This past week by a vote of 328 to 93 the U.S. House of Representatives exhibited to the world their gross incompetence and ignorance of the laws of the land that they supposedly represent. They hurriedly suspended their own rules and passed, at the behest of their failed leadership, a confiscatory 90 percent tax on the bonuses received by AIG employees who were the legal recipients of a $165 million retention bonus payout. One could argue that the bonuses were not deserved by the 73 recipients or that proceedings could be commenced, with due process, to retrieve those paid to the dozen or so employees who left AIG, but to use the United States Tax laws to penalize a small, select group of citizens who had legally binding contracts which specifically called for payment of such bonuses and, furthermore, were approved for payment by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn) with the consent of the Treasury Department, is ludicrous.
The indolent U.S. Congress in passing the crisis-inspired budget at the behest of the president without reading the contents, which included the aforementioned bonus payments, was bad enough but thereafter upon learning of their misfeasance, feigned a populist-inspired outrage demonizing the recipients as greedy Wall Street villains, was cowardly and disingenuous. House Whip Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) justified his party's action stating that the punitive legislation may not have been constitutional but he would leave that decision for the courts. Is this leadership? Is this representative of the mind and mood of our new Congress? More than anything else, it reveals the level of unfamiliarity with both the history of a country that was founded upon the rule of law as well as the role of Congress in the enactment of the nation's laws, not to mention the rights of individual citizens who are deemed to be the beneficiaries of the equal protection of such laws.
In a recent interview former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor expressed concern over the average citizens' lack of knowledge concerning the constitutionally mandated separation of power and the function of the three branches of government. This disgraceful performance by our legislative branch indicates that each member who voted for this infamous legislation might profit from a reading of the language embodied in our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Pity; that they did not take the time to familiarize themselves with its content as well as its spirit before they presumed to represent the People of the United States of America.
?BACK TO THE BASICS
To the Editor:
Thank you for printing my letter in your March 18 edition, and then responding to it in your editorial column in that same issue.
I respect your interest and understanding of the Federalist Papers, and your specific reference to Federalist Paper Number 1 written by Alexander Hamilton.
To put it in context, it was written in October 1787, a full 2 and half years before Washington took office as President. It was written as an appeal to the delegates of New York State to approve the Constitution which ultimately became finalized by the States in 1789.
In your March 18 editorial, you referred to Hamilton's words: "a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people" that is apt to lead "to a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism."
Partially out of this dialogue developed the Bill of Rights, being the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, not particularly championed by Hamilton. Realize that the potential despotism that Hamilton was concerned about was based on European history-our nation was first being established as a republic with the careful inclusion of a system of checks and balances between the Executive, Legislature and Judicial branches of government.
This system of checks and balances is very real. Our nation survived after the Nixon debacle, and again in 2001 in the Bush-Gore match. If we can handle those two dramas, and still be standing on our own two feet, I think we will be OK. Bob Praver
Locust Valley
BUDGET BELLY-ACHE
To the Editor:
The Governor's budget proposal for the upcoming state fiscal year relies on a variety of reforms to the delivery of inpatient and outpatient care provided by hospitals. While the hospital community agrees that an emphasis on outpatient services, primary, and preventive care builds a firm foundation for reform and efficiencies in the health care delivery system, we do not agree with the hastened approach the Paterson administration is taking. Further, these reforms combined with the $82.3 million in outright Medicaid reimbursement cuts to Long Island's hospitals that the administration recommends in its budget will paralyze the delivery of both inpatient and outpatient care.
The Governor's current budget proposal will force hospitals to eliminate programs and services and reduce staff. The first line of services to be cut will be those associated with outpatient care, the very same services the Governor wants to bolster with his reform effort. Inpatient services are not as easily eliminated, because often inpatient care involves the more acute and critically ill patients. Additionally, the demand for inpatient services will not lessen just because there are more outpatient services available.
Hospitals are the primary care provider for many Long Islanders through health clinics and outpatient departments. If the Governor insists on reforming health care by cutting funding for hospitals, he will only succeed in reducing the availability of primary and preventive care.
I ask readers to keep these facts in mind during the final days before the state legislature draws up its budget. Consider what your life would be like if the mammography suite at your local hospital were to close, other outpatient-based radiology services were no longer available at your community hospital, or your hospital's satellite dialysis center were to shut its doors. Your needs would still be there, but the services would not.
Think also of the health care workers who would lose their jobs and the residual damage your community would feel if its hospitals could no longer support local business and industry.
Urge your state senator and assembly representative to consider your needs and the needs of all your fellow Long Islanders. An easy place to start is www.helpyourhospital.org - a user-friendly, zip code driven website that provides a dollar and cents view of how you and your community will be affected if the Governor's plans for hospitals are enacted.
Kevin W. Dahill
Hauppauge, NY
By submitting a letter to The Leader,
you agree to the following guidelines:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: We encourage
our readers to express their view regardless of opinion, through the Letters
to the Editor page. Letters published represent the viewpoint of our
readers. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Leader
and, in fact, may be of opposite viewpoint. Letters should be typed and
mailed or emailed to the editor's attention. Letters will be edited for
length, clarity and accuracy. All letters should be signed and contain
author’s address and telephone number for verification. Although it is
discouraged, we will withhold an author's name if the subject matter is
sensitive or the writer may be subject to intimidation or harassment.
Letters that contain accusations or important “facts” must demonstrate
knowledge in the area described or show evidence for their writing. The Leader will not return letters and reserves the right to
publish them at a later time or not at all, due to lack of space or editor’s
discretion.
s|
