 |
 |
|
JANUARY 13, 2007: THE SENATE IS STILL INSANE
I continue to be dumbfounded by all the politicians, on both sides of the aisle, who seem willing to accept the boundaries of so many debates set by the people they are debating with. For example:
1) These politicians bloviating and demanding that we get "tough" on the Iraqi government and let them know "our patience is running out" for them to stop the violence and take over their own country. Absurd! The nerve! We go over there, bomb their infrastructure, send billions of US taxpayers dollars into the pockets of no-bid contracts run by Bush's American friends (who do almost nothing to what we broke back together, occupy their country rudely, violently, and ineptly for 4 years, and then tell them WE are losing patience? Yet nobody seems to question this logic. Am I the only one shaking my head about this?
2) The Social security debate, where all parties have decided that it would be absolutely unfair to have rich people pay into Social Security at the same rate as the middle class- no more, no less. Somehow it's "off the table" to tax incomes over $93,000, even though lifting this arbitrary and unfair cap would solve the questionable "crisis" that some say exist. Why should someone making $2,000,000 a year pay exactly the same number of dollars into the system as a person making $93,000? It makes no sense. Why is it "off the table" to expect the wealthy to pay only their fair share?
3) For some reason it does not appear that the Democrats have included in their first 100-hour agenda a complete repeal of the incredibly anti-American "Military Commissions Act". This act effectively removes the Judiciary from a meaningful oversight role over the Executive Branch, and cedes Congressional power. The MCA grants outrageous "Saddam-like" powers to President Bush with absolutely no oversight or even any chance for oversight, retroactively to prevent him from being prosecuted for the crimes he committed before this law was passed. Meanwhile they nibble around the edges by taking a "firm stand" on the minimum wage without even tying it to inflation once and for all, and entering only weak complaints about prescription drug prices that won't survive Bush's veto anyway. Come on Senators! Be bold! Stand up for what is obviously important! Regardless of the Global War on Terror, no American wants a President to be above the law and capable of jailing political enemies, torturing them, forever, or even killing them, on his own say-so, with no legal recourse for the accused! It violates about 7 of the 10 amendments of the Bill of Rights.
4) I also don't understand how "signing statements" by Bush, which apparently reject the few laws that are passed to limit his power, cam be seen by anybody to have any gravity at all. I don't care if he says he will ignore a law even while signing it. Our Constitution has a process that defines how laws are passed and anything he says or writes outside of that have no meaning. Why does anybody pay any attention to it? If anything, if he has created doubt, Congress should enforce these laws with extra energy to shopw that they are meaningless. If the president commits a high crime, as defined by THE LAW, he should be tried and impeached, and imprisoned, as warranted by the LAW. At least this would be a test of our system to see if in fact our Constitution has truly been suspended.
|
 |
