Tyranny At The Doorstep
The acts of our country’s leaders today show just how power hungry politicians are. The so called health care summit was a farce. It was a ploy by the party in control to continue ramming through the program they want while pretending that the debate was an exercise in bi-partisanship. All the while the majority of Americans are against the planned takeover of the health care system by the government. Add to that the comment of Senator Dodd prior to the summit.
Wednesday, on Capitol Hill, the statements of two leaders illustrated the chasm between the parties.
“We’ll have that meeting,” said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., who helped write the Senate bill. “But far more important, after that meeting, you can either join us or get out of the way.”
I realize that a tyrant is an individual, but comments like that put the party on the edge of being tyrannical.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.
2. the government or rule of a tyrant or absolute ruler.
3. a state ruled by a tyrant or absolute ruler.
4. oppressive or unjustly severe government on the part of any ruler.
5. undue severity or harshness.
6. a tyrannical act or proceeding.
No matter the party, no matter the year, that definition seems to apply more and more to the federal government. With the recent bailouts, TARP, auto industry “take over” and now the health care industry and insurance industry revamping, this label is gaining a fairly strong foothold.
As for bi-partisanship, Senator McConnell doesn’t hold out much hope.
“I think it’s nearly impossible to imagine a scenario under which we could reach an agreement,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. “Because we don’t think we ought to pass a 2,700-page bill that seeks to restructure one-sixth of our economy.”
“It’s hard to imagine what the purpose of Thursday’s summit is,” he had said earlier. “If the White House wants real bipartisanship, then it needs to drop the proposal it posted Monday – which is no different in its essentials than anything we’ve seen before – and start over.”
Does this sound like tyranny or working together?
By Philip Klein on 2.25.10 @ 12:24PM
After Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell noted that Democrats’ opening statements had lasted twice as long as Republicans, President Obama responded that his time shouldn’t count in the calculation.
“There was an imbalance in the opening statements, because I’m the President,” Obama declared. “And I didn’t count my time in terms of dividing it evenly.”
Then there is the White House blog.
A Productive Day & Another Step Towards Putting Americans in Charge of Their Health Care
Posted by Dan Pfeiffer on February 25, 2010 at 07:32 PM EST
I am in charge of my health care. So is everyone else. We all make choices on how to spend our money. We determine whether it is spent on a fancier car, large flat screen television or health insurance. If people don’t want to go to the doctor, they don’t have to. If people don’t want to spend their money on insurance, they don’t have to. Not at the present time, anyhow. Reports are that under the new plan, everyone either buys into the program or gets taxed. Either way, you will pay. Nobody gets refused at the emergency room, and although it is not a good system economically, the whole system doesn’t need to be government run.
Anyhow, the official spin blog hails the summit as the great bi-partisan debate.
Today’s bipartisan health care meeting offered something you rarely see in Washington: an open, honest, productive discussion between the political parties. Leaders from across the political spectrum gathered at Blair House to exchange thoughts about an issue that touches all of us: rising health costs and unfair insurance company practices.
The President doesn’t view today’s meeting as a campaign debate or piece of theater – and he didn’t approach it as if it were scored like an Olympic event. The President went to Blair House focused on the substance – not the process – and he left the meeting focused on substance: how we put the American people in control of their own health care.
The government taking control is not putting me in control. I believe more people are waking up to the fact that our government can’t afford all these programs. They are also waking up to the fact that government can be too big. Witness how the government currently ignores the majority that is against this proposal.
The next thing to happen will be the Senate leadership using this summit as an example of the minority party saying nothing but “no” without proposing any valid alternatives. They will be sure to proclaim how hard they tried to work in a bi-partisan manner, but the other party just wouldn’t cooperate. They will go on to say that it only shows what an impasse exists, and that for the good of the country, the Senate will need to go to their rules for reconciliation.
Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 by
which Congress implements budget resolution policies affecting mainly permanent
spending and revenue programs. The principal focus in the reconciliation process has
been deficit reduction, but in some years reconciliation has involved revenue
reduction generally and spending increases in selected areas. Although reconciliation
is an optional procedure, it has been used most years since its first use in 1980 (19
reconciliation bills have been enacted into law and three have been vetoed).
This Congress and President want this legislation so badly that they will leave no stone unturned in their efforts to find a way to implement new law. Beware the words, “for the good of the people” or any variation thereof. Also watch for the stretching, changing, or breaking of rules to the cries of “foul” by the minority party. When you see this happen, break out those Y2K supplies and head for the hills.