There's a heck of a lot of justifications being thrown around over deem & pass. It was wrong when previous sessions of congress used the measure, and it's still wrong now. And by wrong, I mean, I'd be willing to bet that its completely and utterly unconstitutional.

The difference to keep in mind is the scale of the legislation. This is only important in that there are bound to be serious legal challenges over the health care reform bill where as with past uses of "Deem and Pass," there were not. In fact, 19 Attorney Generals from various states have announced their intent to challenge the bill should it pass. Something like 36 states have legislation pending to protect their residents from the insurance mandates (which will all but assuredly get challenged and head to the Supreme Court). Legal challenges are coming from multiple, and not necessarily GOP specific, directions.

Should the House democrats use the "Deem and Pass" method on the health care reform bill, they open themselves up to the entire bill being thrown out on unconstitutional grounds. Not to mention that it's safe to say that bipartisanship will officially be dead for at least a generation (if it's not already, that is...). The blow back involved, as well as the precedence of passing controversial legislation without voting on it, can't be understated.

For those not into politics, the specific portion of the Constitution that Deem and Pass violates is Article I, Section 7. I've highlighted the relevant portions.

Section. 7

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

Congress can't simply "deem" something to have passed, as that doesn't count as a vote in the official journal. Members have to go on record, and given all the talk about transparency in Government lately, I'm shocked that members of the left would even consider such an approach in order to avoid having their name attached to a specific vote. I know the media keeps hinting at it being used, but it's really hard for me to believe.

Regardless, the mere fact that democrats have a super majority, yet are still begging members of their own party to vote in favor, and offering up mechanisms so they can avoid putting their name on the bill, should tell you everything you need to know.

And remember, opposition isn't about the cause, it's about the specific legislation. The devil's in the details.

UPDATE: WSJ published an article which gets into more of the specifics and is very interesting.

If you could move into a brand new mansion right this second for 0% down and no monthly payments forever, would you?

Most folks would undoubtedly say yes.

Here's the rub. Your kids inherit the mortgage that you won't be paying on their eighteenth birthday. They'll miss out on their American Dream and have to lower their expectations quite a bit just to get by.

Still want to move into that house?

As our Congress gets ready to pass what is likely the largest spending legislation in the history of our country -- more total debt in one bill than the entire inflation adjusted body of work known as the New Deal -- just remember one thing: The government doesn't give us anything. The government is simply a middle man to ourselves. We'll only see a tiny fraction of every dollar the next generation pays for this legislation.

Score one for the blue team. They own this one.

So there I was. A lonely decepticon in a sea of obamabots... ;)

Here's the good, the bad, and the ugly from my experiences during the 2009 Presidential Inauguration (from a somewhat political perspective this time, not a "omfg i saw the beastie boys!" perspective. That'll come later once I get things edited/uploaded/etc)

The Good

It's hard to explain the emotion on folks faces, specifically the older generation of blacks who made the pilgrimage to D.C. The civil rights storyline is obvious and certainly isn't a surprise to any one. However, seeing it face to face in such volume was incredibly powerful and largely the reason I wanted to attend in the first place.

The closest comparison I can think of would be when the WWII memorial first opened. It's a look of pride, sadness, hope, struggle, relief, fear, joy all wrapped up into one. I had a friend point out after my last post that he was sure there was pride on other peoples faces as well. No doubt, but it very clearly wasn't the same. Nor should it have been. The t-shirts with "the dream has become reality" summarize it probably the best way possible. I saw a man, probably pushing 80, leaning over in tears in the lobby of our hotel. That's some real stuff and it was the type of thing that was all over the city.

These folks are members of a time period that many of us in younger generations cannot fully relate. I saw folks trying to pretend that they do, a couple of trendy white kids with a "We have overcome" sign for instance. But there's simply no possible way that they have any true sense of what it all means. Segregation, lynchings, race riots -- all part of a chapter in our history books or maybe a part of family lore. The battles of their generation, while not totally resolved, are things that the majority have never had to actually live with. It was an incredibly moving experience and is an incredibly beneficial thing for this country as a whole. I hope it serves as the start of another chapter focused on healing. We shall see.

The Bad

You'll often hear members of either party talk about the other side of the aisle as if they're some sort of homogeneous group that all walk, talk and think the same. Of course that's not the case. Each party consists of a bunch of mini-factions that unite under a common view of what the role of government should be. Within the Democrat party (ic purposely left off. Google it. All in fun.), there's the aging lady who looks like the 60s left her behind. She's pissed off about seemingly everything and views "Republicans" as some sort of evil conspiracy to take away her right for whatever it is she's so damn angry about (I've never been 100% sure what it was, but I'm guessing something to do with soy products...). I've seen this persona plenty over the years (cough-pelosi-cough), we all have, but man oh man, did I hear some truly venomous things about Republicans.

My favorite part wasn't so much the seemingly bottomless reserves of hate and anger that they carry around, but the fact that many of them truly believe that "republicans are extinct". It's as if they've never read a single page of American history. The ebb & flow of our political system has forced compromises that have created the most self correcting, most self aware, most successful self ruling form of government in the history of our world. The rise of one party and the retreat of another represents nothing more than the cyclical political tides.

Not to mention that McCain lacked the proverbial "coat tails" that would have helped the party defend congressional seats. If Pelosi and her ilk aren't careful, the push back from the conservatives in this country will be fierce (many of whom kept their checkbooks packed away this past cycle).

And again, this wouldn't be something new. In fact, that tends to be the course of things. If you've followed Obama long enough, you'd know that the "change" he's written about is exactly that sort of thing. The desire to move away from politics as usual and towards politics that are prudent. (IMO, it wasn't until the campaign that it seemed to become something so incredibly vague that everyone attached their own personal meaning to it. For some its the war, for some its housing, or maybe it's abortion or health care or gay rights or whatever. "Change" became personally defined making it that much more powerful of a slogan).

For all the talk about brushing aside petty politics, I've yet to see Obama chastise the nonsense taking place over in Congress (the changing of rules to limit the power of the minority, etc. The same rules the Republicans removed to help the minority party back in the 90s.). It's early enough in his Presidency to let it slide for now, but left unchecked, the bounce back from the conservatives will happen sooner rather than later and they'll likely work to repeat the trend all over again.

I'd suspect it was a lot of these overly-angry folks who were leading the "hey hey goodbye" sports style chanting towards President Bush during the ceremony. You don't need to like the guy, but it'd be nice if we could all respect the system of government that put him in power. The swearing in ceremony simply isn't the place for that sort of thing. Stick to throwing shoes on the lawn.

The Ugly

What a horrible way to respond to the various calls of unification by our new President than to have a benediction praying that white people stop being so damn evil. Seriously, the more I think about that last line ("that the white accept what is right."), the more annoyed I am over it. I'm trying to remind myself that this was a person with racial memories far more detailed than my own, but talk about being 100% inappropriate for the occasion.

There's also this growing mentality that to disagree with Obama means you're a "cynic". I use quotes because I think their definition is a bit different than the popular one and certainly different from my own. I see a cynic as nothing more than a disappointed idealist, not an "obstructionist" and not someone who simply disagrees on the "how's."

The role of the "loyal opposition" in this country is a necessary one. We're staring down unprecedented times. There is no blue print or manual stating what the right course of action will be. Naturally and logically, that suggests that much of what will be attempted will be trial and error. To suggest that those who disagree with policy or those that view the socialization of certain aspects of our lives in the midst of all of these current threats, are to ignored because the "ground has shifted from underneath them", is simply irresponsible. It serves this country little purpose. There is significant danger in allowing one party to assume so much control. It's a lesson we find ourselves somehow forced to learn repeatedly. An executive branch with extremely high approval ratings and a Congress willing to fall in line mixed with the inability for open discourse and debate is surely a recipe for disaster. After the last 8 years, I'd hope the other side of the aisle would be able to recognize and purposely avoid this sort of situation. Alas, here we are yet again. The Democrats are looking to travel down the same path as the Republicans, who were traveling down the same path as the Democrats, who were traveling down... You get the point. For all the talk going around, I was hoping we might see it mellow out for a little while so we can fix the things that we all agree on.

The final thing I couldn't help but notice is the amazing amounts of patriotism shown by people who I'd suspect were making threats to move to Canada four short years ago. Look up the definition of "allegiance" next time you're thinking about saying the pledge. If your patriotism is tied to a temporary leader it's 100% false. Country First. ;)

I basically used Twitter to blog my experiences in DC. Not everyone's "hip" to the twitter tubes yet, so I figured I'd repost things here for prosperity/effort to share.

Bill brought the nikon body, I brought the 300mm lens. Took a couple hundred photos. I had my insignia flash hd cam on hand for some 720p (a couple gigs worth so far). I had a battery issue but I think I got the entire Obama speech/swearing in. I've been doing my best to twitter everything, but signal is pretty spotty right now.

Way to many thoughts for me to post all at once. Forget politics (as much as possible at least), and it's such a tremendous event. The emotion and excitement on folks faces, specifically those of African Americans, is something I'll never forget. The pride and sense of achievement is more than I'm able to describe.

Oh, and of course, tons of beastie boy footage from last night ;) (3 m.c.'s and 1 d.j!)

Yep.

I'm going.

I make my political thoughts pretty well known, but I also try to make it known that a phrase like "country first" isn't simply a campaign slogan. There are a lot of us out there who actually mean it. Obama is a brilliant politician who inspires hope in just about anyone within ear shot, and despite probable disagreements between the "right" and the "left" over the next term(s), that's a really great thing for this country right now. Not to mention I'm a fan of civil rights history, and well.. This is of obvious significance.

Besides.. When it comes to our government, is there anything more awe inspiring than the swearing in ceremony? Yeah, I know. It's cold. Believe me, I know. I went in `04 and damn near lost my toes from being dressed improperly. My wife reminds me often about how miserable I was. The truth is though, there's something simply incredible about watching one human being stand in front of an entire nation of people who collectively chose that person as their leader. In the context of history, I'm not sure there is any other act of government that's so profound. It's the grand finale of our cyclical free/peaceful mini-revolutions.

We (Bill, Gavin and Dawn, who are all Obamabots) locked up our flights last night. We were able to find a room at a great rate thanks to my good friend Greg Tehven over at Students Today, Leaders Forever. If you're planning on being in town those couple of days, hit us up. We'd love to see/meet/celebrate with folks.

I'll try to take plenty of pictures as well. :)

It's a bit early, but this thing looks to be wrapped up in convincing style. Not Reagan convincing, but Clinton convincing, which, these days, is a welcome change from the lawsuit ridden elections of the last eight years.

I make my political opinions pretty well obvious, so it should come as no surprise that I voted for McCain. Regardless, this is a tremendous barometer for how far we've come. If I wasn't such a political junky, the historic nature of Obama's campaign may very well have been enough for me on its own. For the black community (and really, all minorities) this win is nothing short of monumental. It's hard not to be incredibly proud of our country tonight.

I have more than a few Republican friends who will disagree with me, but if Obama governs as a centrist -- which is what he ran as, but what many felt his record didn't show (myself included) -- he'll do very, very well. If he allows an all Democrat congress to drag him left, expect a whole new crop of cynics to emerge. If he, like Bush, fails to exercise his veto power against his own party, 2012 will be incredibly heated and incredibly devisive.

According to exit polling on the magic tv set (albeit early), 22% of voters identified themselves as liberal, 44% as moderates, and 34% as conservatives. We're still identifying ourselves as a center-right country. Bush/Cheney failed to recognize that in 2004 when they declared their win a "mandate," pissing off ~66% of the country all at once. Obama/Biden should be careful not to make the same mistake. A great first step would be to follow McCain's pledge to create a bi-partisan cabinet. We'll see.

Anyhow, enough waxing for now. Congrats to my dem friends who were involved with his, and others', campaigns.

Obama wins, 328-210 ev count, by 5% +/- 1 popular vote.

Of the big states in question, Obama wins Virginia and Ohio but not Florida.

Regardless of who you support -- go vote.

A better way to elect?

Taxes are tough to understand sometimes. They're obscure and hard to relate to, especially when it involves giving money to people who aren't paying taxes to begin with (wealth redistribution, "spreading it around", etc.) Let's change it to something a little more approachable.

Let's say you own three TV's in your home and I don't own any.

You should be forced to give me one of your TV's, because it's only fair that I have one too. No one needs to own three TV's.

See what I'm saying? People with three tv's are jerks and they need to stop being so selfish.

UPDATE: You know.. the irony of being called "selfish" and "unpatriotic" by Joe Biden is pretty immense. I gave more to charity in the last six months than this prick has given over an entire decade.

There's an article in the Wall Street Journal written by a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. Basically it's findings are that Obama's current tax proposals can't possibly generate enough revenue, and is likely only a portion of the taxes that we'll see. Here's a telling excerpt.

The Joint Tax Committee reports that the bottom 60% of taxpayers with incomes below $50,000 paid less than 1% of the federal income tax in 2006, while the 3.3% with incomes above $200,000 paid more than 58%. Most of Mr. Obama's tax rebates go to the bottom 60%. They can't possibly be financed by shifting an even larger share of the tax burden to the top 3.3%.

Oh, but they can try. That's what is meant by "spreading the wealth around." We've seen it before in this country and we'll likely see it again.

The article also talks about the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, whom Obama credits for vouching for his tax plan. Turns out, the nonpartisan committee used numbers supplied to them by the campaign. Not by, you know, actual numbers.

Regardless of your affiliation, you may want to check it out. Unless of course you think it's okay to take things that don't belong to you to give them to somebody else (wealth redistribution). That's an entirely different rant. I saw a writer somewhere describe things as the "Everyone gets a trophy!" economy. Couldn't have said it any better.

Been awhile since I posted some poli-talk regarding the campaign.. So.. here we go. Random rants.

Economy

Man, what a complete and utter change of pace in this president election. Starting with McCain's grandstanding of the suspension of his campaign for the bailout (which the notion of going back to dc, I agreed with, the method? well.. lets just say it was a little awkward.), this thing has swung 100% in Obama's direction.

Go back over the last 100 years worth of presidential elections and find an incumbent party who wins after October suffers a stock market decline. Now consider that the stock market decline is the worst since the depression era. (there is only one president who has won after a big decline, which was W. in 2004).

My specific policy concerns with McCain have come through this economic ordeal. The truth is, I don't care for either candidates economic proposals. It seems like the country is busy creating ways to reward those who make poor choices and ignore those that have acted responsibly. No wonder our 'capitalist' structure has, according to the media, been threatened. We're simply not capitalists anymore. At least, if we are, they don't seem to live in Washington.

Sarah Palin

Most candidates move to the center during the general election. At the start of this general, both Obama and McCain seemed to be moving closer to their respective parties. Obama had to make up to the Clinton crowd and win back some fans, and McCain felt the need to get the evangelicals on board. The difference between the two is that McCain didn't seem to stop trying to appeal to that portion of the base. At one point around the Palin pick, McCain held a 15% advantage over independents. That's gone now, and will likely be a key figure in his loss this November. McCain's correct when he tells Obama that he is not President Bush. No matter how much Obama and his supporters want to say they are the same, it's just not the situation. The problem is that while McCain is saying that, he's spending an awful lot of time and money trying to look like he's cut from the same clothe. I don't get it.

Then again, without Palin on the ticket, this thing would have probably been over a long, long time ago. So, there's that.

Colin Powel

Today's endorsement of Obama by one of my favorite washington figures (Colin Powell) serves as a reassurance that we, collectively, always find a way to figure it out. I'll likely send in my absentee ballot (which is sitting on my desk) with a vote for McCain, but Obama will have every opportunity to earn my vote for 2012. As I've said previously re. Obama, I'm fascinated by the guy. I love his books, I think he has correctly identified many of the problems our country faces, I'm just a little gun shy on his proposals and policies. More importantly than that, I can't stand me some Nancy Pelosi.

McCain Rallies

Oh come on. How many republican protestors were arrested at the DNC? How many "Abort Biden" shirts have you seen vs "Abort Palin?" How many times has Obama stood up and corrected someone at one of his rallies for attacking McCain like what McCain did for Obama last week? Wasn't it Obama who told his supporters to go door to door and "get in their face and argue?" You know how pissed I'd be if someone had the audacity to come to my front door and "get in my face" over a political election?

I, personally, have never before seen this kind of intensity out of the left. I'm simply not that pissed off, and yes, I pay a whole lot of attention. The reason I'm not that pissed off is because I also read a lot of history. Things simply repeat in this country and we do the best that we can to contend with changing dynamics. It's part of life, not the end of times. I know that there are Republicans that are uber pissed/scared, but I haven't met any of them. I've only seen them on TV. As far as democrats go, all you need to do is read twitter and count the personal attacks against Palin and McCain. It's 100%, without a doubt, shameful. You're free to not like a candidate or all the candidates. The irony of it is that all of them are far more accomplished than most of us will ever be. They've dedicated their life to public service. Show some respect already. On both sides.

McCain's Chances

So goes Ohio, so goes the nation. With early voting taking place already, this thing is likely already over for McCain. Let's just hope it doesn't come down to a margin within the massive voter fraud taking place there. (then again, Obama is an awful lot like Kennedy.... heyyoOOOO! ;). Chances are though, that it'll be a solid national win for Obama. All the signs seem to be pointing to that, and there are only two weeks left.

I'll say this though, I will not be one of those people who bitch about it incessantly with the "not my president" bumper sticker and the "I didn't vote for him" nonsense. We're a republic. We vote. Candidates win or lose and we go on with our lives. Win graciously, lose graciously. Those silly, childish bumper stickers do nothing but promote the false notion that you bear no responsibility for our country. We're all in this together.

Anyhow.. That's enough rambling for now ;)

I've been swamped lately and haven't had too much time for the poli-talk. Plenty of it going around as it is anyway, though I've been itching to critique some of the things going on with the McCain campaign.

I wanted though, to jump in on the small business discussions going around. I have had a few people tell me that small businesses making more than $250,000 are the exception, not the rule, and they'd love to be banking 250k ebt, etc.

I think this is where it's important to keep a little perspective.

Small business is defined in the U.S. has companies with 100 employees or less. Let's take a 100 person company, and divide $250,000 in revenue out. That leaves you with $2500 for each employee to cover costs, salary, etc -- with nothing left over for reinvestment, growth, rent, utilities, supplies, etc.

$250,000, more likely, is about enough to cover 5 employees with enough left over to reinvest, pay benefits, taxes, rent, utilities, etc. etc. Even with that, thats assuming each employee makes/costs around $30,000-$40,000 a year.

But, but, that's all a write off! Yep. But it's a discussion about growth, not maintaining. If you want to grow your company, you'll need to reinvest a substantial amount. Keeping $250k isn't something that will get you very far, especially in the midst of a credit crisis where no one can borrow anything. It's a lot of money when looked at as take home revenue for one individual owner, it's not when looked at from a re-investment stand point. For my tech friends -- think about blowing up a startup with full time employees with $250,000 in total VC money. It may be enough to get you going, but heaven forbid a speed bump shows up.

And thats the argument. Companies looking to grow need to keep every penny they can in order to properly reinvest and survive economic swings. If we're looking to create jobs, we need to grow business. We're heading into a questionable economy that will likely take years to play out. Companies, specifically small ones with out a lot of resources, need to be very, very cautious of cash flow. Higher taxes will almost certainly play a part of that. And regarding companies banking far more than that, if we want to keep jobs here, we need to provide manageable corporate tax rates (one of the major reasons AB sold to InBev earlier in the year.) We're global now and "them's the breaks".

It wasn't that long ago when it was the primaries. Obama, when pushed, admitted he may not be able to implement his tax policy immediately depending on the economy. He knows, precisely, what the costs of this are. And that's fine. He calls it like he sees it, which is, to quote him, "to spread the wealth around." (the joe the plumber discussion).

I'm just surprised by how many Obama supporters aren't willing to call it out the same way. Look past the talking points (for both candidates). Tax increases do not equate to higher revenue. Tax cuts do not equate to lower revenue. There are pros/cons to both plans, and truthfully it likely maps out to a bell curve when it comes to growing the economy properly. Our goal is to find the right mix of tax rates to reach the highest point of efficiency. With a decreasing amount of growth, the answer isn't to raise taxes to cover spending, it's to cut spending and provide as much relief as possible to tax payers. Specifically tax payers looking to grow revenue (and even more specifically, companies looking to take revenue in from other economies around the world, but I digress).

I have to be honest. It's not easy being a right leaning technology guy.

Shocking, I know.

Every time I post something, it's typically because I'm noticing strong reactions to a certain topic or I feel like I'm not seeing my viewpoint represented in other places around our little "world." There's a risk associated to talking about politics, regardless of your opinions. In the new media world, I feel like there is an even larger risk associated to talking about things from a republican stand point.

But there's a funny thing I've noted about the posts I've written. They've generated far less comments, but far more e-mails and personal interactions in real life. Yesterday at BlogOrlando, this was experienced in a very real way. I had a handful of people come up and start telling me how much they've enjoyed reading some these posts, even if they've disagreed. The conversations that were generated by these interactions were thoughtful, well balanced, and frankly very much the type of thing our country needs more of.

Now, it's impossible to know how many have stopped reading or stopped following because of the poli-talk, but I'm not sure if it's an important metric. I like surrounding myself with folks who are willing to listen/read things that they disagree with. Fanaticism is born out of echo chambers. It always has been, and it always will be. Our nation relies on cognitive dissonance to maintain a relatively balanced existence.

We've been told, repeatedly, that the two major parties each represent two completely different directions for our country. That we've never before experienced such an important election. We've been told that we're on the verge of either falling apart or rising up for the "next great chapter," or that the "other guy" is going to get us all blown to hell by our enemies. I, largely, don't buy it.

We've allowed these things -- these sales pitches from people selling us something -- to divide us and start referring to people as "idiots" if they vote for this person or that person. We've seen people "outraged" by Obama or Palin's lack of experience. For perspective, ask folks about something truly outrageous, like Darfur, and note their general apathy. It's because they're reacting to very well crafted pitches that suit whatever ax they're looking to grind.

This sort of thing lends itself to people breaking off into their comfortable little groups that all agree with each other. You'll see them, on either side, start patting each other on the back and celebrating their obvious intellectual superiority to the other side. The funny outcome of this is that on issues where the majority agree, people tend to assume it's the other guys who are standing in the way. I've been using nuclear power as a way of feeling this tendency out. Pro-nuke plant dem's have this belief that it's the "big oil republicans" that have stood in the way. Forgetting that it was the pro-trees portion of the left that stopped the President Bush inspired energy bill to build more nuke plants back in 2005/2006 (wait, isn't W an oil guy?)

I guess I share my contrarian point of view not to convince people that I'm correct, and certainly not to start fights or make people uncomfortable. I share these things largely to interrupt the echo chamber that our little online world has become. Challenge everything, view things from as many vantage points as you can, and decide your views on an issue because you've thought about it and reached a conclusion based on the information that you've seen, not because your candidate (or your party) says so.

If you want to point political fingers about our current housing meltdown, it might be good idea to know a little background information.

Here's a start.