Congress exempt from the Public option?

any plan that allows Congress to exclude themselves should be refused by the people

If it’s not good enough for Congress to take it as their own coverage, it’s not good enough for the people

you should all wonder why Congress does not take it for their own coverage, just like they do not take Medicare

if they have their way, the elite government worker will have a super plan, and the masses will be stuck with something doctors already do not like - Medicare

How can anyone expect Congress to fix and maintain a program they do not live by

they have no skin in the game, and so really do not care how poorly or well it works, compared to if they actually lived by the laws of the land

after all - they are the Government, there to help you

right!

with friends like that - who needs more enemies.

what does the Cap and Trade really do?

let's hear it from a Congressman:

Thank you for contacting me about The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, which includes a cap and trade system to address climate change and a Renewable Electricity Standard to increase the generation of electricity from renewable sources. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

As you may know, I have been recognized as one of our nation's strongest advocates of renewable, domestic sources of energy. I have led efforts to change our national energy policies to encourage energy conservation and improve energy efficiency to reduce threats to our national security, economic prosperity and environment. During the last Congress, I worked closely with Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and John Ensign (R-NV) and succeeded in extending tax credits for renewable energy and energy efficiency.

I'm a scientist and I've studied this issue very carefully. I agree that emissions, primarily carbon dioxide (CO2) from burning fossil fuels to produce electricity and for transportation, damage our global environment. However, our dependence upon oil, especially imported oil, poses a far graver and more urgent threat to Americans' economic prosperity and our national security.

President Barack Obama proposed a cap and trade system for C02 emissions in order to reduce threats from climate change and a Renewable Electricity Standard to require 25% of electricity to be generated by renewable sources by 2025. It is a shame that the House majority chose to pursue a purely partisan process that produced a complex, convoluted, monstrosity of a bill.

On March 31, 2009, Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) released a 650-page draft of H.R. 2454. Centerpieces of the draft were mandated reductions in C02 emissions in the United States through a cap and trade system and a Renewable Electricity Standard. Significant details in H.R. 2454 were purposely omitted. These details became the subject of intense lobbying by special interest groups.

After a series of hearings, the committee approved a 900-page version with four Democrats opposing it and only one Republican supporting it. H.R. 2454 requires CO2 emissions to be reduced 20 percent by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. It also includes a Renewable Electricity Standard requiring utilities to produce 6% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2012 and 20% by 2020.

The requirements under H.R. 2454 to achieve emissions reductions through a cap and trade system in combination with renewable electricity generation are significantly more aggressive than Maryland's existing commitments. Estimates of the amount vary, but H.R. 2454 would increase the price of energy for households and businesses in Maryland. Rep. John Dingell (D-Michigan) observed, "Nobody in this country realizes that cap and trade is a tax, and it's a great big one."

Unless there is an international agreement with mechanisms for measurable and verifiable reductions in C02 emissions, self-imposed C02 emissions reductions by the United States will not necessarily reduce global emissions that are contributing to global warming. Increasing energy prices in the United States from capping emissions could very well encourage energy-intensive manufacturing industries to move these factories and their jobs to countries which don't or won't reduce their emissions. Lower emissions from the U.S. could be more than offset by increased global emissions from as a result of higher emissions from other countries. Affected industries include automobiles, steel, cement, glass, industrial/medical gases, pharmaceuticals and aluminum among others.

H. R. 2454 includes tariffs that would result in a lose-lose dilemma for the United States. The new tariffs would impose tax increases upon the imports from countries that did not impose similar emissions reductions upon their industries. The tariffs would attempt to level the playing field to protect American jobs and factories from being outsourced to countries, such as India or China, where top officials have said they won't reduce their emissions unless the U.S. pays them to do so. However, such punitive tariffs would likely spark a debilitating trade war that would reduce trade and economic growth worldwide. That is what happened after Congress approved Smoot-Hawley tariffs that provoked the Great Depression of the 1930's. Perhaps that is why President Obama said that he opposes these tariffs in H.R. 2454.

There were hundreds of pages of changes in the two days before the House voted on H.R. 2454. A 1,201 page version, H.R. 2998, was published on June 23, 2009. Members offered 224 changes. However, only a single manager's amendment by Rep. Waxman was allowed by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. This 341-page list of changes was made to the bill at 3:09 am just hours before the House voted on H.R. 2454 on June 26, 2009. The final 1,428 page version of H.R. 2454 deserves to be rejected because of the political games and back room deals that produced it.

I've never voted for a tax increase. That is the main reason why I could not support H.R. 2454. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated that H.R. 2454 would force a massive federal government-imposed redistribution of approximately $1 trillion over the next ten years. Specifically, CBO/JCT estimated that over the next ten years federal tax revenues would increase by about $846 billion while federal government spending would increase by about $821 billion. The net result, CBO/JCT estimated would be an increase in federal government revenues of $24 billion. Most of the increase in revenues would come from the cap and trade system in H.R. 2454. CBO found that H.R. 2454 would also impose annual unfunded mandated spending increases of $69 million upon state and local governments and $139 million upon private businesses and individuals beginning in 2009.

My constituents clearly understood that H.R. 2454 is a gigantic hidden tax that they would end up paying. That's why they were overwhelming opposed to it. H.R. 2454 was narrowly approved 219 - 212. 211 Democrats and 8 Republicans voted yes. I was among the 44 Democrats and 168 Republicans who voted no.

The Senate has taken a completely different approach to energy and environment policy legislation. Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have led a bipartisan consensus in approving more than two dozen energy-related bills. They intend to combine them into a comprehensive energy bill that would not include a cap and trade system. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said that she hoped to use the cap and trade system in H.R. 2454 as the basis for similar legislation.

It remains to be seen how the Senate will act concerning energy and environment legislation. However, President Obama and House Democratic leaders favor a single bill similar to H. R. 2454 that would include a cap and trade system. In any event, a conference committee of House and Senate members would have to resolve differences between H.R. 2454 and any legislation approved by the Senate. That compromise Conference Report would have to be approved by both the House and the Senate before a bill could be sent to the President for his consideration.

I believe it is important that legislation to reduce C02 emissions complements rather than conflicts with policy changes to reduce America's oil imports. I also believe that legislation to reduce C02 emissions must not make American workers and businesses less competitive in the world economy while failing to reduce global emissions. I will continue to support policy changes that will encourage energy conservation, increase energy efficiency, reduce energy costs, promote domestic, renewable sources of energy, and reduce reliance upon fossil fuels, especially oil for transportation. I am hopeful that bipartisan efforts in the Senate will lead to legislation I can support that will reduce CO2 emissions and our dependence upon fossil fuels, especially imported oil, without the federal government taking more money from taxpayers.

Thank you again for sharing your views. I look forward to hearing from you regarding any issues you may find important in the future. I encourage you to review more facts about energy at http://www.bartlett/house.gov/energyupdates. You may also sign up for email updates at my website: http://www.bartlett.house.gov.

Sincerely, Roscoe Bartlett
Member of Congress

Budget reconciliation process on Health Care affects your health.

Hopefully the plan for health care in the U.S. will be under bi-partisan craftsmanship. The Budget reconciliation process, if used here, will create a plan that will have almost 1/2 of the population left out of the creation process.

This would not be a good situation for a president who campaigned, in part, on his ability to reach across the isle.

It would not be a good for the population, as if it is fast tracked, the overall concerns of "We, the People" will not be fully heard.

Providers will choose alternative channels, since there is no way to force them to accept more patients and give less care for less money. Those with short memories need only look what happened in MD about 10 years ago, or what is happening in Massachusetts and other states, today.

If we've learned anything at all from the last year of Congress, with the Stimulus Bill and TARP, Congress moving quickly spells major expenses and lack of control for us now, and our future generations.

"We, the People" have an obligation, and a right to be heard, and be involved fully in the process. Do not let Congress adversely affect the quality of life just to "do something".

Those who have followed my posts know the risks we have if we allow "any" system to be put in place. A plan like used in most European nations, Canada, or our own VA or Medicare system will leave us with limited access to providers.

Such a system will have more Doctors retiring, more going to limited "boutique" access practices, and less accepting the public limited access and limited fee system.
Massachusetts's is on the leading edge, with several state mandates, and they are experiencing Doctor shortages, lack of care, and major increases in ER use.

Trends showing increased lack of care, denial of care, limited access to medications, denied coverage are well documented in Medicare recipients, as well as in Universal "one payer" (one controller of health care access) systems.

I, for one, with 5 family members as Medical providers, am scared to turn 65, because I loose coverage levels and access I enjoy now.

Please, follow the process, and remain active in the political agenda. Your health depends on it.

Health May Go On Fast Track

• By ARTHUR D. POSTAL

Published 4/28/2009

Democratic congressional leaders have come out with a 2010 budget resolution conference agreement that includes health reform and estate tax provisions.

Democrats and Republicans have posted separate texts and analyses of the 2010 budget resolution agreement on the Senate Budget Committee website, at http://budget.senate.gov

The conference agreement resolves differences between the Senate version, S. Con. Res. 13, and the House version, H.Con. Res. 85.

Here is a "side by side" comparison posted by the Republican members of the Senate Budget Committee.

Congress has agreed to handle health reform measures through the ordinary legislative process until Oct. 15, officials say. If no legislation passes by that date, Congress may consider health reform through the budget reconciliation process.

Supporters of a bill usually need to get the cooperation of 60 senators to get the bill to the Senate floor. When Congress includes a measure in the budget reconciliation process, supporters need just 51 votes in the Senate.

Robelynn Abadie, president of the Association of Health Insurance Advisors, Falls Church, Va., says she is disappointed that health reform could end up becoming part of the budget reconciliation process but welcomes the decision to let lawmakers try to craft a bipartisan health reform plan through the ordinary legislative process until October:

“A health care bill written entirely by Democrats would almost certainly create a new public health insurance program,” Abadie warned.

Continuing with bipartisan efforts offers the best chance of coming up with “an agreement on health care that will stand the test of time,” says John Greene, a vice president at the National Association of Health Underwriters, Arlington, Va.

“Reconciliation would make it difficult to achieve bipartisan health care reform that addresses the core issues of cost, access, and quality together,” says Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, Washington.

Democratic congressional leaders have come out with a 2010 budget resolution conference agreement that includes health reform and estate tax provisions.

Democrats and Republicans have posted separate texts and analyses of the 2010 budget resolution agreement on the Senate Budget Committee website, at http://budget.senate.gov

The conference agreement resolves differences between the Senate version, S. Con. Res. 13, and the House version, H.Con. Res. 85.

Here is a "side by side" comparison posted by the Republican members of the Senate Budget Committee.

Congress has agreed to handle health reform measures through the ordinary legislative process until Oct. 15, officials say. If no legislation passes by that date, Congress may consider health reform through the budget reconciliation process.

Supporters of a bill usually need to get the cooperation of 60 senators to get the bill to the Senate floor. When Congress includes a measure in the budget reconciliation process, supporters need just 51 votes in the Senate.

Robelynn Abadie, president of the Association of Health Insurance Advisors, Falls Church, Va., says she is disappointed that health reform could end up becoming part of the budget reconciliation process but welcomes the decision to let lawmakers try to craft a bipartisan health reform plan through the ordinary legislative process until October:

“A health care bill written entirely by Democrats would almost certainly create a new public health insurance program,” Abadie warned.

Continuing with bipartisan efforts offers the best chance of coming up with “an agreement on health care that will stand the test of time,” says John Greene, a vice president at the National Association of Health Underwriters, Arlington, Va.

“Reconciliation would make it difficult to achieve bipartisan health care reform that addresses the core issues of cost, access, and quality together,” says Robert Zirkelbach, a spokesman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, Washington.

No Republicans voted for the legislation

Well - speaking of a country very divided.

Seems the House definitely found the isle, and did not cross it either.

The sad part is, we, the people, will end up finding out the hard way who is correct in their party's opinion.

Stay tuned for what it becomes.


from the Baltimore Business Journal

Friday, February 13, 2009, 2:37pm EST

House passes $787 billion stimulus

Baltimore Business Journal - by Kent Hoover Washington Bureau Chief

The House passed a $787 billion economic stimulus bill Friday by a 246-183 margin.

No Republicans voted for the legislation.

Senate passage of the 1,071-page American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (H.R. 1) is expected later Friday.

The legislation includes billions of dollars in spending on items including infrastructure, education, tax breaks for individuals and businesses, help for unemployed workers and aid for state governments.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said the the bill can be “summed up in one word: jobs.” The White House estimates the legislation will save or create 3.5 million jobs over the next two years.

Republicans contended the bill will do little to help the economy and will hurt the country in the long run because of the debt burden it will add to taxpayers.

“This legislation will not put people to work right away,” said House Whip Eric Cantor, R-Va. “Nor does it contain the time-honored incentives for work, investment, innovation and job creation that are proven to stimulate growth.”

Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, conceded the bill is not perfect but said no legislation is. If anything, he said, the legislation is not large enough because of cuts made to win Senate approval.

“You show me a smaller problem we have to confront, and I’ll be happy to produce a smaller bill,” Obey said.

The first (less than) 20 days

We have the first non-white president.

He campaigned on change - so how are we doing?

I would say change is in the air - lots of change - but it's not what the public thought they would get when they voted for him.

Too bad this soon, less than 20 days after this great moment, his presidency is getting blasted, and much of the media is turning on his program.

We are already dealing with his own party betraying his campaign mission with personal pork; a plan that does almost nothing until 2011; and a bigger debt load than this country has ever seen, with social programs that will force, as many annalists are saying, a depression to rival the Great Depression.
- a predicted outcome, and with much regret conservatives are restraining from saying "I told you so." But. Public polls for his stimulus program resemble falling rocks.
The change we got was more pork, and less effective legislation.

The people responsible for vetting potential cabinet members have failed him in recommending cabinet choices, and he's got at least 10 cabinet picks that will not pass ethics standards, before they are even fully reviewed.
The change we got was more corrupt people being proposed for cabinet offices.

He has met with the military leaders, and now knows we went into the war because if we did not, Israel would have nuked the country and 10,000,000 would have died (yes, I got that from someone deep inside)and he has had to back pedal on the withdrawal promise. He has proposed adding many more troops to Afghanistan, which the Russians already tried, and the Brits tried before them, and both failed. I spoke yesterday to a former ranking 30 year officer from Pakistan, who knows the area almost as well as he knows his hand. We are fighting against people who need no supplies, live off the land, have held a rifle since age 10, consider it an honor to kill another (American Indians anyone?) and we expect to maintain a supply line for 5,000 miles and beat them?
The change we are getting is greater troop deployment, and greater expense, with greater lives lost.

Soon he will be dealing with the fallout of having detainees released, and them creating more terror; yes they were released during the Bush administration, and yes the terror is being committed now and then; but no one will care about that. It will have the effect of throwing the closing of the detention camp into question.
The change we will get will be from a prevention to a post act terrorism world. We will wait until something happens, investigate who did it, try to decide who is responsible, go RE-capture them, put on a trial, and let the liberal lawyers argue that it was the trauma of American actions that made him/her do it. Yes - this is a prediction, but did Clinton not have Osama and let him go?!! Remember the first World Trade Center bombing?!! Then everyone will point fingers at everyone else for letting them go. And if I were a victim of a subsequent attack - I'd be 1st in line to sue the asshole responsible for letting the terrorist go.

So - we got change - and all those who voted for the man just because you wanted change - we have not yet had 20 days - how do you like it so far?

Government Bailouts Could Backfire - no kidding

it looks like someone is finally saying what many are thinking - and if this does happen, once again, Congress got it wrong.

Government Bailouts Could Backfire

BY DANIEL HAYS
NU Online News Service, Jan. 13, 2009, 3:51 p.m. EST

Massive efforts to support troubled financial institutions might end up increasing instability, by affecting the “precarious fiscal positions” of the United States and other countries. The World Economic Forum, Geneva, Switzerland, presents that prediction in the 2009 Global Risks Report, a world risk assessment conducted by forum staffers with help from experts at Swiss Reinsurance Company, Zurich; Marsh & McLennan Companies Inc., New York; Zurich Financial Services Group, Zurich; and the Wharton School Risk Center, Philadelphia. The authors of the report note that the United States is currently running a deficit equivalent to 4.6% of the country’s gross domestic product. But the warning against excessive spending applies to Australia, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom as well as to the United States, the authors of the report write. Trying to address immediate economic concerns without remedying the root causes could sow the seeds of new problems that may have a strong impact at a later date, the report authors warn. Global equity values already have fallen an average of 50%, and there continues to be vicious circle involving declining asset values, write-downs and pressure on financial institution capital positions, the report authors write. Sellers have flooded the markets with more assets than they can absorb, triggering further price drops and further financial institution capital charges, the authors write. Meanwhile, chronic diseases, wars and terrorism continue to mar the lives of many, and the threat of a major influenza pandemic continues to loom in the background, the authors write. The authors acknowledge the need for better governance globally but warn against a knee-jerk overreaction that could increase transaction and compliance costs and ultimately prove ineffective in the face of the next crisis. But this year could prove to be an opportune moment to strengthen global governance and build the political will to restore global financial stability and focus on the longer-term challenges of managing scarce resources and climate change, the report authors write. “If business leaders and decision-makers can overcome the behavioral biases toward immediate, short-term solutions and switch to longer-term thinking, then they will have made significant progress in adopting an attitude suited to the mitigation of increasingly complex and interlinked global risks,” says Howard Kunreuther, co-chair of the forum's Global Agenda Council on Mitigation of Natural Disasters.

this new Presidential Cabinet and it's lack of business understanding will have a profound effect on the economy.

the mantra of "they just don't get it" will start resounding loudly during the next 4 years

Already - smaller U. S. toy makers are being put out of business in 2009 by the regulations our Democratic Congress put in place to prevent China from lacing toys with lead and poison paint.

In 2016, all U.S. light bulb production will be gone - another industry lost to overseas, done by Congressional legislation.

The tax package proposed by "our president elect" will shut down or push off shore businesses in the next 4 years. Exxon Mobile is already putting together an exit strategy to leave the U.S.

As more large employers leave the U.S. market, the TAX BURDEN WILL HAVE TO SHIFT TO SMALLER EMPLOYERS.

As more become dependent on government funds, the taxes that pay for those dependents have to increase on those who are not.

That's not just people - states are asking for more monies - Maryland is planning to request more federal funds to rebuild the crumbling infrastructure, because they are loosing tax revenue from existing residents.

The laws of unintended consequences will continue to fracture our economy, and further the recession.

Stay tuned for more on this as it develops.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008, 9:31am EST

Obama cabinet short on business experience

Baltimore Business Journal - by Kent Hoover Washington Bureau Chief

President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet will have a lot less business experience than President Bush’s first round of key appointees.

Bush, the only U.S. president with an MBA, turned to corporate America for several key positions, starting with vice president. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton Corp., a Houston-based oilfield services company, before joining Bush’s ticket in 2000.

Another Texas oilman, longtime Bush friend Don Evans, was appointed secretary of Commerce. Former Alcoa Chairman and CEO Paul O’Neill was Bush’s first secretary of Treasury, but lasted less than two years.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had served as chairman and CEO of two companies, pharmaceutical giant G.D. Searle & Co. and broadcast technology developer General Instrument Corp. He also chaired Gilead Sciences Inc., a biopharmaceutical company.

Mitch Daniels, who headed the Office of Management and Budget, was a senior vice president at pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co.

Obama, by contrast, largely turned to people with extensive government experience for his Cabinet.

The Commerce Department, for example, will be headed by New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who also has served in Congress, as United Nations ambassador and as secretary of Energy. Obama’s pick for secretary of Treasury, Timothy Geithner, is president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and served in the Treasury Department during three administrations.

Obama picked a Maine venture capitalist, Karen Gordon Mills, to lead the Small Business Administration, but it’s not clear whether the SBA administrator will be part of his Cabinet. That post was not part of the Cabinet during the Bush administration.

Not counting Mills, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar, Obama’s pick for secretary of Interior, appears to have the most business experience of anyone in the president-elect’s Cabinet. Salazar, a fifth-generation rancher, and his wife have owned and operated several small businesses, including a Dairy Queen and radio stations in Pueblo and Denver.

Shaun Donovan, Obama’s choice to run the Department of Housing and Urban Development, worked at Prudential Mortgage Capital Co. before becoming New York City housing commissioner. He was a deputy assistant secretary of HUD during the Clinton administration, and also has worked as an architect.

Steven Chu, Obama’s pick to be secretary of Energy, is a Nobel laureate physicist who runs the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, a government-supported lab managed by the University of California. He once served on the technical staff at AT&T Bell Labs.

That’s about it as far as business experience goes on Obama’s Cabinet. Should business owners be concerned?

“I don’t think it’s a huge red flag,” said Molly Brogan, vice president of the National Small Business Association. “President-elect Obama spoke out frequently on small business issues during the campaign, and we have no reason to think they won’t continue to be a priority. A lack of business background in Cabinet members can easily be accommodated for by a president taking proactive steps to ensure that small business is at the table.”

Those steps should include making the SBA administrator a Cabinet-level position and hosting a White House Conference on Small Business early in the administration, Brogan said.

“My concern is less with direct business experience than Cabinet members’ history and willingness to work with business leaders,” said Karen Kerrigan, president and CEO of the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council. “For example, Gov. Richardson’s record on business issues is quite good even though he lacks experience in the trenches.”

Kerrigan is concerned about Obama’s appointees to regulatory agencies “and whether the new leadership will put less of a priority on tools and outreach to help businesses comply with regulation, or whether we’ll see a hostile crackdown with respect to enforcement.”

“Those with business experience would relate to the business owner’s difficulty in understanding regulatory complexity and costs,” she said, “and may lean towards education, tools and efforts to promote voluntary compliance.”

CONGRESS GETS A PAY RAISE. DO THEY DESERVE IT?

CONGRESS GETS A PAY RAISE. DO THEY DESERVE IT?
Under existing law, as part of a deal to give up outside income from speeches and other sources, Congress receives an automatic pay raise unless it votes otherwise. In January, Congress will receive a raise of $4,700, this will increase the average Member's pay to about $174,000, or a 2.8 percent increase.

Does Congress deserve a raise this year? A bill was introduced to reject the pay increase, but it died in committee. Tell Congress what you think.

Are we going in the right direction yet?

Democratic leadership and control of Congress

the last 2 years