The ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee on Monday said the Obama administration has drawn an “iron curtain” when it comes to providing information to members of Congress regarding the attempted Christmas Day terror attack.

via King: White House has drawn ‘iron curtain’ on plane attack info – NYPOST.com – Mozilla Firefox.

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009).

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

A drunk United States Senator tries to excoriate Republicans for their lack of support on the so-called health care bill. The man should probably resign his position. Failing that, he should be censored and compelled to seek treatment. Oh, his name? Max Baucus (D-Mont).

We deserve more than people who cannot control their consumption of alcohol or other substances. See for yourself:

Drunken Senator

I’m really surprised he didn’t “hurl” all over the Senate floor. Hopefully C-SPAN will guard this video and make sure it doesn’t disappear.

Romans 3 (New International Version)

Romans 3

God’s Faithfulness

¹What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? ²Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

³What if some did not have faith [trust]? Will their lack of faith [trust] nullify God’s faithfulness? ⁴Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
   "So that you may be proved right when you speak
      and prevail when you judge."

⁵But if our unrighteousness brings out God’s righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) ⁶Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? ⁷Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?" ⁸Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved.

No One is Righteous

⁹What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. ¹⁰As it is written:
   "There is no one righteous, not even one;
¹¹there is no one who understands,
      no one who seeks God.
¹²All have turned away,
      they have together become worthless;
   there is no one who does good,
      not even one."
¹³"Their throats are open graves;
      their tongues practice deceit."     "The poison of vipers is on their lips."  ¹⁴"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."  ¹⁵"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
¹⁶ruin and misery mark their ways,
¹⁷and the way of peace they do not know."  
¹⁸"There is no fear of God before their eyes."  

¹⁹Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. ²⁰Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.

Righteousness Through Faith [Trust]

²¹But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. ²²This righteousness from God comes through faith [trust] in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, ²³for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, ²⁴and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. ²⁵God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,^[i] through faith [trust] in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— ²⁶he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith [trust] in Jesus.

²⁷Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith [trust]. ²⁸For we maintain that a man is justified by faith [trust] apart from observing the law. ²⁹Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too, ³⁰since there is only one God, who will justify the circumcised by faith [trust] and the uncircumcised through that same faith [trust]. ³¹Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith [trust]? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

36 – Have been accused of spousal abuse

7 – Have been arrested for fraud

19 – Have been accused of writing bad checks

117 – Have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 – Have done time for assault

71, Repeat… 71, Cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

14 – Have been arrested on drug-related charges

21 – Currently are defendants in lawsuits, and

84 – Have been arrested for drunk driving in the last year

Can you guess which organization this is?

Give up yet?

Neither, it’s the 435 members of the United States Congress…

The same group of idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009).

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

We’re talking about the pieces of pig in the Senate Health Bill which will serve to further satiate the bribed congressional members as us old people finish our emaciated Christmas turkey. The attached video is nothing, if not an illustration, of the consternation and fear felt by the Grey Foxes.

Meanwhile we receive emails from our so-called caring lawmakers about this wonderful bunch of turkey giblets they have crafted into a turkey loaf.  The “You Tube” video just below, along with the article from BigGovernment accompanying it, will offer further explanation. Click on the link, watch the video; then read the article.

Merry Christmas From the United States Senate.

Turkey On, Seniors!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Twas the Night Before Christmas 2009 (thenobamablog.com)

The vote turned out to be 60 for and 39 against, but not before Sir Harry cast a vote that was half theater and half tragedy. Perhaps his initial vote was to show his true feelings for the albatross that mucked the Senate floor and still hangs from Reid’s neck. In the end, we can say he didn’t have the strength of character to retain his “no” vote and for a brief moment he demonstrated how great a charlatan he is. With 59 fellow Democrats, he has sufficient company.

Here’s a story regarding the final (for now) process. The Republicans? McConnell says it is not over and the fight continues.

I think it is a case of, “Never have so many been lied to by so few.” At least one organization and some Republican Attorneys General have announced that there will be a challenge to the bill on constitutional grounds.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Political Parties Try To Shape Public Opinion On Health Care (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Senator Sessions outs ObamaCare (advocateyourself.blogspot.com)
• Senate Majority Leader Reid delivers deadline health bill (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Snowe Opts Out: Votes To Proclaim Health Care Bill Unconstitutional (huffingtonpost.com)

Last Thursday (12/17) we got a lucky break—KC Golden (Policy Director at Climate Solutions, Seattle Magazine’s #1 Eco-Hero and GoGreen Seattle 2010 keynote speaker) took time out of his slammed schedule in Copenhagen to have a chat with us via Skype. Sitting in a Danish coffee shop 5000 miles away, KC gave us the lowdown on the urgency surrounding a binding climate change agreement, what we have to accomplish on the homefront and where we need to be by 2020.

GG: You’re in Copenhagen right now—what issue keeps coming up, what’s the trending topic (other than we need to get this done)?
KCG: We won’t know until it’s all said and done. It looks discouraging right now, but that’s pretty typical for the late stages of these type of negotiations. Most of what you hear publically is the political posturing and positioning. The head’s of state are just starting to arrive, so the real decisions won’t happen until then.

What we hope we’ll see is the infrastructure of a commitment from the whole world to do what right and necessary, and reduce emissions to safe levels in order to stabilize the climate. Under that promise is also a commitment for clean development—most urgently in the global south, where poverty is rampant. But it’s also important in developed countries that need to transition their economy from a fossil fuel-based economy to a clean energy economy, based on efficient use of renewable energy resources. That has enormous implications for lifestyle, for urban design, for the way we get from point A to point B, and for the way we live our lives. It has to be a whole-scale transition.

I heard a remarkable speech by, of all people, United States Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, who is a very sharp, practical, level-headed, numbers guy. But in his speech, he laid out a really powerful vision for a major transformation in our economy. Locke said that it’s not just about a couple of windmills and solar plants here and there— it’s about a completely new model for economic prosperity. He talked about re-tooling and re-fitting every industrial activity. He wants to see a profound and systemic change in the global economy, which will open up a world of opportunity for green business, for job creation and for making our communities healthier, more productive, more neighborly places.

GG: Are you sensing that everyone at Copenhagen is invested in getting these goals accomplished or is there still reluctance to change?
KCG: There’s still political reluctance to change—there’s fear of domestic politics and how that will constrain our ability to make good commitments where we need them on the international stage.

But I would contrast that political fear with a lot of confidence and a lot of enthusiasm and forward momentum among civil society participants, the NGOs and businesses who are here—and chomping at the bit to start this clean energy economy—and among the mayors, state and local elected officials. There is a real sense of eagerness, readiness and hunger to begin this transition.

Everyone knows that it’s difficult to do that at-scale; it’s difficult to take the full measure of that opportunity and do what we must do to stabilize the climate without an international agreement and the nationalized laws that must support such an agreement. That’s where we run into the political fear and resistance, which could keep us from reaching a satisfying and adequate outcome.

GG: So what happens if our governments don’t reach the agreement that we’re all hoping for in the private sector? How do we continue to pressure them?
KCG: We’ll have the opportunity in January when the U.S. Congress reconvenes—though, I have to say the failure of the United States Congress to deliver a national climate policy before the Copenhagen Summit is a real cloud hanging over the international effort. People are so frustrated that America hasn’t come to the table to get a legally binding deal, because our Congress didn’t act.

I had a woman from Japan grill me last night in broken English on how the Senate and the House work—and what are the committees, and why does it take so long and why do we have to keeping waiting? It feels like the entire world is being held hostage by 100 senators from the United States. The world is not pleased about that.

We have to do whatever it takes in the next three to four months to get our Congress to move after the conclusion of this conference. And it will be a battle—it’ll be tough, but we absolutely have to do it, we have to turn the heat up. And the perfect place to focus your energy is on your United State’s senator.

Now if we don’t get a meaningful international agreement here, businesses will continue to move forward because of the economic imperatives to reduce fossil fuel dependence and increase efficiency. States and cities will continue to move forward, civil society will continue to move forward—but we will not be moving forward on a path that prevents catastrophic climate destruction. We just won’t be able to do it at the level or with the urgency and coherence that’s required to reduce emissions by 90 percent in the developed world, which is what we have to do.

But, political change is not linear. To be honest, it’s hard to see a path through the political obstacle course right now. Unfortunately, we are going to continue experiencing tragic and enormous costs associated with our fossil fuel dependence in the path we’re on now—more Katrinas and natural disruptions, more disruptions to oil supply, more events like 9/11, which I don’t think many people think would have happened if Saudi Arabia’s principal export been broccoli.

A lot of these truly disruptive events in the pipeline are associated with our fossil fuel dependence and they’re going to keep whacking us over the head until we do something different. If we don’t get a meaningful deal out of Copenhagen and/or a good bill out of this Congress, we’ll just keep experiencing those costs.

Washington State’s economy lost $60 Billion last year to import fossil fuels and Oregon lost about $9 Billion. Those are huge holes in the bottom of our economy! We have to do something different if we ever want to plug those holes.

Eventually we will. Humans are a little slow on the uptake—but we’re not suicidal. We’re going to keep getting signals to change course until we change course with more ambition and more aggressively. In the meantime, all the great things that people and businesses and cities and states are doing are going to prepare us well for the moment when we’re really ready to turn the corner.

GG: So what do you do at Climate Solutions to encourage that kind of behavior? To push government to act in order to turn the corner and more quickly reach a tipping point?
KCG: We are trying to replace the vicious circle of denial and inaction with a virtuous circle of good public policy and accelerated private investment solutions. Let me put a little more substance to that. The vicious circle is that the more we remain in denial about the problem, the less we act. The less we act, the longer we stay in denial about the problem. We had someone tell us once that she didn’t think that [climate change] was that big of a problem because nobody was doing anything about it.

We expect our leaders to respond to really big problems. When our leaders don’t, it confuses us about the severity of the issue. That’s the vicious circle we’ve been in. What we aim to replace it with, at Climate Solutions, is getting more and more people actively engaged in implementing and delivering practical and economical attractive solutions to global warming.

There is so much of that going on, particularly in the Pacific Northwest—which is great because the more people are engaged in being a part of the solution in their business, homes, lifestyles and government agencies, the stronger the constituency and confidence becomes for passing public policy that we need to accelerate the coming of the clean energy economy.

When we pass those policies, we make it more economically feasible and desirable for people to engage in the solutions. That’s the circle that we’re working to build at Climate Solutions. We do a lot of work on creating the public policy infrastructure and incentives, and encourage the rapid accelerations of a clean energy economy to replace the fossil fuel economy.

GG: What are your goals, coming into a new decade?
KCG: Beyond what we get done in Copenhagen, we absolutely have to set a fire under the United States Congress to both raise the bar on what they will do to promote America’s clean energy economy and get a bill passed so we can get the show on the road. That’s the objective for the immediate foreseeable future.

By 2020, we should have reduced our carbon pollution in the Northwest by 40 percent. We should have dramatically reduced our consumption of fossil fuels for transportation by electrifying the majority of our transportation and also by developing advanced, sustainable bio-fuels—plus using sustainable alternative transport rather than cars. We should have de-carbonized our electric power system. We should no longer have any coal plants operating in the Northwest. And our communities, our homes and our lifestyles should have a much lower carbon footprint and much more community oriented and conducive to a good lifestyle where we engage our friends more, eat more local food, ride our bikes more, waste less and waste less time on inefficient transportation modes.

KC Golden is a keynote speaker at the GoGreen Conference 2010 in Seattle, Washington. GoGreen 2010 Seattle is a full-day sustainability conference geared towards businesses seeking actionable steps to greening their operations. The conference takes place April 26, 2010 at the Olive8 at the Hyatt (LEED certified Silver). Early Bird tickets are on-sale now through April 1, 2010. Tickets are $175 each for single Early Bird Full Day Admission and $150 Early Bird Full Day Admission for Groups of 2 or more. More information can be found at: http://www.seattle.gogreenconference.net/registration/

For more information about KC Golden and Climate Solutions, please visit: http://www.climatesolutions.org/

Join the GoGreen Conference on Twitter:@gogreenconf. We’re also on Facebook!

Rasmussen reports, as of December 14, 2009, that 56% of U.S. voters now oppose the Health Care Reform bill. Yet the United States Senate is poised to shove it down the throats of the America people by Christmas.

Democracy?

With the passing of this bill, Barack Hussein Obama will go down in the annals of history as the greatest confidence man of all time. Congress and the Senate, nothing more than two bit shills. Like fast talking street hawkers trying to convince their mark, the American people, that they will be the real winners and come out ahead.

Surely any educated person should, and must ask themselves; Why is something that we are being told is so important being rushed?

You wouldn’t buy a car from a used car salesman who told you that the deal must be done right NOW. Don’t think about it. Don’t discuss it with anyone. Sign the deal NOW.

Yet, this bill, which has the potential to change the course of United States history; has the potential to impact every single man, woman and child in this country, born and unborn, MUST BE PASSED NOW, BEFORE CHRISTMAS.

Why?

Once again, the president, Congress, and the Senate forget that:

“Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”

God Bless the United States of America.
God Help Us.

People on both sides of the issue of Global Warming are thoroughly convinced that they are correct.  Both sides use scientific data to back up their claims.  Those who stand to make a massive amount of money off of this debate are relished with the controversy, but the following verses are what people of the world need to be prepared for and fear the consequences of ending up on the wrong side :

2 Peter 3:7 (New International Version)
7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

Hebrews 10:26-27 (New International Version)

26If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

Hebrews 12:29 (New International Version)
29for our “God is a consuming fire.”

Revelation 16:8-9 (New International Version)

8The fourth angel poured out his bowl on the sun, and the sun was given power to scorch people with fire. 9They were seared by the intense heat and they cursed the name of God, who had control over these plagues, but they refused to repent and glorify him.

Revelation 20:15 (New International Version)
15If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

John 14:6 (New International Version)

6Jesus [Yeshua in Hebrew] answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

2 Peter 3     The Day of the Lord   (New International Version)
1Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking. 2I want you to recall the words spoken in the past by the holy prophets and the command given by our Lord and Savior through your apostles.
3First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. 4They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

8But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 9The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

10But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.[a]

11Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives 12as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming.[b]That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. 13But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, the home of righteousness.

14So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. 15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul [Shaul in Hebrew] also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

17Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. 18But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ [Yeshua HaMashiach in Hebrew]. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Hebrews 4:13  (New International Version)
¹³Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

     After reading comments from reader Scott Erb, I have decided to post some thoughts on what I would say to Judge Nina Gershon, the federal judge who recently ruled that the United States Congress was acting unconstitutionally when it decided not to give funds to ACORN, the community organization group that has made headlines over the last few years.

     If I were to meet Judge Gershon, I would treat her courteously and would show her the respect to which her office entitles her.  I would most likely listen more than talk, since she certainly knows more about the law (and perhpas other things) than I do. 

     If, however, she did ask me what I thought of her ruling, I would summon up the courage to say, “Your Honor, I have a completely opposite view from you regarding the proper way to interpret the Constitution and also regarding the role of the judiciary.  Therefore, I do not think that your ruling was correct.  However, given your approach to the Constitution and to the judicial branch’s role, I think you made a very sound ruling.

     “Then again, you could make just about any ruling you want, based on the way the judicial branch has redefined its role and re-envisioned the Constitution for the last 35 years or more.  All you ahve to do is determine how you want to rule and then say that something in the case “is equivalent to” or “amounts to” something that is clearly unconstitutional.  Perhaps you are right in saying that Congress’s defunding bill amounts to a bill of attainder, but I think not.  I would think that a bill of attainder would be an act that declared an entity guilty of crimes and that deprived them of property or liberty (or in severe cases, life) as a punishment.”

     Of course, she would probably already have interrupted me, but if not, I would say, “Your ruling strikes me as being just like many other rulings in recent times in which the judicial branch has set itself above the other two branches, rather than being equal to and in balance with  them, as the Constitution outlines.  It also strikes me as an example of writing laws from the bench, rather than allowing the Congress to write laws, as they are given power to do in the Constitution.”

     Then I would shut up and let her tell me why she thinks I am wrong.  I would probably learn a lot, but I doubt that I would change my mind.

     If I had the chance, I would ask her what I think is a simple question.  I would want to ask why she accepts the authority of Congress to give out money but rejects their authority to withhold money.  It seems to me that you cannot have the first without the second.  She would, I guess, have a good and interesting answer.

your Congressman, Steve Kagen is the biggest spender in the People’s House for the 3rd quarter of 2009.  Kevin over at Lakeshore Laments has a great piece on this.

For the first time ever, you can now find out how much your individual Congressman is spending in his Congressional office without making a special trip to Washington.  So, with that weapons cache in tow, bloggers and journalists have been pouring over the report available either at the Office of the House’s Chief Administrative Officer or the Sunlight Foundation.  Some of them — like this one in New Mexico – have begun compiling lists of the biggest Congressional spenders for the third quarter of 2009.

At the top: Appleton’s own Steve Kagen.

…

In actuality, Kagen’s office spent $452,596.  Congressional offices get a total of $1.5 million to spend for the entire fiscal year.

When you add up the spending of the other seven Wisconsin Congressional representatives, here are their 2009 Quarter 3 numbers from a spreadsheet provided by the Sunlight Foundation (numbers rounded to nearest dollar): Paul Ryan – $382,733;  Tammy Baldwin – $311,637; Ron Kind – $294,527; Gwen Moore – $268,778; Jim Sensenbrenner – $280,077; Tom Petri – $324,509; and Dave Obey – $248,945.

Year to date totals for the Wisconsin delegation are: Ryan – $951,904; Baldwin – $922,888; Kind – $931,578; Moore – $817,093; Sensenbrenner – $898,976; Petri – $935,137; Obey – $686,796; Kagen – $1,183,739.

Quarter 4 is traditionally a time when Congressional offices will use up their remaining budgets with further expenditures.  New office equipment (computers, TV sets, office furniture) often will be the major purchases.  Any remaining money after that is traditionally given back to the federal budget.

So what is Kagen spending so much of your tax dollars on; and what will he be able to spend the remaining $316,261 on?

Well, as is typical, the biggest expense is staff salary.  For Kagen that was $234,350; which puts his office around the average in Congress.  Staff salaries are pretty universal in Congress with only the years of service being the only determining factor in any differences.  In Kagen’s office, he spent an amazing $59,934 in franked mailings, and $79,381 in printing and reproduction costs (most of them related to making the franked mailings).  A detailed look at the timing of these mailings show the vast majority of them were done right before the August Recess.

Steve Kagen put out this press release in July regarding fiscal responsibility.

Congressman Steve Kagen, M.D. today voted to enforce fiscal responsibility.  Kagen supported the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act which requires Congress to write into each piece of legislation how they will pay for it.

“The federal government must live within its means just as we do around our kitchen tables in Wisconsin,” said Kagen.  “This legislation is a necessary step to prevent our deficit from getting deeper.”

Doesn’t that make Congressman Kagen a hypocrite?  Where’s the fiscal responsibility in spending all the money allotted to you instead of only spending what is needed and returning the rest?  I mean wouldn’t that make sense in light of the excessive debt that Kagen & his buddies have racked up in the last year?  Debt that will be a burden for future generations.

Remember this next year voters in the 8th when Congressman Kagen starts making those claims of being a fiscal conservative. It’s hypocritical to make such a claim when your office spending is out-of-control.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Most Expensive House Office in America is Steve Kagen’s (lakeshorelaments.com)
• Sunlight Foundation & ProPublica Create New Foreign Lobbying Influence Tracker (prweb.com)
• Congress taking care of its own (brvanlanen.wordpress.com)

Preying Or Praying (Reuters)

By Chuck Ring (GadaboutBlogalot ©2009)

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

It was pre-destined. All that pent-up angst bloating Senator Harry Reid was thought to be a part of global gas that would be a danger to humankind the world over. Well, we can hope, can’t we? It has almost happened with his latest pronouncements calling-out Republicans and their opposition to his health shill bill. Republicans and moderate Democrats have prevented Reid (up to this point) from realizing his dream of killing the fatted calf to celebrate the passage of  the gaseous health bill. Calling them out and likening them to “supporters of slavery” and more is Reid’s childish attempt at turning opinion toward being in favor of the health bill.

Here’s a bit of the story as reported by Fox News:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took his GOP-blasting rhetoric to a new level Monday, comparing Republicans who oppose health care reform to lawmakers who clung to the institution of slavery more than a century ago.

The Nevada Democrat, in a sweeping set of accusations on the Senate floor, also compared health care foes to those who opposed women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement — even though it was Sen. Strom Thurmond, then a Democrat, who unsuccessfully tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and it was Republicans who led the charge against slavery.

Leave it to Reid to blame everything, save common sense, as being responsible for the slowdown of the health bill’s slim chance of passage as it is now constituted. You can read and hear more of his almost puppy dog affection for the bill and while you are at it, perhaps you might want to digest this article (Wall Street Journal) … the articles, joined by their inference or reference to gas and the cost to carry out each are a monument to the lack of common sense displayed by Reid.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Shhh! Don’t confuse Reid with history while he’s playing the race card! (michellemalkin.com)
• Harry Reid’s Filibuster Outburst (professorbainbridge.com)
• Quote of the Day (politicalwire.com)

December 1, 2009

A recent Rasmussen poll reports that 71% of American voters are angry with the current policies of the federal government.

Anger is a warning sign that something is wrong and the United States of America is an angry nation.

The ire of the American voter should be sending a message to President Obama’s Administration and the members of the United States Congress.

Many people are uncomfortable-intimidated with the expression of anger or they just do not understand its relevance in life.

Anger is what occurs when we sense something has gone wrong and the greater the wrong-the greater the anger.

Anger can be unpleasant and uncomfortable and unsettling, that is of necessity even vital to alert us to wrong doing and danger.  It moves us to action against these wrongs and dangers in this case against the wrongs of an unrepresentative, unaccountable, and elitist federal government moving our nation toward the dangers of socialism.

The American Colonies were founded by angry men and women, who forsook all kindred, lands and nation to sail around the world seeking a new land to pursue social and religious freedom.

The United States of America was founded by angry men and women, who committed their fortunes and lives to wage war against tyranny and to establish a free nation and free society; free to worship God and free to pursue their own destiny.

The United States of America was torn asunder over slavery, where angry men and women north and south fought for the freedom of African-Americans.

The United States of America was forced to face its duplicity, when angry men and women united peacefully in protest until African-Americans were allowed to participate in all areas of society freely.

Many other times in our American history there have been angry men and women committing their fortunes and risking all even to the death to create an even more free nation.

These American men and women were moved to action from an outrage, from anger, from a righteous indignation at government’s lack of justice, morality, equality, and representation.

The majority of American voters are angry, nearly half of Americans are very angry with the policies of the federal government.

The American ire has championed so much for freedom for the United States, the land of the free and home of the brave.

The United States is yet a young nation and not so far removed from its Founding Fathers’ beliefs and self-evident truths.

An indifferent Obama Administration and United States Congress are headed into a ‘Perfect Storm’ of American aggression that will play out in the elections of 2010 and 2012.

The United States of America is an angry nation ready for real change instead of the wrongful radical liberal policies moving toward the dangers of socialism.

Randy Driver – Driver Post

The people of Switzerland took a courageous stand in their recent vote against Islamic intolerance.  Islamic leaders are whining like babies over this vote.  The Quran  is the blueprint of how the words in it demand a takeover of the World.  Other countries of the World need to also protect themselves from Islamic intolerance.  Ignorant World Leaders will now try to pressure Switzerland to not abide by the vote results.  Wise people know the Truth, but fools stay addicted to their foolishness

Swiss ban mosque minarets in surprise vote

By ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer – Sun Nov 29, 6:40 pm ET
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091129/ap_on_re_eu/eu_switzerland_minaret_ban
GENEVA – Swiss voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on minarets on Sunday, barring construction of the iconic mosque towers in a surprise vote that put Switzerland at the forefront of a European backlash against a growing Muslim population.
Muslim groups in Switzerland and abroad condemned the vote as biased and anti-Islamic. Business groups said the decision hurt Switzerland’s international standing and could damage relations with Muslim nations and wealthy investors who bank, travel and shop there.
“The Swiss have failed to give a clear signal for diversity, freedom of religion and human rights,” said Omar Al-Rawi, integration representative of the Islamic Denomination in Austria, which said its reaction was “grief and deep disappointment.”
About 300 people turned out for a spontaneous demonstration on the square outside parliament, holding up signs saying, “That is not my Switzerland,” placing candles in front of a model of a minaret and making another minaret shape out of the candles themselves.
“We’re sorry,” said another sign. A young woman pinned to her jacket a piece of paper saying, “Swiss passport for sale.”
The referendum by the nationalist Swiss People’s Party labeled minarets as symbols of rising Muslim political power that could one day transform Switzerland into an Islamic nation. The initiative was approved 57.5 to 42.5 percent by some 2.67 million voters. Only four of the 26 cantons or states opposed the initiative, granting the double approval that makes it part of the Swiss constitution.
Muslims comprise about 6 percent of Switzerland’s 7.5 million people. Many are refugees from the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s and about one in 10 actively practices their religion, the government says.
The country’s four standing minarets, which won’t be affected by the ban, do not traditionally broadcast the call to prayer outside their own buildings.
The sponsors of the initiative provoked complaints of bias from local officials and human-rights group with campaign posters that showed minarets rising like missiles from the Swiss flag next to a fully veiled woman. Backers said the growing Muslim population was straining the country “because Muslims don’t just practice religion.”
“The minaret is a sign of political power and demand, comparable with whole-body covering by the burqa, tolerance of forced marriage and genital mutilation of girls,” the sponsors said. They said Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan compared mosques to Islam’s military barracks and called “the minarets our bayonets.” [Editor’s note: Najmadin Erbakan, former Prime Minister of Turkey, is on record stating “…we are coming here [to Germany] to take control of your country…”] Erdogan made the comment in citing an Islamic poem many years before he became prime minister.
Anxieties about growing Muslim minorities have rippled across Europe in recent years, leading to legal changes in some countries. There have been French moves to ban the full-length body covering known as the burqa. Some German states have introduced bans on head scarves for Muslim women teaching in public schools. Mosques and minaret construction projects in Sweden, France, Italy, Austria, Greece, Germany and Slovenia have been met by protests.
But the Swiss ban in minarets, sponsored by the country’s largest political party, was one of the most extreme reactions.
“It’s a sad day for freedom of religion,” said Mohammed Shafiq, the chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a British youth organization. “A constitutional amendment that’s targeted towards one religious community is discriminatory and abhorrent.”
He said he was concerned the decision could have reverberations in other European countries.
Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.
The seven-member Cabinet that heads the Swiss government had spoken out strongly against the initiative but the government said it accepted the vote and would impose an immediate ban on minaret construction.
It said that “Muslims in Switzerland are able to practice their religion alone or in community with others, and live according to their beliefs just as before.” It took the unusual step of issuing its press release in Arabic as well as German, French, Italian and English.
Sunday’s results stood in stark contrast to opinion polls, last taken 10 days ago, that showed 37 percent supporting the proposal. Experts said before the vote that they feared Swiss had pretended during the polling that they opposed the ban because they didn’t want to appear intolerant.
“The sponsors of the ban have achieved something everyone wanted to prevent, and that is to influence and change the relations to Muslims and their social integration in a negative way,” said Taner Hatipoglu, president of the Federation of Islamic Organizations in Zurich. “Muslims indeed will not feel safe anymore.”
The People’s Party has campaigned mainly unsuccessfully in previous years against immigrants with campaign posters showing white sheep kicking a black sheep off the Swiss flag and another with brown hands grabbing eagerly for Swiss passports.
Geneva’s main mosque was vandalized Thursday when someone threw a pot of pink paint at the entrance. Earlier this month, a vehicle with a loudspeaker drove through the area imitating a muezzin’s call to prayer, and vandals damaged a mosaic when they threw cobblestones at the building.
_________
Associated Press Writers Shafika Mattar in Amman, Jordan, Eliane Engeler in Basel, Jennifer Quinn in London and Giovanni Fontana in Rome contributed to this report.

Quote Freely From The Article – Leave The Pseudonym Alone

Charles Krauthammer writing in the Washington Post is not the only voice of reason when it comes to asking the United States Congress to slow down and legislate changes in health care that make sense and will not mire us completely under the muck of a severe depression like the Reid and Pelosi bill is liable to do.  But, he may be the most succinct of all critics of Obamacare.  Mr. Krauthammer, is nothing, if not discerning and astute when it comes to matters of  the economy and just plain common sense. In his article, Kill the bills. Do health reform right, he fills a column or so enumerating the follies of the House bill and the Senate bill.

Mr. Krauthammer begins his article by stating in part:

The fundamental problem with the 2,074-page Senate health-care bill (as with its 2,014-page House counterpart) is that it wildly compounds the complexity by adding hundreds of new provisions, regulations, mandates, committees and other arbitrary bureaucratic inventions.

He continues that there is nothing to bring the components of the bills together and that both depend on political expediency for the string to bind them up. Mentioned in his article are the 118 commissions, boards and other “political” string that must also be bound up to make the pork roast. Mr. Krauthammer slams mandates with financial penalties, which he maintains are,  ”picked out of a hat. He complains of  insurance companies being told what weights to give risk factors (something at which they are quite expert).  And, he speaks to sliding scales, also “picked out of a hat,” that will raise income taxes for the middle class along with other unintended consequences.

Mr. Krauthammer suggest three components for a health care overhaul that aren’t at all mentioned in either the House or Senate bills. Of course there are reasons why they are not mentioned and he does not leave them hanging.  After he trashes both bills by naming them irredeemable, he goes forth to explain why, suggesting the sacrifice of a couple of sacred cows and pigs in the process:

First, tort reform. This is money — the low-end estimate is about half a trillion per decade — wasted in two ways. Part is simply hemorrhaged into the legal system to benefit a few jackpot lawsuit winners and an army of extravagantly rich malpractice lawyers such as John Edwards. [he has much more to say on tort reform and the reader would do well to read his words]

Second, even more simple and simplifying, abolish the prohibition against buying health insurance across state lines. Some states have very few health insurers. Rates are high. So why not allow interstate competition? After all, you can buy oranges across state lines. If you couldn’t, oranges would be extremely expensive in Wisconsin, especially in winter.

But neither bill lifts the prohibition on interstate competition for health insurance. Because this would obviate the need — the excuse — for the public option, which the left wing of the Democratic Party sees (correctly) as the royal road to fully socialized medicine.

His third  component may be the least popular, but it is sure less dangerous and more practical than the silliness that our senators and representatives tell us about actual cost measures in their bills:

Third, tax employer-provided health insurance. This is an accrued inefficiency of 65 years, an accident of World War II wage controls. It creates a $250 billion annual loss of federal revenue — the largest tax break for individuals in the entire federal budget.

This reform is the most difficult to enact, for two reasons. The unions oppose it. And Barack Obama savaged the idea when John McCain proposed it during last year’s campaign.

Mr. Krauthammer ends his piece with a plea to take the issues one by one which amounts to the same thing as saying, “slow down you’re going to fast.” Something said,  over and over. Take the complete article and it makes sense and puts the Senate and House bills where they belong … in the trash bin. Grab the article. And, you don’t have to read th bill … these folks hearthebill.org will read it for you.

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Party Of Maybe (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)

The week or so before the Nov. 3rd elections, I listened to Speakout that is hosted on WRAA 1330. It was the episode that had Carol Lee on. A comment she made started me to thinking. Carol had stated that the reason why she thinks she has ahd so much success in District 5 is because she is not tied down like the other candidates that have jobs or owns a business. So if anything that needed to be looked into further before the BoS makes a decision, they rely on Carol Lee. I do not know carol Lee personally, but this could have a conflict. She could potentially pass on false information to get votes needed for a certain debate, topic or whatever. There is always that possibility.

What would solve that issue, is a paid BoS. The BoS is actually like a mini Congress. Those that representing the different will try to get what their constituents favor. Having a paid BoS would give the representives time to look into issues, mingle within their district and all members can be present at the required meetings.

How much to pay the BoS is left to debate. The County Administrator is paid over $80 grand a year and what is it he is supposed to be doing? Is it possible to eliminate that position with a paid BoS?

The one drawback is if the amount of pay is to low, will someone be willing to risk giving up a higher paying job for a position on tht BoS? Would a paid BoS bring unwanted candidates, those that have no business of even thinking about running?

8th Congressional district candidate Marc Savard points out how Congressman Steve Kagen doesn’t get it when it comes to this country’s economic problems.

First a great comparison with Santa Claus.

Santa Claus is a good man with good intentions. I believe Congressman Kagen too genuinely believes he is doing the right thing when he comes back from Washington with bags of goodies for certain folks in the 8th District.
Yet the catch is that Santa Claus actually works and creates his own products, while Santa Kagen takes our work product, siphons off some for others among the Washington tax-eating crowd and then distributes back what might be left for us, at his discretion.

Next pointing out what the these recent “solutions” from Washington are really doing.  Hint – they aren’t the great deal they appear to be.

So, while the recently announced extension of the new homebuyers tax credit, and now the additional program of tax credits for existing home buyers ,sounds like a great deal, all it is doing is artificially creating a market and distorting sales that the free market forces would and should handle on its own. Just as the cash for clunkers program drew sales forward and did nothing for overall sales in the long run, so does this sound bite policy do nothing for the overall health of the economy and home sales in the long run. And just as the auto industry started with a limited policy of “cash back” programs to spur sales, now the consumer won’t buy a car without one. The same will happen with the home builders industry. Buyers will now wait to purchase until they see the next “cash back” program come from Washington, further distorting and destroying sales in the long run.

In conclusion what the sound solution really is while pointing out who the real problem is.

What we need is for Congress to start dealing with the big picture , which is to get their out of control spending under control and lower tax rates across the board. These policies are the only sound solution to the dire situation that Congress has created, yet it looks as if Congressman Kagen and Speaker Pelosi just don’t get it. Washington is not the answer to our country’s economic problems,  it is the problem. (Source: Santa Kagen – Savard for Congress)

Which means Congressman Kagen, as part of the problem, needs to be sent back private practice in November 2010.

Related articles by Zemanta

• NWMLS: Fake Expiration of Wasteful Tax Credit Boosts October Sales (seattlebubble.com)
• Solving The Wrong Problem (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Looking For An 8th District Candidate Part 3 (berrylaker.blogspot.com)

We all remember deep-freeze Jefferson. He of the bribery cold cash. We now hear that after his conviction (August 5, 2009) he was sentenced (yesterday) to 13 years in the crossbar hotel. His case gained notoriety when federal authorities ran an informant based undercover operation, where the informant “bribed” Jefferson with a bundle of  legal tender.

Jefferson was charged with 16 counts related to his conduct and he was convicted of 11 of the counts.  The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) has reported extensively on the Jefferson story and on August 5th of this year, WSJ’s Law Blog contained this material:

The backstory: In 2007, Jefferson, was charged on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The government alleged that Jefferson used his congressional office to help promote business projects in western Africa in return for payments for his family. The most vivid evidence put on display: that feds found in Jefferson’s freezer $90,000 stuffed in Boca Burger and pie-crust boxes.

Yesterday, after Jefferson’s sentence was handed down WSJ’s Law Blog reported in part:

A federal judge in Alexandria, Va., handed down the sentence to Jefferson, 62, a Democrat whom voters ousted last year. He was convicted of bribery, money laundering and racketeering in schemes that prosecutors said he devised to enrich himself and his family. Click here for earlier LB coverage of the Jefferson saga; here for the Justice Department’s press release.

You can read yesterday’s Law Blog as well as previous blogs on the subject by clicking here

The Republicans have their own scandal opening up and we’ll comment on it in our next article.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Jefferson Sent to Prison (politicalwire.com)
• William Jefferson Sentenced (mydd.com)
• Prosecutors Seek 27 Years for Ex-Lawmaker (time.com)

Cross Posted @ The League of Ordinary Gentlemen:

If there’s one thing that most political commentators and Americans can agree upon, it’s that Congress is bad at its job. Presidential approval ratings go up and down, Congressional approval ratings pretty much stay down. These days, it’s become de rigueur to point to hyper-partisanship, legislative relics who’ve all but become permanent fixtures in both houses, the pervasive and harmful influence of special interests in the legislative and electoral process, and the regularity of ethical lapses and scandals.

The prevailing sentiment of the day seems to be “Congress is good, but the people in it are terrible,” and many of our attempts to address Congressional shortcomings stem from that mindset. Recent examples include campaign finance reform, lobbying disclosure requirements, hiring bans, transparency initiatives, and “the most ethical Congress in history.” These reforms aimed to keep bad people out of politics so good people could do good work.

This focus on bad actors; however, ignores the ways in which the system itself incentivizes bad actors. To run for Congress, stay in Congress, and pass legislation requires money, votes, influence, popularity, allies, and expert knowledge. Those requirements increase the value and leverage of organizations or individuals that can provide one or more of those to a significant degree, making those groups something of a super-constituent. These include donors, interest groups like the NRA or SEIU, think tanks like Brookings or Cato, fellow politicians, and the parties themselves.

Super-constituents distort representative government by creating incentives to value the priorities and contributions of a select few over those of a legislator’s constituents. Super-constituents also retain the power to punish elected officials more easily and more severely than regular constituents, by endorsing competitors, stripping legislators of seniority or committee membership, and cutting off access, particularly to donors. With this in mind, more significant reforms modifying the structure of the United States Congress or rather how it does business, not just who shows up to do it, need to be considered.

Broadly, we need reforms to accomplish more legislative/legislator independence, a better representation of people and collective interests, and a greater emphasis on work rather than optics and political gamesmanship.

More specifically, we would benefit from:

· More accurate representation of constituencies;
· Less partisanship;
· Incentives for legislative leadership;
· Breaking up entrenched power;
· Addressing the disproportionate influence of extra-legislative entrenched interests;

To accomplish some of those goals, or at least put us on the road to a less dysfunctional legislature, consider this slate of 8 reforms.

1.) Resolving the electoral status of D. C.

Any effort to make Congress more representative should start with ensuring that all citizens are represented. An American expat living in Paris has more congressional representation than an American living down the street from the Capitol and that’s not only a bizarre quirk of federal law, it’s also particularly un-American. Retrocession isn’t an option because – frankly – Maryland doesn’t want the district. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 is undistinguished partisan deal making and blatantly unconstitutional.

The best solution is simply to apportion the residents of the district to Maryland and allow them to vote accordingly. It was introduced in 2004 as the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act, but used to be standard practice prior to the Organic Act of 1801. It’s constitutional, it’s fair, and it doesn’t involve some quid pro quo get congressional representation quick scheme. Apportioning the residents would also allow their representation in the House of Representatives to be population based, as it is with the states, and arguably should be. It’s also population based, which is kind of important in the house of Congress meant to be population based. Also, unlike the House Voting Rights Act, which gives 591,000 people only one seat in the House, this solution would give DC residents representation in the Senate, through Maryland.

2.) Discouraging Electoral Carpetbaggery

There’s an unsung principle at the heart of American democracy, the idea that those who make the laws should follow them; and conversely, those who are beholden to laws should have some say in creating or modifying them. It follows from that principle that people with no discernible stake in laws should have less of a say. As such, we ought to limit – to the best of our ability – what I call electoral carpetbaggery, the influence of outside persons and organizations in local elections.

States should establish content neutral laws that require funds spent on campaign broadcasts (radio and television ads) be raised by eligible voters or residents of the voting district, including corporate residents. The aim is to accomplish two effects, curtailing the unabated influence of monied interests and reducing the expenditure amounts required to run for public office. Moreover, candidates would be more dependent on local fundraising as opposed to national organizations and advocacy groups.

For example, in a gubernatorial or Senate race, only residents and businesses with locations in the state could contribute funds used to broadcast campaign materials. In a Congressional district, only personal and corporate residents of that district could contribute, but not residents of a neighboring district, even if they’re in the same state. Given the history of broadcasting regulation and its disparate effect on campaigning, it stands alone as a regulatory target. We also already itemize contributions from within the district. Print materials, canvassing, campaign travels, new media campaigning, and rallies would remain unaffected.

3.) A mechanism for automatic cloture in the Senate

The flaws of the filibuster are well known, but eliminating it outright seems certain to fall victim to the Law of Unintended Consequences. Moreover, it would effectively end any and all checks and balances on majority power in the Congress. To break the power of the filibuster without giving dual-branch majorities carte blanche, including the power to ram through war authorizations and such, the Senate should establish a new rule to limit consideration by allowing a majority vote to establish a maximum amount of time for debate of a bill above a standard minimum that can only be overridden by a 3/5 vote or amended upwards by another majority vote. This would allow the Senate to retain its prerogative for lengthy consideration and debate but allow the chamber to set some limits to get work done rather than the current options of none or cloture, which are dysfunctional to say the least. I envision the standard minimum as somewhere in the ballpark of 10-16 weeks, not including recesses for vacation.

4.) Eliminating anonymous holds

The Senate’s rules and quirks may be annoying but the anonymous holds are a blatant and opaque abuse of power. Good governance doesn’t stem from a vacuum of consequences. Constituents should know if their Senator is holding up legislation they want or an administration appointment, to better assess their job performance. The anonymity of holds is eroding but it should be eliminated outright, if not the hold system entirely.

5.) Increasing the size of both houses

Despite our general disdain for politicians we need more of them. Congress is too small.

In the House, the average size of Congressional districts is over 700,000, which vary from Montana’s at-large district with just over 960,000 people to Wyoming’s at-large district with just over 530,000 or either of Rhode Island’s half million large districts. Such large sized districts require money to campaign in them and a city sized number of votes to win, which places a premium on the organizations that can provide one, the other or both.

The relatively unobtrusive Wyoming Rule would increase the house to 592 members. If we were to reduce the average size to 500,000 per member, the house would be 616 members; both numbers – I’d like to point out – are well under the size of the House of Commons, which represents a population of just over 60 million with 646 members. The question of how much larger we ought to make the House is an open one, but we can’t reasonably expect members to effectively represent 700,000 people in a population this heterogeneous.

The Senate has to maintain equal suffrage and the constitutional article that says so isn’t easily amendable, if at all. However, we could increase the Senate to 150 members, allowing each state to elect a Senator every two years. This would have the effect of making the Senate more representative with more members. It would also make the Senate less of a lagging indicator when electoral shifts occur in the country.

The final effect of increasing the size of Congress is to make it more likely that the winner of the popular vote in Presidential contests will also win the Electoral College, which is overdue in presidential politics.

6.) Increasing the capacity and role of the Congressional Research Service

Yes, the CRS is large, expensive, and operates outside of the public purview. However, it is also an independent think tank that, like the CBO produces well-respected work to aid Congress in the work of legislating. Beyond the fancy lunches and campaign contributions associated with lobbying, information can be just as valuable a commodity for Congress and indeed the executive branch as well.

Some lobbyists are shameless power brokers but others are knowledgeable advocates whose assistance to legislators and role in crafting legislation is invaluable, which is why Congress needs to have more expertise on hand to provide an alternative source of reliable research. The CRS should also be required to publish issue briefs geared for public consumption on topics addressed by legislation given a CBO score.

Certainly this wouldn’t replace the role of advocacy groups and think tanks by any measure but it would enable Representatives and Senators to be less dependent on the expertise provided by extra-Congressional institutions. It would also provide the public with an apolitical avenue towards understanding the issues at hand while simultaneously giving less cover and credence to popularly repeated rumors, innuendo, and falsehoods.

7.) Restructuring the committee system

The real work of Congress is hashed out in committee. Committee assignments and sizes are determined by the parties, which gives party leaders more leverage to penalize members who don’t hold the party line making such actions less likely, even when in individual cases such actions might better reflect constituents and the country. The system prizes institutional seniority over ability, which in turn benefits constituencies that keep sending the same person to Congress over new constituencies and those electing new representatives.

Reducing the incentive for legislators to stick around and amass power as well as reducing the leverage parties wield over their members could be accomplished by reforming the committee system. The size of committees should be unrestricted and the leadership of each committee voted on by the full membership of the committee. However, limits restricting the number of committees on which members can sit should remain in place.

Members couldn’t stretch themselves too thinly by working on too many committees, but committee size would better reflect members’ interests. Self-directed leadership of committees would reflect ready-made legislative coalitions and create incentives for coalition building along bipartisan or issue focused lines, rather than discouraging the same. Incidentally this would make Congressional committees parliamentary in their governance. Chairs with initiative would reflect legislative coalitions rather than seniority in the party with most number of people, if Senator Baucus is any indication, these aren’t the same thing. Not only would chairs be more powerful (at the expense of party leaders) and better able to deliver on legislation but it would force opponents to develop alternative coalitions rather than riding a wave of dissatisfaction into the majority and eventually positions of Congressional leadership.

8.) Non-partisan elections

Finally, I think we should work to make Congressional races non-partisan elections. Nebraska’s legislature is uniquely non-partisan and its continued ability to function without explicit labels is certainly encouraging. My point, however, has less to do with the labeling than the structure of the elections themselves. In a partisan primary, candidates duke it out within their parties, open primaries and general election run offs excepted, and then most Americans are confronted with a choice between one Republican and one Democrat.

Thrilling.

Between the reductionist nature of our politics and gerrymandered districts that look designed by M.C. Escher, our system of government routinely leaves citizens out in the unrepresented cold.

With non-partisan elections; however, the top two vote getters in a primary move on to the general, opening the door for electoral choices more in-line with the district. Take for example a heavy Republican district, where a tough primary between a moderate Republican and a Conservative Republican ends in a relatively small victory for the Conservative (52.5%). The district’s 20% liberal democrats all vote for a liberal Democrat who hasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning. The Conservative Republican goes on to win the general election despite only being the preferred choice of say 42% of the district.

The moderate Republicans split their differences with their new Representative and the Democrats get nada.

In a non-partisan election, the Democrat gets creamed early on, but the Democrats in the district get to choose between their district’s versions of James Inhofe and Olympia Snowe. This system would result in one more person who’s at least willing to negotiate and compromise on liberal issues and one less hyper-partisan conservative, who’s whose solid base of 42% means they can ignore or work counter to the interests of the remaining 58% of their district.

The creation of solid Democratic seats and solid Republican seats creates political monopolies that despite elections every few years attract many of the same problems and social costs associated with monopolistic behavior in an economic sense. Non-partisan elections would challenge these monopolies and make them more competitive, more responsive to citizens, and more in-line with constituent preferences.

A major focus of the last two reforms is challenging the power of the parties. Not to over-estimate the problem of partisanship but California’s cautionary tale, one of paralysis by partisanship, super-majority requirements, and term limits, makes an effective Ghost of Christmas National Partisan Gridlock Future. The political parties aren’t all bad, but increasingly they are distractions from actual governing and tackling the issues they’ve formed to address. Just look at the parties, today. The GOP is the New Coke of politics. And the Democrats…well let me ask: how many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb? 60 Senators, 256 Congressmen, a President, and Olympia Snowe to lend them a ladder.

Maybe it’s not their fault, the parties can’t help but see everything in terms of score-keeping – after all politics is something of a game. However, it’s about time we treated Congress less like a field of competition and more like a workplace. That doesn’t require “taking on the big special interests,” as much as taking on the incentive structure that makes special interests valuable.

While no doubt incomplete, the reforms outlined above are a start, making it harder for individuals to engage in power plays for their own interests and making the system better suited for functional working without sacrificing checks and balances along the way.

Any small smidgen of respect I had for Congress just evaporated. Today, the insane-far-left-un-American-unconstitutional-Democratic majority rammed the infamous trillion-dollar Pelosi healthcare bill through to the Senate for approval. According to the New York Times, only 39 Democrats were against it. One Republican, who should be expelled from the Party immediately, voted for it.

I am so sick of the over-paid, elitist group of fat cats known as the United States Congress. While there are some patriots who serve their country unselfishly on Capitol Hill (ie: Rep. Devin Nunes), the vast majority do not. They are elected through special interest groups, labor unions and shady connections. Using the guise of “helping the People,” they ram unconstitutional and unaffordable legislation through in order to pay back those who elected them.

They have un-American agendas and no intention of actually changing anything in the Beltway. Every single congressman/woman who voted for the “stimulus” or Speaker Pelosi’s hack healthcare bill HAVE to be removed from office in 2010 and 2012. These people are a cancer to the American political system and the longer they stay, the more diseased and closer to death the entire country is.