Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing

[celticlord]

Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing - Roll Call

[FONT=verdana,arial, helvetica, geneva]Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.

[/FONT][FONT=verdana,arial, helvetica, geneva]House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents.
[/FONT]
[FONT=verdana,arial, helvetica, geneva]The dispute centers on a chart created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) and Republican staff of the Joint Economic Committee to illustrate the organization of the Democratic health care plan.[/FONT]

If this isn't a scandal, it ought to be.

The Anti-Republicans don't want the Republicans mailing this.

Why are the Anti-Republicans afraid to let people see what they having in mind for healthcare?

 

[RightinNYC]

Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing - Roll Call

If this isn't a scandal, it ought to be.

The Anti-Republicans don't want the Republicans mailing this.

Why are the Anti-Republicans afraid to let people see what they having in mind for healthcare?

Probably because of this:

Congressional rules for franked mail bar Members from using taxpayer-funded mail for newsletters that use “partisan, politicized or personalized” comments to criticize legislation or policy.

The proposed mailing obviously falls into that category.

And to clarify, they're not keeping the Republicans from sending this mail out, they're simply opposing their efforts to use the franking system to do so.

Do you think taxpayer funds should be used to send political attack ads to constituents?

 

[celticlord]

Probably because of this:



The proposed mailing obviously falls into that category.

And to clarify, they're not keeping the Republicans from sending this mail out, they're simply opposing their efforts to use the franking system to do so.

Do you think taxpayer funds should be used to send political attack ads to constituents?

US CODE: Title 39,3210. Franked mail transmitted by the Vice President, Members of Congress, and congressional officials

(3) It is the intent of the Congress that mail matter which is frankable specifically includes, but is not limited to—

(A) mail matter to any person and to all agencies and officials of Federal, State, and local governments regarding programs, decisions, and other related matters of public concern or public service, including any matter relating to actions of a past or current Congress;
(B) the usual and customary congressional newsletter or press release which may deal with such matters as the impact of laws and decisions on State and local governments and individual citizens; reports on public and official actions taken by Members of Congress; and discussions of proposed or pending legislation or governmental actions and the positions of the Members of Congress on, and arguments for or against, such matters;​

​

One man's attack ad is another man's informing his constituency. If we're going to have a franking privilege, I would rather see "attack ads" than have one side or the other limit their opponents' use of the frank.

 

[RightinNYC]

US CODE: Title 39,3210. Franked mail transmitted by the Vice President, Members of Congress, and congressional officials


[/INDENT]One man's attack ad is another man's informing his constituency. If we're going to have a franking privilege, I would rather see "attack ads" than have one side or the other limit their opponents' use of the frank.

That's the statute that lays out the bare minimum according to the law. Congress also has its own rules about what constitutes an appropriate use of the frank. Under those rules, (4(a)), this is clearly not permissible.

I'm not saying it's illegal to send this out, I'm just saying that it's in contravention of the Congressional Rules.

 

[celticlord]

That's the statute that lays out the bare minimum according to the law. Congress also has its own rules about what constitutes an appropriate use of the frank. Under those rules, (4(a)), this is clearly not permissible.

I'm not saying it's illegal to send this out, I'm just saying that it's in contravention of the Congressional Rules.

Those rules, which implement 39 USC §3210, prohibit comments on legislation which are "partisan, politicized, or personalized."

How is the graphic "partisan" or "politicized"? Of a certainty it is not "personal."

Granted, the graphic could certainly be used in a partisan communications, which would be a violation of the rules.

However, note that the article itself states that the complaint against the use of the frank to send out the graphic is because the graphic is misleading:

In a memo sent Monday to Republicans on the House franking commission, Democrats argue that sending the chart to constituents as official mail would violate House rules because the information is misleading.

The argument would be, presumably, that inaccuracy constitutes partisianship.

However, so would an erroneous claim of inaccuracy.

Thus my question: How is the graphic "partisan" or "politicized"? Or, rather, which is the worse politicization?

 

[Harshaw]

That's the statute that lays out the bare minimum according to the law. Congress also has its own rules about what constitutes an appropriate use of the frank. Under those rules, (4(a)), this is clearly not permissible.

I don't think it's clear at all.

The only thing it could possibly run afoul of in 4(a) are "partisan" or "political" purposes, and by its own wording those are described in Paragraph 7 on p. 21 and Paragraph 17 on p. 26. This doesn't fit into either description.

Even the Democrats didn't say it was partisan or political, only "misleading."

 

[Morality Games]

Even the Democrats didn't say it was partisan or political, only "misleading."

Misleading for partisan purposes. I could make a similarly complex graph to represent all the channels for where your money is going for private insurance and its many investments. I don't know how many of these institutions will be involved in the final draft of the bill, but it does not matter either way; your average American will only have to make one or two stops.

 

[Harshaw]

Misleading for partisan purposes.

No, that's your spin it. It's not what they said.

I could make a similarly complex graph to represent all the channels for where your money is going for private insurance and its many investments. I don't know how many of these institutions will be involved in the final draft of the bill, but it does not matter either way; your average American will only have to make one or two stops.

Good for you!

 

[celticlord]

Misleading for partisan purposes. I could make a similarly complex graph to represent all the channels for where your money is going for private insurance and its many investments. I don't know how many of these institutions will be involved in the final draft of the bill, but it does not matter either way; your average American will only have to make one or two stops.

Perhaps you could. How is that partisan, politicized, or personal?

 

[frazier991]

The left just doesen't want to allow the public to see this ridiculous health care plan, period. That's why they try in unprecedented ways to ram through everything they can as fast as they can. Maybe Obama should actually read it as well-he's proven that he's not even familiar with what's on page 16. But hey! DO NOT QUESTION YOUR LORD AND MASTER!!!!!

 

[formerroadie]

has this not already been posted in a thread?

 

[Morality Games]

Perhaps you could. How is that partisan, politicized, or personal?

To phrase it simply, the Republicans represented the chart as, "And here is what you will have to go through to get health insurance under the Democrat's plan." FOX News adopted that interpretation in their presentation as well.

To put it simply, the chart chronicles the number of potential agencies that might be involved in handling the money and paperwork involved in the public health insurance plan. It is not an accurate representation of what Americans are likely to experience when they seek out the public option, which is what the GOP is trying to sell.

A similarly complex chart could be developed out of what is done with the money and paperwork people pay to/write up for private insurance companies; it gets invested in stocks and bonds all over wall street and integrated with banking and credit programs. No company sits on your premiums.

 

[formerroadie]

To phrase it simply, the Republicans represented the chart as, "And here is what you will have to go through to get health insurance under the Democrat's plan." FOX News adopted that interpretation in their presentation as well.

To put it simply, the chart chronicles the number of potential agencies that might be involved in handling the money and paperwork involved in the public health insurance plan. It is not an accurate representation of what Americans are likely to experience when they seek out the public option, which is what the GOP is trying to sell.

A similarly complex chart could be developed out of what is done with the money and paperwork people pay to/write up for private insurance companies; it gets invested in stocks and bonds all over wall street and integrated with banking and credit programs. No company sits on your premiums.

Agreed. They were wanting to basically send out a lie to scare the public. Sad the right wingers back such nonsense.

 

[danarhea]

US CODE: Title 39,3210. Franked mail transmitted by the Vice President, Members of Congress, and congressional officials


[/INDENT]One man's attack ad is another man's informing his constituency. If we're going to have a franking privilege, I would rather see "attack ads" than have one side or the other limit their opponents' use of the frank.

You have a point there. Let the Republicans send out their partisan health care mailings. At the same time, let the Democrats send out partisan mailings attacking sexual deviancy while moralizing to others, using David Vitter and Larry Craig as examples. Sure, that's fair too. :mrgreen:

 

[Harshaw]

To put it simply, the chart chronicles the number of potential agencies that might be involved in handling the money and paperwork involved in the public health insurance plan. It is not an accurate representation of what Americans are likely to experience when they seek out the public option, which is what the GOP is trying to sell.

That's what YOU say. Show that to be true. And note that the Democrats who wrote and back this bill don't make this criticism of the chart.

A similarly complex chart could be developed out of what is done with the money and paperwork people pay to/write up for private insurance companies; it gets invested in stocks and bonds all over wall street and integrated with banking and credit programs. No company sits on your premiums.

Then maybe you should make that chart. But it wouldn't invalidate this one.

 

[celticlord]

You have a point there. Let the Republicans send out their partisan health care mailings. At the same time, let the Democrats send out partisan mailings attacking sexual deviancy while moralizing to others, using David Vitter and Larry Craig as examples. Sure, that's fair too. :mrgreen:

If Congress has a sexual deviancy law on the agenda, it's absolutely fair.

Which bill before Congress covers sexual deviancy?

 

[formerroadie]

If Congress has a sexual deviancy law on the agenda, it's absolutely fair.

Which bill before Congress covers sexual deviancy?

So, you have no problem with the Republicans sending out lies but if the Dems send out scathing critique of the other party, then it's not ok? HAHA.

 

[Bootsavich]

So, you have no problem with the Republicans sending out lies but if the Dems send out scathing critique of the other party, then it's not ok? HAHA.

I gave you a thanks because your lack of reading comprehension made me chuckle just a bit.

let's look at celticlord's post, shall we?

If Congress has a sexual deviancy law on the agenda, it's absolutely fair.

Which bill before Congress covers sexual deviancy?

So... at which point did he say that a scathing critique is not fair? When he said, "it's absolutely fair"? Or was it where he pointed out that the situation you are imagining is in no way similar to the one right now?

Your lack of sense disturbs me.