I wrote a post in December called “Christmas Wish For Congress”, and I emailed a link to the post to my Congressfool, with the subject line of “Merry Christmas”.  This is the reply I got back today:

Dear Mr. McIntosh:

Thank you for contacting me about the Committee on House Administration’s ban on Christmas greetings in official mailings.

I agree that this ban is ridiculous. Our nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles, and Members of Congress should be able to say “Merry Christmas” in their correspondence. However, I do not believe that printing and mailing Christmas cards is a prudent use of your hard-earned tax dollars, and in the absence of this rule, I am certain that this abuse would occur. That said, the voters – not any congressional committees – write the best rules.

Ultimately, voters judge service and stewardship, and they will voice that judgment at the ballot box come election day.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I hope you had a very Merry Christmas and wish you all the best in the New Year. Please call on me if I may be of service to you.
Sincerely,

Rob Woodall
Member of Congress

Clearly no one on Mr Woodall’s staff even read what I sent beyond the subject line, and checked off standard reply number 315b, but I think I would be less offended if the standard reply was:

Dear Mr McIntosh,

I am very sorry to inform you that since you are not a lobbyist or large contributor to my Congressman For Life Fund I cannot be bothered reading what you wrote nor do I care, as you cannot afford representation in Congress.

Actually Sincerely,

Rob Woodall
Member of Congress

Mr Woodall, the best rules are made by those who actually observe what goes on around them, not those who make assumptions based on book covers or subject lines.  If you would sponsor my Legislative Accountability Amendment, proposed laws would be limited to a length which would make it possible for you and your staff to actually read them in their entirety before rushing to judgement.

I am about to email you again with a link to this post.  Please do not send me the same “They won’t let me say Merry Christmas” whine in response.

It’s that time of year where the Christmas playlist comes out, and once again the song that strikes me the most is “Old City Bar” by Trans-Siberian Orchestra. (Lyrics and Youtube videos)

It seems to me that there are 535 jerks in Washington DC with seriously unfinished business who desperately need to spend Christmas Eve in the Old City Bar.

“If you want to arrange it
This world you can change it
If we could somehow make this
Christmas thing last

By helping a neighbor
Or even a stranger
And to know who needs help
You need only just ask”

I dare them to find something to argue about in that!

It amazes me that those that preach against red tape and government regulation when it helps reduce the pollution in our air and water would want to tie the government’s hands so that it could no longer do anything to help smooth the ups and downs of a capitalist economy. That is exactly what a Balanced Budget Amendment would do.
The only way We the People can counterbalance Wall Street Greed is through government. Without the government being able to run at a deficit in bad times and at a surplus in good times (which is the part Bush ignored) there is nothing to keep corporate obsession with maximizing this quarter’s profits from running us all off a cliff.
We need to fix how we tax and spend, but it needs to get SMARTER, not DUMBER. The Balanced Budget Amendment is one of those “zero tolerance” (ie “no thinking allowed”) rules.
Those of you in Congress who are more loyal to your Party than your Country need to resign now. If your solutions are built on buzzwords and ideology rather than real solutions that bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people, you are part of the problem.

Between the blustering bullies in Washington (most of whom are lawyers) and Apple trying to sue away iPad competition by claiming a patent on a rectangle with a screen in it, my opinion of lawyers, which never was very high, is now lower than the current approval rating of Congress.  I have an idea for solving the problem.  It will require some help from the American Medical Association though.  I would like them to adopt my interpretation of the Hippocratic Oath ( you know, the “first do no harm” thingie).

If doctors are required to “do no harm”, and the practice of law causes harm, then treating lawyers so that they continue to live and work does in fact cause harm.   Therefore doctors should be required NOT to treat lawyers.

And yes, I understand that sounds like the way a lawyer would twist something away from its intended purpose.  I rather like the irony…

The debt ceiling crisis in a nutshell:

Congress passed the law that set the debt ceiling.

Congress passed the tax laws that set revenue.

Congress passed all the bills that spend money.

So why is Congress looking around for someone to blame that the tax and spending bills they passed are about to violate the debt ceiling law they passed?

I have a degree in Finance and run my own consulting business, and I am getting really sick of the ignorance that Tea Party Republicans are spouting.

(1) Your Balanced Budget Amendment idea is just plain BAD ECONOMICS. In economic downturns, the government should run at a deficit in order to help turn things around. In good economic times, it should pay down that deficit/run at a surplus. We are in the mess we are in now not because of running at a deficit during a recession but because during the last boom under President Bush we still ran at a deficit. He started two wars while cutting taxes. No other government in the history of the world has ever done that.

(2) “Taxes kill jobs.” “The check is in the mail.” “I did not have sex with that woman.” We have been operating under the Bush tax cuts for the rich for over ten years now, and employment numbers are still pitiful. The middle class isn’t getting a trickle down effect, we are getting peed on. Businesses hire or fire based on profitability. A rational company hires when it can make more profit with the additional help than without it. Whether the tax rate is 10% or 50% doesn’t matter. If I don’t expect the new hire to increase my profits, it doesn’t happen. Doesn’t matter what percentage of those profits I get to keep if there aren’t going to be any.

The thing holding back hiring at this point is uncertainty. There are too many bullies in Congress who are more concerned with making problems for Obama than in solving problems for the country as a whole. I think we should have sent all 537 of you to Gitmo weeks ago with the stipulation that the return flights don’t happen if the country defaults. It is time for all of you to grow up and do your job as a team.

With apologies to www.dearblankpleaseblank.com :

Dear Tea Party,

See what happens when all you say is “no, no, no”?

Sincerely,

Amy

Today I received the following, allegedly in replay to my email to him:

Thank you for contacting me with your reservations and concerns about the House Budget Committee’s FY12 budget, sometimes called the “Path to Prosperity.”

I was proud to vote in favor of this budget at both the committee level and in the full House of Representatives as this establishes a path forward to restore fiscal responsibility for our nation.  I was also proud to speak in favor of and vote for the Republican Study Committee’s (RSC) budget proposal.  This plan went even further than Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget proposal; however it did not pass in the House of Representatives.

As a member of the House Budget Committee, I have been honored to work diligently with Chairman Ryan to draft a budget proposal for FY12 and beyond.  When President Barack Obama submitted his budget proposal in February, it was clear that he was not taking America’s spending problem seriously.  Recently we saw more of that empty discussion with the President’s insistence on partisan rhetoric without outlining serious details for achieving a balanced budget.

“The Path to Prosperity” cuts $6.2 trillion over the next decade from the President’s budget proposal.  Debt held by the public is forecast to be reduced by $4.7 trillion from the President’s budget request.  Indeed, we have a “choice of two futures” between the Ryan plan and the Obama plan.

The House-passed budget also calls for Congress to adopt serious proposals for tax reform by reducing corporate tax rates and broadening the tax base to eliminate unfair exemptions in our archaic tax code.  In fact, the tenets of the FairTax were discussed in the report accompanying the Budget resolution.

“The Path to Prosperity” is the first serious plan in the modern era to set the fiscal tone in Washington.  In recent times, the discussion has been about how much to spend rather than where to cut.  Because so much of our annual spending is in the form of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on outstanding debt, if we are to reduce our deficit we must come to terms with the cost of these programs.  That is why I was so proud to support the Republican plan to reform Medicare, which would continue to serve current seniors while ensuring that the program is available to those in future generations.

In the short time that I have been serving you in Congress, I have had numerous occasions to see the future of our country through the eyes of our young people.  Whether through a visit to a school in Georgia, hosting young people in Washington, or thinking about members of my own family, we have the obligation to fix a spending problem that if left unchecked would create financial ruin for our nation’s children.  We are now at a critical crossroads.  President Obama and my colleagues in the Senate must understand that budgetary reform is needed immediately.  The House has fulfilled its leadership role; I now expect the same from them.

Thank you for contributing to the budget debate in Washington and continuing to tackle this challenge with me.  I am honored to be serving you in Congress and appreciate hearing from you.

Now, where in that did he even acknowledge that I was trying to have a discussion with him?  Here I was thinking he might actually be just a little bit better than his predecessor.  Guess I will have to try the one thing that got something other than a form letter back from Linder…

I questioned some of his statements as follows:

Congressman Woodall,

It’s difficult to keep track of a conversation not being able to reply to emails, but I am impressed that your reply to my earlier concerns actually sounded like you actually read it and didn’t just kick out a template based on subject matter.

I would like to point out something about Medicare as it exists now vs vouchers to buy private insurance as an individual which you may not have personal experience with. I am 50% owner of a small consulting business, and thus have to purchase health insurance for myself and my daughters in the individual market. My wife is disabled, and thus on Medicare. Except for a few quirks in what medicines are covered in her Part D plan, her insurance is immensely better than what I have. The thought of never getting out of that hole (I am currently 51, so it really doesn’t help me that people currently 55 and older won’t have this issue.)

Also, there will not be any real health care reform accomplished by moving around the path of our health care dollars without reducing that actual amount of dollars. I know this evokes preaching about “death panels”, but wouldn’t our money be better spent keeping everyone healthier longer than spending a large percentage in futile efforts to keep people “breathing” (note I am not using the word “alive”) for an extra hopeless week or two at the end?

For creating a new healthcare system (as opposed to putting band-aids on the existing train wreck), I just finished reading Dr. Doug Perednia’s book Overhauling America’s Healthcare Machine: Stop the Bleeding and $ave Trillions, and I highly recommend it to all 537 of you and your staffs.

On the war on drugs, punting it back to the states doesn’t work, especially given the recent noise from DOJ that they may prosecute people in the medical marijuana business ( and even state employees) in states where it is legal. Like with health care, if it isn’t a comprehensive solution it won’t cure the underlying problems, such as the Mexican Al Capones.

This is what I got back in reply from Congressman Woodall:

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about Federal spending, specifically related to the military and drug law enforcement.  I appreciate hearing your perspective.

In a time of fiscal austerity, I agree it is important to evaluate all areas of Federal spending, inclusive of defense.  In many instances, however, foreign intervention is a key part of our nation’s defense mission around the world.  That said, while it is important to defend our shared values around the world, we need to define a coherent purpose and strategy in our foreign campaigns.

As part of the recent Federal budgetary discussions there have been proposals to extend the life of Medicare.  Many seniors have been told by special interest lobbyists and partisan reporters in Washington, D.C., that Congressional efforts to save Medicare will destroy Medicare and leave today’s seniors without health insurance. This is false! Americans age 55 and older instead will be able to rely on Medicare as they have always planned. The very same Medicare system that seniors enjoyed in last year, will be the same Medicare system that they will enjoy next year and for years to come. The only changes in Medicare being discussed at all are for younger Americans age 54 and under.

For many years, Medicare has been called the “third rail” of politics, because anyone who dared reform the system would be shocked by the voters in the next election. Unfortunately, too many politicians have ignored much-needed Medicare reforms, and now, we are faced with a Medicare system that has $23 trillion in unfunded liabilities and risks bankruptcy by 2020. Something must be done now, and I am proud to say that I stand with my House Budget Committee colleague Chairman Paul Ryan in calling for rescuing Medicare for Americans age 54 and younger.

Under our reform plan, Americans would no longer be forced to accept only two choices for Medicare: traditional Medicare or Medicare Advantage. Instead, our plan allows younger Americans to choose from a plethora of health insurance plans that best fit their needs. This new and improved system would, for the first time in generations, make the government nothing more than a supporting player in the health care system. Not only does this type of reform get the government out of Americans’ health care choices and empower Americans to take control of their own health, but it also preserves the Medicare program for our children and grandchildren. Without reforms for younger Americans, Medicare will soon cease to exist for all Americans.

In 1965, the government made a promise to working Americans that it would help them afford quality health insurance during their retirement. Though the program has expanded significantly from its original intent, and now faces severe financial constraints, I intend to keep that promise. But this promise cannot be kept if we continue to ignore implementing necessary reforms. Scaring senior citizens by telling them that Republicans are trying to take away their Medicare is immoral, and refusing to tackle the difficult issues facing America will only lead us to bankruptcy. This is unacceptable, and I hope that all Americans will reject fear and embrace our responsibility to preserve Medicare for future generations and restore our nation’s fiscal future.

Turning now to the “war on drugs,” I believe that criminal laws are best determined by the states.  Many good ideas come to my desk each and every day, but that doesn’t mean that all of them should be implemented on the Federal level.  States should have the freedom to chart their own course, even if that means potentially making and learning from their own mistakes, particularly as it relates to medicinal drug use, sentencing policies, treatment services, and more.

Again, thank you for contacting me with your concerns about these spending programs.  I will continue to fight for fiscal austerity.

Representative Rob Woodall sent me an email (well, not just me, he was advertising his next Town Hall meeting) which appears to be to promote the Republican agenda that only the richest Americans should be exempt from sacrifice.  So I shall reply with some suggestions.

(1)  Team America World Police needs to stop. Democracy cannot be imposed by Shock & Awe. Providing mercenaries for Big Oil was never a good idea, is neither “patriotic” nor “defense”, and it is totally unsustainable now.  How can blowing up Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya possibly be a higher priority than providing health care at home?

(2)  Prohibition II (narcotics department) is also a failed money pit.  Legalize marijuana and other drugs, and tax them like we do alcohol and cigarettes.  Take the profits away from the criminal gangs.  Turn tobacco farmers into hemp farmers – the rest of the plant is a lot more useful.  Put half the tax revenue towards the debt and half towards health care.  Replace “drugs are bad” with actual education about addictive behavior.  A 4000 calorie a day diet can wreck your life just as surely as abusing narcotics.  ”Things” are not good or evil, behaviors are.  Why do so many people apply that concept only to guns?