Dadler: "I always get a tad passionate on the phone with my reps' reps, then they tell me if I don't calm down they're going to hang up."

... with whom you are talking at the congressional representatives' home offices in your respective districts are paid about $30,000 annually. If it's a state legislative office, their pay may even be less. I know that may surprise a lot of you who may have believed that congressional and legislative aides are generally rolling in the dough, but it's true.

I'm not singling you out, Dadler. But having been on the receiving end of a not-insignificant number of these calls during my years in the business, and this being a family-friendly site, I can't begin to tell you some of the absolutely horrible things that have been said to me in that capacity. What I can tell you is that there are an awful lot of people who apparently believe that as taxpayers and voters, they somehow have license to verbally abuse the help. I even had my life threatened on a couple occasions!

While all of you have every right to contact your elected officials to convey your opinions and inquire as to said elected official's position on a given matter -- and I strongly urge each of you to exercise that right -- please be respectful of the person who's on the other end of the phone and taking your call, and don't take out your frustrations on them by treating them like your personal piñata.

Quite frankly, the majority of these people are not paid enough as it is, and certainly not enough to be cussed out and even threatened by angry constituents.

Those 126 days you're referencing, soon to be cut to 113, constitute the days in which the House is actually gaveled into session in the House chambers at the Capitol. The rest of the time, their offices are open five days a week, 52 weeks a year save for federal holidays.

I can also tell you that it is near impossible to get through to a live person at Patty Murray's D.C. office pretty much any time of day, any day of the week. That number almost ALWAYS goes directly to voice mail.

Today there are massive numbers of folks living in congested urban areas without even enough space to grow pot.  There is also a massive lack of skills to survive.

I just returned from six weeks sailing in the Dry Tortugas.  Probably half my food was lobster and Mutton Snapper I harvested my self.  I also supplemented my water supply using tarps to catch rain water.  My boat has extensive solar panels for refrigeration and navigation, not to mention computer use.

It is one thing to say the needy should be provided assistance.  It is a different thing all together to support a system that creates a dependent class and then demand support for them.

OTOH $2.2 B was stripped from the food stamp program to pay for Michelle's nutrition program.

With his wife by his side, President Obama on Monday signed the child nutrition bill, strongly pushed by the first lady, who has made nutrition part of her campaign to help the young get healthy.
...
The bill also increases the spending per meal by about 6 cents, President Obama noted. He said the money for funding the increase came from cuts in the food-stamp program but that he was committed to working with Congress to find a way to restore those funds. link

Not even Hillary campaigned on Medicare for all or single payer....

Do you think repetition will eventually make it true?  Both Hillary and Edwards had a single payer component as part of their healthcare reform plans - it was called Medicare plus.

POLICY: Clinton and Edwards Open the Back Door

Quite simply, Clinton has opened the door to the single-payer model--if people want it. The beauty of her plan is that no one is forced into a government plan. Americans will wind up in a Medicare-like plan only if they choose it over a private insurer.

Clinton is not alone. Last spring John Edwards unfurled a proposal that would force private insurers to compete with a public plan that he calls "Medicare-Plus." Today, in a web-cast sponsored by the Kaiser Family Foundation, he reiterated his goal "to give consumers a choice; they could gravitate in either direction."

One journalist on the panel was blunt: "Is this a back-door to single payer?"

Edwards liked the question. "That's partly right and partly wrong," he said, with a big smile. "It's not intended to take us to single-payer. It's designed to let Americans decide whether or not they want single payer."

they determine the line internally, using their different data bases,

Then,

they adjust it based on historical betting preferences,

Then,

they adjust it further by how the early money is betting,

And, finally,

they sell, or, buy disproportionate betting money (to other books) to try and get the final action as close to 50/50 as they can.