Term Limits, Debates, Speaker Pelosi Investing
Read more articles on Politics and Law and Legal Issues.October 17, 2008
Posted by neillevine
October 17, 2008
Posted by neillevine
510 Views
More than a decade ago, term limits were a big Congressional issue with some prominent politicians promising to limit the time they served, presumably out of respect for their constituents and possibly to give someone else with different views a chance at a top job. In New York City, voters chose to pass a term limits law, not once but twice.
Now we have an elected city official so enamored of his job that he has decided he wants to stay in office. Mike The Mayor does not believe he needs the money. He owns a big, growing company that he has apparently worn tired of running himself. He seems to think politics is more glamorous. Although if he were serious about spreading the wealth on thick he could always go back to work and give away more and more money to especially make the fringe left happy. Instead he has decided to ask for a third term.
My opinion is he is not so good. He is too close to those on the way out left in the City who are exceedingly fond of sharing what is not theirs. The better for them to enjoy themselves and make others miserable. Worse, he has managed to hike my real estate and water taxes to the point where my rent is busting my budget. Furthermore, he appears to want to spend public money on running an amusement park here in Coney Island. For what meaningful public purpose, I am not sure since New York City has many more pressing public needs. As it is, the City already owns and operates several merry go rounds, to say the least.
I had been laboring under the false impression that Mr. Bloomberg was good for economic development, something New York State needs. Apparently, this is not so.
Then there are the Presidential debates. I must say there are a lot of politicians who are dishonest about energy, presumably to bite off a bigger slice of the pie for themselves. Or so I would interpret Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s personal interest in investing in certain energy projects. She appears unafraid of giving an advantage to one type of technology over another. After all, she is a woman of great influence and has a big impact on legislation that can create fortunes. Moreover, she appears to want to profit in what I assume she believes is a growing market and not be hindered by such considerations as blind trusts and the like to protect the public from financial bias. Finally, by playing favorites or displaying her personal prejudices on a subject of national importance she drags down the public discourse. Perhaps this explains the slow ineffective response to ethics questions raised about Democratic Representatives Tim Mahoney and Charles Rangel, amongst other matters. I personally believe these are matters of grave concern to the entire public. Then there is Speaker Pelosi’s belief big government control and domination. On second thought, she is likely to claim she is being steam rolled or it is not true. Perhaps that is why there is no clear public explanation of what is going on except for a simple minded vilification of President George Dubya Bush. Why not let the voters know what is really going on?
So much for ethical promises in this and the next Congress.
Then there are the prejudices Barack Barry Obama continues to display. Apparently, his money is in safe investments so he does not have to worry about the vagaries of the stock market. Worse, he seems to have something against rich people. Like they have assets and he would like to use it for his own purposes. Under his visions of things it does not appear to be at all worthwhile to have much money. Making it easier to spread his vision of happiness and prosperity.
I hope I have made it clear that I look upon politicians as people who play games that stack the deck towards their advantage rather than upholding Constitutional rights and settled law. Since they have little or no intention of stating existing law clearly I believe it is obvious that they are not interested in such a thing even though, in theory, it is supposed to be the source of their almighty power and influence. You see besides the right being naturally oppressive the left finds it objectionable that someone should have more of whatever they have less of.
I must emphasize that if I do not speak up for my rights and my interests and protect and defend myself no one else is going to do it for me. Why should I be a political door mat? Not if I can help it. No way. It’s like complaining Hillary Clinton believes in farming out the hot sweaty work. This appears to be a great badge of honor for her, maybe her best selling point, mo more, no less.
Copyright © 2006
Terms & Conditions
