In A Word: Senseless
Gerald Eisman
May 07, 2006
Senseless: 1. Lacking sense or meaning; meaningless. 2. Deficient in sense; foolish or stupid.
The following is an excerpt from the Washington Post: Democratic leaders, increasingly confident they will seize control of the House in November, are laying plans for a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."
Assuming the reversal of power does come to pass, the question that arises is, exactly what is to be gained by pursuing a path of recrimination and revenge. Who would be the victor in such a scenario? I was always of the opinion that were anyone to run for an elected office it would be for the benefit of those citizens affected by those in office, whatever it might be. Who would benefit from vengeance?
Raising the minimum wage would be of great value to those workers who perform the menial tasks so important to everyday living, tasks that few wish to do yet many are forced to based on their abilities or circumstances.
Raising the minimum wage might have another benefit in that more Americans would consider taking jobs that are now performed by immigrants, many of them illegal. Another result might be a further reduction in the unemployment rate in the country. More jobs filled would equate to more taxes collected and more funds with which to pay down the deficit.
Rolling back some of the more costly segments of the prescription drug law and allowing the government agencies to compete, bid wise, with private industry for prescription items would certainly reduce the stress on our national budget. When proponents of the act bandied about original cost estimates, unrealistic figures were fed to the public. Before the proposals had even become law there were increases in the estimates and those too have become pass?s the act progresses.
There is nothing more important to America and its citizens at this time than direct and comprehensive implementation of homeland security measures. Taking the idea a step further, the gathering of several agencies under one central command is good, but the cultivation of cooperation among them is of paramount importance. It's an idea whose time has not only come, but passed without any concrete action being taken.
Nothing is more necessary than protective investigative measures put in place to guard our rail system, nuclear energy facilities, chemical plants, ports of entry, major manufacturing facilities, and all other strategic emplacements and locations. To this moment, such measures haven't moved beyond the talk stage. The time to cease speechifying and begin active pursuit of protective measures has long passed.
And what about the budget? Consider how many billions of dollars in governmental income is given away yearly through tax cuts. I'm certain the well-to-do are just as civic minded and patriotic as the poor and middle class Americans. I cannot recall reading, hearing, or seeing any documentation that shows the wealthy clamoring for tax relief.
All that the tax breaks accomplished was build the greatest upsurge of national debt in our nation's history. The painful truth is, they should never have occurred. Now we, as a nation, must seek out and implement measures that will stop the growth of the debt and begin its reduction. It can be done. It must be done if we are to survive as a world power.
So what is senseless about the proposed Democratic agenda? It is the threat of impeachment and the eventual cost of investigations. The process of impeachment can gain America nothing but there is much our nation can lose. America can lose prestige abroad, alienate more allies, further the rift that exists in our citizenry today, and accomplish nothing of any value. G. W. Bush is the duly elected president and deserves to finish out his term. The truth is, he served as honorably as he knew how albeit not wisely.
If the Democrats manage to wrest the house back from the Republicans, Mr. Bush will be stymied in the legislature thus rendering him harmless throughout the balance of his tenure.
Meanwhile, the Democrats could work closely with the Senate to further the needs of the country and its people thus solidifying their grip on their hearts and minds. Such action could lead to a Democratic president and possibly even control of the Senate in 2008.
Impeachment and wild shotgun investigations would absolutely turn the electorate against them, however, costing many further elections. Revenge isn't worth the eventual cost.
The following is an excerpt from the Washington Post: Democratic leaders, increasingly confident they will seize control of the House in November, are laying plans for a legislative blitz during their first week in power that would raise the minimum wage, roll back parts of the Republican prescription drug law, implement homeland security measures and reinstate lapsed budget deficit controls.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said in an interview last week that a Democratic House would launch a series of investigations of the Bush administration, beginning with the White House's first-term energy task force and probably including the use of intelligence in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. Pelosi denied Republican allegations that a Democratic House would move quickly to impeach President Bush. But, she said of the planned investigations, "You never know where it leads to."
Assuming the reversal of power does come to pass, the question that arises is, exactly what is to be gained by pursuing a path of recrimination and revenge. Who would be the victor in such a scenario? I was always of the opinion that were anyone to run for an elected office it would be for the benefit of those citizens affected by those in office, whatever it might be. Who would benefit from vengeance?
Raising the minimum wage would be of great value to those workers who perform the menial tasks so important to everyday living, tasks that few wish to do yet many are forced to based on their abilities or circumstances.
Raising the minimum wage might have another benefit in that more Americans would consider taking jobs that are now performed by immigrants, many of them illegal. Another result might be a further reduction in the unemployment rate in the country. More jobs filled would equate to more taxes collected and more funds with which to pay down the deficit.
Rolling back some of the more costly segments of the prescription drug law and allowing the government agencies to compete, bid wise, with private industry for prescription items would certainly reduce the stress on our national budget. When proponents of the act bandied about original cost estimates, unrealistic figures were fed to the public. Before the proposals had even become law there were increases in the estimates and those too have become pass?s the act progresses.
There is nothing more important to America and its citizens at this time than direct and comprehensive implementation of homeland security measures. Taking the idea a step further, the gathering of several agencies under one central command is good, but the cultivation of cooperation among them is of paramount importance. It's an idea whose time has not only come, but passed without any concrete action being taken.
Nothing is more necessary than protective investigative measures put in place to guard our rail system, nuclear energy facilities, chemical plants, ports of entry, major manufacturing facilities, and all other strategic emplacements and locations. To this moment, such measures haven't moved beyond the talk stage. The time to cease speechifying and begin active pursuit of protective measures has long passed.
And what about the budget? Consider how many billions of dollars in governmental income is given away yearly through tax cuts. I'm certain the well-to-do are just as civic minded and patriotic as the poor and middle class Americans. I cannot recall reading, hearing, or seeing any documentation that shows the wealthy clamoring for tax relief.
All that the tax breaks accomplished was build the greatest upsurge of national debt in our nation's history. The painful truth is, they should never have occurred. Now we, as a nation, must seek out and implement measures that will stop the growth of the debt and begin its reduction. It can be done. It must be done if we are to survive as a world power.
So what is senseless about the proposed Democratic agenda? It is the threat of impeachment and the eventual cost of investigations. The process of impeachment can gain America nothing but there is much our nation can lose. America can lose prestige abroad, alienate more allies, further the rift that exists in our citizenry today, and accomplish nothing of any value. G. W. Bush is the duly elected president and deserves to finish out his term. The truth is, he served as honorably as he knew how albeit not wisely.
If the Democrats manage to wrest the house back from the Republicans, Mr. Bush will be stymied in the legislature thus rendering him harmless throughout the balance of his tenure.
Meanwhile, the Democrats could work closely with the Senate to further the needs of the country and its people thus solidifying their grip on their hearts and minds. Such action could lead to a Democratic president and possibly even control of the Senate in 2008.
Impeachment and wild shotgun investigations would absolutely turn the electorate against them, however, costing many further elections. Revenge isn't worth the eventual cost.
Print
Email
