Supreme Court Rules in Case of "Reverse" Discrimination

The Supreme Court has provided a bright point in the day. It has demonstrated that justice is blind and that there is common sense in Washington. Congress could well profit from and follow their example. The Supreme Court did the right and legal thing not the politically correct or politically expedient thing. It was a glimmer of hope for our republic.

Supreme Court Supports Firefighters in Ruling of RICCI ET AL. v. DESTEFANO ET AL.

Singed,
The Electorate

Immigration/Amnesty

To Congress,

We had the amnesty discussion two years ago. The vast majority of American citizens vehemently stated they did not want amnesty - no matter what conditions were attached to it. Apparently we are going to have this discussion again.

Congress either does not understand or wishes to ignore the opinions of the American voters. Perhaps Congress feels it just knows better than the average American. Congress, however, is meant to represent the people not override their wishes. Anyone who disregards our laws and comes to this country illegally should not be rewarded with American citizenship.

When did we start rewarding people for breaking laws? We are a nation of laws. We need to respect and obey all our laws. We, especially the government, can not pick and choose which laws we obey.

Signed,
The Electorate

Please Vote Against the Energy Bill

To Congress,

Please do not vote for any energy bill that includes Cap + Trade.

Companies may pay this tax, but this tax will be passed along to us in much higher prices. Florida families and small businesses can not afford these government mandated higher prices. We are barely keeping our heads above water now.

Last year Florida polls showed that over 70% of Floridians supported the "all of the above" energy plan. We must develop new sources of energy, but we also must utilize current resources until these new sources are broadly available. We can't just squeak by using less until new sources are available. This would be economic suicide.

Signed,
The Electorate

Government Run Health Care

To Congress,

The ABC special didn't address the problems of a government run, government subsidized health care plan. I would like to address why this type of plan is a very bad deal for the American public.

1/ It is too expensive. Private plans could cover the uninsured at a much lower cost.

2/ A government run, government subsidized plan would force private plans out of business - leaving us with only the government plan. Private plans can not compete with a tax subsidized plan.

3/ The government would decide what treatment, if any, would be allowed. The government should not control our life and death medical decisions.

4/ A government plan must result in rationing. We have a limited number of doctors. Each doctor must treat more and more patients. There will be long waits to see doctors and others just won't be seen.

5/ Doctors will be driven from the medical field or students will decide on other careers. Medicare now only pays a percentage ( 81% ) of doctors fees. More cuts are already being proposed and malpractice insurance costs are not being addressed with tort reform. Doctors will not be able to afford to be doctors.

6/ The government run plan will result in inferior medical care, because of overburdened doctors, limited treatment, and long waits.

These are a few of the reasons the American public does not want a government run plan. We have all dealt with government bureaucracies and their inefficiencies. We do not want our medical decisions to go down this road. There is an old joke. If you think your HMO is bad, just wait until the government gets involved. Don't get the government involved!

Signed,
The Electorate

Taxing Health Care Benefits or Unions Are Special

From The Electorate:

Recently it was suggested that the federal government should tax health care benefits received at work as income, but that they should not tax the health care benefits of union workers. I thought that no one in Congress would actually be foolish enough to seriously propose this because it is so blatantly unfair.

I underestimated Congress.

Senator Max Baucus did just this. Is union influence so great that Congress would alienate the rest of the country just to appease the unions? Does Congress approve preferential treatment for political supporters? I would hate to think Congress can be bought and sold.

American citizens should be treated equally. No group should have special rights.

Vote Against Cap and Trade

To Congress and the Public:

Soon Congress will be voting on an energy bill. I ask you to vote against any bill that includes Cap + Trade. It will have almost no effect on the environment - scientific data backs this up - but will have a devastating effect on the economy and the American people. It will increase federal revenue and make billions for the companies administering the plan, but it will do so on the backs of the American people - of all incomes.

This is a GAS TAX and an ELECTRIC TAX.

This tax may be paid by companies using fossil fuels, but we all know who will eventually pay this tax. It will be paid by people who need gas to drive to work and electricity to heat or cool their homes. It will be paid by people who need food to eat or clothes to wear. Cap + Trade will dramatically increase the prices of all these items. When costs go up, prices go up. We can not go out and buy new more fuel efficient cars. We can't afford to do this. "Cash for Clunkers" only pays for a fraction of the car. We can not afford the remaining cost.

Why is Congress encouraging us to go further in debt?

Please vote against any bill containing Cap + Trade. Do not place this further burden on the American public.

Signed,
The Electorate

Paying for Health Care

Congress and the Administration have spent so much in the last six months that this country may never get out of debt. The burden that has been placed on future generations is mind boggling and horrifying. The time for massive spending projects has passed. Citizens have had enough of this irresponsible spending. Congress has become very cavalier with taxpayer money. It is so inured to massive spending that a trillion here, a trillion there is no big deal.

How do we pay for a massive government run health care plan?

We could borrow and further increase the deficit - but few want to loan us more and our AAA rating is at risk.

We could raise taxes - but this would deepen the recession.

We could print more money with nothing to back it - but this would trash the dollar and cause inflation.

We could live within our means - but this is not a popular idea in Washington.

We could propose a less expensive plan - but is Congress open to this idea?

We could seek to only cover those that are currently uninsured instead of implementing the massive government run health care plan that is being considered. Private health care companies could offer coverage to lower income families, who are not now covered by Medicaid. The government could supplement premiums based on income. Competition would help keep premiums down. This would provide better health care since individuals could select the plan that best suits them and are not locked into a big one plan fits all government plan.

Does the government want to make good health care available to all American citizens or does the government want to control health care? Concerned citizens are observing the progress of health care legislation.

Signed,
The Electorate

Against Cap and Trade

American Solutions has a new commercial in the effort to stop the Cap and Trade bill that is being pushed through Congress.

The Markey-Waxman “Cap-and-trade” Energy Tax bill, in the current
form being considered by the House Energy and Commerce committee, would
have the following catastrophic effects by 2035:

1. Reduce aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) by $9.6 trillion annually;



2. Destroy 1,105,000 American jobs per year on average, with peak years seeing unemployment rise by over 2,479,000 jobs;



3. Raise electricity rates 90 percent after adjusting for inflation;



4. Raise inflation-adjusted gasoline prices by 74 percent;



5. Raise residential natural gas prices by 55 percent;



6. Raise an average family's annual energy bill by $1,500 annually; and



7. Increase inflation-adjusted federal debt by 26 percent, or $29,150 additional federal debt per person, again after adjusting for inflation.

Facts from: Heritage Foundation

If you want to donate to American Solutions to help get the ad on the air, click here.

Signed,

Daughter of the Electorate

Meaningful Health Care Reform

To Congress,

Any meaningful Health Care reform which seeks to lower health care costs must include tort reform. Caps must be placed on non economic (pain and suffering) damages. Many unnecessary tests are performed because doctors subscribe to the CYA principle. Frivolous lawsuits could be reduced by making the plaintiff pay the legal costs of doctors in cases in which doctors are not found to be at fault. These issues will probably not be addressed because of the large numbers of attorneys in Congress.

Preventative medicine would also reduce health care costs. It is less expensive to prevent a problem than it is to cure it. In the short and medium term, preventative medicine will reduce costs. In the long term, people will live longer, which is a good thing, but health care will be needed for a longer period of time. I fear age discrimination will result and fewer and fewer medical treatments will be made available to older Americans.

The government may feel that health care funds would be better spent on what it, the government, feels are more productive parts of society. The government must avoid placing more value on one human life than another one. This is impossible to determine. There are too many unknowns. A younger person can become a Charles Manson while an older person may develop a cure for cancer. The government can not play God.

Signed,
The Electorate

Balence of Power

From The Electorate:

The balance of power in our federal government is no longer in balance. Does this not disturb Congress? The executive branch has become a many headed monster that is a power unto itself. Powers that are vested in Congress are ignored.

We have so many czars that Russian should become our second language. These czars are unelected, unconfirmed, and responsible only to the Executive branch. Where is Congressional oversight?

Today broad new regulations with broad new powers are being placed on our financial institutions. Should not Congress have a say in how our financial institutions are regulated? Is Congress to become a rubber stamp? Is it no longer relevant? Congress is the branch of federal government that is most responsible to the people. You are our voices. Are our voices going to be ignored and silenced?

Retaining Our Health Care

To Congress,

We are told that if we are happy with our current health care plan, we can keep it. The government will do nothing to prevent this. This is not correct. Private insurance plans can not compete with a government run, tax subsidized health care plan. Using Medicare as an example, the government only pays 71% of normal hospital fees and 81% of normal doctor fees. The remaining cost is transferred to other payers. This forces the cost of insurance up for other payers.

May I repeat?

Private health care insurance companies can not compete. Private companies will be force out of business.They are not publicly subsidized. Their price has to be more than any subsidized plan. Most workers pay for part of their work health care plan. Even if the government does not tax our health care benefits, which they would like to do, eventually we will not be able to afford the work plan. We will be forced into the government plan. Businesses will find it equally hard to continue to offer health care. Government costs and regulations will make it fiscally infeasible for businesses to offer health care at work.

The government will tax behavior it does not want and reward behavior it does want. It's the old carrot stick theory - used against us. Eventually everyone one will be forced into the government run plan. That is the end game - the one insurer plan.

Signed,
The Electorate

Returning TARP Funds

From the Electorate:

Soon ten banks will be returning the TARP funds they received to the Treasury Department. The Treasury plans to keep these funds for future use. The TARP bill passed last fall stated that this returned money was to go towards reducing the deficit. Will Congress insist that the provisions of the TARP bill be followed?

Cap and Trade is a bad idea

To Congress,

Including Cap + Trade in the Energy Bill would be a gigantic mistake. It would have a massive negative effect on our struggling economy. It places a tax on companies that use carbon fuel. This tax will be passed down to consumers in higher prices. The cost of gas and electricity would increase by at least 50%. The cost of other goods and services would increase because of their dependence on the same items. The economic effect would be dire.

Cap + Trade would only have a negligible effect on the environment. If we could wave a magic wand and overnight eliminate the use of carbon based fuels in the United States, it would only lower the carbon in the atmosphere by a fraction of one percent. We are not the main polluters. We would devastate our economy while accomplishing virtually nothing. Cap + Trade will dramatically harm this country.

Signed,
The Electorate

Effecting the Environment

From April 23, 2009:

To Congress,

We need to be very cautious when we seek to effect the environment. We simply do not know enough. We have a multitude of theories, but they are only theories. They are not proven fact. Changes we make which effect the environment, even with the best intentions, can have unexpected and undesired results. Dr. Shindell's (NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies) research indicates that Arctic warming in large part was created by laws introduced to improve air quality and fight acid rain. Sulfur emissions were limited and without sulfates too many of the sun's rays were entering the atmosphere instead of being reflected out. The government is now considering a plan to replace these sulfates. I repeat, we do not know enough.

In the 1970's, we were told another Ice Age was coming. Now we have global warming. However, the Antarctic ice mass is increasing and temperatures have been decreasing for the last 10 years. Some have actually said that this decrease only proves global warming. No doubt they also believe in little green men from Mars. This climate pattern had been repeated for many, many years. I repeat, we do not know enough.

Proposed solar power sites in California and Nevada are being objected to by Park Services, which says they will adversely effect the aquifer, and plant and animal life, and is an unwise use of land. I repeat, we do not know enough.

When we seek to change our environment, we need to proceed very cautiously and carefully consider what the effect will be. There is an old saying: Don't fool with Mother Nature.

Signed,
The Electorate

Stop Digging

From April 17, 2009:

To Congress,

There is an old saying: when you dig yourself into a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. STOP DIGGING! No nation has ever spent its way out of a recession. Nothing Franklin Roosevelt did shortened or ended the Great Depression. World War II ended the depression. Before we started gearing up for the war, unemployment was near 20%. Right now, unemployment is 8.5% and rising.

Spending money that we do not have will only cause inflation. We have a big problem and fiscal irresponsibility will only make it bigger. This is not the time to be a Democrat or Republican. It is the time to be an American and work together to strengthen our economy. We can, and should, debate ideologies at a later date.

Signed,
The Electorate

Housing Crisis and "Toxic Assets"

From April 16, 2009:

To Congress,

This recession started with the housing crisis. Banks were faltering under the burden of a massive number of loans that could not be repaid. These "toxic assets" threatened our entire financial system. Why would banks approve loans, which they had to know, could not be repaid? They did this because they were required to approve these loans by the federal government.

Starting with the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 , and extended by such bills as the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Security and Soundness Act of 1992, banks were required by law to grant these unsound loans. By 2001, over 50% of home mortgages had to meet the requirements set in these acts. How did anyone expect banks to survive, much less prosper, under these conditions? My question is why aren't these acts being repealed? If we want our financial institutions to be sound, why are we forcing them to operate using unsound business practices?

Signed,
The Electorate

Congress and the Constitution

From April 13, 2009:

To Congress,

You have all sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. I think it is time for everyone in Congress and the Administration to read or re-read it. For centuries, it has led us wisely. Now bill after bill blatantly disregards it. The federal government does not have the right to control privately owned companies - to hire, fire, or set salaries. The federal government does not have the right to take away the secret ballot. The federal government does not have the right to tell us what health care is "cost effective" and permissible for us. The federal government does not have the right to punish us, by additional and excessive taxes, for using fuels they deem unacceptable or for drinking beverages that "gasp" contain sugar and might effect our weight. None of this power is granted to the federal government in the Constitution.

The government was formed to protect us - not control and micromanage our lives or to protect us from ourselves. The powers of the three branches of the federal government are laid out and balanced in the Constitution. The federal government ONLY has the powers granted to it in the Constitution. The Constitution is not an old relic that the federal government can change for its own convenience. It means what it says. The meaning of "is" is "is." It can only be changed by amendment. Any amendment must be approved by 3/4 of the states.

The federal government cannot grant itself more power. This may be inconvenient, but it has worked marvelously for many years and is what has made this country great. Believe in the Constitution! Don't try to circumvent it. Stand up for this document that you swore to support and defend.

Signed,
The Electorate

Continuing on the Health Care Theme

From June 8, 2009:

Congress is considering more middle class taxes. Before the elections, candidates promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. Now thy propose taxing health benefits from work as income. This will increase our taxes by approximately two thousand dollars a year. We cannot afford more taxes. We are struggling to keep our heads above water now. Don't pile more taxes on our shoulders. When we go under, you will too.

There is a big difference between want and need. Congress wants a massive health care plan that will eventually cover everyone. What Congress needs is a plan - preferably within private plans and supplemented by government financial help for lower incomes - for the 16% who are uninsured. Not only do we not want the government involved in our medical decisions, but we can't afford the tax increases that would be required to pay for this all inclusive government health care plan.

From June 9, 2009:

84% of Americans have health care insurance and 16% do not. Do you really think that the 84% want a government run plan? Any government run plans has to contain rationing, since there are not enough health care providers. Do you think the 84% want to wait months to see a doctor? Do they want government bureaucrat to determine what treatment they are allowed to have or, even worse, the treatment they are denied because it is not deemed "cost effective?"

The stimulus bill set up a committee that would determine what treatment is cost effective. The cost of treatment would be divided by the number of years the patient could benefit from it. Do you think the 84% want the government to determine what treatment they are allowed; what doctor they see; or, what medicine they take? Do you think the 84% want the government to make their life and death decisions?

Obviously, the answer is a resounding NO. We also don't want our benefits to be taxed to provide the benefits for the 16%. We can't afford our current taxes?

From June 10, 2009:

Please do not create a massive government run health care plan. We already have Medicaid and Medicare and cannot afford them. They are, at best, inferior plans filled with billing corruptions, limited treatments and medications, an subjective decisions by bureaucrats. They demonstrate how a national government health care plan would work - badly. Only 16% of Americans do not have health care insurance. Create a plan within the private sector to insure these citizens. The government could supplement insurance payments for those whose income meets a certain criteria. Do not create a one size fits all government run plan and do not tax health care benefits as income to try to force us into that plan.

Rushing Health Care Legislation

To Congress,

Please do not rush through health care legislation. Take the time to thoroughly discuss it and consider all the ramifications. Is it really wise to cut over $300 billion from Medicaid and Medicare benefits to pay for a new government run plan? This is a fine example of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Is it wise to tax work health care benefits to pay for a new government health care plan? Taxpayers are already overburdened. They can not afford these new taxes. In these harsh economic times perhaps a more limited plan would be advisable.

Perhaps Congress should only address the 46 million who do not currently have insurance. Even the 46 million number is inflated. At least 12 million of this number are illegal immigrants. The actual number could be many times this amount. While emergency care should be available for them, a government health care plan should not be. Others choose not to join a health care plan. They choose to gamble that they will not need it. If they are financially sound perhaps they could be required to join a plan that would only cover large medical expenses and pay smaller charges out of pocket.

Congress should consider these more limited, less expensive options. The large majority of Americans are satisfied with their plans. Private insurance companies can not compete with a government run, government subsidized plan. Private plans will be forced out of business. Americans would then be forced into the government program. We do not want to be forced into a government controlled plan.

Signed,
The Electorate

Listen to the Congressional Budget Office

From a letter sent June 13, 2009.

To Congress,

The administration is now considering not using the facts and figures provided by the Congressional Budget Office. For almost 35 years the CBO has provided objective, nonpartisan analysis on the economic ramifications of pending legislation and their effect on the national debt. Apparently the administration no longer appreciates or agrees with the CBO's analysis. They like their own rosier estimates instead.

If the estimates of the nonpartisan CBO are ignored, then Congress will be basing its decisions on partisan inaccurate information. Good decisions can not be made using bad facts. Congress needs to make its decisions based on the honest estimates that are provided by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

Signed,
The Electorate

Rushing Legislation

From a letter sent June 12, 2009.

To Congress,

Recently legislation is consistently being rushed through Congress. This is probably because if Congress actually knew everything that was in the bills they would not vote for it. Even the committees who produce these bills don't know the full extent of what is in them. The bills are being written by lawyers, experts, advisers, and maybe even aides. Congress should be writing these bills not minions.

Once these bills reach the floors of the House and Senate there is virtually no time for debate or even time to read the bills. We deserve BETTER REPRESENTATION than this. Congress needs to fully debate these issues and above all read the bills. Don't vote for a bill that you haven't read or don't fully understand. The devil is always in the details.

It is better to enact good legislation than it is to enact swift legislation. Let's not act in haste only to repent at leisure.

Signed,
The Electorate

Auto Maker Bankruptcies

From a letter sent June 11, 2009.

To Congress,

These bankruptcies are wrong and unfair in so many ways. Their legalities are questionable. These companies were not allowed to go through normal bankruptcy. Our bankruptcy laws were not followed. These were "structured" bankruptcies. Who made up that term? The sole purpose seemed to be to protect the unions and too bad for everyone else. Those who should have been reimbursed first were put at the end of the line. Unions are bragging that they kept their base pay, benefits, and pensions and now own part of the company too.

If we are a nation of laws, why didn't we follow them? Dealers were hung out to dry. Using some unknown criteria profitable dealers were terminated - even though dealerships do not cost the auto companies anything. Whom you knew or whom you supported seemed to effect whether or not you were terminated. This is cronyism. It's not just politics as usual, it's Chicago politics as usual. These dealers have an inventory of millions sitting on their lots. Within a certain time frame they may sell them for whatever they can get. After that date if they sell them the warranty will not be honored. If Chrysler or GM made these new cars, they should honor the warranty even from a dealer that they do not now authorize.

Many of these dealers will be forced into bankruptcy, but they won't get special deals. They will have to abide by regular bankruptcy laws. Due to government intervention auto dealerships are going to fail and jobs will be lost. That should help the economy! But at least the unions are safe!

Signed,
The Electorate

Government run health care

From a letter sent June 11, 2009.

To Congress,

Expanding government run health care plans is a terrible idea. The government plans we already have offer inferior care and are inefficiently run. I do not object to helping legal residents of this country who can not afford health care insurance - within private plans. However a massive, all inclusive government run program will destroy the private health care system. They can not long compete with a government supplemented plan.

Congress wants to tax undesired behavior - obtaining health insurance at work. The president says that businesses could use the money they save by not offering a health care plan in a better manner; so, businesses will be encouraged not to offer health care. Eventually everyone will be forced into the massive, inferior, rationed government health care plan. This is about power and control and is a really bad, bad deal for the American public. It puts government in control of our "unalienable right" to life, since government would control our right to life saving treatment.

Signed,
The Electorate

Nationalized Health Care? No, thanks.

From a letter sent June 4, 2009.

I am having serious doubts about Congress's intents and capabilities. Are they actually seeking to bankrupt this country or are they like a kid in a candy store that can't exercise self-control? Congress really, really wants a nationalized health care system to replace our current system. So they are bound and determined to do this no matter what the consequences. Our health care problem is mainly that 16% do not have it. Yes, costs have to be contained. Reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits would help that. Why is Congress seeking to throw away the best medical care in the world and replacing it with something inferior? This is not logical. There are simpler and less expensive ways to cover the uninsured.

1/ Increase the number of medical schools. Hospitals can not fill their internships and residencies with those currently graduating from our medical schools.

2/ Dramatically increase the number of free clinics for those that do not have insurance. These could be available if your income is below a certain point - $50,000 is reasonable ( We do not need SChip for adults.). If your income is over this, you can afford medical insurance.

3/ Forgive current loans and offer educational loans that will also be forgiven for doctors, if they agree to work at these clinics for five years at a set fee. This would encourage more students to enter the medical field and could be applied to residents who will have fulfilled their residency in June and to others who have done so in the last five years.

Doing these things could provide health care for the currently uninsured while allowing the rest of the country to retain their health care insurance. The country would save billions and the government would not be involved in our medical decisions. The question is does Congress want to provide health care for all citizens or do they want to control all health care? Your vote will reflect the answer to this question.

Proposed Taxes

From a letter sent May 29, 2009.

Congress is considering new taxes on the lower and middle classes. They are considering taxing medical benefits as income. Cap + Trade is an enormous tax on gas and electricity. The price of gas and utility bills will increase by a minimum of 50%. There will be a domino effect and the cost of other goods and services will also increase. A value added tax is being considered. This is nothing but a national sales tax placed on goods before purchase. This tax will not effect the rich, but will really hurt the lower and middle classes. It will effect what and how much we can buy. This will really lower the consumer confidence level.

The problem is not that taxes are too low. The problem is that Congress is spending too much. Income tax revenue is down by one-third. China does want to lend us anymore money. The Fed has already printed too much money that is not backed. Taxing the rich is not bringing in enough revenue. Congress, however, has all these nifty new ideas that they really, really want to try. That is why Congress is considering these new taxes that are directed at the lower and middle classes - even though it will further hurt our faltering economy. Put the country FIRST and forget ideologies. NO new taxes. Curb your spending as everyone else has been forced to do. Be responsible.

Taxing Workplace Benefits

From a letter sent on May 21, 2009.

Congress is considering paying for their health care proposal by taxing the health care benefits that we receive at our workplace as income. This is nothing but another tax hike on the middle class. What happened to 95% of people will have their taxes lowered? You aren't raising our tax rate, but raising the amount of income that is being taxed. We aren't suppose to realize this is a tax increase!!

When John McCain suggested taxing health care benefits and giving each family a $5000. tax credit, Democrats crucified him. Now Congress thinks this is a really good idea - without the tax credit. What hypocrisy! Middle class taxes are already too high. We are struggling here in the real world. Now Congress wants to raise middle class taxes to finance a program we do not want. A program that will bankrupt this country - like it did European countries - and deliver inferior health care. It is my belief that the federal government doesn't just want to provide health care for the approximately 16% of people who do not have it. I believe it wants to force the 84% out of their better private plans by making those plans unaffordable.

Last week the President stated that with the new health care plan businesses could use the money that they saved by not providing health care in a better manner. That is the ultimate plan. Socialized health care for all - with health care rationing and the government determining what treatment is "cost effective" (read stimulus bill) and therefore allowable. Why does Congress seek to throw away the best health care system in the world for an inferior plan?