Natural Disasters Spark Debate Over Flood Insurance Reform
Michael C. Podlesny asked:
It has been over two years since hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana and Mississsippi. With many homes still not rebuilt, demolished or renovated, it raises the big question about flood insurance and whether or not there should be reform in the insurance industry.
In the September 2007 issue of Mortgage Banking it is reported that the decision of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program by moving the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 in late July and that the decision would curtail the coverage for second homes while adding for windstorm damage. However, the committee explained that the bill would give advantage to small business owners.
Mortgage companies require flood insurance for homes located in flood-prone areas, but homeowners in lower-risk areas may also consider coverage to protect their property, according to Terri Cullen of The Wall Street Journal. Average premiums for a flood insurance is about $600 a year, but those in high risk areas can pay as much as $5,400 a year. Tenants in low-risk areas may pay about $200 a year or $2,200 for high-risk zones. Leading to the fact that it is very expensive to those who really need it, spawning debate as to whether the government should step in and create legislation for flood insurance in those areas that desperately need it such as we`ve seen along the Gulf Coast.
Heightened interest in the natural catastrophe policy is a plus for supporters of the optional federal charter. Congress has dealt with several natural catastrophe related matters, including the House Financial Services Committee`s vote to expand the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind risks. A definite win for those who need it.
National Underwriter / Property & Casualty Risk & Benefits Management`s Susanne Sclafane reports of the decision of the New Orleans federal appeals court on the need for the homeowners to purchase the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in New Orleans, Louisiana. It is triggered by the claims on damages caused by the Hurricane Katrina. Justin Roth, senior federal affairs director of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Cos., said that the flood maps of the nation needs an update to make sure that claims are really due to floods to prevent other claims.
With the U.S. House of Representatives approving the H.R. 3121 legislation that intends to expand the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), by a vote of 38-29, it aims to offer coverage for wind damage as well. It also includes provisions that would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency to revise the country`s flood maps by 2010 ,and terminate the subsidies for structures built before NFIP`s establishment, which Roth feels is vital.
Flood insurance is vital those homeowners and renters along our country`s coastline and those near larger bodies of water. Although many more bills remain being debated in Washington in regards to flood reform, one thing is clear, for those that need it most, reform can not happen quick enough.
By: Michael C. Podlesny
The Winners and Losers in the Indian Debate of the India-us Nuclear Agreement
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:
The India-US Nuclear agreement (123) debate is furious in India. The coaltion government led by Congress party, and the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh are finally determined to have a go at the nuclear agreement. The communist parties with about 60 parliamentary (Lok Sabha) members are about to withdraw their support to the coalition government but the Samajwadi Party led by Mulayam Singh with about 39 parliament members are all set to support the government.
There is ferocious finger-pointing and heated rhetoric in the Indian debate. Without considering the substance or merit of the agreement, I rate as follows the winners and losers of this debate. I rate on a 1-10 scale, 1 being a perfect loser, 10 being a perfect winner and 5 being no-loss and no-gain.
(1) Congress Party: I give a 5. By pushing aggressively for the consummation of the 123 agreement, the Congress party reinforces its standing as a national party which protects and furthers the country’s interests above its own party interests. But the near-collapse of the political alignments for (governance) now and for the forthcoming elections, and the great uncertainty about the final approval of the agreement by the U.S. Congress in good time, and the eventuality that even if the agreement is consummated the United States invokes the Hyde Amendment are too many potential negatives that it make it a 5 for the Congress party.
(2) Mrs. Sonia Gandhi: I give a 5 for the same reasons. The political downsides are too many. But I do laud her ability to put the national interest above the partisan interest.
(3) Prime Minister Manmohan Singh: I give him an 8. Even if the Congress party and its allies were to form the next government after the parliamentary elections, it is most likely that Manmohan Singh will be nominated/elected to be the Prime Minister again. Manmohan Singh is, most likely, concluding his serendipitous political life — first as much hailed reformist Finance Minister and now as the Prime Minister. Given these facts, how can there be a more lasting and memorable legacy than the consummation of this extra-ordinary nuclear agreement?
(4) The political allies of the Congress party: I give them a 5. What are their choices — be with the Congress party or with the other political party — BJP.
(5) Bharatiya Janata Party: I give an 8. The Congress party and its political allies won the 2004 parliamentary elections simply because their collection of parties was larger than that of the Bharatiya Janata Party and its allies. Take, for example, the state of Maharashtra. The coalition Congress party, the National Congress party led by Sharad Pawar and the Communist parties clearly outdid the combine of Bharatiya Janata Party and Shiv Sena. And so went the story in state after state.
But now the opposition to BJP and its political friends is now fragmented — most states are likely to witness a triangular contest with Congress and its friends as one contestant, the BJP and its friends as the other contestant, and the Communist parties and other small regional groupings as the third contestant. In such a fragmented contest, BJP is likely to benefit very substantially.
Add to this, the opportunity to woo the Muslim voters who are deeply suspicious of the United States — not unlike the Muslims all over the world after 9/11.
(6) Lal Krishna Advani: I give him a 9. For a man who is 80 years old and who is not seen as a statesman, and who was almost cast away by his own party after his favorable remarks about Jinnah in 2005, there is a remarkable turn-around in fortunes.
The Politics of India-us Nuclear Agreement
Gurumurthy Kalyanaram asked:
The India-US Nuclear agreement is the subject of hope and debate, yet again, in India. Apart from the substance of the pact, the politics (and timing) of the negotiations is mystifying.
First, the substance of the pact: the benefits — immediate access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel — are very robust. India’s need for energy is monumental and nuclear energy must form a part of the energy portfolio for India.
The United States — President Bush — has made an extra-ordinary offer to India. The President is championing exception (for India) to the 1978 congressional mandate that the non-signatories of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act cannot under any circumstances receive any nuclear technology or fuel from the United States. The so-called Nuclear Suppliers Group follow the United States lead on this matter.
So this is truly historic. India owes a debt of gratitude to President Bush and the United States. However, the Hyde Amendment is troublesome.
The Hyde Amendment which requires the President to advise the Congress every year that India was not diverting nuclear technology and material for weaponry. While it is very true that President George Bush has high respect for India’s integrity and trust. However, what the political landscape would be in 10 or 20 years is anyone guess – it is not clear that a nation’s future can be so tenuously linked to certification by an individual. Look at what happened to Pakistan. The then President Bush in 1990 failed to certify Pakistan’s intentions regarding its nuclear ambitions, and the Pressler amendment called for economic and military sanctions which reverberated till recently.
But President Bush cannot do much about Hyde Amendment — this is the requirement that the U.S. Congress is imposing for the extra-ordinary exception that it is ready to make for India. This requirement is entirely reasonable from the perspective of Congress, however troublesome that it may be to India or subject to the vagaries of time and the whims and fancies of a future President who may be annoyed with India on some other matter and may decide not to certify based on that irritation. There is no basis on which President Bush can push the Congress to do away with the Hyde Amendment — President Bush is already facing strong opposition from the Congress, particularly from the Democrats.
Having said this, if India is ready to accept the risk with the Hyde Amendment the Indian Government must have moved with greater dispatch. It was India’s responsibility to sign India-specific accords with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) before the U.S. Congress can approve the nuclear agreement.
But India has dithered on this matter for almost one year. That is because of the Communists parties who have about 60 parliamentary seats and who have been electoral partners with Congress party are strongly opposed the nuclear agreement — their opposition is well thought-out, and it is mostly based on the Hyde Amendment.
The Congress party has spent one year trying to persuade the Communists parties — and it has not been successful. Finally, the Congress party is threatening to go ahead with the negotiations with IAEA but why now? This is so late.
By the time, India concludes its negotiations with IAEA it will be atleast a couple of months. So the agreement cannot placed before the U.S. Congress before fall. But the agenda for fall for the Congress is set in place — and the Congressional leaders have already said that it is too late for debate and approval of the nuclear agreement.
Unfortunately, President Bush can do only so much — particularly with the U.S. Presidential and congressional elections looming ahead so close. Once the November elections take place (Democratic party is likely to gain substantial number of seats in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, and quite likely even the White House), President Bush’s influence will diminish dramatically.
So what is point of Congress party being so decisive so late? It appears that the Congress party did not want to risk alienating the Communist parties but now since the national elections are only 6-9 months away the Congress party appears ready to roll the dice. Politically, that is not in the self-interest of the Congress party. Unless the Congress party can hold the Communist parties in its fold for the next general elections, its probability of winning those elections will diminish dramatically.
So what is the point? It just does not compute. The nuclear agreement is most unlikely to be approved by the U.S. Congress given the serious time constraints and the dynamics of U.S. political environment. The Congress party is also likely to lower its odds of winning the next elections.
The India-US Nuclear agreement is the subject of hope and debate, yet again, in India. Apart from the substance of the pact, the politics (and timing) of the negotiations is mystifying.
First, the substance of the pact: the benefits — immediate access to nuclear technology and nuclear fuel — are very robust. India’s need for energy is monumental and nuclear energy must form a part of the energy portfolio for India.
The United States — President Bush — has made an extra-ordinary offer to India. The President is championing exception (for India) to the 1978 congressional mandate that the non-signatories of Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act cannot under any circumstances receive any nuclear technology or fuel from the United States. The so-called Nuclear Suppliers Group follow the United States lead on this matter.
So this is truly historic. India owes a debt of gratitude to President Bush and the United States. However, the Hyde Amendment is troublesome.
The Hyde Amendment which requires the President to advise the Congress every year that India was not diverting nuclear technology and material for weaponry. While it is very true that President George Bush has high respect for India’s integrity and trust. However, what the political landscape would be in 10 or 20 years is anyone guess – it is not clear that a nation’s future can be so tenuously linked to certification by an individual. Look at what happened to Pakistan. The then President Bush in 1990 failed to certify Pakistan’s intentions regarding its nuclear ambitions, and the Pressler amendment called for economic and military sanctions which reverberated till recently.
But President Bush cannot do much about Hyde Amendment — this is the requirement that the U.S. Congress is imposing for the extra-ordinary exception that it is ready to make for India. This requirement is entirely reasonable from the perspective of Congress, however troublesome that it may be to India or subject to the vagaries of time and the whims and fancies of a future President who may be annoyed with India on some other matter and may decide not to certify based on that irritation. There is no basis on which President Bush can push the Congress to do away with the Hyde Amendment — President Bush is already facing strong opposition from the Congress, particularly from the Democrats.
Having said this, if India is ready to accept the risk with the Hyde Amendment the Indian Government must have moved with greater dispatch. It was India’s responsibility to sign India-specific accords with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) before the U.S. Congress can approve the nuclear agreement.
But India has dithered on this matter for almost one year. That is because of the Communists parties who have about 60 parliamentary seats and who have been electoral partners with Congress party are strongly opposed the nuclear agreement — their opposition is well thought-out, and it is mostly based on the Hyde Amendment.
The Congress party has spent one year trying to persuade the Communists parties — and it has not been successful. Finally, the Congress party is threatening to go ahead with the negotiations with IAEA but why now? This is so late.
By the time, India concludes its negotiations with IAEA it will be atleast a couple of months. So the agreement cannot placed before the U.S. Congress before fall. But the agenda for fall for the Congress is set in place — and the Congressional leaders have already said that it is too late for debate and approval of the nuclear agreement.
Unfortunately, President Bush can do only so much — particularly with the U.S. Presidential and congressional elections looming ahead so close. Once the November elections take place (Democratic party is likely to gain substantial number of seats in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives, and quite likely even the White House), President Bush’s influence will diminish dramatically.
So what is point of Congress party being so decisive so late? It appears that the Congress party did not want to risk alienating the Communist parties but now since the national elections are only 6-9 months away the Congress party appears ready to roll the dice. Politically, that is not in the self-interest of the Congress party. Unless the Congress party can hold the Communist parties in its fold for the next general elections, its probability of winning those elections will diminish dramatically.
So what is the point? It just does not compute. The nuclear agreement is most unlikely to be approved by the U.S. Congress given the serious time constraints and the dynamics of U.S. political environment. The Congress party is also likely to lower its odds of winning the next elections.
The Great Unread Heist
Douglas Fender asked:
The most basic obligation for those elected in Congress is to at least understand a piece of legislating enough to make a determination if they should vote yes, no or abstain. For some time now congress has used the excuse that bills are too long, complicated and they do not have adequate rescores to read a bill toughly before deciding to vote on it.
This pathetic and unprofessional excuse shows the arrogance and lack of regard that many in congress have for their constituents as well as their sense of responsibility. A ten year old child could tell you that if you do not understand a bill you should vote no on the grounds that it is confusing, ambiguous and or improperly written. This excuse of not being able to read a bill before voting is the “invisible monster did it” excuse that politicians use to take blame from their incompetence and derelict of duty by shifting the blame to the complexity of the written words in a bill.
Voting yes for a bill that has not been read or understood and evaluated is a crime against duty as well as the concept of representation of the citizens. If lawyers of lobbyist author bills giving themselves great power or loopholes to get unfair advantage in business and the congress blindly votes yes on these bills with no concept of what is actually written in the bill then the argument could be made that congress is paid by the lobbyist to stamp their own authored legislation into law. If this is how Washington does business then I propose we put legislation on EBay and let the special interest groups bid on it and the winner gets to write it as they see fit, as it is basically done now with congress using the excuse that they cannot read what is in the bills.
President Obama told the American public that the stimulus bill was a do or die bill and had to be signed immediately and the congress did not have a clue who authored it or what was in it and in a show of total disregard for proper professionalism they passed a bill that is full of pork and added to the national dept numbers beyond imagination. This great heist of American wealth written on a check that the unborn will have to pay has done nothing to help the economy in any way like it was advertised and to this day most in congress have no idea who wrote it and what is in it. Does this legislation truly say that America has to buy gold cars and million dollar mansions for anyone who votes for Obama for a second term? Or that we must give the state of Alaska to China in 2020? Or America must demolish New York City and make it into a wildlife refuse. Who knows, those who voted on it do not know what it says.
The most basic obligation for those elected in Congress is to at least understand a piece of legislating enough to make a determination if they should vote yes, no or abstain. For some time now congress has used the excuse that bills are too long, complicated and they do not have adequate rescores to read a bill toughly before deciding to vote on it.
This pathetic and unprofessional excuse shows the arrogance and lack of regard that many in congress have for their constituents as well as their sense of responsibility. A ten year old child could tell you that if you do not understand a bill you should vote no on the grounds that it is confusing, ambiguous and or improperly written. This excuse of not being able to read a bill before voting is the “invisible monster did it” excuse that politicians use to take blame from their incompetence and derelict of duty by shifting the blame to the complexity of the written words in a bill.
Voting yes for a bill that has not been read or understood and evaluated is a crime against duty as well as the concept of representation of the citizens. If lawyers of lobbyist author bills giving themselves great power or loopholes to get unfair advantage in business and the congress blindly votes yes on these bills with no concept of what is actually written in the bill then the argument could be made that congress is paid by the lobbyist to stamp their own authored legislation into law. If this is how Washington does business then I propose we put legislation on EBay and let the special interest groups bid on it and the winner gets to write it as they see fit, as it is basically done now with congress using the excuse that they cannot read what is in the bills.
President Obama told the American public that the stimulus bill was a do or die bill and had to be signed immediately and the congress did not have a clue who authored it or what was in it and in a show of total disregard for proper professionalism they passed a bill that is full of pork and added to the national dept numbers beyond imagination. This great heist of American wealth written on a check that the unborn will have to pay has done nothing to help the economy in any way like it was advertised and to this day most in congress have no idea who wrote it and what is in it. Does this legislation truly say that America has to buy gold cars and million dollar mansions for anyone who votes for Obama for a second term? Or that we must give the state of Alaska to China in 2020? Or America must demolish New York City and make it into a wildlife refuse. Who knows, those who voted on it do not know what it says.
Welcome to a New Site in the New Year for Join Congress Party Indian National Congress
joincongress asked:
Hi friends
www.joincongress.com wishes you a very happy and prosperous New Year to you, members of your family and friends.
www.Joincongress.com – Welcome to this new website: intended to be a totally different approach to socialising on a political platform. Here we offer you a series of activities that would not only keep you engrossed in team-building endeavours, but will also keep you informed of developments all around in the political scenario, more especially in relation to our Indian National Congress party.
What are the various areas you can expect to get covered in this site? The site has many many features – some of which are summed up below:
Ø It is primarily a social network site – first of its kind – for the Congress Party
Ø Joining the forum is free. Anyone supporting Congress Party or endorsing its view-point is invited to join the site
Ø The site provides facilities for –
Þ Creating Groups for debates, free discussions, etc.
Þ Inviting friends and families to join
Þ Sharing comments, views and thoughts on various political and social issues in the featured forum and the related blogs
Þ Sharing pictures and videos amongst the members
Ø One can invite friends from FaceBook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Picasa etc. to enrich the contents of the site
Ø Arrangements are also made to get the Members enrolled as voters. If a member is not a registered voter, the site will provide him the option to register at the site that would provide a PDF document. He can send the document to the local post office and get himself Registered for a Voter ID and casting of his valuable Vote. Isn’t it Great!
The site is not the official website of Congress Party nor has this been sponsored by the political party, and hence, any views and opinions expressed here are of the concerned individual, and not necessarily that of Congress Party.
Hi friends
www.joincongress.com wishes you a very happy and prosperous New Year to you, members of your family and friends.
www.Joincongress.com – Welcome to this new website: intended to be a totally different approach to socialising on a political platform. Here we offer you a series of activities that would not only keep you engrossed in team-building endeavours, but will also keep you informed of developments all around in the political scenario, more especially in relation to our Indian National Congress party.
What are the various areas you can expect to get covered in this site? The site has many many features – some of which are summed up below:
Ø It is primarily a social network site – first of its kind – for the Congress Party
Ø Joining the forum is free. Anyone supporting Congress Party or endorsing its view-point is invited to join the site
Ø The site provides facilities for –
Þ Creating Groups for debates, free discussions, etc.
Þ Inviting friends and families to join
Þ Sharing comments, views and thoughts on various political and social issues in the featured forum and the related blogs
Þ Sharing pictures and videos amongst the members
Ø One can invite friends from FaceBook, LinkedIn, YouTube, Picasa etc. to enrich the contents of the site
Ø Arrangements are also made to get the Members enrolled as voters. If a member is not a registered voter, the site will provide him the option to register at the site that would provide a PDF document. He can send the document to the local post office and get himself Registered for a Voter ID and casting of his valuable Vote. Isn’t it Great!
The site is not the official website of Congress Party nor has this been sponsored by the political party, and hence, any views and opinions expressed here are of the concerned individual, and not necessarily that of Congress Party.
Parker Offers Positive Solutions Missing From Big Two Party Debate
Joseph Oddo asked:
Independent Greens of Virginia
www.VoteJoinRun.us
Parker Offers Positive Solutions Missing From Big Two Party Debate
Unlike her opponents, Gail Parker, Independent Green candidate for the US Senate offers solutions specific to Virginia and invaluable in this time of economic crises.
Only Ms. Parker has consistently addressed the federal deficit and the need to balance the budget immediately. Plus she offers a simple plan to pay off the federal debt in five years – by installing an auditable accounting system in the Department of Defense where no-bid contracts and improper payments are bankrupting our Treasury.
Gail “for Rail” Parker served as an officer in the US Air Force and was a former budget analyst at the Pentagon. She is uniquely qualified to address issues that neither of the two former Governors has even thought about. One of her issues is forcing the US to oblige by the Arms Export Control Act.
For over 20 years the administrations in power have allowed the Department of Defense to supply defense articles to foreign governments without going through the arms sale approval process. The unauthorized sale of certain technology could cause the unnecessary loss of U.S. service men and women’s lives if unexpectedly faced in combat with our own lethal technology and places innocent U.S. citizens at increased risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks.
She has posted plans on rectifying these policy blunders on her website, stating: The sale of arms without going through the arms sale approval process is a violation of the U.S. Constitution since the authority to approve arms sales is delegated to the U.S. Congress, therefore anyone unknowingly participating would have been subject to punishment by law if the sales became known.
Gail Parker attended the September 18 debate in McLean between her big two party opponents, but was not permitted to participate. Another televised debate is scheduled in Roanoke with the TV station sponsoring the debate claiming that a ten percent poll reading is necessary for Ms. Parker to participate.
The latest USA survey poll indicates a 20% increase in support for Independent Gail “for Rail” Parker. Advocating energy solutions starting with More Trains, Less Traffic, she is connecting with independent and swing voters who are not impressed by either of the big two. She urges voters to call WSLS TV 10 in Roanoke VA at 540-512-1550 demanding her inclusion in the upcoming debate.
Gail will take her campaign to the Isle of Wight County Fair this weekend and the state fair in Richmond next weekend.
Contact: Joseph Oddo, 703-338-0200
Independent Greens of Virginia
www.VoteJoinRun.us
Parker Offers Positive Solutions Missing From Big Two Party Debate
Unlike her opponents, Gail Parker, Independent Green candidate for the US Senate offers solutions specific to Virginia and invaluable in this time of economic crises.
Only Ms. Parker has consistently addressed the federal deficit and the need to balance the budget immediately. Plus she offers a simple plan to pay off the federal debt in five years – by installing an auditable accounting system in the Department of Defense where no-bid contracts and improper payments are bankrupting our Treasury.
Gail “for Rail” Parker served as an officer in the US Air Force and was a former budget analyst at the Pentagon. She is uniquely qualified to address issues that neither of the two former Governors has even thought about. One of her issues is forcing the US to oblige by the Arms Export Control Act.
For over 20 years the administrations in power have allowed the Department of Defense to supply defense articles to foreign governments without going through the arms sale approval process. The unauthorized sale of certain technology could cause the unnecessary loss of U.S. service men and women’s lives if unexpectedly faced in combat with our own lethal technology and places innocent U.S. citizens at increased risk of retaliatory terrorist attacks.
She has posted plans on rectifying these policy blunders on her website, stating: The sale of arms without going through the arms sale approval process is a violation of the U.S. Constitution since the authority to approve arms sales is delegated to the U.S. Congress, therefore anyone unknowingly participating would have been subject to punishment by law if the sales became known.
Gail Parker attended the September 18 debate in McLean between her big two party opponents, but was not permitted to participate. Another televised debate is scheduled in Roanoke with the TV station sponsoring the debate claiming that a ten percent poll reading is necessary for Ms. Parker to participate.
The latest USA survey poll indicates a 20% increase in support for Independent Gail “for Rail” Parker. Advocating energy solutions starting with More Trains, Less Traffic, she is connecting with independent and swing voters who are not impressed by either of the big two. She urges voters to call WSLS TV 10 in Roanoke VA at 540-512-1550 demanding her inclusion in the upcoming debate.
Gail will take her campaign to the Isle of Wight County Fair this weekend and the state fair in Richmond next weekend.
Contact: Joseph Oddo, 703-338-0200
The rise of regional parties: boon or bane?
Melwyn Pinto SJ asked:
The writing on the wall is fairly clear: the days of single-party rule at the centre are over for Indian democracy. Today only a coalition government which can hold its partners together through thick and thin can hope to form a government at the centre. What has given rise to such development is the rise of regional parties which try hard to make their presence felt at the centre as well.
When Indian democracy had its first elections in 1952 there were hardly any regional parties. In fact, it was the Congress party which held its sway over the nation. Even in the sixties the national parties won nearly 90 per cent of seats. That trend has changed considerably today. In the 2004 general elections, regional parties won as many as 43 per cent of the total number of seats and national parties 57 per cent. Today there are 47 regional parties and over 400 smaller parties vying with one another for their share of pie.
It is not at all surprising that today two states are ruled by independent regional parties and in as many as eight states there is an alliance government of regional and national parties. In Tamil Nadu, for example, national parties have hardly a chance. The regional parties have dominated the scene since 1967. Andhra Pradesh was ruled by the Telugu Desham Party between 1983 and 1989 and between 1994 and 2004. Uttar Pradesh has also been ruled by regional parties for greater part of the last two decades. National parties do not seem to make any significant progress in their voters’ share in UP.
Whether such a trend is good for Indian democracy can be debated; but one cannot ignore the fact that in a large democracy smaller parties do have a place and also have a crucial role to play. It is possible that in the larger interest of the Nation, the local aspirations of people can be totally forgotten by national parties. It is here that local and regional parties can bargain hard to get fair representation of local needs.
Recently Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, said that regional parties were responsible for the backwardness of several states and that they lacked a national perspective, much to the ire of many regional parties. What he meant to say, perhaps, was that regional parties indulged more in regionalism rather than having a broader vision of the country. At times it is difficult to draw line between regionalism and nationalism. If a nation is a sum total of multi-cultural, linguistic and ethnic regions, regionalism is a natural fall out and cannot be ignored easily. Though regional parties try to draw greater political mileage out of regional issues, no one can deny the fact that all regions must be given adequate attention.
The other important aspect is that in several instances regional parties eventually grow to become national parties. The present Bharatiya Janatha Party had its origin in the erstwhile Jan Sangh which was a regional party. The Bahujan Samaj Party is contesting independently in all Lok Sabha constituencies in these elections. The Left parties are no longer regional parties as they have their strong presence in several states and are contesting Lok Sabha elections in many states. Even National Congress Party and Samajwadi Party are contesting in several states. While regional parties want to strengthen their base in their core states, they also want to grow nationally as a power to reckon with.
The rise of regional parties can only be attributed to the failure of national parties to give due importance to the regional aspirations of people. While it may be true that regional parties fail to have a national vision and think only of their region, single party rule, as history has shown, can be authoritarian, caring little for the regional issues. It is here that the formation of the Third Front consisting mostly regional parties can make a difference. Combining both national and regional aspirations, though difficult, is not impossible. If they are able to put their sectarian politics behind and concentrate on more pertinent issues that trouble the country, indeed, the Third Front can bring about a breath of fresh air into the Indian democracy.
The writing on the wall is fairly clear: the days of single-party rule at the centre are over for Indian democracy. Today only a coalition government which can hold its partners together through thick and thin can hope to form a government at the centre. What has given rise to such development is the rise of regional parties which try hard to make their presence felt at the centre as well.
When Indian democracy had its first elections in 1952 there were hardly any regional parties. In fact, it was the Congress party which held its sway over the nation. Even in the sixties the national parties won nearly 90 per cent of seats. That trend has changed considerably today. In the 2004 general elections, regional parties won as many as 43 per cent of the total number of seats and national parties 57 per cent. Today there are 47 regional parties and over 400 smaller parties vying with one another for their share of pie.
It is not at all surprising that today two states are ruled by independent regional parties and in as many as eight states there is an alliance government of regional and national parties. In Tamil Nadu, for example, national parties have hardly a chance. The regional parties have dominated the scene since 1967. Andhra Pradesh was ruled by the Telugu Desham Party between 1983 and 1989 and between 1994 and 2004. Uttar Pradesh has also been ruled by regional parties for greater part of the last two decades. National parties do not seem to make any significant progress in their voters’ share in UP.
Whether such a trend is good for Indian democracy can be debated; but one cannot ignore the fact that in a large democracy smaller parties do have a place and also have a crucial role to play. It is possible that in the larger interest of the Nation, the local aspirations of people can be totally forgotten by national parties. It is here that local and regional parties can bargain hard to get fair representation of local needs.
Recently Prime Minister, Dr Manmohan Singh, said that regional parties were responsible for the backwardness of several states and that they lacked a national perspective, much to the ire of many regional parties. What he meant to say, perhaps, was that regional parties indulged more in regionalism rather than having a broader vision of the country. At times it is difficult to draw line between regionalism and nationalism. If a nation is a sum total of multi-cultural, linguistic and ethnic regions, regionalism is a natural fall out and cannot be ignored easily. Though regional parties try to draw greater political mileage out of regional issues, no one can deny the fact that all regions must be given adequate attention.
The other important aspect is that in several instances regional parties eventually grow to become national parties. The present Bharatiya Janatha Party had its origin in the erstwhile Jan Sangh which was a regional party. The Bahujan Samaj Party is contesting independently in all Lok Sabha constituencies in these elections. The Left parties are no longer regional parties as they have their strong presence in several states and are contesting Lok Sabha elections in many states. Even National Congress Party and Samajwadi Party are contesting in several states. While regional parties want to strengthen their base in their core states, they also want to grow nationally as a power to reckon with.
The rise of regional parties can only be attributed to the failure of national parties to give due importance to the regional aspirations of people. While it may be true that regional parties fail to have a national vision and think only of their region, single party rule, as history has shown, can be authoritarian, caring little for the regional issues. It is here that the formation of the Third Front consisting mostly regional parties can make a difference. Combining both national and regional aspirations, though difficult, is not impossible. If they are able to put their sectarian politics behind and concentrate on more pertinent issues that trouble the country, indeed, the Third Front can bring about a breath of fresh air into the Indian democracy.
The Horror of Socliazed Medicine
Alex Avram asked:
Ronald Reagan once said:
“Freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.”
As you may have surmised from reading any newspaper or watching any news channel, Socialized Medicine is shaping to be the issue of our day.
Let’s just correct a few misconceptions. Universal Healthcare is not “free”. Either you, your children or your children’s children will be paying for health care that you consume today. Look at it this way, would you rather trust your healthcare to you – who can go out and shop around for the best healthcare that you can find, from companies which need to compete against each other in order to provide the best service possible in a country with the best doctors in the world, or would you rather receive your healthcare from a single entity (the government) which is not required to run efficiently nor has ever show any inclination to running efficiently? Go wait in line at the DMV and picture yourself doing the same thing while bleeding, having trouble breathing or worse, experiencing symptoms which lead you to believe that you’re having a heart attack?
Just because citizens are uninsured does not mean that they cannot receive health care. Nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don’t have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. In fact, the oath that doctors take upon donning their scrubs for the first time mandates just this action.
Like Social Security, any government socialized benefit will eventually be assumed that it is a right rather than a government provided social benefit. This makes it essentially impossible to ever remove. This isn’t a scare tactic, it is reality. With this in mind, why the rush towards socialized medicine? If it’s really permanent, then shouldn’t we take the time to know the pros and the cons of the system?
As I type this, Barack Obama is pushing to rush this through Congress without giving us, Americans, a hint to how he’s planning on paying for this. Is this what we want? Hastily-made decisions which are done for political reasons under the guise of altruism? Or would we prefer a decision made after all the facts are presented to the American people and we’re able to decide what we want after careful consideration of all pros and cons?
It’s important to get all the facts straight, which is why during these times is crucial to be as informed as possible. One area that you can do this is by partaking in healthy debate with your fellow citizens. One such place is a Political Forum – Political Hotwire. It’s the place where I visit daily and enjoy debating current events. Check em out.
Ronald Reagan once said:
“Freedom is always just one generation away from extinction. We don’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream; we have to fight for it and protect it, and then hand it to them so that they shall do the same, or we’re going to find ourselves spending our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children about a time in America, back in the day, when men and women were free.”
As you may have surmised from reading any newspaper or watching any news channel, Socialized Medicine is shaping to be the issue of our day.
Let’s just correct a few misconceptions. Universal Healthcare is not “free”. Either you, your children or your children’s children will be paying for health care that you consume today. Look at it this way, would you rather trust your healthcare to you – who can go out and shop around for the best healthcare that you can find, from companies which need to compete against each other in order to provide the best service possible in a country with the best doctors in the world, or would you rather receive your healthcare from a single entity (the government) which is not required to run efficiently nor has ever show any inclination to running efficiently? Go wait in line at the DMV and picture yourself doing the same thing while bleeding, having trouble breathing or worse, experiencing symptoms which lead you to believe that you’re having a heart attack?
Just because citizens are uninsured does not mean that they cannot receive health care. Nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don’t have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance. In fact, the oath that doctors take upon donning their scrubs for the first time mandates just this action.
Like Social Security, any government socialized benefit will eventually be assumed that it is a right rather than a government provided social benefit. This makes it essentially impossible to ever remove. This isn’t a scare tactic, it is reality. With this in mind, why the rush towards socialized medicine? If it’s really permanent, then shouldn’t we take the time to know the pros and the cons of the system?
As I type this, Barack Obama is pushing to rush this through Congress without giving us, Americans, a hint to how he’s planning on paying for this. Is this what we want? Hastily-made decisions which are done for political reasons under the guise of altruism? Or would we prefer a decision made after all the facts are presented to the American people and we’re able to decide what we want after careful consideration of all pros and cons?
It’s important to get all the facts straight, which is why during these times is crucial to be as informed as possible. One area that you can do this is by partaking in healthy debate with your fellow citizens. One such place is a Political Forum – Political Hotwire. It’s the place where I visit daily and enjoy debating current events. Check em out.
The “REAL” facts about the health care debate
Bobby Parrish asked:
Recently, on CNN’s “State of the Union”, Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, said we have the best health care system in the world. I have heard this more than once from people who should know better. It seems like a battle cry from the right. Unfortunately, people, being the sheep we are, believe this BS without ever checking the facts. (Maybe that is what the purveyors of these lies are hoping for).
Now let me say here that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but they are not entitled to make up his or her own facts.
So with that in mind, here are some facts which can be backed up simply by spending a few minutes on the computer. (But who wants to waste time fact checking when all one has to do is lie with authority). Heaven forbid that reform opponents actually check facts! The World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in overall health system (above Slovenia but below Costa Rica). We are 72nd in level of health, 24th in life expectancy, 32nd in health distribution, 1st in responsiveness (lots of emergency rooms), 19th in child well-being, 37thin infant mortality land 54thin fairness in financial contributions. Does that sound like the best system in the world. And to achieve these poor levels of care, we spend more per capita that any country and more of our gross national product than any place on earth except the Marshall Islands. Sounds like the best system in the world to me, NOT!
Another tactic the anti-reformers like to use is to say they don’t want a bureaucrat deciding what care we get. All insurance companies have a bureaucrat who is only concerned about the company’s bottom line. They decide if a procedure or a medication will be covered. Why do you think the doctors have to call for a pre-authorization? More BS from the right.
Another question, why do you think the Insurance Companies are against a government run plan? They would have to, horror of horrors, compete for your business. Oh, and to answer the critics who think the government can’t run a health care program, who runs the military health care system? It has some flaws, of course, just like any other system, but I have never met a military family who was not satisfied with their level of care. Another anti-reform statement put to rest.
Here’s another good one! Keep the government’s hands out of my medicare! Huh???? If this is not a stupid statement, I’ve never heard one. Who do you think is running medicare now?
The Republicans have said the government has no business making health care decisions. The should stay out of people’s lives. Remember Terri Shiavo? The Grand Old Packyderms were sure quick to get into that arena. I guess they don’t think people will remember that.
One of the most bogus statements I have heard regarding health care reform is that the plan has “Death Panel” who will decide if Grandma lives or dies. Where on earth do these people get ideas like this? And besides, these decisions are already being made on a daily basis throughout the country by doctors and families.
The bottom line here is to do nothing is insane. People in the richest country in the world should not have to decide between food and medicine. They should not have to worry about having to file backruptcy because of health care bills. And contrary to what the anti’s say, some of the uninsured are in that position not because they didn’t try to help themselves, but because the cost got to extreme and their employer dropped coverage, the company moved outside the US and they lost their jobs and many other conditions they had no control over. It makes my blood boil when I hear an anti accuse the uninsured of causing their own problems.
In closing, I have a simple solution to the problem—–Congress can give us the health care plan they have.
Bobby Parrish
Recently, on CNN’s “State of the Union”, Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, said we have the best health care system in the world. I have heard this more than once from people who should know better. It seems like a battle cry from the right. Unfortunately, people, being the sheep we are, believe this BS without ever checking the facts. (Maybe that is what the purveyors of these lies are hoping for).
Now let me say here that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but they are not entitled to make up his or her own facts.
So with that in mind, here are some facts which can be backed up simply by spending a few minutes on the computer. (But who wants to waste time fact checking when all one has to do is lie with authority). Heaven forbid that reform opponents actually check facts! The World Health Organization ranks the United States 37th in overall health system (above Slovenia but below Costa Rica). We are 72nd in level of health, 24th in life expectancy, 32nd in health distribution, 1st in responsiveness (lots of emergency rooms), 19th in child well-being, 37thin infant mortality land 54thin fairness in financial contributions. Does that sound like the best system in the world. And to achieve these poor levels of care, we spend more per capita that any country and more of our gross national product than any place on earth except the Marshall Islands. Sounds like the best system in the world to me, NOT!
Another tactic the anti-reformers like to use is to say they don’t want a bureaucrat deciding what care we get. All insurance companies have a bureaucrat who is only concerned about the company’s bottom line. They decide if a procedure or a medication will be covered. Why do you think the doctors have to call for a pre-authorization? More BS from the right.
Another question, why do you think the Insurance Companies are against a government run plan? They would have to, horror of horrors, compete for your business. Oh, and to answer the critics who think the government can’t run a health care program, who runs the military health care system? It has some flaws, of course, just like any other system, but I have never met a military family who was not satisfied with their level of care. Another anti-reform statement put to rest.
Here’s another good one! Keep the government’s hands out of my medicare! Huh???? If this is not a stupid statement, I’ve never heard one. Who do you think is running medicare now?
The Republicans have said the government has no business making health care decisions. The should stay out of people’s lives. Remember Terri Shiavo? The Grand Old Packyderms were sure quick to get into that arena. I guess they don’t think people will remember that.
One of the most bogus statements I have heard regarding health care reform is that the plan has “Death Panel” who will decide if Grandma lives or dies. Where on earth do these people get ideas like this? And besides, these decisions are already being made on a daily basis throughout the country by doctors and families.
The bottom line here is to do nothing is insane. People in the richest country in the world should not have to decide between food and medicine. They should not have to worry about having to file backruptcy because of health care bills. And contrary to what the anti’s say, some of the uninsured are in that position not because they didn’t try to help themselves, but because the cost got to extreme and their employer dropped coverage, the company moved outside the US and they lost their jobs and many other conditions they had no control over. It makes my blood boil when I hear an anti accuse the uninsured of causing their own problems.
In closing, I have a simple solution to the problem—–Congress can give us the health care plan they have.
Bobby Parrish
The Procedural Filibuster: a Brief History
Garry Gamber asked:
It has been many years since the last real filibuster was held in the U.S. Senate. In the meantime there have been numerous procedural filibusters, an interesting concept that is unique to our American political system. Here is a brief history about how the procedural filibuster came into existence.
The U.S. Constitution contains a provision that each house of Congress may determine their own set of rules and procedures. The early Senate adopted many of their rules from the British parliamentary experience. Traditional British parliamentary procedures included a section about the concept that allows a member to interrupt debate on an issue by raising a motion to call the “previous question.” If this motion is seconded and passed, then the question is put to an immediate vote with no further debate allowed. Thomas Jefferson wrote about this procedure in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Not surprisingly then, a similar procedure appeared in the list of rules used by the Continental Congress in 1788. In 1789 the rules adopted by the U.S. Senate also included a similar section about calling the “previous question.”
Vice President Aaron Burr, in his farewell speech to the Senate in March of 1805, recommended that the rule regarding the “previous question” be discarded since it had been used only once during the previous 4 years. When the rules were rewritten in 1806, the section about the “previous question” was omitted.
However, the rules of the Senate still granted authority to the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President, to use his discretion to bring to an end long, dilatory speeches and to disallow meaningless motions. In fact, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr each used this power during their terms as Vice President.
As the years went by this power was viewed suspiciously as one that could potentially be abused. An incident in 1825 caused the Senate to revise their rules. Vice President Calhoun allowed Senator Randolph to ramble on daily over a three month period about irrelevant subjects, mostly personal attacks against President John Quincy Adams. Since Calhoun also did not like Adams he refused to exercise his power to bring Randolph’s remarks to a close. In 1828 the Senate revised their rules by requiring that all debate must be relevant to the question, but they did not eliminate the power of the presiding officer to limit debate.
That changed in 1872 when Vice President Schuyler Colfax ruled that “under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending matter.” At that point, then, unlimited debate on an issue became a real possibility. Real filibusters became an important tool for the minority.
Thus it stood until 1917 when Senate Rule 22 was adopted at the urging of President Wilson. The rule, which became known as the cloture rule, permitted the ending of debate on an issue with a two-thirds majority vote. The rule was first tested in 1919 when cloture was invoked to end debate in the Senate on the acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.
However, since a two-thirds majority was difficult to obtain, the use of the real filibuster increased. There are many famous instances and interesting stories regarding filibusters in the Senate over the next 50 years.
The cloture rule continued unchanged until 1975, when under President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller, Rule 22 was amended by a vote of 51-42 to allow a cloture vote to pass with a favorable vote by a three-fifths majority of the Senate membership. This lower requirement made it easier to invoke cloture on a debate to prevent a real filibuster.
However, the 1975 changes also made it possible for a filibuster to be “invisible.” With 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and 41 votes needed to prevent cloture, the 1975 rules changes allowed for 41 or more Senators to simply state that they intended to filibuster and the issue would be set aside. In that case the filibuster would be assumed and would not actually have to be performed. Thus, the “procedural filibuster” was born.
The advantage to this type of procedural filibuster is that other business of the Senate can be commenced without the delays and embarrassments of a real filibuster being necessary to remove the issue from further consideration. The disadvantage of this procedure is that it can potentially be abused. As a means to help prevent the abuse of the procedural filibuster, the majority leader retains the authority to force the minority to prove that they actually have the necessary votes to prevent cloture and to perform a real filibuster.
Since 1975 the procedural filibuster has been used successfully many times and has not been challenged. It is a powerful tool and one that is unique to our American political system.
It has been many years since the last real filibuster was held in the U.S. Senate. In the meantime there have been numerous procedural filibusters, an interesting concept that is unique to our American political system. Here is a brief history about how the procedural filibuster came into existence.
The U.S. Constitution contains a provision that each house of Congress may determine their own set of rules and procedures. The early Senate adopted many of their rules from the British parliamentary experience. Traditional British parliamentary procedures included a section about the concept that allows a member to interrupt debate on an issue by raising a motion to call the “previous question.” If this motion is seconded and passed, then the question is put to an immediate vote with no further debate allowed. Thomas Jefferson wrote about this procedure in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice. Not surprisingly then, a similar procedure appeared in the list of rules used by the Continental Congress in 1788. In 1789 the rules adopted by the U.S. Senate also included a similar section about calling the “previous question.”
Vice President Aaron Burr, in his farewell speech to the Senate in March of 1805, recommended that the rule regarding the “previous question” be discarded since it had been used only once during the previous 4 years. When the rules were rewritten in 1806, the section about the “previous question” was omitted.
However, the rules of the Senate still granted authority to the presiding officer of the Senate, the Vice President, to use his discretion to bring to an end long, dilatory speeches and to disallow meaningless motions. In fact, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Aaron Burr each used this power during their terms as Vice President.
As the years went by this power was viewed suspiciously as one that could potentially be abused. An incident in 1825 caused the Senate to revise their rules. Vice President Calhoun allowed Senator Randolph to ramble on daily over a three month period about irrelevant subjects, mostly personal attacks against President John Quincy Adams. Since Calhoun also did not like Adams he refused to exercise his power to bring Randolph’s remarks to a close. In 1828 the Senate revised their rules by requiring that all debate must be relevant to the question, but they did not eliminate the power of the presiding officer to limit debate.
That changed in 1872 when Vice President Schuyler Colfax ruled that “under the practice of the Senate the presiding officer could not restrain a Senator in remarks which the Senator considers pertinent to the pending matter.” At that point, then, unlimited debate on an issue became a real possibility. Real filibusters became an important tool for the minority.
Thus it stood until 1917 when Senate Rule 22 was adopted at the urging of President Wilson. The rule, which became known as the cloture rule, permitted the ending of debate on an issue with a two-thirds majority vote. The rule was first tested in 1919 when cloture was invoked to end debate in the Senate on the acceptance of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I.
However, since a two-thirds majority was difficult to obtain, the use of the real filibuster increased. There are many famous instances and interesting stories regarding filibusters in the Senate over the next 50 years.
The cloture rule continued unchanged until 1975, when under President Ford and Vice President Rockefeller, Rule 22 was amended by a vote of 51-42 to allow a cloture vote to pass with a favorable vote by a three-fifths majority of the Senate membership. This lower requirement made it easier to invoke cloture on a debate to prevent a real filibuster.
However, the 1975 changes also made it possible for a filibuster to be “invisible.” With 60 votes needed to prevent a filibuster and 41 votes needed to prevent cloture, the 1975 rules changes allowed for 41 or more Senators to simply state that they intended to filibuster and the issue would be set aside. In that case the filibuster would be assumed and would not actually have to be performed. Thus, the “procedural filibuster” was born.
The advantage to this type of procedural filibuster is that other business of the Senate can be commenced without the delays and embarrassments of a real filibuster being necessary to remove the issue from further consideration. The disadvantage of this procedure is that it can potentially be abused. As a means to help prevent the abuse of the procedural filibuster, the majority leader retains the authority to force the minority to prove that they actually have the necessary votes to prevent cloture and to perform a real filibuster.
Since 1975 the procedural filibuster has been used successfully many times and has not been challenged. It is a powerful tool and one that is unique to our American political system.
