In honor of the signing of Obamacare

Do (unelected) aides run the country?

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=918692


Executive Summary:


Charlie Rangel (D-NY), the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee (which writes tax code), has been found guilty by the House Ethics committee of several ethics violations, including taking trips paid for by corporate sponsors.


Rangel maintains his innocence and claims that he did not know the trips were sponsored by lobbyists. He says he did not see letters and memos from house staffers that tried to make him aware of this fact. He refuses to relinquish his committee chairmanship.


Opinion:
Nice try, Charlie. True, I do think that legislative aides wield far too much power. I have heard that far too much of our legislation is actually written by them and not even read or edited by our elected representatives prior to voting. During a town hall meeting, I personally witnessed my own state legislator having to ask her aide to show her how to "make the slides big" on Powerpoint because she didn't know where the "slide show" button was. But I don't think you can blame this one on your aides, because you went on the trip. Do you really expect us to believe that you didn't ask who paid for it? Do us all a favor and retire now.

Update:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35678683/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

Rangel has stepped down "temporarily" until the ethics committee completes its investigation. Given that it has already taken them almost 2 years just to release the report admonishing him for taking corporate-funded trips and has not officially dealt with his clear-cut tax evasion, hoarding of rent-controlled apartments, etc., the voters will have to throw him out of office before he leaves voluntarily. Too bad he lives in a district where that is unlikely to happen.

You will have internet access, whether you want it or not

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011227382_broadband02m.html

Executive Summary:

Washington state has been granted $84 million of a $7.2 billion chunk of stimulus money to improve internet access in 24 states. The money will be divided among several internet providers, nonprofits and government entities. The money will also go to create a statewide broadband heath network called WA-HealthNet.

Supporters of public funding of internet expansion argue that this is necessary in order to bring high-speed internet to areas with sparse population or rugged terrain. Everyone needs these connections to get the information needed to make decisions in their "best interest."

One third of US households, most notably older Americans, Hispanics, and the poor, lack broadband internet access.

Opinion:

If we paid less in taxes so that governments can fund projects like this, maybe a few more people would be able to afford internet access! But perhaps that is beside the point. Who says that everyone really needs or wants internet access, especially in their homes, when there is access at libraries, Kinkos, etc.? Yes, many people use it often and well, but do you really, really need it? What if you moved to a rural area specifically so you could be a bit more "off the grid" and don't want it? Is your nanny state government now telling you that you should have it anyway? Why? What business is it of theirs?