I want to meet Ezra Klein

In the previous post, (and likely others) I touched on the fact that Congress is very partisan. Well it seems I'm not alone in this opinion. By the way, the picture at the top of the page is awesome. Obama is saying, "I kick ass. You know it, I know it." Uncle Joe in the background is thinking, "Wow, Barack is the man. And I have the sniffles." Lastly, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is next to Uncle Joe thinking, "My mouth hurts from smiling. But don't stop! Bright lights!" Anyway, their faces are cool, and it's just a cool shot. In fact, it's so cool, I'm going to provide it for your optical entertainment.


You like?

That was pathetic. Anyway... Ezra Klein makes four main points.

Point one: Some senators hate their jobs to the point that they envy university presidents.

That's sad. Isn't something wrong when elected officials hate their jobs? I would think that elected positions would be the best and most rewarding, because you put so much time and effort into reaching that spot. And you're serving your people. What could be better than that? Serving your party, duh.

Point two: Congress needs to do its job rather than bicker so much that they leave it to someone else.

In theory, Congress really should be more powerful than the president. That's the way the whole system was designed. However, with the rise of party politics, Congress really has become less effective. That's why Klein says that many things Congress used to do are now run by government agencies or the President because Congress couldn't work well enough together to get it all done. Some items then required executive order to be finished. I do have to say though, that it kind of should be harder for a group of 535 people to come to agreements than it is for the President to agree with himself. Even so, Congress should be representing the people of the United States of America when making decisions, and if they did that instead of working along party lines, they might get more done.

Point three: Congress doesn't work anymore due to old rules and party politics that cause gridlock.

Not much to say there that I haven't already said. Party politics are ridiculous. They reduce issues to two sides, when there are actually many, many different solutions. Then they force people to pick, because after all, who else are they going to vote for? America is taught to be either Republican or Democratic, and that other groups are just too far out there to be taken seriously. In Iowa, you pretty much have to be either a Republican or Democrat to caucus.

Point four: The way we think about our government in terms of individuals has led to majority vs. minority which, along with the filibuster, lets no one govern.

Once again, Congress being ineffective has passed some of their former responsibilities to other agencies and the President. I don't know who has noticed, but the power of Mr. President seems to have grown quite a bit. Jefferson didn't even dare engage in war without a declaration by Congress. He even balked at making the Louisiana Purchase. Today, presidents can virtually fight wars without a Congressional declaration. All they need is funding from Congress, which is remarkably easy to get when the Congressional majority is aligned with the president's party. Plus, who is going to vote against funding for troops? If a senator did that, they would be criticized as uncaring or unpatriotic.

We need to be careful. Without some changes to the system, (and soon) control in this country is going to get messy. Without strong control, not much gets done, and spending goes through the roof. (Not like it isn't already) This is why I will vote for who I think is right no matter what party they're from, what religion they practice, what the color of their skin is, what gender they are, if they wear boxers or briefs... You get the point. I'm going to do what's right for me, and I encourage everyone else to do the same.

I'm still alive, you?

Well, the whole health care thing has passed. Ask me in five or ten years what I think of it, because it's so hard to say without reading the whole thing. Republicans say one thing and Dems say another. So, let's just discuss some of the general principles and ask some questions.



First of all, I'm totally supportive of helping people get health care. I don't think anyone should have to go through unnecessary pain or death, because we have good enough medical knowledge in this country to help nearly everyone. However, some people don't get it because they can't pay for it. I would like to say that emergency rooms accept and treat everyone. You can get health care if you don't have insurance, it's just costly for you or other people who do have insurance.

Even though I think it's good morally that everyone gets treated, the economics don't make total sense to me. Yet. They might eventually, but I don't understand how requiring insurance will help, as people will still be unable to afford it. Also, forcing insurance companies to insure every person who asks for coverage seems like it would raise prices for everyone. I don't want to sound harsh, but if someone without insurance is requiring million dollar treatments, and they go ask for insurance, is that really insurance at that point? The company is going to pay out a hell of a lot more than the person will ever pay in.

So I'm not going to pass too much judgment on this bill until we have to live with it. I think anyone who was worried that the world was going to end was crazy. I'm sorry to disappoint them, but the fact that the Democrats were finally able to pass something doesn't mean armageddon, and it doesn't make them bad people.

In fact, the consistently partisan efforts are what make Congressmen and women bad. Instead of trying to come up with something good for the American people, especially their own constituents, they work to come up with something that is good for their party. I wish we could get past that and become a country governed by the people, not by political parties and their motives.

Congress has a lower approval rating than the Pres?

A shorty, but a goody. Or at least a thought provoker, so I have to say something...

First of all, this really improves my approval of the American people. I thought people didn't care, but I must have been wrong, and boy am I glad. I can actually say that this is one of thew few approval polls that I care about, and am actually happy about.

It's nice to see that people now care about what their leaders do. We elect congressmen and congresswomen so that they can voice our opinions in the national government. The ideal representative puts aside their personal values (unless they are aligned with their constituents) in order to happily serve the people they serve. However, in today's highly partisan politics, that doesn't seem to be the case.

Should we totally clean out Congress, though? Probably not. If we did do that, no one there would have any idea of what to do, or what things are going on at the moment. It wouldn't be good. However, I do think it would be good to get rid of some of the politicians that have been there for thirty, fourty years. That's a little ridiculous. Their district can't find anyone else? I just find it hard to believe that someone who has spent so much time on Capitol Hill would still have the drive to be a good leader.

Congress should be more responsible than the President. To me, the President, a single person, is the one who should be proposing crazy measures, not a group of 535 individuals acting collectively. Normally, you would expect them to wring out the radicalism.

I will regulate you, but don't regulate me!

I hate always using the NY Times, but until I find another website that allows one to access articles without having to sign-in, I will keep using it. With that said, this NY Times blog post gave me a few questions.

The post was mostly about Obama and the Democrats using regulation of Wall Street as a 'crowd pleaser' that would help at midterms. That may be true, but that's not what I want to talk about. The whole time I was reading this, I was just thinking, "Oh great, another invasion of the government into our lives and our work." On top of that, they want to regulate Wall Street when they seem to be just as reckless with money.

Let's just say that I'm a parent with a child. I constantly give my child an allowance, because I love him so, and I set him up with sweet jobs so he could easily make more. Basically, I help him out a lot. As for me, I make decent money, but I always seem to be in debt. I owe tons of money on the house and the three cars. Oh, and the vacation home. I like to spend money, I just can't help it. One day, my beloved son wants to spend $200 on a bike, and I say no, because I consider that reckless. Is that fair, that I am allowed to spend as much as I want, but because I am in a position of power, I try to regulate the spending of others? I think that is something that the American government and the American people need to think about.

Speaking of these American people, who the government is supposed to be of, by, and for, the post says that the Pew Research Center found that three-fifths of Americans support tougher regulation of Wall Street. I don't want to bash on my people, but I find it hard to believe that 3/5 of the country invests, or even knows what Wall Street does. Americans, myself included, need to become more aware of what our politicians tell us. It is wrong to vote them into office, and then allow them to control us like they do. We should be controlling them, holding them accountable for everything that they do.

I wish three-fifths of Americans supported tougher regulation of Congress, but the politicians probably wouldn't tell us that.

State of the Union

First of all, good job Saints, but come on Colts! Get it done! I'm disappointed. Let's get a snow day! And this is my first post on the newly downloaded Google Chrome. I'm trying it out... I've heard Internet Explorer isn't very good. So far I like Chrome. I might try Firefox eventually, but who knows?

More importantly, I read a transcript of Obama's State of the Union '10, and I definitely have some comments. I know it took me longer than expected, but I'm doing my best. It's really long, so I've only read about half of it, but hopefully I can finish. It's similar to when I read books... it's hard to just read half. Once you get that far you might as well finish. But I need to write something, so I'll discuss what I know so far.

The worst of the storm has passed, but the devastation remains

One of Obama's greatest messages that I've heard. It's a great line, very profound. This line came about not very far into the speech, when the President was talking about the economy and jobs-- one of the most pressing issues of his administration. However, a lot of what he said was that they're doing their best, because after all, he was left with the responsibility of fixing the situation when he took office. In the very same paragraph as the storm metaphor, he said, "One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt."

This seemed to be a big theme in the speech, that the current administration was given many problems, and have done their best to help. Which I think is partly true, partly false. They might have saved the banking system, but by doing that, the government added historical amounts of debt to the national deficit. They might have helped the automotive industry stay afloat, but once again, they added huge amounts of debt. That seems like something that would be bad for the economy...

One of my questions, though, is if this administration talks big, but contradicts themselves in many ways? It sure seems like it to me. In the midst of all these economic stimuli and bailouts, the government is saying they want to cut spending. They also say that the deficit is bad, but they've set record numbers of spending in one year. I think Obama had an excuse for this, too, though. It was that they were fixing a previous administration's errors.

There were a few things that I liked to hear from Obama. I can't say if it's all talk, but I think it's good that he at least acts like he realizes that people are against these two things:

Party politics. I think I've talked before about how divided the government is, and even today, I saw it in the congressional votes. The Democrats seem to vote for Democrat-sponsored bills, and the Republicans seem to do the same for their party's bills. Like I said, it is so sad that the Congress members from one state mostly don't agree on issues. In the Senate, it seems impossible to pass anything without 60 votes. Because of that, not much is getting done, simply because of the party divisions.

"I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform," Obama said. The second thing that he talked about that Americans are pissed about is earmarks. If the government wants to cut spending, they absolutely need to do something about earmarks. Senators and Representatives should not be able to tag spending for a rainforest in Iowa onto a defense spending bill. It is such a huge waste of money that could be prevented. Defense spending bills should only have items in them that have to do with defense.

For now, that's enough. I'll be back, though.

Sides of the Healthcare Debate

There were a few things in today's paper that caught my eye today. I try to read the political articles, but more often than not, I skip them. Because they're boring. I'll be honest; they can be really boring. That is, unless they're not. Like the opinion piece on healthcare with comments from both Iowa senators: democrat Tom Harkin and republican Chuck Grassley.


For the most part, the Harkin side of the page was about all the ways that a health care bill would be good for everybody. Mostly that meant that people who don't have healthcare would get it and everything would be all perfect! However, there was absolutely no mention of the costs of the bill, what it would cost people who already have healthcare. Mr. Harkin, I would like to know these figures so that I can weigh the pros and cons of the bill. Please don't try to make me seem stupid by only giving me the positives. (That don't really affect me anyway)

On the other side of the page, our Iowa senator Chuck Grassley made hardly any mention of the benefits of a health care bill, and instead took the financial approach. He made it clear that the bill would cost billions of dollars, adding huge amounts to our already huge deficit!

So there are two issues that I see with this article

First: do we really need a healthcare bill if it's going to cost so much, and mostly benefit only the people without healthcare?

Second: the party divisions around this bill (and every other) is astounding. Just look at the two Iowa senators- they rarely vote with each other on a big bill. Every time I look in the paper at the Congress votes, it's always all the democrats on one side and all the republicans on the other. That is such a shame that two senators, who are supposed to be representing the state of Iowa either can't agree on what the people of this state need, or they simply vote with their party.

I wish our leaders would make decisions that mattered to their constituents, not their parties.

Final Shift Discussion

No more odd this, odd that. Daily Donut from now on. End of title discussion. Anything else that was stated in previous posts remains unchanged, especially about new discussions.

I have found a good website that I think I will use as a resource for this venture. It contains a record of congressional proceedings that is published daily as long as congress is in session. I got the idea to write about this from my local newspaper, which publishes congressional votes, so that will also be a huge resource for me. While the paper does publish the votes of my congressmen, I will also use The Washington Post's Votes Database for further information pertaining to Iowan congressmen and other lawmakers around the country. Lastly, for simpler explanations of the votes (other than the word for word record) I will utilize multiple other resources as I get going.

Because the Gazette usually prints congressional votes on Sundays, and that will be my first line of information, the votes I will be discussing will normally be for the previous week. The only thing I can think of right now that would cause me to write about something earlier is something like if the Senate made a major decision on the healthcare bill that is there right now. Another reason for waiting a few days to start writing is that it simply gives me time to learn more about it, and it gives my sources time to gather the facts and put them together.

One thing I haven't discussed too much yet is how I will take my view, and whether it will be party-based. I would like to just say that I don't affiliate completely with a party. It bothers me when people refer to Conservatives as republican, Republicans as conservative. This also applies to liberal and democratic. There are plenty of Republicans out there who have proven themselves to not be fiscally conservative. Alternatively, there can be conservatives who aren't republican. This goes the same for Democrats. Some of them can be conservative; they don't all want to spend, spend, spend.

This is basically my approach to politics. I don't have to associate myself with one party in order to have beliefs. I don't always agree with the Democratic financial ideas, but I tend to side with them on the more social issues (i.e. stem-cell research). Therefore, my views on specific congressional votes won't be based as much on party affiliation as they will be just on my personal beliefs. However, much like a reporter, I will do my best to leave my opinions out when giving the raw facts. When I get to the section towards the end where I give my vote and an explanation, opinion is fair game. I debated whether or not to talk about what my opinion is, but I think it's important to get it out there. If I wanted to be a reporter, I would go work for the newspaper, not write blogs.



I would also like to add that I am only using the Gazette as a starting point, not as my main source of information. You can read the section (go to page 8B) with the congressional votes if you want. I think it is pretty neutral, though.

Next post= last week's progress on healthcare (finally).

Oddities Bloggus

Violà! Welcome to Oddities Congressionus the evil twin of Oddities Humanus! Instead of focusing on the weird, just plain odd things that all humans do, I have decided to change focus (again) to concentrate the odd-o-meter on the Odd Humans (or not) that work for us in the United States Congress. These people do a lot of work, and I would like to discuss what they do for two main reasons.

Reason Number One:

All these things that our congress do can be so very complex. I would like to spend my time reading libraries of information on what has been decided recently in congress and simplify if for the readers. My goal is to compliment (I would say praise, but that would have religious connotations, and in this country, we strive for separation of church and state) some of the good work that has been accomplished. However, congress has proven itself capable of some blunders every once in a while, and those, of course, will be discussed.

Reason Number Two:

As a tax paying citizen of the United States, I feel that I have the responsibility to be informed of what my government is doing. So often, I think, people just allow the government to do whatever it wants in the hopes that it will do something beneficial. But when the government does something that is not beneficial, or even detrimental, the uninformed people have no reason to hold the lawmakers accountable. So, part of the reasons I am venturing into the political world is for my own benefit. By researching and writing about what goes on in Congress, I hope I become better informed.

Throughout this, for lack of a better term, thing, I would also like to make sure to include the votes and opinions of my congressmen from Iowa. Lastly, whenever a congressional vote is discussed, I will give my vote and the reasons for my vote. I ask the reader to give their opinion and/or vote, as well.

Please enjoy reading! I can't wait to start writing!