|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 21, 2009 17:31:38 GMT -7
www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jSnc6xKS4IaEamw0pgkwIHaHXiYAD9CO082O0Concessions lawmakers won in the health bill By The Associated Press (AP) – 59 minutes ago Here's a look at some of the concessions lawmakers and interest groups won in the latest version of the Senate's health care overhaul bill: ___ LAWMAKERS: SEN. BEN NELSON, D-NEB., who provided the critical 60th vote that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid needed, received numerous benefits for Nebraska, along with tighter curbs on abortion. Among the Nebraska-specific provisions: _The federal government will pick up the full cost of a proposed expansion of Medicaid, at an estimated cost of $100 million over 10 years. _Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nebraska will be exempted from an annual fee on insurers; the exemption could also apply to nonprofit insurers in other states, possibly including Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. _Supplemental "Medigap" policies such as those sold by Mutual of Omaha are exempted from the annual fee on insurers, something that would help other companies selling such policies. _A physician-owned hospital being built in Bellevue, Neb., could get referrals from doctors who own it, avoiding a new ban in the Senate bill that will apply to hospitals built in the future. Without mentioning Nebraska or other states by name, the Senate bill pushes back some legal deadlines by several months, in effect making a few hospitals near completion eligible to continue receiving referrals from the doctors who own them. SEN. MAX BAUCUS, D-MONT., chairman of the Finance Committee and a key architect of the legislation, put in a provision to help the 2,900 residents of Libby, Mont., many of whom have asbestos-related illnesses from a now-defunct mineral mine. Under Baucus' provision, which never mentions Libby by name, sickened residents could sign up for Medicare benefits. SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD, D-CONN., chairman of the Banking Committee and facing a difficult re-election next year, added an item making $100 million available for construction of a hospital at a public university. The measure leaves it up to the Health and Human Services Department to decide where to spend the money. Dodd says more than a dozen sites could be eligible, but he hopes the University of Connecticut will be the beneficiary. SEN. PATRICK LEAHY, D-VT., negotiated $600 million in additional Medicaid benefits for his state over 10 years. He said Vermont is due the additional benefits because the state already has acted to expand Medicaid eligibility to the levels now contemplated by the federal government. Vermont would be unfairly penalized if other states are now being helped with that expansion, he said. Massachusetts is getting $500 million in Medicaid help for similar reasons. SEN. MARY LANDRIEU, D-LA., a key moderate, withheld her support from the legislation until she was able to procure Medicaid help from the federal government worth at least $100 million in 2011. SEN. BERNIE SANDERS, I-VT., who was angered after a new government-run health plan was dropped from the legislation to win over moderates like Nelson and Landrieu, held out on backing the bill until Reid, D-Nev., agreed to a $10 billion increase in support for community health centers. SEN. BILL NELSON, D-FLA., pushed a provision he said will let about 800,000 Florida seniors enrolled in private Medicare Advantage plans keep their extra benefits. It also helps seniors in a handful of other states. Elsewhere, Medicare Advantage patients risk losing benefits because the private plans are a major target of planned cuts to Medicare. ___ STATES: _Doctors and hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming, will get paid more than providers in other states under formulas in the bill designed to help the so-called Frontier States. ___ INTEREST GROUPS: _Longshoremen were added to the list of high-risk professions shielded from the full impact of a new tax on high-value health insurance plans. Electrical linemen were already shielded, along with policemen, firefighters, emergency first responders and workers in construction, mining, forestry, fishing and certain agriculture jobs. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., took the lead in pushing for the longshoremen carve-out. _Gun rights lobbyists pushed for language to ban collection of data on gun ownership in the bill. _Construction industry companies won language limiting their exposure to penalties on employers who don't provide affordable health insurance to their employees. _ The American Medical Association announced its coveted endorsement Monday after Reid made a series of change to please doctors, including: _Eliminating a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery procedures, replacing it with a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services. _Eliminating payment cuts to specialty and other physicians that were to be used to pay for bonuses to primary care physicians and general surgeons in underserved areas. The bonuses remain. _Dropping a proposed fee on physicians who participate in Medicare. The $300 fee was to be used to fight fraud in the program. _The pharmaceutical industry scored victories including: _Makers of brand-name biotech drugs — expensive pharmaceuticals made from living cells — won 12 years of protection against would-be generic competitors. _Drugmakers fended off proposals to allow importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and other countries, and to let the government negotiate drug prices for Medicare recipients. Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 22, 2009 6:15:05 GMT -7
sigh
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Dec 23, 2009 7:37:56 GMT -7
December 22, 2009 Health Care Bill Could Face String of Legal Challenges FOXNews.com Organizations and lawmakers opposed to the health care reform package are getting their legal briefs in a bunch, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the sweeping overhaul should it make its way to President Obama's desk.
Organizations and lawmakers opposed to the health care reform package are getting their legal briefs in a bunch, threatening to challenge the constitutionality of the sweeping overhaul should it make its way to President Obama's desk.
Republicans have agreed to allow the Democratic-led Senate to move up the time for a final vote to 8 a.m. Thursday so that lawmakers and their staff can go home for Christmas. But GOP supporters aren't backing down on their threats to put a stop to the legislation using whatever legal means possible.
Two key issues seem to be attracting the bulk of the legal threats: a mandate for individuals to purchase health insurance and the special treatment that states like Nebraska are getting in the bill.
On the first issue, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., on Tuesday renewed the call to examine the constitutionality of whether the federal government can require Americans to purchase a product.
"I don't believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens," Ensign said in a statement, raising what's known as a "constitutional point of order." Such procedural challenges are rare and typically lead to a vote.
RELATED LINKS Nelson Says More Senators Seeking Special Treatment in Light of Nebraska Deal Senate Prepares Thursday Morning Vote on Health Care, Fast Exit for Christmas The non-profit Fund for Personal Liberty, as well as a Virginia-based group called the 10th Amendment Foundation, already have threatened to file suit in federal court over this issue if the health care bill passes.
The Constitution allows Congress to tax, borrow, spend, declare war, raise an army and regulate commerce, among other things. Proponents of the insurance mandate point to the Commerce Clause in arguing that Congress is within its rights to require health insurance and dismiss such potential legal challenges.
But foes say the across-the-board requirement is too broad.
"I personally do not believe the Congress has the authority to enact an individual mandate requiring a person to purchase a product from a private seller," said Kent Masterson Brown, lead counsel with The Fund for Personal Liberty. "I don't think the power is there. This is not regulating anything."
He said his group would be joined by the Washington Legal Foundation in filing suit against the health care bill.
"This thing may be stillborn, even if it passes," he said.
Even though Obama argues that the mandate is similar to laws requiring drivers to obtain auto insurance, opponents cite several key differences. First, the auto insurance mandate is avoidable, since anyone who doesn't want to pay doesn't have to drive. Second, auto insurance is mandated in large part so that drivers carry liability insurance to cover damages to other people and cars -- not themselves. Third, auto insurance regulation occurs at the state level.
When the Congressional Budget Office considered the idea of a health insurance mandate back in 1994 under the Clinton administration, it concluded that the mandate would be "an unprecedented form of federal action." The only congressional mandate close to that was the draft, the CBO concluded.
Ensign cited that finding in his complaint.
Still, the legislation does provide for federal subsidies for those who might have trouble affording insurance coverage, and it provides for exemptions for some individuals.
Other legal objections are emerging in the wake of a concession that Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., won for his state as a condition for his support of the health care bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to provide for full and permanent federal aid for Nebraska's expanded Medicaid population. It was only one of a slew of hand-crafted sweetheart deals for those senators who agreed to support the bill.
But the Nelson deal swiftly drew the ire of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who has asked his state's attorney general to give the issue a legal review. He told Fox News on Tuesday that other states can probably bring a "constitutional challenge" over the issue. He said it's unfair for one state to get special treatment while others pick up the tab.
"I don't believe most senators believe this is OK," Graham said. "I think it stinks. I think it's sleazy."
Graham said his state could file an equal rights suit under the Constitution. The Constitution calls for "equal protection" of all citizens.
Likewise, two Republican state representatives from Tennessee on Monday asked their state attorney general to look into the issue -- they called the Medicaid expansion an "unfunded mandate."
Rep. Debra Young Maggart and Rep. Susan Lynn claimed the Nebraska deal was unfair to other states and asked that Attorney General Robert Cooper take "appropriate legal action" against the federal government if the bill becomes law.
"It is clear by the wording of the legislation itself that not every state would face a similar and equal burden," they wrote. "We see this as a violation of equal protection of the law, an affront to our sovereignty, and a breach of the U.S. Constitution."
The non-profit Liberty Legal Institute is poised to assist states that are considering filing suit against the government over the health care bill. The group would not disclose where the suits might come from, but claimed great interest in putting health care reform to the legal test.
"There are a lot of states that are concerned that this violated the 10th Amendment and they are weighing their options," Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel, said in a statement.
The 10th Amendment declares that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are "reserved" for the states or "the people."
Still another challenge is coming from Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who on the Senate floor raised concerns about a section in the health care bill that appears to say that the Senate cannot make changes to it in the future.
"It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection," the section says.
DeMint said he found that "particularly troubling."
"We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law," DeMint said. "I'm not even sure that it's constitutional."
The overall section the senator referred to applied to the creation of an Independent Medicare Advisory Board.
But a senior Reid aide noted that the language restricting the repeal of the measure only applied to one subsection -- a subsection dealing with the manner in which the proposal for the board is introduced and considered in Congress. The aide said the language DeMint found "troubling" did not apply to board or its duties as a whole.
Plus the aide noted that the language can be waived by a 60-vote majority in the Senate.
"It's really a sign of desperation," the aide said.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2009 8:12:57 GMT -7
What bothers me about the "Nebraska Gift" is the response of some law makers and some in the public that "that's the way things get done".
I don't know about anyone else but this kind of deal seems awfully close to being the same as a contractor paying to be awarded a contract and when that happens both the contractor and the law maker gets free housing, 3 hots and a cot for a few years. Why is this different?
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2009 11:24:35 GMT -7
www.cnn.com/2009/OPINION/12/23/rollins.health.care.deals.reid/Harry Reid playing Santa with your money By Ed Rollins, CNN Senior Political Contributor New York (CNN) -- We are approaching the eve of Christmas and maybe in that spirit, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid morphed into Santa Claus, giving out presents to the little boys and girls who were naughty and (not so) nice this year. Of course, he was not using his own money. America's overused credit card, issued by the Bank of China, may have to be used one more time to pay for Reid's deals. The majority leader traded to help ensure the votes of Sens. Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Chris Dodd, Bernie Sanders and others representing 11 states by giving them special perks for staying on the health care bus that's about to drive us all over the financial cliff. They may argue they weren't bribed, but they certainly were rewarded. The price was enormous. Many decades ago when I was getting my start in politics, one of my first mentors was the legendary Democratic speaker of the California Assembly, the late Jesse Unruh. On one of the many days when "Big Daddy," as he was affectionately and fearfully named, was teaching me the fundamentals of "real politics" as opposed to that "college crap," he said: "Every man has a price. [There were few women around in politics then]. And to be successful in this business, you've got to figure out what that price is." "For some it's money, for some it's women and for some it's liquor. Every so often you find one who will take your money, drink your liquor, take advantage of the women -- and still vote against you. Those you can't buy, but you can usually rent them for a vote or two." I doubt Harry Reid doled out any women or liquor, but he sure spread a lot of taxpayers' money around. When Reid said he had his 60 votes a few weeks ago, he was bluffing. But by going behind closed doors, writing a secret bill known only to staff drafters, making the Senate vote at 1 a.m. (11 p.m. Las Vegas time) and horse trading with the best of them, he made good on his bet. Reid has been around gambling all his life. He got his start in politics as chairman of the Nevada Gaming Commission. He is a member of the Nevada Gaming Hall of Fame. He knows the odds are always on the side of the establishment. Like the big gambling casinos that have backed him for years, he knows that you have to dole the perks out. Reid is gambling his own career with this bill. He is among the most vulnerable incumbents up for re-election in 2010 and recently spent a million dollars in campaign funds to reintroduce himself to Nevada voters . Unfortunately for him, Nevada voters already know him. (He has served in one office or another for four decades.) Nevada polls show him with only 38 percent approval, and 50 percent have a negative opinion. The majority leader is entitled to gamble his own career, but he is not entitled to gamble with ours. We still don't what this bill is going to cost or how it will work. We have yet to know how we will get the $500 million in Medicare costs savings it anticipates. But Reid set the tone and laid down the mantra for the rest of the negotiations when he said at his Monday news conference: "I don't know if there is a senator that doesn't have something in this bill that was important to them. And if they don't have something in it important to them, then it doesn't speak well of them." Already, Nelson said that three senators approached him on the Senate floor and said they want the same deal he got. ( Comment by Snill - I hope two of the Senators were from Texas and later EVERY Congressman demands the same deal for all 50 states)So for those of you who didn't get yours, follow Harry's lead; the Treasury's still open and the ink's not dry on the deal. Jump in that pig trough and get yours. And don't worry about the White House objecting. The president's tone was set by the White House's chief spokesman, David Axelrod, on the Sunday talk shows, who said on CNN's "State of the Union": "Every senator uses whatever leverage they have to help their states. That's the way it has been. That's the way it will always be." Maybe that's the way it is in Chicago -- Axelrod's home as well as that of the president's and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. Sure, deal-making is a tradition in Congress, too, but rarely has it been so brazen, so private and with so many taxpayer dollars at stake. These deals were done exclusively by the Senate majority leader and his staff. When President Reagan raised taxes in 1982, trades were made to get enough Republicans to support the bill. But the White House was involved, and the congressional leadership and the Office of Management and Budget were at the table. Health reform will end up being the most expensive piece of legislation in history and so few know what has been promised. It's a long way from the new tone President Obama promised as a candidate when he stated, "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress' seniority, rather than the merit of the project." What we do know is that the most significant and far reaching piece of legislation in decades was passed in the middle of the night and drafted behind closed doors. I hope that somewhere along the line, the title of the bill: "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" will not get lost in all the horse trading and special interest brokering. We do need to protect the patient and offer care that is affordable for us and the next generation. And the way it's always been won't be the way it ends up, I hope. With that wish, let me add: Merry Christmas and Happy New Year and may we not forget our troops in far-off lands battling for our freedoms. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Ed Rollins.
|
|
|
Post by Tim Collins on Dec 23, 2009 15:11:17 GMT -7
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2009 15:11:52 GMT -7
From Newsweek
Jacob Weisberg Do As We Say, Not As We Do The Republican Party's health-care hypocrisy. Published Dec 12, 2009 From the magazine issue dated Dec 21, 2009
Charles Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, has emerged as one of the harshest critics of what the right likes to call "Obamacare." After spending the first half of the year working with Democrats to find a bipartisan compromise, Grassley has spent the second half trying to prevent one. He attacks the bill now being debated on the Senate floor as an indefensible new entitlement. He complains that it expands the deficit, threatens Medicare, and does too little to restrain health-care inflation. At a town-hall meeting in August, the 76-year-old Iowan warned, "There is some fear because in the House bill, there is counseling for end of life."
One might credit the sincerity if not the validity of such concerns were it not for an inconvenient bit of history. Not so long ago, when Republicans controlled the Senate, Grassley was the chief architect of a bill that actually did most of the bad things he now accuses the Democrats of wanting to do. As chairman of the Finance Committee, Grassley championed the legislation that created a prescription-drug benefit under Medicare. The comparison of what he and his colleagues said during that debate in 2003 to what they're saying in 2009 exposes the disingenuousness of their current complaints.
Today the Medicare prescription-drug debate is remembered mainly for the shenanigans Republicans pulled to get the bill through. Bush officials threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary if he shared honest cost estimates with Congress. House Republicans cut off C-Span and kept the roll call open for three hours to cajole the last few votes they needed for passage. Majority Leader Tom DeLay was admonished by the House ethics committee for threatening to vaporize the son of one Michigan Republican in an upcoming election.
The real significance of that episode, however, is not their bad manners but the policy Republicans produced the last time health care was on the menu. Their bill, which stands as the biggest expansion of government's role in health care since the passage of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, created an entitlement for seniors to purchase low-cost drug coverage. Simply stated, the law is complicated as hell, costs a fortune, still isn't paid for, and doesn't do all that much—though it does include coverage for end-of-life counseling, or what Grassley now calls "pulling the plug on Grandma."
In their 2009 report to Congress, the Medicare trustees estimate that the 10-year cost of Medicare Part D is as high as $1.2 trillion. That figure—just for prescription-drug coverage that people over 65 still have to pay a lot of money for—dwarfs the $848 billion cost of the Senate bill. The price of prescription coverage continues to escalate because the law explicitly bars the government from using its market power to negotiate drug prices with manufacturers or establishing a formulary with approved medications. And unlike the Democratic bills, which the Congressional Budget Office says won't add to the deficit, the bill George W. Bush signed was financed entirely through deficit spending. Former comptroller general David M. Walker has called it "probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s."
Of the 28 remaining Republicans who were in the Senate back in 2003, 24 voted for the Medicare prescription-drug benefit. Of 122 Republicans still in the House, 108 voted for it. This hall of shame includes Alexander of Tennessee, Enzi of Wyoming, Brownback of Kansas, and Hatch of Utah. Here, for example, is John Kyl of Arizona in 2003: "As a member of the bipartisan team that crafted the Part D legislation, I am committed to ensuring its successful implementation. I will fight attempts to erode Part D coverage." Six years later, Kyl calls Harry Reid's Democratic health-care legislation "a trillion-dollar bill that raises premiums, increases taxes, and raids Medicare."
The explanation for this vast collective flip-flop is—can you guess?—politics. Medicare recipients are much more likely to vote Republican than the uninsured, who would benefit most from the Democratic bills. In 2003 Karl Rove was pushing the traditional liberal tactic of solidifying senior support with a big new federal benefit, don't worry about how to pay for it. Today, GOP incumbents are more worried about primary challenges from the right, like the one Grassley may face in 2010, or being called traitors by Rush Limbaugh. But what happened the last time they were in charge gives the lie to the claim that they object to expanding government. What they object to is expanding government in a way that doesn't help them get reelected.
Jacob Weisberg is Chairman of The Slate Group and author of The Bush Tragedy. You can follow him on Twitter .
© 2009
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Dec 23, 2009 15:54:56 GMT -7
Wouldn't that Newsweek article suggest that there's enough govt intervention or at least, shows what results from too much intervention?
There is no question that Bush and the Republicans at that time did not stand for fiscal conservatism. Politcal parties are not static, sometimes they even learn from mistakes of the past (rarely, granted-but it does happen). I do think there will be a resurrgency of actual fiscal conservatism as a back-lash to uncontrolled spending. Yes, it was bad under Bush, but it's quadrupled under Obama-in the first year, and personally I wouldn't call anything 800 billion large as being any kind of "dwarf." We can only hope. (I did love that part about Tom Delay threatening to "vaporize" someone. ;D).
BTW, Snil, McCain called the Nebraska Compromise the "Cornhusker Kickback". ;D
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 23, 2009 20:51:41 GMT -7
I think the larger point about the importance of power to either party should be addressed, and he only meets it half way. At this point, it's irrelevant to argue based upon concern over spending...it's been out of control for a while, and I am not convinced that there will be any real effort to reign it in, should either house be turned over after elections next year. I don't think either party gives a dam* this is about power, who wields it and what isn't done with it, at this point-and both parties are guilty of lying in order to get their way Web, I had to rub my eyes-I think that quadrupling was irresponsible, but this is because Obama has behaved very much like "Bush-lite"-and the "uncontrolled spending" does not belong solely to one party to further such notions makes about as much sense as hearing people insist that Sarah Palin wanted to be part of the government in order to oppose the government. which Snil doesn't seem to agree with, but I think this is precisely what he has revealed himself to be
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Dec 23, 2009 22:10:44 GMT -7
Oh, I have to disagree that a discussion about spending is irrelevant. That was one of the main points used against Republicans in the Newsweek article you posted, right? The criticism is a fair one I think, but it's got to then apply equally to all sides. If what the Republicans did then was as bad and irresponsible as Newsweek claimed, then the answer is not then to repeat their error.
In terms of spending, Obama is not Bush-lite, he's more Bush on 'roids. The answer to out of control spending is not in avoiding the question or just giving in and assuming it cannot or will not ever change. The answer is to put folks in office that understand something about fiscal responsibility and at least some limits that government should adhere to. These folks do exist, Rosa, but they often have a hard time prevailing because what they're selling is more in terms of getting folks to ask what they can do for their country, not what their country can give them (to loosely paraphrase a famous Democrat), and that's a hard sell. Sometimes though, the timing is right (I have my fingers crossed).
|
|
rosa
Full Member
Starting 5-Founding Member
Posts: 185
|
Post by rosa on Dec 24, 2009 7:31:55 GMT -7
I think it is irrelevant to continue arguing about spending because these politicians use such arguments as a means of getting elected; once they are in, they pull the same stunts, as is illustrated not just in the article but all over the place. We have it here in El Paso too
they use pundit points to get themselves into office and then reverse themselves when convenient; they will all say they "stand for" something or another Web, until it's convenient for them to change their minds.
It is about power, not the people
We have seen that in the health care debate, in debates about spending, our military involvement in other countries-I think everyday citizens "mean it" but I do not think politicians do
and even that "famous Democrat" worried about his image, but he worried about the fate of the country too, he wasn't as big on bombast and he delivered when he needed to
one of the reasons that guy is an icon is because in spite of his personal foibles, he had a sense of innner strength that, (call it what you will) he used when he needed to. We haven't had a leader like that since, and I'd wager that only a select minority of our current crop of politicians, Republican or Democrat, are adequately equipped. Too many worry about themselves rather than about the country or its people
...as amply demonstrated by that b/s of DeLay's when he threatened a rival's relative. Hell, they do that in Mexico but not here, right? That is the "mettle" we seem willing to settle for in politicians like Pelosi and Reid, Grassley and the other guy who openly prayed that his colleague wouldn't make it to the vote the other day. It's a standard that has gone downhill for decades
and so, referencing one of my older posts, that old politician who complacently speculated that Kennedy's death probably was a good thing in disguise...horror that it was...that it should still be
but, these days, it's up on the internet: a "poll" that engenders and encourages the notion of killing a president, as though this is nothing
I would feel more encouraged if it were the case that these people displayed more intellect, more concern and a more thorough understanding when they debate, but having seen quite a lot of the health care "reform" debates on the tube, I'd say the reliance on hyperbole, screaming and outright stupidity is growing
humbug
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Dec 24, 2009 9:01:56 GMT -7
Of course, I have to disagree with you that the last good president was Kennedy. I think there's even been a decent Republican or two (and no, I don't mean Ford). ;D Internet musings about killing the president also occured during the Bush adminstration (although for some reason, folks want to downplay those now)-I remember quite clearly some speculation about how much better off the US would be if someone would just take Bush out. I do agree with you though that many of our leaders now lack that same resolve of leaders of the past. I was watching a special about World War Two and it's kinda sad to realize that, if that war happened today, we would not be willing, I don't think, to do what we did then to end, and win, the war.
Lemme ask you, Rosa, do you agree with Newseek's assessment of just how fiscally irresponsible that prescription drug plan of the Republican's (I'm assuming only Republican's voted for it) is? See, I think spending is an important issue, far from being irrelevant. If politician are unwilling to be responsible with tax money, we should make them responsible. It happened to the Dems in the early '90 and it happened to the Republicans in the last election.
|
|
|
Post by dumb as a rock on Jan 27, 2010 14:36:06 GMT -7
They let the lobbyists handle it plain and simple. We don't matter. We are subjects.
|
|
|
Post by webrunner on Jan 27, 2010 23:48:19 GMT -7
Your abiding cynicism sounds familiar, Dumb (can I tell you how difficult it is to take someone seriously who labels him/herself "Dumb as a Rock).
|
|
|
Post by Bump on a log on Jan 28, 2010 8:16:04 GMT -7
From the front page of this forum..........
Let's attack the issues, not the person!
A forum where issues are discussed and civility and respect are expected.
--------------------------------------
Thanks for the "warm" welcome!
|
|