Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Just what did we get for our $14,500? A trip to the Ronald Reagan Museum and drinks at a happy hour? Oh yeah, we got a new definition of rape too.

I'll let Bungalow Bill fill you in:

Shortly after Billy Long won his seat to Congress, he began crying about having to take a pay cut.

In his first month in Congress, Billy Long made $14,500 plus expenses and a per diem. Who knows what perks he got from lobbyists, after all, Congressman Long decided to skip the reading of the Constitution to meet with a lobbyist. Let's not forget the broken foot that was injured on the campaign trail was covered as a pre-existing condition with his new Congressional benefits package as well.

So let's take a look at what Long did in his first month that delivered this nice size check into his pocket at the expense of the taxpayers. In his first month of Congress Long voted 21 times. He was not present for one vote. This totals $690 per button push. He introduced no legislation to the floor based on records using the Congress Android and iPhone Ap, and co-sponsored a bill that will increase the size of government and give the Department of Homeland Security more freedom-killing power.

But wait, of those votes, many of them were procedural votes that directed the debate or brought a bill to the floor for a vote. In Long's first month, he only voted twice for the passage of a bill. Which produces an eye opening $7,250 per vote on passage votes. Do you think he broke a sweat? Remember, this was a man who wanted the job, and then began complaining about the pay cut he was going to have to take to serve Southwest Missouri.

By all accounts, it appears Long has returned to the district once in this time, which was last weekend. Long has dedicated himself to the forces he once claimed he was fed up with, spending time with lobbyists and special interest groups, even traveling to California with the establishment. Long still hasn't addressed the media's questions about who is responsible and why his office decided to use the FBI to intimidate his most vocal critic.

Something I noticed about Billy Long during the campaign; he liked to compare himself to the Founding Father's vision of the citizen legislator that came to Washington and represented his district for a short period of time and then came back home to a normal life. What Mr. Long didn't tell you in those speeches is the citizen legislators our Founding Fathers envisioned also went to Washington without the promise of any salary. That's right, there was no such thing as a Congressional salary.

From 1789 to 1855, a member of Congress was paid a $6 per diem. Now Congress has their salaries, their expense accounts, and per diem. Yup, Congressman Long left out that little bit of information about the Founding Fathers as he tried to label himself as the vision of the Founders, and then griped about his pay cut.

Here's something I also want you to consider. Billy Long never laced up combat boots, instead he went to frat parties immediately after school and avoided any military commitment. An E-1 enlisting in the United States military at a time of war in 2011, which means they know when they enlist they are putting their lives on the line, makes $17,611.20 per year. That's right Congress critters like Billy Long, who showed no bravery as a young man and only wanted to serve his country in a suit and not boots, makes almost in one month what a young soldier willing to put his life on the line for his country makes in a year. Long had the nerve enough to complain about taking a pay cut. Really those numbers don't improve much for E-2, E-3, and E-4 ranks in the military either.

Long pushes a button and gets paid the big bucks and complains about his pay cut from his real world existence, while soldiers dodge bullets for much less to fight for the liberty and freedom Long's office attacked in their first month in Congress. I bet Billy Long wouldn't even have run for Congress if Congress was paid a soldiers salary and was forced to live in the conditions a soldier must live in.
In defense to Billy, he did do something while he was in Washington. He co-sponsored a couple of bills.
But I don't think he read them before he signed on to them.

One of the bills Billy co-sponsored re-defines rape and another one called the "Let Women Die" bill.

These two bills are raising some eyebrows in the 7th district and not from the regular Billy watchers. This is a post written by one of the people Billy would let die:
There's a new saying now among the cynical:

"If a woman is raped when no one is around, is she still raped?"

In 1976, Congress passed the Hyde Amendment which prohibits the use of federal funds in cases of abortions. At the moment, under Medicaid, abortions are covered by federal funds in cases of rape, incest, or if the woman's life is endangered. So the debate at the present is the "definition" of rape and how it impacts the use of these funds.

First and foremost, what the public needs to know (and this needs to be reiterated) is the Hyde Amendment forbids federally funded abortions (except in special cases like the ones mentioned above). This means that the government is not footing the bill by giving out abortions like popsicles from an ice cream truck. Much like any amendment, there are restrictions - such as a definition of rape.

Why is this issue arising? The "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion" aims to "redefine" rape ("forcible" rape vs. "non-forcible" such as statutory rape and incest). In fact, its aim is to eliminate ANY federal funding to cover abortions, even in cases of "non-forcible" rape. So how does this bill promote any sort of woman's right?

It doesn't.

What it does do is take away a woman's right, her voice, her ability to overcome a trauma. The definition of rape is this: if a man forces himself on a woman by shoving his penis inside her vagina without consent, it is rape. If a woman is raped and wants an abortion, she should be able to have one without having to answer questions about the validity of her experience. That is insulting. If a woman becomes pregnant and wants to terminate her pregnancy, she should be able to exercise her Constitutional right. The Speaker Boehner isn't focusing on the real issues here. Furthermore, no one is "pro-abortion" - this is why activists are referred to as "pro-choice."

Rape is a horrific, life altering event. As such, "pro-lifers" are not necessarily pro-life if they are willing to dimish the quality of life for rape victims.
ps-- I thought Billy was out of the real estate/auction business.

No comments: