Senator Landrieu, bought and paid for
- Login to post comments
ABC News' Jonathan Karl reports:
What does it take to get a wavering senator to vote for health care reform?
Here’s a case study.
On page 432 of the Reid bill, there is a section increasing federal Medicaid subsidies for “certain states recovering from a major disaster.”
The section spends two pages defining which “states” would qualify, saying, among other things, that it would be states that “during the preceding 7 fiscal years” have been declared a “major disaster area.”
I am told the section applies to exactly one state: Louisiana, the home of moderate Democrat Mary Landrieu, who has been playing hard to get on the health care bill.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/11/the-100-million-health-care-vot...
Democrats...for a price.
So far, Landrieu's been a holdout, I think, partially on the abortion issue.
To me, bought and paid for suggests that someone is personally profitting.
Trading a vote for something that benefits your district is something else entirely.
I fixed the link...
To me, bought and paid for suggests that someone is personally profitting. Trading a vote for something that benefits your district is something else entirely.
Let me see if I understand.....Monday the plan is bad for the country and loathed by her state...Wednesday $100 million is pork is added to the bill and now the plan is good for the country and her folk like it....NOT...
No, bought and paid for also means votes from local special interests bought and paid for....
Under that definition, you are going to have a hard time finding anyone who has served in Congress that is not bought and paid for. Maybe Tom Coburn. Not many more.
Congress is not supposed to be about Senators changing their votes on ideas bad for the country in exchange for money or votes...
You are right though...almost all our current Congress is corrupt and should be unemployed.
It's infuriating to me that Harry Reid would be using tons of MY MONEY to buy support for a plan I can't stand.
There is an up side...he will be unemployed about this time next year.
The down side is that he will live the rest of life on his ill gotten gains on the taxpayers dime.
Kudos to ABC for bringing this forward (I was about to post it - thanks, JIMV, for doing so).
The language used is fascinating, and I shall post it here because it's public record material. It's clear that this bill uses two pages to describe, without identifying, one (and only) one state. One wonders how many other states have similar bones tossed.
SEC. 2006. SPECIAL ADJUSTMENT TO FMAP DETERMINATION FOR CERTAIN STATES RECOVERING FROM A MAJOR DISASTER.
Section 1905 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1396d), as amended by sections 2001(a)(3) and
2001(b)(2), is amended— (1) in subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘subsection (y)’’ and inserting ‘‘subsections (y) and (aa)’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
‘‘(aa)(1) Notwithstanding subsection (b), beginning January 1, 2011, the Federal medical assistance percentage for a fiscal year for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State shall be equal to the following:
‘(A) In the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), increased by 50 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5.
‘‘(B) In the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection for the State, increased by 25 percent of the number of percentage points by which the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection.
‘‘(2) In this subsection, the term ‘disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State’ means a State that is one of
the 50 States or the District of Columbia, for which, at any time during the preceding 7 fiscal years, the President has declared a major disaster under section 401 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and determined as a result of such disaster that every county or parish in the State warrant individual and public assistance or public assistance from the Federal Government under such Act and for which— ‘‘(A) in the case of the first fiscal year (or part of a fiscal year) for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year after the application of only subsection (a) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5 (if applicable to the preceding fiscal year) and without regard to this subsection, subsection (y), and subsections (b) and (c) of section 5001 of Public Law 111–5, by at least 3 percentage points; and ‘‘(B) in the case of the second or any succeeding fiscal year for which this subsection applies to the State, the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the fiscal year without regard to this subsection and subsection (y), is less than the Federal medical assistance percentage determined for the State for the preceding fiscal year under this subsection by at least 3 percentage points.
‘‘(3) The Federal medical assistance percentage determined for a disaster-recovery FMAP adjustment State under paragraph (1) shall apply for purposes of this title (other than with respect to disproportionate share hospital payments described in section 1923 and payments under this title that are based on the enhanced FMAP described in 2105(b)) and shall not apply with respect to payments under title IV (other than under part E of title IV) or payments under title XXI.’’.
Sen. Landrieu's website has the following release dated yesterday:
The Importance of Health Care Reform
WASHINGTON (Nov. 19) -- Today, the United Health Foundation released its annual assessment of health throughout the country. Louisiana ranked 47th--the state's highest ranking since UHF began its survey 19 years ago. The health care system in America is not working, and in few places is this more evident than in Louisiana.
The health care bill unveiled yesterday, while imperfect, takes many important steps towards repairing our broken health care system.
This is part of the fallacy of the Michaud-Pelosi and HarryReid schemes. The health care system works very well if one is committed to use it. Watch your food intake (no cost), get your daily exercise (no cost), get your sleep (no cost), brush your teeth, wash up daily, drink plenty of water (no cost), cut out the smokes (cost benefit), cut out the booze (cost benefit) and have your annual physical (you can pay for it by acting on the items above). The problem is that there are millions of Americans who will do nothing of the sort, even after the Democrats get the "rich" to pay for it.
Shilling for votes and ignoring reality.
Drudge calls this The Louisiana Purchase.
What a wretched, wretched testament to the corrupt, self-serving, disconnected mess our federal representatives have engaged in for so long, such crimes have become the norm!
Why are these people not tarred and feathered? Where is the rail upon which they should be ridden out of town? At what point did the citizenry become themselves so jaded that we can discuss this openly -- not rumors and whispers, but facts put out there with proof -- and no one calls for the resignation of these Kings and Queens of Corruption.
I, for one, am able to suffer people who differ from me in opinion or the belief of what is good for the country. I can even tolerate those who are simply and obviously wrong about their beliefs. But the gross corruption and criminal behavior is something I cannot continence. But where do people like me turn? How do we stop this insanity? How do we wake Americans up to the utter dishonesty and disgrace which has become so commonplace?
More than MIchaud got, what is the SEIU getting?
More 'good' news...Senator Nelson has decided to forget his misgivings and vote yes tomorrow...so far his price is unknown but I would like to hope he got more than Landrieu's paltry $100 million.
Rep. Michaud, could you explain Sec. 2006, Subsection B,Paragraph 3 of the health care bill?
If Liberman continues to hold out against the plan, and none of the republicans votes for it (what's the latest word from Snowe), isn't all this just deck chair rearrangement on the Titanic?
They will vote to start debate tonight and then it will be all over.
What a disgrace. All the more so because Sen. Landrieu's piggish behavior is no surprise. Here's a 2007 FEMA press release:
NEW ORLEANS, La. -- As the new year starts and recovery from hurricanes Katrina and Rita continues, m ore than $30 billion in federal funds has been obligated to Louisiana through Public Assistance programs, awarded to citizens through Individual Assistance, settled through National Flood Insurance claims or loaned through the U.S. Small Business Association (SBA).
Thirty-billion U.S. taxpayer dollars isn't enough, Sen. Landrieu? That amount, assuming it hasn't risen, was shy - what? - $100 million to get the job done?
The price of destroying the best health care system in the world: $100 million.
Everybody does it is no excuse. We know that. That's the problem. It needs to stop.
If the Democratic Senators are onboard, probably with the exception of Sen. Lieberman, then Reid only has 59 votes. He's having a vote sooner than expected and on a Saturday night. That suggests to me he has that extra vote from somewhere because he does not want to be seen as failing when Speaker Pelosi was able to get her version through.
The question is, who's that 60th vote?
And for all the debating that will go on after this, if tonight's vote happens, like it or not, a major health care bill will be a done deal (in my personal opinion).
Leiberman WILL vote to allow debate...
If Liberman continues to hold out against the plan, and none of the republicans votes for it (what's the latest word from Snowe), isn't all this just deck chair rearrangement on the Titanic?
I spoke to an aide yesterday when I called to thank and encourage her for her stand. (So far.)
According to the woman with whom I spoke, she is still "inclined" to vote against it.
For whatever that's worth.
Landrieu just started to speak live, and began by wanting to "thank all those who have been so helpful." She began with Harry Reid....
Click, off, screw 'em all. Shameless, amoral, immoral self stroking in public, all at our expense.
Call Webster, and tell him to delete "Public Servant" from the lexicon, the encyclopedias, and everything else.
These people are truly insufferable, thoroughly self-absorbed, unprincipled, duplicitous, sanctimonious, and entirely destructive.
I do not understand the drama on the cable channels. Landrieu's vote was bought and paid for as demonstrated by the bribe in the bill. Everyone knew it. Nelson was bought as well, we just do not know the details and that leaves Lincoln, who I am sure has been bought for the biggest price of all.
As long as the public allows criminals and self serving hacks into Congress, we will have scams like today's process.
=====
=====
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
11/21/2009
Landrieu Floor Statement on Motion to Proceed to Senate Health Care Bill
WASHINGTON -- United States Senator Mary L. Landrieu, D-La., today announced, on the Senate floor, that she will be voting in favor of starting debate on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
Sen. Landrieu said:
"Madam President, I first want to commend my colleague, Senator Cantwell, the Senator from Washington State, who has worked so hard and so long and in such a professional way. She has been extremely helpful to me through this process, and I want to acknowledge that and thank her.
"Before I make a statement, I also want to comment about a few other colleagues who have been extremely helpful and supportive, not just to me but I think to the entire Senate, beginning with Senator Harry Reid, our leader, who, with patience and persistence and care, has led us to a bill that is before the Senate. The question today is whether we should proceed. I would like to say that, in my view, no other Member of the Senate could have accomplished what he has today. I think many Senators share that sentiment.
"No. 2, I want to recognize the extraordinary work of the Senator from Oregon, Senator Ron Wyden, who, 2 years ago, before the Presidential election had really gotten underway, before it was really ever clear as to who might win, Senator Wyden put down a bill called the Healthy Americans Act, which I was very proud to support, and I still am so proud of that effort today. That bill has the support seven Republicans and seven Democrats. It is a truly bipartisan effort that would accomplish, in my view, what many Americans are asking for: a marketplace that is fixed and reformed, more affordable choices for individuals and small businesses and families, and a real effort to curb the rising and alarming cost to the Federal taxpayers, given that the percentage now of our GDP spent on health care is almost exceeding 16 percent, twice as high as any nation in the world. That is alarming. The Healthy Americans Act went a long way to help frame my thoughts on this debate. We are going to continue to work together through this process.
"I also thank Senator Blanche Lincoln who, because of her persistent leadership, has pushed and prodded Members of this body to ensure that we had the time necessary to review this bill. In so doing, she helped to assure our constituents, whether they are for or against the direction we are moving, knew that we had the time necessary to make an informed decision. I think I have used that time very well these last 2 1/2 days. I have been in meetings with economists, on the phone with health care experts, talking with people from my State as well as around the Nation. I have used that time well and wisely. Senator Lincoln led the charge to ensure that we had the time we needed, and I am glad to have supported her in that effort. I know she will be speaking on the floor later today, giving her final views on where we are. I commend her for her leadership.
"Madam President, I come to the floor today to acknowledge those members, but also to speak on the business before the Senate today, and that is the question of whether to proceed to debate on the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, a bill that is the best work of the Senate to date on a subject of significant importance to the people of my State and the country. I have decided to vote today to move forward on this important debate.
"My vote should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote on the final bill. My vote is a vote to move forward, to continue the good and essential and important and imperative work that is underway.
"After a thorough review of the bill, as I said, over the last 2 1/2 days, which included many lengthy discussions, I have decided that there are enough significant reforms and safeguards in this bill to move forward, but much more work needs to be done before I can support this effort.
"Over the past many years, and in particular the last 6 months, I have heard from people all across Louisiana that their insurance premium costs are simply too high and continue to rise without warning, threatening the financial stability of their families and their businesses. I have also heard the pleas and cries of many people who need health coverage but they cannot find it anywhere within reach of their budgets.
"Through months of public meetings in VFW halls, school gyms, and in hospitals and health clinics from New Orleans to Shreveport, and in large and small communities throughout my State, it is clear to me that doing nothing is not an option, nor is postponing the debate.
"Spirited debate and good-faith negotiations in this Senate have produced a bill that contains some amazing and cutting-edge reforms that will, I am hopeful, reduce costs for families and small businesses while reducing the debt burden of the Federal Government. But these reforms must be implemented properly and carefully, and they must be put in place in a timely fashion.
"Small business owners across the country have told me time after time that in order to grow their businesses and create jobs, they need affordable health insurance and they need stable and predictable costs. Yes, they would like their costs to be lowered, and I am going to stay focused like a laser on doing just that. But what they also need is predictability -- they need to be able to plan for the future, something they cannot do when the cost of healthcare spikes violently from year to year.
"As we all know, today, under the status quo, small business owners are frequently confronted with impossible choices when an employee or employee's family member gets seriously ill. They can expect exorbitant cost increases of up to 20% in their premiums when just one of their employees gets sick. Then they are confronted with the excruciating choice of going to that employee and those family members and saying: I am sorry, to save my business and the other 10 employees, we need to let you go. Here is $1,000 or $2,000 or $5,000. You are on your own. Good luck.
"That is a tragic story, painful, depressing, and it has to stop.
"I appreciate the hard work of many business owners and organizations that have helped to craft portions of this framework because they have remained at the negotiating table. They didn't run and hide, they remained at the table. I am asking them today to stay at this table.
"Before I discuss the work that needs to be done to improve this bill, I would like to discuss some of the points in this bill that encourage me to move forward.
"Small business owners, under the current framework of this bill, would no longer be confronted with these kinds of volatile costs. This bill prevents insurance companies from escalating their rates or dropping their coverage after someone gets sick. That important change goes a long way in stabilizing the amount small businesses will have to pay for their health plans, and it allows business owners to do what they do best -- plan smart investments, grow their businesses, and then help us grow our economy.
"In recent years, economists have found that workers' wages have remained largely stagnant. Why? Because employers are paying more and more for health care that we are indirectly subsidizing through the current Tax Code and so they have less and less money to pay real wages that workers in large and small businesses could actually take home, put in their pockets, and spend in much more productive ways. The bill we are debating would encourage employers to move away from high-cost benefit plans, and instead increase the amount that working families can take home. That is an important change from the status quo.
"In addition, this bill would ensure that the majority of Louisiana families would pay no more than 10 percent of their income for health care. That is still high. But today families in Louisiana pay an average of 30 percent of their income on healthcare costs. And economists project that if we do nothing, that total will climb to 60 percent of an average family's income that will have to be spent trying to afford health care. This bill changes that trajectory. So while some people still think that 10 percent or 12 percent may be too high, it is a lot better than 60 percent, which is the direction we are heading today if we do nothing. That is real progress.
"These reforms I have just mentioned are necessary and are too important a goal for the Senate to abandon its work. But, as I have said, there is a great deal more work that needs to be done.
"I would like to mention briefly just a few of the significant changes I would like to see be made to this bill.
"No. 1, in order to increase choices for small businesses, we must enhance and expand tax credits that are in this bill for small businesses, particularly for business with 25 or fewer employees. If we can expand tax credits for slightly larger small businesses with between 25 and 50 employees, that would be significant progress. Current projections are that 96 percent of all businesses that have more than 50 employees have coverage. That is a good statistic, and those larger businesses have some choices. But we need to give small businesses more choices. It is these small businesses that are leading the country on its way out of this recession. And we need to help them in that effort.
"In addition, I will continue to fight for more tax equity for the 27 million Americans who are currently self-employed. Every chairman of the Small Business Committee -- both Republican and Democrat, I understand, for the last 25 years -- has asked for this to be addressed. It is time to make progress on that effort now.
"No. 2, in order to really deliver our promise to hold down costs for families, we should think about focusing on ways to prevent premiums from being excessively raised between the time this bill is enacted, if it ever is, and the time it actually goes into effect. Many of the provisions in this bill, because of cost considerations, which I understand, do not go into effect until 2014. Well, today is 2009. That's a long time between now and then, and we need to make sure that companies do not jack up their premiums in anticipation of the market reforms this bill will make, as we have seen the credit card industry do in anticipation of the important reforms we made earlier in the year. Americans cannot afford to allow that kind of predatory behavior.
"Finally, I remain concerned that the current version of the public option included in this bill could shift significant risks to taxpayers over time unnecessarily, and I will continue to work with my colleagues to find a better and bipartisan solution for this issue. I have suggested that a freestanding, premium-supported, competitive community option that would trigger on a date certain, if our private market reforms fail to work, might be a possible compromise. That would include language that Senator Snowe and other of my colleagues have been working on for several months.
"Because I am hopeful we can make progress on each of these concerns and others through an amendment and debate process that is open and transparent, I believe that it is incumbent upon me to allow the bill to move to debate on the Senate floor.
"I stand ready to work together with my colleagues to fashion a principled and hopefully bipartisan compromise in the end to achieve what the people in my State need, and what many Americans need, and which we really have to do our best to try to give them.
"Finally, I know my time is up, but I would like to ask a personal privilege for just 1 more minute to address an issue that has come up, unfortunately, in the last 24 hours, driven by some very partisan Republican bloggers. So I think I need to respond and will do so now.
"One of the provisions in the framework of this bill has to do with fixing a very difficult situation that Louisiana is facing. For reasons that are simply beyond my comprehension, some partisans have decided to attack me for leading an effort to address a serious budget shortfall facing my state.
"The reason for this situation goes back to the disastrous hurricanes of 2005. I am not going to review the horrors of Katrina and Rita. The levees broke, and by the way, the courts have just ruled that the Corps of Engineers was, as I have said from the beginning, responsible. But I will comment more on that at another date.
"But, nonetheless, in 2005 Louisiana experienced two of the worst natural disasters in recent memory. In an effort to aid the recovery, Congress stepped in with a massive aid package for Louisianans -- thank you -- that infused grant dollars and direct assistance.
"Some of necessary one-time recovery dollars, in addition to the increased economic activity, were calculated into our State's per capita income. The result has been that Louisiana's per capita income was abnormally inflated. You can understand that. There were billions of dollars that came in from insurance and road, home, and community development block grants.
"In addition, labor and wage costs went up because there was a constriction in the market, which any economist can tell us always happens after a natural disaster. As a result, when we did the calculation under the law, it made us seem as if we were a state with a high per capita income like Connecticut and not a state with a low per capita income like Louisiana, almost as if we had become rich overnight. That was not the case. Our State is still as poor as it was, if not poorer as a consequence of those devastating storms. I am not going to be defensive about asking for help in this situation. It is not a $100 million fix, it is a nearly $300 million fix. It is the No. 1 request of my Governor who is a Republican. He explicitly asked that I pursue these funds. It is unanimously supported by every Member of our delegation, Democratic and Republican. I am proud to have asked for it. I am proud to have fought for it. I will continue to. But that is not the reason I am moving to debate.
"The reason I am moving to the debate, as I expressed in this statement, is that the cost of healthcare is bankrupting families and it is bankrupting our government. We cannot afford the status quo.
"I thank my colleagues for their graciousness. I know I have gone over my time, but I wanted to get that on the record. I support moving forward with the debate and look forward to working with them to improve it.
"I yield the floor."
- 30 -
Michaud Sold Us Out Cheap On Health Care
In my humble opinion, I think that I am thankful for a nation where we can still work to replace politicians who fail to represent us effectively or morally.
Was Rep. Michaud effective in this health care train wreck?
Do you think we should have sent Ms. Landrieu to negotiate for Maine? I mean, if we are going to ask the rest of the nation's taxpayers to pay for our support of this fiasco via confiscated earnings or debt, we should get our dollars worth shouldn't we?
It seems like Sen. Landrieu, who actually got high-dollar language in a bill, was much more capable then Rep. Michaud, who got a low-dollar vague "assurance", which is nothing more than a pretty weak promise. And, in fact the "assurance" is for a program that will be discontinued upon final implementation of the law if passed.
Was Rep. Michaud morally sound in his vote for a new health care entitlement?
From now on, every one of us will be paying for his vote. Every one of us, including our grandchildren and beyond, will pay with confiscated income and national debt.
Rep. Michaud voted for a bill that will continue to enslave my grand-children into the bondage of national debt and high taxes for the foreseeable future, which is a moral travesty. At the expense of 266 million citizens, who earned their benefits, he decided that it was right and proper to promise government entitlements to about 34 million people, who did not earn them, but who will now be legally entitled to them. He did this at our expense and will work to confiscate our income to accomplish his political gain.
Rep. Michaud is left trying to convince us that he did a great and wonderful job for us as this recent BDN article shows. This is an empty, dangerous, and intellectually insulting vapid argument at best.
Finest congress money can buy....
Politics have no relation to morals. Niccolo Machiavelli
Spot on, many would say. Especially after watching a Senator from Louisiana sell her vote on the health care debate recently for $300 million in taxpayer money. Or hearing a Congressman from Pennsylvania say that pork coming his way may look like graft or corruption, but if it supports his people, he supports the corruption.
One wonders what sort of "leverage" Maine's two Senators will use as the health care debate proceeds; it should be interesting to watch the bidding.
Which all ties in with an Imprimus column that came my way in September.
In it, Walter Williams discusses "Future Prospects for Economic Liberty." When I read it, I circled this passage:
Some will respond that big government is what the majority of voters want, and that in a democracy the majority rules. But America’s Founders didn’t found a democracy, they founded a republic. The authors of The Federalist Papers, arguing for ratification of the Constitution, showed how pure democracy has led historically to tyranny. Instead, they set up a limited government, with checks and balances, to help ensure that the reason of the people, rather than the selfish passions of a majority, would hold sway. Unaware of the distinction between a democracy and a republic, many today believe that a majority consensus establishes morality. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In other words, morality is whatever the times and the people decide it is. Just think for a moment how dangerous that concept is, and I would offer up WW II and Nazi Germany as just one example of such danger.
But this also speaks to the larger point of modern politics not being grounded in any established morality, other than the self-interests of those who govern and what it takes to keep them in power.
Williams adds:
Another common argument is that we need big government to protect the little guy from corporate giants. But a corporation can’t pick a consumer’s pocket. The consumer must voluntarily pay money for the corporation’s product. It is big government, not corporations, that have the power to take our money by force. I should also point out that private business can force us to pay them by employing government. To see this happening, just look at the automobile industry or at most corporate farmers today. If General Motors or a corporate farm is having trouble, they can ask me for help, and I may or may not choose to help. But if they ask government to help and an IRS agent shows up at my door demanding money, I have no choice but to hand it over. It is big government that the little guy needs protection against, not big business. And the only protection available is in the Constitution and the ballot box.
Sadly, we have virtually no protection left against big government; the Constitution is dismissed as so much inconvenient baggage ("negative rights"), and the permanent ruling class renders the ballot box far less effective than it should be. Incumbency is simply too easy to purchase, the Constitution be damned.
Recently I was reading a book review in The Weekly Standard entitled "Cool Gone Cold."
I found these two lines regarding "perspectival thinking" to be memorable, and relevant to this discussion:
Loosely, this means regarding reality as lying mainly in the eye of the beholder rather than being fixed, immutable, and objectively given.
The idea that reality is whatever it is perceived to be, rather than something with independent existence, is likely to be with us as long as our culture survives.
There is obviously broad support for moral relativism and its many byproducts in this day and age. And especially despised in our big government age is any notion of constraining Government with a Constitution. Why how do you expect our benevolent "public servants" to save us from ourselves if we put chains on them?
How quaint a concept, I suppose.
But ask yourself this if you don't think there is a need for absolutes within the framework of our lives. Suppose your bank, and your employer, and your investment company all decided that instead of the absolutism of the mathematics we learned as children and came to hold dear, that their math "realities" lay mainly in the eye of the beholder rather than being fixed, immutable, and objectively given.
In other words, your bank, your employer, and your investment firm would come up with results for you that bear no relationship to what you think they should be, because they could each invent their own math rules to suit their purposes.
That might sound a little hair-brained, but it's not too different than what the federal government does as it reinvents the laws of finance and economics to make the answers come out the way it wants, rather than the way "arcane absolutes" would make them come out.
And feels free to reinvent them further, whenever the need arises.
Anything for the greater good, right?
Well Said Melvin
It is my humble opinion that it all begins with the concept of a "shoebox god" that some believe they can put under the bed and forget about when inconvenient, or in the way of doing what they deem "best" for others.
When you believe you know better than God, or that your actions are not held accountable to Him, you can decide what is truth, or good, or not, and act accordingly.
A republic is for those who are intellectually honest and who believe that God is almighty and sovereign and who wish to be ruled by truth. A democracy is for brutes who want to convince a mob that they know best and rule by force of majority.
The United States of America is a republic. We better start acting like a republic, beholding to an almighty God, if we are to remain a republic.
I humble differ in opinion with Machiavelli though. Integrity and morality are virtues necessary for a righteous government to rule.
Thus the absolute imperative for faith in an Almighty God who rules above the state as John 18:37-38 testifies too as an example.
As can been seen, the truth was discounted and the government acted based on democratic mob rule.
- Login to post comments
The link doesn't seem to work.
But has there been a vote that I'm not aware of? Reid may have slipped the language in, but where's the indication that Landrieu has been bought? She may in fact be swayed by this - time will tell. But until then, how about we wait and see before condemning her.