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?

I got one of those surveys from my new Congressman, Rob Woodall, yesterday, with the usual vague questions like “Which of the following issues do you consider most important?”.  I checked off health care reform, but after further review of his position on that, I hope I will not be used as a statistic to support the repealnik bandwagon.

Congressman Woodall advocates replacing it with “targeted health care reforms”, but doesn’t actually name any.  We cannot afford to waste any more time and money rearranging the path of our health care dollars without doing something about the total dollars spent.

Both parties consider “National Health Care” as being “off the table” from the beginning.  But what is health insurance, really?  The concept is that groups of us can negotiate lower prices than each of us individually can. That’s why IBM gets a better deal than my little company.  IBM is a bigger “buying group”.

Buying Group – sounds pretty capitalistic to me.  Doesn’t sound socialist at all.  Unless you are an insurance company currently making huge profits off of something (health care) that EVERYONE needs.  And what is the biggest buying group we could put together?  That’s right, all of us.

There is still plenty of capitalism to go around in this plan – health care providers have to figure out how to make a profit based on what we, as a very large group, are willing to pay.  Innovation won’t die, and providers that don’t innovate will go out of business, because the current health care business model is “just hand me your wallet and don’t ask any questions”.  Whether the wallet goes through insurance company premiums or government taxes is immaterial.  This is not an us versus them issue – there is only us.  ”Government” doesn’t need health care, we do.

The Patriot Act is scheduled to sunset (again) this February.  Last year Congress debated, but ultimately discarded, a number of reforms that would curb the worst of the unconstitutional abuse of the Fourth Amendment it contains.

This past November, a bunch of new representatives were elected running on a platform of smaller government and strict Constitutionality.  Each bill is supposed to cite the part of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to act.  HR 67 does not one of these things.  Instead it blindly changes only the expiration date of sunset provisions in previous laws.

Instead of protecting American citizens from governmental abuses of power, Congress appears to be set on continuing practices which we condemn when practiced by Iran and China – warrantless searches and seizures accompanied by gag orders.

Bill Parcells, can we draft you for public service?  You’ve proven you can take a bunch of irresponsible overpaid egomaniacs and make them into a team with a purpose.  This Congress desperately needs a coach to whip them into shape and make them realize they need to work as one team on the hard stuff, not just punt every time they can’t declare victory over one another.

Tuna in Twelve, anyone?

I’m not a big fan of Twitter.  I think that many of our problems (and a huge amount of our inability to solve them) stem from an attention span limited to 160 characters.  Much as I deplore War & Peace size legislation, I’d limit it to two pages, not 160 characters.

I do, however, respect Twitter’s management for standing up to the federal government’s unconstitutional request for information on the Twitter accounts of past and present WikiLeaks supporters, including an Icelandic legislator and all (estimated 643,000) followers of WikiLeaks Twitter account.  It is suspected that FaceBook, Google and Skype have received similar government demands, and their silence on the matter tells me that they have decided NOT to fight the request nor the gag order, as Twitter has done.  Hope you don’t have anything incriminating in your Gmail or Skype accounts, because President Obama and Attorney General Holder think they can go through your communications if they even suspect you might have at some point communicated with someone who communicated with someone they don’t like, and no one will even tell you it is happening.  (FaceBook fools, it could probably be argued, have already given up any pretense of privacy.)

WikiLeaks is the last bit of journalism NOT under the control of the government (see the report on the latest indictment in the leaks, including how the NY Times agreed not to publish the info from that leak), and this seems to be infuriating Obama and Holder.  Their unconstitutional attack on a publisher should have everyone concerned.  Even if you don’t support WikiLeaks, the next victim could be someone or something you do support.  It could even be you.

Sarah Palin had a map with 20 targets marked in rifle sight crosshairs on her web site, until the recent shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords  by a (probably deranged) follower, Jared Loughner.  No government official applied pressure on her web host to take down the inciting material.

Back in November of 2010, YouTube, under pressure from British and American officials, removed a number of videos by Anwar al-Awlaki,  an American-born, Yemen-based cleric who routinely incites young Muslims to jihad.  One of his YouTube fans was convicted last May of trying to assassinate a British legislator.

Why are these two treated differently?  Neither actually pulls the trigger, and both seem to revel in the celebrity that attaches to their outlandish pronouncements.  Yet one is considered a candidate for President, while the other is labeled a wanted terrorist.

While reasonable people can easily ignore both of them, there are plenty of people all over the world so troubled and disillusioned that they will latch on to anything to feel important.  I consider censorship to be among the ultimate evils, but the media should stop making celebrities of those who preach hate and fear, no matter what group or country they are preaching for or against.

Reasonable people can no longer afford to be the “silent majority”.  We must call the hatemongers on their behavior, and demand that our representatives govern with respect and rationality.

There is this delusion floating around that maintaining the tax rates in the same place that they were before and during the recession will somehow create the jobs we need to get out of said recession.  Is there any business owner out there who is actually operating on this belief?

There is only one reason why a business creates a new job, and that is because the owner believes that he can make more money with that job in place than he will without it.  How much of that added profit goes to taxes is immaterial.

If my business depends on my ability to keep my “same day shipment” promise, and order volume goes past what current staff can ship each day, then I have a choice to make:  hire another shipping person, or lose customers to my competitors.  If another shipping person costs $30,000/year, then I have to decide if late shipments are going to cost me more than that.  If the late shipments are only costing me $10,000/year in lost profits, then I don’t hire.  If I project them as costing me $50,000 in lost profits, then I hire, and put $20,000 (less taxes) in my pocket.

While I would prefer the “less taxes” amount to be as small as possible, I also want many of the things those taxes pay for, like education for my kids, and so I have a pool of educated people to hire from.  Regardless of the tax rate, I still would choose the option that maximizes profits without putting the survival of the business in jeopardy.

This is the difference between small and large businesses:   management of large corporations operate to maximize their bonus  this year, hopefully to the detriment of the long term survival of the company so they can be fired and collect their golden parachute on top of the bonus.  Small businesses operated by the owners care about the survival of the business.