Some Simple Questions

MANDATORY MARCUS

Over the past few weeks a number of questions have come to mind that I figured I may as well ask here:

• If Congress actually votes on matters that have national implications (and they do); why don't Congresspeople have to run in National elections?  After all...Barney Frank chairs the House Financial Services Committee and Charles Rangel chairs the House Ways & Means Committee; both of which have profound national implications on things like financial regulation and tax law...shouldn't the people in California, Louisiana, Montana etc. get a say on who is going to be making rules that effect them?

• If we are going to pass a health care bill that requires cost participation from both the States and the federal government in the expansion of state Medicaid programs...why does Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's State of Nevada get to avoid the additional taxes?  Oregon, Rhode Island and Michigan also get to avoid the additional State tax.  What do they all have in common?  They are all well connected Democrats looking for you and I to pay more so that their constituents can pay less.  And it probably goes without saying that they are all up for re-election and are considered to be in close races with Republican challengers.  Hmmm....so the rest of the Country will have to pay more so these politicians' constituents can pay less, thereby increasing the chances that these particular individuals remain in office?  My vote would be to tax me less and let them all lose their seats.  (National elections anyone...?)
  

• If the health care bill under consideration includes a 40% tax on "high value insurance plans" (and it does) and that means any plan that costs more than $21,000/year...why do 17 States with mostly large Union populations that enjoy exactly this kind of "high value insurance" get a higher threshold?  You might want to ask Chuck Schumer from New York who probably doesn't want to have to deal with a bunch of angry New York Union Members at election time.  (National elections anyone...?)

• Why can't we have one issue per item of legislation?  One issue; one bill.  That way nobody gets to hide behind a veil of "compromise" to explain why they voted for a single bill that contains totally unrelated and frequently contrary issues.  Like that one that passed containing the "credit card bill of rights" and also allows people to carry loaded weapons into National Parks.  What do those two thing have to do with each other anyway???  Seriously...vote an issue and own it.  If you don't get re-elected then go find a real job like the rest of us.

And finally....

• Where's my Nobel Peace Prize?  Two days ago I prevented my cat from getting into a fight with a neighboring cat who wandered too close to my front door...that right there means I've done at least as much as the President to qualify; and clearly that's not enough to win a Nobel Prize.