House Reforms just yesterday

What was passed on the house should have been more discussed by news media but as always the fad of the american media is to focus on the non issues. Let us look at cuts that were passed by the Republicans yesterday in Congress. I do not deny that cuts should not be there. I agree that there is a need to trim the government but this clearly is not the way to do it. I am not even an american citizen and even I do not see how this sort of issues can pass out so quietly without an outrage in any other part of the world. I think government has a role in regulation. I am from India where red tapism rules and I know how much the stranglehold on development it is, but the extent of measures that was seen in the congress is just horrific and pointless, to say the least.

Let us consider some proposal

1. house plans to strip funding for planned parenthood

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is a part of an international organization that provides reproductive and maternal health services and has a third of its funding from the government (about 350 million $). They operate 820 health clinics. A fact sheet shows

"In 2008, we provided nearly 11 million medical services for three million people, and helped to prevent approximately

595,000 unintended pregnancies. Seventy-two percent of our clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level." and also " Abortion Services — 3 percent of services in 2008".

I agree there needs to be a mature debate on abortion but one should not the entire gamut of operation to hostage for the reform of this three percent. I am saying legislate it and have a civilized discourse about abortion but dont stop funding it. Stopping funding to Planned Parenthood for the reason of abortion is similar to saying America's chief religion is judaism.

2. Net Neutrality

The congress ruled back funding the FCC to uphold the Net Neutrality Laws.The main issue here is that most people do not realize what this actually means. Let me try to illustrate, what this means, Imagine you want to buy a laptop online and you are looking around, your internet provider can make it such that only deals from websites which advertise in its homepage can be accessed. Or, say you want to watch a John Stewart show which is critical of the policy adopted by the company, no dice. So, congress is saying. hey if we choose what you need to see, it is wrong but if the companies do it, it is fine. I mean how the heck can this stifle innovation ? I mean this creates more big brother than anything. Your internet company can monitor the entire traffic and divert it to websites it wants you to see...

3. A measure to block the federal government from collecting Americans' library records failed

Hey... if I carry a gun around, you cannot question. But if I buy a book about carrying guns around, I will be watched ... enough said

4. Elimination Obama’s Unconfirmed Czars

President Obama has around 30 czars who basically advise him on several policy issues ranging from education to science. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.) introduced legislation to cut funding to those who were not confirmed by the senate (around nine) The total saving from this is around 1.5 million I have three arguments which point to ludicrously of this.

1. From the view of savings, the total deficit in the Us budget last year was around 1.2 trillion and the savings here is 1.5 million. The percent savings here is .0001%. Let me put it another way. It is the difference between going from Washington DC to Philadelphia and Washington DC to the sun.

2. "We're just tired of him running this shadow government," - Scalise.... Dude, the president can get his policy from whomever be it the Ken Salazar or Joe the Plumber, that is the reason why there is a congress/senate is to make sure his policies are correct. Just because he has thirty czars does mean he has thirty extra votes to get his agenda through congress, but if there are an additional thirty minds that are working to solve the issues facing the country, I am totally happy with it.

3. Case three, let us look at it the other way. Every member from the house of representatives is given 800,000$ to hire 18 staff and four additional temporary, part-time, of shared staff while senators have a budget of 2-3 millions just for these staff. Why cant the president who is there sitting above all these get an additional 1.5 million for the same ?

I agree in each of these cases, there needs to be debate but to cut funding is simply a debacle. I see Washington i the hands of company lobbyist and misguided interest and as the outsider watching this unfold, I am really disheartened by the approach taken by the country towards tackling the problem