Posted by JackHoogendyk on 05/16/09
Last updated 05/16/09

Have you ever noticed that there is a tendency by the Lords and Ladies of Congress, and the President to apply certain laws and regulations on the "serfs" (the people) while exempting themselves?

President Barack Obama joined key members of Congress in a press conference Wednesday, to announce that Congress would begin the monumental task of rapidly reforming US healthcare.

Obama indicated he would leave Congress to draft the legislation, but called for it to encompass "three basic principles." "First that the rising costs of health care have to be brought down; second, that Americans have to be able to choose their own doctor and their own plan; and, third, all Americans have to have quality, affordable health care."

This sounds great, doesn't it? The President knows these goals are impossible to achieve in a plan that is run by the government, but it is such a great sound bite that nothing else matters. Unfortunately, most Americans are too concerned about their own financial well-being; they don't have time to pay attention to the details of a "Universal Health Care Plan." They don't know that everywhere else on the planet this has been tried, it has been an abysmal failure.

No matter, the mainstream media has just hammered home the message that we will have a government-run, socialized, single-payer plan that will be less expensive, allow for choice of doctor and plan, and will provide quality, affordable health care. Mr. Obama has a loudspeaker of the mainstream media spreading his message, regardless whether it is truthful or accurate.

Congress is about to foist a health care plan on America that will not work and will greatly increase the cost of health care while only lowering the quality.

Here is an idea: why not tell the Lords and Ladies of Congress to try it on themselves before forcing it on the serfs?

Let's tell Congress that if they have such a great idea, they should enact a pilot program, run it for three years, and then evaluate it for cost, quality, availability, etc. And who should be the test group? Congress! Yes, let's tell Congress to try their great ideas on themselves, their staff members and all members of the executive branch of the federal government. I believe I heard there are over one million employees in the executive branch alone. That should be a large enough group to successfully test a pilot program for three years.

If it works as well as they think it will, they can roll it out for the rest of the country.

Posted by JackHoogendyk on 05/20/09

Michigan, through its Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is one of only two states in the Union that regulates wetlands with a state agency rather than through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This has been a problem because the state guidelines are much more strict than the federal guidelines. Additionally, the DEQ has proven to be arbitrary and capricious in its decision-making and has often caused long, unnecessary delays in approving permits.

While the concerns about over-regulation by a state agency are valid, they may be rendered "moot" by recent efforts in Congress. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold has introduced a bill, S787, which was sponsored by 23 other members (all Democrats including Levin and Stabenow.) Senate Bill S787 is entitled, "To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to clarify the jurisdiction of the United States over waters of the United States." Notice they start the description with the words "pollution control." That makes it sound caring and good, doesn't it?

All surface waters will come under Congressional Control

The fact is, this legislation will put ALL surface waters in the United States of America under Congressional jurisdiction. The bill language, which can be read here, has a couple of key phrases in it. The first changes the definition of what is under Congressional jurisdiction. Ever since the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and several test cases in the Supreme Court, Congress has had jurisdiction over navigable waters. The meaning of that word has been argued, but according to precedent and legal definition, navigable includes anything you can get a canoe down, or anything that is connected by water to the same.

...mudflats, wet meadows, prairie potholes...

No matter because under S787, the word navigable is stricken, which means now ALL surface water is under Congressional jurisdiction. Additionally, in case there was any question of state's rights, the bill also states that this applies to interstate and intrastate waters. That means there is no state sovereignty over waters within that state's boundaries. And, if you have any doubt as to what the congressional definition of "waters" is, they spell that out, too. It includes, "all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, the territorial seas, and all interstate and intrastate waters and their tributaries, including lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, natural ponds, and all impoundments of the foregoing, to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."

...interstate and intrastate...

The bottom line is this: Congress is taking over all the water. If the Obama administration and Congress are anything like this state's governor and her administration, you will see free trade and commerce come to a virtual stand still. Manufacturing especially will come to a screeching halt. Water is an essential resource in the manufacture of virtually any consumable or durable good. Without ready access, manufacturers will be stifled in their attempts to create new products for market and the jobs that go with them.

Posted 05/20/09 mitchloft Bolingbrook, IL

"...to the fullest extent that these waters, or activities affecting these waters, are subject to the legislative power of Congress under the Constitution."- This phrase right here puts it back into the "Constitutional" category as it says right in there that this bill encompasses those waters ONLY to the extent that the Constitution allows. I would expect that the various federal bureaucracies and probably the courts - at least the LOWER courts - would try to make this mean ALL water, but it ain't really so.

Posted 05/20/09 capo 211 , MI

actually what the language says is that the waters, as previously described will be subject to the legislative power that the constitution provides congress. Truly the act of putting the words "under the Constitution" in this bill make it no more constitutional than bailouts, redistribution, or "mandatory civil service". What it does tell us is that congress seems to at least acknowledge that they derive their power from the agreement we call the constitution, they just don't feel it necessary to limit themselves by the limits that that particular document puts on their power.

Posted 05/25/09 Bruce Eggum Gresham, WI

Water ---- whose water? With pollution and receding supply, we must claim our water and maintain our rights to it. “With cities growing and agriculture expanding throughout South America, experts predict that climate change will exacerbate water scarcity, increasing conflicts between competing users, pitting city dwellers against rural residents, people in dry lands against those in areas with abundant rainfall, Andean mining companies against neighboring farm communities, and eucalyptus plantation operators on the Argentinian and Uruguayan plains against farmers who say the trees are sucking the water table dry.” Water - whose water? Senator Fiengold is taking the necessary step to assure Water is the property of the people of these United States. If another nation or corporation held these water rights, we would be servants to them. Puru http://tinyurl.com/p7at7a