Sunset the Amok Federal Bureaucracy (support H.R. 2373)

email from sixtysecondactivist.com ^ | 4/29/02 | Congressmen Kevin Brady(R) & Jim Turner(D)

[DeaconBenjamin]

I took the description of the bill, spun the contents to appeal to my Blue Dog congresscritter, and sent him an email using the email function on his website. More effective, I think. Thanks for the bump.

[farmfriend]

bttt

[PRND21]

Bump.

[brat]

BTTT

[gueroloco]

What about the GS7 and up employees who are conservatives and who consistently vote Republican? Would you have them resign too? Just curious.

[Caipirabob]

BUMP

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Get rid of government supremacists!

[RFP]

Like I said, of all the things in that l-o-n-g list in SEC. 5. "CRITERIA FOR REVIEW", there's not a single mention of the US Constitution! Refer to the other bill - H.R. 175.

[jonascord]

All three of them?

[Grampa Dave]

Absolutely, the republicans and rats should write and submit the same letter of resignation if a democRat president wanted to accept them.

However, you and I both know life long republicans in the federal government are as rare as snowing days in Dallas at noon on the 4 th of July! So why do you ask?

[Grampa Dave]

Great response re All three of them

You may be a little high on your estimate.

See my response to this question in reply #51 above.

[Still Thinking]

It could potentially save the US taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars!

Just as important, it would throw a serious wrench into their behavior modification engine, whereby they pay us with our own money to do things we're not Constitutionally bound to do, and probably don't want to do anyway. (Think seat belt laws, helmet laws, limits on state DUI BAL levels, the requirement that the states even have a numerical BAL level, federal funding for schools, but with strings attached, etc.)

This practice needs to be stopped by whatever means are necessary or available. Nothing stops the citizens of the various localities from enacting those laws if they think those laws will benefit them. Why should it be any of the Fed's business?

[Still Thinking]

Like I said, of all the things in that l-o-n-g list in SEC. 5. "CRITERIA FOR REVIEW", there's not a single mention of the US Constitution! Refer to the other bill - H.R. 175.

I also found that disturbing, as well as the reference to equal employment opportunity. What relevance does it have to the function of an agency whether or not they're an equal opportunity employer?? However, if that's the detail that gets the agency abolished, I guess I won't complain too long or loud. Kind of ironic, like if the First Rapist had been impeached and removed for some crime he actually not committed. I'd have laughed all the way to the bank, and enjoyed him being on the butt end of the kind of injustice he'd inflicted on the rest of us all those years.

[dixierat22]

Further evidence of the growth of the EMPIRE. Federal police will take over security at airports next year. A couple of years after that, it will be "Your travel permit, please".

[Silverdrake]

Ah... the pre-written letter would do me a lot more good if my Representative was not already a co-sponsor of the bill. As written, it would make me look like a moron to send it to him. :p

[Silverdrake]

H.R.175 Sponsor: (introduced 1/3/2001) Latest Major Action: 2/12/2001 Referred to House subcommittee Title: To require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws, and for other purposes.

Unfortunately, there's been a similar law/resolution/some-such-animal on the books for more than a decade. Every one of the 'critters just puts down the "commerce clause" as justification. >:p

[S.O.S121.500]

BOOKBUMP

[BlackbirdSST]

They should also have to provide evidence that their efforts aren't duplicated in another useless agency. If a duplication of services exist, pull the plug. Blackbird.