My Vision for Changing the Nation

These are just some of my ideas.  I realize some may be simplistic and unrealistic in today's society.   I am convinced we could get there, but we have to start to make these changes.  We need the conviction as the People to ensure our future by taking a first step.


Campaign Finance Reform

Starting with the next 4 year election cycle, there would be no more money in politics.   That would
include personal or private money.  Voting and raising money would no longer be considered
Freedom of Speech.  If need be, a Constitutional Amendment would be passed.

Any money donated or raised by any candidates or organizations would go into a fund that would
set up local and statewide election funds to cover the costs of websites or booklets to be
distributed.  Individuals and Corporations could still donate money, but full disclosure would be
necessary.  And the money just goes into one fund for all candidates, no party divisions.  If
politics and the system is so important to you as an individual, your vote should be enough.  And if
you just want to help fund the election process, you can still contribute to the fund.

Each candidate would have his own web page and page(s) in a candidate booklet.  On this web page
or booklet, it would list the candidates background, what he/she stands on all issues - personal,
social or political.  It would also list all personal issues, volunteer or work-related background.  If this
person had been a member of Congress, it would list how they've voted on all prior bills while in
that office.  If they have plans for how they would run the Country and represent the people, they
could describe some of those important plans and their visions here as well.

There would also be a paid fact-checker position to verify the content was accurate.  Any
questionable accuracy would be excluded until proven.

All registered voters would have access to the websites.  If voters don't have access to the internet,
booklets would be mailed as is the case now.  There would be a deadline for printing so that
citizens would have time to review all candidate information.

The only ads allowed would be ads funded through the election fund itself.  Ads would only be able
to state the names of the candidates, the position they were running for and the web site address
and  booklet mailing dates.  The ads would have to list all candidates running.

To cut down on the possibility of voter fraud, a National ID system would be set up.  This would
benefit all Federal and State programs.  It would be tied into multiple Government systems so
that anyone who applies for any government or private programs where an ID is required would be
entered into the database.

Also, our representatives would no longer spend as much time in Washington.  They would be in
their district offices at least 90% of their time.  They would only go to Washington for special business with Congress or the President.  All other business would be done through
teleconferencing.  This way the representatives would be more accessible and in touch with their
constituents.  It would also limit access to lobbyists.  The lobbyists would now need to spend their
own money sending their lobbyists out into the field.   Strict disclosure laws would apply so that all
constituents would know which lobbyists visited the representatives and what they did to influence them.

Congressman would no longer have lifetime benefits when their terms are over.  They would be put on COBRA until they become gainfully employed again and responsible for their own Healthcare benefits.


Financial Reform

All banking institutions would be required to continue to disclose the items that have
been included in the Consumer Protection laws recently enacted.  As they try to find loopholes
around the current regulations by making new rules and charging other fees, then they will need to
disclose those changes as well.  These changes would not be allowed to be buried in their annual
disclosures.  Anything new would need to be in a new mailing to all current customers.

Banks could not block consumers from removing their money from their institutions.

If current or future Administrations want to change consumer protection laws, legislation would
need to be passed in Congress.  There would no longer be options to defund regulations passed.
Again if we have to pass a Constitutional Amendment, so be it.

Any contract signed by an institution and an individual would need to follow the basic rules set out
by the Truth and Lending Act.  All contracts must be written at the Federal age level for reading,    the 6th grade level.  The contract would also need to fairly basic and short.  It would include basic terms like interest rate, pay off terms, fees and penalties charged, collateral held, contact information and any special State laws pertaining to the contract.

Below is a copy of the new suggestion from the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau.  It’s very
short and sweet.

http://www.consumerfinance.gov/static/cc/kbyo_cc.pdf

Wall Street Reform would occur.  No longer can Wall Street have unlimited power to do with our money whatever they want.  There would be strict regulations for gaming and hedge betting.


Social Security Reform

Someone who is intimately involved with the Administration of this program must be in charge
of this reform.  It could even be more than 1 person or a group of people, promoted temporarily
from within the Administration.

They would be tasked with comparing the money taken into the program and the money paid out.

They would also be tasked with long term solvency - at least 25 years out so they could look at the
projection of the generational age groups of Americans paying into and collecting SS benefits.

Once a formula is set up, most of the group would go back to their regular jobs - 1 post would
remain in charge of the program to keep an eye on the changes over the years.  They would
continue to monitor change on a yearly basis.

This program should be strictly set up for solvency.  $1 in = $1 out.  Any money made off of 
investments made using this money would be excess to be invested for a better return.


Retirement Plans

All companies would set up some kind of pension plan for their employees.  Neither the company,
nor the individual would be required to contribute to these plans.  Individuals would be
encouraged to contribute to their plans to supplement their social security income.

When an employee leaves a job and goes to work for another company, they could roll over their
retirement plan to the new job without penalties.  All employees could move their retirement
money around without penalties.

If the company has record profits, they should be able to raise wages or contribute a small amount
to each employee's plans.  They could tie performance or longevity into these contributions.  Rules  would have to be defined in this arena.


Medicare Reform

Again, someone who is intimately involved in the current workings of Medicare would need to be
involved.

The person(s) on the temporary committee would need to look at money taken in and paid out and
compare that over time depending on the generational cross section at the time to assist with projections for solvency of the program.

For now, policy should look at the system as the Health Care Reform Act does – switching from a
System that is corrupt and based on the number of tests or pills prescribed to a system that is
based on pay for performance and outcome measures.  The goal would be to control the cost curve
by focusing on health and prevention.


Government Reform

We would finally be required to make up our minds.  Let's let the Federal Government do what
the Constitution allows.  Whatever is vague as far as the Federal Government's role in society, we'd
need to figure out.  If we'd like to expand the Federal Government's role, then we'd need to pass
a Constitutional Amendment.  If not, then the State and Local Government would have to step up.
The State and Local Government would need to figure out how to fill those gaps with their
own tax base.  The States either want the Federal Government's help or they do not.

Let's decide whether State passed laws supersede Federal law or not.  We can't have it both ways.
Then let's allow democracy to work.  If the State wants to pass a law for their State and we've
decided that that is the right of the State, then so be it.  If a majority votes, the law passes and the
Federal Government must stay out of that issue.  The citizens of each State would be able to add
those items back to the ballots at a later time if so desired.  The majority should rule on these issues.

No longer would profit be allowed on certain Federal Issues.   Our Federal tax dollars would pay for
benefits as they benefit the masses.  This includes:

        Police and Fire Protection
        Prisons
        Defense Contracting
        Healthcare
        Public School Systems - Primary, Secondary or 2 year College Level

These issues are all under the role of the Federal Government, taking care of the welfare of the
masses.  No middlemen.  No one should be making profit on the basic needs and rights of
the citizens.  Our tax dollars would pay for these items.  Any item paid for by the Federal
Government by our Federal tax dollars would be regulated by the Federal Government.


All Police, Fire and EMS Protection would be paid for out of Federal Tax dollars.  Private companies
could still compete for business but bidding processes would apply.


Prisons and Defense Contracting would no longer be for profit.  Corruptions runs amok in this
model.  Prisons would be for violent or repeat offenders, not nuisances.  Other penalties and
punishments would be reserved for nonviolent offenders.

Defense money would be ultimately used to protect our troops and provide better benefits for
those who choose to be part of the military.


Equal opportunity for an  education would be a right for all Citizens.  Our Federal tax dollars would
fund education for all citizens - including through 2 year post-secondary education if so desired.

Private Schools  or Charter Schools would still be options.  They just could not be subsidized by
the citizens.

School Reform would be changed to a Merit-based system.  Suboptimal teachers would no longer
be protected.  Labor and Management would need to work together to make the system a better
working system for the students based on outcomes.
Unions would still be able to  negotiate working conditions and labor practices.  Striking and
lockouts would no longer be options.


All Government agencies would also need to clean their own houses so to speak.  They would need
to present their annual budgets to Congress and streamline all practices, get rid of ineffective
policies and regulations, waste and abuse.  Agencies can either be merged or separated if they
visions and purposes don't match.


Tax Code Reform

No more deductions or loopholes for any personal Federal Taxes.

Progressive rates would apply based on gross income.  All income would be classified and taxed the
same to include wages, non-wage income, capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc..

Income:

$0 -$250,000.00                                      10%
$250,000.00 - $5,000,000.00               15% on income greater than $250,000.00
$5,000,000.00 and above                     20% on income greater than $5,000,000.00


Local officials would poll the People in their districts about what programs are important to
them and what programs have shown improved outcomes.  They would break their budgets down
and show where all revenues and expenditure are going - line by line.

All Local officials would go to their State Legislature to justify their local tax based revenues and
expenses to reconcile their budgets.  The Legislature would then present their budgets to their State
Governor.  The Governor then would take the People's State budgets to the Capital for presentation
to Congress.  Congress would then present the programs that the People feel are paramount to their
own States.  Each year this would happen to insure that the People's tax dollars are spent on what is
necessary and important to them.  Majority and Democracy would rule.

Any other State and Local programs would then need to be supported financially by the State and
Local tax revenues.  No exceptions.  Private and Not for Profits could then petition the People to
support these other items.

Again, all these budget line items would need to be balanced.  If the programs we choose to offer to
our citizens cost more than we're taking in as tax revenues, taxes would then need to be increased
or programs would need to be cut.  These decisions would be made by the People of the US.
Lobbyists for their causes would need to petition and prove to the People that their needs and
desires are the same as the Peoples'.


Unemployment and Welfare Reform

We would still have a robust safety net program for our citizens, but everyone on those ranks would
need to work for their paycheck in one way or another.

Everyone can do something for their Country.  All citizens graduating from high school or a 2-4
year College degree would need to do 2 years of service for their Country - this could include the
Military, the Peace Corps, the Jobs Corps or obtaining a job with their Local, State or Federal
Government.

While looking for a job, the unemployed citizens and welfare recipients would go to work
in their communities doing jobs that would benefit the good of all citizens or their local community.


Immigration Reform

Anyone in this Country legally or illegally at this minute would be allowed to stay to work on
their citizenship.  Strict rules would apply.

Again, everyone would need some type of National ID or visa - whether it's a student or work visa.

At that point, everyone would need to work toward citizenship who wants to stay.  They
would need to pay taxes on their income - payroll, Federal, State and Local taxes.

They would need to learn to read and write English.  They would need to get their GED and work
through the testing process to be a citizen.  If they drive, they'd need to pass the driver's test
and keep their license up to date.  Their children would have to be registered in schools.
They would have to be contributing members of society to stay.

They would have 5 years to accomplish these goals.   At the end of that time, if they weren't finished
with all steps, they would be deported or pay a penalty based on how far they had gotten in the
process.

Anyone who has committed violent crimes or felonies would immediately be deported and not
allowed back in.

Any children already here would be allowed to enroll in college.  They would be allowed to attain
loans based on ability to repay.  They would have 10 years to prove that they wanted to stay here
and be contributing members of our society - working and paying taxes.  If not, they too, would be
deported.


Business Reform

Minimum wage would increase to 12.00/hour and keep up with inflation and the cost of living.
People need a livable working wage to be able to contribute to society.

This would also decrease the number of citizens on the welfare and food stamps ranks.

Health Care Insurance responsibility would be taken away from Employer-based system.
Healthcare coverage would be a right of all Americans.  The Exchange System would still go forward
as would the rest of the Healthcare Affordable Act.  Changes would be make, again based on
outcomes and the costs of the system.  Pilot studies would still move forward to see what is working
and what isn't.

Insurance companies could still enroll in the Exchanges with regulations for what type of plans could
be offered.  The Individual Mandate would still apply.  Individuals would be able to choose from
Private insurance companies and a Federal Government Public Option.

Employers would be rewarded for keeping jobs in the US.  Their tax rate would be 10%.

Employers who send jobs out of the US would be penalized by paying a Tax rate of 35%.  This rate
would be increased if these companies continue to make huge record profits by outsourcing.

No further Federal Government tax subsidies for business would occur on a regular basis.
Tax subsidies would be saved for stimulus in time of need only - when the economy is sluggish and
only for a temporary time period.

Tax subsidies for new and innovative ideas (ie) green energy would be offered to the People, not the
companies.  If someone wants to put solar panels on their house, the subsidy to get the programs
tarted would be for the People, not the Corporation, to make a profit.   They are a business, the risk
of their vision lies with them to survive.





Great change takes Great Minds, Innovation  and Courage.  This Country has forgotten this concept.
Instead, the model we've been using has been based on Money, Corruption and Coercion.
We do not have a Capitalistic Society, we live in an Oligarchy.  This has to change
to a model of working together, taking care of each other and having Personal Responsibility and
Accountability with a Federal Government that protects those with less power, money, influence
and know how to work within the system by Regulation.

I realize that there will be a lot of people who disagree with these concepts - that's why being an American is awesome.  We can all have our own opinions and express them.  Other's have the same right to express their beliefs as well.

De-Bunking the Myth - Congressional Open Seats in 2010

Hi again -

Another myth is in need of de-bunking this year. More scare tactics by the conservative side need to be clarified. I've heard a lot of hoopla about how many seats in the House and Senate are going to be open this year. They've made it sound like the Democrats have a lot of people retiring and the Republicans have none.
The truth is that it's about even - actually the Republicans have a few more.

Right now, the Senate has 59 Democratic Seats and 41 Republican Seats.

Here's the breakdown. Let's look at Senate Seats first.

Democrats retiring in 2010 are:

Chris Dodd from Connecticut
Ted Kaufman from Delaware
Roland Burris of Illinois
Evan Bayh of Indiana
Byron Dorgan of North Dakota

Republicans retiring in 2010 are:

George Le Mieux from Florida
Sam Brownback from Kansas
Jim Bunning of Kentucky
Kit Bond of Missouri
Judd Gregg of New Hampshire
George Voinovich of Ohio

Then there are the seats up for elections this year. This makes it even as there are 13 Democratic seats and 12 Republican seats up for re-election.

Democratic Seats up for re-election in 2010 are:

Blanche Lincoln from Arkansas
Barbara Boxer from California
Michael Bennet from Colorado
Daniel Inouye from Hawaii
Barbara Mikulski from Maryland
Harry Reid from Nevada
Kirsten Gillibrand from New York
Chuck Schumer from New York
Ron Wyden from Oregon
Arlen Specter from Pennsylvania
Patrick Leahy from Vermont
Patty Murray from Washington
Russ Feingold from Wisconsin

Republican Seats up for re-election in 2010 are:

Richard Shelby from Alabama
Lisa Murkowski from Alaska
John McCain from Arizona
Johnny Isakson from Georgia
Mike Crapo from Idaho
Chuck Grassley from Iowa
David Vitter from Louisiana
Richard Burr from North Carolina
Tom Coburn from Oklahoma
Jim DeMint from South Carolina
John Thune from South Dakota
Bob Bennett from Utah

In the House currently, there are 242 Democratic Seats and 193 Republican Seats.

There are far more retirements happening in the House - 15 Democrats and 19 Republicans. 434 of the 435 Seats in the House are up for re-election in 2010.

Democrats retiring in 2010 total 15.

Artur Davis from Alabama
Marion Berry from Arkansas
Vic Snyder from Arkansas
Diane Watson from California
Kendrick Meek from Florida
Brad Ellsworth from Indiana
Dennis Moore from Kansas
Charlie Melancon from Louisiana
Bill Delahunt from Massachusetts
Paul Hodes from New Hampshire
Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania
Patrick Kennedy from Rhode Island
Bart Gordon from Tennessee
John Tanner from Tennessee
Brian Baird from Washington

Republicans retiring in 2010 total 19.

John Boozman from Arkansas
John Shadegg from Arizona
George Radanovich from California
Michael Castle from Delaware
Adam Putnam from Florida
Lincoln Diaz - Balart from Florida
Mario Diaz - Balart from Florida
John Linder from Georgia
Steve Buyer from Indiana
Mark Kirk from Illinois
Jerry Moran from Kansas
Todd Tiahrt from Kansas
Peter Hoekstra from Michigan
Vern Ehlers from Michigan
Roy Blunt from Missouri
Mary Fallin from Oklahoma
Henry Brown Jr. from South Carolina
J Gresham Barrett from South Carolina
Zach Wamp from Tennessee

Now, the next question what's going to happen in November. I guess it's going to depend on who decides to go to the polls and vote and who stays home. It also depends on how inpatient we are as a whole. Do we decide to vote anti-government and anti-incumbent because we're all just so unhappy with the economy and jobs and the inaction of Congress?

I'd like to think we could all pick ourselves up by our boot straps so to speak. Let's not forget what the previous 8 years were all about. Let's not have amnesia about how bad it was. I don't know about the rest of you - but I still have hope, I still want things to change. I still think "Yes We Can." No one ever said it was going to be easy, no one ever said it would happen in a year or two - Remember! No one ever said we wouldn't have to give up anything.

I still want all those things - Health Care Reform, Climate Change Legislation, more stringent Financial Reform, Green Energy, Energy Independence and Government Transparency. Transparency sure isn't pretty - but what it does provide is insight. It allows us to see whose dirty and unethical. And it allows them to continue to try to lie, to turn tail and "retire" or quit or it allows us to vote those people out at the next election time.

So I say, let's keep moving forward, looking to the future. Let's keep fighting for change. See ya at the polls - I hope !

Rationing of Care - Now or the Future

Hi everyone -

Just a short note to open up another facet of the Health Care Reform debate.

Are we headed for Health Care Rationing or is it already here???

As the week proceeded, I listened to more news talk shows and some of the debates happening on The Hill.
I caught some of the "interrogation" of the Health Insurance Industry in the Capitol. I found their conviction in their insurance rate hikes quite pitiful. The CEO of Wellpoint disclosed her salary - $1.1 Billion in salary, plus $80,000.00 in bonuses plus $8.5 Billion in Stock Options. She had the nerve to say the company's profit margin was ONLY 4% - well and that totaled $2.9 Billion. She said they needed to raise their premiums 39% to just break even next year - well how about taking some of those overhead costs down a bit - like the CEO's salaries or per diem rates?

So my question at the end of the week was "Aren't we already having our health care rationed?" It sure seems this way to me.

Let's talk about it a little bit.

I've heard the horror stories of the other "socialized" medicine nations - people who die while waiting on surgeries or treatments; procedures being denied, etc....

Well I think we're already doing that in our Nation - the difference is we're not calling it rationing of care. It's being hushed up - not talked about. It's known by another name. It's called "denied service" or "not medically necessary" or worse yet, give me lots of money and we'll do whatever you want.

Once again, lucky for me and my family, right now, I don't have to worry about these scenarios because I've got a great job with great medical benefits. If I want a surgery - whether it's emergent or not, all I have to do is make an appointment and have my doctors say it's OK to do because of my condition. No questions asked, not much paid out of pocket. My doctor and clinic appointment co-payments are next to nothing - $5.00 a visit. My prescriptions, the same $5.00 a piece. And I don't have to pay anything for lab work or x-rays or most procedures. I consider myself one of the lucky few. Maybe you all know someone with this kind of plan - and maybe you're lucky enough to have the same. But I don't think there are a lot of us out there today. And because of my insurance coverage, I don't dare decide that I don't like working where I do - I sure can not afford to go somewhere else.

A few years ago, 60% of families could afford their insurance premiums. Few would consider not having health insurance. Today's figures are more like 30% can afford their insurance premiums and many more are on the brink of trying to decide whether to keep their coverage or not.

Now let's take a look at just one case and tell me it isn't some sort of rationing of care. Say you've suffered from arthritis for a few years, all those years of high impact aerobics or football games in the park from our youthful years. In the morning, as each year passes, it gets harder and harder to get out of bed and more and more anti-inflammatories to get rid of the pain. Now, let's say you're only 30 years old or you're a little bit over weight.

Finally you decide to make an appointment with your doctor to see if you need some sort of joint replacement. After your initial consultation, x-rays are ordered and it's decided that you could use one but it's not an emergency. It's an elective surgery per your insurance company's guidelines. First you're only 30 and you're a little over weight. The insurance company decides they just aren't going to approve the procedure as your x-rays don't lie - your joints just aren't that bad YET. But, don't tell your pain that.

Supposedly, hip surgeries cost between $35,000.00 and $50,000.00 in the U.S. depending where you get them done.

Because you've been denied coverage for this procedure, if you want to have it done, you'll have to pay the entire amount out of your pocket. Now who can afford that? Not anyone I know. So you just won't be able to get it done now, sorry, maybe in 20 years when you're older and your x-rays confirm the pain that you've been having for years. Then your surgery will be paid for.

Isn't this rationing of care? You can't have it done unless you can afford to pay out of pocket for it - or go to another country where it's cheaper. Oh, and in Canada, it would be done - although you may have to wait a year.

Now, let's say, you already pay $1,115.00 a month for your insurance premiums - that's the average cost of an health plan for two - so let's divide it in half. So you already pay $6,690.00 a year for your coverage - which isn't even going to count because they aren't going to cover your surgery.

Let's change the scenario a little bit. Your insurance company now says they'll approve your surgery. But ......you still have co-payments and deductibles to pay. It's still an elective surgery, not emergent. So you're already paying almost $7000.00 a year in premiums. You have had your pre-op appointments and now are getting ready to set your surgery date. The hospital now tells you, you haven't met any of your deductibles for the year and you'll have a co-payment as well.

Your plan has a $3,000.00 per person deductible and a 30% co-payment. These are the types of plans you can get for $1,115.00 per month. Wow! What a plan. That's what we call affordable insurance in this Country. So let's do a little bit of math.

The hospital won't do your surgery unless you can pay the up front fees - because it's not emergent. It can wait. So you have to come up with:

Let's say your surgery is going to cost $42,000.00. That's in the middle of the guesstimate for this type of surgery.

You owe $3,000.00 up front for your deductible. You'll owe $12,600.00 for your co-payment. Again do you know anyone who can just come up with $15,600.00 out of pocket for your surgery. I sure don't.

And that's not even the whole story. You're also going to be off work for at least, at the very least 8 weeks or longer. You'll miss work. If you have vacation or sick time, you're lucky. But if not, you're out of your income as well. If you're lucky, you have short term disability coverage. Let's say you make $30,000.00 a year which is the current median income for individuals per the census figures. That's $5,000.00 you'll lose over 2 months time if you don't have paid vacation or sick time. Now, if you have short-term disability, you can recoup some of that - usually 2/3s. So you'll only lose $1,670.00 out of pocket. But wait, don't forget you'll have to pay income tax on that at the end of the year so you'll have to take $830.00 back out.

So let's do a quick tally.

So even if you have insurance and you have this type of common plan, you'll owe out of pocket....

$15,600.00 in deductibles and co-payments.
$5,000.00 in lost wages if you don't have vacation or sick time.

That's a total of $20,600.00 out of pocket when you have insurance that you're paying $7,000.00 a year for.


If you have short term disability, you'll pay......

$15,600.00 in deductibles and co-payments.
$2,500.00 in lost wages and taxes.

That's a total of $18,100.00 out of pocket when you have insurance that you're paying $7,000.00 a year for.

Now figure on top of that all of the credit card debt that you will be using too if you decide to just bite the bullet and start paying for some of this as you are really having a lot of pain. Think of the new interest rates of 20% if you're carrying balances.

And what if there are complications???

Now take the choice away - what if you have to have emergent surgery and you have these kind of deductibles and co-payments. What if you make $20,000.00 a year instead and you don't have a good job. What if you live paycheck to paycheck? I sure can see how one illness can bankrupt a family. Cant' you?

And if you're going to tell me that the hospitals will work with you on a payment plan - yes they will IF it's an emergency surgery. But they WILL NOT if it's an elective surgery. They demand their money up front or they won't even consider doing the surgery.

Now you tell me this isn't BS. Why do we even have insurance? I find this quite appalling and a bit of a mystery? What kind of Nation are we anyway? What happened to "We the People"? I guess we know the bottom line, the profitability of the insurance companies and even the hospitals and providers are much more important then the health and well being of our citizens.

It's all quite clear to me. There already is rationing. And people are suffering and dying already while waiting to get the care they need and deserve.

Bottom Line - it's here already. And even if you haven't experienced it, it doesn't mean it's not happening to some one else that you already know or may know in the future. We can only hope it never touches us and our loved ones.

The Truth as It Is - Not as It's Being Told - Reconciliation

Hi everyone -

Well today, I'm going to try to de-bunk some of these "myths" out there floating around. I'm going to talk a little bit about the Reconciliation process. If anyone wants to fact check, go ahead. I got all my information off the official House and Senate Sites - attached to the actual Bills that passed as well as the CBO site.

So let's take a look at what Reconciliation is really about, what it was originally supposedly intended to do and a couple of little tiny loopholes that sure been taken advantage of over the last 20 years.

Reconciliation was originally initiated in 1974 to allow consideration of contentious budget bills without the threat of filibusters. It's intent was to limit debate and favor the majority party. It changes existing law to bring spending, revenues or debt limit into conformity with budget resolution.

The one loophole was that it only specifies that the measures would include budgetary "changes". It did not specify whether or not these changes would be an increase or decrease in the deficit. This loophole has never been changed and I find that quite interesting as the Byrd Amendment has been amended on multiple occasions. So although I'm sure Mr. Byrd's intent was to only include items that reduce the debt (wink, wink), that's not the way it was written and it's not the way it's been used.

The second loophole is that if the Reconciliation Bill causes a budget deficit, it has to expire or get renewed in 10 years. Again, if it's intent was only to reduce the deficit, why is this little part written in as well. This is the loophole that President Bush used for the tax cuts for the rich. That's why this is such a talking point now as it's been 10 years and President Obama is not willing to renew the tax cuts for the wealthiest 1% of the population.

And don't forget, there's a Parliamentarian whose supposed to determine what can and can not be decided by Reconciliation. This year, that would be Alan Frumin. But surprise, the Presiding Officer doesn't have to follow his recommendation. And guess who that is - Vice President Joe Biden.

So here are some statistics on reconciliation.

It was enacted in 1974.
It was first used in 1981.
17 of 23 times it was used during a Republican Presidency.
9 times, the Republicans had control of both the House and the Senate.
6 times, the Democrats had control of both the House and the Senate.
1 time, the Democrats had control of the Senate and the Republicans had control of the House.
7 times, the Republicans had control of the Senate and the Democrats had control of the House.

1 time, it was used completely for a non-budgetary issue. The College Cost and Access Act of 2007 passed
with a Republican President and a Democratic Congress.

Health Care issues were addressed in a few of these Bills. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 was mostly Health Care Reform. Medicare and Medicaid - yes, "entitlement" programs were
addressed in many of these Bills. Here are a few of them:

1982 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act
1985 COBRA
1987 OBRA
1989 OBRA
1990 OBRA
1993 OBRA
1995 Balanced Budge Act - This was Vetoed by President Clinton.
1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act/Welfare Reform
1997 Balanced Budget Act which Includes the Medicare Advantage Programs/Insurance Company
Give-Aways
1999 Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act - This was Vetoed by President Clinton as it increased the deficit.
2000 Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act - Again, Vetoed by President Clinton as it increased the deficit.
2005 Deficit Reduction Act

Now, the next talking point I want to talk about is the "huge majority passage" and "bi-partisan" passage of these Reconciliation Bills. The Republicans contend that all of their Reconciliation Bills passed with "huge majorities" and "bi-partisan" votes. OK, now, that's a red flag for me. Let's just go there.

I've checked the votes on these Bills on the Congressional Sites.

7 of these 23 Bills passed with less than 60 votes. OK I know that 7 out of 23 is not "all" or 100%. I also know my math - I'm thinking that would be 70% of these Bills were passed with a majority vote. Let's look at some of the numbers. These are the ones I could find easily.


1996 - H.R. 3734 which is the Welfare and Medicaid Act. This was during President Clinton's Presidency
with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed with a 78-21 vote.
53 Yeas were Republicans, 25 Yeas were Democrats. All 21 Nays were Democrats.

1997 - H.R. 2015 which is the S-CHIP Program - which by the way, is a complete "entitlement" program.
This Bill has a significant Health Care platform.
Again, still a Democratic President with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed 85-15.
43 Yeas were Republicans, 42 were Democrats. 12 Nays were Republicans, 3 were Democrats.

2001 - H.R. 1836 which was President Bush's first Tax Cut for the Wealthy. So it was a Republican President
with a Republican House and a 50-50 Split Senate. This Bill passed 58 - 33.
46 Yeas were Republicans, 12 were Democrats. 2 Nays were Republicans, 31 were Democrats.

FYI - The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office predicted that this Bill Decreased the Surplus
by 1.35 Trillion Dollars.

2003 - H.R. 2 which was President Bush's second Tax Cut for the Wealthy. So it was a Republican President
with a Republican Congress again. This Bill passed 50 - 50 with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie.
48 Yeas were Republicans, 2 were Democrats. 3 Nays were Republicans, 47 were Democrats.

FYI - The CBO predicted that this Bill Increased the Deficit by 350 Billion Dollars.

2006 - H.R. 4297 which was President Bush's third Tax Cut for the Wealthy. Again, a Republican President
with a Republican Congress. This Bill passed 54 - 44.
51 Yeas were Republicans, 3 were Democrats. 3 Nays were Republicans, 41 were Democrats.

FYI - The CBO predicted that this Bill Increased the Deficit by 70 Billion Dollars.

I also found evidence that some other Bills passed with Reconciliation with close votes but I couldn't find the Bill numbers so I couldn't verify the final votes.

I found articles that said 7 Bills passed with less than 60 votes. Again, far from the 100% that the Republicans have claimed to have had a huge majority win on.

2 of the others listed were the 1995 Balanced Budget Act with a win of 52 -47 (later vetoed) and the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act with a 50 - 50 tie with Vice President Cheney breaking the tie again - and only after they fired the Parliamentarian.

Now to me, there are some really important facts that we need to look at. These facts are not debatable - they're not open to interpretation. They are just the facts. I just don't see how any or either side or any person can put a spin on them. The facts are the facts. They are part of public record.

My first question would be:

Why would the Republicans have to have a Bill pass through Reconciliation if they had a majority vote?
Now the only reason to use Reconciliation is because of a filibuster or not having the majority vote. This means that the minority (mostly the Democrats) would have been filibustering these Bills. Therefore, I predict that they did not have a majority vote to begin with. Make sense?

Now then what comes next is a lot of back room dealing or horse trading, pork, pork, pork. So at some point, the majority (mainly the Republicans) must have been really wheeling and dealing to get these Bills through. So in the end, they brought along a few other "friends" to vote on the final Bill - either with back room deals or the amendments that were attached to these Bills. Then when the final Bills came to the floor, they ended up with a majority vote.

The other possibility could be that if the members opposed to the Bill then realized the Bill would pass with a 50% vote, some of them decided to vote for the Bill as they felt it would look good to their constituents. This in itself is reason enough that there shouldn't be anonymous votes allowed on the floor.

So there it is - the first of the de-bunking myths entries in my blog.

Off for some red carpet viewing - something almost as controversial. lol. Take Care.

Keith Olbermann Video

Special Commentary by Keith Olbermann - His Dad and the Health Care System

Hi everyone -

Tonight I was on the computer and half-heartedly listening to another one of Keith Olbermann's special comments. Again, most of the time, I think he's a little over the top. And yes, I could almost compare him on a bad day to Glenn Beck on on a good day - except well, I just don't care for all the blithering that Beck does.

Tonight, like one other night that he did a special comment on his father's illness and the state of our country's health care crisis, I found myself getting choked up. I looked over at my fiance, and he was all teary-eyed as well.

Now, before all you conservatists jump on the bandwagon, take it for what it was about. He's emotional - he's probably losing his dad - it's raw emotion. But, it's far from being wrong. It's very important to have these conversations with your family members so you know what they'd want in a time like this. His dad's been fighting for his life for months and Keith has been by his side. On the emotional family front, I'm sure it's been hard.

But I must say, I do love a story told by a family going through the broken health care system. Kind of ironic that he says he's spent more out of pocket money for his dad's care than the insurance has paid for. Kind of sad isn't it - that he can afford it - unlike most Americans.

Listen and watch here if you like and take it to heart while the Health Care Summit is going on tomorrow and we listen to all the B.S. that we're bound to hear. I do love transparency - let's see who shows their asses more.

Have a great night.

Anyone for Dodge Ball in the Capital Rotunda??

Hi everyone -

I just had to write this all down before I forget it all or lose the whimsical side of it !

So after thinking about the whole stalemate in the House and Senate with pretty much any and all issues, I had this silly kind of idea.

Do you guys all remember Dodge Ball from school??? Gosh, I miss dodge ball. It was a blast - albeit a bit dangerous at times. You could really lose an eye or worse if you were a guy.

I had this vision. If the boys on the hill are going to act like children, maybe they'd like to be treated more like children. Let's line them up - Republicans on one side, Democrats on the other side. Now sorry, Republicans, you're going to be a little short on people to start - but there are consequences to losing Congressional seats. And besides, you don't quite play fair anyway, so you'll make up for it in spirit and scrapiness.

So let's take a certain Bill or two - like the Health Care Reform Bills. Since, supposedly, they all agree on 80% of these Bills - why not pass just the 80% for now. If they agree on it, put it in writing, pass it through, no questions asked - because they all agree, right? What's so hard about that?

Then the compromising and negotiating can begin. We'll make it like dodge ball where we pick teams and take turns throwing the ball.

First each side would divide out the other points they want in the Bill, two at a time. Start with the easiest ones to negotiate and work their way up to the tough ones. Now, they'd have to go back to some point where the Democrats already started to really compromise. The Democrats really want to include all Americans for coverage, the Pre-Existing Clause, etc. on their side. The Republicans really want better language to exclude Illegal Aliens and Abortions from being covered; they want to sell across State Lines, etc.. So now each side just picks one talking point, everyone gets to discuss it and take it to a vote - compromise. Get enough votes on both sides to pass both their requests - now pass that as an amendment. Sounds pretty darn easy doesn't it???

Then of course, they could work up to the top big two - Tort Reform for the Public Option. Now that would be a real battle. But if either side really wanted their choice to go through, they'd be more apt to try harder to get it.


And overall then, what would be the worse that would happen. If they couldn't agree on anything else, then the 80% would have already been passed.

I feel that this would really take all the horse trading and back room deals off the table. Maybe they could remember that they are working for all Americans, not just their districts and own personal gains.

And I'd sure like to see this posturing on C Span. Maybe we'd see some real testosterone at play - men do like competition and what better way then to indulge their sports-mindedness.

And one more thought - if you act like a 5 year old, you should be expected to be treated like a 5 year old. If you can't play nice together, you shouldn't be allowed to play together. If you have a child and he/she misbehaves, don't you take privileges and/or money/personal property away from that child? I liken this concept to the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies and banks - if you screw up and rob vulnerable people out of billions of dollars - you should lose your privilege to continue to do the same until you learn to play nicer. I personally think you deserve a much sterner punishment than just a chastising from the President.

To make this end on even a funnier note, while I was explaining my latest concept to my fiance, Kevin, he just kept telling me he couldn't think any more about my actual concept as it related to legislation - because as a man, he couldn't get the image of all the members of the House and Senate lined up smacking each other in the heads with the Dodge Ball - and he wanted to see it in the Capital Rotunda.

So to each of you - what do you think? Could they pass reform this way? Or do you now just have a bunch of men and women in your mind, in suits and dresses, lined up, winging the balls at each other. I must say, that would be just hilarious and I have a few I'd like to just nail and nail good.