The main purpose of this blog is for me to have a place to talk to myself. Because I spend so much time away from home working, I decided to create a site where I could share my thoughts and share all of the original source information I gather in my research. What I did not intend was to create a place where anonymous people could attack me, or call people names. I didn't think anyone was paying attention until last night when I noticed, for the first time, that some were reading my posts and commenting. Unfortunately, most of the posts were unacceptable. I know the difference. In another forum, I debate with "conservatives" all day long without this happening. We never agree with each other, but we respect each other. Maybe the difference is that we know each other. It is sad to see that so many people say so many hateful things under the cover of anonymity. On this site, there is a bit of a solution. Since I am the Administrator, I can remove posts that violate the rules, and I have done so. Just to be clear the rules are:
1. No name-calling
2. No personal attacks
3. Stay on topic
Please continue to read my posts, and comment if you like, but with respect, or the comment will be removed. Have a good day!
Friday, November 12, 2010
Thursday, November 11, 2010
This is What is Really Going On!
Every day we hear about the Federal deficit/debt - morning, noon and night. For some reason, it was not Topic #1 when Reagan tripled it in 8 years. It was not all we talked about when George W. Bush doubled it in 8 years. It didn't seem to matter when President Bush arranged the prescription drug benefit in 2003 that gave half a trillion dollars to the pharma industry with borrowed funds. It sure didn't seem to matter when the largest tax cuts in history were passed in 2001 and 2003 that increased the debt by more than $2 trillion. For some reason, we barely talked about it when we launched two wars with borrowed funds that has added $1.1 trillion to the debt as of last month and continues to add $1 billion every 3 days. Now, although it is all anyone seems to want to talk about, we are preparing to pass an extension of the "Bush tax cuts" that appear to have created no jobs in 5 years, in order to allegedly create jobs, and add yet another $4 trillion to the debt over the next 10 years, with $700 billion of that for millionaires. By the way, do you know what happens when you give a millionaire a tax cut? No, they don't create jobs, they go buy a Rembrandt painting for $5 million, stash the money in an offshore bank account, or buy a 4th vacation home in a foreign country, that's what they do. So President Bush, just on the topics of his tax cuts, prescription drug benefit, two wars, plus interest, raised the debt by over $4 trillion. President Obama inherited a situation that every sane economist agreed was the worst economy since the Great Depression. Everyone agreed that if we didn't do something, we would end up in a worldwide depression that would last 10 years. We are not out of the woods yet. Due to TARP and Stimulus, the economy and unemployment has stablized, although at an unacceptable level. Remember, there are two things any economist will tell you that you do not do during a recession, raise taxes or cut spending. There is no risk of raising taxes, since Republicans cannot utter the T word. I am beginning to think that if an asteroid was approaching Earth that would destroy all life on the planet, Republicans would refuse to raise taxes to build a laser to destroy it. Remember the second part of the equation? Don't cut spending! Apparently we are going to do just that. Why? Because of the Federal deficit. Now we have 8.6 million Americans drawing unemployment or extended benefits. That is costing us $100 billion a year. If they had jobs and were paying taxes, that would generate another $75 billion a year. So we are talking about adding $175 billion to the deficit in the next year because of our unemployment problem. If we care about the debt, the best way to fix it is to get people back to work. But instead, we are talking about cutting Government spending which every single economist on earth will admit will reduce jobs, not increase them.
Any politician who says they care about unemployment/jobs, then supports cutting government spending at the time of a recession is either lying or stupid, or both.
Any politician who says they care about the deficit/debt, then supports cutting government spending during the time of a recession is either lying or stupid, or both, because they just effectively cut jobs, which drives the deficit up, not down.
Did you know that President Kennedy dropped the top tax rate from 91% to 70%?
Did you know that President Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70% to 50%?
Did you know that President Clinton dropped the top tax rate to 39.6%
Did you know that the Co-Chairs of the Deficit Commission want the top tax rate dropped to 23%?
We now have reached a point where the very richest Americans are paying the lowest taxes they ever have, and some want to cut that record low rate almost in half. We, as a nation, have the lowest total tax as a percentage of GDP, at 28%, of any developed nation on earth. The reason we have a deficit is because we don't pay for what we buy, we borrow rather than have a reasonable tax rate. I know, I know, you are convinced that we pay obscenely high taxes. The fact is - we don't.
Is it any surprise that the initial recommendations from the Co-Chairs of the Deficit Commission are to cut Social Security benefits, cut Medicare benefits, freeze federal pay, reduce government employees, and...... to cut taxes? Everything is on the table, except actually paying for what we use!
Professor George Lakoff predicted years ago that conservatives were so determined to dismantle the social net we have created in society, that they would intentionally create huge budget deficits so that, other than national security, we would all agree that we could no longer afford government programs. That day is not here yet, but conservatives have become impatient. They have fulfilled the first part of Professor Lakoff's prediction of busting the budget on purpose, now they are screaming about the deficit they themselves created as justification for slashing the programs that made us the great nation that we are. They have made it impossible for any politician to even mention taxes as part of any deficit solution by demonizing the word to the point where the mere mention is political death. They have created a nation of people who have become too irresponsible to even consider paying for what they use. They have engineered a moment in time when they think they can win the argument, because they have spent 20 years framing the argument with every speech they give.
I would like to ask everyone to read my post "The 'Good Old Days' Are Today." The facts I cite are the facts. The greatest nation in history was created AFTER the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid were put in place, not before. Our income increased 4-fold since the days of FDR. We are the result of Public Education, Public Health, Public Welfare and Public Safety programs put in place by FDR and LBJ, not in spite of those programs.
What to do? Pay attention. Some very well-intended people, many, but not all, in the so-called "Tea Party" are being misused to further goals that are not in their best interests. How can Republican, and some Democratic politicians, look you in the eye, invoke death-like comparisons when they describe the FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT, and then talk about tax cuts that will raise the deficit even higher in the next breath?
Make them tell you the truth. Keep asking questions until you get a straight answer. Don't vote for or support people who lie to you. Be grown-up enough to take responsibility. If you buy something, pay for it. If the Government buys something, insist they pay for it....but after the recession, not during.
We are the greatest nation in history. We can work this out. We don't have to throw in the towel. Keep the faith!
Any politician who says they care about unemployment/jobs, then supports cutting government spending at the time of a recession is either lying or stupid, or both.
Any politician who says they care about the deficit/debt, then supports cutting government spending during the time of a recession is either lying or stupid, or both, because they just effectively cut jobs, which drives the deficit up, not down.
Did you know that President Kennedy dropped the top tax rate from 91% to 70%?
Did you know that President Reagan dropped the top tax rate from 70% to 50%?
Did you know that President Clinton dropped the top tax rate to 39.6%
Did you know that the Co-Chairs of the Deficit Commission want the top tax rate dropped to 23%?
We now have reached a point where the very richest Americans are paying the lowest taxes they ever have, and some want to cut that record low rate almost in half. We, as a nation, have the lowest total tax as a percentage of GDP, at 28%, of any developed nation on earth. The reason we have a deficit is because we don't pay for what we buy, we borrow rather than have a reasonable tax rate. I know, I know, you are convinced that we pay obscenely high taxes. The fact is - we don't.
Is it any surprise that the initial recommendations from the Co-Chairs of the Deficit Commission are to cut Social Security benefits, cut Medicare benefits, freeze federal pay, reduce government employees, and...... to cut taxes? Everything is on the table, except actually paying for what we use!
Professor George Lakoff predicted years ago that conservatives were so determined to dismantle the social net we have created in society, that they would intentionally create huge budget deficits so that, other than national security, we would all agree that we could no longer afford government programs. That day is not here yet, but conservatives have become impatient. They have fulfilled the first part of Professor Lakoff's prediction of busting the budget on purpose, now they are screaming about the deficit they themselves created as justification for slashing the programs that made us the great nation that we are. They have made it impossible for any politician to even mention taxes as part of any deficit solution by demonizing the word to the point where the mere mention is political death. They have created a nation of people who have become too irresponsible to even consider paying for what they use. They have engineered a moment in time when they think they can win the argument, because they have spent 20 years framing the argument with every speech they give.
I would like to ask everyone to read my post "The 'Good Old Days' Are Today." The facts I cite are the facts. The greatest nation in history was created AFTER the Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid were put in place, not before. Our income increased 4-fold since the days of FDR. We are the result of Public Education, Public Health, Public Welfare and Public Safety programs put in place by FDR and LBJ, not in spite of those programs.
What to do? Pay attention. Some very well-intended people, many, but not all, in the so-called "Tea Party" are being misused to further goals that are not in their best interests. How can Republican, and some Democratic politicians, look you in the eye, invoke death-like comparisons when they describe the FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT, and then talk about tax cuts that will raise the deficit even higher in the next breath?
Make them tell you the truth. Keep asking questions until you get a straight answer. Don't vote for or support people who lie to you. Be grown-up enough to take responsibility. If you buy something, pay for it. If the Government buys something, insist they pay for it....but after the recession, not during.
We are the greatest nation in history. We can work this out. We don't have to throw in the towel. Keep the faith!
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The "Good Old Days" are Today!
Some politicians and others have decided to distort the facts, re-write history, and claim that we are now a socialist country, getting more socialist all the time, and that everything would be better if we would just return to our capitalist roots, you know, the way it was in the "Good Old Days," and eliminate Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Public Schools, Interstate Highways, Food and Drug Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Aviation Administration, US Department of Education...you get the idea. (A few people who support this rollback plan tell the truth, they know things were much worse in the "Good Old Days" but still think we should return to those days for some unfathomable reason). These people talk about "taking our country back." It is a little unclear who they want to take it back from, but I can only assume they want to take it back from our democratically elected representatives.
I thought I would let you know what things were like in the US in 1930, you know, before Social Security, Medicare, and most of the programs that define who we are in the year 2009 were created, before the systems and programs we have inplace in 2009 that make us the greatest country in history were implemented. I picked 1930 to be fair, since the Great Depression had not taken hold, and, in fact, the economic boom of the "Roaring 1920's" when there was little or no regulation had peaked.
Trust me, those "Good Old Days" were not all that good. Just a few facts:
Per Capita Income (IN 2009 DOLLARS, in other words, CORRECTED FOR INFLATION)
1930 $11,338 2009 $46,381
Life Expectancy
1930 54.2 years 2009 78.1 years
Miles of Paved Highway in the US
1930 387,000 miles (it took 13 days to drive from New York to LA)
2009 2,734,102 miles; including the Interstate Highway System (you can now drive from New York to LA in 2 days (42 hours total))
Did You Know That:
In 1952 there were 58,000 cases of polio in the US (I went to elementary school with a polio victim, so it wasn't that long ago, or I am getting old, or both).
Due to Public Health and Government sponsored vaccinations, there hasn't been a case of polio in the US since 1979.
From 1958-1961 there were tens of thousands of babies born with severe birth defects around the world due to mothers taking a drug called thalidomide.
There were virtually no thalidomide victims in the US because the FDA wouldn't approve its use without further testing.
In summary, there is a small, but very noisy, group of people and political candidates in the US today who are championing a false history and promoting a false vision for the US. They talk about "Good Old Days" that never existed. The "Good Old Days" are now. Sure we have some problems to be solved that will require serious, even painful, solutions. But the solution is not to go back to a time when personal income was 1/4 of what it is today, when our life expectancy was 24 years less than it is today, when it took longer to drive from New York to Los Angeles than it does for an astronaut today to fly to the moon and back. Somehow, the "Socialist/Marxist" fiction that these people claim our country has become since 1935 when Social Security was passed and 1965 when Medicare was passed, that country, not the distortion they have invented, has managed to grow unimaginable wealth, invent unbelievable things, cure many diseases, and create a nation that is the envy of the world. We don't have walled cities guarded by soldiers surrounded by seas of poverty and despair. We have a land where you can drive from Key West, Florida to Eastport, Maine; from Norfolk, Virginia to Arcata, California and know every minute you are in the greatest country in history. Just remember, while all these wonderful accomplishments have taken place, Social Security, Medicare, and all the agencies regulating finance, safety, and health in this country were firmly established. The false timeline being promoted by the Far Right, is just that...false. Use your brain, don't give in to their cliches', don't be manipulated by their repetitive slogans or their tens of millions of dollars in media advertising, think for yourself! The facts in this Note took me two hours to gather and compute. I challenge each of you to put two hours into thinking about our future.
I don't think you will decide to return to the "Bad Old Days!"
I thought I would let you know what things were like in the US in 1930, you know, before Social Security, Medicare, and most of the programs that define who we are in the year 2009 were created, before the systems and programs we have inplace in 2009 that make us the greatest country in history were implemented. I picked 1930 to be fair, since the Great Depression had not taken hold, and, in fact, the economic boom of the "Roaring 1920's" when there was little or no regulation had peaked.
Trust me, those "Good Old Days" were not all that good. Just a few facts:
Per Capita Income (IN 2009 DOLLARS, in other words, CORRECTED FOR INFLATION)
1930 $11,338 2009 $46,381
Life Expectancy
1930 54.2 years 2009 78.1 years
Miles of Paved Highway in the US
1930 387,000 miles (it took 13 days to drive from New York to LA)
2009 2,734,102 miles; including the Interstate Highway System (you can now drive from New York to LA in 2 days (42 hours total))
Did You Know That:
In 1952 there were 58,000 cases of polio in the US (I went to elementary school with a polio victim, so it wasn't that long ago, or I am getting old, or both).
Due to Public Health and Government sponsored vaccinations, there hasn't been a case of polio in the US since 1979.
From 1958-1961 there were tens of thousands of babies born with severe birth defects around the world due to mothers taking a drug called thalidomide.
There were virtually no thalidomide victims in the US because the FDA wouldn't approve its use without further testing.
In summary, there is a small, but very noisy, group of people and political candidates in the US today who are championing a false history and promoting a false vision for the US. They talk about "Good Old Days" that never existed. The "Good Old Days" are now. Sure we have some problems to be solved that will require serious, even painful, solutions. But the solution is not to go back to a time when personal income was 1/4 of what it is today, when our life expectancy was 24 years less than it is today, when it took longer to drive from New York to Los Angeles than it does for an astronaut today to fly to the moon and back. Somehow, the "Socialist/Marxist" fiction that these people claim our country has become since 1935 when Social Security was passed and 1965 when Medicare was passed, that country, not the distortion they have invented, has managed to grow unimaginable wealth, invent unbelievable things, cure many diseases, and create a nation that is the envy of the world. We don't have walled cities guarded by soldiers surrounded by seas of poverty and despair. We have a land where you can drive from Key West, Florida to Eastport, Maine; from Norfolk, Virginia to Arcata, California and know every minute you are in the greatest country in history. Just remember, while all these wonderful accomplishments have taken place, Social Security, Medicare, and all the agencies regulating finance, safety, and health in this country were firmly established. The false timeline being promoted by the Far Right, is just that...false. Use your brain, don't give in to their cliches', don't be manipulated by their repetitive slogans or their tens of millions of dollars in media advertising, think for yourself! The facts in this Note took me two hours to gather and compute. I challenge each of you to put two hours into thinking about our future.
I don't think you will decide to return to the "Bad Old Days!"
Saturday, October 9, 2010
Republicans Would Rather Kill Jobs Than Do the Right Thing
Just look at who is killing jobs now
Republicans like to denounce President Obama and congressional Democrats for what they describe as "job-killing" policies. But in those red-hot rhetorical terms, congressional Republicans are guilty of mass murder when it comes to job creation.
They left town for their pre-election recess having blocked the extension of a successful jobs program, praised by conservatives from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour to economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, that provided 250,000 jobs for low-income parents and youths. A $2.5 billion version of the extension passed the House, twice. The Senate whittled it back to $1.5 billion but still could not dislodge Republican opposition even though the cost would have been fully paid for. The program was a sliver of the giant stimulus measure, but one of the most effective in terms of job creation. And it sounded as if it came straight out of the GOP playbook. The money was used overwhelmingly for private-sector jobs. It went to employers, to subsidize - depending on the state - all or part of wages for newly hired workers who would otherwise have been on unemployment rolls or receiving welfare. It was a particular boon to small business, helping them expand at a time when they would not have otherwise had the financial leeway to do so. The stimulus included a $5 billion pot of money to help states with welfare programs stretched by the recession. One of the permitted uses was for job subsidies, and ultimately 37 states and the District of Columbia ended up launching such efforts. Barbour, for example, used the federal money to create a program called Mississippi STEPS (Subsidized Transitional Employment Program and Services) that subsidized wages for new employees; the subsidy diminished over six months. Barbour described it as "much-needed aid during this recession by enabling businesses to hire new workers, thus enhancing the economic engines of our local communities." Hassett, an economic adviser to the campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain, urged that the program be significantly expanded. "After all, a worker participating in the program gets a job," he testified in February. "A firm gets an extended period of production from the worker at a heavily subsidized cost. This low cost input should increase the firm's profits, and increase the chances that they will lift their capital investments. It is like an indirect tax cut from the perspective of the firm." Did I hear tax cut? Republicans should have been leaping on this opportunity. Except that the program was part of the stimulus plan, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). And ARRA is a four-letter word to Republicans, who - like the church dealing with Galileo - refuse to acknowledge that it had any positive effect on job creation. Job subsidies aren't a perfect answer. Some firms may use the money for jobs they would have filled anyway, but that risk is offset by the fact that the subsidy is targeted to people in greatest need of work. There is no guarantee that the jobs will continue once the subsidy is withdrawn, but even so, there is a benefit from having worked. As Hassett explained, "The literature is clear. Someone separated from the labor force runs the real risk of permanently separating from the normal economy. It is crucial that we reconnect as many people as possible before it is too late." That would be now. There's a slim chance the program could be revived in a lame-duck session. Otherwise, Republicans can pontificate, as in the Pledge to America, about how "joblessness is the single most important challenge facing America today" and extol the "pride and dignity that comes with an honest day's work and a steady paycheck." But laid-off workers forced onto welfare because of unthinking obstructionism will know better.
Republicans like to denounce President Obama and congressional Democrats for what they describe as "job-killing" policies. But in those red-hot rhetorical terms, congressional Republicans are guilty of mass murder when it comes to job creation.
They left town for their pre-election recess having blocked the extension of a successful jobs program, praised by conservatives from Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour to economist Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute, that provided 250,000 jobs for low-income parents and youths. A $2.5 billion version of the extension passed the House, twice. The Senate whittled it back to $1.5 billion but still could not dislodge Republican opposition even though the cost would have been fully paid for. The program was a sliver of the giant stimulus measure, but one of the most effective in terms of job creation. And it sounded as if it came straight out of the GOP playbook. The money was used overwhelmingly for private-sector jobs. It went to employers, to subsidize - depending on the state - all or part of wages for newly hired workers who would otherwise have been on unemployment rolls or receiving welfare. It was a particular boon to small business, helping them expand at a time when they would not have otherwise had the financial leeway to do so. The stimulus included a $5 billion pot of money to help states with welfare programs stretched by the recession. One of the permitted uses was for job subsidies, and ultimately 37 states and the District of Columbia ended up launching such efforts. Barbour, for example, used the federal money to create a program called Mississippi STEPS (Subsidized Transitional Employment Program and Services) that subsidized wages for new employees; the subsidy diminished over six months. Barbour described it as "much-needed aid during this recession by enabling businesses to hire new workers, thus enhancing the economic engines of our local communities." Hassett, an economic adviser to the campaigns of George W. Bush and John McCain, urged that the program be significantly expanded. "After all, a worker participating in the program gets a job," he testified in February. "A firm gets an extended period of production from the worker at a heavily subsidized cost. This low cost input should increase the firm's profits, and increase the chances that they will lift their capital investments. It is like an indirect tax cut from the perspective of the firm." Did I hear tax cut? Republicans should have been leaping on this opportunity. Except that the program was part of the stimulus plan, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). And ARRA is a four-letter word to Republicans, who - like the church dealing with Galileo - refuse to acknowledge that it had any positive effect on job creation. Job subsidies aren't a perfect answer. Some firms may use the money for jobs they would have filled anyway, but that risk is offset by the fact that the subsidy is targeted to people in greatest need of work. There is no guarantee that the jobs will continue once the subsidy is withdrawn, but even so, there is a benefit from having worked. As Hassett explained, "The literature is clear. Someone separated from the labor force runs the real risk of permanently separating from the normal economy. It is crucial that we reconnect as many people as possible before it is too late." That would be now. There's a slim chance the program could be revived in a lame-duck session. Otherwise, Republicans can pontificate, as in the Pledge to America, about how "joblessness is the single most important challenge facing America today" and extol the "pride and dignity that comes with an honest day's work and a steady paycheck." But laid-off workers forced onto welfare because of unthinking obstructionism will know better.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
The Truth About TARP
TARP has become a dirty word in our nation's political discourse. Few terms elicit such anger from voters and politicians. In many ways, that's understandable. No one wanted to bail out Wall Street. No one wanted to use taxpayer dollars to rescue an industry that helped cause the worst economic crisis in a generation.
It was unfair. It was appalling. But it was necessary. We had no other choice.
Two years ago, we stood at the brink of an economic catastrophe. Ordinary American families were questioning whether their money was safe in banks. A growing financial panic threatened to sink our nation into an economic downturn that rivaled the Great Depression.
A bi-partisan majority in Congress responded by enacting the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The debate over this issue was heated. On October 3, 2008, when TARP became law, one member of Congress even went so far as to say, "I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say this may be the day America died."
Two years later, with TARP officially set to expire today, it's an appropriate time to look back and evaluate that program's effectiveness. And now that the fog of an intense financial panic has lifted, it's clear that the critics and cynics were wrong. TARP has proven remarkably successful at stabilizing the economy and laying the foundation for future growth.
Today, our economy is healing. Because of the enormity of the challenges we faced, unemployment is still unacceptably high and growth has not yet reached an acceptable pace. But we're on the path to recovery. Businesses have added jobs for eight straight months. Private investment and confidence in banks have returned. The cost of borrowing for businesses, municipalities and individuals has declined dramatically.
The TARP investments that the Bush and Obama administrations made in GM and Chrysler, as well as the hard decisions that those companies made to adapt and compete, turned those automakers around and saved at least one million jobs. Since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the auto industry has added 76,300 jobs - the strongest growth in 10 years - and for the first time since 2004, all of the big three American auto companies are operating profitably.
In fact, independent experts have estimated that overall, without the federal government's response to the financial crisis, including TARP, there would be nearly 8.5 million fewer jobs today and the unemployment rate would exceed 15 percent.
The question, then, is why does TARP remain unpopular, despite its success? I believe, in great part, it's because a number of myths about the program stubbornly persist.
Many people think that TARP cost $700 billion. But Treasury is now confident that the lifetime cost to taxpayers will be less than $50 billion. Repayments have continued to exceed expectations. Three-fourths of the TARP funds provided to banks have already been returned. And the exit strategy AIG announced last week puts taxpayers in a considerably stronger position to recoup our investment in that company.
Many people think that TARP funds only went to Wall Street. But more than 450 small and community banks participated in TARP, which helped them deliver credit to local small businesses and families. Additionally, more than 3.3 million struggling homeowners have had an opportunity to stay in their homes or find more affordable alternatives because of foreclosure prevention programs either financed by TARP or created as a result of TARP in the private sector.
Many people think that TARP created a precedent for future bailouts. But President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner worked tirelessly with Congress to enact the Dodd-Frank Act, which will ensure that the American people are never again put on the hook for the reckless acts of a few financial firms. That law gives the government new tools to shut down and dismember failing institutions rather than bail them out with taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, the untold story of TARP's success has been lost in the heated rhetoric of today's politics.
TARP was enacted in an all-too-rare moment of bipartisan cooperation in Washington - with support from both sides of the aisle, including from Republican leaders Representative John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell. The Bush Administration began the implementation of TARP and the Obama Administration is finishing the job.
Now, many of those who supported TARP have decided that, politically, they need to be against it. But removed from the pressures of a November election, these individuals should be proud of the hard choices they made to help save our economy from a devastating collapse.
And perhaps someday they'll say what is now, for them, the unspeakable: TARP was a success.
It was unfair. It was appalling. But it was necessary. We had no other choice.
Two years ago, we stood at the brink of an economic catastrophe. Ordinary American families were questioning whether their money was safe in banks. A growing financial panic threatened to sink our nation into an economic downturn that rivaled the Great Depression.
A bi-partisan majority in Congress responded by enacting the Troubled Asset Relief Program. The debate over this issue was heated. On October 3, 2008, when TARP became law, one member of Congress even went so far as to say, "I don't think it is too much of a stretch to say this may be the day America died."
Two years later, with TARP officially set to expire today, it's an appropriate time to look back and evaluate that program's effectiveness. And now that the fog of an intense financial panic has lifted, it's clear that the critics and cynics were wrong. TARP has proven remarkably successful at stabilizing the economy and laying the foundation for future growth.
Today, our economy is healing. Because of the enormity of the challenges we faced, unemployment is still unacceptably high and growth has not yet reached an acceptable pace. But we're on the path to recovery. Businesses have added jobs for eight straight months. Private investment and confidence in banks have returned. The cost of borrowing for businesses, municipalities and individuals has declined dramatically.
The TARP investments that the Bush and Obama administrations made in GM and Chrysler, as well as the hard decisions that those companies made to adapt and compete, turned those automakers around and saved at least one million jobs. Since GM and Chrysler emerged from bankruptcy, the auto industry has added 76,300 jobs - the strongest growth in 10 years - and for the first time since 2004, all of the big three American auto companies are operating profitably.
In fact, independent experts have estimated that overall, without the federal government's response to the financial crisis, including TARP, there would be nearly 8.5 million fewer jobs today and the unemployment rate would exceed 15 percent.
The question, then, is why does TARP remain unpopular, despite its success? I believe, in great part, it's because a number of myths about the program stubbornly persist.
Many people think that TARP cost $700 billion. But Treasury is now confident that the lifetime cost to taxpayers will be less than $50 billion. Repayments have continued to exceed expectations. Three-fourths of the TARP funds provided to banks have already been returned. And the exit strategy AIG announced last week puts taxpayers in a considerably stronger position to recoup our investment in that company.
Many people think that TARP funds only went to Wall Street. But more than 450 small and community banks participated in TARP, which helped them deliver credit to local small businesses and families. Additionally, more than 3.3 million struggling homeowners have had an opportunity to stay in their homes or find more affordable alternatives because of foreclosure prevention programs either financed by TARP or created as a result of TARP in the private sector.
Many people think that TARP created a precedent for future bailouts. But President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner worked tirelessly with Congress to enact the Dodd-Frank Act, which will ensure that the American people are never again put on the hook for the reckless acts of a few financial firms. That law gives the government new tools to shut down and dismember failing institutions rather than bail them out with taxpayer dollars.
Unfortunately, the untold story of TARP's success has been lost in the heated rhetoric of today's politics.
TARP was enacted in an all-too-rare moment of bipartisan cooperation in Washington - with support from both sides of the aisle, including from Republican leaders Representative John Boehner and Senator Mitch McConnell. The Bush Administration began the implementation of TARP and the Obama Administration is finishing the job.
Now, many of those who supported TARP have decided that, politically, they need to be against it. But removed from the pressures of a November election, these individuals should be proud of the hard choices they made to help save our economy from a devastating collapse.
And perhaps someday they'll say what is now, for them, the unspeakable: TARP was a success.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Do I Have a Dream?
I am trying, for the life of me, to figure out the strategy of the Far Right for this election cycle, and for the future. The policies they articulate, and I use the terms "policies" and "articulate" very, very loosely, are hostile to: 1) African Americans; 2) Hispanics; 3) Emigrants; 4) Gays and lesbians; 5) Women; 6) Muslims; 7) Atheists and agnostics; 8) People who earn less than $75,000 per year; 9) People who care about others who are less fortunate; 10) People who believe, as the Supreme Court and Constitution does, that women have a right to privacy/choice; 11) People who would like to see stem cell research that might lead to cures for Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and other neurological disease; 12) People who do not believe that public school teachers should be responsible for the religious indoctrination of our children, but that that should be left to churches and parents; 13) People who think Social Security and Medicare are good ideas; 14) People who believe that it is a bad idea to pollute the one and only earth we live on; 15) People who believe in the Constitution (Republicans have introduced 44 proposed amendments to the Constitution in the past year, so they must not like the document the "Founding Fathers" created).
just to name a few...
This only leaves around 20-25% of the population that is not on their "hate" list. So how do they succeed in elections? How do they get people to vote against their own best interests?
1. Diversionary tactics: tapping into the emotions of people in desperate times
2. Fear: people are afraid of economic failure, losing their jobs, not being able to provide for the families, and can easily be manipulated into blaming/hating "others" for this insecurity
3. Language: defining terms, lie, be repetitive (for example, the "Ground Zero Mosque" is not at Ground Zero)
just to name a few...
This only leaves around 20-25% of the population that is not on their "hate" list. So how do they succeed in elections? How do they get people to vote against their own best interests?
1. Diversionary tactics: tapping into the emotions of people in desperate times
2. Fear: people are afraid of economic failure, losing their jobs, not being able to provide for the families, and can easily be manipulated into blaming/hating "others" for this insecurity
3. Language: defining terms, lie, be repetitive (for example, the "Ground Zero Mosque" is not at Ground Zero)
Friday, June 11, 2010
Why is US Senator George Lemieux Such a Liar?
This is the language from HB 1143 that was courageously vetoed by Governor Crist today:
"requiring that an ultrasound be performed on any woman obtaining an abortion; specifying who must perform an ultrasound; requiring that the ultrasound be reviewed with the patient prior to the woman giving informed consent; specifying who must review the ultrasound with the patient; requiring that the woman certify in writing that she declined to review the ultrasound and did so of her own free will and without undue influence; providing an exemption from the requirement to view the ultrasound for women who are the victims of rape, incest, domestic violence, or human trafficking or for women who have a serious medical condition necessitating the abortion; revising requirements for written materials; requiring ultrasounds for all patients; requiring that live ultrasound images be reviewed and explained to the patient; requiring that all other provisions in s. 35 390.0111, F.S., be complied with if the patient declines to view her live ultrasound images;"
This is the complete language from Senator George Lemieux's website today:
"WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) today called on Governor Charlie Crist to sign the Florida State Legislature’s HB 1143 – a bill to prohibit federal and state tax dollars from going to pay for abortions.
Senator LeMieux said:
“Florida’s families should not be forced to pay for elective abortions. The federal health care bill Democrats passed in Congress creates a system where federal taxpayer dollars, for the first time in 33 years, could be used for insurance plans that pay for abortions. HB1143 makes absolutely clear that Floridians’ tax dollars will not be used for elective abortions and I urge the governor to sign the bill. Florida has never offered taxpayer funded elective abortion, and now is not the time to start.”
BACKGROUND: The State of Florida has never offered taxpayer funded elective abortion. Exceptions for cases of rape or incest, or situations where the life of the mother is in danger are specifically provided for in both the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortions, and HB 1143. Additionally, the bill provides a procedure to assure that women seeking an abortion receive an opportunity to view sonogram images before consenting to the procedure."
Why does Senator Lemieux have to lie? Why can't he just state the truth? What is the truth, Senator Lemiuex, do you even know? Or are you just trying to hurt your old friend Governor Crist?
"requiring that an ultrasound be performed on any woman obtaining an abortion; specifying who must perform an ultrasound; requiring that the ultrasound be reviewed with the patient prior to the woman giving informed consent; specifying who must review the ultrasound with the patient; requiring that the woman certify in writing that she declined to review the ultrasound and did so of her own free will and without undue influence; providing an exemption from the requirement to view the ultrasound for women who are the victims of rape, incest, domestic violence, or human trafficking or for women who have a serious medical condition necessitating the abortion; revising requirements for written materials; requiring ultrasounds for all patients; requiring that live ultrasound images be reviewed and explained to the patient; requiring that all other provisions in s. 35 390.0111, F.S., be complied with if the patient declines to view her live ultrasound images;"
This is the complete language from Senator George Lemieux's website today:
"WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator George LeMieux (R-FL) today called on Governor Charlie Crist to sign the Florida State Legislature’s HB 1143 – a bill to prohibit federal and state tax dollars from going to pay for abortions.
Senator LeMieux said:
“Florida’s families should not be forced to pay for elective abortions. The federal health care bill Democrats passed in Congress creates a system where federal taxpayer dollars, for the first time in 33 years, could be used for insurance plans that pay for abortions. HB1143 makes absolutely clear that Floridians’ tax dollars will not be used for elective abortions and I urge the governor to sign the bill. Florida has never offered taxpayer funded elective abortion, and now is not the time to start.”
BACKGROUND: The State of Florida has never offered taxpayer funded elective abortion. Exceptions for cases of rape or incest, or situations where the life of the mother is in danger are specifically provided for in both the Hyde Amendment, which bans federal funding of abortions, and HB 1143. Additionally, the bill provides a procedure to assure that women seeking an abortion receive an opportunity to view sonogram images before consenting to the procedure."
Why does Senator Lemieux have to lie? Why can't he just state the truth? What is the truth, Senator Lemiuex, do you even know? Or are you just trying to hurt your old friend Governor Crist?
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
The "Teaparty" Believes Women Only Have Rights Before They Are Born!
Apparently, the "Teaparty" believes that women only have rights when they are a fetus. Once they are born, they lose all their rights, perhaps even their right to live. Following is "Teaparty" Candidate and alleged Libertarian Rand Paul's position on a woman's right to choice:
"I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will stop the flow of tax dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform or advocate abortions. In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many -- including Kentucky -- would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures. I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment. I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement. As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them."
So....a leading "Teaparty" candidate wants to ban all abortions for all women in all cases including rape, incest, life of the mother. I guess the "Teaparty" doesn't believe that women have any rights after they are born, only before they are born.
Perhaps even more shocking than this alleged "libertarian" trying to impose his personal beliefs, and those of less than 20% of the population, on all women in this country, is his plan to alter the very foundation of our nation, the separation of powers. Apparently he and his deluded followers think it is a good idea to "support legislation restricting Federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade." So he wants to pass a law that prohibits the courts from exercising their judicial power to review the law. Sounds like a legislative dictatorship!
Does Rand Paul realize that the definition of libertarian is: "one who believes in maximizing individual liberty and minimizing lack of governmental regulation and oversight?" Does he realize that government intrusion into the most personal and private decisions a woman makes is not the definition of libertarian? Does he care?
"I will always vote for any and all legislation that would end abortion or lead us in the direction of ending abortion. I believe in a Human Life Amendment and a Life at Conception Act as federal solutions to the abortion issue. I also believe that while we are working toward this goal, there are many other things we can accomplish in the near term. It is unconscionable that government would facilitate the taking of innocent life. I strongly oppose any federal funding for abortion and will stop the flow of tax dollars to groups like Planned Parenthood, who perform or advocate abortions. In addition, I believe we may be able to save millions of lives in the near future by allowing states to pass their own anti-abortion laws. If states were able to do so, I sincerely believe many -- including Kentucky -- would do so tomorrow, saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Before 1973, abortion was illegal in most states. Since Roe v. Wade, over 50 million children have died in abortion procedures. I would strongly support legislation restricting federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade. Such legislation would only require a majority vote, making it more likely to pass than a pro-life constitutional amendment. I would support legislation, a Sanctity of Life Amendment, establishing the principle that life begins at conception. This legislation would define life at conception in law, as a scientific statement. As your Senator, there are many ways I can help end abortion. I will fight for each and every one of them."
So....a leading "Teaparty" candidate wants to ban all abortions for all women in all cases including rape, incest, life of the mother. I guess the "Teaparty" doesn't believe that women have any rights after they are born, only before they are born.
Perhaps even more shocking than this alleged "libertarian" trying to impose his personal beliefs, and those of less than 20% of the population, on all women in this country, is his plan to alter the very foundation of our nation, the separation of powers. Apparently he and his deluded followers think it is a good idea to "support legislation restricting Federal courts from hearing cases like Roe v. Wade." So he wants to pass a law that prohibits the courts from exercising their judicial power to review the law. Sounds like a legislative dictatorship!
Does Rand Paul realize that the definition of libertarian is: "one who believes in maximizing individual liberty and minimizing lack of governmental regulation and oversight?" Does he realize that government intrusion into the most personal and private decisions a woman makes is not the definition of libertarian? Does he care?
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Republicans Believe in Government So Small It Fits Between a Woman's Legs!
Republicans claim to be the party of small government. Republicans claim to be against government intrusion into our private lives. Republicans also claim to oppose government interfering between a patient and their doctor. Guess what? Republicans are none of these things.
We live in a civilized society. Is it asking too much that we act civilized? On the issue of abortion, civilized people should agree that while some people believe that a woman should has a right to choose; there are others who believe that abortion should be banned, with various shades of opinion in between these two positions. Civilized people should also agree that if someone supports one position or another, they have the right to engage in debate and enact laws that support their position. However, what we should agree on is that in those situations where you cannot get laws passed that reflect your position, you should not support laws that result in pain and humiliation, impose mental and physical suffering, and cause financial hardship for those "on the other side."
In the past week, Republicans in Oklahoma overrode the veto of the Democratic governor of that state and enacted a new law that requires any woman seeking an abortion, including victims of rape or incest, to be forced to have an ultrasound and have the results of that procedure shown to them on a monitor and described to them in detail verbally. If necessary, depending on the status of their pregnancy, the ultrasound must be administered with a vaginally-inserted probe. There is no age limit. The law also makes it impossible to sue a doctor if the doctor lies to the patient about the status of their pregnancy, that is, unless the mother dies because of the lies. Another recently-passed law in Oklahoma, that is on the books, requires that all women who seek an abortion answer 34 questions including: how many times they have been pregnant, how many miscarriages, their marital status, their race, how many abortions they have had, how many children they have, and the town they live in. This information is then posted on the internet (using an alias name). It is believed that the names of women who live in small towns in Oklahoma will be easily identifiable from the information that is posted by the State. A great example of small-government Republicans staying out of our personal lives!
So, it is now the law in Oklahoma that a 13-year old rape or incest victim may be required to have a probe inserted into her vagina, have an ultrasound procedure whether her doctor thinks it is necessary or not, and, even though she has been victimized already, be subjected to visual and verbal descriptions of the abortion while it is being conducted. I would guess the next law these "believers in small government" will pass will require a video be made of the child while she is hysterically screaming and crying and begging that the probe be removed from her body, and that the video (with her face blocked out, of course) be required viewing for all future victims of this Republican-imposed "small government" intrusion into the body of a young girl who requests a procedure that the Supreme Court has ruled legal for 36 years.
So you won't think that there are just a bunch of crazies in Oklahoma, yesterday the Florida Legislature passed a similar law, by a vote of 23-16 in the Senate and 76-44 in the House on an almost strict party-line vote (to his credit, Dr. Ed Homan (R), a physician from Tampa, voted against this abomination). The Florida bill was introduced, and passed, in the last two days of the session as an amendment to a health care bill, with virtually no review and no opportunity for public comment. The Florida law does exempt women who have been raped or the victims of domestic abuse, so it only covers women who have had sex voluntarily (wow, aren't Republicans in Florida so much more enlightened than those in Oklahoma?). The Florida law does go one step beyond Okalahoma's, it requires the woman to pay for the medically unnecessary procedure she does not want and her doctor did not prescribe. It is hoped by the Republicans that the $100-300 charge will stop poor women from seeking abortions. The law requires a sonogram to be administered even in the first trimester when many abortions are conducted by means of a pill. The Florida law also makes it illegal for any business in Florida that receives any tax credits from the State to provide insurance to their employees that pays for abortions. During the brief debate on the bill, Representative Alan Hays (R) invoked a comparison to the "holocaust." I am sure glad that Republicans in Florida are staying out of the personal lives of the people!
Republicans in Oklahoma and Florida have now mandated that women, and teenage girls, who choose to have an abortion for any reason MUST have an ultrasound even when their physician believes that it is NOT medically necessary and the woman does NOT want one. Ultrasound is not a risk-free medical procedure. An ultrasound machine sends vibrations into the body and gains information from the echoes that "bounce" back. Not all of the energy bounces back; some is absorbed in the body. This causes heat and can result in tissue damage and the formation of bubbles from trapped gas (known as cavitation). So Republicans in these two states have now made it the law that women are required to have a medical procedure, against their will, against the advice of their doctor, that may cause them physical harm and they have to pay for it.
This is what happens when small pockets of extremists in a few states take control of the legislative process. This is why it is important that the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade be maintained (although the 4 "conservatives" now on the Supreme Court appear to have no respect for "stare decisis") since a woman's right to decide what happens to her body may have no other protection as some state legislatures become more and more extreme. This is also why you need to contact Governor Crist in Florida and let him know how important it is that he veto
HB 1143. It is another example of why it is vital that Alex Sink be elected Governor of Florida rather than Bill McCollum since the governor is the last hope to stop the extremist Republicans from wrecking public education and depriving women of the right to make their own medical decisions.
Following is an article from a conservative site that shows how the facts presented above regarding Florida HB 1143 can be distorted into a misleading argument:
http://www.lifenews.com/state5099.html
We live in a civilized society. Is it asking too much that we act civilized? On the issue of abortion, civilized people should agree that while some people believe that a woman should has a right to choose; there are others who believe that abortion should be banned, with various shades of opinion in between these two positions. Civilized people should also agree that if someone supports one position or another, they have the right to engage in debate and enact laws that support their position. However, what we should agree on is that in those situations where you cannot get laws passed that reflect your position, you should not support laws that result in pain and humiliation, impose mental and physical suffering, and cause financial hardship for those "on the other side."
In the past week, Republicans in Oklahoma overrode the veto of the Democratic governor of that state and enacted a new law that requires any woman seeking an abortion, including victims of rape or incest, to be forced to have an ultrasound and have the results of that procedure shown to them on a monitor and described to them in detail verbally. If necessary, depending on the status of their pregnancy, the ultrasound must be administered with a vaginally-inserted probe. There is no age limit. The law also makes it impossible to sue a doctor if the doctor lies to the patient about the status of their pregnancy, that is, unless the mother dies because of the lies. Another recently-passed law in Oklahoma, that is on the books, requires that all women who seek an abortion answer 34 questions including: how many times they have been pregnant, how many miscarriages, their marital status, their race, how many abortions they have had, how many children they have, and the town they live in. This information is then posted on the internet (using an alias name). It is believed that the names of women who live in small towns in Oklahoma will be easily identifiable from the information that is posted by the State. A great example of small-government Republicans staying out of our personal lives!
So, it is now the law in Oklahoma that a 13-year old rape or incest victim may be required to have a probe inserted into her vagina, have an ultrasound procedure whether her doctor thinks it is necessary or not, and, even though she has been victimized already, be subjected to visual and verbal descriptions of the abortion while it is being conducted. I would guess the next law these "believers in small government" will pass will require a video be made of the child while she is hysterically screaming and crying and begging that the probe be removed from her body, and that the video (with her face blocked out, of course) be required viewing for all future victims of this Republican-imposed "small government" intrusion into the body of a young girl who requests a procedure that the Supreme Court has ruled legal for 36 years.
So you won't think that there are just a bunch of crazies in Oklahoma, yesterday the Florida Legislature passed a similar law, by a vote of 23-16 in the Senate and 76-44 in the House on an almost strict party-line vote (to his credit, Dr. Ed Homan (R), a physician from Tampa, voted against this abomination). The Florida bill was introduced, and passed, in the last two days of the session as an amendment to a health care bill, with virtually no review and no opportunity for public comment. The Florida law does exempt women who have been raped or the victims of domestic abuse, so it only covers women who have had sex voluntarily (wow, aren't Republicans in Florida so much more enlightened than those in Oklahoma?). The Florida law does go one step beyond Okalahoma's, it requires the woman to pay for the medically unnecessary procedure she does not want and her doctor did not prescribe. It is hoped by the Republicans that the $100-300 charge will stop poor women from seeking abortions. The law requires a sonogram to be administered even in the first trimester when many abortions are conducted by means of a pill. The Florida law also makes it illegal for any business in Florida that receives any tax credits from the State to provide insurance to their employees that pays for abortions. During the brief debate on the bill, Representative Alan Hays (R) invoked a comparison to the "holocaust." I am sure glad that Republicans in Florida are staying out of the personal lives of the people!
Republicans in Oklahoma and Florida have now mandated that women, and teenage girls, who choose to have an abortion for any reason MUST have an ultrasound even when their physician believes that it is NOT medically necessary and the woman does NOT want one. Ultrasound is not a risk-free medical procedure. An ultrasound machine sends vibrations into the body and gains information from the echoes that "bounce" back. Not all of the energy bounces back; some is absorbed in the body. This causes heat and can result in tissue damage and the formation of bubbles from trapped gas (known as cavitation). So Republicans in these two states have now made it the law that women are required to have a medical procedure, against their will, against the advice of their doctor, that may cause them physical harm and they have to pay for it.
This is what happens when small pockets of extremists in a few states take control of the legislative process. This is why it is important that the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade be maintained (although the 4 "conservatives" now on the Supreme Court appear to have no respect for "stare decisis") since a woman's right to decide what happens to her body may have no other protection as some state legislatures become more and more extreme. This is also why you need to contact Governor Crist in Florida and let him know how important it is that he veto
HB 1143. It is another example of why it is vital that Alex Sink be elected Governor of Florida rather than Bill McCollum since the governor is the last hope to stop the extremist Republicans from wrecking public education and depriving women of the right to make their own medical decisions.
Following is an article from a conservative site that shows how the facts presented above regarding Florida HB 1143 can be distorted into a misleading argument:
http://www.lifenews.com/state5099.html
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wouldn't It Be Funny If Christianity was Really Right....
I know plenty of good Christians, folks who don't wear it on their sleeve, and who live good lives that Jesus would be proud of. The following commentary is reserved not for them, but for those other guys - I refer to them as Christians In Name Only (CINO).
Wouldn't it be funny if Christianity was really right? Because if it was, many CINOs would be surprised when they find themselves spending eternity in a fiery hell. You see, Christianity actually has many fine points, but the problem is that a significant number of people who call themselves Christians are anything but. The Bible says "judge not lest ye be judged," yet the judging often starts before these CINOs even leave the parking lot of the church each Sunday morning. It starts in the parking lot, but that is just the beginning. These folks spend so much time judging others during the week it is surprising they have much time left for anything else. When they are not judging, they go on to engage in their number one, favorite activity, that is, thinking they are superior to just about everyone they know and a whole lot of folks they haven't even met yet. One of the main tenets of Christianity is that you can be forgiven. But if you receive the precious gift of forgiveness, there is nothing much worse you can do than to continue committing the same sins over and over again. You see, it doesn't work that way. Even a small child who misbehaves knows that he or she might be able to apologize once, or even twice, for misconduct, but he or she knows they can't apologize every day for the same bad behavior, and expect to be forgiven. When someone tries to distort the Christian faith into some kind of perpetual "get out of jail free card," they have committed the ultimate sin. I am not sure why we were put on this earth, but I know if there is a God above, he did not put us here to judge others, or to feel superior to our neighbors. These two sins, perhaps more than any others, lead to war and hate and evil and suffering. On top of everything else, these CINOs seem to have a real problem with that "respect your elders" thing, since they are so busy wallowing in their own self importance and feelings of superiority. No big deal, it is just one of the Ten Commandants. Wonder what happens when someone ignores that one?
I just can't get the picture out of my mind of the looks on their faces when they get to the pearly gates and think they are going to heaven, then they learn the real price of their sins....priceless.
References:
Proverbs 16:18 - "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not lest ye be judged."
Exodus 20:12 - "Honor thy father and thy mother (respect your elders)"
Wouldn't it be funny if Christianity was really right? Because if it was, many CINOs would be surprised when they find themselves spending eternity in a fiery hell. You see, Christianity actually has many fine points, but the problem is that a significant number of people who call themselves Christians are anything but. The Bible says "judge not lest ye be judged," yet the judging often starts before these CINOs even leave the parking lot of the church each Sunday morning. It starts in the parking lot, but that is just the beginning. These folks spend so much time judging others during the week it is surprising they have much time left for anything else. When they are not judging, they go on to engage in their number one, favorite activity, that is, thinking they are superior to just about everyone they know and a whole lot of folks they haven't even met yet. One of the main tenets of Christianity is that you can be forgiven. But if you receive the precious gift of forgiveness, there is nothing much worse you can do than to continue committing the same sins over and over again. You see, it doesn't work that way. Even a small child who misbehaves knows that he or she might be able to apologize once, or even twice, for misconduct, but he or she knows they can't apologize every day for the same bad behavior, and expect to be forgiven. When someone tries to distort the Christian faith into some kind of perpetual "get out of jail free card," they have committed the ultimate sin. I am not sure why we were put on this earth, but I know if there is a God above, he did not put us here to judge others, or to feel superior to our neighbors. These two sins, perhaps more than any others, lead to war and hate and evil and suffering. On top of everything else, these CINOs seem to have a real problem with that "respect your elders" thing, since they are so busy wallowing in their own self importance and feelings of superiority. No big deal, it is just one of the Ten Commandants. Wonder what happens when someone ignores that one?
I just can't get the picture out of my mind of the looks on their faces when they get to the pearly gates and think they are going to heaven, then they learn the real price of their sins....priceless.
References:
Proverbs 16:18 - "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."
Matthew 7:1 - "Judge not lest ye be judged."
Exodus 20:12 - "Honor thy father and thy mother (respect your elders)"
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Homeless, But Not Invisible
Well, my friend disappeared. I call him Ron the Homeless Guy (Ron is his first name, I just don't know his last name). When I first started staying in the Arlington, Virginia area in 2006, I occasionally noticed Ron amongst the many homeless folks in the area. He was African-American, about 40 years old, and always wore a heavy coat, even in the summer. His trademark, though, was the black hat he wore at all times. It looked like the hat from the Dr. Seuss book, The Cat in the Hat, except it was black. Ron never bothered anyone, he just stayed in the background. This changed for me on the evening of September 28, 2006 while I was watching the news in my apartment. I saw an incredible person, John-Michael Keyes, talking about the murder of his 16 year old daughter, Emily Keyes. Emily had been taken hostage at Platte Canyon High School in Colorado along with 6 other students by a gunman (this site will always try to avoid publishing the names of criminals in an effort to make sure they don't receive any notoriety). Emily managed to send a text from her cellphone to her family from inside the room when the gunman looked away - "I love u guys." As the crisis wore on, the gunman released several of the students, then told hostage negotiators that he would release no more and gave an indication he would kill the two girls remaining in the room. When the police entered the room, the gunman used Emily as a human shield, then shot her in the back of the head, killing her instantly. As I watched Emily's father talking on the news, I was floored by his words, "I challenge everyone listening to me to commit a random act of kindness in honor of Emily." I left my 8th floor apartment, went outside, and found Ron huddled in an alley on the side of the building. I asked him if he needed some help, and gave him a little money for food. (BTW, the Keyes family also formed a foundation in Emily's memory that can be found on the internet at: http://iloveuguys.org )
Over the next few years, I saw Ron almost every day I was in the DC area. I got to know him and his story. He fixed cars, but had not had any work in a long time. He had lived with his mother, but she died and he had nowhere to stay, so he stayed on the street. He talked to some local churches, and they sometimes gave him a meal, but they told him they would only help him longterm if he "accepted Jesus as his savior." Ron said he didn't feel that he could do that, so he continued living on the street. He had a kindness about him that is hard to describe. I helped Ron whenever I saw him, and we always had conversations about things like the weather (his favorite topic since he was so close to it).
One day during this past harsh winter, I had had a particularly difficult day. When I saw Ron that evening as I walked home to my apartment, I stopped and asked him if I could buy him dinner. Ron thanked me as I gave him a few dollars, and as I walked away, he called to me. I stopped and turned around. Ron had a look on his face like he understood the down mood I was in. He asked, "How was your day today?" I couldn't help but smile, and replied, "It just got a whole lot better, Ron." As I walked home I couldn't stop smiling, and also feeling a little ashamed at the self-pity I had been immersed in just a few minutes before.
Another shared experience I had with Ron related to his smoking. I often caught him smoking those little cigarellos I hadn't seen in years. Whenever I did, I would always say, "Ron, you need to quit smoking, those things will kill you." Ron always came back with the same reply, "That's the idea, Dave." Then we would both have a little chuckle.
As I said, this was a particularly harsh winter in DC. Not only was it very cold, but we had 3 blizzards with more than a foot of snow. I got very sick for the better part of 5 months. Whenever I saw Ron, I could tell that he was having a hard time with the weather. The last time I saw Ron, in January, he seemed to be doing okay. I gave him a CVS gift card, and wished him well. I wasn't around much for the next two months due to illness. When I returned to my normal routine in March, I never saw Ron again. This was very unusual since I had seen him almost every day for the past 4 years.
A few days ago, I finally bumped into the Arlington police officer who does foot-patrol in the Mall where Ron often hung out. I asked him about Ron, described him, and he said he had no idea who I was talking about. I realized that the police officer never had Ron on his radar, because he did not make any trouble. Ron was invisible to the police, and to many others. My last hope was the security guard at the bank in the back of the Mall. I saw him yesterday and described Ron to him. He said, "I know that guy, I help him out when I can." But he said he hadn't seen him since January either.
So, it seems that Ron has either passed away, or moved away. Interesting, and a little sad, that homeless people can be almost invisible in our society. But they still matter, and can have an impact on others, just like Ron did with me. I hope that he is okay, and finally got to a place with a little warmer weather. Good luck, Ron!
Over the next few years, I saw Ron almost every day I was in the DC area. I got to know him and his story. He fixed cars, but had not had any work in a long time. He had lived with his mother, but she died and he had nowhere to stay, so he stayed on the street. He talked to some local churches, and they sometimes gave him a meal, but they told him they would only help him longterm if he "accepted Jesus as his savior." Ron said he didn't feel that he could do that, so he continued living on the street. He had a kindness about him that is hard to describe. I helped Ron whenever I saw him, and we always had conversations about things like the weather (his favorite topic since he was so close to it).
One day during this past harsh winter, I had had a particularly difficult day. When I saw Ron that evening as I walked home to my apartment, I stopped and asked him if I could buy him dinner. Ron thanked me as I gave him a few dollars, and as I walked away, he called to me. I stopped and turned around. Ron had a look on his face like he understood the down mood I was in. He asked, "How was your day today?" I couldn't help but smile, and replied, "It just got a whole lot better, Ron." As I walked home I couldn't stop smiling, and also feeling a little ashamed at the self-pity I had been immersed in just a few minutes before.
Another shared experience I had with Ron related to his smoking. I often caught him smoking those little cigarellos I hadn't seen in years. Whenever I did, I would always say, "Ron, you need to quit smoking, those things will kill you." Ron always came back with the same reply, "That's the idea, Dave." Then we would both have a little chuckle.
As I said, this was a particularly harsh winter in DC. Not only was it very cold, but we had 3 blizzards with more than a foot of snow. I got very sick for the better part of 5 months. Whenever I saw Ron, I could tell that he was having a hard time with the weather. The last time I saw Ron, in January, he seemed to be doing okay. I gave him a CVS gift card, and wished him well. I wasn't around much for the next two months due to illness. When I returned to my normal routine in March, I never saw Ron again. This was very unusual since I had seen him almost every day for the past 4 years.
A few days ago, I finally bumped into the Arlington police officer who does foot-patrol in the Mall where Ron often hung out. I asked him about Ron, described him, and he said he had no idea who I was talking about. I realized that the police officer never had Ron on his radar, because he did not make any trouble. Ron was invisible to the police, and to many others. My last hope was the security guard at the bank in the back of the Mall. I saw him yesterday and described Ron to him. He said, "I know that guy, I help him out when I can." But he said he hadn't seen him since January either.
So, it seems that Ron has either passed away, or moved away. Interesting, and a little sad, that homeless people can be almost invisible in our society. But they still matter, and can have an impact on others, just like Ron did with me. I hope that he is okay, and finally got to a place with a little warmer weather. Good luck, Ron!
Sunday, April 18, 2010
It Is Not Okay to Advocate Overthrowing the Government - In Fact It Is a Crime
It is a crime to commit sedition, or to advocate the overthrow of the Government. Following is the text of these two Federal crimes punishable by 20 years in prison. I will be conducting analysis of comments made by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and others to see if they have violated these laws. Of course, in the case of the above-named, since the statute requires that the person make their statements "knowingly and willfully," they may be able to defend themselves from criminal prosecution by claiming diminished mental capacity. More to follow...
Title 18, United States Code, § 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Title 18, United States Code, § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
Title 18, United States Code, § 2384. Seditious conspiracy
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
Title 18, United States Code, § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government
Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
As used in this section, the terms “organizes” and “organize”, with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.
Saturday, April 17, 2010
Words Do Matter!
Former President Bill Clinton made some insightful comments about the rising level of political discourse in the country, which is good, but cautions against losing the notion of those comments being offered without retaining a sense of responsiblity. The following summary comes from the AP:
Clinton alludes to 1995 bombing, says words matter
Apr 16, 7:04 PM (ET)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, saying "the words we use really do matter."
The two-term Democratic president insisted he wasn't trying to restrict free speech, but in remarks Friday he said incendiary language can be taken the wrong way by some Americans. He drew parallels to words demonizing the government before Oklahoma City.
On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh exploded a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.
"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.
"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."
Clinton made the remarks at events sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund on the upcoming anniversary of the bombing.
He mentioned the rancorous fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Passage of the law elicited threats against some lawmakers.
"I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled," he said.
He also alluded to the anti-government tea party movement, which held protests in several states Thursday. At the Washington rally, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota railed against "gangster government."
Clinton argued that the Boston Tea Party was in response to taxation without representation. The current protesters, he said, are challenging taxation by elected officials, and the demonstrators have the power to vote them out of office.
"By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing," he said. "But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City."
Clinton alludes to 1995 bombing, says words matter
Apr 16, 7:04 PM (ET)
WASHINGTON (AP) - Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, saying "the words we use really do matter."
The two-term Democratic president insisted he wasn't trying to restrict free speech, but in remarks Friday he said incendiary language can be taken the wrong way by some Americans. He drew parallels to words demonizing the government before Oklahoma City.
On April 19, 1995, an anti-government conspiracy led by Army veteran Timothy McVeigh exploded a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people.
"What we learned from Oklahoma City is not that we should gag each other or that we should reduce our passion for the positions we hold - but that the words we use really do matter, because there's this vast echo chamber, and they go across space and they fall on the serious and the delirious alike. They fall on the connected and the unhinged alike," he said.
"One of the things that the conservatives have always brought to the table in America is a reminder that no law can replace personal responsibility. And the more power you have and the more influence you have, the more responsibility you have."
Clinton made the remarks at events sponsored by the Center for American Progress Action Fund on the upcoming anniversary of the bombing.
He mentioned the rancorous fight over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. Passage of the law elicited threats against some lawmakers.
"I'm glad they're fighting over health care and everything else. Let them have at it. But I think that all you have to do is read the paper every day to see how many people there are who are deeply, deeply troubled," he said.
He also alluded to the anti-government tea party movement, which held protests in several states Thursday. At the Washington rally, Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota railed against "gangster government."
Clinton argued that the Boston Tea Party was in response to taxation without representation. The current protesters, he said, are challenging taxation by elected officials, and the demonstrators have the power to vote them out of office.
"By all means keep fighting, by all means, keep arguing," he said. "But remember, words have consequences as much as actions do, and what we advocate, commensurate with our position and responsibility, we have to take responsibility for. We owe that to Oklahoma City."
Friday, April 16, 2010
President Obama Does the Right Thing, Again!
Can you imagine what it would be like to spend your entire life with your spouse, then, when he or she faces death in a hospital, you are blocked from being there with them? President Obama removed that awful possibility yesterday when he announced his new policy that hospitals receiving Federal funds are prohibited from banning same sex partners to be at the side of those partners when they face death and the most important decisions about healthcare. It is hard to believe, but there are still cases where partners have been blocked from being with their loved ones by hospitals as they lay critical and/or near death.
Here is a fascinating story in the Miami Herald regarding just such a tragedy:
Gay rights are human rights
BY JOANNA GROVER
Imagine having only five minutes to say goodbye to your dying husband or wife of nearly two decades. Imagine being a 10-year-old girl and being physically blocked from saying a last, ``I love you,'' to your mother, who is just down the hall at the hospital. This may sound unconscionable, but it happened, just as described, to the Langbehn-Pond family at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami.
As reported in The Miami Herald by Steve Rothaus, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the lawsuit filed against Jackson Memorial Hospital by the family. (The Court agreed with the hospital's extreme position that they had no obligation to allow any visitors to any patients.) As a society, we should not dismiss it. Their story is about the fragility of human rights. It underscores how vulnerable and unprotected gay people are in society.
Lisa Marie Pond and Janice Langbehn were together for 18 years, the majority of their adult lives. They were two moms raising four children. They were a loving family.
In honor of their anniversary, Janice surprised her family with a cruise. On February 18, 2007 they boarded the Norwegian Jewel in the Port of Miami. Shortly after boarding, Lisa, a healthy 39-year-old, suffered a brain aneurysm and had to be rushed to a local hospital.
The admitting clerk and a hospital social worker refused to let Janice and the children see Lisa. Janice has stated that a hospital social worker told her ``that she should not expect to be provided information or access because she was in an anti-gay city and state.''
Doctors at the hospital told Janice that there was no medical reason why she could not be with Lisa. For eight grueling hours, she was repeatedly denied details and visitation. There should have been no doubt that Janice was Lisa's family, and the hospital had the legal documents with Lisa's directives.
Lisa was allegedly semi-conscious and responsive at the time of her arrival at Jackson and for several hours afterward. She had to be put in restraints because she did not have a family member with her. When a priest arrived to administer Lisa's last rites, Janice was allowed to spend five minutes holding her partner's hand.
This is a heartbreaking and inhumane story that highlights the need for tolerance and understanding over prejudice and discrimination. As a mother, a partner and a social worker, I feel deeply affected by this case particularly because the events mirror my own experiences. Coincidently, I was on that cruise with my family. It was an RFamily cruise sponsored by Rosie and Kelly O'Donnell to celebrate gay families.
Ten years ago, my life partner had a similar head trauma when we were on a family ski vacation in Colorado. She fell while snowboarding and suffered a subdural hemorrhage, the same head trauma that killed actress Natasha Richardson. The emergency-room nurse let me in without hesitation. It never crossed my mind that I might be denied access to my partner because we were gay. I was able to hold her hand as she asked me to make sure our nine-month-old son would be OK.
My partner survived. I am so sorry Lisa did not. I am horrified by what her partner and their children had to endure. She and her family will be forever in my thoughts and prayers.
Unable to make any progress with the inhumane gatekeepers at Jackson the night Lisa lay dying alone, Janice described going outside and screaming into the Miami night. I look out at that same night sky now and think of Janice.
These are Janice's own words from a speech she gave last year in California: ``No one should have been able to deny our children and [me] the ability to say goodbye to Lisa and let her know -- if only be holding her hand -- that she was so loved. That should not be a privilege in our country but a basic human right of every family regardless of how they define themselves.''
Here is a fascinating story in the Miami Herald regarding just such a tragedy:
Gay rights are human rights
BY JOANNA GROVER
Imagine having only five minutes to say goodbye to your dying husband or wife of nearly two decades. Imagine being a 10-year-old girl and being physically blocked from saying a last, ``I love you,'' to your mother, who is just down the hall at the hospital. This may sound unconscionable, but it happened, just as described, to the Langbehn-Pond family at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami.
As reported in The Miami Herald by Steve Rothaus, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed the lawsuit filed against Jackson Memorial Hospital by the family. (The Court agreed with the hospital's extreme position that they had no obligation to allow any visitors to any patients.) As a society, we should not dismiss it. Their story is about the fragility of human rights. It underscores how vulnerable and unprotected gay people are in society.
Lisa Marie Pond and Janice Langbehn were together for 18 years, the majority of their adult lives. They were two moms raising four children. They were a loving family.
In honor of their anniversary, Janice surprised her family with a cruise. On February 18, 2007 they boarded the Norwegian Jewel in the Port of Miami. Shortly after boarding, Lisa, a healthy 39-year-old, suffered a brain aneurysm and had to be rushed to a local hospital.
The admitting clerk and a hospital social worker refused to let Janice and the children see Lisa. Janice has stated that a hospital social worker told her ``that she should not expect to be provided information or access because she was in an anti-gay city and state.''
Doctors at the hospital told Janice that there was no medical reason why she could not be with Lisa. For eight grueling hours, she was repeatedly denied details and visitation. There should have been no doubt that Janice was Lisa's family, and the hospital had the legal documents with Lisa's directives.
Lisa was allegedly semi-conscious and responsive at the time of her arrival at Jackson and for several hours afterward. She had to be put in restraints because she did not have a family member with her. When a priest arrived to administer Lisa's last rites, Janice was allowed to spend five minutes holding her partner's hand.
This is a heartbreaking and inhumane story that highlights the need for tolerance and understanding over prejudice and discrimination. As a mother, a partner and a social worker, I feel deeply affected by this case particularly because the events mirror my own experiences. Coincidently, I was on that cruise with my family. It was an RFamily cruise sponsored by Rosie and Kelly O'Donnell to celebrate gay families.
Ten years ago, my life partner had a similar head trauma when we were on a family ski vacation in Colorado. She fell while snowboarding and suffered a subdural hemorrhage, the same head trauma that killed actress Natasha Richardson. The emergency-room nurse let me in without hesitation. It never crossed my mind that I might be denied access to my partner because we were gay. I was able to hold her hand as she asked me to make sure our nine-month-old son would be OK.
My partner survived. I am so sorry Lisa did not. I am horrified by what her partner and their children had to endure. She and her family will be forever in my thoughts and prayers.
Unable to make any progress with the inhumane gatekeepers at Jackson the night Lisa lay dying alone, Janice described going outside and screaming into the Miami night. I look out at that same night sky now and think of Janice.
These are Janice's own words from a speech she gave last year in California: ``No one should have been able to deny our children and [me] the ability to say goodbye to Lisa and let her know -- if only be holding her hand -- that she was so loved. That should not be a privilege in our country but a basic human right of every family regardless of how they define themselves.''
Governor Crist of Florida Stands Up for Public Education
Governor Crist (R) of Florida seems to have committed a rare act of political courage yesterday when he vetoed SB6, the education reform bill. He took this action although he is locked in a rough primary campaign with Marco Rubio for US Senate and this all but assures his defeat in that race.
SB6 was an unusually bad bill with 4 main issues:
1) Under the cover of tenure reform, it essentially eliminated tenure, and, in fact, eliminated all job security for new teachers hired in Florida. Teachers hired after July 1 would be on 12 month renewable contracts for their entire career. Existing teachers would suffer extreme cutbacks in their job security. This would almost assure teacher flight to other states or private schools.
2) Teachers would be evaluated and compensated based on "student improvement." This would allegedly have been calculated by end of year test scores, but the bill failed to establish a starting point. Kind of a basic math oversight.
3) The student tests do not exist, so each county school board was going to be assessed a 5% fee that would go to Tallahassee to develop the tests. In the case of already cash-strapped school districts, this could amount to as much as $150 million per year (Miami-Dade).
4) It was pushed through the legislature with almost no debate. One third of Republicans, and all Democrats, voted against it.
Polls have shown that up to 85% of Floridians were opposed to the bill, even Republicans were against it 3-1. However, Jeb Bush and other party leaders, including Bill McCollum who is running for Governor, were supporters, although no one knows why. They claim they are for the students, but the bill seemed to be just the opposite.
The St. Pete Times editorial on this issue is interesting:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1087775.ece
SB6 was an unusually bad bill with 4 main issues:
1) Under the cover of tenure reform, it essentially eliminated tenure, and, in fact, eliminated all job security for new teachers hired in Florida. Teachers hired after July 1 would be on 12 month renewable contracts for their entire career. Existing teachers would suffer extreme cutbacks in their job security. This would almost assure teacher flight to other states or private schools.
2) Teachers would be evaluated and compensated based on "student improvement." This would allegedly have been calculated by end of year test scores, but the bill failed to establish a starting point. Kind of a basic math oversight.
3) The student tests do not exist, so each county school board was going to be assessed a 5% fee that would go to Tallahassee to develop the tests. In the case of already cash-strapped school districts, this could amount to as much as $150 million per year (Miami-Dade).
4) It was pushed through the legislature with almost no debate. One third of Republicans, and all Democrats, voted against it.
Polls have shown that up to 85% of Floridians were opposed to the bill, even Republicans were against it 3-1. However, Jeb Bush and other party leaders, including Bill McCollum who is running for Governor, were supporters, although no one knows why. They claim they are for the students, but the bill seemed to be just the opposite.
The St. Pete Times editorial on this issue is interesting:
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/article1087775.ece
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
