That’s Elbert With An E

I posted a link in a previous post regarding some rules House Democrats wish to pass restricting free speech of House members on the Internet. As reported on The Next Right:

In typical fashion, House Democrats are trying to pass rules that stifle debate and require regulation. Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA) sent a letter to the Chairman of the Committee on House Administraion Kevin Brady. The letter is a response to a debate about whether the House should allow members to use YouTube, first raised by Rep. Kevin McCarthy back in April. From that story:

The reason is simple enough: The Franking Commission frowns on official links to campaign-related Web sites, political parties, advocacy groups and “any site the primary purpose of which is the conduct of commerce.”

Well, Capuano’s proposal is a disaster. It creates a list of sites, maintained by the Committee on House Administration that members are allowed to post material.

House Republican Leader John Boehner released a statement on July 8, Which I’ve reprinted below:

I’m writing to alert you to an attack on free speech that is making its way through Congress. This attack, which should concern activists of all political affiliations across the ideological spectrum, comes in the form of a new congressional rule that would prohibit Americans from viewing content published by Members of Congress on websites that are not “approved” by the Committee on House Administration, the panel that creates rules governing the internal operations of the U.S. House.

Millions of Americans today utilize free, unregulated and uncensored websites like YouTube on a daily basis to not only obtain information from their elected leaders about what’s going on in their government, but to also give feedback and easily share that information with others. The advent of new media technology has empowered American citizens with real-time information about the policy debates and actions being undertaken by Congress. This has increasingly forced Congress to become more transparent and made it easier for American citizens to hold their elected leaders accountable.

The Committee on House Administration is considering a new rule that could bring this trend to a screeching halt. The Committee is considering the adoption of new rules that would require outside websites such as YouTube to comply with House regulations before Members of Congress could post videos on them. Under the proposal, the House Administration Committee would develop a list of “approved” websites, and Members of Congress could post content only such websites. The rule has been proposed by the Democratic chairman of the Commission on Mailing Standards, Rep. Michael Capuano (D-MA), and is being considered for adoption by the Committee on House Administration, chaired by Rep. Robert Brady (D-PA). A copy of Rep. Capuano’s letter is available at http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/Capuano_letter.PDF.

If the proposed rule is adopted, the free flow of information over the Internet between Americans and their representatives will be significantly curtailed. Americans who currently use free websites like YouTube to obtain uncensored daily information about congressional policy debates will instead be forced to go to websites “approved” by the House Administration Committee in order to continue getting such information. This would amount to new government censorship of the Internet, by a panel of federal officials that is neither neutral nor independent.

House Republicans, led by Reps. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), and Tom Price (R-GA), have expressed their opposition to this attack on Internet freedom and proposed an alternative solution that would allow Members of Congress to continue posting content at sites of their choosing.

In response to this situation The Sunlight Foundation has started a campaign on Twitter called Let Our Congress Tweet. If you’ve got a Twitter account, stop by and take a look. A post on their blog says it simply:

If Members can use whatever brand of inkpen, or any brand of paper, or buy whatever shoes they want, they should be given radically expanded freedom to use the Internet, and make the same empowering discoveries that their constituents are. Even if that same pen was once used to scribble a ransom note.

It appears that House Democrats wish to control the debate and stifle political speech. Honestly, between their support of the Fairness Doctrine and this mess, these guys have more in common with Castro or Ahmadinejad or Stalin than our founding fathers.

I have to give a hat tip to PolitickerMD for uncovering this little article today - while I’m sure it’s a fine newspaper I don’t make a habit of reading the Carroll County Times. The story by writer Erica Kritt puts a local spin on the issue, and the paper should be commended for taking the time to look at this small protest and bringing it to light.

The article also brought up this fairly new website with the moniker Health Care For America Now. Of course, while they claim to be a “national grassroots campaign organizing millions of Americans to win a guarantee of quality, affordable health care for all”, it’s the same old far-left organizations who have persisted in this effort for many moons. A list of “organizational members” goes like this:

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Americans United for Change, Campaign for America’s Future, Center for American Progress Action Fund, Center for Community Change, MoveOn.org, National Education Association, National Women’s Law Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Service Employees International Union, United Food and Commercial Workers, and USAction.

You got it, mostly union thugs. Of course, they’ve couched their aim in much better language than simply saying “socialized health care” - now it’s a question of insurance:

We’re offering a bold new solution that gives you real choice and a guarantee of quality coverage you can afford: keep your current private insurance plan, pick a new private insurance plan, or join a public health insurance plan.

We’re also calling for regulation on health insurance companies. We need to set and enforce rules that quash health insurance companies’ greed once and for all. There is a huge divide between our plan and the insurance companies’ plan for healthcare reform. We want to make sure you have the quality coverage you need at the price you can afford. They want to leave you alone to fend for yourself in the unregulated, bureaucratic health insurance market.

Our plan is affordable for people and business. Their plan is profitable for them. With no regulation, health insurance companies can and will charge whatever they want, set high deductibles, and continue to drop coverage when you get sick. Now is the time to pick a side.

So the “real choice” I have would be to be insured by a company that will soon be bankrupted by the burden of additional regulation and taxation, another company that will follow a similar fate at some point either before or after my original choice, or be insured by the government and watch my taxes increase as more and more people are forced from the now-bankrupt private insurers and into the arms of government bureaucracy. Some choice.

I see nothing in their plan about common-sense solutions like medical savings accounts or tort reform, which would bring down costs by reducing the liability insurance burden all physicians share. Nor is there room for fee-for-service, which some doctor offices are getting back into in order to avoid the paperwork hassles of insurance companies. (Do you honestly think there will be less paperwork if the government is in charge of your health insurance? Give me a break.)

This also leads into more ancilliary issues. Take illegal immigration, which drives up health care costs to varying degrees depending on the influx of undocumented workers in a particular area. Rarely do they pay for the services provided, and while some costs are passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices hospitals try to charge, more often it’s a loss to the hospital or clinic and too many losses force the facilities to close their doors permanently. While this may not be a total cause and effect, it bears noting that Prince George’s County here in Maryland is a safe haven in all but name for illegals and also has a hospital system which required a bailout in this year’s Maryland budget.

Another concern I have about the HCAN approach is the overabundance of regulations already in place and whether there would be any effort to streamline things. At least with a for-profit insurer there are efforts to control costs - and while the most egregious efforts grab headlines and make their industry appear even more cruel and heartless, on the whole the health care insurers are making an honest effort to make the system simpler despite the maze of regulations in place as lawmakers attempt to placate one group or another. Unfortunately, an approach that treats health insurers as the enemy leaves out an important portion of the equation that needs to be accounted.

It’s also worthy of note that HCAN gets a large share of funding from the Tides Foundation, “quickly becoming the 800-pound gorilla of radical activist funding, and this couldn’t happen without a nine-figure balance sheet” according to the website activistcash.com.

Of course, the HCAN website asks “which side are you on?” and offers only the chance to sign a petition showing your support. I’m on the side of personal choice myself, and if it means I’m allied with the so-called “greedy” health insurers I suppose I could think of worse company to be in.

Crossposted on monoblogue.

Hat tip to Delaware Venable for this YouTube video of a funny speech from the floor of the US House. I was surprised.

There’s something very nice about political parties in Delaware. In general, it is fairly easy to get your political party on the ballot. This means that many choices are available to each voter. And for the most part, the minor party candidates are treated as candidates and not the red-headed step child of the election.

Today I thought I would be reading something about the Democrats when I saw this headline: Socialists register for Delaware ballot. Instead, it was an article about the Socialist Workers Party getting their Presidential nominee on the ballot here in Delaware. Yes, I should be able to tell the difference between the two parties, but explain the difference after you read this:

[The Socialist Workers Party candidates] represent a platform that includes active support for unions and labor groups, withdrawal of all American troops from foreign nations and citizen status for all residents of other countries now in America illegally. The group has branded American forces as “imperialist” representatives of wealthy American interests.

Well, I’ll give you this. The Socialist Workers apparently want to remove all troops on foreign soil, whereas the Democrats only want to remove troops fighting the war on terror.

To update a story I posted earlier, the News Journal has an updated story on the Eminent Domain veto. They report:

Minner would not agree to be interviewed about her veto. But in a letter to state senators she released to the media, the governor wrote that the bill could restrict the state’s ability to get an easement on private property for beach preservation or other purposes and be more costly to taxpayers.

Hopefully the Legislature will see the light and override this veto. Call your representative Monday (that’s today) and let them know you’re not happy about this! And while you’re at it, don’t forget about the Planned Parenthood funding.

I guess mama knows best. From the News Journal:

Gov. Ruth Ann Minner announced today she is vetoing legislation that would have redefined “public use” in the eminent domain law and made it harder for government agencies to take private land. The Legislature passed Senate Bill 245 on June 12, after months of negotiations between parities involved in the issue.

This is just crazy.

Members of both chambers of the Legislature have said a new eminent domain law is a priority, and they suspect an 11th hour attempt to ensure a compromise is reached and signed by the governor before they adjourn Monday night.

It would be nice to see them just override her veto, but Delaware Watch reports:

Even though the measure passed both houses by overwhelming margins, it has been reported to Delaware Watch that Senate President Pro Tem Thurman… Adams has the policy that no veto by a Democratic Governor will be overturned while he dominates the state Senate.

And that’s a shame.

Once more from the News Journal:

Although SB 245 came partly as a response to the Riverfront squabble, it also was a reaction to the 2005 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Kelo v. City of New London. In that case, the nation’s highest court ruled that the taking of private property as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan was a permissible use of eminent domain because the public at large benefits from the redevelopment.

Funny thing is that the City of New London tore down the house and the development for which the house was removed has yet to happen:

…not much progress has been made in Fort Trumbull, leaving some wondering whether the homeowners were forced out for nothing.

Hit this link for SB 245. Hat tip to Delaware Liberal for the veto story. Hat tip to Newsbusters for the Kelo update.

Hube tells us about “thought showers“.

Brian talks about his adventures delivering pizzas.

Howard always has interesting posts on local history. This post about the old Benjamin’s Department Store reminds you of the rich treasure of local stores once dominating the our cities and towns.

Oh yeah, Howard found another blogger from his neck of the woods: What A Smell.

Average Girl writes about her gas experiment.

IMAO reports that since this week’s Supreme Court ruling on the Second Amendment guns have been out shooting people.

Paul provides a link to a site where you, yes you, can create your own Obama poster. Some of my ideas: