Topics

I found this in today's paper and found it interesting.  I will try and retype it here if my fingers hold out. 

LAWMAKERS SHOULD READ A BILL BEFORE PASSING IT.
By Kevin Ferris

In 1776, the rallying cry was, "No taxation without representation."  Today, it could be, "No taxation without totally clueless representation.  That's what Americans got on June 26, when the House voted 219-212 for the "cap-and-tax" energy bill, as the Republicans refer to it.  The bill ran more than 1,000 pages, and before members had time to digest that tome, 300 pages of amendments were added after midnight.

When Minority Leader John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, started to read the additions, bill co-sponsor Henry A. Waxman, D--California, objected.  He was rebuffed. There are no time limits for comments by House leaders.

"When you file a 300-page amendment at 3:09 AM, the American people have a right to know what's in this bill," Boehner said.
Whether this bill will lessen greenhouse-gas emissions - as Democrats hope - or kill countless jobs - as Republicans hope - or ever pass the Senate, remains to be seen.  But the House vote did raise a question that cuts across party and ideology.

How can lawmakers vote on something so important without a thorough understanding of what's in it?

Not the everyday "We hereby rename this post office in honor of so-and-so"or "We officially declare this Goldfish Month."  The big things, like an almost $800 billion stimulus plan, or an energy package that Politico said "would transform the country's economy and industrial landscape.

Actually reading such legislation, as the founders might say, should be self-evident.  But apparently not.  So a little nudge is in order, especially with health-care reform looming.  One nudger is  Colin Hanna, a former Chester County, PA., commissioner and president of the conservative advocacy group Let Freedom Ring.  He has begun a campaign (www.pledgetoread.org) that asks members of the House and Senate to promise the following:

"I___________pledge to my constituents and to the American people that I will not vote to enact an health-care reform package that:  "1)  I have not read, personally, in its entirety; and,

"2)  Has not been available, in its entirety, to the American people on the Internet for at least 72 hours, so that they can read it too."

Let Freedom Ring isn't alone. A consortium of liberal and good-government groups is backing readthebill.org., and a group, Down-sizeDC.org., essentially wants the two planks of Hanna's pledge enacted as federal law.

Having been a commissioner, Hanna understands that lawmakers can't read every line of every bill, but he argues that in some cases it's necessary.

"There are certain issues of scope and importance that demand an extra measure of due diligence, including reading the bill in full."he said in an interview.  Health care, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus all rise to that level, he says, adding that legislators dismiss this sentiment at their peril.

"There is a rising public demand that bills be read," he says, "And there is a rising public outrage against politicians who dismissively suggest that's just the way Washington works.

He is referring to a Politico story about the initial response by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., when asked about a pledge:  laughter.  But then Hoyer backpedaled, saying that of course members, staff or review boards read bills, or at least "substantial portions."

Hoyer's reaction shows that the priority is not to make informed judgements and improve legislation, Hanna suggests, but to rush through bad laws before anyone can object.

"They want to completely control the entire legislative process and ram it down not only Congress' throat, but the American people's throat, and we think that's wrong." Hanna says.

If Congress hasn't the time or inclination to read the bills, let the public do it. And that's where Part 2 of the pledge comes in - allowing 72 hours for citizens to read legislation online before a vote.

"We have the technology to make complex legislation available for public and media inspection," Hanna says.  "We're not being true to the ideals of democracy if we don't take advantage of that technology."

He has a point.  Granted, a "read the bill" movement can come off as gimmicky, but given recent votes and the magnitude of the bills, how does one argue against citizen access to legislation?  Candidate Obama had promised to post bills online before he signed them into law.  He's broken the promise, so let Congress set an even higher standard.

On his website, Hanna has been tallying the number of pledge supporters.  He plans to reveal the names of those backers - as well as those who rejected or ignored the offer to sign the pledge.

At which time voters will be a little better informed, even if their senators and representatives refuse to be.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have not looked at the sites suggested before copying this to the forum, just thought it was a good read.

Kevin Ferris is the assistant editor of the Editorial Page at The Philadelphia Inquirer.

Larryj

A  man walks into a Hallmark store and begins looking at anniversary cards.  After about 45 minutes the clerk was concerned and went over and asked the man if there was a problem.  The man replied, "I have been through everyone of these anniversary cards and I can't find one that my wife will believe." 

Larryj

I heard as I was about to slip into a wondrous night of sleep that O-Prez will sign a bill allowing the FDA to regulate the tobacco industry which has for all these years eluded them.  I am not posting this to discuss the do's and don'ts of smoking (I did for most of my life and now have the COPD to prove it).  Why I am posting this is because giving a government agency the power to regulate an industry smacks of socialism to me or am I off the mark?  Since he has been in office, he bailed out the banks with loans meaning the government owns them, took over the auto industry by bailing them out, and moved the Census department to another government agency.  Now he wants the FDA to regulate the tobacco industry.  What's next?  Well, there are the utilities such as the phone companies, etc.  That would be a little tougher, but, hey, he is the president and can do what he wants.  I have noticed that more congressmen are beginning to doubt his ability to lead the country as a result of his stand on the Iranian elections.  What else?  Well, there is the ICC which has regulations for truckers on how long a day they can drive or permits to drive through different states, but what if the ICC is allowed to tell the truckers what they can or can't carry to different regions of the country?  What if the government wants to punish a state for not backing an administration decision and say that state is Kansas and the government says to the truckers,  "you can no longer haul farm equipment to Kansas until they see the light." 


I am sorry but all of this smacks of too much socialism to me or maybe I am getting paranoid in my old age.  Maybe I will go east and visit Warph at the nineteenth hole and just drown my sorrows .

Larryj

In my local paper there is daily joke called, "Slice of wry".  I couldn't decide whether to put this here or in the chuckles area.  On a side note, I now know what the people of Howard and others on this forum do on Saturdays. I can't keep up with all of todays postings plus add my own.  Anyway, here is the "Slice of wry".

In these stressful economic times, an ice cream company has introduced a new flavor, "Barocky Road".  Barocky Road is a blend of half chocolate and half vanilla and surrounded by nuts and flakes.  The nuts and flakes are all very bitter and tremendously hard to swallow.  The cost is $200 per scoop. When purchased, this delicacy will be presented to you in a small but beautiful cone.  But then the ice cream will be taken away and given to the person in line behind you.  Thus you are left with an empty wallet, no change, holding an empty cone, with no hope of getting any ice cream. 

Are you feeling stimulated?              Larryj

[The world loves Obama, but does he get respect?]

This was in my paper today and I wanted to share.  It is rather lengthy so, Teresa, if you want to not post, nothing is lost except the time it took to type it in.  And I got lots of time.

The article is entitled:  The world loves Obama, but does he get respect?

The author is Morton Kondracke who is executive editor of Roll Call, the newspaper of Capitol Hill.

President Obama is clearly liked overseas---adored in many places.

But is he respected?

Americans bathed in glowing press coverage of his trip evidently think so, judging by results in the latest CBS-New York Times poll.  By 67 precent to 18 percent--including 45 percent of Republicans - respondents said they thought world leaders do respect Obama, though 52 percent still said that the United States is not respected.

Obama made himself popular by emphasizing as much as possible his differences from his utterly disliked predecessor, George W. Bush.

Even though every slight and slap at Bush was interpreted by some conservative commentators as Obama's denigrating the United States itself, some of it was legitimate.  And some of it was not.

At his town hall meeting in Strasbourg, France, Obama said that "in America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role.  There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive".

Well, he was puffing Europe's "leading role" , but it's true that, during Bush's first term, arrogance, even derisiveness, was a common theme.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others gibed at "old Europe"  and acted as though the United States - "the world's only superpower" - could handle all the world's problems alone and preferred to do so.

Obama did not give Bush credit for changing his tone in his second term, but that change was never noted by European publics, even though it was a new generation of European leaders like France's Nicolas Sarozy and Gemany's Angela Merkle.

Obama was evenhanded in his chiding.  He said, " In Europe, tjere is an anti-americanism that is at once casual but can also be insidious.  Instead of recognizing the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose  to blame America for much of what's bad".

Where Obama was needlessly (if only implicitly) negative toward Bush was in Istanbul, Turkey, where he said that "the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam". The truth is that it never was as Bush said again and again.

Conservative critics have tried to brand the Obama administration's dropping the term "global war on terror" as an abandonment of the war on terror itself, but that's not fair, either.

Obama clearly has dedicated himself to fighting terrorists - and he calls them that - with a huge new commitment of money, troops and civilian aid workers to Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He has also committed American prestige and has taken political risk to do so.

In the CBS poll, only 39 percent of repondents --33 percent of Democrats -- said they favor the increased troop committment, and 33 percent opposed it.

To merit the world's respect, Obama's effort to neutralize Al Qaeda and the Talibanin in Afghanistan and Pakistan has to show progress.  He's doing the right thing is pledging $1.5 billion in U.S. aid to Pakistan and trying to get other nations to provide more.

But it's not a good sign that NATO allies did not answer his call for more troops for Afghanistan.  They will provide 5000 trainers, but no more combat forces.

Nor did Europeans - especially Merkle and Sarkozy - go along with Obama's request to pump up economic stimulus to fight the global recession.


The G-20 summit diid agree to an increase in funding for the Intenational Monetary Fund to help emerging economies, including Eastern Europe, but that was not a contested issue.  In fact, it relieved the European Union from the burden.

Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev agreed to restart strategic arms reduction talks - more a Russian priority than an American one - but Obama got nowhere in persuading the Russians to join him in stopping Iran's nuclear program.

Russia's price for such an effort will be Obama's cessation of plans to deploy anti-missle sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.  Obama seems prepared to pay that first, after which he will have to hope that Russia plays its part in the bargain.

It will be a major test for Obama whether he can stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons.  If he can, without Israel taking military action first, then Obama truly will deserve and get respect.

He is starting out simultaneasly playing good and bad cop with Iran - saying it will not be allowed to develop nukes and also promising direct diplomacy.

The Iranians have shown no sign that they will ever stop their nuclear program, so it's likely Obama will have to impose stiffer sanctions, possibly cutting off Iran's gasoline imports.  Can he persuade other countries to go along?

While he was overseas, North Korea fired off an intercontinental ballistic missile.  Prior to that, Obama declared that, referring to U.N. resolutions against Pyongyang, "rules must be binding.  Violations must mean something."

But North Korea went ahead.  And the U.N. Security Council did nothing because the United States could not persuade China or Russia to impose sanctions, or even make a menacing statement.  That's not a good sign of respect.

And on the heels of the North Korean launch - and a sucessful Iranian satellite launch in February, meaning it has its own ICBM - the administration announced that it was cutting missile defense by $1.4 billion.

Obama said again and again on his trip - correctly enough - that the problems of the 21st century cannot be solved by military power alone, but require international cooperation.

That's music to much of the world's ears.  But while world leaders  want an American president who listens to them, too much humility could mean not enough U.S. leadership.

The test for Obama is whether he can get Europe, Russia, China and other powers to join him in facing the world's mortal dangers.  So far, the jury is very much out.

Whew!  I gotta go soak my fingers in Epsom Salts.  Anyway I kinda liked this and wanted to share.  If I missed any typos-------

OH WELL           Larryj

Last Tuesday, I took a spill and was pretty sure my wrist was broken and I had banged my head on the concrete driveway causing a deep cut.  I went to our closest hospital for emergency treatment.  At this point, I had more or less stopped the bleeding on my head.  When I went in I was the only one in the waiting room and went directly to the admitting desk where a young lady took my information.  My forehead began to bleed again and I asked for something to hold on the cut.  She handed me some tissues. There I sat for twenty minutes until a triage nurse called me in for information. By this time,the tissuse was used up and I asked for more.  I was given some gauze pads. I was then taken to a treatment room.  The next person I saw was the finance person to sign the papers.  The next person I saw was the cleaning lady mopping the floor.  After two hours, i tried to attract some attention and was told someone would be with me shortly.  After a few more minutes, I went to the admitting desk, had her cut off I.D. tag, and told her to tear up the paperwork.  I told her I was going somewhere else to get help. I went to the next hospital and had all my prolems taken care of within an hour.  My head required six stitches and my left wrist is broken.  As if the lack of treatment wasn't bad enough, (and here is the horror part) today. I received a bill for a $50 co-pay from the first hospital!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I haven't had to type and peck leltter in a long time