The Dallas County GOP is going to hold its annual Steak Fry at Waukee High School this Thursday, November 12th, at 6pm.
We have several guest speakers lined up:
- RPI state chair Matt Strawn
- State Auditor David Vaudt
- WHO Radio host Jan Mickelson
We'll also be having a delightful pie auction. Let me be very clear about this. There are some folks in Dallas County who have a firm grasp on baking tasty desserts. I encourage you to come by and witness this firsthand, after you enjoy a steak dinner and a great lineup of speakers.
Tickets are $25. For more information, click here.
Hope to see you there!
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
House Two & half day work week.
No wonder the Dims can't actually read the bill. Or put it up online before voting on a bill. How Crazy are we to actually expect Congress to work more than 2 1/2 days a week.... WOW
Working hard or hardly working?
By: Jake Sherman
October 7, 2009 05:03 AM EST
Like most Americans, members of the House are expected to report promptly — no excuses — when summoned by their bosses for the start of another workweek. One difference: For lawmakers, starting time doesn’t come until about 6:30 Tuesday evening.
After taking control of the House in 2006 — and again when President Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) boasted that lawmakers would work four or five days a week to bring change to America.
But midway through Obama’s first year in office, Hoyer’s House has settled into a more leisurely routine. Members usually arrive for the first vote of the week as the sun sets on Tuesdays, and they’re usually headed back home before it goes down again on Thursdays.
Since the House returned for its fall session on Sept. 8, it has stuck around to vote on a Friday just once: to approve a 5.8 percent increase in Congress’s own budget.
A Democratic leadership aide vehemently defended the schedule, saying members shouldn’t be kept in Washington for four or five days when work can be completed in fewer.
And with health care reform, climate change legislation and a slew of appropriations bills lined up in the Senate, House Democrats know that a longer workweek in their chamber might do little more than add to the backlog.
Asked about the abbreviated workweeks, Hoyer said Tuesday: “I think you understand why we’re doing it.” He pointed to the appropriations bills stalled in the Senate, but he didn’t cast blame at senators for moving so slowly. “It takes a long time to do it,” he said.
“We’d all love to see some bills back [from the Senate] quickly,” said a Democratic aide.
The House got off to a fast start this year, approving a stimulus plan, an omnibus spending bill and climate change legislation, as well as getting health care reform bills through three committees. But now lawmakers and staff are enjoying an Indian summer of sorts; Mondays are dead, and Fridays have the Hill set clad in jeans and oxfords, awaiting the next vote four long days away.
Two-and-a-half-day workweeks are not exactly what Hoyer had planned.
In December 2006, as he prepared to take the reins as majority leader, Hoyer said lawmakers should expect to be on duty in the House from 6:30 p.m. on Mondays to around 2 p.m. on Fridays.
When Hoyer released his 2009 legislative calendar last December, he said: “The American people voted decisively for change this November, and we will work hard to make that change a reality.”
According to that calendar — no longer on Hoyer’s website but cached through Google — the House was to have been in session 120 days by now. In fact, it’s been in session for 113 days — and many of those have been brief.
Under the original 2009 schedule, the House was to have had votes on seven of the past eight business days. As it turned out, the House voted on just five of those eight days and worked 25 hours and 43 minutes on passing legislative material — an average of three hours and 36 minutes of legislative debate and voting each day, according to a POLITICO analysis of House voting records. The calculation doesn’t include special-order and one-minute speeches, essentially colloquies used by members to advance positions or score political points.
Of course, time on the floor debating and voting on bills doesn’t represent the totality of the congressional workload. Members of Congress meet with constituents, special-interest groups, advisers and colleagues to discuss legislation.
“We’re in the middle of a health care reform bill,” said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “This is a 24/7 operation.”
At busy times of the year — particularly when lawmakers are trying to finish work in time for a recess — the legislating hours can be long, at least by Hill standards. On a particularly busy week in July, the House spent 36 hours and 11 minutes on legislative debate and voting — an average of seven hours and 15 minutes a day considering laws.
Moreover, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said, lawmakers suffer from the misconception that they’re off duty when they’re back home. In fact, he and other lawmakers say, they put in a lot of time in their districts meeting with constituents and doing other work.
But asked about the short weeks in Washington, Cummings punted.
“I think you need to talk to Hoyer about that,” he said. “Don’t you worry, you’ll get your money’s worth.”
Hoyer spokeswoman Katie Grant said complaints about the House schedule are nothing new.
“Every fall we can count [on] two things: The leaves change colors, and stories on the floor schedule change from Congress doing too much to [Congress] doing too little,” she said. “In fact, we have spent a great deal of time in session and gotten a tremendous amount of work done this year, and members are continuing to work both in Washington and their districts.”
Indeed, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) was miffed Tuesday morning when the House Financial Services Committee scheduled a hearing on what was supposed to be a “member-travel day.”
“They hammered on us, and they should look in the mirror to see how they’re running the show now,” Garrett said of the Democrats.
But while some GOP lawmakers grumbled in 2006 when Hoyer first talked of a five-day-a-week schedule, at least one was willing to look at the bright side Tuesday.
“Two and a half days a week is plenty of time to consider the ideas coming out of this Democrat-led House,” said Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). “Imagine the damage they could do with five-day workweeks.”
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
Working hard or hardly working?
By: Jake Sherman
October 7, 2009 05:03 AM EST
Like most Americans, members of the House are expected to report promptly — no excuses — when summoned by their bosses for the start of another workweek. One difference: For lawmakers, starting time doesn’t come until about 6:30 Tuesday evening.
After taking control of the House in 2006 — and again when President Barack Obama was elected president in 2008 — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) boasted that lawmakers would work four or five days a week to bring change to America.
But midway through Obama’s first year in office, Hoyer’s House has settled into a more leisurely routine. Members usually arrive for the first vote of the week as the sun sets on Tuesdays, and they’re usually headed back home before it goes down again on Thursdays.
Since the House returned for its fall session on Sept. 8, it has stuck around to vote on a Friday just once: to approve a 5.8 percent increase in Congress’s own budget.
A Democratic leadership aide vehemently defended the schedule, saying members shouldn’t be kept in Washington for four or five days when work can be completed in fewer.
And with health care reform, climate change legislation and a slew of appropriations bills lined up in the Senate, House Democrats know that a longer workweek in their chamber might do little more than add to the backlog.
Asked about the abbreviated workweeks, Hoyer said Tuesday: “I think you understand why we’re doing it.” He pointed to the appropriations bills stalled in the Senate, but he didn’t cast blame at senators for moving so slowly. “It takes a long time to do it,” he said.
“We’d all love to see some bills back [from the Senate] quickly,” said a Democratic aide.
The House got off to a fast start this year, approving a stimulus plan, an omnibus spending bill and climate change legislation, as well as getting health care reform bills through three committees. But now lawmakers and staff are enjoying an Indian summer of sorts; Mondays are dead, and Fridays have the Hill set clad in jeans and oxfords, awaiting the next vote four long days away.
Two-and-a-half-day workweeks are not exactly what Hoyer had planned.
In December 2006, as he prepared to take the reins as majority leader, Hoyer said lawmakers should expect to be on duty in the House from 6:30 p.m. on Mondays to around 2 p.m. on Fridays.
When Hoyer released his 2009 legislative calendar last December, he said: “The American people voted decisively for change this November, and we will work hard to make that change a reality.”
According to that calendar — no longer on Hoyer’s website but cached through Google — the House was to have been in session 120 days by now. In fact, it’s been in session for 113 days — and many of those have been brief.
Under the original 2009 schedule, the House was to have had votes on seven of the past eight business days. As it turned out, the House voted on just five of those eight days and worked 25 hours and 43 minutes on passing legislative material — an average of three hours and 36 minutes of legislative debate and voting each day, according to a POLITICO analysis of House voting records. The calculation doesn’t include special-order and one-minute speeches, essentially colloquies used by members to advance positions or score political points.
Of course, time on the floor debating and voting on bills doesn’t represent the totality of the congressional workload. Members of Congress meet with constituents, special-interest groups, advisers and colleagues to discuss legislation.
“We’re in the middle of a health care reform bill,” said Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “This is a 24/7 operation.”
At busy times of the year — particularly when lawmakers are trying to finish work in time for a recess — the legislating hours can be long, at least by Hill standards. On a particularly busy week in July, the House spent 36 hours and 11 minutes on legislative debate and voting — an average of seven hours and 15 minutes a day considering laws.
Moreover, Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) said, lawmakers suffer from the misconception that they’re off duty when they’re back home. In fact, he and other lawmakers say, they put in a lot of time in their districts meeting with constituents and doing other work.
But asked about the short weeks in Washington, Cummings punted.
“I think you need to talk to Hoyer about that,” he said. “Don’t you worry, you’ll get your money’s worth.”
Hoyer spokeswoman Katie Grant said complaints about the House schedule are nothing new.
“Every fall we can count [on] two things: The leaves change colors, and stories on the floor schedule change from Congress doing too much to [Congress] doing too little,” she said. “In fact, we have spent a great deal of time in session and gotten a tremendous amount of work done this year, and members are continuing to work both in Washington and their districts.”
Indeed, Rep. Scott Garrett (R-N.J.) was miffed Tuesday morning when the House Financial Services Committee scheduled a hearing on what was supposed to be a “member-travel day.”
“They hammered on us, and they should look in the mirror to see how they’re running the show now,” Garrett said of the Democrats.
But while some GOP lawmakers grumbled in 2006 when Hoyer first talked of a five-day-a-week schedule, at least one was willing to look at the bright side Tuesday.
“Two and a half days a week is plenty of time to consider the ideas coming out of this Democrat-led House,” said Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.). “Imagine the damage they could do with five-day workweeks.”
© 2009 Capitol News Company, LLC
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
(Lack of) Transparency
In my last post, I was wondering if the Democrats would refuse to post a bill online before a vote. Now we know.
U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) today issued the following statement after Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee rejected his Transparency Amendment to the "America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009."
Senator Bunning’s amendment would have required that the legislative language and a final and complete cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be made publicly available on the Finance Committee’s website for at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee could vote on final passage of the bill.
The Democrats on the Finance Committee refused to vote aye for this amendment, instead deciding to shoot it down, by a vote of 13-10. I guess the Democrats in Congress don’t want to live up to standard that President Obama set during his campaign.
How is that promise going, Mr. President?
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 2009 AT 3:39 PM
Update on Sunlight Before Signing
“Since a few questions have come in, we want to update you on the President's campaign commitment to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting non-emergency legislation online for five days before signing it. This policy will be implemented in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar.
The President remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House will continue to publish legislation expected to come to his desk online for public comment as it moves through Congress.”
Well, it's been exactly 8 months. Apparently, this particular promise isn't terribly important, especially when the President and his party are trying to get an unpopular "public option" bill through Congress. Hopefully, the President will whip his party into shape so that the American people can get the transparency that they deserve.
As for right now, it looks as though the Democrats are just going to ram this bill through Congress as fast as they can…a bill that less than 30% of Americans support. Great leadership.
U.S. Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) today issued the following statement after Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee rejected his Transparency Amendment to the "America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009."
Senator Bunning’s amendment would have required that the legislative language and a final and complete cost analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) be made publicly available on the Finance Committee’s website for at least 72 hours before the Finance Committee could vote on final passage of the bill.
The Democrats on the Finance Committee refused to vote aye for this amendment, instead deciding to shoot it down, by a vote of 13-10. I guess the Democrats in Congress don’t want to live up to standard that President Obama set during his campaign.
How is that promise going, Mr. President?
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 2009 AT 3:39 PM
Update on Sunlight Before Signing
“Since a few questions have come in, we want to update you on the President's campaign commitment to introducing more sunlight into the lawmaking process by posting non-emergency legislation online for five days before signing it. This policy will be implemented in full soon; currently we are working through implementation procedures and some initial issues with the congressional calendar.
The President remains committed to bringing more transparency to government, and in this spirit the White House will continue to publish legislation expected to come to his desk online for public comment as it moves through Congress.”
Well, it's been exactly 8 months. Apparently, this particular promise isn't terribly important, especially when the President and his party are trying to get an unpopular "public option" bill through Congress. Hopefully, the President will whip his party into shape so that the American people can get the transparency that they deserve.
As for right now, it looks as though the Democrats are just going to ram this bill through Congress as fast as they can…a bill that less than 30% of Americans support. Great leadership.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Comfort, in case you're worried
Senator Tom Carper (Democrat-DE) has some words of reassurance for you. Actually, what he tells this reporter might enhance your concern, rather than assuage it.
From an interview with CNS. Feel free to watch the 4 minute video, if you choose to follow the link.
Here's the bottom line.
If you, a citizen, are concerned that:
- Members of Congress aren't actually reading legislation that impacts 1/6 of the largest economy this planet has ever seen
- The Legislative language might be very confusing, and intentionally difficult for a court or the American people to understand
- The Democrats might sneak in language to a piece of legislation that the American people don't want
...then you should be. Disaster is slowly developing in the halls of Congress. Why can't people understand that this is not normal behavior for a group of people who are supposed to be advancing solutions? What's their next great idea? Secret health care bills that Americans won't be able to view online before an actual vote?
From an interview with CNS. Feel free to watch the 4 minute video, if you choose to follow the link.
Here's the bottom line.
If you, a citizen, are concerned that:
- Members of Congress aren't actually reading legislation that impacts 1/6 of the largest economy this planet has ever seen
- The Legislative language might be very confusing, and intentionally difficult for a court or the American people to understand
- The Democrats might sneak in language to a piece of legislation that the American people don't want
...then you should be. Disaster is slowly developing in the halls of Congress. Why can't people understand that this is not normal behavior for a group of people who are supposed to be advancing solutions? What's their next great idea? Secret health care bills that Americans won't be able to view online before an actual vote?
Sunday, October 04, 2009
The Only Poll That Really Matters
and no one is even talking about it!
Polling companies, including the Rasmussen poll below, have been focusing on the following question.
Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?
* Favor 46%
* Oppose 37%
While this appears to be a fair question, seemingly innocuous, it is a flawed question, because it deprives those polled of the reality of the situation.
The CORRECT polling question is below. Fortunately, Rasmussen has been kind enough to ask this question.
Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?
* Favor 29%
* Oppose 58%
From the Rasmussen article
"The second question asked about the creation of a public option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Given that possibility, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.
Even if it encourages employers to drop private health insurance for their workers, 51% of Democrats still support the public option. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Republicans and 61% of voters not affiliated with either party are opposed.
The president has said that no one would be forced to change their insurance coverage if his plan is implemented. However, many analysts have concluded that some employers would drop their private health insurance coverage if the plan is passed, forcing millions of workers to change their coverage."
As I discussed in an earlier post, the public option plan has only one goal. Getting rid of private insurance altogether to replace it with a single-payer system. Don't lie, President Obama. Don't lie, Democrats. We know it's what you actually want. You are tip-toeing around the issue because you don't want us Americans to know what you're REALLY doing.
How do I know that Americans don't want what you want? Let me recopy from above!
Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?
* Favor 29%
* Oppose 58%
29%. If you've ever thought that the Democrats are being driven to left by the most radical in their party, look no further. Here's your evidence. The Democrats are being driven to the left by 20-something percent of the American people.
Polling companies, including the Rasmussen poll below, have been focusing on the following question.
Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan?
* Favor 46%
* Oppose 37%
While this appears to be a fair question, seemingly innocuous, it is a flawed question, because it deprives those polled of the reality of the situation.
The CORRECT polling question is below. Fortunately, Rasmussen has been kind enough to ask this question.
Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?
* Favor 29%
* Oppose 58%
From the Rasmussen article
"The second question asked about the creation of a public option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Given that possibility, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.
Even if it encourages employers to drop private health insurance for their workers, 51% of Democrats still support the public option. Eighty-two percent (82%) of Republicans and 61% of voters not affiliated with either party are opposed.
The president has said that no one would be forced to change their insurance coverage if his plan is implemented. However, many analysts have concluded that some employers would drop their private health insurance coverage if the plan is passed, forcing millions of workers to change their coverage."
As I discussed in an earlier post, the public option plan has only one goal. Getting rid of private insurance altogether to replace it with a single-payer system. Don't lie, President Obama. Don't lie, Democrats. We know it's what you actually want. You are tip-toeing around the issue because you don't want us Americans to know what you're REALLY doing.
How do I know that Americans don't want what you want? Let me recopy from above!
Suppose that the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers. Workers would then be covered by the government option. Would you favor or oppose the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option if it encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers?
* Favor 29%
* Oppose 58%
29%. If you've ever thought that the Democrats are being driven to left by the most radical in their party, look no further. Here's your evidence. The Democrats are being driven to the left by 20-something percent of the American people.
Thursday, October 01, 2009
This is just stupid
Dumb
The Empire State Building is going to light itself up, celebrating the communist takeover of China.
What exactly are we celebrating? Are we celebrating the lack of freedom in China? Perhaps the mandatory lifetime, government-sponsored room and board for political dissidents? What about Mao's apathetic attitude (best case scenario) towards the death of more than ten million of Chinese peasants in the 1950s and 60s? Shall we celebrate these ideas too?
This is stupid. However, I guess we don't have a choice, since China now owns a good portion of the United States. Darn.
The Empire State Building is going to light itself up, celebrating the communist takeover of China.
What exactly are we celebrating? Are we celebrating the lack of freedom in China? Perhaps the mandatory lifetime, government-sponsored room and board for political dissidents? What about Mao's apathetic attitude (best case scenario) towards the death of more than ten million of Chinese peasants in the 1950s and 60s? Shall we celebrate these ideas too?
This is stupid. However, I guess we don't have a choice, since China now owns a good portion of the United States. Darn.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Health Care and Abortion
From the New York Times
Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.
But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.
While Congress continues to debate the health care bills that are being juggled as we speak, let’s briefly talk about how the health care bill might affect the issue of abortion.
Cutting through the crap, here’s the specific policy difference between pro-life politicians and pro-choice politicians today.
If you are pro-life, you want ZERO dollars going towards abortions. You want ZERO taxpayer monies going towards the termination of unborn children. It’s a very passionate desire, indeed.
If you pro-choice, you want lots of dollars going towards abortions. You want the government to pay for abortions. In fact, you desperately want to ensure that the public option will be able to circumvent the Hyde Amendment so that federal subsidies will go towards abortions. This too, is a very passionate desire.
However, here’s a message for all of you pro-choice folks out there. If you get your way, you KNOW that my taxpayer dollars will likely be used to fund abortions in our nation. Just don’t lie to me, and say that the "spirit" of the Hyde Amendment is still in the health care bill.
No. If you truly care about the Hyde Amendment (which you don't), put the explicit language in the bill. Of course, I know you won't.
Democratic Congressional leaders say the latest House and Senate health care bills preserve the spirit of the current ban on federal abortion financing by requiring insurers to segregate their public subsidies into separate accounts from individual premiums and co-payments. Insurers could use money only from private sources to pay for abortions.
But opponents say that is not good enough, because only a line on an insurers’ accounting ledger would divide the federal money from the payments for abortions. The subsidies would still help people afford health coverage that included abortion.
While Congress continues to debate the health care bills that are being juggled as we speak, let’s briefly talk about how the health care bill might affect the issue of abortion.
Cutting through the crap, here’s the specific policy difference between pro-life politicians and pro-choice politicians today.
If you are pro-life, you want ZERO dollars going towards abortions. You want ZERO taxpayer monies going towards the termination of unborn children. It’s a very passionate desire, indeed.
If you pro-choice, you want lots of dollars going towards abortions. You want the government to pay for abortions. In fact, you desperately want to ensure that the public option will be able to circumvent the Hyde Amendment so that federal subsidies will go towards abortions. This too, is a very passionate desire.
However, here’s a message for all of you pro-choice folks out there. If you get your way, you KNOW that my taxpayer dollars will likely be used to fund abortions in our nation. Just don’t lie to me, and say that the "spirit" of the Hyde Amendment is still in the health care bill.
No. If you truly care about the Hyde Amendment (which you don't), put the explicit language in the bill. Of course, I know you won't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
