Your Tax Dollars Hard At Work
October 31, 2007 – 1:39 pmThe House majority leader, Representative Steny Hoyer of Maryland, told fellow Democrats last week that the House would not be in session next year on Fridays, except in June for work on appropriations bills.
Here’s an idea for the Democrats who think they have earned the right to shorten their workload by 20% - make Friday “Get Out Of Iraq Day.” Set aside a day each week for the hundreds of thousands of young men and women that have put their lives at risk so the President and his neoconservative colleagues can conduct their experiment in urban planning. It seems that’s the least they can do considering their continued failed execution of a fatally flawed policy is what stirred the public to throw the Republicans out of office last year in the first place.
But no. The Democrats are more than happy to rest on their nonexistent laurels. Mr. Hoyer said, “I do intend to have more time for members to work in their districts and to be close to their families.� At $168,000 a year, they can see their families on the weekends, like the rest of their constituents. So much for leading by example.
What exactly have Democrats done to earn this time off? They have not articulated a 21st century energy policy, have not forced the President’s hand on his pathetic foreign policy, nor his crony cabinet appointments. They certainly have not addressed the quid pro quo that exists between the major parties and their campaign contributors.
Than again, divided government is the way to go. It certainly is not too far-fetched to imagine a Democratic President (possibly named Clinton) and a Republican Congress battling it out like the good old days of a decade ago. Maybe the new leadership of the GOP will take a cue from their Wall Street brethren and note that positive results usually stem from hard work and long days and nights at the office, not a year’s worth of three day weekends.
9 Responses to “Your Tax Dollars Hard At Work”
Who believes that our Congressional representatives actually represent us, except when it comes to grabbing pork for the home district?
And of course government contracts to do the work entailed are awarded fairly and without graft and corruption.
I say it’s time for a new form of government– we should drop the pretence that we live in a “democracy”, anyway.
Time for a revolution.
By Vince Williams on Oct 31, 2007
Oh, they’ve got laurles aplenty; big fat ones at that. What they don’t have is cajones!
As for revolution? Do you really want to suffer another American Civil war? I suggest we start a Revolution of education. Its obiviously what is required. Especially when you see the American Electorate participating at less than 50%.
And just what “new form of government” would you recommend VW? Sharia Law? Communisism? Marxisim?
By DeadMessenger on Oct 31, 2007
DM, you should learn to spell, or at least use your spell checker. Your typos don’t advance your case, and they make you look ignorant.
The Civil War had nothing to do with Revolution– the Confederate states seceded from the Union.
I think malcontents like me should start discussing some alternatives to the sorry government we have now.
Bleating like dissatisfied sheep won’t change anything. As long as voting citizens do nothing but complain and vote the swine into office, the crooked bastards win.
I propose government by coalition, with the executive subject to a vote of no confidence by the electorate.
What do you propose, besides sarcasm and invective?
Can you have a civil discussion?
By Vince Williams on Oct 31, 2007
1.) Real campaign finance reform
2.) Congressional term limits
3.) Improved ballot access for third parties
By Joshua Rosenstock on Nov 1, 2007
Forty years of my generation’s great hopes and aspirations and we are still pulling latrine duty, with them now holding the reins.
JR is slowly approaching that time in his life where my generation said “Don’t trust them!”
The torch is passed. Perhaps I will see the next 30 years. THAT will be interesting.
By DAD on Nov 1, 2007
VW, If secession isn’t a form of revolt I don’t know what is. Here are the definitions for review and education. Quite similar, aren’t they? And bloody. Is that what you really want? I should call attention to your invective; recommending revolution against the United States of America?
Definition: Originally in a Roman historical context, “temporary migration of plebeians from the city to compel patricians to address their grievances;” modern use in ref. to religious or political unions dates from 1660. Secede is attested from 1702, originally “to leave one’s companions;” sense of “to withdraw from a political or religious alliance of union” is recorded from 1755. Secessionist first recorded 1860 in U.S. context.
Definition; Revolt- 1. an overthrow or repudiation and the thorough replacement of an established government or political system by the people governed.
2. Sociology. a radical and pervasive change in society and the social structure, esp. one made suddenly and often accompanied by violence.
As for a 3rd party JR, I’ve come to the conclusion it’s near impossible to establish a independent party majority so long as the bipartisan jaugernaut maintains control of the process. Unless and until large majorities of American people rise up and assemble in the streets of state and federal capitals, and join in support of a third party they’re not going to change anything, except which of their two partys are in the majority in any given election cycle.
By DeadMessenger on Nov 1, 2007
DM, you have nothing to offer me in the way of ‘education’.
The Confederate states were exercising their right to withdraw from the Union, which was first explicit in the Articles of Confederation:
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right…”
The question of the morality or immorality of slavery was not germane to the issue of States’ rights in this context.
The Southern states were not revolting, they were exercising the option reserved to them as a condition of joining the Union in the first place.
By Vince Williams on Nov 1, 2007
Vince,
It would have been inappropriate for any state to claim it had exercised its sovereign authority under the Articles of Confederacy, because that governing document became inoperative with the ratification of the Constitution in 1787, some seventy plus years before the Civil War.
By Joshua Rosenstock on Nov 2, 2007
Saved!!! “Curfew shall not ring tonight!”
By DAD on Nov 2, 2007