Health care legislation will be passed, and no matter the GOP will not sign
on, once the law in enacted, the American people will be subservient to a
new Federal bureaucracy.
Some GOP members will be "pleased" with some of what is in the bill, and
complain about cost, and new taxes, but that will be that.
The party will be optimistic about the upcoming election and their chance to
regain the majority. But, even if they do so what?
The GOP from the beginning failed to provide solutions to the 3-4 problems
facing the poor and the uninsured. They allowed the Dems to dust off this
huge bill, which sat in Congress waiting for the next Dem president! No one
can convince me the GOP was blind-sided. They know how legislation
works, and do it themselves.
And with the election of President Obama...BAM we are hit with it.
Most Americans against this bill have been frustrated by the lack of
leadership by the party leaders! Perhaps they have stayed on too long. The
true "leaders"have been the people who have gone to town halls and made
their voices heard.
The GOP is poor at marketing their ideas, just ask President Bush who
could not drill for oil, or improve Social Security....with the MAJORITY. It
is sad but comical he was able to get through Congress were huge
spending on education and prescription drugs!
--
Stay well,
Tony
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The American people
The American people are usually quiet and allow their representatives
to administer governance. But, over the years legislators have garnered
more control over their lives, often to the point of not representing their
interests, but partisan self-interests.
It is time the American people put on the brakes, reverse many of the
injustices they allow their representatives to impose on them.
Here is a compilation of what can be done to weaken our legislators to
the point where they once again work for the people who sent them to
Washington.
In no particular order, let me begin...
First, overhaul the current process of electing the Congress, which includes
the ability of Congress itself determining the rules in which they are elected,
their terms, salaries and benefits.
Alternative: Each state will determine terms of offices, and other elements
of their service.
Reform campaign financing.
ONLY individuals will be allowed to contribute to political campaigns
No legislation written by special interests
No legislation voted on without being read.
No legislation which favors some states, citizens over others.
No legislation which mandates what citizens must do.
No legislation that taxes some citizens and benefits others.
No weakening existing health services (Medicare/Medicaid) to benefit
special interests.
The grass roots, come to be know as the Tea Party, often disparaged as
'tea baggers', were the reason Brown was elected,which he acknowledged
in his acceptance speech.
No matter which party is in the majority, this vote should be a reminder of
WHY elected officials were sent to represent the American people....
Hopefully, what occurred in Massachusetts will be a long lasting reminder
of what the Brown election confirms, the American people should drive
legislation... NOT any party or president.
to administer governance. But, over the years legislators have garnered
more control over their lives, often to the point of not representing their
interests, but partisan self-interests.
It is time the American people put on the brakes, reverse many of the
injustices they allow their representatives to impose on them.
Here is a compilation of what can be done to weaken our legislators to
the point where they once again work for the people who sent them to
Washington.
In no particular order, let me begin...
First, overhaul the current process of electing the Congress, which includes
the ability of Congress itself determining the rules in which they are elected,
their terms, salaries and benefits.
Alternative: Each state will determine terms of offices, and other elements
of their service.
Reform campaign financing.
ONLY individuals will be allowed to contribute to political campaigns
No legislation written by special interests
No legislation voted on without being read.
No legislation which favors some states, citizens over others.
No legislation which mandates what citizens must do.
No legislation that taxes some citizens and benefits others.
No weakening existing health services (Medicare/Medicaid) to benefit
special interests.
The grass roots, come to be know as the Tea Party, often disparaged as
'tea baggers', were the reason Brown was elected,which he acknowledged
in his acceptance speech.
No matter which party is in the majority, this vote should be a reminder of
WHY elected officials were sent to represent the American people....
Hopefully, what occurred in Massachusetts will be a long lasting reminder
of what the Brown election confirms, the American people should drive
legislation... NOT any party or president.
The Candidate who we elected
As a candidate Barack Obama. troubled me. His words opened a window
for all to see his world view. They told us his thinking was socialistic then
free market. Also, his troubling words, of distributing wealth to "rightful
owners" or people "clinging to their guns and religion" to name but two
were equaling troubling.
Such statements were surprising from a candidate seeking to gain favor
with an electorate. Its as though he had no understanding what a negative
impression they would convey. Yet, he made them, which told voters more
about his view of governance and the American people than most of the
high-flowing rhetoric used to capture an audience.
Aside from such comments Obama was the weakest on experience; His opponents
were more experienced senators, representatives and governors But, elections are
won on celebrity rather than experience(thanks to the under-educated electorate)
our country will rarely get the person
to lead us.
But, based on his campaign I am not surprised. With Obama we now see the
acceleration in unaccountable spending with little concern of what it is doing to the dollar
or our ability to continue borrowing.
I believe Obama is not being well-served by Congress. Both climate change
and health were written year back, waiting for a Democrat to do their biding.
He fails to stand up to the leadership (10K earmarks he signed, although he
campaigned against) and being saddled by whatever Congress is pushing.
He had nothing to do with either bill, but is beholden to traditional
Democratic groups, unions, NEA, etc, all interested in their gains rather
than a robust economy required to allow them to feed at the public trough.
McCain was not my choice. I believed Romney had the wealth of
understanding of the economy (something sorely missing) and also much
more executive experience than anyone running.
As to our nation...the problems which concern you concern me too. We
are governed by a Congress and Administration (no matter which party
is in the majority) who believe an ever growing Federal government is best
for our nation.
I find two things very disappointing, members of the House and Senate are
more inclined to "represent'" the Federal government than the people who
employ them, and second, state governments seem little interested in
retaining their own sovereignty. (Guess it began with the electing of
senators rather than them being named by state legislatures, which
would be restored with the repeal of the 17th Amendment)
I believe our nation is at a serious cross roads. We are evolving into
a people no longer self reliant, eager to allow government to become
dominant in our lives. (Which I sincerely belief those in the halls of power
welcome)
We are also be becoming a nation where the majority, who will drive
policies, are the least educated, driven by self-interests with little under-
standing of the long term costs of decisions our elected officials make.
What I believe will occur is the gradual (if we are lucky) erosion of our
free market driven economy, failing to grow as it is needed to support
310 million people residing in our nation. I believe we will remain a
$10-12 trillion economy, not rising to the $20 trillion which will be
required to meet the ambitious programs being rushed into law.
Not only will we be weakened economically, but the poorest of nations
dependent on us will feel the effects of a America no longer able to meet
our moral commitment we historically we have made for over one half a
century. And, worse, no other country will step in to aid them, without a
selfish motive (such as we are seeing in Iran and North Korea)
I hope to capsulize within a blog a true American Manifesto, describing
what I believe must be done to reverse the path we are on.
Stay well,
Anthony Bruno
Cary, NC
for all to see his world view. They told us his thinking was socialistic then
free market. Also, his troubling words, of distributing wealth to "rightful
owners" or people "clinging to their guns and religion" to name but two
were equaling troubling.
Such statements were surprising from a candidate seeking to gain favor
with an electorate. Its as though he had no understanding what a negative
impression they would convey. Yet, he made them, which told voters more
about his view of governance and the American people than most of the
high-flowing rhetoric used to capture an audience.
Aside from such comments Obama was the weakest on experience; His opponents
were more experienced senators, representatives and governors But, elections are
won on celebrity rather than experience(thanks to the under-educated electorate)
our country will rarely get the person
to lead us.
But, based on his campaign I am not surprised. With Obama we now see the
acceleration in unaccountable spending with little concern of what it is doing to the dollar
or our ability to continue borrowing.
I believe Obama is not being well-served by Congress. Both climate change
and health were written year back, waiting for a Democrat to do their biding.
He fails to stand up to the leadership (10K earmarks he signed, although he
campaigned against) and being saddled by whatever Congress is pushing.
He had nothing to do with either bill, but is beholden to traditional
Democratic groups, unions, NEA, etc, all interested in their gains rather
than a robust economy required to allow them to feed at the public trough.
McCain was not my choice. I believed Romney had the wealth of
understanding of the economy (something sorely missing) and also much
more executive experience than anyone running.
As to our nation...the problems which concern you concern me too. We
are governed by a Congress and Administration (no matter which party
is in the majority) who believe an ever growing Federal government is best
for our nation.
I find two things very disappointing, members of the House and Senate are
more inclined to "represent'" the Federal government than the people who
employ them, and second, state governments seem little interested in
retaining their own sovereignty. (Guess it began with the electing of
senators rather than them being named by state legislatures, which
would be restored with the repeal of the 17th Amendment)
I believe our nation is at a serious cross roads. We are evolving into
a people no longer self reliant, eager to allow government to become
dominant in our lives. (Which I sincerely belief those in the halls of power
welcome)
We are also be becoming a nation where the majority, who will drive
policies, are the least educated, driven by self-interests with little under-
standing of the long term costs of decisions our elected officials make.
What I believe will occur is the gradual (if we are lucky) erosion of our
free market driven economy, failing to grow as it is needed to support
310 million people residing in our nation. I believe we will remain a
$10-12 trillion economy, not rising to the $20 trillion which will be
required to meet the ambitious programs being rushed into law.
Not only will we be weakened economically, but the poorest of nations
dependent on us will feel the effects of a America no longer able to meet
our moral commitment we historically we have made for over one half a
century. And, worse, no other country will step in to aid them, without a
selfish motive (such as we are seeing in Iran and North Korea)
I hope to capsulize within a blog a true American Manifesto, describing
what I believe must be done to reverse the path we are on.
Stay well,
Anthony Bruno
Cary, NC
Diversity is crap
Its hard to find anyone opposed to diversity. As Rodney King once said,
"Can't we all get along?" Who could be against each of us living side by
side with others of different races, faiths or beliefs?
But, what has occurred is the "politicization" of diversity along with the
environment, health care and a myriad of other issues capturing our attention.
However, this politicization of diversity has at it roots the political power
which comes along with government intrusion, something all of us should
be concerned about.
Locally, we have seen a backlash against the attempt by the Wake Board
of Education to use the public's school buses to ensure schools are "diverse".
No matter the parents desire to live is a neighborhood near the school of
THEIR choice, the former board's majority decided otherwise. And, they felt
the sting of the voters resentment!
Not reversing this trend to diversify Wake's school would only ensure our
county would be the same path that major urban cities have traveled for decades.
Not unlike moving the deck chairs on the Titanic, moving children to different
schools does not improve the quality at poor performing schools, it masks
this problem with the averaging of student performance throughout the district.
"Can't we all get along?" Who could be against each of us living side by
side with others of different races, faiths or beliefs?
But, what has occurred is the "politicization" of diversity along with the
environment, health care and a myriad of other issues capturing our attention.
However, this politicization of diversity has at it roots the political power
which comes along with government intrusion, something all of us should
be concerned about.
Locally, we have seen a backlash against the attempt by the Wake Board
of Education to use the public's school buses to ensure schools are "diverse".
No matter the parents desire to live is a neighborhood near the school of
THEIR choice, the former board's majority decided otherwise. And, they felt
the sting of the voters resentment!
Not reversing this trend to diversify Wake's school would only ensure our
county would be the same path that major urban cities have traveled for decades.
Not unlike moving the deck chairs on the Titanic, moving children to different
schools does not improve the quality at poor performing schools, it masks
this problem with the averaging of student performance throughout the district.
Supreme Court...Holder act
One of the discussions after the State of the Union centered on the
president's criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision which will
now allow corporations to run adds nearer to election day.
The president's direct criticism of the court's decision, which he incorrectly
stated foreign companies will now be allowed to run ads (refuted by the
reaction of Justice Alito) brought understandable partisan reactions as both
sides were split on this.
But, something occurred after the president made this remark which was
not reported. Members of Congress in agreement stood and applauded,
which is understandable, as they are partisans.
However, the media missed what Attorney General Eric Holder did. He
too, stood and applauded. As the chief law enforcement officer of our
nation Mr. Holder should not join politicians in a partisan display. He has
the right to respond, but in a different venue, logically at the Justice Dept,
not in the Capitol.
Such displays clearly blur the lines between politics and the rule of law,
reduces the public's respect for the position of the Attorney General, or at
least in this instance, Mr Holder.
Regards,
Anthony Bruno
107 Landser Ct.
Cary, NC 27519
991 481-4538
president's criticism of the recent Supreme Court decision which will
now allow corporations to run adds nearer to election day.
The president's direct criticism of the court's decision, which he incorrectly
stated foreign companies will now be allowed to run ads (refuted by the
reaction of Justice Alito) brought understandable partisan reactions as both
sides were split on this.
But, something occurred after the president made this remark which was
not reported. Members of Congress in agreement stood and applauded,
which is understandable, as they are partisans.
However, the media missed what Attorney General Eric Holder did. He
too, stood and applauded. As the chief law enforcement officer of our
nation Mr. Holder should not join politicians in a partisan display. He has
the right to respond, but in a different venue, logically at the Justice Dept,
not in the Capitol.
Such displays clearly blur the lines between politics and the rule of law,
reduces the public's respect for the position of the Attorney General, or at
least in this instance, Mr Holder.
Regards,
Anthony Bruno
107 Landser Ct.
Cary, NC 27519
991 481-4538
Email to GOP Leadership
GOP House leadership,
After watching the meeting with the president I was prompted to share my
thoughts. It was nice to observe the give and take, something rare between
political adversaries.
Each of you is a representative I would eagerly endorse, for many of the
initiatives you have put forward would strengthen our nation which in turn
would benefit the American people.
But, I do take exception with some of the rhetoric coming from both parties
which was discussed, namely, inside Washington talk of earmarks and
lobbyists.
For years the American people have been led to believe earmarks and
lobbyists are bad for they weaken the legislative process. (Note: Nothing
weakens the process more than how the current health care bill came into
being)
Historically, politicians have used this "tactic" to divert the American
people's attention from the more important, poisonous legislative process
which has failed. What is needed is meaningful and significant changes
which will ensure our representatives legislate in the people's best interests.
Yet rather than eliminate them entirely, which Congress refuses to do,
BOTH parties prefer to only tweak the rules, assuring they will be
continued, and used as fodder in future political discussions.
Personally, I believe earmarks and lobbyists are valuable, to the states
and districts that benefit and constituencies wanting to have their views
aired.
What needs to be done is change the legislative process; by restricting the
size of legislation,guaranteeing members and staffs write it, read it, and
present it to the public before voting.
Additionally, legislation must be clear and crisp so the American people
can be assured internal bureaucracies are not empowered to interpret and
enforce new laws and regulations which is a major concern of anyone who
has taken the time to read the health care reform bill.
Lastly, the American people need to see meaningful belt tightening. We
have seen the abuses of the current Congress, and what needs to be done
is to address them. Eliminate the insulting (to taxpayers) manner in which
Congress increases their own salaries, reduce non-essential expenses,
restrict travel, especially abroad, eliminate redundant, overlapping
committees, which also translates to reducing staffs.
Such changes would be a huge, first step for Congress to show the
American people that they get it!
Much success,
Anthony Bruno
107 Landser Ct.
Cary, NC 27519
919 481-4538
After watching the meeting with the president I was prompted to share my
thoughts. It was nice to observe the give and take, something rare between
political adversaries.
Each of you is a representative I would eagerly endorse, for many of the
initiatives you have put forward would strengthen our nation which in turn
would benefit the American people.
But, I do take exception with some of the rhetoric coming from both parties
which was discussed, namely, inside Washington talk of earmarks and
lobbyists.
For years the American people have been led to believe earmarks and
lobbyists are bad for they weaken the legislative process. (Note: Nothing
weakens the process more than how the current health care bill came into
being)
Historically, politicians have used this "tactic" to divert the American
people's attention from the more important, poisonous legislative process
which has failed. What is needed is meaningful and significant changes
which will ensure our representatives legislate in the people's best interests.
Yet rather than eliminate them entirely, which Congress refuses to do,
BOTH parties prefer to only tweak the rules, assuring they will be
continued, and used as fodder in future political discussions.
Personally, I believe earmarks and lobbyists are valuable, to the states
and districts that benefit and constituencies wanting to have their views
aired.
What needs to be done is change the legislative process; by restricting the
size of legislation,guaranteeing members and staffs write it, read it, and
present it to the public before voting.
Additionally, legislation must be clear and crisp so the American people
can be assured internal bureaucracies are not empowered to interpret and
enforce new laws and regulations which is a major concern of anyone who
has taken the time to read the health care reform bill.
Lastly, the American people need to see meaningful belt tightening. We
have seen the abuses of the current Congress, and what needs to be done
is to address them. Eliminate the insulting (to taxpayers) manner in which
Congress increases their own salaries, reduce non-essential expenses,
restrict travel, especially abroad, eliminate redundant, overlapping
committees, which also translates to reducing staffs.
Such changes would be a huge, first step for Congress to show the
American people that they get it!
Much success,
Anthony Bruno
107 Landser Ct.
Cary, NC 27519
919 481-4538
Supreme Court on Corporate Ads
Our local paper was critical of court ruling on corporation ad during political
campaign, which fired up my gray matter.
Latest offering.....
I was not surprised in Steve Ford's column he is in agreement with the
president and his party over last week's Court ruling on corporate ads.
The News and Observer enjoys the protection of the First Amendment yet
believe corporations should not have the same rights.
Using Ford's (and many in Congress) logic, its OK for politicians and the
media to bash "Big This" and Big That", but not allow them to respond.
Its OK for these companies to suffer whatever negative charges, true of
otherwise, are leveled at them, including on the editorial pages, but required
to remain silent in the public arena, not allowed to defend themselves, with
advocacy ads.
It appears it would not concern Ford to see such attacks lead to lower
stock prices, sales, revenue, and profits, leading to weakening businesses
or perhaps entire industries, costing of thousands of jobs and impacting
communities dependent on these companies.
But, the Court came down on the side of free speech, which said this right
can not be limited self-serving political and editorial page class, and not others.
So, we can now say, as most Liberals like to do, this is now "settled law."
Regards,
Anthony Bruno
107 Lander Ct.
Cary, NC 27519
919 481-4538
campaign, which fired up my gray matter.
Latest offering.....
I was not surprised in Steve Ford's column he is in agreement with the
president and his party over last week's Court ruling on corporate ads.
The News and Observer enjoys the protection of the First Amendment yet
believe corporations should not have the same rights.
Using Ford's (and many in Congress) logic, its OK for politicians and the
media to bash "Big This" and Big That", but not allow them to respond.
Its OK for these companies to suffer whatever negative charges, true of
otherwise, are leveled at them, including on the editorial pages, but required
to remain silent in the public arena, not allowed to defend themselves, with
advocacy ads.
It appears it would not concern Ford to see such attacks lead to lower
stock prices, sales, revenue, and profits, leading to weakening businesses
or perhaps entire industries, costing of thousands of jobs and impacting
communities dependent on these companies.
But, the Court came down on the side of free speech, which said this right
can not be limited self-serving political and editorial page class, and not others.
So, we can now say, as most Liberals like to do, this is now "settled law."
Regards,
Anthony Bruno
107 Lander Ct.
Cary, NC 27519
919 481-4538
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Political Environment.....
There is no escaping, politics surround us, unavoidable, permeating every issue of importance. From the education of our children, the food we eat, car we drive, and countless decisions we make each day, politics play a role. Yet, most of us are unaware how our lives are governed by the men and women, belonging to the fraternity I will call, "the political class".
A definition would be a good place to start.
1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
Notice the word government is central within the definition, but equally important is another word found; control. For throughout history politics has served as a means to control, and allow those with this control to prosper.
There is no need to mention political parties or elected officials. Such labels are deliberately employed to make discussions on issues personal and combative, so whatever audience there is becomes distracted
and worse, deflated and disconnected from the discussion.
Future commentaries will include examples of how the public rarely learns the truth, and are led to believe those we elect on working are their behalf.
I will write about the role politics play on most decisions affecting our lives and how politics combined two of the greatest challenges citizens face, government control and greed.
Regards,
Anthony Bruno
Cary, NC
A definition would be a good place to start.
1 a : the art or science of government b : the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy c : the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government
Notice the word government is central within the definition, but equally important is another word found; control. For throughout history politics has served as a means to control, and allow those with this control to prosper.
There is no need to mention political parties or elected officials. Such labels are deliberately employed to make discussions on issues personal and combative, so whatever audience there is becomes distracted
and worse, deflated and disconnected from the discussion.
Future commentaries will include examples of how the public rarely learns the truth, and are led to believe those we elect on working are their behalf.
I will write about the role politics play on most decisions affecting our lives and how politics combined two of the greatest challenges citizens face, government control and greed.
Regards,
Anthony Bruno
Cary, NC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)