It’s not the debt ceiling, that’s only the symptom of the problem- spending.
“Compromise without solutions is a waste of time.”
A letter to send your Senators stating you are against filibuster reform is available here.
The use of filibusters has a long history in Congress. The original intent of the Constitutional Framers was to allow lengthy debate in each chamber, on the premise that ideas as well as legislation should be fully examined when structuring legislation. The Founders believed full and unrestrained scrutiny of legislation would result in superior legislation. Each of the Congressional bodies is allowed according to Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution to determine the rules of its proceedings. Originally the rules created by each of the Congressional branches allowed for the use of a filibuster, often used by the minority party to prevent a vote on a particular piece of legislation. In the dawning days of our republic the filibuster was used, admittedly sparingly, by both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV): “There’s a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to FOX and to MSNBC: ‘Out. Off. End. Goodbye.’ It would be a big favor to political discourse; our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and more importantly, in their future.”
AS Rockefeller blabs about his “hunger for quality news,” I, desire for elected officials who understand and adhere to the Constitution. For someone in Rockefeller’s position as a long standing Senator, to easily wave aside the First Amendment and opt for what… some state sponsored media to filter the ideas and viewpoints presented to the American people would pave the road to tyranny.
As early as tomorrow (11-16-2010) the Senate may take up pork barrel spending otherwise known as earmarks. You know those pet project add-ons which Congress critters slip in to legislation to show the folks back home they are doing something for their constituents.
Often these add-ons are totally unrelated to the legislation which they are attached to. They are not reviewed by committee and are “favors” to the Congress critters whose states/districts they will eventually land in. You’ve seen them reported, things like studying the impact of cow flatulence on the environment, the effects of alcohol on prostitutes in Taiwan, the mating habits of mice or installing new windows in a visitors center which has long ago been closed; none of these “projects” would stand peer review for their inherent worth. In fact I would suggest that none of them would pass unless attached to some other “vital legislation.”
It is time that Congress starts being honest with Americans and shuffling earmarks in to legislation is a violation of the trust we given elected officials.
Missouri voters on Tuesday overwhelmingly rejected a federal mandate to purchase health insurance, rebuking President Barack Obama’s administration and giving Republicans their first political victory in a national campaign to overturn the controversial health care law passed by Congress in March.
“The citizens of the Show-Me State don’t want Washington involved in their health care decisions,” said Sen. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, one of the sponsors of the legislation that put Proposition C on the August ballot. She credited a grass-roots campaign involving Tea Party and patriot groups with building support for the anti-Washington proposition.
This is the iceberg of Tea Party patriots, only 10% are above water: meaning that 10% are the patriots which take to the streets protest and are publicly vocal. The remaining 90% support the basic tenets of the limited government intrusion in our lives, fiscal responsibility and seek representation that align with the basic values of the Constitution. Way to go Show-Me State patriots, your voice echoed through the nation with Americans cheering your stand.
The House cap and trade bill is a disaster. Many, myself included, hoped this bad legislation which passed the House would wither on the vine, especially after email-gate broke. Anyone paying attention heard Harry Reid make statements that cap and trade in the Senate is dead, I sighed in relief.
But wait, the Senate last week unveiled their version of this draconian legislation, shorter in length but no less harmful to the freedom, liberty and fiscal well-being of the American people.
Poison Pill: The New Senate Energy Bill
By Brain Sussman
The latest Senate energy bill, quietly unveiled last week, looks like sweet compromise on radical measures like cap and trade, but buried within is a bitter poison pill that will could be swallowed in a vote that may come this week.
Unlike the 1,200-page House of Representatives energy bill, which passed last year, this scaled-down proposal does not call for an 83-percent reduction in greenhouse gases (or any reduction in greenhouse gases) and contains no mention of a cap-and-trade scheme. Also contrary to the House bill, this one does not provide a family of four earning up to $55,000 with a monthly stipend — deposited directly into their bank accounts — to offset higher energy costs. It also does not supply three years of unemployment benefits at 70 percent of former wages — plus job retraining and relocation — to those whose jobs are shipped overseas, as prescribed in the House bill.
Instead, at a glance (which is the way most in Congress ever seem to examine legislation), this bill appears rather easy to take. Most of its 357 pages are devoted to sections entitled “Oil Spill Response,” “Reducing Oil Consumption,” “Improving Energy Security,” and “Protecting the Environment.” There’s even a portion devoted to further grill BP via subpoena power. With sugar-coating like this, the sixty votes necessary to pass seem possible.
However, beneath the glaze, there’s a clot of overpowering government spending and social engineering.
For example, electric vehicles are pushed via the bill’s “Promoting Electric Vehicles Act of 2010.” No surprise here, particularly since the government has a 61% stake in General Motors and Chevy’s electro-mobile, the Volt. Besides this Act allowing the feds to spend $25 million on new electric cars for their official fleet, there’s an astounding electric car welfare program. Section 2116 explains that 400,000 such vehicles will be virtually given away at low cost — or perhaps no cost — to people living in “selected communities diverse in population” and “demographics.”
Additionally, pages 264-265 require that any new construction or remodel of an existing structure must include the installation of proper hookups for charging an electric vehicle. So even if you have no intention of owning such a car, adding that extra bedroom will require you to spend additional money to install battery-charging infrastructure in your garage.
Take the time to read the rest of this article at the link above. Consider this, what will happen if the American people choose not to take advantage of these incentives or that the percentage of people is far below what the government expects?
To get up-to-speed on cap and trade see the link above for additional articles.