I am sure that I was not the only person surprised by Romney's VP pick. Everything led to a softer, safer choice. So the news that Paul Ryan was the running mate was a little shocking. Many bloggers and TV pundits will be examining why Romney chose someone who will outshine him, but I will just give a quick thought on that and then move on to how Ryan is good for Romney.
Romney is reluctant to come out strong on any issue, this is damaging to his bid for the white house, so he needed someone who had a strong stance.
Ryan's place on the house budget committee, coupled with his budget, will tie Tea Party supporters even more tightly to the Romney ticket. Those Tea Party members who would have decided to not vote rather than vote Romney, will now come out and vote for Ryan. This election is now, not Romney v Obama, for many people it is now Obama v Ryan. Like GW Bush, Romney now has a strong running mate that gives his candidacy life and personality.
Ryan will bring vigor and life to this campaign. He is extremely popular among young Republicans, he even excites those college students who find themselves drawn to selfishness and blind ambition. Those who see college, not as a chance to challenge the vies of their parents and find their own way to think, but as a stepping stone to the life of self propelled success.
Ryan is popular with a large number of independent voters as well. He will bring voters to the polls in November. What the Republicans might lose in older voters, they will more than make up for in younger voters. This election could be won the same way that the '08 election was, by energized young voters who will vote for an ideal larger than themselves.
That ideal is a drastic departure from that held by Obama supporters, but it is being embraced all the same.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
Fair wages for persons with disabilities
A few months ago I wrote my house rep about a bill that is going to be voted on. The bill would insure that disabled employees would get paid the Federal minimum wage for work that they do. Mr. Bishop wrote me back to say that he could not support the bill because it would limit a company's ability to train disabled employees. So what he is saying is that in order to train disabled people so that they can one day earn minimum wage, companies must first benefit from their slave labor. He claimed that businesses would not be able to "help" the disabled if they had to pay them a fair wage. He claims that this 'unintended" consequence is the reason he cannot support raising wages for a fifth of the population. What he doesn't seem to understand is that ending this so called flexibility that companies have is the entire intent of the bill.
For Rob Bishop to defend the rights of a company to pay people a sub standard wage rather than defend the rights of one in five persons to get paid the minimum wage is upsetting to say the least.
I urge all who read this to contact your house rep in support of workers rights. The bill is HB 3086 As long as companies are allowed to use the disabled as slave labor more of us will never find a way out of poverty.
For Rob Bishop to defend the rights of a company to pay people a sub standard wage rather than defend the rights of one in five persons to get paid the minimum wage is upsetting to say the least.
I urge all who read this to contact your house rep in support of workers rights. The bill is HB 3086 As long as companies are allowed to use the disabled as slave labor more of us will never find a way out of poverty.
Saturday, July 21, 2012
Gun control avoidance
Like almost everyone I was horror stricken when I heard about the mass shooting in Colorado. When something like this happens the media asks a lot of questions, but one that they didn't ask right away was this; why does any person who is sane and reasonable need an assault riffle? I want someone to tell me when a gun that can spray hundreds of bullets before needing to be reloaded would be needed by anyone in a private home. I want someone to tell me why any person would defend the right to own such guns.
Now, I know the canned answer. That tired line "guns don't kill people." Okay, but a lot more people die as a result of guns in America than in any other developed nation. It seems to me that the NRA wont be happy until we are like Africa, bands of armed people roaming the streets.
Instead of talking about the merits of the assault weapons ban, the media seems to be asking all the wrong questions. Looking for any thing else to blame so that they don't have to look at the terrorist type weapons and accessories that this shooter had.
To be clear, I am not anti guns. I am pro smart ownership and rules that make sense.
Look it up, and you will find that no civilian has used an assault rifle to save a life.
I am not talking about ill thought out reactionary regulations, but does that mean that we as a people are not allowed to talk about gun control at all.
James Madison said that a right is only a right until it infringe's on someone else s rights. Asking gun owners to act in a manor that allows everyone around them to feel safe, and that just might cut down on how many people are shot when something horrible like this happens, is not only fair it is responsible.
These things will still happen until we as a nation address the core causes, but taking away easy access to massive amounts of ammo can't hurt.
Now, I know the canned answer. That tired line "guns don't kill people." Okay, but a lot more people die as a result of guns in America than in any other developed nation. It seems to me that the NRA wont be happy until we are like Africa, bands of armed people roaming the streets.
Instead of talking about the merits of the assault weapons ban, the media seems to be asking all the wrong questions. Looking for any thing else to blame so that they don't have to look at the terrorist type weapons and accessories that this shooter had.
To be clear, I am not anti guns. I am pro smart ownership and rules that make sense.
Look it up, and you will find that no civilian has used an assault rifle to save a life.
I am not talking about ill thought out reactionary regulations, but does that mean that we as a people are not allowed to talk about gun control at all.
James Madison said that a right is only a right until it infringe's on someone else s rights. Asking gun owners to act in a manor that allows everyone around them to feel safe, and that just might cut down on how many people are shot when something horrible like this happens, is not only fair it is responsible.
These things will still happen until we as a nation address the core causes, but taking away easy access to massive amounts of ammo can't hurt.
Sunday, July 1, 2012
The affordable care act upheld
Like all other supporters of health care reform I was more than just pleased when the PPACA was upheld. There is a lot of talk about the impact of this law on business growth, and this talk is important. In France companies stay small so that they will not have to abide by that nations many regulations, the thought is that companies in the U.S will do the same.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
That is a concern that should not be ignored, but the intended consequences of this landmark legislation should not be lost among fears of what companies will or will not do.
Children are allowed to remain on their parents insurance.
Children with pre existing conditions cannot be denied insurance. Adults will no longer be denied in 1214.
Medicaid expansion will bring back lost coverage for millions. The caveat to that is this: states are allowed to refuse to participate in expanded Medicaid. This seems bad, but in states like Utah that are going to refuse this program, they will not lose Medicaid funding for not doing so. The way the law was originally written states who refused expanded Medicaid would have lost federal funding. Utah had already made it clear that they were willing to steal insurance from thousands of citizens rather than participate in the PPACA. So now if Utah still refuses at least people will not lose any insurance, for now. There are groups fiercely fighting to make sure that Utah accepts these expanded funds.
The Supreme Court decision is not the end. Orin Hatch is still fighting a provision that would allow disabled people who need assistance with daily tasks to stay at home using Hospice care instead of living in expensive nursing homes.
The decision of the high court does make provisions inn the Health Care law legitimate, so opponents like Hatch will have a harder time fighting against it. That is, if people write him and express their feelings.
This is not the end, but it is a bright spot in a dark year.
Sunday, June 17, 2012
The next gen Republican
Tonight the Utah Fox news affiliate profiled the man who is hoping to replace Orin Hatch in the U.S. Senate. Dan Liljenquist, served in the Utah legislature and was the leader in the successful weakening of Medicaid coverage, he pushed for the cap on Medicaid spending. He believes that giving affordable health insurance to people is against the constitution. I really don't need to go on, it's the same tired story re told here in Utah. What I want to do is ask a few questions of this new Republican party. I am very confused by the mixed messages they send out.
For Republicans like Dan L the government has no place helping its people with anything other than military power. In the constitution it states that the government has been given non specific powers to see to the "general welfare" of the people. This leads me to question #1 Do you really think that former presidents presided over a nation whose poor were well taken care of by charities?
Our social programs came about because of a great need, that need is even greater today because of a capitalist system that has gone out of control. Employees wages are not increasing, yet cost of living is.
#2 If we turn everything over to charity, will they be able to refuse services to people?
This seems like a direct violation of civil rights.
#3 If our nation is built on Christian principles, and Christ gave to the poor than why the f**k are you so opposed to socialized medicine?
See the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not invest in the health of its people. Why? because the party of God and family thinks that it is wrong to do so.
Dan L is hoping to replace Orin Hatch, a man who created a state run insurance program, which is good, but who opposes letting Medicaid patients choose their treatment options, which is bad.
I really don't know what to hope for in this election. Do I hope Dan wins because he will have little power in the Senate, or do I root for Orin and bank on him being reasonable once he is re elected?
For Republicans like Dan L the government has no place helping its people with anything other than military power. In the constitution it states that the government has been given non specific powers to see to the "general welfare" of the people. This leads me to question #1 Do you really think that former presidents presided over a nation whose poor were well taken care of by charities?
Our social programs came about because of a great need, that need is even greater today because of a capitalist system that has gone out of control. Employees wages are not increasing, yet cost of living is.
#2 If we turn everything over to charity, will they be able to refuse services to people?
This seems like a direct violation of civil rights.
#3 If our nation is built on Christian principles, and Christ gave to the poor than why the f**k are you so opposed to socialized medicine?
See the United States is the only industrialized nation that does not invest in the health of its people. Why? because the party of God and family thinks that it is wrong to do so.
Dan L is hoping to replace Orin Hatch, a man who created a state run insurance program, which is good, but who opposes letting Medicaid patients choose their treatment options, which is bad.
I really don't know what to hope for in this election. Do I hope Dan wins because he will have little power in the Senate, or do I root for Orin and bank on him being reasonable once he is re elected?
Deportation reform
For those of us who support Obama it has been a tough couple of years. We have watched him act the gentleman in the face of Republican childish obstinacy. We have felt frustration at Obama's reluctance to use the power granted him to combat stalemates in Congress. Well the wait is over, earlier this week Obama got his balls back.
For years now America has said that government needs to enact immigration reform, Congress has stalled on the Dream Act which has a strong level of support from Americans. So Obama used the DHS, that's the Department of Homeland Security, to alter how they prioritize deportations. This in effect enacted part of the dream act, the part that is most popular with America, the part that says children who know no other country will not be deported based on the crimes of their parents. For Obama supporters this is a big deal, but it is a bigger deal for the cause of humanity. What the head of homeland security, and the president have said is that children who we can easily find; because they are working, going to school, or have served in the military, should not be thrown out of the only home they have known. Instead the deportations will focus on people who add to the problems of this country, those who have committed crimes.
Now Republicans are all up in arms about this "amnesty", they are saying that allowing people who came here illegally to apply for work visas is wrong. They say it is rewarding bad behavior. Well considering that the bad behavior was not that of the infant in arms their argument, predictably, is nonsense.
This is a proud moment for human decency, thank you Mr. President.
For years now America has said that government needs to enact immigration reform, Congress has stalled on the Dream Act which has a strong level of support from Americans. So Obama used the DHS, that's the Department of Homeland Security, to alter how they prioritize deportations. This in effect enacted part of the dream act, the part that is most popular with America, the part that says children who know no other country will not be deported based on the crimes of their parents. For Obama supporters this is a big deal, but it is a bigger deal for the cause of humanity. What the head of homeland security, and the president have said is that children who we can easily find; because they are working, going to school, or have served in the military, should not be thrown out of the only home they have known. Instead the deportations will focus on people who add to the problems of this country, those who have committed crimes.
Now Republicans are all up in arms about this "amnesty", they are saying that allowing people who came here illegally to apply for work visas is wrong. They say it is rewarding bad behavior. Well considering that the bad behavior was not that of the infant in arms their argument, predictably, is nonsense.
This is a proud moment for human decency, thank you Mr. President.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Romney's education promise.
Today Mitt Romney spoke to a group of Latino small business owners. Among the topics he discussed with them was education. Romney said that some U.S. students receive a third world education, and that minority students were the most likely to be under educated.
I have to give the Romney camp credit for stating an actual point of fact. Fact are hard for this candidate to grasp so, good job.
Romney said that the solution to this problem was to allow federal dollars to follow each student rather than be given to states to allocate. The logistics of this plan are a nightmare, but that is not why I am writing about this. A few months ago Romney was overheard at a campaign event telling rich donors that if elected to office he would eliminate the department of education. He said that each state should handle its own education needs, and that the federal government had no place in education. Yet today he told prospective supporters that poor, and disabled children should be given a chance to go to any school they want, funded by the department of education.
It is easy for Romney to talk up the uses of education spending to people who use the public school system, and then tell rich donors that he will get rid of such spending, because he is a wind sock candidate. Romney will pander to each audience and will in the end lean to the side with the most money.
Please vote wisely.
I have to give the Romney camp credit for stating an actual point of fact. Fact are hard for this candidate to grasp so, good job.
Romney said that the solution to this problem was to allow federal dollars to follow each student rather than be given to states to allocate. The logistics of this plan are a nightmare, but that is not why I am writing about this. A few months ago Romney was overheard at a campaign event telling rich donors that if elected to office he would eliminate the department of education. He said that each state should handle its own education needs, and that the federal government had no place in education. Yet today he told prospective supporters that poor, and disabled children should be given a chance to go to any school they want, funded by the department of education.
It is easy for Romney to talk up the uses of education spending to people who use the public school system, and then tell rich donors that he will get rid of such spending, because he is a wind sock candidate. Romney will pander to each audience and will in the end lean to the side with the most money.
Please vote wisely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)