Less than a year ago, August 29, Republican presidential nominee Senator John McCain chose her as his vice-presidential running mate. You know to whom I refer.
Unfortunate or not, but most likely viewed as inconsequential to many Americans, Sarah Louise Palin made the controversial decision to abandon her elected post as Governor of Alaska. Considering her apparent interest in seeking higher political office at some point in the future, it’s a rather shocking action that mistakenly warrants extensive dialogue, news analysis and talk show blithering.
Actually, the short but oh-so-swell exchange between Fox News host Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove was priceless in that, although they disagreed on the political ramifications of Palin’s resignation, Bill was very respectful and “unargumentative” of their conflicting views. If a Democrat had spoken Rove’s words, the verbal exchange would have been entirely different – you know, the attitude and over-speak tantrum that Bill reverts to with premeditated animosity.
While O’Reilly appeared optimistic that Palin’s course of action might eventually lead to a Palin bid to head the Republican ticket for president in 2012, Rove was decidedly at odds of her having the support of influential party leaders.
Palin’s actions, or rather inactions, leading up to the annual fundraising event for the National Republican Congressional and Senatorial Committees in Washington in early June did much damage to her standing among other Republicans.
Back in March, she was given an invitation to headline the political event but, gosh darn it, she couldn’t give a timely RSVP and, wouldn’t ya know it, by the time she decided she had the time to attend, the alternate keynote speaker, Newt Gingrich, who’s another 2012 presidential hopeful, wouldn’t have it. As a matter of fact when she made a less than grand entrance on the night of the event, in fear she’d upstage the older dude, she and hubby Todd were seen but Sarah wasn’t heard.
Well, that’s quite enough about Sarah. I wish! I foresee me flickin’ the remote fast and furious for the next couple of years searching for anything – commercials, cartoons, game shows, even reality shows – anything to limit the length and frequency of times of seeing that face pop up before my eyes with those senseless words crackling in my ears.
I do admit that I’m rather relieved that doctors were able to remedy the winkin’ and blinkin’ malady she experienced during campaign season last year. It may have been dry eye syndrome but I suspect it was a case of Marcus Gunn Phenomenon, whereby the movement of the upper eyelid moves in a rapid rising motion each time the jaw moves, which is not to be confused as an act of coordination. Anyway, medical wonders never cease to amaze me.
Actually, Hockey Mom Palin needs a time-out and take a seat in the penalty box for being at odds with mainstream conservatism. Her no “politics as usual” doesn’t ring true. For one thing, she and other Republicans continue to question, disregard and spew green house gases over scientific conclusions that global warming and climate change are in fact of grave concern for the health of the planet, thus and an immediate and progressive danger to all living things on land and in the sea and air.
The ignorance that belies the findings of the Mineral Management Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service is belligerent of views of countries around the world. An American Association for the Advancement of Science study released in 2005 reported that carbon dioxide levels were 27% higher than at any time in the past 650,000 years.
The findings were taken from the analysis of air bubbles trapped in an East Antarctica area monitored by the European Project for Ice Coring (EPIC).
I sincerely commend Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson for softening the company’s stance on climate change and carbon emissions. But his January announcement in support of a carbon tax to be a fairer option than the cap-and-trade system came only after a shareholder revolt at last year’s annual meeting, led by none other than the Rockefeller family.
Republicans as a whole must change their tone on nearly every political front. They have no leader. Certainly not Palin. The retreads of Gingrich and Dean, and the inflexible views of Cheney don’t cut it either. Ron Paul would have my solid support if he were given the opportunity to head the Republican Presidential ticket in 2012 but the Party isn’t likely to stand behind his Libertarian views. Besides, by Election Day he’ll be 77 years old, 5 years beyond McCain’s 72 years in 2008.
Charlie Crist, the lamest rubber ducky governor in the nation, isn’t any better than the rest with his recent cop-outs to the people of Florida as self-interest groups saddled him up for a ride to Washington in next year’s Senatorial race. He had to make up with Party leaders for supporting Obama’s stimulus package. The same goes for Colin Powell for abandoning McCain in last year’s Presidential election.
In the economic climate of everybody porking handouts from Obama’s stimulus dollars, regional political interests won’t enhance any particular politician. Especially Palin whom, after family and friends, will continue to put Alaska’s interests above all else.
Party leaders must have scripted Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s GOP response to Obama’s State of the Union Address in February. I say this because just two days prior, on Meet the Press, Jindal’s interview with David Gregory was very impressive with assured, coherent statements, a veritable smooth talker and quite a 360-degree turnaround from his delivery two days later.
Disastrous. That’s the Republican Party right now. I pray, but not with religious fury, that the Party can realign themselves with the American people. It’s important not only to me but for the whole of the United States.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Obama, Sally and Stimulus Attitudes
Sally Rae has an attitude. In but the fewest of words there was a flare of disgust and a tinge of anger about the overindulgence homeowners had exercised during the sublime years of sub-prime loans and second-mortgage frenzies.
Although typically calm, cool and in control, Sally’s uncomely attitude was spurred by the Making Homes Affordable Plan. She grumbled for a moment but, quicker than Obama can swat a fly on the back of his hand, her demeanor returned to the sweet, charming little lady she is.
The Home Affordable Refinance Program targets 4 to 5 million homeowners with loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to lower their monthly payments. The Home Affordable Modification Program aims to keep an additional 3 to 4 million Americans from facing foreclosure.
The $75B allocated to the programs intends to lower interests rates to as low as 2% and/or give loan extensions up to 40 years – anything to bring the payment below 31% of pretax income, thus stemming the flow of bankruptcies and short-sales – but only applicable to owner-occupied, primary residences, not speculators or house-flippers, for up to $729,750 in unpaid balances. How sweet it is! For some, not all.
Sally has a problem with her tax dollars being given to irresponsible people who, with just a bit of common sense should have known the bottom-line monthly payment shown on the closing papers was unaffordable with their given incomes. An oversized house is nice to live in but when there’s a family to consider you not only have to plan for retirement but also consider college costs for the kids and, accept it or not, emergencies.
You can only blame lending practices so far because, in the end, it’s the person who signed the loan papers who are just as much at fault. Irresponsible indeed, dear sister, but I can top your angst with lenders who were too eager to give unsecured loans in the form of credit cards with little oversight of the individual’s ability of repayment.
A recent article in The NY Times related a cardholder who had been contacted by a lender that offered a 20% write-off on a $5,486 balance to which he declined but whose counter-offer of 50% was immediately accepted. An elderly gentleman who owed $112,00 on four credit cards, through a third-party settlement company that charged him a 12% fee, was able to reduce the balance to 35% of the outstanding balance, thus whittling down to 47% the outstanding balances.
In neither case was there a hint of them having to relinquish any of their assets. They had their cake and ate it too, and the rest of us are left with the crap that came out in the end – paying for the tasty morsels of their consumerism in the form of credit card companies jacking up interest rates much too quickly and all to often, even to those who continue to make on-time payments.
Obama’s Congress passed the Credit Card Act in May but the rule on 45 days advance notice of major changes won’t take affect until September and the majority of the new rules don’t apply until February next year. Consumers are of little concern compared to the demands of the corps or corporations.
The actions people took to enhance their immediate lifestyles were shameful. Whether by means of uncontrolled credit card usage or double-mortgage abuse, they set aside common sense for the good-time feeling of keeping up with other consumers who went on swanky spending sprees.
They beset themselves on the most difficult of futures with purchases of joyful trinkets like big screen TVs and monstrous vehicles that lose value the moment they’re taken off the showroom floor. Phantasmagoric vacations too, I’m sure.
There’s also the woman whose arrogance came out in full bloom when she bragged about the home equity loan she took, knowing the additional payment couldn’t be met. She pocketed the money. Despicably American.
The ones deserving of compassion, which doesn’t help them one bit, are those who became indebted due to health costs. I could make a wager and be fairly certain that, minus their conditions, their homes would still be secure investments, their stomachs less empty, their electric bills paid and they’d in be in much better off than the ones who pillaged their financial security for earthly pleasures.
Perhaps against Sally’s recommendation but in reader interest, particularly those faced with foreclosure, I suggest you visit www.financialsecurity.gov for information and www.makinghomeaffordable.gov to start the process that could ease your weary mind from the fears of losing your home. The entitlement was given by Obama. As far as other debt, call the number on the back of your credit card(s) and cry, “Fools!” You and them but the rest of us most of all.
Although typically calm, cool and in control, Sally’s uncomely attitude was spurred by the Making Homes Affordable Plan. She grumbled for a moment but, quicker than Obama can swat a fly on the back of his hand, her demeanor returned to the sweet, charming little lady she is.
The Home Affordable Refinance Program targets 4 to 5 million homeowners with loans owned or guaranteed by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac to lower their monthly payments. The Home Affordable Modification Program aims to keep an additional 3 to 4 million Americans from facing foreclosure.
The $75B allocated to the programs intends to lower interests rates to as low as 2% and/or give loan extensions up to 40 years – anything to bring the payment below 31% of pretax income, thus stemming the flow of bankruptcies and short-sales – but only applicable to owner-occupied, primary residences, not speculators or house-flippers, for up to $729,750 in unpaid balances. How sweet it is! For some, not all.
Sally has a problem with her tax dollars being given to irresponsible people who, with just a bit of common sense should have known the bottom-line monthly payment shown on the closing papers was unaffordable with their given incomes. An oversized house is nice to live in but when there’s a family to consider you not only have to plan for retirement but also consider college costs for the kids and, accept it or not, emergencies.
You can only blame lending practices so far because, in the end, it’s the person who signed the loan papers who are just as much at fault. Irresponsible indeed, dear sister, but I can top your angst with lenders who were too eager to give unsecured loans in the form of credit cards with little oversight of the individual’s ability of repayment.
A recent article in The NY Times related a cardholder who had been contacted by a lender that offered a 20% write-off on a $5,486 balance to which he declined but whose counter-offer of 50% was immediately accepted. An elderly gentleman who owed $112,00 on four credit cards, through a third-party settlement company that charged him a 12% fee, was able to reduce the balance to 35% of the outstanding balance, thus whittling down to 47% the outstanding balances.
In neither case was there a hint of them having to relinquish any of their assets. They had their cake and ate it too, and the rest of us are left with the crap that came out in the end – paying for the tasty morsels of their consumerism in the form of credit card companies jacking up interest rates much too quickly and all to often, even to those who continue to make on-time payments.
Obama’s Congress passed the Credit Card Act in May but the rule on 45 days advance notice of major changes won’t take affect until September and the majority of the new rules don’t apply until February next year. Consumers are of little concern compared to the demands of the corps or corporations.
The actions people took to enhance their immediate lifestyles were shameful. Whether by means of uncontrolled credit card usage or double-mortgage abuse, they set aside common sense for the good-time feeling of keeping up with other consumers who went on swanky spending sprees.
They beset themselves on the most difficult of futures with purchases of joyful trinkets like big screen TVs and monstrous vehicles that lose value the moment they’re taken off the showroom floor. Phantasmagoric vacations too, I’m sure.
There’s also the woman whose arrogance came out in full bloom when she bragged about the home equity loan she took, knowing the additional payment couldn’t be met. She pocketed the money. Despicably American.
The ones deserving of compassion, which doesn’t help them one bit, are those who became indebted due to health costs. I could make a wager and be fairly certain that, minus their conditions, their homes would still be secure investments, their stomachs less empty, their electric bills paid and they’d in be in much better off than the ones who pillaged their financial security for earthly pleasures.
Perhaps against Sally’s recommendation but in reader interest, particularly those faced with foreclosure, I suggest you visit www.financialsecurity.gov for information and www.makinghomeaffordable.gov to start the process that could ease your weary mind from the fears of losing your home. The entitlement was given by Obama. As far as other debt, call the number on the back of your credit card(s) and cry, “Fools!” You and them but the rest of us most of all.
Freedom - Let It Fill the Air
As important the word is to America’s heritage, ‘freedom’ appears not once in The Declaration of Independence. Nor does the word appear in The Constitution of the United States.
The Declaration of Independence was delivered on July 4, 1776. The Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1787. It wasn’t until the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, that the word appeared in Article III, stating ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’.
The fortitude with which the Founding Fathers proclaimed and fought was for the very freedoms we cherish, however forsaken they seem to many Americans. Today, our affirmation of freedom is taken for granted. It wasn’t so for the Men of Liberty and other Patriots of the American Revolution.
Many of the Founding Fathers were left indigent as their homes and properties were ransacked and burned. Some were tortured and killed as they were captured by British soldiers and Loyalists to King George III of England. And yet, with lost fortunes and lives, with shattered hearts and broken will, they stood by the closing words of the Declaration: “And for the support of this declaration, with the firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
A song that honors the principles of the Declaration of Independence was written by Kris Kristofferson and affectively delivered by Janis Joplin in 1971 with the prolific phrase from ‘Me and Bobby McGee’ – “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose…”
The lyrics should give us pause to consider that which we have today and for what were true actions of desperation that forged brave men to claim what no other peoples in the known history of mankind had fought with shear determination and fierce resolve: the freedom of a new nation.
Don’t think for a moment there weren’t contentious debates among the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. Think of it as the first legislative compromise in the history of the United States, a truly bipartisan effort of Congress. It was a give-and-take of politics without the dishonorable blight of lobbyists and self-interest groups.
An important omission in the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was a passage that contained 168 words which, if they hadn’t been deleted, would have alienated delegates representing plantation owners in southern states to the extent that they would have sided with the Loyalists and effectively doomed the efforts of the Patriots.
Specifically, the omitted text assailed King George III for waging “cruel War against human Nature itself, violating its most sacred Rights of Life and Liberty of a distant People who never offended him” and “…for Suppressing every legislative Attempt to prohibit or to restrain an execrable Commerce, determined to keep open a Market where Men should be bought and sold…”
It wasn’t until 89 years later that the equality of men of all colors was declared in the then-current 36 United States. The 13th Amendment, ratified on December 6, 1865, which abolished slavery, has no mention of ‘freedom’.
I suppose each of us could name a song or two that we feel justly represents the feel of freedom. A song written by crooner-turned-folk singer, Bobby Darin that still makes my heart yearn for peace, love and understanding among all men is “Simple Song of Freedom”. Originally released in 1969 by Tim Hardin, it still evokes in me a sense of faith and hope for man. It attempts to put to rest the politics of government, racism, religion and the misgivings of war.
As the music and lyrics flow, the feeling of want and desire grow. Goose bumps well for camaraderie among all peoples. I tend to put the song on repeat as if such action might bring the notion to fruition.
The song strongly suggests freedom might be an attainable goal, if only those who keep us from achieving the compassion and harmony of human consciousness had no claim to dampen and control the will of the people.
Space doesn’t allow the printing of the entire lyrics, but a few lines express the want of freedom:
No doubt some folks enjoy doin' battle
Like presidents and ministers and kings
But let us build them shelves where they can fight among themselves
and leave the people be who like to sing
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the airTell the people everywhere
That we the people here, don't want a war
Please, check out these links for each of Bobby’s and Tim’s versions of ‘Simple Song of Freedom’ and join in what should be a Global Anthem. And let it fill the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvY99BJzN-M [Bobby]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVcr7LIusc [Tim]
*You may also check out my Parcel Post 07 blog for a tribute to Bobby Darin for his contributions to music, social awareness and his song of freedom.
http://parcel-post.blogspot.com/search?q=global+anthem+
The Declaration of Independence was delivered on July 4, 1776. The Constitution was ratified on September 17, 1787. It wasn’t until the Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, that the word appeared in Article III, stating ‘Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’.
The fortitude with which the Founding Fathers proclaimed and fought was for the very freedoms we cherish, however forsaken they seem to many Americans. Today, our affirmation of freedom is taken for granted. It wasn’t so for the Men of Liberty and other Patriots of the American Revolution.
Many of the Founding Fathers were left indigent as their homes and properties were ransacked and burned. Some were tortured and killed as they were captured by British soldiers and Loyalists to King George III of England. And yet, with lost fortunes and lives, with shattered hearts and broken will, they stood by the closing words of the Declaration: “And for the support of this declaration, with the firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”
A song that honors the principles of the Declaration of Independence was written by Kris Kristofferson and affectively delivered by Janis Joplin in 1971 with the prolific phrase from ‘Me and Bobby McGee’ – “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose…”
The lyrics should give us pause to consider that which we have today and for what were true actions of desperation that forged brave men to claim what no other peoples in the known history of mankind had fought with shear determination and fierce resolve: the freedom of a new nation.
Don’t think for a moment there weren’t contentious debates among the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence. Think of it as the first legislative compromise in the history of the United States, a truly bipartisan effort of Congress. It was a give-and-take of politics without the dishonorable blight of lobbyists and self-interest groups.
An important omission in the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was a passage that contained 168 words which, if they hadn’t been deleted, would have alienated delegates representing plantation owners in southern states to the extent that they would have sided with the Loyalists and effectively doomed the efforts of the Patriots.
Specifically, the omitted text assailed King George III for waging “cruel War against human Nature itself, violating its most sacred Rights of Life and Liberty of a distant People who never offended him” and “…for Suppressing every legislative Attempt to prohibit or to restrain an execrable Commerce, determined to keep open a Market where Men should be bought and sold…”
It wasn’t until 89 years later that the equality of men of all colors was declared in the then-current 36 United States. The 13th Amendment, ratified on December 6, 1865, which abolished slavery, has no mention of ‘freedom’.
I suppose each of us could name a song or two that we feel justly represents the feel of freedom. A song written by crooner-turned-folk singer, Bobby Darin that still makes my heart yearn for peace, love and understanding among all men is “Simple Song of Freedom”. Originally released in 1969 by Tim Hardin, it still evokes in me a sense of faith and hope for man. It attempts to put to rest the politics of government, racism, religion and the misgivings of war.
As the music and lyrics flow, the feeling of want and desire grow. Goose bumps well for camaraderie among all peoples. I tend to put the song on repeat as if such action might bring the notion to fruition.
The song strongly suggests freedom might be an attainable goal, if only those who keep us from achieving the compassion and harmony of human consciousness had no claim to dampen and control the will of the people.
Space doesn’t allow the printing of the entire lyrics, but a few lines express the want of freedom:
No doubt some folks enjoy doin' battle
Like presidents and ministers and kings
But let us build them shelves where they can fight among themselves
and leave the people be who like to sing
Come and sing a simple song of freedom
Sing it like you've never sung before
Let it fill the airTell the people everywhere
That we the people here, don't want a war
Please, check out these links for each of Bobby’s and Tim’s versions of ‘Simple Song of Freedom’ and join in what should be a Global Anthem. And let it fill the air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvY99BJzN-M [Bobby]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVcr7LIusc [Tim]
*You may also check out my Parcel Post 07 blog for a tribute to Bobby Darin for his contributions to music, social awareness and his song of freedom.
http://parcel-post.blogspot.com/search?q=global+anthem+
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Aborting the Cost of Anti-Abortion
According to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization on sexual and reproductive health issues, state and federal tax dollars paid $89 million for 177,404 abortions in 2006.
“Already this year tens of thousands of Americans have asked Congress to respect the consciences of taxpayers and stop the abortion bailout,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, in early May. “As Congress begins the new appropriations process, it would do well to heed the voices of constituents and stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry.”
She added, “Common sense dictates one truism: we won’t find reductions in abortion as long as we continue to subsidize and promote it at taxpayers’ expense.”
Talking about subsidizing: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reported that teen childbearing in the U.S. cost taxpayers over $9.1B in 2004; the breakdown includes $1.9B for health care, $2.3B for child welfare, $2.1B for incarceration and $2.9B in a lifetime of lower wages/less tax revenue. The accumulative estimated costs from 1991 to 2004 are estimated to have been $161B.
A child born to a teen mother who has not finished high school and is not married is nine times more likely to be poorer than a child born to a married adult who finished high school.
Babies born to teens are at an increased risk of low-birth weight and immediate health problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and deafness, plus respiratory distress syndrome and intestinal problems. American taxpayers bear these Welfare costs.
An example of the tax liability incurred with premature childbirth is the case of 33-year old Octomomma Nadya Suleman who is less responsible that any pregnant teen. Already receiving public assistance funds of $490/month in food stamps and an estimated $793 per month each in Social Security disability payments for three of the six existing children (a total of $2,379), the eight children born this past January cost California taxpayers another big bundle for her joys.
Although the actual medical costs haven’t been disclosed, in 2006 the average cost for a California hospital stay was $164,273 per baby, or $1.3M total, according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Unless she is more responsible in childrearing than she was in childbearing, the expenses will keep breeding on an already financially burdened California for the next 18 years.
With all 14 children conceived via in-vitro fertilization, it sure seems Nadya has been consistently playing the Welfare game – and California taxpayers aren’t very happy about it. “It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?”
(Did he suggest cap and trade?)
Indeed, Charles. If intent on preserving the life of unplanned, unwanted and unborn fetuses, then anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and the charity of supportive citizens should bear the inherent financial burdens. Right is right, and the safety of the children would be better placed with the oversight of those who would guarantee them proper diet, housing, clothing and an environment to ensure they grow up as productive members of society.
If not for the dedication and determination of pro-life advocates, the fetuses will continue to be born into poverty, faced with malnutrition, sexual abuse and disadvantages in learning, putting them on paths that will most likely find their grandchildren in the same harrowing existences.
According to 2001 stats from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 40% pregnancies of white women were unplanned, 54% among Hispanics and 69% among blacks. We all know the conditions that await the lives of inner-city youths. Welcome to the real world, all you unwanted kids, thanks to anti-abortion advocates. The more the merrier?
Abstinence? Although we’re an intelligent lot, we’re still mammals with animal instincts inclined to satisfy rapture’s calling. Studies have shown that men think about sex every 52 seconds; women perhaps once a day, suggesting it’s the woman’s choice to accept the risk of pregnancy – outside of rape.
The average yearly cost incurred with each child born to a mother aged 17 and younger is $4,080 to the American taxpayer. In addition to the Standard Deduction, and with no need to file Schedule A, at the very least I should be able to claim this as a charitable deduction on Form 1040.
If not, the next poll should include the question, “On the issue of abortion, are you willing to provide $4,080, or more, in yearly taxes in support of making abortion illegal? Your answer is binding.”
A follow-up question could be, “Keeping in mind that you cannot change your previous answer, do you consider yourself a member of the Moral Majority?”
[Please, read the next blog entry 'BroncoBett Aborts Ron Rae' for a reader comment.]
“Already this year tens of thousands of Americans have asked Congress to respect the consciences of taxpayers and stop the abortion bailout,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, in early May. “As Congress begins the new appropriations process, it would do well to heed the voices of constituents and stop the flow of taxpayer dollars to the abortion industry.”
She added, “Common sense dictates one truism: we won’t find reductions in abortion as long as we continue to subsidize and promote it at taxpayers’ expense.”
Talking about subsidizing: The National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy reported that teen childbearing in the U.S. cost taxpayers over $9.1B in 2004; the breakdown includes $1.9B for health care, $2.3B for child welfare, $2.1B for incarceration and $2.9B in a lifetime of lower wages/less tax revenue. The accumulative estimated costs from 1991 to 2004 are estimated to have been $161B.
A child born to a teen mother who has not finished high school and is not married is nine times more likely to be poorer than a child born to a married adult who finished high school.
Babies born to teens are at an increased risk of low-birth weight and immediate health problems, including mental retardation, blindness, and deafness, plus respiratory distress syndrome and intestinal problems. American taxpayers bear these Welfare costs.
An example of the tax liability incurred with premature childbirth is the case of 33-year old Octomomma Nadya Suleman who is less responsible that any pregnant teen. Already receiving public assistance funds of $490/month in food stamps and an estimated $793 per month each in Social Security disability payments for three of the six existing children (a total of $2,379), the eight children born this past January cost California taxpayers another big bundle for her joys.
Although the actual medical costs haven’t been disclosed, in 2006 the average cost for a California hospital stay was $164,273 per baby, or $1.3M total, according to the Dept. of Health and Human Services. Unless she is more responsible in childrearing than she was in childbearing, the expenses will keep breeding on an already financially burdened California for the next 18 years.
With all 14 children conceived via in-vitro fertilization, it sure seems Nadya has been consistently playing the Welfare game – and California taxpayers aren’t very happy about it. “It's my opinion that a woman's right to reproduce should be limited to a number which the parents can pay for," Charles Murray wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Daily News. "Why should my wife and I, as taxpayers, pay child support for 14 Suleman kids?”
(Did he suggest cap and trade?)
Indeed, Charles. If intent on preserving the life of unplanned, unwanted and unborn fetuses, then anti-abortion groups, religious organizations and the charity of supportive citizens should bear the inherent financial burdens. Right is right, and the safety of the children would be better placed with the oversight of those who would guarantee them proper diet, housing, clothing and an environment to ensure they grow up as productive members of society.
If not for the dedication and determination of pro-life advocates, the fetuses will continue to be born into poverty, faced with malnutrition, sexual abuse and disadvantages in learning, putting them on paths that will most likely find their grandchildren in the same harrowing existences.
According to 2001 stats from The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, 40% pregnancies of white women were unplanned, 54% among Hispanics and 69% among blacks. We all know the conditions that await the lives of inner-city youths. Welcome to the real world, all you unwanted kids, thanks to anti-abortion advocates. The more the merrier?
Abstinence? Although we’re an intelligent lot, we’re still mammals with animal instincts inclined to satisfy rapture’s calling. Studies have shown that men think about sex every 52 seconds; women perhaps once a day, suggesting it’s the woman’s choice to accept the risk of pregnancy – outside of rape.
The average yearly cost incurred with each child born to a mother aged 17 and younger is $4,080 to the American taxpayer. In addition to the Standard Deduction, and with no need to file Schedule A, at the very least I should be able to claim this as a charitable deduction on Form 1040.
If not, the next poll should include the question, “On the issue of abortion, are you willing to provide $4,080, or more, in yearly taxes in support of making abortion illegal? Your answer is binding.”
A follow-up question could be, “Keeping in mind that you cannot change your previous answer, do you consider yourself a member of the Moral Majority?”
[Please, read the next blog entry 'BroncoBett Aborts Ron Rae' for a reader comment.]
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
BroncoBett Aborts Ron Rae
The following is a reader response to blog entry 'Aborting the Cost of Anti-Abortion' as it was printed in Hernando Today.
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
As a former columnist at Hernando Today it was my understanding that perhaps the first rule of thumb was to do proper research and assure the accuracy of statements published under my byline. Assuming this applies to conservative columnists as well as progressives, I must question the column by Ron Rae which appeared in Hernando Today on Sunday, June 14, 2009.
First, Ron’s claim that he is “not necessarily a Republican” is questionable since he mentions no Republican whose age is perhaps too advanced. He mentions Sen. Robert Byrd (D) W. V. as the oldest member at age 91. He next states “There are five other Democrats in the Senate who are 83 or older..” when actually only 3 are in that age group: Frank Lautenberg, N.J. (age 85), Daniel Inouye, Hawaii (age 84), and Daniel Akaha, Hawaii (age 84). He claims that term limits will give us a younger House and Senate, but that would depend upon at what age the candidates were first elected, would it not? So then, is this an issue of term limits or really an issue of age restrictions for candidates?
His real problem seems to be that he is a Republican who thought it was fine when the GOP had total control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government for 8 long and devastating years, but now demands a bi-partisanship that was never extended to Democrats for that 8 year span. Incidentally, fast approaching the age limit(s) Ron is objecting to are following Republican Senators : Jim Bunning, Kentucky (age 77), Richard Lugar, Indiana (age 77), Chuck Grassley, Iowa (age 75), Robert Foster Bennett, Utah (age 75), and Richard Shelby, Alabama (age 75). Is Ron saying that none of these Republicans should be allowed to run for re-election because they would still be serving when they were in the over 80 age group?
Apparently, Republicans who have become the “party of no” are desperately trying to eliminate Democrats from the Senate with nothing but scare tactics, lies and innuendoes, with nary a responsible idea or plan to offer except more of what got us where we are today. Funny that Hernando Today, which appears if not 100% right wing, certainly comes really close to that figure, has had to go to 5-day publishing instead of 7 and seems to be losing some staff members of long standing.Apparently, all a right winger has to do is claim that he is "not necessarily a Republican" and try to pass himself off as what...an Independant? Anyone think that this “newspaper” might be losing readership due to its lack of fairness and accountability?
Frances Earl
177 Rusk CircleSpring Hill, FL 34606
(352) 688-5993
http://us.mc1101.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=fearl@tampabay.rr.com
LETTER TO THE EDITOR:
As a former columnist at Hernando Today it was my understanding that perhaps the first rule of thumb was to do proper research and assure the accuracy of statements published under my byline. Assuming this applies to conservative columnists as well as progressives, I must question the column by Ron Rae which appeared in Hernando Today on Sunday, June 14, 2009.
First, Ron’s claim that he is “not necessarily a Republican” is questionable since he mentions no Republican whose age is perhaps too advanced. He mentions Sen. Robert Byrd (D) W. V. as the oldest member at age 91. He next states “There are five other Democrats in the Senate who are 83 or older..” when actually only 3 are in that age group: Frank Lautenberg, N.J. (age 85), Daniel Inouye, Hawaii (age 84), and Daniel Akaha, Hawaii (age 84). He claims that term limits will give us a younger House and Senate, but that would depend upon at what age the candidates were first elected, would it not? So then, is this an issue of term limits or really an issue of age restrictions for candidates?
His real problem seems to be that he is a Republican who thought it was fine when the GOP had total control of the Executive and Legislative branches of our government for 8 long and devastating years, but now demands a bi-partisanship that was never extended to Democrats for that 8 year span. Incidentally, fast approaching the age limit(s) Ron is objecting to are following Republican Senators : Jim Bunning, Kentucky (age 77), Richard Lugar, Indiana (age 77), Chuck Grassley, Iowa (age 75), Robert Foster Bennett, Utah (age 75), and Richard Shelby, Alabama (age 75). Is Ron saying that none of these Republicans should be allowed to run for re-election because they would still be serving when they were in the over 80 age group?
Apparently, Republicans who have become the “party of no” are desperately trying to eliminate Democrats from the Senate with nothing but scare tactics, lies and innuendoes, with nary a responsible idea or plan to offer except more of what got us where we are today. Funny that Hernando Today, which appears if not 100% right wing, certainly comes really close to that figure, has had to go to 5-day publishing instead of 7 and seems to be losing some staff members of long standing.Apparently, all a right winger has to do is claim that he is "not necessarily a Republican" and try to pass himself off as what...an Independant? Anyone think that this “newspaper” might be losing readership due to its lack of fairness and accountability?
Frances Earl
177 Rusk CircleSpring Hill, FL 34606
(352) 688-5993
http://us.mc1101.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=fearl@tampabay.rr.com
Right On, Rush Limbaugh!
The First 100 Days handed populist President Barack Obama a high-five regardless which poll happened to cross your eyes. A CBS/The New York Times poll of 973 adults presented a 68% approval rating while a USA Today/Gallup poll shows that of the 1,051 Americans polled, 79% view his performance as having been at least "okay."
But what of Obama’s acclaimed nemesis, Rush Limbaugh? On January 16, in response to an invitation to express, in writing, his hopes of the new Administration, the talk-radio host decided to go loco-vocal, saying, “I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody's gotta say it.”
He expressed this hopelessness of the 44th President, “I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.” He then added, “….what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?”
At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he discussed 50 years of Democrats bridling Americans with a welfare system that has held so many back from being successful members of society. “… I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail.”
During a March broadcast of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the host offered his interpretation of the Limbaugh broadcast that, instead of wanting the president to fail, it’s the policies to which Obama adheres that Rush wants to fail. Mr. Wallace was affectively chastised for his statement but, when taken in context, Limbaugh pointed out his personal concern for the country and the kids and grandchildren of Americans when he questioned, “Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, ‘I hope he fails.’”
On his April 22 radio show, Limbaugh said of the First 100 Days, “I'd like to refer to it, my friends, as “finals week.” And his take on Obama’s performance? “It's embarrassing incompetence and inexperience.”
He rattled off a roll call of Obama embarrassments: “Fidel Castro, one of Obama’s idols, call him superficial.” “We had the nomination of tax cheats to his cabinet… five tax cheats in the Obama administration.” “He has run around the world and apologized for the greatest, the most compassionate, the most innovative and freedom-loving country in world history.”
Speaking on behalf of his American followers, Rush said, “Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know all this that's happening in his administration.”
Of DHS Secretary, “Janet Napolitano said the 9/11 hijackers actually got into our country through Canada. So now the Canadians are up in arms and the National Post in Canada today has a piece asking how in the hell did this woman get her job?”
Right on, Rush! You could justly question how other members of the Obama Administration were chosen for such high profile positions.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is said to be the “wonder boy” but Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman and now head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, of which Geithner is also a member, told Congress during a February hearing that it was “shameful” Geithner has no assistants. Not so. Former Secretaries Lawrence Summers, his mentor, and Robert Rubin, a protégé, Geithner’s policies are anything but void of others’ influences. His experience relies on that of others.
Just as the president is pressing UBS to hand over a list of American companies guilty of tax evasion in Swiss bank accounts, the same should be pursued by Geithner for the billions of dollars handed over to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and his cozy attachment to American bankers.
As a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbee appeared more juvenile than an American Idol contestant with his wrinkled nose and a childish grin during an interview defending the President’s intent on closing tax loopholes and tax havens for American companies. With achievements as a debater and an acclaimed economist, he remains an inexperienced cabinet member.
Perhaps most questionable of Obama’s appointments is that of Robert Gibbs as Press Secretary. If ever a person were in need of a teleprompter, Gibbs is the prime candidate; a robot would be a welcome improvement over his inexperience as a public speaker.
However “un-American” people view his repeated hopes for Obama to fail, I respect Rush Limbaugh for upholding the most precious of our freedoms: the First Amendment.
“Right” on, Rush!
But what of Obama’s acclaimed nemesis, Rush Limbaugh? On January 16, in response to an invitation to express, in writing, his hopes of the new Administration, the talk-radio host decided to go loco-vocal, saying, “I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: ‘Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.’ Somebody's gotta say it.”
He expressed this hopelessness of the 44th President, “I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.” He then added, “….what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails?”
At the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference in February, he discussed 50 years of Democrats bridling Americans with a welfare system that has held so many back from being successful members of society. “… I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail.”
During a March broadcast of Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the host offered his interpretation of the Limbaugh broadcast that, instead of wanting the president to fail, it’s the policies to which Obama adheres that Rush wants to fail. Mr. Wallace was affectively chastised for his statement but, when taken in context, Limbaugh pointed out his personal concern for the country and the kids and grandchildren of Americans when he questioned, “Why in the world do we want to saddle them with more liberalism and socialism? Why would I want to do that? So I can answer it, four words, ‘I hope he fails.’”
On his April 22 radio show, Limbaugh said of the First 100 Days, “I'd like to refer to it, my friends, as “finals week.” And his take on Obama’s performance? “It's embarrassing incompetence and inexperience.”
He rattled off a roll call of Obama embarrassments: “Fidel Castro, one of Obama’s idols, call him superficial.” “We had the nomination of tax cheats to his cabinet… five tax cheats in the Obama administration.” “He has run around the world and apologized for the greatest, the most compassionate, the most innovative and freedom-loving country in world history.”
Speaking on behalf of his American followers, Rush said, “Obama doesn't know what he's doing. He doesn't know all this that's happening in his administration.”
Of DHS Secretary, “Janet Napolitano said the 9/11 hijackers actually got into our country through Canada. So now the Canadians are up in arms and the National Post in Canada today has a piece asking how in the hell did this woman get her job?”
Right on, Rush! You could justly question how other members of the Obama Administration were chosen for such high profile positions.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is said to be the “wonder boy” but Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve chairman and now head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board, of which Geithner is also a member, told Congress during a February hearing that it was “shameful” Geithner has no assistants. Not so. Former Secretaries Lawrence Summers, his mentor, and Robert Rubin, a protégé, Geithner’s policies are anything but void of others’ influences. His experience relies on that of others.
Just as the president is pressing UBS to hand over a list of American companies guilty of tax evasion in Swiss bank accounts, the same should be pursued by Geithner for the billions of dollars handed over to Fed chairman Ben Bernanke and his cozy attachment to American bankers.
As a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, Austan Goolsbee appeared more juvenile than an American Idol contestant with his wrinkled nose and a childish grin during an interview defending the President’s intent on closing tax loopholes and tax havens for American companies. With achievements as a debater and an acclaimed economist, he remains an inexperienced cabinet member.
Perhaps most questionable of Obama’s appointments is that of Robert Gibbs as Press Secretary. If ever a person were in need of a teleprompter, Gibbs is the prime candidate; a robot would be a welcome improvement over his inexperience as a public speaker.
However “un-American” people view his repeated hopes for Obama to fail, I respect Rush Limbaugh for upholding the most precious of our freedoms: the First Amendment.
“Right” on, Rush!
Right-Wing Radicals
“Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" What a title! Without following news sources, I might have thought there was evidence that Republicans and oil companies were enlisting an army of lobbyists to quell rumors that global warming poses a threat to the planet and that the banking industry was prepared to finance offshore drilling with taxpayer investment dollars.
The report, released on April 7 and labeled “Unclassified//For Official Use Only” by the Department of Homeland Security, ruffled some feathers, particularly with reference to the Oklahoma City bombing and wording that suggested disgruntled war veterans are likely to be recruited by extremist paramilitary groups for covert actions against select groups of Americans.
Timothy McVeigh, a Bronze Medal veteran during the Gulf War, masterminded the deadliest act of domestic terrorism. By lethal injection, he was the first criminal executed by the federal government since the 1963 hanging of Victor Fequer, who killed Dr. Edward Bartels seeking drugs that the doctor may have been carrying.
The outcry of invoking the memory of the 13 barrels of explosives loaded in, and exploded from, a Ryder truck seems disrespectful of the estimated 387,000 residents in the Oklahoma City area who knew someone directly affected by the bombing. Over 800 people were injured and 168 killed on the 19th of April 1995 – of which 19 were children. FBI investigations found evidence that McVeigh had been scouting the federal building since the previous December, aware of the daycare center. McVeigh showed no remorse for the deaths of the children, referring to them as “collateral damage”.
McVeigh’s anti-government feelings began when given orders to execute surrendering prisoners while serving in the Gulf War. His anger intensified in 1992 when FBI sniper fire murdered Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, as she stood unseen behind a door. 14-year old Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while retreating from gunfire.
McVeigh specifically chose April 19th for the bombing because on that day in 1993 the federal government ended a 51-day standoff with members of religious sect Branch Davidian in Waco, Texas, leaving 4 federal agents and 74 Davidians dead. Four hundred rounds of now-banned CS tear gas failed to flush the group out. The eventual use of assault tanks and explosive devices by the FBI ignited fires and destroyed the resident compound. These actions caused the majority of the deaths.
The Columbine High School massacre occurred on April 20, 1999, one day after the intended day of executions. The timing of the release of the report was appropriate.
The details of the report were justly assumptive. Foreclosures, job losses, unemployment, immigration, abortion and racist concerns over the election of the first black president are all probable causes that may attract enlistments into right-wing extremist groups.
Take note that one in five returning veterans (roughly 300,000) from Iraq and Afghanistan combat regions have been diagnosed with mental/psycho-social disorders They return to low wages, joblessness, homelessness and marital problems. Many forgo treatment because of the stigma surrounding mental health claims. A few receive minimal therapy while some are completely ignored and commit suicide.
Since these soldiers have no one to lean on for assistance, they may in fact respond to the recruitment of militia groups that seek their combat skills toward their causes and offer solace with the butt of a rifle positioned cheek to shoulder.
When released, the report spelled it out in black and white – it failed to acknowledge the majority of dedicated veterans who fought for the red, white and blue stripes of the American flag in defense of our liberties.
Steve Barry, a white supremacist and an Army Special Forces soldier, wrote in The Register, a publication of neo-Nazi group National Alliance, an article titled “Planning a Skinhead Infantry”:
“Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and ‘cleansed’.”
“As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.”
The article was published in 1999. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit organization known for tolerance education programs, reported the number of hate groups have risen 53% in America from 602 in 2000 to 926 in 2008, including Neo-nazi, Neo-Confederate, black separatist, white nationalist, and various skinhead and Klu Klux Klan affiliates.
Therefore, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was appropriate.
The report, released on April 7 and labeled “Unclassified//For Official Use Only” by the Department of Homeland Security, ruffled some feathers, particularly with reference to the Oklahoma City bombing and wording that suggested disgruntled war veterans are likely to be recruited by extremist paramilitary groups for covert actions against select groups of Americans.
Timothy McVeigh, a Bronze Medal veteran during the Gulf War, masterminded the deadliest act of domestic terrorism. By lethal injection, he was the first criminal executed by the federal government since the 1963 hanging of Victor Fequer, who killed Dr. Edward Bartels seeking drugs that the doctor may have been carrying.
The outcry of invoking the memory of the 13 barrels of explosives loaded in, and exploded from, a Ryder truck seems disrespectful of the estimated 387,000 residents in the Oklahoma City area who knew someone directly affected by the bombing. Over 800 people were injured and 168 killed on the 19th of April 1995 – of which 19 were children. FBI investigations found evidence that McVeigh had been scouting the federal building since the previous December, aware of the daycare center. McVeigh showed no remorse for the deaths of the children, referring to them as “collateral damage”.
McVeigh’s anti-government feelings began when given orders to execute surrendering prisoners while serving in the Gulf War. His anger intensified in 1992 when FBI sniper fire murdered Vicki Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, as she stood unseen behind a door. 14-year old Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while retreating from gunfire.
McVeigh specifically chose April 19th for the bombing because on that day in 1993 the federal government ended a 51-day standoff with members of religious sect Branch Davidian in Waco, Texas, leaving 4 federal agents and 74 Davidians dead. Four hundred rounds of now-banned CS tear gas failed to flush the group out. The eventual use of assault tanks and explosive devices by the FBI ignited fires and destroyed the resident compound. These actions caused the majority of the deaths.
The Columbine High School massacre occurred on April 20, 1999, one day after the intended day of executions. The timing of the release of the report was appropriate.
The details of the report were justly assumptive. Foreclosures, job losses, unemployment, immigration, abortion and racist concerns over the election of the first black president are all probable causes that may attract enlistments into right-wing extremist groups.
Take note that one in five returning veterans (roughly 300,000) from Iraq and Afghanistan combat regions have been diagnosed with mental/psycho-social disorders They return to low wages, joblessness, homelessness and marital problems. Many forgo treatment because of the stigma surrounding mental health claims. A few receive minimal therapy while some are completely ignored and commit suicide.
Since these soldiers have no one to lean on for assistance, they may in fact respond to the recruitment of militia groups that seek their combat skills toward their causes and offer solace with the butt of a rifle positioned cheek to shoulder.
When released, the report spelled it out in black and white – it failed to acknowledge the majority of dedicated veterans who fought for the red, white and blue stripes of the American flag in defense of our liberties.
Steve Barry, a white supremacist and an Army Special Forces soldier, wrote in The Register, a publication of neo-Nazi group National Alliance, an article titled “Planning a Skinhead Infantry”:
“Light infantry is your branch of choice because the coming race war and the ethnic cleansing to follow will be very much an infantryman's war. It will be house-to-house, neighborhood-by-neighborhood until your town or city is cleared and the alien races are driven into the countryside where they can be hunted down and ‘cleansed’.”
“As a professional soldier, my goal is to fill the ranks of the United States Army with skinheads. As street brawlers, you will be useless in the coming race war. As trained infantrymen, you will join the ranks of the Aryan warrior brotherhood.”
The article was published in 1999. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, a non-profit organization known for tolerance education programs, reported the number of hate groups have risen 53% in America from 602 in 2000 to 926 in 2008, including Neo-nazi, Neo-Confederate, black separatist, white nationalist, and various skinhead and Klu Klux Klan affiliates.
Therefore, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment" was appropriate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)