Memo to the Washington Post and Press Corp

He's just not that into you.

Dana Milbank wrote a piece about how the media was shut out of every conference meeting at the recent "successful" Nuclear Security Summit. He lamented the decision to keep foreign and traditional Washington Press corp regulars out of the loop. Having to rely only on press releases from the White House, those who rely on pure written copy for their editorial content glibly proclaimed the Summit "Obama's Sterling Success." and practically parachuted onto the decks of Air Craft Carriers to proclaim their guy the man of the moment, the creator of peace in our time and lord of all he sees.

Katie Couric in particular went a bit overboard with her coy, "Can we safely say, Mission Accomplished?" Sure if you don't mind that nothing got done. Sure if you don't mind that all the deals are voluntary. Sure if you don't mind if none of the states that actually are threats didn't show and aren't in compliance. Sure if you ignore that China refused and so did Russia. Sure if you don't mind that there will be a four year lag before actual enforcement which as we said, was purely voluntary. So you can say it was fabo! Provided you aren't going to look beyond the cover sheet and don't revisit this issue for the next five years. Sure if you are only skeptic if a Republican proposes anything.

But back to Dana and company. I feel your pain. Really. I know you were ditched when he skipped off to a soccer game sans any buds. I know you're bothered that he doesn't phone and he hasn't responded to your 747 text messages or 116 twitters. But you wanted a reciprocal relationship. Others are much less needy. I know it hurts and I know you don't understand why. But in time, you will.

He's just not that into you.

Slaughter House Rules

The people of Congress have adopted the Slaughter rule. In a close vote of 222-203, the House now can deem to have passed anything the Senate gets through its august body. White House spokesman Gibbs has already hedged about whether the rule will be used for other bills than healthcare so I'd say it's a fair bet that all future legislation will be run through whichever party friendly chamber can pass it first to get rubber stamped by its fellows in the opposite chamber after a few pork laden adjustments. The entire legislative body will have mastered how to vote “Present” and still get major graft in the process.

Why have votes at all if they can be rendered unnecessary?

We deem Cap and Trade to pass. We deem Stimulus II to pass. We deem that all Republicans shall be taxed at 300% to pass. We deem that we are elected for life shall pass. We deem that this judicial nominee shall be seated. We deem that this industry shall become nonprofit. We deem that this nonprofit may not do what it does. We deem that the Fairness doctrine shall be in place. We deem and it is passed. The deliberative part of crafting a bill has been eliminated. The declarative part that requires people to stand up and be counted so they can be held accountable has also been circumvented. Laws need only be drawn up and approved by one part of the legislative branch to get to the Executive. Couple this mischief with Executive Orders and we don't have much of the legislative process left that actually concerns the whole of the Republic.

The pernicious element of the Slaughter rule is that it speeds up the rate at which legislation might be made. Pork deals used to undermine bills such that Congress would then opt for the leaner versions that could pass. Legislators now no longer have to worry about sinking a bill at all via excessive pork pet projects. The members of the House can just add in after the fact as much as they wish. Alternatively, they can gut an entire bill of its teeth if the body affects their political chances. The Slaughter rule establishes a procedure that will allow Congress to spend even more recklessly than before. (Hard to imagine but technically possible). It's a lot easier to pass a bill if you only have to persuade one part of the legislative body and it’s even better if you no longer have to worry about your constituents being made uneasy by your plans.

The whole purpose of having the two houses and the process of reconciliation was to help strip away pork from bills; to make sure that the people’s will was being properly represented before the bills became law. Now Nancy's statement about healthcare will make sense because it will become the norm. People won't know what has been put in the bill until it has been passed, because the stuffing of amendments won't occur until after a bill makes it through either the House or the Senate. The legislators from the opposite deliberative body shall stand poised at the ready once a bill gets through the voting process, ready to bloat it to satisfy their various cronies, flunkies, toadies, lobbyists and lackies. The vetting of the bill will take place prior to the application of deals; so a bill will appear far more pure and garner less public rancor before it “poof” becomes ready for signage by the President with possibly a whole lot of less savory extras that we only get to discover after they have the force of law.  If you're okay with this, just pretend it was the opposite power in party and pick a project you loathe and imagine how you would feel.  Again, the arguement that Republicans did it first or before does not mean they should have or that you should be okay with it then or now.   A corrupt sleazy process is a corrupt sleazy process.  The R or the D is irrelevant.

We are being taken out of the legislative process entirely; we just get to foot the bill. But I'm sure since they're all such honorable people committed to public service and the public good that we have nothing at all to worry about.

No nothing at all.

On Matters of Language, Politics and Rham Emanuel

There's a big flap over Rham's comment about the Democrats in Congress when he insulted them by calling them f---ing retards. The current administration prides itself on its intellect and its capacity to think of solutions but the call to remove the word "Retarded" from all the papers of Congress is symbolic at best. Calling the Kennedy's to apologize also struck me as a silly response. He has since sought to make amends by asking that we all draw a black curtain over the word retarded. How about we draw a curtain over the word f---ing? Or over using insults as a substitute for argument?

Now ugly is as ugly says, and Rham certainly meant no respect to those he criticized by his words. But banning words seems largely irrelevant to the true issue; that the Chief of Staff for the President lacks class, tact and a generous heart. If he speaks in private of his allies and his own party in such pejorative terms, imagine what he says about the opposition, any opposition.

Should he lose his job? No.
Do I think he should engage in public self flagellation? Again no and I'm a conservative Republican Catholic mother of a Down syndrome child.
Do I hope he engages in a bit of introspection about his own attitudes towards others in general? Yes.

As the mother of Paul, I don't give too much weight to the idea of no longer saying the medical condition my son actually has. My son has some retardation; it is part of his actual genetic condition. Retardation is I think the reason people fear Down syndrome so much that 90 percent of all diagnosed in utero are aborted. While the range of handicapping is unknown, the reality of that handicapping quality is a given. It is an inescapable fact. I'm not always happy to face this fact, but if I look in his eyes, the fact falls away because it does not matter in the broader context of who my son Paul is.

However I don't think we want a government Republican or Democrat monopolized by the most thinly skinned person in the country.  I don't think we'd like a society where whoever yells "I feel hurt!" gets vindicated and the offender gets marched to the firing lines of public opinion. No.

I think giving full license to that sort of psychological adolescent peevishness will eliminate the capacity not only to communicate and govern but to tolerate being human or being in the presence of other humans.  If we cannot say what we see or mean what we think, if all we can engage in is politically correct edited redacted sanitized for your protection speech, why will we want to speak about anything anywhere at all? It is dulling to the intellect and the heart to live in fear that others will take offense or take over offense.

But since the President reads blogs, I'll offer my 2 cents tax free. Rham, go to the mike. Say the truth. "I was really annoyed with the folks in Congress and I mouthed off. It wasn't my finest hour." and if he wanted to use humor, he could pull a page from Keith Olberman a'la Scott Brown, "I shouldn't have called them what I called them. What I meant to say, was, "They're spineless greedy self absorbed bloated power mad hypocritical preening lost souls who won't do what we want."

Then at least, Rham would be on the same page with all the rest of the American people in his opinion of Congress.

Show Me

The Town hall meetings, the endless discussion and cycle of arguments from the left and the right have left us right where we started, with multiple bills none of which are the one which will be signed into law. Thus the Congressional Budget Office can declare the proposed bill to cost ONLY $829 billion over 10 years and that it would lower the deficit by $81 billion by cutting costs in Medicare payments, taxing insurance plans deemed too expensive and not providing coverage to 25 million of the currently uninsured.

But if health care is a right not to be withheld for moral reasons, the 25 million left out in the cold by this proposal are unjustly singled out. If healthcare is designed to ensure no one suffers from a lack of coverage, then isn’t the extra value added tax to higher end plans going to discourage people from getting the coverage they perhaps need? If Medicare payments are cut, who will make up the difference for the doctors? The patients who rely on Medicare? The doctors? These are not partisan hack questions, they are serious ones. Even proponents of the healthcare bills in all its forms do not seriously believe that increasing spending by instituting a new government entitlement will result in a deficit reduction without draconian cuts in other areas that may not be possible.

We keep hearing how unjust insurance companies are for saying “No.” but the government by paying pennies on the dollars to doctors, also says “No.” and in a substantial way. What are the protections for the patients, the doctors and the tax payers who in this circumstance absorb all the risks the insurance companies once handled. What will be covered? What won’t? And Why? Who decides? Will the government pay for a Down syndrome child to have open heart surgery the way my insurance did for my son? Will it pay for others home health care the way insurance did for my grandmother when she suffered the ravages of Alzheimer’s disease? Will it take care of a child who faces down death nightly because of an extremely rare condition that causes her autonomic functions to shut down when she sleeps? Will it pay for the medications my friend who is on her third kidney at the age of 43 because of Juvenal diabetes needs? Will it pay for a tenth pregnancy the way it pays for a first should such a thing happen? These are real and difficult situations I know of that insurance companies have handled. Will the government do the same?

As tax payers, we need to know what our government is proposing to do in creating this new added on value program that will seek to address real and pressing needs.

We can’t simply trust the government just because the government says “Trust us.” even if we have the belief that the current administration’s goals are purely benign. We can’t know that if the bill won’t be seen or read until it reaches the President’s desk after being reconciled in committee. We’d like the chance to see the bill, critique it, criticize it and ask real questions that need real answers not because we fear change or wish the poor to die quickly and decrease the surplus population, or because we wish people to suffer or society to be divided into the haves and have nots. We’d like to examine the bill because at 1000 pages each in its multiple draft forms, there is a lot to digest and not all of it is good and much of it gives cause for serious concern. The bill put on the President’s desk ought to represent more than the machinations of a few cherry picked legislators if it is going to count on the economic support of all the American people.

Insulting those who want answers like why the number of people affected keeps shifting and what the coverage provided by the government will cover, calling those who show up unpatriotic, racists, bigots, xenophobes, Neanderthals, tea baggers and idiots –to name only the polite terms used, does not constitute argument or legitimate discussion of legitimate issues. Nor does such ungenerous rhetoric by those in power engender trust or the presumption of benign motivations in the minds of people asking the questions. The American people deserve better from their elected leaders, the elected leaders’ surrogates and the press. Trust is a two way street. Show us the bill. Make your case to the American people based on factual issues rather than political posturing.

We may not love everything. We may object, but surely we can be trusted to look at what you have created rather than simply take it. If you want us to trust you with our healthcare and our tax money for the greater good, trust us with the bill, warts and all. Stop hiding behind insults and protocol and spin. Show us the real bill before it becomes law because it’s the right thing to do whether or not it is the prudent political thing to do.

If This Keeps Up, I'm Handing Out Tooth Brushes, Apples and Popcorn balls

Someone check the calendar. I think it’s Halloween. All these companies keep knocking on the government door and asking for goodies. And they’re scaring me.

First there was AIG and Citibank. 350 billion gone without oversight…but, but….Congress is not giving out that other 375 billion without a few more conditions. You can’t T.P. the mall if you want the rest of the dough.

Then, there were the big three. They were scolded and sent home because they hadn’t bothered to dress up. We don’t give out paydays or 100,000 Grand bars to trick o’treaters who aren’t in costume.

As the hours drift by, the bigger kids came out to beg. Newspapers and Porn industries are currently seeking bail out funds from Congress. Right now, all we have left are sweet tarts and skittles. However, an emergency run has been made to the local Walmart to grab a few bags of the good stuff.

For a measily 1.25 Trillion or more, we’re not sure exactly, the Economy might be saved. We’ll extend October 31st indefinitely, until everyone that wants some candy, gets some. We’ll even raid our own kid’s candy stash to make sure those who knock on the door, get something good.

Just someone show up and surprise me by being the designated driver for all these drunken sailors. (I know, I'm mixing metaphores and it's an insult to drunken navy servicemen and women everywhere).

Trick or Treat.