Musica para los Ninos fundraiser

Friends,

As you know, we adopted our daughter from Guatemala. Guatemala has become a part of our family heritage, and we try to do what we can to help the children of this beautiful but poor country. Several other families who have adopted internationally are helping with these benefits, and one of them, Mollie, wrote the message below. I can't improve on this, and since it is our "official" request for sponsors, I'm posting it below. I hope you can find it in your heart- and budget- to be a sponsor for this event.

According to the United Nation’s children’s fund, UNICEF, almost half of Guatemala’s children are chronically malnourished. In parts of rural Guatemala, the incidence of child malnutrition reaches 80%. A diet of little more than tortillas does permanent damage to Guatemala’s children—hindering brain development and stunting growth, among other disabling effects.

And now, this chronic problem of malnutrition has become acute as Guatemala experiences its worst drought in 70 years. Last month, Guatemalan President Alvaro Colom declared a “state of calamity” in the country. Church-sponsored Feeding Centers in Guatemala are providing relief in this crisis. The Feeding Center in Chiquimula, a state in eastern Guatemala, is literally saving the lives and the minds of hundreds of Guatemalan children each day.

If music be the food of love, play on.
A group of Austin adoptive families of Guatemalan children are organizing two benefit concerts, “Musica para los Ninos de Guatemala,” to raise money to support the efforts of the Chiquimula Feeding Center. I am asking you to join our efforts to help feed Guatemalan children and their families by serving as an event sponsor for “Musica para los Ninos de Guatemala” at the any of the following levels:
Angel de comida: $1,000
Compadre de mi Corazon: $500
Amigo de los ninos: $250
Angelita: $100
Amigo: $50

Your sponsorship dollars will translate to food prepared or packaged for families at the Feeding Center in Chiquimula:
$5 US = A carton of 30 eggs
$35 US = A 100 lb. bag of corn
$35 US = A basket of food with a cooked chicken
$90 US = A 100 lb. bag of black beans

“Musica para los Ninos de Guatemala” Concert Series
Concert 1: Yves Henry, Pianist, Fri. Oct. 30, 7:00 p.m.-?
A graduate from the Conservatoire de Paris, Henry was the first Western European pianist to win the Robert Schumann Competition (1981) and was subsequently prized at the Casadesus Competition (1985). He has performed and recorded at an international level.

Concert 2: Joe McDermott, Singer/Songwriter, Children’s Concert, Sun., Nov. 22, 2:00 p.m.- 4:00 p.m.
McDermott, is a popular Texas-based and nationally known children’s music writer and performer.

Both concerts are free and will be held at Central Presbyterian Church, 200 East 8th Street in downtown Austin. In lieu of ticket sales, donations will be accepted at each concert to send to the Feeding Center to buy food. Feeding Center staff donate their time, and no salaries or other overhead will be taken from the donations. All monies raised from sponsors will be used by the Feeding Center to buy food.

Please make your tax-deductible checks to “Generations Church” (the Chiquimula Feeding Center’s sponsoring church) and mail to my address, Kathi Thomas, at 13524 Evergreen Way, Austin, TX, 78737-9119. For more information, please call me at 512-845-0155.

Thank you for your generosity and support.

Universal Healthcare: a Moral & Fiscal Imperative

This week, at the Wednesday Night Speaker's Series at Austin's Central Presbyterian, Gaye Kopas of Health Care for All Texans (www.hcfat.org) spoke about "The Problem with Healthcare in the US and Texas." When I woke up this morning, I told my husband that, especially after seeing that program, I cannot imagine anyone being against universal health care, if they have any concern about moral or fiscal imperatives.

Here are some cold, hard facts:
1. 46-50 million people in the U. S. are UNinsured and another 50 million are UNDERinsured. In 2006, 22,000 people died prematurely due to no insurance. Texas has the highest rate of uninsured at 25% (even BEFORE all the layoffs, so that number is no doubt higher now.)
2. 80% of the uninsured in Texas work full or part time.
3. 75-80% of the uninsured are U. S. Citizens.
4. In Texas, a working parent who earns more than $4,634 per year makes TOO MUCH money to qualify for Medicaid!
5. Texas is among the states with the strictest criteria for adults to qualify for Medicaid. Yet, for the average family of four, decent health care insurance costs approximately $12,000 per year. A bit of a gap, I'd say!
6. The U. S. has the lowest life expectancy and the highest infant mortality of the industrialized nations, yet spends more than twice as much as most other developed countries spend on health care. The U. S., (including private and government spending) spent $7,900 per person in 2007, or 17% of GDP. Healthcare spending in Switzerland accounted for 10.9% GDP, 10.7% in Germany, 9.7% in Canada and 9.5% in France. (www.nchc.org)
7. Insurance companies' administrative costs and profits take 31¢ of every dollar they spend on healthcare, while Medicare spends only three cents (3¢) per dollar on administrative costs.
8. Taxes already pay for more than 60% of U. S health spending with tax subsidies, public plans and public employees. (This includes counties and cities footing the bills for indigent health care services for those who make "too much" to qualify for Medicaid, but too little to afford health care.)
9. More than half of all bankruptcies are triggered by medical bills, yet 75% of those filing for bankruptcy protection had health insurance at the time they became ill or were injured.
10. From 2000-2007, health insurance premiums jumped 87% for Family coverage, yet median income in Texas only rose 15.6%.
11. According to Consumer Reports, reported 2006 profits for the six largest U. S insurers totaled $11 billion.
12. Health care industry lobbying totaled almost $1 billion in 2007-2008, and the industry gave $162 million to candidates of both parties.
13. In 2007, the top 10 drug companies in the U. S spent 15% of their revenues on Research & Development and 32% on Marketing/Administration and still notched a gaudy 17.5% net profit.

One of President Obama's goals is to ensure more affordable healthcare for all of us. Unfortunately, the Healthcare Cartel (insurance and pharmaceutical companies) is hard at work, with its high-priced lobbyists and its strategic campaign contributions, working to keep the biggest piece of the pie on its own plate, regardless of the dilemma in which the rest of us find ourselves.

Currently, there are three plans being touted:
1. The Healthcare Cartel's plan keeps it right in the thick of things, with the government as Payer and the industry as Payee, still raking in monstrous profits. While this would mean healthcare for more people, it would be at a prohibitively high cost. I don't see how we can conceivably come up with the money for this.

2. The hybrid. One can keep one's private plan OR enroll in a Single Payer Plan, much like Medicare. Doctors would be able to renegotiate fee structures every 2 or 3 years, so they would not be burned by low rates that didn't keep pace with inflation. Private insurance companies would take the healthiest people to insure, leaving the less healthy to the government plan, which would drive up costs, so this isn't a great alternative.

3. Single Payer health insurance for all, (with same negotiations for fees as #2) financed by:
A. Payroll tax. A modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income;
B. Health tax. An additional tax placed on the wealthiest 5% of taxpayers;
C. There will be a .25% tax per transaction on stock and bond transfers.

Given that my husband's small business now pays a LOT for the 75% of costs he pays for his company's employees' healthcare costs, the new payroll tax would reduce his cost per person and finance insurance for everyone. Under the current system, the younger and healthier employees often opt out of employer-paid insurance, which drives up the costs for the older workers. If one of these younger people is involved in an accident requiring medical care, or if they contract some awful disease, like cancer, the public picks up their tab anyway, because they have no insurance.

HR 676 is a Single Payer, Universal Coverage health plan. It is publicly financed, but privately delivered. (Individuals still select their own doctor, but their insurance is paid by all of us who are taxpayers.)

All residents of the U. S. and its territories are covered, regardless of employment, income level or pre-existing conditions. There are no co-pays, no deductibles and no insurance premiums. There are no upper limits of coverage.

Benefits include primary care, inpatient care, mental health treatment, emergency care, specialists, long-term care, substance abuse treatment, chiropractic therapy, vision and dental care, prescription drugs reimbursement and durable medical equipment.
A National Advisory Board will determine medically necessary services.

Patients can use this from coast to coast, when one travels between states. Each of us will have electronic medical record cards, already in use in many countries, which cuts down on mistakes and billing time. All this is managed electronically.

What Opponents of the Single Payer plan allege:
· It amounts to SOCIALIZED healthcare!
· It inexorably leads to Rationing.
· It will cost too much.
· Doctors won't like it, because they will make less.
· Many people will lose jobs in the insurance industry.

Some answers to the cited objections:
Medicare recipients report higher rates of satisfaction with their healthcare than people with privately paid health insurance.
Medicare was also called "socialized medicine" when it was passed over the determined opposition of the Republicans and of the healthcare Establishment.

We already ration healthcare--based on ability to pay. In most countries with single payer systems, one can see one's primary care doctor as expeditiously as in the U. S. It might take a month or two to see a specialist, but it takes that long now. (I made an appointment for Lettie with a specialist, calling on April 15. The earliest available appointment is May 18. To see a dermatologist, it is a 3-4 months' wait and for a routine dental appointment (with insurance), a 2-3 months' wait!

Refer to Fact #6: Given that we're already paying more than double what other developed countries pay, AND getting a lower standard of healthcare services, AND carrying the enormous profits of private health insurers, how can anyone say this would cost too much? It will, in fact, cost dramatically less than the 17% of GDP we pay now! Dramatically less.

Doctors in many of the countries with the single-payer approach are paid to keep their patients well, meaning doctors work with patients to adopt healthier lifestyles, because that is to everyone's advantage. In England, doctors earn a bonus for keeping patients healthy. A doctor interviewed on a PBS special said he made an additional $190k a year for keeping patients healthy. Remember, too, they won't need huge administrative staffs to deal with insurance companies, and they won't be "floated" by insurance companies, or denied payments on the basis of stylish whims!

There is a provision in HR676 for those who lose jobs. The bill's sponsors believe many medical professionals who are now working for insurance companies will return to caring for human beings, because the 50 million people who currently don't have insurance will need primary care doctors, and those doctors will need nurses, Physicians' Assistants and Nurse Practitioners. For those who actually lose their jobs, there is a two-year severance plan, up to $100,000. (And we'll STILL save money!) It won't help CEOs of insurance companies, some of whom actually make MORE than Wall Street Bankers, but if one has been making $100 million per year, she or he SHOULD be able to squeak by for a few years at least! The CEO of one of the largest healthcare insurance outfits made well over $100 million in 2008. That strikes me as inappropriate. That individual made that enormous amount within a system based on denying healthcare to large groups of people. In my book, that's Blood Money.

With all arguments now answered, what can each of us-including YOU--do about it?

I urge you to write to your U. S Congressperson and your two U. S. Senators. Even though Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn are Republicans, MAYBE, if they hear from enough of us, they'll at least consider doing what's right, because it IS morally and fiscally the right thing for the country. Bringing down our healthcare costs while covering more people shouldn't be a Democratic OR a Republican issue, it SHOULD BE simply the RIGHT thing to do for our country. The question is, will they do it at the expense of THEIR campaign war chests, which have been lavishly stuffed with money from this industry?

My Congressman, Lloyd Doggett, has not yet signed on as a sponsor, so he needs to hear from every one of us in his district. His office says he is "looking at the bill," which isn't the same as "Yes, he'll co-sponsor it." We need Congressman Doggett to lend his voice and influence as a sponsor. Currently, Rep. John Conyers' HR676 has 74 sponsors of the needed 150 in the House.

Sen. Hutchison's contact information:
SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4304
??202-224-5922
202-224-0776 (FAX)
202-224-5903 (TDD)

Sen. Cornyn's contact information:
SENATOR JOHN CORNYN
517 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
? 202-224-2934
202-228-2856 (FAX)

To contact your Congressperson by e-mail:
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml

Please, do this important thing right now.
Ask where your Congressperson stands, and if she/he will not sign on as a sponsor, insist she/he tell you why. They need to take responsibility for their decisions, and we need to know why they won't support this, if they refuse to do so. Call AND write today!

NOTE: Thanks to Healthcare for all Texans for the facts and figures cited in this article, which they gleaned from a variety of sources.





:: kathi@kathithomas.org
:: http://www.kathithomas.org

I've been drinking tea today

April 15, Tax Day--generally considered one of the most hated days in the USA, but should it be so? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes is famously quoted as having said, “Taxes are the price we pay for living in a civilized society.”

Having traveled internationally throughout my life, I absolutely believe this. I remember the shock I felt, living in Bolivia as a child of six, at realizing that hot water wasn't available in every home in the world simply by turning on the spigot. And I remember the astonishment of going to the market with my Mom and seeing sides of meat, covered with flies, hanging from hooks--a far cry from the sanitized butcher cases in our little SE Texas hometown. Even at that young age, I recall the street beggars--the first time I'd ever seen them. One was a woman with a toddler boy. It made me sad then and it makes me even sadder today.

The right wing screams that “50% of US citizens don't pay any taxes” and they're outraged because they don't PAY taxes. I'm outraged that a large percentage of our brothers and sisters in this country don't make enough to be at that level where income taxes affect them. That is where our outrage SHOULD be--why are there so many who make so little in this day and time? Why are there so few who make so much, and why has the wage gap been widening? Some American cities today have wealth gaps larger than those places we consider abjectly poor!
(from http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/23/population-egalitarian-cities-urban-growth)
“In a survey of 120 major cities, New York was found to be the ninth most unequal in the world and Atlanta, New Orleans, Washington, and Miami had inequality levels similar to those of Nairobi, Kenya; Abidjan and Ivory Coast. Many were above an internationally recognized acceptable "alert" line used to warn governments.
"High levels of inequality can lead to negative social, economic and political consequences that have a destabilizing effect on societies. [They] create social and political fractures that can develop into social unrest and insecurity.”

It is clear that something has to be done. When Wall Street bankers get bonuses of millions after they've driven their banks into the ditch and then accepted billions of our tax dollars in rescue packages, and are offended when so much as questioned about it, it is obvious they're utterly out of touch with the majority of Americans.

That top 1% that makes between 20-30% of all the money in our country is, largely, in a completely different reality. Think of Bernie Madoff's wife, who thought she was somehow entitled to keep a multi-million dollar apartment, after her husband stole and scammed billions, leaving many destitute. Now, one might question why anyone would invest all of their money with one firm, but Bernie claimed to be their friend, and they trusted him. All he wanted was their money, so he could live well, which he did to the detriment of many clients in which pension funds were invested. As a result, many people are newly poor because of one man's avarice.

I had a talk with Lettie's teacher recently and he cited GREED as the source of most of our problems. I agree. Many believe themselves entitled to all the oil we can buy and to use personal transportation, without regard to conservation, whenever and wherever we want, no matter the cost (and I don't mean just the cost of gas.) Thus, if we perceive our oil supply as threatened, we wage a war of convenience, and go after Iraq's oil, which hasn't exactly been forthcoming. Oops!

We want more money and we buy into the notion that what we can earn by working can generate phenomenal wealth working for us, so we invest with people who promise us an implausibly good return. Executives are awarded obscene bonuses based on their companies' stock market performances or even underperformance. No one worries about long term, just HERE and NOW.

This past election, enough of us woke up to the fact that the greed angle wasn't working, that we needed someone who looked long term--someone who told the truth--that things might get worse before they get better, that we might be forced to make sacrifices. We elected Barack Obama president.

We hear plain speaking from President Obama about long term goals, about “building our homes on a firm foundation vs. the…sand that we've had for so long.” Do we have the patience to work harder and look long-term? My parents taught me that short-term gain at the expense of long-term good is seldom a sound idea. I'm delighted to have a President who believes and says the same thing.

That brings us back to the so-called “Tea Parties” that the Right has instigated, with Faux News as cheerleader-in-chief. First, why is a so-called “news” network driving the Republican Party's bus? Second, where were these self-styled “fiscal conservatives” over the past 8 years? President Obama's having successfully pressed the largest middle-income tax cut in years seems to have escaped their notice.

Don't let anyone kid you, this “Tea Party” stunt is a project midwifed by those in that top 1% who are so selfish they don't care about the many in dire straits. I spoke with a pediatric endocrinologist yesterday who is closing her solo practice in Austin and moving to another town to join a partnership with other doctors. She has lost 20% of her patients, because their parents lost their jobs, and with them, employer-provided health insurance. She is sacrificing something dear to her, and our entire community is poorer for it.

The USA has the most costly healthcare in the world, but it is simply unaffordable for millions of Americans. They use an Emergency Room as their doctor's office, at a cost of ±$1,000 a visit (paid by taxpayers) vs. a couple hundred bucks at a doctor's office. If they had health insurance, it would save the rest of us money. Universal health insurance is not only the morally correct proposition, but also a fiscal necessity! We're already paying for healthcare for everyone, but we're paying the highest rates possible. In what parallel universe does that make sense?

I doubt those who go to these tea parties believe we should just let people die in the streets rather than treat them. I wonder if they even realize we're paying so much right now-more than twice as much as any other country in the world (and getting less for our dollars.) I wonder if they realize that, if we had universal care, our taxes might be a little higher, but what remains in our pockets would be MORE, because we'd then not have to pay the high rates to private insurance companies, whose #1 goal is profit?

WARREN BUFFETT says the he's lucky to live in the USA, because this society values his particular talent, making money. If he had been born in a “Hunter” society, he claims he'd have starved, because he can't shoot straight and he's slow. He says he is happy paying his taxes, because he sees that this country is why he is so lavishly well off. He says our country offers unique opportunities to people like him.

The late JAMES MICHENER used to say he owed this country for everything he became/achieved. As a foundling, he was adopted, educated in public schools and at a public university and traveled-eled the world with the armed forces. When people tried to con-vince him to offshore his money or shelter it, he refused, saying he was proud to pay his allotted share of taxes. Had he been born in another country, Michener guessed he might have died on a doorstep, might never have been educated and might have missed the opportunity to travel at government expense.

Buffett and Michener understood what this country afforded them. Each realized he is/was a product of all that this country offers. These “Tea Party” organizers seem to think they did everything themselves. People like Rush Windbag and Bill “The Bully” O'Reilly credit only themselves for their success, so see no obligation to share with anyone.

I actually pity these people. They have No Clue.

Looking to the future

I’m celebrating yet another anniversary of my 39th birthday today and, as usual, taking account of the past year, what I’ve done and what I want to do for this one. I’m also looking at the differences in our world and all I can say is, “WHAT A WEEK!”

We went from a government mired in darkness and secrecy to one that has made so many good moves in the short time since noon on Tuesday that it is hard to believe. Thinking back over actions taken that have really pleased me, they have to include ending of torture by the US, the ending of the “gag rule” on family planning clinics, the order to close Gitmo within a year, new ethics guidelines (desperately needed in the light of the last administration) and so on and on. Of course, I’d like to see these guidelines become law, so that future Presidents can’t undo them as simple rules.

I’m much more optimistic this year than last, even in the face of an economic downturn such as I’ve not seen in my lifetime. My parents grew up during the Great Depression and they taught me many thrifty ways, which are coming in handy now.

I loved President Obama’s speech, when he quoted “time to put away childish things” and basically told us all to grow up and quit demanding instant gratification. It IS hard not to be able to buy what we want, the instant we want it, but we’ve put our family on a strict budget this year. I figure I’ve got enough fabric stashed away in boxes to make whatever new clothes Lettie & I need. We’ve crafted a budget for our groceries and for everything else. Overspending in one category will have to mean compensating (cutting!) in another category. We’ll review our budget once a week, to track our progress—another way of saying we’ll hold ourselves accountable. It is a big commitment, but one that is important. If the Obama Administration can go over the entire federal budget to find waste and to purge programs that don’t work, we can do it here, too.

Back to the federal level: I know there will be some decisions with which I disagree, but on the whole, we have a President with truly good judgment and, after the last 8 years, what a wonderful change. For example, I’m not pleased with Robert Hale as Under Secretary/Comptroller at Defense after lobbying for Raytheon. It doesn’t look good, given the rule laid down about ethics. If exemptions are given too freely, then the rule won’t have the desired result. Mr. Hale may be a wonderful man, but he simply can’t be the ONLY person for this job. Given his connections, the search should have continued. I am glad to know he’ll be under a very strict set of ethical guidelines. I just want to know that the ethics watchdogs will be vigilant and, if he lapses, that he’ll be gone. Overall though, President Obama has gotten off to a terrific start.

I especially like that the President is giving the Republican leadership a chance to participate (not that they did it to the Democrats, but it does show a better side of governing,) but that he also reminded them that “I won” when they pushed too hard. I hope that he’ll rethink all the tax cuts- we need infrastructure so badly and, if we’re going to put our kids and grandkids in even more debt, I’d like to at least have roads and buildings for them. Our economy is not a simple issue, but one thing that seems very clear is that each of us needs to get a lot smarter about how we manage our own money. It is fine to buy what we need, but do we really need TVs in every room of the house? Do we really need a new car every 4 or 5 years (or every year)? I suspect this economic downturn will teach many of us the difference between “I want” and “I need.”

One thing that I know we NEED is for government to be more participatory. The election in 2010 won’t have nearly the turnout that we saw in 2008, because fewer people vote in non-presidential years, although the governor of our state will have a lot more direct influence on us than the President does. (Think Rick Perry and the late, unlamented Trans Texas Corridor. Thousands of people were looking at losing family farms, and people in the way of the section that IS being built will lose their homes. For some, the land has been in their family for generations, but that didn’t matter to Perry. I believe that Chris Bell would have done things much differently, but we’ll never know because of Democrats who didn’t vote for the Democrat.)

Let’s throw “conventional wisdom” out the window and consider this scenario:
In 2010, might we have another 3-way race? If Kay Bailey Hutchinson doesn’t think she can win in the Republican Primary, might she take the Independent route? Let’s hope that Democrats this time stick with our Democratic nominee, not some freshly minted “Independent.” So, who might our Democratic nominee be? I’d love to see Sen. Leticia Van de Putte run. To be clear, I’ve heard absolutely nothing about her running, but I think she’d be a wonderful candidate. Think about it.

In 2010, we need to get as many Democrats out to vote as in 2008. It won’t be easy, but it will be a measure of how good a job we did in implanting the realization that government is participatory. After the debacle in the Senate with the loss of the 2/3 rule for the purpose of disenfranchising elderly and poor voters (who, surprise, surprise, tend to vote Democratic), it is clear that we need to do some housecleaning. Did you know that Sen. Jeff Wentworth (R, SD 25), who claims to be bipartisan, voted to strip the 2/3 rule so that they can bring up the Voter ID bill? Hard to believe he is bipartisan when he votes for such a divisive rule, marching to GOP orders on what was a straight party-line vote.

People continue to ask if I’m running in 2010 (and I am complimented by your interest) and my answer is that I’d love to, but Mark and I need to seriously evaluate all the implications for our family and we’ve not yet done that. If I can’t run, we need to find another strong candidate for this seat. Wentworth has shown once and for all that he is NOT bipartisan, but a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I think someone from San Antonio may have a “leg up” since so many of the votes are in San Antonio, but we’ll be making a decision soon and I’ll let you know as soon as we do.

Why Barack Obama? A Personal Statement

When Barack Obama talks about restoring the “American Dream,” it resonates with me. When my husband Mark and I met our daughter’s biological mother in Guatemala in 2006, she spoke of why she had relinquished her daughter for adoption. Repeatedly, she returned to the theme of opportunities of which her daughters still in Guatemala could never even dream that Lettie would have. We’ve seen Guatemala and other countries so stratified by wealth and poverty, and we know we don’t want that in our country. Access to the American Dream must be universal if we are to avoid that stratification.
Making higher education affordable for middle income folks is important to us. It doesn’t encourage children to go to college, if they know they’ll graduate with debt greater than what their parents likely spent on their first home. Offering students $4,000 towards college expenses in exchange for community service is something that will work. It will give students a chance to make a real difference, and let them see another reality of our country, which, great as it is, nonetheless tolerates huge disparities between the wealthy and those who live in poverty.
I support the Obama plan for making healthcare more affordable and for covering every child with health insurance. I personally wish he’d go further, and strive for Medicare for everyone, the approach now taken by most other industrialized countries, but perhaps this is a necessary first step, on the way to universal coverage. I agree with his statement that health care must be seen as a right.
I support his common sense solutions– bills he has sponsored and passed (and some that didn’t pass) and other proposals he has offered during the Presidential campaign. In addition to Education and Health Care, here are a few of my favorites:
1. “Loose Nukes” legislation, cosponsored by Senator Lugar (R-IN), to make it more difficult for terrorists to get their hands on nuclear devices.
2. “Healthcare for Hybrids”- A GREAT idea—one I wish had passed during Senator Obama’s very first year (2005). This would have helped American auto manufacturers with their insurance costs, with the requirement that they invest the resulting savings in retooling to manufacture Hybrids. Had this passed in 2005, American auto manufacturers would now be ahead of the curve instead of so far behind it.
3. Putting an all-out emphasis on developing alternative energy sources and on creating “green jobs.” We can become the world leader in green technology, if ONLY we have the will to do so. A Manhattan Project type goal for green energy– to bring down the cost of solar panels to make them more affordable, to bring hybrid and electric cars into the mainstream, to dramatically cut our dependence on oil—foreign and domestic--is a 21st Century imperative. We do not have enough of the world’s oil reserves to serve our addiction at its current levels, so “drill, baby, drill” is just a silly slogan, not even a partial solution. Even if we did have the oil to drill our way out of this mess, should we really continue relying nearly exclusively on fossil fuels, which pollute so much?
4. Senator Obama’s goal to decrease our greenhouse gas emissions and make the US a leader on climate change is one we should all support vigorously.
5. Eliminating tax breaks for companies that take their jobs offshore. If they choose to outsource American jobs to slave-wages countries, we should at least not continue to reward them for putting our fellow Americans out of work.
6. IRAQ– We’re spending $10 billion a MONTH there. This is clobbering our economy; it is spending money we don’t have; it is putting us further into debt to foreign countries—a debt our children and grandchildren will be forced to pay and a debt that means we won’t be able to rebuild OUR crumbling infrastructure. Because Bush & Co. have put us so deeply in debt, the likelihood that we'll have the money to rebuild our nation is getting more remote every day. We simply cannot afford to continue subsidizing this endless war, especially when Iraq is sitting on an $80 billion surplus, while we’re being spent into the ground.
7. The Presidential Oath of Office begins with a promise to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Barack Obama is a Constitutional scholar–-meaning he knows the Constitution isn’t just “a damn piece of paper,” as George Bush has called it. I want a President who is smart, who understands what the Constitution means and truly values the ideals for which it stands.
8. Barack Obama has lived the American Dream– he didn't come from a family of privilege, he didn’t get into college on a legacy. He got in with good grades and he paid for his education with scholarships and college loans which he repaid. He understands, more than many people, what the American Dream means to so many around the World, and what a shining beacon the USA has been to the World historically. He will work to restore our standing in the World, by returning to the ideals upon which we were founded and in which the American people still believe so wholeheartedly. In so doing, he will lead our nation to stimulate our economy by developing jobs that make a difference, instead of waging wars that benefit a few military contractors and—I have no kinder word for it—war profiteers.
9. Supreme Court Justices: It is likely that the next President of the United States will nominate two or even three Supreme Court justices. In recent years, BushCo. has pushed it so far to the right- the privileges of the wealthy corporations are highly protected, yet the rights of the workers are not. We need moderate and liberal justices to help balance the extreme right-leaning recent appointees. For those of us who value the Constitution and believe that it is a living document, the value of having justices who understand and venerate the Constitution can not be understated. I believe that Sen. Obama will nominate justices who have a deep background in Constitutional law and who will serve the Constitution and the people, not just the corporations.
For these reasons and so many more, our family supports and will vote for Barack Obama for President of the United States. In a time for greatness, here is a wise leader, destined to be great.
To learn more about Barack Obama and about specific details of his proposals, please go to www.barackobama.com.

McCain Unpresidential

ONLY McCain can save America? Does this man’s ego know no bounds? To suspend a campaign some 40 days before the election is just plain stupid--another big gamble of his. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want another gambler in office, I want someone who can do more than one thing at a time, because the world doesn’t stop just because we’ve got a crisis.

When an individual accepts a major party nomination for the Presidency, she or he also accepts a sacred responsibility to the political process which is central to our freedom—a spirited participation in putting forward one’s ideas for our country and defending those ideas from criticism by those who disagree. Our citizens have indicated repeatedly that they want to see that robust discussion of the future in the format we loosely label “debates.”

The American people are owed a serious campaign with serious participation by all candidates. This participation is not a luxury with which we dispense with a flourish whenever our lobbyist/advisors tell us the focus groups say we can score some cheap points by pretending to be above the nonsense of campaigning. It’s not even supposed to be nonsense. A nominee is supposed to have something to say about issues and ideas that can actually make a difference in the world

I guess after conservative George Will not only called him “unpresidential” on TV but also in his syndicated newspaper column, McCain is trying to suddenly look presidential, but this isn’t presidential-looking, Senator.

Does anyone else remember when President Carter stayed in the White House during the Iranian hostage crisis? Letting that crisis consume him is one of the things blamed for his losing the 1980 Election. As important as it was, it made him seem as though he couldn’t do anything but worry about that single thing- and now McCain is repeating that error, albeit without the excuse of being the President. McCain is slipping in the polls, and he was a disaster last week, with his message changing every day, so now he does this, hoping that people will be impressed that he’s not being political, by cynically being totally political.

Delaying Friday night’s debate is a mistake--we need to see the candidates and hear their plans. I would prefer for the topic to change to the Economy, but a Foreign Policy discussion will necessarily raise the issue of our at-risk Economy. I sincerely hope that Sen. McCain is able to concentrate on two things at once and can find his way to the debate. The country will be the loser if he is not there, and for someone who purports to put country first, that’s not good.

Since McCain isn’t on any of the pertinent committees, his presence really isn’t necessary until the final vote. And, of course, one has to question why he couldn’t send his VP candidate out to campaign if and when he is actually needed in Washington? With both Democratic candidates in the Senate, one might *think* that Palin could make political hay while they’re tied up by Senate business. If she is the strongest possible person for this job, why can’t she handle campaigning by herself? Obama hasn’t hesitated to dispatch Biden on the campaign trail alone, so why is Palin not trusted to go out without McCain?

On another note: how many of you caught Letterman last night? Sen. McCain had personally called Letterman and told him he had to get to Washington RIGHT THEN, that he was on the way to the airport and that he had to cancel. It was another McCain FIB. He was being interviewed by Katie Couric for the CBS Evening News and Letterman got a LIVE FEED of it. Dave was NOT amused. It is one thing to cancel, but quite another to flat-footed lie about why. One might understand that he preferred to be interviewed on a serious news show with perhaps a larger audience rather than on Letterman, but he should have been honest with Letterman. Frankly, it was just plain stupid to lie about something so easily found out. Is this who some folks really want as their president?

Electing our next President--Issues or Personality?

“This election is not about issues.” This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates.” Rick Davis, Sen. John McCain’s campaign manager

“If you’ve got George Bush’s track record, and John McCain voting 90% of the time in agreement with George Bush, then you probably don’t want to talk about the issues, either.” Sen. Barack Obama

During my treadmill walking last Friday morning, I was watching MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” (with ardent conservative Joe Scarborough as host.) His guest was Rick Davis, one of John McCain’s campaign managers. Davis informed us all that the campaign would decide IF and WHEN Governor Palin would risk appearing on the talk shows--and really left me with the impression it was “IF.” (Note: since then, they've annouced that Gov. Palin will be interveiwed by Charlie Gibson this Thursday, not exactly the hard-hitting interviewer for whom most of us have wished.)

The Republicans reached immediately for their attack mode vis-a-vis the mainstream (non-Fox) media, so that they could justify Ms. Palin opting not to communicate with the American public in the normal way. McCain has selected a partner who is volatile, to say the least. It reminds me of Clayton Williams’ 1990 run for governor of Texas. His campaign tried to keep him out of situations where he could speak off the cuff, and, when he did, we saw the reasons for their reluctance to let Williams be Williams.

For some reason, that segment of the show is not posted on MSNBC’s website, but this one is. Listen to the right-wingers on this clip insist that Ms. Palin should not have to talk to reporters:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/26543853#26543853

Here’s the scary part: her speeches on the campaign trail will not expose her to hard questions, only to GOP die-hards ready to believe everything she says. She’ll keep lying and her adoring public will continue believing she’s a fiscal conservative who has rejected pork. IF she appears on legitimate news shows with real journalists, they will question her (it is, after all, their JOB) and McCain & the GOP yearn to avoid that any way they can.

What do they have to fear? Ask your Republican friends. If she is so terrific, she can make mincemeat of any interviewers, including hostile ones. Yet, the campaign clearly intends for her to be exposed only to tightly controlled environments. Of course, anyone can go to YouTube and see any number of clips about her (until even more of them are removed, as some have already been.)

Governor Palin lied in her speech and continues to lie.

She is a self-described ardent evangelical, but I struggle reconciling her lies and her faith. The line about telling Congress “no thanks” for the bridge to nowhere is a brazen falsehood. She lobbied for that bridge. She grabbed the (nasty Federal) money, then “reprioritized” and spent it on something else. Shifting to a different project, but still taking the funds is a different thing than being the anti-waste crusader she would have us believe her to be. The bridge was a ridiculous scam by legendary Republican con man Senator Ted Stevens, but Palin supported it until it became clear that backing it was political suicide.

Is she a fiscal conservative? No. When she became mayor, Wasilla had no debt; when she left, Wasilla was awash in it. Fiscal conservatism should be made of stronger stuff.

In Alaska, she’s let the “lower 48” citizens pay for their infrastructure through earmarks (or PORK) while she distributed tax revenues to every Alaskan. No wonder she has a pretty high popularity rating! I’m guessing that even Rick Perry might be better thought of if he sent each and every citizen a check for over $1,000 and got other states to pay for our infrastructure (without selling it off to foreign companies.)

There is an e-mail circulating from a Wasilla woman who knows Sarah Palin well, and it gives the lie to many Palin claims. It is telling that the McCain campaign rebuts nothing in that letter, but now urges voters to decide on personalities, rather than mere Issues.

Personalities!? Be serious, please! "We" chose this current President by deciding with whom we could be more comfortable throwing down a brew. Al Gore struck some people as too “stiff;” John Kerry seemed too Brahmin and, besides, a lot of people didn’t like his wife. Result? Voter remorse is epidemic.

A quick look at the issues of 2008 makes it ridiculously easy to see why the Republicans don’t want us making decisions based on their record or their ideas.

If the Republican convention were one’s only source, one would suppose that Democrats had been in total control over the preceding 8 years. They regained Congress in ‘06, but their House majority is small, and their control of the Senate depends on two Independents (one of whom is Lieberman!) voting with them. Lieberman, we recognize, is a loose cannon who votes with Republicans on all things war-related. (If “Warmongers” were a party name…) Cloture—the action that halts filibusters—requires 60 votes. Democrats haven’t been in charge and Republicans must take legitimate culpability in discussions of what’s right and what’s wrong with a country the majority of us believe is headed in an inappropriate course. They would run away from issues, because they see flight as their only way of escaping Bush, without mentioning him by name.

1. Economy. McCain calls our economy “fundamentally sound” and has also said he doesn’t really understand it. The presence of Phil Gramm (remember “a nation of whiners?”) as his economic advisor confirms McCain’s deep-seated cluelessness. For the McCains, the Gramms and the rest of that Top 1%, the economy is “sound.” As Americans see jobs shipped overseas, they see the big fellas getting richer with each dividend check but they notice they aren’t sharing in the good times, so Republicans try to focus on Barack’s bowling scores.

Compare Tax Cut Plans. The Obama Plan benefits those who need it most; McCain’s plan—SURPRISE!--benefits the same top tier that has enjoyed all the breaks Bush & Cheney could conjure up. Only those with income greater than $600K will see a tax increase under the Obama plan,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html

2. Healthcare. McCain says Obama wants to “socialize” healthcare. There’s nothing new about Republicans fear mongering this issue. Can anyone remember even one Republican who actively supported Medicare? Not everyone has a spouse who inherited a multi-million dollar business, as Cindy Hensley McCain did. For the rest of us, health insurance isn’t a luxury and it ought to be a right, as Barack Obama makes clear. Health should not be a profit center for companies with nothing to do with healthcare (insurance companies.) We all want doctors making a decent living and hospitals earning reasonable profits, but insurance companies, who make their obscene profits by denying people coverage? How is that right? How is it the American way?

3. Energy. Barack recognizes the imperative of developing alternative energy sources. Investment in green energy will not only make America energy independent, but will create millions of new “green collar” jobs--a huge boost to our economy. McCain’s mantra is “DRILL HERE, DRILL NOW.” John McCain is betting everything that people are just too damned dumb to notice that drilling here and how won’t get us out of this energy crisis. Experts agree even if we drilled today, it would be 5 to 10 years before the oil was ready to use and would never be enough to make us energy independent anyway. Doesn’t it make sense to put those resources to work developing alternatives? The answer is that it makes sense unless one is as beholden to Big Oil as John McCain.

4. Iraq- from McCain’s website: “It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. We must help the Government of Iraq battle those who provoke sectarian tensions and promote a civil war that could destabilize the Middle East.” If this is his measure, we’ll be in Iraq for the 100 years (and more) McCain mentioned in an unguarded moment earlier in 2008. Shiites and Sunnis have been fighting each other for 500 years; it will be nothing short of amazing were they to stop in the next three. Under Bush, the finish line kept shifting, and it appears McCain has an equally unreachable goal. There is likely to be a civil war whenever we leave, whether it is 18 months or 100 years. The difference is the number of Americans and Iraqis who will be killed and maimed between now and our leave-taking.

Where does Governor Palin stand on these issues? What is her experience with them? We don’t know--she didn’t talk about them, she offers no specifics on her record. What we are learning about her is from reporters and Alaskans.

Until she talks with reporters who ask hard questions, she is a “pig in a poke.” I don’t vote for hidden candidates and that is Sarah Palin exactly.

We know she lied in her acceptance speech. We know she’s an extreme right evangelical. We know she supports “Abstinence Only” sex education and opposes teaching anything about contraception, even when all the evidence shows Abstinence Only fails our children. We know she asked her hometown church to “pray that the Iraq war is God’s will.” She even asked them to pray for an oil pipeline across Alaska! We know she claims to be an anti-corruption crusader, but so far no one has been able to ask how she views, say, the Keating 5 case. (If she has ever heard of the Keating 5.)

The Republicans can’t run on issues, so they will play the POW card over and over. I appreciate that he served and suffered unimaginable torture. However, does that excuse his behavior when he came home- having an affair with his current wife while married to her former wife (who’d been in a horrible car wreck and had 9” of bone removed in her legs in order to save them and was otherwise in awful pain and disfigured?) The ONLY job he’s ever held outside of the government was for Cindy’s father, and then they used her money to get him into politics. And, lest we forget, he was involved in the Keating Five Scandal (received, along with John Glen, criticism for “poor judgment.”) And he will call himself “maverick,” never mind that one with a 90%+ pro-Bush voting record is no Maverick.


For me, solutions to issues are the Number One reason I’m voting for Barack Obama. The second reason is personality/temperament, not as declared in slogans, but as demonstrated in Senator Obama’s remarkable life.

I pledge now to do all I can to help him win. Please, visit www.my.barackobama.com and sign up as an Obama volunteer. Or go to www.trueblueaction.com. Don’t wake up on November 5 thinking, if only I'd.....