Thune Amdt. No. 3301; To terminate authority under the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and for other purposes

I subscribe to Congress.org's MegaVote update newsletter that advises information on key votes for bills and amendments in both the house and senate and also provides information on my specific representative's votes. Today I received notice that the Thune Amendment to terminate TARP was rejected for insufficient votes; 60 yes votes were required, the final count was 53 (yes) to 45 (no). The newsletter also stated that my representatives, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA), had voted yes and no, respectively. I was so angered by Barbara Boxer's no vote and realized that she is and will always be an arrogant elitist. Madam Boxer has lost touch with her constituents, the constitution, her obligation to the people of the United States, and will stop at nothing, endangering the welfare of our entire nation along with her crony progressive liberal senators. I have emailed her regarding the Thune Amendment and suggest that everyone email their senators that also voted 'no' on the amendment. Below is the email I sent, feel free to use the same verbiage:

Madam Boxer, you must be out of your mind and too much of an elitist to understand that main street USA stops spending when they are in too much debt. Your continued spending and voting along party lines regardless of the benefit to bills and amendments I guarantee will oust you from the Senate. I, as one of main street USA's senior middle class, will make ever effort and take any measure to ensure you NEVER hold office again. Consider this your eviction notice.

President for a Day Survey

I received the following email today from American Solutions:

Following up on yesterday's email, it's clear that after Scott Brown's victory and the loss of his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, President Obama must rethink his options, and his agenda.

And the first real signal of whether or not President Obama took any definitive lessons from the Massachusetts election will be next Wednesday, when he gives his State of the Union address.

So our question for you today is, what should President Obama say next week?

The last question on the survey asked, "What do you want President Obama to speak to in his State of the Union Address?" My answer was simple and to the point:

First and foremost, Mr. Obama should advise us of his plan to resign. It should include his acknowledgment that using enhanced interrogation techniques is a better solution to questioning terrorists, he should admit his mistake in his decision to bring terrorists such as KSM for trial in a civilian court on U.S. soil, he should admit the $787 billion stimulus package did NOT save or create jobs and his plans to return any unused tax dollars, he should advise us that he is dropping his health care agenda, he should acknowledge that he erred in the auto industry take over pandering to the unions and his new plan to correct this malfeasance, and, finally, a sincere apology to the American people for his errors in judgment and agendas that are not in consonance with our constitution.

No One is Safe With Obama Care Legislation!

Watch out Federal civil service employees, you’re not safe unless you have a united and loud voice. If you’ve been sitting back, just not worried about what happens to health care because it does not affect you, read the article below regarding the amendments currently in work in the Senate and think twice. For those of you in California, Rep. Darrell Issa has been taking care of you; however, I have no faith in Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) nor Barbara Boxer (D-CA). Both Feinstein and Boxer tend to vote along party lines without regard to dissent and outcome. Also, keep in mind that Boxer will soon take everyone for a ride with the Cap and Trade green legislation she is 'marking-up' in the Senate. If you don’t do something now, you have no one to blame but yourselves for not getting involved. Write to your congressmen/women and voice your opinions:

Contact Senator Dianne Feinstein

Contact Senator Barbara Boxer

Contact Representative Darrell Issa

If you are not a resident of California or live in counties other than Riverside and/or San Diego, you can find your local congressmen/women on the internet or voice your discontent at www.Congress.Org; just input your zip code, then click on the word ‘federal’ under the blue box titled “write your elected officials.”

You can also use the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) web site to voice your assent/dissent. The preprinted text can be changed to suit your comments or personalize your message to your specific representatives.

Don’t sit back and watch things happen, get involved in your future.

Proposal would end federal health benefits plan
By Alex M. Parker aparker@govexec.com September 23, 2009

Several of the more than 500 amendments the Senate Finance Committee is facing as it begins a marathon markup of health care reform legislation would affect public servants' health coverage -- and one would end the federal government's health insurance program.

The provision, offered by ranking member Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would force civil servants to leave the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and purchase insurance through the state-based health exchanges that are a centerpiece of the health reform bill. Employees would move to the exchanges beginning in 2013.

The idea behind the amendment is "to require that elected officials and federal employees purchase insurance in the same manner proposed in the [bill] for private citizens," according to a summary on the Finance Committee's Web site.

Representatives from Grassley's office did not return calls for comment.

Daniel Adcock, legislative director for the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, said his organization would oppose such an amendment. He noted the proposal could be designed to damage the overall bill's chances of passage. "It may be a way to drive a point home -- if the exchange system is good enough for the public, then it should be good enough for federal employees," Adcock said.

Another proposed amendment, sponsored by Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., would allow some members of the general public to purchase FEHBP benefits. Qualifying citizens would join the same risk pool as federal employees, which could result in increased premiums for current enrollees, Adcock said. He added that NARFE would support the idea only if enrollees from outside the government were placed in a separate risk pool.

The Finance Committee began considering amendments on Tuesday; Chairman Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., is aiming to complete the markup by the end of the week.

Full text: www.govexec.com

Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

I received an email today from David Axelrod regarding the "vigorous debate about health insurance reform." He goes on to say "some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions." He stated that they have launched a website--"realitycheck" to dispel the "rumors and lies," as he calls them. In that same website is another link "we want to hear from you" that provides access for anyone to submit "questions about health insurance reform or suggestions on what topics they should address next." I did provide some input and here's what I wrote and asked:

Try telling the truth more often. You neglect to address the unsustainable costs for this ridiculous health care bill. No one in the white house, not even Obama, has enough experience with Senate and House bills and the language included to know IT STINKS. If the bill is approved, the language contained will be subject to re-interpretation by others to enact and WILL end up with possible detrimental policies to seniors and those less than perfect citizens of our country. It is a fact that Mr. Obama campaigned during most of his Senate career and was not in the Senate long enough to truly learn the processes associated with bill enactment. It is also evident by the responses during his "campaign" style town halls (with the hand selected audiences) that Mr. Obama has not read the bill in its entirety yet nor translated it into outcomes. Contrary to his representation of the bill as health insurance reform, it is nothing more than adding to an existing bad system. If much needed reform is to take place, enact the reforms that the CEO of Whole Foods discusses in his article "The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare." Start with these real reforms first to see health care costs drop. The bill as written by the House does NOT include these REAL reforms. Mr. Obama, address these real reform suggestions at you next town hall.

Corrupt Senate Members

I received the Jim Hill letter below via email for the third time today. I don’t even know if this is a factual letter or not, but I thought I’d blog it anyway because it reflects my sentiments towards Barbara Boxer (D-CA) as well. It also doesn’t hurt to keep reminding Americans what an arrogant elitist prig (Barbara Boxer) we have in the Senate. By the way, she is the chairman of the Senate Ethics Committee that now says Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad did not do anything wrong with the sweetheart mortgage deals they got from Countrywide (Friends of Angelo). If I remember correctly during our ethics training at work, we could never accept anything from contractors or commercial entities that would give even the slightest appearance of a conflict of interest or possible ethics violation; we couldn’t take anything over a cost of $5.00. And they, senators Conrad and Dodd, got thousands of dollars resulting from mortgages with lower interest and points.

This has got to be the most immoral and corrupt Senate ever; and the unconscionable thought is these elected officials have access to trillions of our tax dollars and make decisions that affect our livelihood. Obama is right, it is time for change, just not the kind he thinks. It is time to oust those corrupt people from office, and I’m non-partisan, it doesn’t matter if they are democrat, republican, or independent. Those of us in California can start with Boxer in November 2010. There are currently two other possible candidates out there, so you have a choice. The two are Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore. There is no web site set up for Fiorina at this time; however, a Rasmussen survey reports a possible close race against Boxer, Rasmussen Survey. As for Chuck DeVore, he has formally thrown his hat in the race, you can view his profile on-line at his website Chuck DeVore for U.S. Senate. We Californians have choices; you decide, just don’t let it be Boxer.

Jim Hill's Letter to Barbara Boxer

Some of us witnessed the arrogance of Barbara Boxer (CA) as she admonished a brigadier general because he addressed her as "ma'am" and not "Senator" before a Senate hearing. This letter is from a National Guard aviator and Captain for Alaska Airlines. I wonder what he would have said if he were really angry. Long fly Alaska !!!!!

You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator". After all, in the military, "ma'am" is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position. The general was totally wrong.. You are not a person of superior rank or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of Representatives.

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors, drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?
Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank check, offering his life to protect your derriere, now safely and comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing stock of the nation.

What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44 cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize that politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that person is. Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your colleagues, "Mr. Power" has had his way with all of you, and we are all the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a fine day. Cheers!

Jim Hill

The Healthcare Debate Goes On

This is my most recent email to Barbara Boxer (D-CA), posted on July 25th, in her "Join the Healtcare Debate" web page. Unfortunately, I personally think it will be trashed because it does not follow her very liberal and wasteful spending views.

I like and am very satisfied with my insurance coverage. I don't want any changes to it nor do I want a public/government run health care program that WILL inevitably create an unsustainable deficit, increase our taxes, CROWD OUT PRIVATE INSURERS FROM THE MARKET, encourage employers to stop providing coverage because it would be cheaper to pay the penalty than to provide private insurance, and quite possibly will lure employees from private insurance to the cheaper government option. A public option will make it even more difficult for many of us who already pay for private insurance to keep that insurance, which as your should know (with your Cadillac health care plan), provides far better benefits and less interference by a bureaucratic paper pusher than a government run public plan would do. A public plan would also inevitably lead to health care rationing in order to keep costs down, lead to someone other than the insured or family members making life and death decisions, and pay for unnecessary procedures such as abortion, which pro-life taxpayers DO NOT support unless a mother's life is at risk. We are a democratic nation but our voices are being ignored and drowned out by politicians making decisions that will only benefit the small minority of people in the uninsured category. You put at risk millions of peoples' current insurance coverage to cover a few (in comparison to the hundreds of millions that do have coverage) that do not have insurance, which by the way includes illegal immigrants and those that can afford their own insurance but choose not to obtain or opt out. Why do you act irrationally when there are other ways to achieve healthcare reform that do not put the majority of insured at risk or do not cost taxpayers or businesses trillions of tax dollars your current plans will incur? You could make changes to tort reform so mal-practice insurance cost for doctors can be lowered; you could change laws to allow small businesses to reach out of state for employees health insurance at a lower and more competitive cost; you could offer a capped refundable tax credit or a debit card system for basic health care to the uninsured; the government could compete and obtain contracts with over 1000 private health insurance companies to get the best price for insuring the true 20 million uninsured people (not including illegal aliens, those that qualify under MediCare, Medicaid, SCHIP or other current program, and those that can afford insurance). You are not rationalizing the effect of your legislation; you cannot see the forest for the trees.

Please vote smartly, not like you did on the stimulus plan. Thoroughly read and review the current plans and discuss all alternatives before making any decisions. And DO discuss all new recommendations and amendments in the Senate and the House--there ARE many better ideas out there that you have obviously rejected by voting down party lines. Stop this irrational and irresponsible behavior of voting down party lines and your grandstanding (I’ve seen you do this on C-Span) and consider our current economic health, the predictable ramifications of a public insurance option on our great private insurance system, and do not levy a burdensome tax to already strained wages and businesses that are struggling to survive and keep our economy going. Stop the incessant direction toward socializing our nation; this is not what our forefathers intended for our nation.

Civil Discourse Needed

I know what you’re all thinking, here she goes again with the political conservative ranting. But after reading the article by Clyde Middleton, I also have the same questions. As he expresses in the article, the answer “I won” just isn’t an appropriate solution to the perceived or actual outcome that may result from legislation being forced on many of us. Our elected officials should be having some civil discourse regarding the ramifications of their legislation, especially as it relates to our deteriorating economy. Below is a brief section I’m quoting from Mr. Middleton’s article, but, if you can, please take the time to read the entire article by Mr. Middleton, entitled "Liberals, libtards, and a proffered solution," at Examiner.com. And, please don’t just think, ‘here we go again, a typical conservative.’ To me, as with Mr. Middleton, it is more of a “look, I’m not dumping on you. I just don’t get it. I don’t understand why you won’t sit at the table and openly discuss these things.”

“For any liberal or libtard reading, explain to me why Obama can run deficits dwarfing W’s, yet W was an out-of-control spender. Explain to me why W’s “surge” in Iraq was bad, yet Obama’s “surge” in Afghanistan is good. Explain to me why you all screamed at W’s “overseas secret prisons for terrorists” yet are silent now that Obama said he will keep them open and functioning. Explain to me why 45 million “uninsured” is actually 6 million, yet you don’t correct him. Explain to me why the icecaps on Mars have receded and grown in sync with those on Earth, yet the “problem” here in man-made. Explain to me how you are going to pay the $1,000 annual fine for not accepting Obama’s health insurance. Explain to me how you will deal with your parent or child in pain as they lay dying because drug therapy has been rationed in precisely the same fashion it is rationed in every single socialized-medical system in use today. Explain to me how you can complain about Medicare and Medicaid today, yet it’s perfectly fine for Obama to expand those poorly functioning programs to every American. Explain to me why it is such a big deal to require someone that wants to vote being required to present a photo ID first. Explain to me why I have to produce a birth certificate to get a driver’s license, but Obama doesn’t have to produce one to be POTUS. Explain to me your feelings about having to buy your food from a grocery instead of the local farmer because the latest bill going through Congress will create such compliance problems that small farmers will not have the money to comply. Explain to me, on that same note, why we don’t respect religion by requiring that every farmer – the Amish included – be required to file all of those farm-compliance documents electronically. Explain to me why it doesn’t bother you that the Waxman-Markey bill will require you to upgrade your home to federally dictated energy standards before you can sell it. Explain to me why it doesn’t bother you that the federal government is going to make it a crime for putting more than 60 watts cumulative in your chandelier. And if any of these specifics are unfamiliar to you, then explain THAT to me.”