Monumental Risk: Pelosi, Rangel, Waxman, Miller, Slaughter All In
Posted in Public Affairs, Money Matters, Health, wordpress, Politics, Democrats, liberal, Waxman, disclosure, ethics, obama, Medicare, Legislation on January 7th, 2010 by Stanford Matthews 
As the Democrat parade assembled this week for a five minute news conference on healthcare with giddy exuberance Speaker Pelosi dodged real questions on the issue. Sharing her giddiness as well as offering no substance to the discussion were the committee chairs from the House. Rangel, Waxman, Miller and Slaughter are Pelosi’s expendable accomplices.
At the time it appeared reasonable to visit the websites of the fearful foursome to review their respective positions on the matter. Because this blogger has less familiarity with George Miller of CA the review started with him.
After a few clicks to view various items related to the subject the last stop illuminated the puppet mentality of the four. Miller had what first appeared as a generous list of resources for review sporting titles that indicate a group of summarized and detailed references on healthcare legislation.
The most appealing referred to a list of those who support the legislation. Given every major and not so major poll for months has indicated most Americans oppose the legislation one could hardly resist taking a look.
Not a surprise that the link merely redirects one to Speaker Pelosi’s website. The list of supporters is dominated by labor unions and other special interests and agendas yet to be determined here.
One example of the support from a source unknown to this blogger stood out. Pay particular attention to the quote in the excerpt below that includes the word ‘ensure’. Then read the excerpt from the CBO director.
To emphasize the folly of either side of the debate suggesting absolute conclusions the more reasoned approach is found in the CBO Director’s letter to Harry Reid and repeated below:
Whether such a reduction in the growth rate could be achieved through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or would reduce access to care or diminish the quality of care is unclear.
The single feature of healthcare reform that was to garner support from one and all focused on the spiraling costs and reducing them. To bend the cost curve downward was a familiar expression over many months. There is no convincing evidence to support that notion in proposed legislation.
That collection of revenue for either the House or Senate version of healthcare reform would start in 2010 yet no claimed improvements would begin before 2014 should send up red flags for any observer. It’s the classic sucker punch from politicians. Pass legislation that increases revenue (taxes) immediately and promise outlays (expenditures) related to the revenue (taxes) at some point years in the future. This avoids the nasty repercussions of accountability by wearing down the public’s attention span as well as cementing bad policy and legislation for years to come.
It’s really simple math. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are unsustainable programs. The only way to balance the books is increase revenue (taxes) or cut outlays (expenditures) or both.
Some of those supporting as well as some of those opposing currently proposed healthcare reform legislation do so for personal gain. They have chosen a position based on their own situation and not yours. The rest of us would like things to improve but have little confidence the current proposals will help. The speed of the process suggests those in the majority in Congress, etc., want passage before the scam completely falls apart. That’s another one of those red flags you should have noticed. Ignore them at your own peril (and unfortunately the peril of your fellow citizens)
Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com
Is it the duty of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to only investigate members of the ‘other’ party? For how long has Henry Waxman been given some sort of scary persona as the oversight guy in Washington? And what exactly has he done, if anything, to earn any cred as some kind of watchdog? Take the case of Cold Cash Jefferson, please, no one else will.
The Democratic congressman who will investigate the Bush administration’s running of the government says there are so many areas of possible wrongdoing, his biggest problem will be deciding which ones to pursue
Would it be too much to terminate employees who violate federal regulations? Would it be excessive to consider penalties involving jail time to remedy the situation? This is in effect stealing federal funds and/or defrauding the public. But so much of what goes on in government is so the whole bunch may be in jeopardy of jail time if strict rules were enforced.
While the oversight committee in the US Congress ignores allegations that Senator Dianne Feinstein improperly influenced contract awards that benefit the Senator and her husband, another company in which her husband invests is under investigation in California. The company, which was near collapse before receiving a contract two years ago from Medicare, receives up to 30% in finders fees for mistaken payments. Appearing unable to approve any payment as valid, the company’s results improved ten fold over last year.
The extreme peaceniks and others expressing less venomous opposition to the Iraq war often begin their arguments with reference to inherent characteristics of war as their central theme. Aside from the obvious death and destruction that accompanies armed conflict, they stress the loss of troops and civilians as their largest concern. But they will never accept the fact that this same expression of opposition has prolonged the war in Iraq by strengthening the determination of the enemy. In other words, opposition prolonging the war shares responsibility for the death toll that the anti-war crowd views with such disdain. How’s that for irony?
To a much less dramatic issue but with equal potential for serious injury to the United States is illegal immigration. The reason for addressing it at the same time as the Iraq war is the focus afforded these two issues will distract from attending to other matters until resolved. The sympathy argument for illegals is another ploy that compels politicians to seek political cover rather than face the reality that this is simply an economic or financial issue.
It’s not due out ’til June 19th and yet Carl Bernstein’s book is already on our bestseller list. Okay, we don’t have a bestseller list, but if we did we’re sure this book would be on it. Hey, Carl, can you just send us the dirt we don’t know about yet? Do you have more on Whitewater, or Vince Foster or why no one made a stink about Hillary Rodham Clinton wasting $29 million dollars on her last campaign?
The Middle East is quite the focal point of international politics. The main points of contention are rooted in religion and economics. Based on size and the fact that there are essentially two sides to the argument, Israel and any strong alliances they have are positioned on one side of the argument. Anyone with even a casual interest in the history of events in the region would be willing to agree that Israel is a small country surrounded by nations with opposing viewpoints in religion and economics as well as ideology and prejudices in general.
These trends continued right up until and after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the announcement of the new war on terror. Some of the relationships based primarily on economic relationships were emphasized during the run up to the war in Iraq. Germany, France and Russia were at odds with the US at the UN not just on philosophical grounds or opposition to an impending war. Commencing a war in Iraq would disturb many ‘economic’ arrangements as well as obvious detriments and concerns.
This is a perfect example of why this trip was ill-conceived and harmful to this nation. It does not matter what side of this issue you find yourself on or who is correct on the Olmert message. The same can be said about the reported reaction from the countries visited. There is no reliable process for extracting truth from this situation. That is why laws like the Logan Act are important. Allowing the opinions of differing political agendas to act on foreign affairs and diplomacy is the typical recipe for disaster. That is why these matters are better served by the executive branch.
The same can be said of the claims that the President was informed of the trip and had no objection or the exchange resulting in a Pelosi statement that the President’s reaction after the trip was politically motivated. They are all outcomes of the same problem. That is, allowing legislators to introduce their political agendas to foreign affairs It would be difficult to mount a convincing argument that Speaker Pelosi was unaware of the history and potential damage or harm that could result from her choices. Is there any way to discourage a repeat performance by Pelosi or others in her self-designated delegation short of charging all with violating the Logan Act?
One last point about this sordid affair involves the word bipartisan. As indicated below, the list of persons involved are described as bipartisan. We only see Democrats listed. Is this a complete list? Are there members of both parties listed below? Is the use of the word bipartisan a reference to the 9/11 Commission? Why is anything about this described as bipartisan?
So we are not the only ones who understand what Speaker Nancy Pelosi is doing. This article from the Washington Post suggests that ‘by law, Congress must keep out of diplomacy.’ If that is true, then why the hell is the SINO having discussions with a country which the President has clearly defined as off limits? And if the President has given prior approval as may be suggested others have done, it certainly is not evident in his statements on the matter. Can our elected representatives do anything that gives the impression of unity and intelligence?
So how did the United States Congress do in the first month of the 110th session? You be the judge. First, a little review of the fact that posts here have sometimes asked why we get so focused on what Congress does. After all, they legislate. That’s it. They legislate. The can pass laws. Whatever the House passes must be passed in the Senate also. So both Houses of Congress must pass the same version of a bill before it can become law. Then it goes to the President. He can sign it into law. He can veto it and send it back to Congress. He can pocket-veto at the end of the session. Or he can pretty much ignore it and it becomes law. All you expert legal types out there, feel free to refute this if you must.
So six bills and one joint resolution have the term “on passage” next to them in the voting record in the House. Being that it is joint and includes the Senate, that’s the only thing showing up on their completed list. Then there are the six bills. You’ll remember them from the daily reminder of the 100 hour agenda. Here’s a take on that.
One law was passed to rename a park. And the other bills have many hurdles to cross before they can become law. Even if they become law there is no guarantee they will have any positive effects. No one, with any regularity, will follow up on them. So the Congress has done nothing for one month. They have solved nothing. There is only one item as law and it is not critical. 21 Senators are worried about 2008 due to re-election. Other Senators are worried about running for President. And the rest have passed one joint resolution and participated in renaming a park.
