Is this what a TEA Party activist’s dream world looks like?

This past Thursday, September 17th, TEA Partiers gathered in Lynchburg and in other communities across the nation in honor of “Constitution Day,” to make a symbolic point as they continue to press their anti-tax, less government stance. There is no question that our national debt is massive and we cannot continue to live beyond our means. But, for all the anger and the animosity being fired at President Obama and Congressional Democrats, why are they standing so close to the ones that are the most responsible for our current financial situation?

Cutting taxes for the wealthiest and then engaging in deficit spending during non-recession years started with Ronald Regan. This approach to financing our Federal Government has ballooned our national debt to the levels they are at today. It continued with George H. W. Bush and was only slowed temporarily by the Clinton Administration. During the Clinton years, the size of government was reduced and the amount the Federal Government spent went down as well. In turn, we saw several years of budget surpluses that helped cut into the national debt. Then conservatives and anti-tax advocates had this notion that if there’s a budget surplus then it must mean that taxes are too high and there is no other debt to pay off.

Republicans pretty much had control of the Federal Government from 2001 to 2007 (when the Bush Administration was sworn in to the time that Democrats officially took control). So, it’s pretty misleading when activist groups like the TEA-Baggers put all this on the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats when the ones standing closest to them (Republicans and Free Market Conservatives) are the most responsible for the economic mess that we are in. Now how does this all fit with a possible, and from all accounts probable, dream world for TEA Party activists?

In the Ohio School District that covers Grove City, the normal sounds on Friday nights these days are the sound of passing cars on the road and chirping crickets at the local High School Football stadium. Grove City is notorious for fighting any tax increase. This is no dream world; this is reality for this working class community. The town voted for a third time in August in a referendum to increase the operating levy for the School District. For a third time, they levy failed to pass and the School Board took the next step – elimination of all extra-curricular activities. This paragraph from the article sums it up best:

The issue has turned neighbor against neighbor and caused shouting matches at school board meetings and on street corners. Those who oppose the levy argue that the district should find a more efficient way to spend the money it already has instead of asking for more tax dollars. The anti-levy crusaders appear to be the majority, evidenced by the fact that the levy already has been voted down three times. Those who support the levy warn that if the district doesn't offer a full program that includes a quality education and extra-curricular activities, parents will leave for another district that does. They also fear that another no vote will force the school board to slice into academic programs, which could trigger a mass exodus. That, they argue, would further erode the tax base and rob South-Western of many of its brightest students. To the pro-levy side, the Nov. 3 vote is nothing short of a referendum on the future of the community.

The situation in Grove City, Ohio should serve as an example of what happens when we don’t fully fund things like schools. Our tax dollars fund programs and services, like schools and infrastructure. I think it’s fair to debate how tax money is being spent. But, to hear the TEA Party activist rail on about being Taxed Enough Already, it’s like the Federal Government is taking every dime they have and they’re out on the streets. What are they really saying? Are they against increasing taxes or opposed to all taxes?

Regardless, taxes serve a purpose and when voters refuse to address critical funding issues that support the common good, the end result is what Grove City, Ohio is going through right now - cutting extra-curricular activities like sports as well as Student Government which helps develop civic skills in our young people. It also makes the community less attractive to potential residents, businesses and industries. Do TEA Baggers support killing communities because they feel they are Taxed Enough Already? I hope not.

Picture found at: https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtbuboOHV9ZLzqZJCpeBN2DvwS-LoOkXKbCKQwuSUFjJ8hDoMErCprDn1Eqi6NxOfS-RBdfmMcFyGhNiRovnWyqDKWzp7tohLxs1e5LVpcbfiAew69rDj73qG_lXNqdqM_9mWlq6ecSS8/s400/Baton+Rouge+High+50.jpg

Bold idea: Revisiting Federal Tax Rates of the 1950's and 1960's

This is without a doubt, one of the bravest and boldest suggestions by someone who knows something about business. In an op-ed in today's Roanoke Times, Virginia Tech Finance Professor G. Rodney Thompson suggest that we take a look at raising the top Federal Tax Rate address our National Debt and pay for Healthcare Reform and the laundry list of other things that we have been putting off for far too long. While he doesn't suggest the raising the top Federal Tax rate to the 75 to 92% range that existed during this period, but increasing the top Federal Tax rate to the 50 - 60% level should be more than enough.

There are some things that need to be mentioned that factor into the nation's success during this period. While he does point out that our GDP was consistently over 3.0% during this period, and we were a much bolder nation that didn't complain about taking on a collective challenge that would benefit the common good [Eisenhower Interstate System and the Space Program that put us on the Moon], other things that he doesn't mention is that Organized Labor was much stronger during this period and individual savings rates were much, much higher. This led to the creation of the middle class that we had until the "Great Recession" and also more people were in college and universities than ever before.

We did have significant social challenges, which Professor Thompson points out, but we were not in debt to anyone. Isn't it ironic that when the Regan Era was ushered in and top Federal Tax Rates were cut, that we also saw our national deficit, budget deficits, and personal debt balloon? Something worth thinking about...

Controversy Over: Stem Cells in Fat can be recycled!

Scientists at Stanford may have ended the stem cell debate, solved our national obesity epidemic, and helped cut diabetes all at the same time. It seems that the stem cells in our fat can probably be used for just about anything that the body needs. Still some more work to be done to determine just what that is, but this finding should put the embryonic stem cell controversy to bed. Fat cells can be "coached" to develop into heart tissue and possibly limbs.

Wow! Who would have ever thought that liposuction would be the foundation industry that gave rise to other medical industries. Those self-absorbed Hollywood liberals were on to something. Recycle your fat and save a life!

Picture found at: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autobloggreen.com/media/2006/12/51341761.jpg

Hide your children from the President's Socialist Propaganda: Work Hard, Stay in School

This is absolutely absurd. Bush 41 addressed school children during school hours during his first (and only) term, and there wasn't this kink of uproar. There is no indoctrination here. It's not like Obama is staging a photo-op like Saddam or Kim Jong Il to show how much they are loved by the people, or parading tanks and infantry down Pennsylvania Ave like the Soviets did in front of the Kremlin.

There are numerous studies that show people's perception of darker complected skin colors is of suspicion and mistrust. We have a dark complected President for he first time in our Nation's history and the rhetoric coming out of Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz is "I don't trust this guy!" If we had a white President, would this even be a story or be this level of mistrust or suspicion of the President and his motives? I think not.

I had a conversation with a family member over a online petition to stop Government Run Health Care. I replied that this was total crap and I wasn't going to participate and I proceeded to chastise this member of my family for pushing this stuff. Long story short, I went through the whole list of how the Health Insurance Industry and the status quo was totally unsustainable and that there was little truth to the things they were regurgitating from Conservatives and Private Health Care (opponents) talking points against real Health Care Reform.

I posed the following questions to them to see what aspects of national common good they would do away with to "save" our nation from socialism:

Should we totally dismantle Public Education and only educate people that can afford to pay for Private Schools? Should we only build roads that are paid for by private companies and they charge tolls for their usage? Should we only allow private security firms to take charge of our community policing? Should we trust utilities and pharmaceuticals to do the right thing and not monitor if they are polluting our water and air or putting drugs on the market that have not been tested to see if they are safe?

They agreed with me on all these questions, that doing away with all this stuff would be a bad idea. But, then they said that Obama was "shady and slippery as hell." They don't trust him. I go back to what I said at the beginning - There are numerous studies that show people's perception of darker complected skin colors is of suspicion and mistrust. We have a dark complected President for he first time in our Nation's history and the rhetoric coming out of Fox News, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Neal Bortz is "I don't trust this guy!" If we had a white President, would this even be a story or be this level of mistrust or suspicion of the President and his motives? Coincidence? Ironic?

Again, I go back to Dick Cheney's roll in the CIA Terror Suspects "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques. If Bush (43) had continued to listen to Cheney, the First, Forth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Amendment would have totally been erased from the Constitution, all in the name of National Security and fighting terrorism. Thank god that GWB finally figured out that Cheney was trying to shred the Constitution.

So, how is detaining and questioning suspected terrorist a threat to the Bill of Rights? In the name of National Security, anyone (even natural born Americans) could be accused of supporting terrorism if they spoke out against the Government or questionable policies (possibly, but that wouldn't happen in this country). When people are not feeling financially secure, spreading mis-information and governing by fear is much easier.

So parents, you have more to fear from Dick Cheney's attempt to shred the Bill of Rights and governing by fear than the "Work hard, stay in school" capitalist message of indoctrination from President Obama. All of this misplaced fear and mistrust of Obama is firmly rooted in bigotry. People need to grow up.

Picture found at: http://fratres.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/socialism1.jpg

Pick you poison: Trading liberty for security or the “Public Option”

As we continue to argue amongst ourselves about Federal Government’s role in healthcare - the proposed “Public Option,” reforming the Private Health Insurance industry, rationing healthcare [private health care rationing or Federal Government rationing] - the one intrusion by the Federal Government that should be scaring every American but seems to be OK with many, are human rights abuses of terror suspects all in the name of National Security. For many people, abusing and torturing suspected Terrorists is just fine and should be done as often as possible. But, the key word in the last sentence is “suspected.”

But why is roughin’ up suspected terrorists such a big deal? Don’t they deserve it for the 9/11 Terrorists Attacks on New York and Washington, D.C.? Terrorists don’t treat our people like they are staying at a Ritz Carlton, so why shouldn’t we treat them the same way? Why should the average American fear the Federal Government more as it relates to the way the CIA interrogates suspected Terrorist than fearing more government in health care reform?

In my mind, there is one simple reason why we should fear how our government treats criminal suspects. It puts us only a few steps away from doing the very same thing to our own citizens [which some would argue already happens]. Whether we realize it or not, the United States Federal Government, the very government that we either support or don’t, already has access to our financial records, driving records, criminal records, health records, and can monitor/listen in on our calls, emails and the web sites we visit every day.

Private Health Insurance and other private businesses that make billions from the current system are playing off the fear of “Big Brother” to stall or kill any reforms to a private health care system that already rations care to the healthiest and wealthiest. Health Insurance premiums continue to increase at unsustainable rates and millions of dollars from those premiums go to lobbying against any health care reforms, as well as CEO pay and bonuses.

Private Health Insurance administrative costs are massive compared to Medicaid and Medicare, which is around 2 to 3% compared to the average of 25% for private health insurance administration. They are fighting like hell to kill the proposed “Public Option” because it will cost the private health insurance industry billions and force them to actually provide coverage to everyone, regardless of pre-existing conditions. But, has the private health insurance industry actually provided a good, quality product that is cost effective and competitive in the free market? If it had, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

But back to what we should really fear: Federal Government listening in on your phone conversations, reading your email, monitoring the web sites you frequent, all in the name of “National Security.” I keep coming back to Ben Franklin’s quote: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” The CIA broke the law and that is why the United States Attorney General is moving in the direction of prosecuting those that authorized enhanced interrogation techniques on suspected terrorists that may or may not have produced reliable intelligence. Former Vice President Dick Cheney can complain all he wants, but he’s a supporter of strictly interpreting the United States Constitution so he shouldn’t have anything to worry about if he wasn’t involved.

Delegate Hamilton and ODU: AH HA! I knew this one stunk to high heaven!

And the truth comes out. As I posted back on August 1st when questions surfaced about the relationship between the powerful Republican House of Delegates Appropriations Committee Vice Chairman, Delegate Phillip Hamilton, and Old Dominion University over a $500,000 state appropriation for ODU's Darden College of Education, that something didn't smell right about this relationship. Back in 2007 Delegate Hamilton sponsored the $500,000 budget amendment that helped fund the ODU teacher training center on the Peninsula. Shortly thereafter, he was awarded a $40,000 per year contract by ODU that came out of that money. Both Delegate Hamilton and ODU President John Broderick denied any inappropriate relationship or "quid pro quo."

According to the Virginian Pilot and recently obtained emails through their FIOA (Freedom of Information Act) request, it is very clear that there was an expectation from Delegate Hamilton to be compensated for his work to obtain the $500,000 in state funding. ODU has now severed it's ties and terminated the contract with House of Delegate's Member Phillip Hamilton (R-Newport News). Hamilton is in a hotly contested race with local attorney and House District 93 Democratic Candidate Robin Abbott.

Now, in all fairness, this deal was cut before John Broderick took over from Rosann Runte as President of Old Dominion University. The nail in the coffin for Delegate Hamilton might be this excerpt:

On Feb. 26, 2007, Hamilton wrote that the center would receive $500,000 in fiscal 2008 and added: "Currently, my part-time salary with NNPS is around $37,000. I need at least that amount from the ODU Foundation to have a part-time salary of $75,000 per year. Of course, more than that is always appreciated."

NNPS is Newport News Public Schools. What Delegate Hamilton has done here is violate General Assembly ethics rules and state conflict of interest laws, that forbid Legislators from benefiting financially for services performed from the work they do in the General Assembly. It is clear from the email that the Virginian Pilot obtained, that Delegate Hamilton's assertion back in July that he did nothing wrong was a lie.

Let's see how fast Hamilton drops out of the race, the rats flee the sinking ship, and the Republicans scramble to find another candidate to run in this heavily Democratic District. It will also be interesting to see if the House of Delegates GOP Leadership asks Hamilton to resign his seat. According to the Virginian Pilot, a violation of state conflict of interest laws is a misdemeanor that carries a one year jail term and a $2,500 fine.

Healthcare Reform: AP reports Sarah Palin ABSOLUTELY WRONG about "Death Panels"

While this is an Associated Press story by Richard Alonso-Zaldivar from yesterday, August 11th, this story was front and center on the Lynchburg News Advance web site as of last night. The News Advance doesn't go out of their way very often to highlight obvious falsehoods or do a great deal of investigative reporting, but they went out on a limb this time, so good for them.

The Healthcare Reform debate is bringing out all the anti-government, xenophobic, anti-tax, Tea Baggers, Birthers, and of course the propaganda machines of the Health Insurance Industry. They will be the big losers if real competition is injected into the Health Care System.

One thing to keep in mind when the cries go out from the private sector that there is no way to compete with the Federal Government. Just point to how well FEDEX, UPS, and all the other overnight delivery companies have been able to compete against the United States Postal Service, which is withering away faster than a slug on US 29 in August. Here is the story as printed in the Lynchburg News Advance:

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR
Associated Press
Published: August 11, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP)—Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin says the health care overhaul bill would set up a “death panel.“ Federal bureaucrats would play God, ruling on whether ailing seniors are worth enough to society to deserve life-sustaining medical care. Palin and other critics are wrong.

Nothing in the legislation would carry out such a bleak vision. The provision that has caused the uproar would instead authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, if the patient wishes. Here are some questions and answers on the controversy:

Q: Does the health care legislation bill promote “mercy killing,“or euthanasia?

A: No.

Q: Then what’s all the fuss about?

A: A provision in the House bill written by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would allow Medicare to pay doctors for voluntary counseling sessions that address end-of-life issues. The conversations between doctor and patient would include living wills, making a close relative or a trusted friend your health care proxy, learning about hospice as an option for the terminally ill, and information about pain medications for people suffering chronic discomfort.

The sessions would be covered every five years, more frequently if someone is gravely ill.

Q: Is anything required?

Monsignor Charles Fahey, 76, a Catholic priest who is chairman of the board of the National Council on Aging, a nonprofit service and advocacy group, says no.

“We have to make decisions that are deliberative about our health care at every moment,“ Fahey said. “What I have said is that if I cannot say another prayer, if I cannot give or get another hug, and if I cannot have another martini - then let me go.“

Q: Does the bill advocate assisted suicide?

A: No. It would block funds for counseling that presents suicide or assisted suicide as an option.

Q: Who supports the provision?

A: The American Medical Association, the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization and Consumers Union are among the groups supporting the provision. AARP, the seniors’ lobby, is taking out print advertisements this week that label as false the claim that the legislation will empower the government to take over life-and-death decisions from individuals.

Q: Should the federal government be getting involved with living wills and end-of-life questions - decisions that are highly personal and really difficult?

A: It already is.

The government requires hospitals to ask adult patients if they have a living will, or “advance directive.“ If the patient doesn’t have one, and wants one, the hospital has to provide assistance. The mandate on hospitals was instituted during a Republican administration, in 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.

Q: How does a living will work, and how is it different from a health care proxy?

A: A living will - also called an advance directive - spells out a patient’s wishes if he or she becomes incapacitated. Often people say they don’t want to be kept alive on breathing machines if their condition is terminal and irreversible.

A health care proxy empowers another person to make medical decisions should the patient become incapacitated.

There’s also a power-of-attorney, which authorizes another person to make financial decisions for someone who is incapacitated.

Such legal documents have become standard estate-planning tools in the last twenty years.

Q: Would the health overhaul legislation change the way people now deal with making end-of-life decisions?

A: It very well could.

Supporters of the provision say the main consequence would be to formally bring doctors into a discussion that now takes place mainly among family members and lawyers.

“When you execute a legal document with your lawyer, it ends up in your files and in the lawyer’s files,“ said John Rother, a senior policy and strategy adviser for AARP. “Unless the doctor is part of this discussion, it’s unlikely that your wishes will be respected. The doctor will be the one involved in any decisions.“

The American Medical Association says involving doctors is simple common sense.

“There has been a lot of misinformation about the advance care planning provisions in the bill,“ AMA President Dr. James Rohack said in a statement. “It’s plain, old-fashioned medical care.“

Q: So why are some people upset?

Some social conservatives say stronger language is needed to protect seniors from being pressured into signing away their rights to medical treatment in a moment of depression or despair.

The National Right to Life Committee opposes the provision as written.

“I’m not aware of ‘death panels’ in the bill,“ said David O’Steen, executive director of the group. “I’m not aware of anything that says you will be hauled before a government bureaucrat. But we are concerned ... it doesn’t take a lot to push a vulnerable person - perhaps unwittingly - to give up their right to life-sustaining treatment.“

The White House says it is countering false claims with a “reality check” page on its Web site, http://www.whitehouse.gov .

Right now, Democrats, the Obama Administration, every progressive group and social justice organization are getting their teeth kicked in by opponents to meaningful Healthcare Reform. It's time to take off the gloves and bear some teeth. PUSH BACK, AND PUSH BACK HARD. Opponents are hanging Congressional Members in effigy and making banners, posters, billboard with President Obama in Nazi uniforms and Swastikas. Come on!

When people are scared and uncertain about change, they will listen to the craziest propaganda and revert to bigoted and marginalizing behaviors. SPREAD THE TRUTH, KILL THE LIES ABOUT HEATHCARE REFORM.