain Ed's take on last night's snooze conference:
When a president calls a prime-time press conference, it traditionally means that the White House has some new strategy, message, or policy creation that they want to reveal with a big flourish. For at least the second time in a row , Barack Obama demanded valuable prime-time real estate and the nation's attention in order to repeat the same lines he's used for the last two months on health care. Obama failed to present a single new idea, proposal, or even argument that had not already been floated from Obama himself and the White House in the full-court press over the last 10 days in Obama's media appearances.President Obama is a man confident in his ability to change people's minds. Unfortunately, I don't think there's justification for that confidence. In fact, I'd argue that his calling for network time to say the same thing another time without explaining in detail why his plan is the best plan just causes people to tune out.
We were told that we had to pass ARRA ASAP or the economy would shift from crisis to catastrophe. The bill was passed and the economy's trajectory hasn't noticeably changed. We were told that we had to close Gitmo. President Obama can't even get this congress to appropriate money to start the task without him giving them a detailed plan for where the hardest of the hardened terrorists still there would go.
Finally, people remember that it was President Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who said that it's important to not take advantage of a good crisis. People are questioning whether President Obama's push for health care reform isn't just another attempt to "take advantage of a good crisis."
The stakes are too high to not get this right. President Obama still hasn't told us why rushing the process will produce a worthwhile outcome. Until he does that, the American people will ignore his arguments. They're getting tired of this president.
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 8:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Jul-09 09:55 AM
I think Obama did a better job defining the issue than GOP Sen. DeMint, SC.
Are you suggesting otherwise?
Obama seemed less negative. Less obstructionist. More upbeat. Willing to calmly face dilatory tactics.
Do you suppose the GOP sees itself as Napoleon's legions, at Waterloo? Is that the DeMint message? I did not quite understand him. Gary, could you clarify for us, your thoughts, as best as you read the DeMint position?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 23-Jul-09 03:41 PM
Eric:
What press conference did you watch. The only people that Obama insulted worse than police officers were Doctors.
Obama in effect accused them of doing procedures for what will make them the most money. No doctors treat patients in fear of lawsuits.
This year I've had:
* My doctor order me to the hospital and called 911 even though I was well enough to drive.
* My doctor ordered not one, but two tests on me because he thought I was bleeding internally. A warning sign for him was because my iron level was low. Two tests and three months later he ordered the solution which I thought was in line (take an iron supplement).
Yet I didn't hear Obama talking about that. Let alone he seems to have no interest in obtaining tort reform.
Obama claims he's looking for good ideas. Here's a very good idea. Make mandatory coverage for just a couple of things (not 61) and let people decided if they want things not covered.
Lasix surgery wasn't part of health plans. Guess what the costs for lasix surgery has been going down as doctors compete to do it and create better techniques.
So Eric what press conference did you watch?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Publish The Bills
With news yesterday that the Senate wouldn't vote on any health care bills before the August recess, it's time that we pressured Democrats to do the right thing. It's time we flooded their offices with calls demanding that the House bill, the Kennedy-Dodd legislation and the Baucus legislation be published before they leave for their August recess.
Health care legislation isn't just about what Congress thinks. It's also about what the American people think. This is a conversation that everyone should participate in. At minimum, it's something that we should at least have a basic understanding of.
This is one of the rare times when what the Congress does is a life-and-death matter. The other life-and-death matter is that of sending troops into battle.
In recent days, there's been the start of an uprising that's demanding that we get things right, not that we get this voted on quick before President Obama's political capital is spent.
President Obama frequently talked about the need for transparency, something that I didn't take seriously. Now that he's president, he's proven that he's one of the most secretive presidents in U.S. history. Especially with this issue, that isn't acceptable.
President Obama and Speaker Pelosi, it's time these bills were published ASAP and updated daily. It's more than possible. It's what We The People, aka your bosses, demand. If our demands aren't met, I'd suggest that people who stood in the way should start preparing for retirement. We're sick and tired of bills getting voted on that legislators haven't read. We're sick of the fact that we're being kept in the dark.
Publish the bills or risk being put into involuntary early retirement next November. It's just that simple.
Posted Thursday, July 23, 2009 10:27 AM
No comments.
