[Nameplate] Overcast ~ 42°F  
High: 48°F ~ Low: 47°F
Wednesday, Jan. 18, 2017
The former Daily Statesman is now The Dexter Statesman and currently does not have an operating website.

How to hide unpopular amendments...

Posted Wednesday, October 7, 2009, at 4:36 PM

This afternoon I came across a story that really bugged me and I thought I'd share.

The story, found here http://www.christianpost.com/article/200... , deals with the House of Representatives slipping a hate crimes amendment that has caught some heat in the past through as part of the Defense Department's budget.

The amendment would include a host of groups in current hate crime legislation including homosexuals, etc. My issue is not with the amendment. Regardless of whether I agree with them, I won't be attacking anyone. My problem stems from the idea that when something is unpopular the government can just slide it through on some other bill.

While earmarks have been a controversial issue for years, it makes me furious to see such intentional deception at the national level.

I can't say I see a great alternative to earmarks, but its time for a "change" for lack of a better word.

Any thoughts?

Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

One thing I dislike about politics is how some people (from ANY party or political leaning) will say something like "Sen. X voted against Y reform" ....but what people listening to that might not know is that the bill in front of Sen. X included lots of other things slipped in, or was just poorly WRITTEN and would create a whole host of other issues. Maybe Senator X was actually FOR "Y reform" as a general idea, but against a BAD BILL.

I am sure that sometimes these unrelated items are snuck in to help kill a bill, and sometimes it is just a case of "let's if we can get this through without people noticing."

I sometimes wonder if I'd rather have a conscientious elected official from the "wrong party" who reads all the bills and is honestly informed than a sloppy official from "my" party who just goes with the flow of the party line.

-- Posted by Eliza on Wed, Oct 7, 2009, at 5:35 PM
Corey Noles' response:
Eliza you hit the nail on the head with that one! That's exactly what happens and it was so clear on both sides of the aisle in the last Presidential election. It's a true shame a third party can't make enough of a push to get the other two in order.

You are getting ready to see this very thing with Obamacare. They are going to try to push this through even though the majority is against it. And they don't want to release it to the public, because they don't want you to read it and realize what you already know, that it's a bunch of socialized bull****.

-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Oct 7, 2009, at 10:40 PM

This is whats wrong with Washington, to get any bill passed our politicians have to negotiate and compromise. Politicians have to vote in favor of bad bills just to get positive initiatives passed. Its obvious its time for a massive house cleaning in Washington. These career politicians that have been in office for way to long need to go. The president has term limits, why not the congressman. The president can only be reelected so many times why not the senators. I think this should even include supreme court justices. I dont believe any person in a position of political power should be able to remain in their position for an unlimited time. A lifetime spent at the center of politics in Washington can only lead to corruption of power.

-- Posted by michaelc76 on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 5:44 AM

I agree 100% 76. Especially about the Supreme Court.

-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 6:42 AM

Count me in on this way of thinking as well. Every bill should be taken on its own merit..ONE AT A TIME. Another thing and correct me if I'm wrong..but aren't the elected officials supposed to vote according to what his/her constiuants want? How many of them pay any attention to us? And yes, I know they can be voted out of office in the next election, but how much damage can be done in the mean time?

-- Posted by BarbaraNTexas on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 7:29 AM

They can be voted out of office Barb, but more than likely they wont. Most of these politicians have formed major alliances with the leaders of the party. The parties dont want to rock the boat, the Dems and Reps want the same old same old to go on in Washington so they are going to back the ones that will keep things the same. Regarding these bills, most of the congressman voting on these bills dont have the foggiest idea what they are voting for, they vote according to party lines. I doubt that there will ever be term limits on congressmen because they are the ones who vote on it. The only thing you can be sure that our politicians are going to vote 100% on is increasing the congressional budget, increasing their pay, and increasing their benefits from service. Being a politician in Washington is not about serving the people, its about serving the politicians own interest, which is to stay in power and apparently only working 2.5 days a week.

-- Posted by michaelc76 on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 9:38 AM

Yes, you are correct...I was being idealistic in my thinking. I was born an optimist, but have grown into a pessimist, unfortunately...at least part of me has.

-- Posted by BarbaraNTexas on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 10:43 AM

I wish I could be optimistic about the state of affairs in Washington, but everytime I hop online or watch the news all optimism just goes out the window. The healthcare situation is a prime example of why I am such a pessimist. These politicians are harping about insurance being to high for everyone to afford, so they are focusing on insurance. Insurance costs so much due to the drug companies wanting to charge way to much for life saving medications, hospitals and doctors charging way too much for their services. My nephew slipped and fell and hurt his hip, they thought he might have fractured something. His family took him to the hospital, he sat in an examining room, they took his vitals and got all his information, a doctor examined him, he got an x-ray and a diagnosis. The bill came to around $1,500 dollars for about 2-3 hours of work. No break, just a deep bruise. $1,500 is a ridiculous amount, especially when the examining room cost them around $300 dollars. And we wonder why insurance costs so much.

-- Posted by michaelc76 on Thu, Oct 8, 2009, at 5:19 PM

Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration:

Corey Noles, staff writer for The Daily Statesman and Editor of The North Stoddard Countian, is the author of a regular baseball/St. Louis Cardinals column and also uses his blog to sound off on various happenings in sports. He also operates a weekly baseball mailbag column.

UCB logo
UCB logo
BBA logo
© 2017 Dexter Daily Statesman · Dexter, Missouri