Crushers, Feeders, Conveyors, and More

Magazines.com, Inc.


Thursday, March 18, 2010

Rep. Perlmutter, Are You Listening?

This is the email I just sent to Ed Perlmutter.

I wanted to let you know that I, along with many of your constituents, oppose both this current version of health care reform and the maneuvers being used to push it through. This is not what democracy--even a representative democracy--should look like.

While I do support responsible health care reform, this is not the way to achieve that goal.

I pledge to you this: I will not vote for any elected official who votes for this health care reform bill.

Thank you.

I have no idea how many of these things they read. I have no idea if they are truly listening, but I do hope that our representatives are listening. While I know that many of my friends occupy the opposite political space on health care reform, and I hope that they are playing their part in our system, but I hope like hell that this thing dies.

For some of the reasons why, read this.

Comments & Trackbacks
The trackback URL for this entry is:

David I love you (really, you know that), but you weren’t going to vote for him anyway.

I can tell you they read every letter though. It might take them months given the volume they are getting, but they do all get read. And if they’re not form letters, they’ll generally respond as well. But it might take months like I say.

What that Spectator post fails to note is the second ten years. It reduces the deficit by $1.2 trillion.

It’s not budget gimmickry, it’s logistical reality. It will take a few years to set up these exchanges and implement the insurance reforms. That’s why most of the spending starts in 4 years, because most of the action starts in 4 years.

With all due respect to my friends on the right of center, it’s not logical to argue that this thing was rushed and then complain that it doesn’t take effect for a really long time. Much of the actual reform is not legislative, it will be rulemaking. And that takes years, so all parties can have their input.

on Mar 18 2010 @ 01:39 PM

I would vote for a Democrat under the right circumstances--although, given how much I like Ryan Frazier, the likelihood of me voting Perlmutter is pretty freakin’ small.

A few things: do you think that the state costs are going to rise or fall? Do you really trust any government program to work as advertised and to not run into cost issues (because I have yet to see that government program on any large scale)?

I’m sure that, if you were being completely candid, you see this as a stepping stone to what you really want to see (and correct me if I’m wrong; I’ll apologize wildly): a single payer system run by the government. To that end, I think that you would be willing to see an extremely flawed bill that will take you closer to your goal.

For me, there is almost nothing in the bill that gets me closer to my goal and much that works in complete opposition to my beliefs about the place of government in our lives and in our businesses. Even more, I know that quite a few of the people who are pushing this view it the way that I think you do--and that ultimate goal is entirely opposed to my political beliefs. You say that all parties can have their say and I suppose that’s true; but for people on my side, having our way would mean not having this bill or the attendant increase in Federal government involvement in health care.

I’m a big fan of compromise in a general sense. I think that on many issues, common ground and common purpose can be found. This isn’t one of those issues: our view of what good health care reform would involve are so divergent that finding common ground is damned near impossible and common purpose is so abstract as to be meaningless.

So, you’ll fight like hell for your view and I’ll fight like hell for mine and we’ll see what happens. Your faith in government to not screw this up is much greater than mine, though.

on Mar 18 2010 @ 02:03 PM

You should be pretty happy, though. Markey moved to a yes vote--good for your side.

on Mar 18 2010 @ 02:08 PM

Okay, I won’t argue that it’s been rushed. I’ll argue that there is no authority in the U.S. Constitution for federal power of this type. That should be the only argument necessary to have nipped this in the bud ... well, actually going back at least as far as FDR.

MR. GURA: Justice Sotomayor, States may have grown accustomed to violating the rights of American citizens, but that does not bootstrap those violations into something that is constitutional.—(McDonald v. Chicago; USSC)

The same holds true for the federal government, and it’s ongoing presumption of powers beyond those granted in the U.S. Constitution. Anyone can read the commentaries of men such as James Madison as to those limits. It’s unfortunate that apparently nobody, not even SCOTUS justices, deems them to be worth the ink, to say nothing of the blood, that went into being able to write them.

And I don’t give a flying fuck if this ‘deeming’ procedure has been used before. These words have meaning.

Sorry to be blunt, Michael, but anyone who thinks that vastly expanding the role of the federal government will result in massive deficit reduction is just huffing Krylon.

on Mar 18 2010 @ 03:17 PM

The CBO numbers for the first ten years are a fraud in themselves, given the assumptions that the CBO was forced to make which everyone knows are jokes.

The idea that the second ten years will see budget deficit reductions is completely laughable.  That is just more fraud.

This bill will take an existing financial disaster that is the federal budget, and turn it into a real catastrophe that will impact the entire nation’s standard of living for generations.

on Mar 18 2010 @ 04:32 PM

My letter to my congressman (Polis) mirrored the letter I sent to our senators. I said that if they voted for a bill that they had obviously neither read nor understood, which is pretty much a given because of its size and the schedule, I considered them to have abandoned their duties as my representatives.

The one to Polis additionally stated that if he voted to “deem” the Senate’s bill to have been passed, I considered him in violation of his oath of office. When I received my commission in the Navy, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. I consider anyone in Congress who votes to implement legislation without requiring an explicit vote on it to be a domestic enemy of the Constitution.

on Mar 18 2010 @ 08:12 PM

Ed Perlmutter is one of the biggest party hacks in Washington today. Bought and paid for. He could care less about his constituents. It’s all about the big D party for Ed. But the little bird becomes known by the color of his feathers and I’m thinking that Ed is currently serving his final term. Let’s just hope the damage he does between now and then can be limited somehow.

I am deeply ashamed that the likes of Ed Perlmutter represents District 7 in Washington.

on Mar 19 2010 @ 02:28 PM
Post a Comment
© 2005 by the authors of ResurrectionSong. All rights reserved.
Powered by ExpressionEngine