Yesterday, July 22, 2009 the Senate Amendment, S. Amdt 1618; which would have allowed anyone who has a concealed carry permit to carry that weapon, concealed, in all of the lower 48 states. Senators Harkin (D-IA), Akaka (D-HI), Inouye (D-HI), Lugar (R-IN), Voinovich (R-OH), all voted Nay. I am mildly surprised that the Hawaii Senators voted against a law which would not affect their constituents; however, I am very surprised that the two republicans and Senator Harkin, our senator voted against this measure. This measure fell short by two votes, 58-39. Had the two republican senators voted for this measure and Senator Harkin it would have passed.
Why was this bill important? What if you were able to carry a concealed pistol or revolver and knew how to use it? Now criminals would be forced to think twice before robbing you knowing that anyone on the street may have a gun, knows how to use it, and may shoot them in the process of robbing them. Do you think that they may complete their task? Truth be known, most criminals are cowards and are very scared of guns, however, they use them as an intimidation factor for their own insecurities.
http://www.usacarry.com/ shows which states allow concealed carry permits and which states recognize other state's laws. It is also notable that the states which do not allow this universal right have very high crime rates. I wonder why? It is important to note that one can only get a concealed carry permit after requesting one through their local county sheriff and undergoing a criminal background investigation. Not just anyone can carry a concealed weapon, criminals cannot LEGALLY carry a weapon, however, that does not stop them from obtaining weapons. Why should we not allow citizens, which do not have a criminal background, carry weapons as granted to us as a RIGHT under the 2nd Amendment to The Constitution?!
Something to think about: Couples from all over the United States can come to Iowa and get married if they are gay or lesbian and their marriage IS recognized by all 50 states (not a Constitutional right); however, if you get a permit to carry a gun (a Constitutional right) one cannot carry in all of the lower 48.
Are we living in an upside down world? I think that it is high time that we vote Senator Harkin out of office. He is not for the safety of Iowans nor for the betterment of the United States.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Cap and Trade Part 1:
I sent Congressman Boswell an email after I found out that he, along with all the other Iowa Democrats, voted for Cap and Trade. I informed him of how it would hurt Iowans and most of Americans by increasing their costs of energy.
This is his response. I found it difficult to read, as I was very irate because I thought that this was just a "canned" message that was given to all congressmen to send out to anyone who complained about the vote. This seems to be a good place to post his response:
I appreciate you taking the time to share with me your views regarding energy, climate change, and the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The views of my fellow Iowans are an essential component of my decision making process as a Member of Congress.
I believe the science is clear: carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to unprecedented climate changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned repeatedly that unless the industrial world acts soon, projected increases in emissions over the next fifty years will lead to drastic ecological changes, endangering countless species and human health.
However, experts predict that by expanding efficiency strategies using existing technologies, we could eliminate more than twenty-percent of the world's energy demand by 2020. This challenge also presents an opportunity to put Americans back to work in green-collar jobs that reduce our energy use while protecting our environment for future generations.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA was required under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, including CO2. This spring, the EPA issued an "endangerment finding", signaling their preparation to comply with the court's decision. Without Congressional action I believe EPA will move forward with regulation which would harm all Iowans, including farmers, businesses, and consumers
On June 26, 2009 the House passed the bi-partisan American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as ACES. While this bill is not perfect - few usually are - I am pleased that it will harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process. Energy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious and real challenge of climate change.
News reports documented my early concerns with the bill. I made those objections known to Chairmen Peterson and Waxman, and am pleased that over 90 percent were remedied, and as a result, this bill is much better than it was before. However, one key concern remains. As currently written, this legislation provides local utility distribution companies with allowances through a formula equally weighted between historic emissions and retail sales. This is not good for Iowa or the Midwest!
I am still fighting to have the formula changed so that distributed allowances are based solely on historic emissions. Since the intent of the legislation is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the intent of providing allowances is to protect consumers from price increases, basing allowances on retail sales reduces the legislation's effectiveness. Coal-reliant states like those in the Midwest should not be disproportionately penalized. As a country we should be in this together and should not be picking winners or losers.
While this issue was not fixed in the House passed version of ACES, I have already been in contact with my colleagues in the Senate on this issue. I will continue to work to ensure Iowa is treated fairly by any energy and environmental legislation, and continue to work to ensure Iowa plays a prominent role in further negotiation.
Another reason I supported this legislation is that we must break our bondage to OPEC. This bill uses market incentives to move away from carbon-based energy. It makes historical investments in clean coal and Smart Grid Technology. This bill will also ensure that the U.S. biofuels industry can continue to provide us with domestically produced renewable fuels.
This bill is also an economic issue for Iowa's families. Estimates on ACES say more than 1.7 million new clean energy jobs will be created. Don't we want clean energy jobs? Of course we do. We live in a global world and the future of that world will belong to the nation's that develop renewable energy. China spends six times more on renewable energy than we do and Spain, Denmark, and Portugal produce more wind power than the United States. This bill incentivizes renewable energy production.
Finally, agriculture plays a pivotal role in ACES. After weeks of intense negotiations between members of the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees a monumental deal was struck. There is a robust offset provision for agriculture and forestry producers which recognizes early adaptors. The offset program run by USDA creates a new market opportunity for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners who can play an important role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Agricultural producers have been participating in conservation and carbon sequestration programs for many years, working to increase energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support a renewable energy industry. This legislation recognizes those efforts and encourages these important activities.
I appreciate you taking the time to allow me to explain why I supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This legislation creates a new energy policy and address the global climate crisis. I am glad that this legislation preempts potentially devastating regulation by the EPA and am also pleased that it would harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process. Energy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious challenge of climate change.
The 111th Congress faces many significant challenges, and economic recovery is vital if we are to meet them. As a senior member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I will continue building upon the job creation opportunities that we have brought to the 3rd District in order to provide the stimulus Iowa needs. I periodically provide electronic updates on issues I think my constituents might be interested in. If you would like to receive the E-newsletter, please sign up at my Web Site at http://boswell.house.gov. As always, please feel free to contact me or my office if ever you think we may be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Leonard L. Boswell
Member of Congress
LLB:an
This is his response. I found it difficult to read, as I was very irate because I thought that this was just a "canned" message that was given to all congressmen to send out to anyone who complained about the vote. This seems to be a good place to post his response:
I appreciate you taking the time to share with me your views regarding energy, climate change, and the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The views of my fellow Iowans are an essential component of my decision making process as a Member of Congress.
I believe the science is clear: carbon dioxide emissions are contributing to unprecedented climate changes. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned repeatedly that unless the industrial world acts soon, projected increases in emissions over the next fifty years will lead to drastic ecological changes, endangering countless species and human health.
However, experts predict that by expanding efficiency strategies using existing technologies, we could eliminate more than twenty-percent of the world's energy demand by 2020. This challenge also presents an opportunity to put Americans back to work in green-collar jobs that reduce our energy use while protecting our environment for future generations.
In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that EPA was required under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases, including CO2. This spring, the EPA issued an "endangerment finding", signaling their preparation to comply with the court's decision. Without Congressional action I believe EPA will move forward with regulation which would harm all Iowans, including farmers, businesses, and consumers
On June 26, 2009 the House passed the bi-partisan American Clean Energy and Security Act, also known as ACES. While this bill is not perfect - few usually are - I am pleased that it will harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process. Energy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious and real challenge of climate change.
News reports documented my early concerns with the bill. I made those objections known to Chairmen Peterson and Waxman, and am pleased that over 90 percent were remedied, and as a result, this bill is much better than it was before. However, one key concern remains. As currently written, this legislation provides local utility distribution companies with allowances through a formula equally weighted between historic emissions and retail sales. This is not good for Iowa or the Midwest!
I am still fighting to have the formula changed so that distributed allowances are based solely on historic emissions. Since the intent of the legislation is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and the intent of providing allowances is to protect consumers from price increases, basing allowances on retail sales reduces the legislation's effectiveness. Coal-reliant states like those in the Midwest should not be disproportionately penalized. As a country we should be in this together and should not be picking winners or losers.
While this issue was not fixed in the House passed version of ACES, I have already been in contact with my colleagues in the Senate on this issue. I will continue to work to ensure Iowa is treated fairly by any energy and environmental legislation, and continue to work to ensure Iowa plays a prominent role in further negotiation.
Another reason I supported this legislation is that we must break our bondage to OPEC. This bill uses market incentives to move away from carbon-based energy. It makes historical investments in clean coal and Smart Grid Technology. This bill will also ensure that the U.S. biofuels industry can continue to provide us with domestically produced renewable fuels.
This bill is also an economic issue for Iowa's families. Estimates on ACES say more than 1.7 million new clean energy jobs will be created. Don't we want clean energy jobs? Of course we do. We live in a global world and the future of that world will belong to the nation's that develop renewable energy. China spends six times more on renewable energy than we do and Spain, Denmark, and Portugal produce more wind power than the United States. This bill incentivizes renewable energy production.
Finally, agriculture plays a pivotal role in ACES. After weeks of intense negotiations between members of the Energy and Commerce and Agriculture Committees a monumental deal was struck. There is a robust offset provision for agriculture and forestry producers which recognizes early adaptors. The offset program run by USDA creates a new market opportunity for farmers, ranchers and forestland owners who can play an important role in efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United States. Agricultural producers have been participating in conservation and carbon sequestration programs for many years, working to increase energy efficiency, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and support a renewable energy industry. This legislation recognizes those efforts and encourages these important activities.
I appreciate you taking the time to allow me to explain why I supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This legislation creates a new energy policy and address the global climate crisis. I am glad that this legislation preempts potentially devastating regulation by the EPA and am also pleased that it would harness the most innovative workforce in the world to create a clean energy future, creating millions of jobs in the process. Energy independence is vital to our national security and economic future, and this legislation advances this goal while confronting the serious challenge of climate change.
The 111th Congress faces many significant challenges, and economic recovery is vital if we are to meet them. As a senior member of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I will continue building upon the job creation opportunities that we have brought to the 3rd District in order to provide the stimulus Iowa needs. I periodically provide electronic updates on issues I think my constituents might be interested in. If you would like to receive the E-newsletter, please sign up at my Web Site at http://boswell.house.gov. As always, please feel free to contact me or my office if ever you think we may be of assistance.
Sincerely,
Leonard L. Boswell
Member of Congress
LLB:an
Taxing the rich?
Is there anyone else out there that sees that it is just not mathematically possible that only the rich will be able to pay for all of the entitlements that we are all getting? The cost of universal health care, as determined by the CBO states that $1.5 trillion, will be covered, as proposed by The House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, by taxing millionaires. Well I suppose that she and her staff didn't really look into how much that was going to net the government, just $554 billion. The other $1 trillion would come from government savings?!?! "Government savings," isn't that the classic definition of oxymoron?
Under this socialistic plan, no one will become rich in America any longer! That is a travesty. America was built on entrepreneurship and free enterprise. The ability to become anything that you wish no matter where one started. This administration is stifling these values.
If you do not wish to look to the problems in the Canadian Health Care System, all one has to do is to look at the Massachusetts universal health care. According to The Pacific Research Institute and the CATO Institute, it is going to cost $13 billion this year to cover the costs, that is $595 million more than it spent in 2006 when the commonwealth care started, a 42% increase! Additionally, there are long waiting lines to see doctors, since 1/2 of the newly insured since 2006, are under this commonwealth health care, and doctors do not want to get paid the lower rates thus they don't want to see them, they then go to the emergency room, at a rate of still 23%; which has not lowered since the plan was enacted. So expenses still rise, after all emergency room visits are expensive.
I will talk about Cap and Trade in my next blog.
Under this socialistic plan, no one will become rich in America any longer! That is a travesty. America was built on entrepreneurship and free enterprise. The ability to become anything that you wish no matter where one started. This administration is stifling these values.
If you do not wish to look to the problems in the Canadian Health Care System, all one has to do is to look at the Massachusetts universal health care. According to The Pacific Research Institute and the CATO Institute, it is going to cost $13 billion this year to cover the costs, that is $595 million more than it spent in 2006 when the commonwealth care started, a 42% increase! Additionally, there are long waiting lines to see doctors, since 1/2 of the newly insured since 2006, are under this commonwealth health care, and doctors do not want to get paid the lower rates thus they don't want to see them, they then go to the emergency room, at a rate of still 23%; which has not lowered since the plan was enacted. So expenses still rise, after all emergency room visits are expensive.
I will talk about Cap and Trade in my next blog.
Health Care Reform
Response to Bi-partisan health care reform written by Harold Nelson in the Vinton Eagle dated 17 July, 2009
Let’s be honest, with a super majority in the Senate the Democrats can pass any piece of legislation that they wish. The problem lies herein, if they pass something without one Republican on board and it is an utter failure, as universal health care would be, they will have to take all of the blame and thus, will be voted out next election cycle.
I think that most would agree that parts of the health care system need fixed. However, there are much better ways to fix the system than to have the government become even more intrusive in our lives, mandate, and portion out our health care. The government needs to regulate insurance companies and ensure that frivolous lawsuits against doctors and hospitals are dealt with accordingly. Additionally, the government needs to ensure that prices are regulated; prices are just too high. Look at the Canadian system if you want to see what ours will look like, since it is modeled after their system. Waiting for a year for an MRI to see if you need hip replacement surgery and not given any pain medication for the pain in the meantime, waiting 6 months to see a specialist when you have brain cancer, not being able to have certain medicines even available to you and not being able to test new medications on people with terminal illnesses, even with their consent. And there are countless other horror stories. Many of those people come to the
Dr. Rand Paul stated that one-third of the uninsured make more than $50,000 a year. one-third are eligible for Medicade but cannot figure out how to apply, about 20% are not American citizens, and many are just in-between plans. So would you like to add almost 50 million people to the health care system without adding new doctors?
I do agree with you that most of our incumbent politicians are corrupt; the only thing that they are worried about is being elected in the next election. I say to vote all of them out and to find ones, no matter the party who stand for the principles that our Founding Fathers did and the ones that are for term limits. I do however, disagree that we should provide health care is a right, just as Social Security and Medicare are entitlements. The latter two programs have been ran so well by the government it is amazing to me that you would even mention them to bolster your position on government-provided health care. Social Security is bankrupt, has been for decades. This entitlement needs to go away a discussion left for yet another time. Medicare is broken and needs fixed; a system in which one can be a multi-millionaire and age 65 and still get coverage.
“Polls show that the majority of people want government-provided health care [and] government-provided education?” I do love it when people spew their opinions and do not put sources: July 10-11 Rasmussen poll shows that 49% oppose and 46% approve of government-provided health care. My math teacher told me that 49 is more than 46, just sayin’. July 17 Rasmussen poll shows that 78% show that it is somewhat likely that taxes will be raised on the middle class to pay for health care reform and 56% say that it is very likely. The latest poll for public education taken was on Aug 12-13, 2003, American with children living at home 41% say public education is the best while 47% say that public education is the worst. Hummm, when the facts are stated instead of one’s opinion things actually come into light, don’t they?
Can we afford government-provided health care for everyone? No. I agree with Mr. Nelson who stated that we need to impose price controls on medical providers, get rid of administrative duplication, and take back money that was given to investment houses and big banks, but not to put that on health care. This administration has spent more money in 3 months, yes the Bush administration started it and I was opposed to that as well, than the Bush administration spent in 8 years, according to moneymorning.com. I am not, however, prepared to cut defense spending at all; after all, there is a war on terror going on, just in case you have forgotten 9/11.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
