Restoring the Senate

In Chapter 3, Mark Levin proposes the following Amendment that would restore the Senate (p33):


Section 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article 1.

Section 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

Section 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder  of the term.

Section 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

Prior to the Seventeenth Amendment, Senators were chosen by the State Legislatures to represent their State in Congress. Perhaps when the Seventeenth Amendment was ratified was the end of the Statesman in Congress. In recent years, money is spent insanely by outside sources - on both sides of the aisle - to help elect a Senator that the National parties want to see in Congress.

Returning back to the original intent of electing the Senate returns a vital State right Perhaps if this was in place, Minnesotans would have seen their Senators vote for placing a tax on medical device companies when Minnesota is home to one of the largest and respected medical device communities in the United States.

Some may attempt to argue that keeping the Seventeenth amendment in place protects our Democracy. Trouble is that we don't live in a pure Democracy; rather we are a Republic that uses elected officials to represent our interests. And one of those interests is to keep politics local which is lost when Senators are elected by popular vote.

Levin surmises (p 46), "However, it will be opposed by the Statist, for he may pose as a democrat, but it is democratic tyranny that he favors." Levin continues (p 47), "Furthermore, state sovereignty is not a top priority for most senators because the state legislatures hold no sway over them. Therefore, situations arise where senators vote for major federal legislation over the strenuous objections of their own state." Guess that is why Sen. Franken and Klobuchar voted for the Affordable Care Act!

Source: Mark Levin's  The Liberty Amendments

Sen. Klobuchar’s response to the current employment situation.

This is a response I received today from Sen. Klobuchar to my plan of getting America back on its feet.

 

Dear Mr. Lund:

 
 

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about our current employment situation.  I appreciate your thoughts, stories, and concerns.

 
 

The weak economy and continued high unemployment rate are among the most challenging problems facing our country.  Across the state, Minnesotans continue to make a great effort to pay their mortgages and provide for their families. While we have seen signs of some economic improvements, there are too many people who have lost their jobs in Minnesota and across the country. 

 

For these reasons I have supported extending benefits to help out-of-work Americans endure the current economic crisis.  Recently, I supported H.R. 4213, the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010, which extends emergency unemployment benefits and COBRA health insurance subsidies through December 31, 2010 for those who have lost their jobs. On March 10, 2010 this legislation passed in the Senate with a bipartisan vote of 62 to 36.  Additionally, I supported the Temporary Extension Act of 2010, the Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, the Consolidated Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2010 and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, all of which provided temporary support and helped put Americans back to work during these tough economic times.  As long as the dynamics of our economy necessitate extensions, I will continue to support them for the suffering Minnesotans that need interim relief. 

 

Providing for out-of-work Americans, however, is just the first step.  Every day I hear from Minnesotans who are urgently seeking work and can't find it.  I also hear from businesses large and small that want to hire, but can't in this struggling economy.  That is why I supported the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act, which recently passed in the Senate with a 70 to 28 vote.  This legislation provides tax breaks and credits to small businesses for hiring and retaining unemployed workers, and making purchases of needed equipment. This legislation is paid for by increasing foreign tax compliance and eliminating the abuse of tax credits by closing offshore loopholes. 

 
 

Someone once said of our current economy, that while Wall Street got a cold, Main Street got pneumonia.  That's why I also support initiatives that help small and mid-sized businesses overcome the current tight credit constraints.  Last fall I advocated for a targeted lending program to increase the available credit to small and mid-sized businesses, and I continue to work on proposals to encourage lending to responsible and promising businesses and entrepreneurs.  The Small Business Association has more than doubled the amount of available loans to businesses, and while I recognize that this is a start, I believe there is more that can be done.  Providing the needed additional credit will help small businesses hire new employees, purchase needed equipment, invest in research and development, and expand their facilities.

 
 

American businesses can't grow if the demand for their products stays constant. We also need to increase the demand for American products through export promotion.  There's a lot of potential in harnessing the customers abroad; 95 percent of the world's customers are located outside the United States.  That is why I introduced S. 3084, the Export Promotion Act of 2010, which provides businesses with direct assistance and increases available resources for representation and counseling on starting export operations.  The Department of Commerce found that every dollar spent on export promotion resulted in $213 of export revenue for our businesses. 

 
 

As we continue to work on legislation that will help restore our economy's ailing health and provide needed relief to millions of Americans, we should put aside partisan differences to do the necessary and critical work to ensure our long-term economic stability.  I will continue to take action to help middle-class families and build a stronger, more prosperous America while being fiscally responsible. 

 

Again, thank you for writing to me about this issue.  One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me.  I am here in our nation's capital to do the public's business and to serve the people of our state.  With that in mind, I hope you will contact me again about matters of concern to you.

 
 

Sincerely,

Amy Klobuchar

United States Senator

Health Care Reform Now, Implementation in 4 Years

Over the past months I have sent several emails and called our Senators many times to express my opinion and solutions for health care reform. While I have been able to get timely responses, although the same form letter, from Sen. Klobuchar (D-MN) the same cannot be said for Sen. Franken (D-MN). Our two Senators have been working hard to eliminate the tax proposed on medical device companies to which they have been able to lessen the rate of tax. Yesterday, I finally received an email from Sen. Franken on the topic of health care reform and here is what it said:

Dear Chris,

Thank you for contacting me about health reform. I appreciate you sharing your views on this issue of critical importance.

When I traveled around the state during the month of August, Minnesotans were asking three basic questions about health care. How are we going to bring down the costs of health insurance? What happens if one of my kids has a pre-existing condition, and I lose my job, or want to switch to a better job? If something bad happens to my family, are we going to have to sell the house or go bankrupt trying to pay off the medical bills? These are the questions I heard most, and they are all great questions. And now they are the ones that I'm focusing on in the Senate.

We must pass health reform this year because too many Minnesota families are burdened with high health care costs, and are afraid of losing the coverage they have. Premiums for Minnesota residents have risen 90 percent since 2000, and 444,000 Minnesotans went without health insurance in 2008. If we don't act now, Minnesota families will pay an average of 40 percent of their annual income in health care costs by 2016. This path is unsustainable.

If you or your spouse loses a job, hits a rough patch or falls sick, you should not need to worry about health insurance. And if you want to pursue a small business venture but are afraid to leave your current job, concerns about health insurance shouldn't stop you.

Health reform will bring real change for Minnesota. If we pass health reform, insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or charge more because of pre-existing conditions. There will be no annual or lifetime caps on benefits. Minnesotans without insurance would be able to buy a high-quality plan through the health insurance "Exchange," which works like a Travelocity for health insurance. For Minnesotans who are having trouble making ends meet, there will be subsidies to purchase Exchange plans, similar to the current MinnesotaCare program.

Every day that I'm here in Washington, I'm proud that Minnesota sets the standard for health care quality in this country. Health systems like the Mayo Clinic provide coordinated, patient-centered care that the rest of the nation can look to for leadership. Minnesota's not-for-profit health insurance companies also create a unique environment which puts patients before profits. Minnesota's commitment to health care quality is commendable, but I know we can still do better.

As a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, I recently introduced a bill with the Minnesota model in mind that requires insurance companies to spend at least 90 percent of health insurance premiums on health services, not wasteful administrative costs and profits. I've also introduced S. 2734, the Diabetes Prevention Act, which is bipartisan legislation to help the 57 million Americans with pre-diabetes to make healthy lifestyle choices and prevent diabetes from developing. This will save lives and money, in Minnesota and across the country. 

In the coming weeks, I'll be working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to move sensible health reform legislation that will benefit Minnesotans by bringing much needed quality, affordability, and security to our health care system. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind throughout this process.

Thank you again for contacting me, and please don't hesitate to do so in the future regarding this or any other matter of concern to you.

Sincerely,

 

Al Franken
United States Senator

I agree with Sen. Franken that pre-existing conditions ought not to be something that insurance companies disqualify people for and agree that premium hikes are on an "unsustainable" path. Where I differ with Sen. Franken is the importance of passing reform before the end of the year. Now, if the reform before Congress actually did reform the industry I would support a push to pass health care reform prior to year end. A question I sent to Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar, both via email and by phone, was this: While we all acknowledge that premiums, affordability, and cost are all factors that are pushing reform for the health care industry, why then will the United States government take the next four years collecting taxes before implementing reform?

Sen. Franken said, "Health reform will bring real change for Minnesota" in his letter above but what the Senator fails to say is that it will not bring "real change" until four years after it is signed. Why is this? If health care reform is drastically required, why then delay the implementation? Just as I struggle with the notion that a public option will increase competition to the point that will reduce premiums and save costs, I struggle with the notion that we will be taxed for four years before implementation of reform. Plus, reform that is being debated is nothing but a band aid. President Obama ran on the stance that the debate on health care would be transparent, yet groups like PHARMA and AARP have met privately with Obama to cut deals. President Obama has brought the Democrat Caucus to the White House for private conversations. Where is the transparency?

Do our elected officials believe that American's are naïve to believe that if reform is passed and not implemented for four years after that that health care insurance company will not use that time to get all they can? For those readers that live in Minnesota take a moment to send a message to our Senators: http://www.healthreformscam.com/fax-minnesota-senators/ .
Now, Sen. Reid plans to have around the clock debate in hopes to pass a bill out of the Senate, how is debate at 1 am open and transparent to the American public?