See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On January 24th, 2011 at 10:37 am, ThackerAgency said:

   glad you took down the picture of the dead baby stuffed freezer. It was horrid.

   But yeah, the problem is that congress promised more spending obligations for future generations. The current congress will be long gone when the law damages the economy and is why they don’t care.

   We need a balanced budget amendment, and they need to cut funding for this entire program. The current health care law will never be a good idea and it will never work.

2. #2
   On January 24th, 2011 at 10:40 am, Pasadena Phil said:

   The most damning exemption of all is Congress itself. Let those who are going to be oppresses by the program vote for it. And while we’re at it, let us vote on Congress’ health benefits too.

3. #3
   On January 24th, 2011 at 10:56 am, happyscrapper said:

   This is so encouraging! Investigating these waivers is going to highlight how awful the obamacare bill really is! I mean, how can people still think this is a good bill when so many want out??? This MUST be made known to the morons out there who are still uninformed!!

4. #4
   On January 24th, 2011 at 10:58 am, Rogue Cheddar said:

   “I think those are fair questions to ask,” he said, “and I expect we will.”

   Do your job and we’ll let you continue, else grab some steamgrate with the rest of the hobos.

5. #5
   On January 24th, 2011 at 11:06 am, ArizonaNeanderthal said:

   The Obaminations will Jaw Jaw and stall–the mainstream media will cover for the dems–but investigate they must.

   THREE CHOPPING BLOCKS
   NO WAITING
   BRING YOU PORK BARREL NOW

   Another 10% cut in Congressional staffs might be but symbolic but wholly justified.

6. #6
   On January 24th, 2011 at 11:09 am, TooMuchTime said:

   I agree with Pasadena Phil. I think they should investigate why Congress doesn’t have to partake in this monstrosity. The problem being that the investigation will be more Sisyphean than successful.

7. #7
   On January 24th, 2011 at 11:11 am, RedDog said:

   This tells you all you need to know. When Socialists can’t afford it – even while freely using other peoples’ money – then it is a pretty good indication that ObamaCare is an ill-conceived and botched abortion. Dead on delivery. “I’m coming for you Murdoch…..”

8. #8
   On January 24th, 2011 at 11:12 am, RedDog said:

   On January 24th, 2011 at 11:09 am, TooMuchTime said:
   The problem being that the investigation will be more Sisyphean than successful.

   That’s OK. just so long as the stone crushes the Democrats into a thin paste.

9. #9
   On January 24th, 2011 at 11:14 am, Flyoverman said:

   Compare the list of “friendly” auto dealerships that were not on the cut list with the Obamacare wavier list and you will see a similar selection criteria, I am sure.

   If you are a friend of the regime, you are protected.

10. #10
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:16 am, hawkeye54 said:

    I agree with Pasadena Phil. I think they should investigate why Congress doesn’t have to partake in this monstrosity.

    This would be a good start, and they should also investigate why CONgress exempts itself from most, if not all, legislative monstrosities it creates.

11. #11
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:30 am, BuckeyeSam said:

    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:09 am, TooMuchTime said:
    I agree with Pasadena Phil. I think they should investigate why Congress doesn’t have to partake in this monstrosity. The problem being that the investigation will be more Sisyphean than successful.

    I may be wrong, but I was watching a little of the debate on C-SPAN last week and I’m not sure that you’re correct.

    I think members of Congress are subject to Obamacare. However, Congressional state and, I think, Executive Branch personnel are exempt from Obamacare.

    I think I’m correct because a House Dem got up and called the GOP liars for perpetuating the myth that Congress was exempt from Obamacare. A House GOP then got up to say rattle off a number of groups of federal employees who, indeed, had been exempt from Obamacare. The groups mentioned by the House GOP didn’t include the reps and senators themselves, but included the groups I mentioned above.

    Again, I may be wrong, but I gathered from that exchange that the Pelosi Congress intentionally included members to avoid that awkwardness, while exempting a lot of those with whom they work–and in the Executive Branch.

12. #12
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:33 am, thejim said:

    This is simply a good first step in the right direction by the representatives sent to address the corruption and garbage of a demonrat administration.

13. #13
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:40 am, AlohaGuy said:

    Gowdy, a freshman and former prosecutor, got the chairmanship on Tuesday.

    Nice!

14. #14
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:41 am, AlohaGuy said:

    Pasadena Phil said:

    The most damning exemption of all is Congress itself. Let those who are going to be oppresses by the program vote for it. And while we’re at it, let us vote on Congress’ health benefits too.

    And retirement benefits. Let them eat Social Security like the rest of us.

15. #15
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:49 am, granite said:

    …they should investigate why Congress doesn’t have to partake….

    I don’t disagree.

    But, ?investigate?

    There is obviously some degree of arrogance, elitism and greed which leads congress (just cannot capitalize these evil clowns) to exempt itself.

    ?Investigate?

    The American people (figuratively) need to grab congress tightly by the front of their tie/collar, shove them against a wall, and clearly, coldly tell them, “Don’t you ever again dare to exempt yourselves from any law that you pass.
    Not a single law.
    Ever.”

16. #16
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:50 am, Flyoverman said:

    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:41 am, AlohaGuy said:

    Actually they should receive minimal benefits to encourage them to return to the private sector after a term or two.

17. #17
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:54 am, letget said:

    Thank you r’s for this investigation and others I have read about. Another one that sounds good, they are looking for cutting funding to the UN!

    http://thehill.com/news-by-subject/foreign-policy/139563-the-world-from-the-hill-un-funding-an-early-target-for-house-republicans
    L

18. #18
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:55 am, Savage24 said:

    It wouldn’t matter if Congress was on ObamaCare, the death panels will be run by bureaucrates and they will side with the politicians. Our best bet is to get rid of the whole damned thing. Then there will be no need for waivers for anybody. Remember to get rid of Obama on the next election for the good of the country.

19. #19
    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:56 am, txvet2 said:

    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:30 am, BuckeyeSam said:

    Prior to 1995 it was a routine for every bill to include an exemption to the provisions for Congress itself. The Republicans, as I recall as part of the “Contract”, ended the practice.

20. #20
    On January 24th, 2011 at 12:05 pm, txvet2 said:

    On January 24th, 2011 at 11:41 am, AlohaGuy said:

    If they were privately employed before becoming congressmen, they probably will – in addition to their congressional retirement.

21. #21
    On January 24th, 2011 at 12:17 pm, WaterBoyz said:

    Some of those that got waivers only had two people in the program. Wonder “who” they knew?

22. #22
    On January 24th, 2011 at 12:21 pm, dcbprime said:

    This is a large part of why I was (and still am) in favor of these mass waivers, and the many companies that have requested waivers: it reveals the truth that the people of America really DON’T want the Obamacare(TM), and that it is bad for business.

    Just the very fact that so many corporations and businesses have sought waivers is telling.

    Having said that, I will let the bashing of Congress continue.

23. #23
    On January 24th, 2011 at 12:23 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    Actually they should receive minimal benefits to encourage them to return to the private sector after a term or two.

    As minimal as possible….with no lavishly set retirement pay allowed – serving in CONgress wasn’t meant to be a lifetime career opportunity. Let ‘em all set up IRAs and fund them from their congressional income.

24. #24
    On January 24th, 2011 at 12:57 pm, TanyaB said:

    I read this morning that the Republicans are about to defund the UN Human Rights Council. Now we must call for them to defund the EPA and FCC!!

25. #25
    On January 24th, 2011 at 1:10 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    I read this morning that the Republicans are about to defund the UN Human Rights Council.

    Its a start. I’d be thrilled when the entire UN is defunded on our part and its politely asked to relocate as far away from our shores as possible.

26. #26
    On January 24th, 2011 at 1:41 pm, cheapseat said:

    Defund everything except the military, and defund 1/2 of that. The Constitution says that the federal gubmint has one job, pay for the army to defend the U.S. That has never been about nation building for the good of the new world order U.N. There isn’t a single agency in the Administration which is truly needed including the military. No one is bombing the U.S. EXCEPT Saudi Arabians, and we give them a pass to kill a few thousand jewish New Yorkers every so often just to keep the peace in Saudi Ville. We the taxpayers then pass out millions of dollars to all the Victims and Survivors and First responders rather than go after the culprits.

27. #27
    On January 24th, 2011 at 1:56 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    OT (sort of), but Fred Upton the new chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee said this:

    We are in the middle of the largest fiscal crisis the country has ever faced. The national unemployment rate has topped 9 percent for 20 consecutive months. No one seriously thinks that we can continue on our current path of recklessness. And that path ends right here, right now, in this committee.
    This will be the austerity committee in the House of Representatives. .  .  . If you want to spend money on an entitlement, you need to pay for it with a mandatory spending reduction. .  .  . You may have a great idea for a new program. That’s fine. Just tell us how you will pay for it by reducing spending.

    The committee will no longer consider bills that authorize spending of “such sums as may be necessary.” [With that] we simply cede discretion to the appropriators. Well, no more. .  .  . Every program the committee authorizes or reauthorizes must have a sunset.

    The committee will no longer consider commemorative legislation. We all support motherhood and apple pie and successful collegiate sports teams. I would submit that none of us needs a congressional resolution to prove it. We as members and our staffs have bigger and better things to do.

    I’m starting to like this guy.

28. #28
    On January 24th, 2011 at 1:58 pm, MarcoPolo said:

    On January 24th, 2011 at 10:37 am, ThackerAgency said:.

    We need a balanced budget amendment, and they need to cut funding for this entire program. The current health care law will never be a good idea and it will never work.

    We need Randy Barnett’s Federalism amendment, giving the states back the power the 17th took away.

    We could never repeal the 17th, but an amendment that would allow the states to overturn Congress? I’m there.

29. #29
    On January 24th, 2011 at 2:08 pm, txvet2 said:

    On January 24th, 2011 at 1:56 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    I’ll reserve judgement until I see where he goes on ethanol subsidies and “green” technology.

30. #30
    On January 24th, 2011 at 2:20 pm, rambler said:

    Let the investigations begin. Investigate anything and everything. All the slimy deals need to be exposed. More heads need to roll.

31. #31
    On January 24th, 2011 at 2:37 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

    More heads need to roll.

    VIOLENT RHETORIC ALERT!!!

32. #32
    On January 24th, 2011 at 2:38 pm, babiesgrandma said:

    WaterBoyz said:
    Some of those that got waivers only had two people in the program. Wonder “who” they knew?

    Or, what they knew about whom?

33. #33
    On January 24th, 2011 at 3:13 pm, rambler said:

    VIOLENT RHETORIC ALERT!!!

    Yup. I’m not politically correct.

34. #34
    On January 24th, 2011 at 3:37 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    I wonder how many on the list are trying to get out of paying for the health care of their undocumented immigrant employees, who they may end up having to, um, document if they didn’t get a waiver.

    Or am I being racist?

35. #35
    On January 24th, 2011 at 3:40 pm, CO2 Producer said:

    didn’t get a waiver

    don’t

    FIFM

36. #36
    On January 24th, 2011 at 3:46 pm, sillygatboy said:

    I haven’t heard any of the lying liars explain what happens when an exempt employee changes jobs to an non-exempt company. Then, what happens if he/she eventually goes back to another protected company. It’s all phony bulls–t
    The very word “exempt” means that a person is free from some burden that is placed on others, such as a fine, a fee, a tax or some other hardship that applies to most, but not to him/her.

37. #37
    On January 24th, 2011 at 4:44 pm, cabrerski said:

    How about a simple ammendment that states that any healthcare exceptions that are granted shall be equally accessible to any and all citizens.

    That ought to kill this POS of a law.

38. #38
    On January 24th, 2011 at 7:33 pm, CJ said:

    For the waiver issue — the House needs to pass a bill outlawing ALL waivers from Obamacare. We were just treated to a parade of Democrats telling us that Americans need Obamacare and that those who oppose Obamacare are like lying Nazis. Hey, if it’s so great, why is HHS passing out waivers? Isn’t that harming the American people? Isn’t that denying some of them their “right” to health care coverage??? The Democrats should be THRILLED to make certain no little people are being denied their right to enjoy ALL the provisions of Obamacare by greedy big businesses.

    As for Congressional retirements — they should be tied to the deficit. For every year of a Congressman’s service the country had a balanced budget, the retired Congressperson can collect a pension. For every year of service the country ran a deficit, no pension. That would effectively end Congressional pensions. Oh, and pensions are only avaiable to those who retire, not to those who lose their re-elections — if your constitutents throw you out of office, obviously your service was unsatisfactory and you don’t deserve a pension.

39. #39
    On January 25th, 2011 at 9:31 am, Roland said:

    On January 24th, 2011 at 4:44 pm, cabrerski said:
    How about a simple ammendment that states that any healthcare exceptions that are granted shall be equally accessible to any and all citizens. ..

    Simple, direct and fair. Anyone opposing it would have some serious explaining to do.

    I like it.

40. #40
    On January 25th, 2011 at 9:35 am, Roland said:

    Oh, and pensions are only avaiable to those who retire, not to those who lose their re-elections — if your constitutents throw you out of office, obviously your service was unsatisfactory and you don’t deserve a pension.

    Another great idea that’s simple and fair. This could accomplish what we couldn’t do with the term limits movement.

41. #41
    On January 25th, 2011 at 10:59 am, DanMan said:

    “…if your constitutents throw you out of office, obviously your service was unsatisfactory and you don’t deserve a pension.”

    You will some serious earmarking, coniving and any other means they can think of to reward their constituencies at the expense of their neighbors. This will allow districts that forever send a fringe representative like Nancy Pelosi to prosper while those in more bi-partisan districts will have to soldier on as is required of those of us working in a capitalist economy to contribute while not relying on government.

    Be careful what you ask for. I do like indexing deficit spending to their pay though.

42. #42
    On January 25th, 2011 at 11:23 am, RedDog said:

    On January 25th, 2011 at 9:35 am, Roland said:

    Oh, and pensions are only avaiable to those who retire, not to those who lose their re-elections — if your constitutents throw you out of office, obviously your service was unsatisfactory and you don’t deserve a pension.

    Another great idea that’s simple and fair. This could accomplish what we couldn’t do with the term limits movement.

    Excellent. The old self-policing theory. Problem is they will “retire” after even one term and still be feeding off the government teat. I guess that’s better than the alternative. But we will have a fast growing population of politico pensioners adding to the deficit. I hope the (modest) pension is tied to actual years on the job. Right now if they get elected, it’s like winning the lottery. No worries mate, we’re in Lollypop Land.

43. #43
    On January 25th, 2011 at 11:29 am, Pat said:

    In addition to waivers, I would like them to investigate why we have to give the nurse our race when we now go to the doctors office!

44. #44
    On January 25th, 2011 at 11:48 am, Roland said:

    Problem is they will “retire” after even one term and still be feeding off the government teat.

    Nothing’s perfect. It’ll be better than what we’ve got.

    As to the “Pelosi Problem”: If most congresscritters don’t plan to be there more than a term or three, the seniority system will get canned, which would be another great benefit to the plan.

    Long termers should be looked upon with suspicion and perhaps a bit of revulsion by newcomers who see the job differently.

    We might even be able to get Congress to pass term limits once most of the long termers are gone and most of the new guys don’t plan to become long termers.

45. #45
    On January 28th, 2011 at 1:25 pm, FirstSkirt said:

    I can’t find anywhere in the Lame Stream Media a mention of this waiver business – no who, what, when, where, how!! Republicans – get this info out somehow so Americans see what’s going on with this. Yeah, if Obeymecare is so great, why is everyone who can bailing?