New York Gov. David Paterson layed down the gauntlet today, submitting legislation that if passed will mandate limits to unrestrained government spending. The governor's solution to excessive budgets is represented in two bills, both caps- one on spending, the other on property taxes. Paterson described his frustration with the state's fiscal condition, spotlighting the $60 billion in structural deficit shadowing the next four years and the exorbitant property tax bills imposed to offset deficit spending.
The governor has proposed a Constitutional amendment to cap State spending. He cited increased spending- starting with the 2002-03 Fiscal Year to 2007-08. State operating funds spending grew from $52.8 billion to $77 billion, an average annual rate of 7.86 percent- approximately 5% greater than the annual inflation rate. According to Paterson, "If my spending cap had been in place in 2002, New York's annual spending growth during that period would have averaged 2.7 percent and spending would have been $16.6 billion lower in 2008."
Gov. Paterson's property tax cap differs from previous proposals. Those proposals focused exclusively on capping school property taxes; his proposal would limit all local property tax growth. "My proposed property tax cap," he explained, "would limit tax levy growth for all school districts, counties, cities, towns, villages, special districts and fire districts to four percent or 120 percent of the annual increase in the consumer price index, whichever is less." His bill is based on recommendations of the Commission on Property Tax Relief, and resonates with public opposition to paying the highest local taxes in the nation – 78 percent above the national average.
Paterson reminded that the current budget deficit demands tough choices and spending cuts and responsibility to correct mismanagement and restrain spending. The two bills, underscored by urgings for belt-tightening, force the hand of the Legislature. No longer can the Senate and Assembly lunch with the special interests and ignore fiscal irresponsibility. The whole state will be watching when the ayes and nays are voiced. Nay-sayers will clearly be acting against the will of the people.
i think the best thing for
i think the best thing for the state is to get David Paterson out of office as fast as we can, between him and Obama we are in serous trouble .im on Medicare and sounds like i got to pay out more money i don't have . what are our politicians thinking ? and i dont think we should be paying for getting rid of outer peoples kids.Medicare people are in deep trouble. some of us may have to go with out our meds to pay our other bills.sad thing .
Mr. Tapp- instead of worrying
Mr. Tapp- instead of worrying yourself over fears promoted by insurance company/political disinformation- read some of the independent analysis of reform benefits. Here is what AARP has to say about the new legislation:
From AARP website-
The final version of a massive health care reform package would help seniors with prescription drug costs, offer free preventive care under Medicare, provide incentives to companies to offer insurance for early retirees and ban limits on lifetime health care coverage.
The bill released today contains changes in the Senate health care bill that was passed late last year. The plan is for the House to pass the Senate bill, plus other changes collectively known as a reconciliation or “sidecar” bill. The Senate will then vote only on the sidecar bill that amends its own health care reform measure—possibly next week. Democrats in the Senate need only a simple majority to pass these changes.
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Thursday that the reconciliation package would reduce the deficit by $138 billion in the first 10 years and an additional $1.2 trillion in the decade after that.
The $940 billion measure, which affects nearly 17 percent of the nation’s economy, would be paid for by measures that include: a new Medicare tax on unearned income for wealthier Americans; more than $500 billion in cuts to Medicare, including reducing government subsidies to insurers in the Medicare Advantage program; and an excise tax on expensive employer-provided health care plans.
The reconciliation bill carries several elements of particular interest to older Americans:
Those in Medicare Part D who fall into the “doughnut hole,” and have to pay all their prescription drug costs for part of the year, would get immediate help this year from a $250 rebate. Next year they would get a 50 percent discount on brand-name drugs, and by 2020 the doughnut hole would be closed completely.
Medicare would cover preventive services with no copayments, and those costs would not apply to the deductible.
A new insurance exchange would help people who don’t have affordable insurance through their jobs. Until the exchange is set up, employers who give health care benefits for retirees ages 55 to 64 would get federal aid through a temporary reinsurance program.
New regulations on insurance companies would bar them from dropping the coverage of people who get sick, and from putting lifetime caps on coverage. Starting in six months insurance companies could not discriminate against children with preexisting conditions; by 2014 all ages would receive that protection.
A new long-term care insurance program, which workers could pay into, would help them if they become ill or disabled and need help with basic services in order to stay in their homes.
C.M. What's the process
C.M. What's the process regarding Paterson's proposal? What's next and when would the legislators actually have to show their true colors and vote?
CM, Not considering the pros
CM,
Not considering the pros or cons of this bill, when has the government been right on program costs? From Social Security to Medicaid, they have always been wrong and the cost many times higher than stated.
CM,
Again, like the bill or not, do you really believe this will "lower" the deficit?
John, are you calling the CBO
John, are you calling the CBO a bunch of liars?
One of the things in this bill that's going to help lower the deficit, is fixing the problems with Medicare Part D, the most glaring of which is the fact that Bush and a Republican Congress didn't bother to pay for it, and don't forget about those unpaid for Bush tax-cuts (which were passed by reconciliation by the way.) Say what you will about the Dems, at least they realize that you have to pay for things. The Republicans rail on about making our children and grandchildren pay for our debt, but they're the ones who put trillions of dollars in war spending on the Corporate MasterCard.
I know you're not a Bush supporter John, but I have to say that the Democrats have a better track record when it comes to honesty and accountability in government spending.
Republicans and Democrats
Republicans and Democrats aside...
Here's what we needed, the end to dropping people who get sick...the end to the lifetime cap...Children being cared for no matter what! Those are all good things that should have always been the case and for that, I'm glad.
Some of the questions I have...How many businesses are set up under DBA's that will be affected by these new taxe rates? How many of those businesses make more than $250,000? How many of them are providing jobs in this community? A lot.
I am not going to go doom and gloom, but I'm not going to be sunny and rosey either. This bill will hurt many people just as it will help many as well and if you don't believe that then you are creating your own story.
Last, this bill never addressed what the "fine" will be for corporations if they don't insure. There is still a massive loophole that will allow Corporations to take the fine over providing healthcare to their employees. The dollar amounts don't add up. This bill will raise the cost of healthcare for all of us. How long until some company would rather pay the fine, then the burden of healthcare?
I'm so sick of hearing about how Dems did this and Repubs did that. A lot of people wanted this and an equal amount didn't. The side with three more votes just crammed it in with the sweetheart deals for a few.
Phil, I don't think there are
Phil, I don't think there are many businesses in this community netting over $250,000, at least not locally owned ones.
Hey Chris, I know of a few
Hey Chris, I know of a few actually and I think the wording was gross, not net in the bill. I just don't think that was a very well thought out plan. $250,000 is not a ton of money anymore as it was fifteen years ago. It's by no means bad (I sure wouldn't mind it!), but it doesn't make sense.
It's net Phil and if a
It's net Phil and if a business is making a 250K profit they're doing alright. On top of all that, it's not like these employers are going to be forced to provide health insurance at no charge to their employees, they just have to make the plan available; the employee will then have to pay the match rate set by the employer.
The employer mandate also only applies to businesses that have 50 or more employees. The tax we're talking about isn't going to affect the mom and pop shops at all.
Levin is suing the
Levin is suing the president.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
10. The Bicameralism and Presentment Clause of the Constitution of the United
States mandates that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the
Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States. . . .”
U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2.
11. A law is enacted in conformance with this constitutional mandate only if “(1) a
bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of
Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed
into law by the President.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).
12. Article I, section 7, clause 2 further provides: “But in all such cases the votes of
both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and
against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.”
13. In or about March 2010, the Rules Committee of the House proposed a rule to the
full House establishing the terms and conditions pursuant to which certain legislation would be
considered by the House (the “Rule” or “Slaughter Rule”). The Rule provided that, upon
adoption by the House on a vote of the yeas and nays of one bill (the “Reconciliation Bill”), an
entirely different bill, H.R. 3590 (the “Senate Bill”) would be “deemed approved” by the House.
14. In or about March 2010, the House approved the Rule.
http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Complaint.pdf
Chris, Then let me ask you,
Chris,
Then let me ask you, when was the government right on the cost of a major program? Can you give one? Easy question.
John, you're so sure of
John, you're so sure of yourself here. Can I borrow your time machine?
Chris, I asked you what
Chris,
I asked you what program cost projections they got right, in the past.
I thought that was an easy question for you. Can you name one or not?
John, name a private business
John, name a private business that nailed a multi-billion dollar cost projection. I'm sorry, but you can't hold government to a performance standard that is artificial. I've been associated with multiple major construction projects. I've yet to see one that didn't require additional completion funds.
No one can foresee every incidental expense. The BOCES had a self-funded health insurance program several years ago. It managed very well until two employees fell ill, requiring major treatment expenses that bankrupted the reserve fund.
There are too many variables that are beyond the scope of the best estimation. One cannot speculate accurately on the cost of health care because it depends on fluctuating value of the dollar, doctors' fees, hospital costs, cost of equipment and supplies, number of patients, cost of phamaceuticals, diagnostics- what if a virulent flu epidemic hit the country?
Part of the aim of reform was to rein-in expenses. Hence the incredible effort to defeat reform! Health care in this country remains under the authority of profit-driven businesses.
I don't care what you asked
I don't care what you asked me John because it's not germane to the issue at hand. This program is its own entity and the first of its kind; it cannot logically be judged using data from other bills.
The good folks at the CBO get paid to do detailed and intricate math. The only standard we have to go on is what they came up with using factual data. They tend to frown on conjecture and assumption.
Chris, Good dodge.
Chris,
Good dodge.
It's not a dodge, John. Ask
It's not a dodge, John. Ask me if a bear shits in the woods and I'll tell you the same thing. Every program, every tax cut, every resolution to have a moment of silence for rhesus monkeys born in captivity has to be judged on its own merits. Doing anything else would be unfair to the democratic process.
Chris, It was a dodge. Forget
Chris,
It was a dodge. Forget this new entitlement. I asked you to tell me one that, in the past, came in at or under cost.
You can't, because there are none.
John, we're talking about
John, we're talking about this program, not any other. You don't get to make up the rules here. I'll talk about this bill and it's pros and cons, but I won't compare apples and oranges with you so you can feel better about your argument.
Ten years from now if you want to argue about what this bill cost versus what it was projected to cost, I'll gladly discuss it with you, but until then, you don't get to define a reality that hasn't happened yet.
Chris, Ten years from now,
Chris,
Ten years from now, the cost will be up much higher than projected. True, this is based only on the history of the US since 1932.
You run a business and have a better chance of predicting costs over the next few years than the CBO, that has rarely been right on any issue. And that's not the fault of the CBO. They get promises from Congress to base their guess/estimate on, not knowing what kind of kick backs or deals will be made in the future to buy votes. Both parties do it, that's how Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid became so big and costly.
Now I understand your need to defend the Dem Health Care bill. And it does have some good things in it. But the idea this will lower costs, based on promises this year to control spending 10 years from now, to me, means you drank the cool aide.
The government is out of
The government is out of order, the constitution was written to limit government control and tyranny. I want my country, liberty and freedom back and I don't want to work the rest of my life to provide health care insurance to every bum, deadbeat, crack head, and illegal allien that has been sucking off government hand out programs since they were born.
See folks, John knows that
See folks, John knows that it's scientifically impossible to prove a negative, so he creates a hypothetical situation then says 'prove me wrong.' It's a weak debate tactic and I'm sorry to see it being used by a person who considers himself so rational.
On the bright side, we no longer have to debate the pros and cons of health care reform as they exist in the ether because sometime today, the President is going to sign that reform into law. Later this week the Senate will remove some of the more egregious sweeteners from their bill and when it's all over we'll have reform that can be judged by its reality.
Later on today the House bill will be law. If you're a senior citizen who's already hit the Medicare donut hole this year, you can apply for a $250 rebate to help cover your expenses. If you're a small business owner who insures your employees, you can apply for a tax credit of up to 35% of your health care expenses, the list of things that happen TODAY goes on.
If you like John, you and I can go day by day and debate the benefits versus drawbacks of the implementation of the bill, but I'll make you discuss actualities instead of hypotheses.
The actuality of a people's
The actuality of a people's revolution to overthrow the socialist party for violating the constitution should be discussed as well.
Chris, Like I have said
Chris,
Like I have said before, there are a some really good things in this 1017 page bill. There are also things that I personally dislike. I don't know if anyone can bureaucratic English, so I started searching. I found an article by the Kaiser Family Foundation that studies bills and put them in plain english.
Now before all the Dems on here start preaching about this site, I want to make it clear that as you read this take it for what you want. There are some good things and some questions.
Here is the problem I have. The only thing that anyone who supports this bill can do is quote bullet points that have been given to you by your sources. The only thing that Repubs can do is quote their sources.
Yet, no one fully understands squat because of the way this system works. Here are some of the things that came out: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/8023-H.pdf
One that shows the things that are happening now:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/22/health-reform-bill-summary_n_5…
Like I sadi there are some good things in this bill. There is also a lot of junk that will hurt people.
I thought the Kaiser
I thought the Kaiser description was fairly accurate. It brushed over the small business tax credit and didn't bother to mention closing the Medicare donut hole, but all in all, it was a fair description of some of the things that are in the bill.
To be fair Phil, Dems have
To be fair Phil, Dems have been quoting things that are actually in the bill while Republicans and their supporters have been screaming 'baby killer, 'faggot', and 'nigger' at democratic congressmen. I'm absolutely disgusted by the current level of 'discourse' in our government.
I have no doubt that they
I have no doubt that they have, but they are focusing on the good, which is to be expected. Why bother focusing on your warts.
All Republicans have not acted in the manor you speak. Yes there are morons in this world who will act as such, but there are far more intelligent people who are not pleased with many of the aspects in this bill.
I too am disgusted by the discourse in out government on both sides. No one is innocent to this nonsense.
A couple of the things in that Kaiser report that I found confusing:
Individual Mandate
All individuals will be required to have health insurance, with some exceptions, beginning in 2013.
Those who do not have coverage will be required to pay a financial penalty of 2.5% of adjusted gross
income that is capped at the average cost of qualified coverage. Exceptions will be given to people with
incomes below the tax filing threshold ($9,350 for individuals and $18,700 for couples), for religious
objections, and for financial hardship.
Why do people who have a religious objection allowed to not have this? There are a lot of people who has a religious objection to abortion, but the government still funds it.
Also, Financial Hardship. Once again the government has drawn a line in the sand that good people will struggle with. The more I dig into that provison, the more I find out that the paperwork to prove hardship above that line is not easy.
Another one:
Oh bother my post got cut
Oh bother my post got cut off! I will try again later!
I'm disgusted with democrats
I'm disgusted with democrats ruining the country with welfare legislation. All they want is control they want everyone dependent on the goverment for everything. Tax and penalize hardworking successful americans and redistribute to low life scumbags.
Why do people who have a
Why do people who have a religious objection allowed to not have this? There are a lot of people who has a religious objection to abortion, but the government still funds it.
You logic isn't tight here Phil. If a person is religiously opposed to abortion, they are not required to have one.
The federal government does not fund abortion, the Hyde Amendment bans Medicaid funds from being used for the procedure. If you want to take issue with public funding for abortion you have to go after individual states that allow it. President Obama's upcoming executive order will strengthen the Hyde Amendment, not weaken it.
Posted by Richard Gahagan on
Posted by Richard Gahagan on March 23, 2010 - 10:02am
Tax and penalize hardworking successful americans and redistribute to low life scumbags.
Richard, define "low life scumbags". Children? Elderly?
Infirmed?
Posted by Richard Gahagan on
Posted by Richard Gahagan on March 23, 2010 - 10:02am
I'm disgusted with democratsI planned on answering this, but this op-ed piece says it far better than I.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html
Sounds like you are right in line with those who have An Absence of Class.
Posted by Richard Gahagan on
Posted by Richard Gahagan on March 23, 2010 - 10:02am
I'm disgusted with democrats
I planned on answering this, but this op-ed piece says it far better than I.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/opinion/23herbert.html
Sounds like you are right in line with those who have An Absence of Class.
delete
delete
Hey Chris, My point here is
Hey Chris,
My point here is that why isn't there a seperation of church and state? I'm pretty sure that you just can't claim "Religious Objection!" from the mountain. There has to be some outline of standards for it. That would mean there must be some groups that would be apporoved and others not.
Why? Why can I be a Christian and be forced to have something I don't want, but someone can be another religion and get a pass?
I use the abortion arguement because the federal government protects a woman's right to choice, but not to choose if they want healthcare? If you don't want a baby, then fine, but if that same woman doesn't want health insurance, we fine them? How moronic is that?
Also, the whole premise to the "mandate" was so that everyone is paying in! Now we are making all these little caviats to not offend a certain person. Come on Chris that is lame at best!
Phil, Don't forget, if they
Phil,
Don't forget, if they don't pay the fine, then its jail.
For the first time in US history, you can go to jail if you refuse to buy a product (and that is what insurance is).
There are some religions that
There are some religions that have objections to certain medical procedures. Those provisions are for them.
Posted by Chris Charvella on
Posted by Chris Charvella on March 23, 2010 - 1:05pm
There are some religions that have objections to certain medical procedures. Those provisions are for them.
These aren't provisions. This is the difference between between being required to have insurance and not. Why do those certain religions not have to have it and I do?
I'm not really looking for you to answer this Chris, but just state my point. These are the kinds of things that make this bill unequitable. You are making exceptions for some and not for others. The constitution states that "All men are created equal under God" Why is their God more important than mine?
The Government has no right to tell me I have to have this! Just as much is it is my responsiblity to pay for myself if I choose not to take it. I don't want a government telling me what's good for me and how I should just accept it.
I'll respectfully disagree
I'll respectfully disagree here Phil. I think your point about religion has to be addressed though.
There are certain religions that have doctrinal objections to basic medical procedures. Because of the First Amendment, those doctrinal objections must be considered by any law enacted by our federal government in order for that law to be deemed constitutional.
Fair enough, but how can we
Fair enough, but how can we respect these people without a fine, but not someone else? That's called equality, Chris. The last time I checked, we still fought, bled and died for that basic principle.
I don't like the fine Phil,
I don't like the fine Phil, but that's a separate issue. Constitutionally, we can't force a member of a religion that does not believe in surgical procedures to have one.
I don't want them to have it
I don't want them to have it either, Chris if they don't want it. I'm completely speaking on the fine. This provision is all about the mandate, not a medical procedure. I don't care what any religion does.
What I care about is that the government cannot make a mandate on it's people, then make exceptions. You cannot tell one group that they have to have something, but allow another not to.
and I'm saying that
and I'm saying that constitutionally, you have too. I believe we've reached an impasse. :)
:-) I guess so. How about we
:-) I guess so. How about we just say that Mandates are stupid and shouldn't be there?
Or we could say that it was a
Or we could say that it was a difficult solution to a difficult problem....
We could say that, yes, but
We could say that, yes, but I'll stick with mine instead! :-) Good debate.
Phil, there is very much a
Phil, there is very much a difference in the discourse between the Republicans and the Democrats. In the Democratic Party we isolate and distance ourselves from the radical fringe. In the Republican Party they have embraced and/or are held hostage by their radical fringe.
The protests in Washington DC this past weekend were reprehensible and every Republican should denounce the horrible behavior. But instead, our own congressional representative is seen on the balcony holding the "kill" sign to whip this rabid crowd into more of a frenzy. http://wnymedia.net/wnymedia/2010/03/aw-they-let-him-hold-kill/
I don't remember reading stories of bricks being thrown through windows of Republican Committee offices when George Bush passed his massive tax cut for the wealthy. I don't ever recall the venomous personal attacks, spitting on elected officials, and signs that show blatant racism and advocacy for violence from any Democratic demonstration.
Today a new Gallup poll has 49% saying the health care law is a good thing and 40% saying it's not so good and I believe that these numbers will get much better as time goes on. Let's look at this in 90 days and see how many people want to go back to the days of donut holes, health catastrophe bankruptcies, preexisting conditions and our young people being denied coverage under their parents health insurance.
Lori, You really don't
Lori,
You really don't remember that nasty, rabid behavior, of the far left against Bush? Really?
And you know very well that "kill" sign was for "kill the bill". Don't try to make it out different.
There are nuts on both sides; far left and far right. And neither national party goes out of the way to condemn them.
John, I did see some of that
John, I did see some of that behavior, but never did it rise to the level I see with the mob mentality from the far right during this debate. I was too young during the civil rights debate so I have no frame of reference for anything like this. I stated above, in my Party we do not condone violence nor do we embrace the radical left. They are simply not given any credence.
I gave the link with the picture, John. In no way was I trying to make any perception other than that Chris Lee was holding that sign and stirring up the mob, which he was.
I still don't know what
I still don't know what happens next with Paterson's proposal. Does one or the other house in Albany have to vote on it?
Lori, What about the
Lori,
What about the demonstrations with Bush hanging? Throwing things at speakers? And a Democrat Congressman a few months ago saying Republicans want people to die?
And your use of "mob" instead of demonstration? Your not too biased.
What progressive group
What progressive group embraced this John? I read Daily Kos and Huffington Post and I never read anything advocating violence against President Bush, but a simple internet trip to FreeRepublic or better yet a look on our own local news will tell anyone paying attention that there is a very very real difference in the vitriol.
From WHAM channel 13 today -- Rochester/Niagara Falls, N.Y. -- The same day a brick crashed through her Niagara Falls office, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D) says her staff discovered an assassination threat aimed at her family members. The Democratic headquarters in Rochester was also targeted.
Slaughter has been at the center of the push for reform. Last Thursday she received a chilling recorded message at her campaign office. “Assassinate is the word they used…toward the children of lawmakers who voted yes."
The FBI is now investigating.
http://www.13wham.com/news/local/story/Health-Care-Reform-Leads-to-Thre…
And in my opinion any group spitting on our elected officials, calling them 'nigger' and 'faggot' is indeed a mob. In the cases of vandalism and threats to Democratic offices and officials I will take it a step further and call it domestic terrorism.
Lorie, While Bush was in
Lorie,
While Bush was in office, the demonstrations (mostly anti war)were on TV, showing Bush hanging. The name calling was also pretty vile. You must have a short memory.
And the Democrat Congressman, while on the floor of the House of Representatives, saying Republicans wanted people to die was on all the news shows; guess you missed that also.
The idiots this weekend, spitting and name calling were a small minority, and even then they were not a "mob", just idiots. The spitter should have been arrested, but name calling is not illegal, just stupid.
To be fair, these kind of people show up no matter which side is having a demonstration or rally and its almost impossible to keep them away. They just want to cause trouble.
I am interested in your use of the word "mob" for a few people when except for the spitter, the rally was not violent. You seem to be spinning this. Is this the start of your election cycle against Congressman Lee? Your attempt to spin the "kill" sign in Lee's office made it seem like you were implying he wanted violence.
It's funny how in this day of
It's funny how in this day of everyone recording everything there isn't one video clip anywhere to be found of the supposed "nigger" epitaphs being hurled at Reps. Lewis, Carson, and Cleaver as they left the Capitol. Sort of like Maureen Dowd writing Joe Wilson yelled "you lie, boy" at President Obama when no such thing happened.
As far as claims that protesters from The Left didn't feel this way towards GWB, you're in serious denial.
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621
John, for the third time,
John, for the third time, while there may be radicals on the left that embrace similar violent and hateful behavior, I think I speak for the majority of my Party in saying that we simply do not accept them in our ranks. You can keep saying different it if it makes you feel better, but repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. And it doesn't change the fact that the Tea Party crowd does in fact have a great deal of influence on the Republican Party.
These "kind of people" have been showing up since last summer and now they've transformed from a lot of screaming at town halls to threats and violence. Have you taken a close look at the signs at these protests? Did you read the articles about the violence at Louise's office and the Monroe County Democratic office and many other offices across the country? These aren't just isolated incidents, John.
I'm glad my use of the word "mob" interests you, John. No spin here. Still believe people carrying signs advocating violence with overt racism, yelling racial and homophobic epithets and spitting on people is a mob.
What sign was Lee holding, John? I put up the link to put my comment in context. Try again.
Dave, I wasn't ignoring your
Dave, I wasn't ignoring your question. First-off, I haven't been able to identify the bills positions in either the Senate or the Assembly. Yes, they have to come up for a vote. Secondly, with the wave of off-topic debate, I didn't want the answer to be drowned-out. When I have more information about the Paterson Bills, I will post it.
John, it's this simple, there
John, it's this simple, there are people out there, not in the underground, but right out in public, calling for the violent overthrow of our government. Republican lawmakers are making absolutely no attempt to denounce them or even voice mild disagreement with that mentality.
If someone gets hurt, the blame will lie with those lawmakers who are standing idly by and even encouraging violent behavior.
C.M., I was mostly making a
C.M., I was mostly making a poor attempt (as usual) at humor about the thread going way off topic too. I did a little research last night and apparently it has to be approved by 2 consecutive legislative sessions and then go to a public ballot referendum. If it passes that, it would be a Constitutional Amendment. It'll be interesting to see if any Assemblymen or Senators have the stones to support this, bring it up in session and vote for it. I'm thinkin' I know the answer. But again, Hope springs eternal. I know you're busy, this is a good post. Thanks
It amazing that the Dems
It amazing that the Dems latch on to these isolated incidents. In general the people are getting more and more aggravated with the Dems jamming socialist programs down our throats and dismantling the constitution while their at it. The next election will determine whether we continue down this path toward becoming the United States of France.
Lorie & Chris, I agree that
Lorie & Chris,
I agree that the actions of these individuals are detestable. These acts are atrocious and unjustified.
Lorie, I don't really understand why because your party denouces these acts, it makes all the provision in your bill ok? I never spoke once about any of these things. I was speaking about policy questions with Chris and you brought this up.
I don't like either party, Lorie. I am tired (on every level) of these silly power struggles. People are more intested in the "party" then the content. It's sad that an affiliation is more important that doing the right thing.
There are good things in this Bill, there are also a lot of bad things as well. If you want to tote it as a victory, then fine. I am waiting to see how the states are going to handle the increased Medicaid load the Fed is "reducing" by shifting down to the state level. I'm pretty sure that if people in this town have their taxes start skyrocketing becuase the county can't handle the increased cost, or they start closing local hospitals, you won't.
I hope that it works, not because I want to see the Democrats succeed or the Republicans fail, but because I just don't think we could handle it if it failed as a nation. I hope there will be a day when people stop putting party to the forefront, but I doubt it.