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!"
Sunday, October 17, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
