Showing posts with label partisan politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label partisan politics. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Congress should have the same health care as the rest of us
I just took a moment to sign on to this simple statement by Consumers Union, "Stop insurance company abuses: Uphold the Affordable Care Act," and I hope you will join me.
The Supreme Court will debate our new health insurance rights at the end of this month, and those who want to overturn the law are going to be there in force. Like me, you probably can't go to Washington, but if you add your name to this statement, Consumers Union will put your name on a huge banner that will be unfurled in front of the Court for all to see. Click here to add your name!
Why is this moment in time so important? If the Court strikes down the law, we will lose our new rights that hold insurance companies accountable for how they spend our money and how they treat us.
Gone will be our right to get a refund on our premiums if insurers spend too much on their CEO salaries and overhead. Gone will be our right to get decent coverage even if we have a pre-existing condition. Gone will be the ability to keep teens and young adults on their parents’ policy. Gone will be a prohibition that stops insurers from charging women more than men.
Please take a moment to show your support for our new rights under the law by adding your name to the banner. Thank you!
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Something Less Than Complete Agreement
South Dakota’s governor and the state attorney general have committed South Dakota to a lawsuit that disputes the Constitutionality of the recently passed healthcare reform bill. They believe that the federal government has infringed on state’s rights with a mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. Further, they imply that the federal government should not force individuals to participate in this plan without their consent. Yet the governmental mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance was previously promoted several times by Republican Party elected officials and election candidates.
I do not care to participate in this lawsuit, but apparently the Governor and the state attorney general aren’t actually concerned with this contradiction of governmental perception on personal rights infringements. It isn’t the first time they have acted in this manner. South Dakota’s majority party’s agenda has been pursued through state government with regard to the abortion issue also. Most likely, this is not a situation unique to South Dakota or to just one ruling political party.
An article from the Dakota Today blog site identified Senator Thune’s one sided view of political partisanship. Many people seem to be unable to conceive the possibility that there is than one way to view political issues and that complete agreement is not possible. Compromise appears to be the only way to achieve some level of fairness on many issues, but this concept appears lost on the ears of members of the Republican Party.
Apparently, according to Senator Thune, partisanship is something that Democrats engage in. Republicans participate in strong political opposition. When the Democrats were the minority party in Congress, they were described as partisan obstructionists when they strongly opposed Republican sponsored legislation. Interestingly, it is extremely rare that the Democrats ever act with complete unity in opposition to legislation. The Republicans appear to be able to pull that theoretically amazing unified opposition quite easily. How is it that a political party can be structure such that all of its millions of members are in complete agreement? Is it possible that all those millions are not incomplete agreement with their elected representatives?
Children often form informal groups that appear to share ideas that aren’t necessarily based on facts. Long ago, most of our ancestors were ignorant of the actual shape of the earth and the workings of the Universe. Cosmological ignorance took a long time to overcome and before it was, the incorrect concept of a flat earth was the common and unquestioned view of the majority of mankind. Isn’t it possible that simple ignorance, as well as intentional self-imposed ignorance help to unify the Republican members of Congress?
If it isn’t ignorance that results in what I view as an incorrect or an improbable degree of party unity, then what is it? Is it possible that health care reform is not actually the issue that is being resisted? Is it possible that one party political control is really the reason for the completely unified front presented by the Republican Congressional Minority?
I do not care to participate in this lawsuit, but apparently the Governor and the state attorney general aren’t actually concerned with this contradiction of governmental perception on personal rights infringements. It isn’t the first time they have acted in this manner. South Dakota’s majority party’s agenda has been pursued through state government with regard to the abortion issue also. Most likely, this is not a situation unique to South Dakota or to just one ruling political party.
An article from the Dakota Today blog site identified Senator Thune’s one sided view of political partisanship. Many people seem to be unable to conceive the possibility that there is than one way to view political issues and that complete agreement is not possible. Compromise appears to be the only way to achieve some level of fairness on many issues, but this concept appears lost on the ears of members of the Republican Party.
Apparently, according to Senator Thune, partisanship is something that Democrats engage in. Republicans participate in strong political opposition. When the Democrats were the minority party in Congress, they were described as partisan obstructionists when they strongly opposed Republican sponsored legislation. Interestingly, it is extremely rare that the Democrats ever act with complete unity in opposition to legislation. The Republicans appear to be able to pull that theoretically amazing unified opposition quite easily. How is it that a political party can be structure such that all of its millions of members are in complete agreement? Is it possible that all those millions are not incomplete agreement with their elected representatives?
Children often form informal groups that appear to share ideas that aren’t necessarily based on facts. Long ago, most of our ancestors were ignorant of the actual shape of the earth and the workings of the Universe. Cosmological ignorance took a long time to overcome and before it was, the incorrect concept of a flat earth was the common and unquestioned view of the majority of mankind. Isn’t it possible that simple ignorance, as well as intentional self-imposed ignorance help to unify the Republican members of Congress?
If it isn’t ignorance that results in what I view as an incorrect or an improbable degree of party unity, then what is it? Is it possible that health care reform is not actually the issue that is being resisted? Is it possible that one party political control is really the reason for the completely unified front presented by the Republican Congressional Minority?
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Way We Perceive Things
Where in the world is South Dakota? While still quite young, it was a surprise for me to learn that what is considered the Middle West is east of where I lived in South Dakota. However, when considering the area covered by the High Country News magazine, our state is not part of the west. Even though South is part of our state’s name, we are northerners.
Look at that name Middle West and consider that the even though there is a place like that in our country, there is no corresponding complimentary Middle East within our borders. How did these apparent misnomers get by all the political correctness my neighbors like to make fun of. Perhaps, they aren’t socialist concepts?
Socialism seems to be a new buzz word with about the same relationship to reality as some of the place names in our country. I know where Dallas South Dakota is, but when you hear people talking about the Dallas Cowboys, rarely is the boot and hat variety of our locale the topic of the conversation.
Likewise, socialism had a definite definition when I took classes that touched on political science. What I hear as defining socialism today blurs the lines of reality and could be used to describe situations that many of the users of the term would not want included in their disdainful labeling fiesta. Like using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for the general public is socialistic. Using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for veterans, elderly people, and elected officials is an accepted element of our idea of capitalism. Using taxpayer dollars to feed hungry people is socialist welfare. Using tax payer dollars supplement the relocation of independently healthy and profitable businesses is capitalism. Providing free access to publicly owned highway and road systems, free access to public owned schools, and free access to many other publicly provided services is capitalism and certainly is not wealth transference. However, providing housing assistance to people in need is socialistic redistribution of wealth. Are you confused?
How did these concepts get so turned around? Is there a difference between a business perk and welfare? Don’t get into argument that one is earned and the other is not because upon close scrutiny it can get very hard to identify which is which. Is a gift really a gift if there are conditions associated with reception eligibility? Most of us have heard of perks that come with the job but aren’t tied to the ability to do the job or to doing the job well. If that isn’t the case, what is all the fuss about bonuses for executives that are considered responsible only when the company shows a profit and not when there is a loss?
Why is it that Republican spending is capitalism and Democratic spending is socialism? Ronald Reagan’s administration ran up the first trillion dollar national debt, George W. Bush funded the first major war without a tax increase, and during the G. W. Bush administration a Republican controlled congress went on a spending spree that dwarfed all previous congressional spending sprees. No one accuses them of being borrow-and-spend Republicans. The cost of the Iraq war wasn’t even included in the normal federal budget; instead it was more on the order of an addendum called a supplement. Where were the current Tea Party protestors then and why don’t the protestors now identify these glaring omissions in their public presentations? Well, the answer to that is not really a surprise to anyone; that would be admitting to some holes in hull of their boat as well as the holes in their opposition’s vessel.
What’s that you say? This opinion piece includes some of those inflammatory words? Nanner nanner nann nerr, big fat water rat . . . That proves my point, we’re both able to tell the difference in how to describe things so that they sting and so are most children when they use name calling. Many times we use these words as devices to get the reader or listener’s attention. Unfortunately, instead of adding a little spice, we end up dropping a dump truck load of salt on an open wound. Then it becomes questionable as to just what the intention was or is for the use of this type of language. There are lots of people that use the strategy of divide and conquer. Why we do what we do depends a lot on the relationships involved.
Many of my conservative neighbors in this state have their personal finances under control. They don’t borrow unnecessarily and they don’t spend that way either. However, they wouldn’t let their children go under financially without trying to help them, even when their children may not necessarily be all that deserving of that help. They do it with the hope that in the end the children will see their own mistakes and avoid them in the future. Why is it so difficult to transfer or apply that same idea and reasoning to the family of man? Many of these neighbors that I refer to, have applied that theory through religious organizations they belong to and/or support. The hang-up is in the terminology and labels that we have learned to apply to public programs. Some how the corporations and certain other groups have convinced us that the perks they receive from our government are something other than the so called nefarious welfare giveaways. You wouldn’t be so confused about that at home, even if your children were to incorporate.
There is enough faulty public and private perception and management to satisfy even the sloppiest and unskilled examples of researchers. Unfortunately, most research is left up to political leaders and news outlets that are more concerned with profits and furthering the political ideals and agendas of their owners than in conducting real investigative journalism. Many people are more inclined to look and listen for what they want to hear rather than to skeptically question what they read or hear. Fortunately, there have always been good journalists that do their jobs and provide the information the public needs to separate the spin from the truth. The trouble is that the other kinds of journalists are many times easier to pay attention to since they are serving the food we like to eat.
Now that skepticism is no longer unpatriotic, we need to do what the Tea Baggers claimed to be doing. We need to question the actions of our elected officials. We should question our foreign policy, question our fiscal policy, question our monetary policy, and generally question all of our government policies; forming our questions with the intent of identifying what is good for the country and not what is good for our favorite political party. Political theory and idealism is good for elections and bad for legislation. Do a little checking and you can find lots of examples of good legislation when the political idealism was checked at the door of the debate hall.
Start by checking your own vocabulary and eliminating inflammatory labels and accusations. One-upmanship is an elementary school device that we should be able to do away with. The conservative and liberal talk show hosts have become trainers for the rest of us in how not to get along. We need to find better examples and better teachers. They exist and some of them helped to write our Constitution. Emulate the speakers that don’t insight riot, let the cooler heads prevail and become a majority. There will be plenty of opportunities to sling mud in the elections, but let us keep our hands clean when we are about the country’s business.
I have a brother-in-law that I think very highly of and he ascribes to a political viewpoint quite different from my own. For a while we had to give up talking about politics because we couldn’t do it without becoming emotionally aggravated. Lately, we have been talking about political issues; not because we have changed the way we think, but because we have changed the way we describe what we think. Now it appears as though we agree on far more issues than before, probably because we always did.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121980.pdf
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121989.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost_of_war_counter_notes
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/10/tax-and-borrow.html
Look at that name Middle West and consider that the even though there is a place like that in our country, there is no corresponding complimentary Middle East within our borders. How did these apparent misnomers get by all the political correctness my neighbors like to make fun of. Perhaps, they aren’t socialist concepts?
Socialism seems to be a new buzz word with about the same relationship to reality as some of the place names in our country. I know where Dallas South Dakota is, but when you hear people talking about the Dallas Cowboys, rarely is the boot and hat variety of our locale the topic of the conversation.
Likewise, socialism had a definite definition when I took classes that touched on political science. What I hear as defining socialism today blurs the lines of reality and could be used to describe situations that many of the users of the term would not want included in their disdainful labeling fiesta. Like using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for the general public is socialistic. Using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for veterans, elderly people, and elected officials is an accepted element of our idea of capitalism. Using taxpayer dollars to feed hungry people is socialist welfare. Using tax payer dollars supplement the relocation of independently healthy and profitable businesses is capitalism. Providing free access to publicly owned highway and road systems, free access to public owned schools, and free access to many other publicly provided services is capitalism and certainly is not wealth transference. However, providing housing assistance to people in need is socialistic redistribution of wealth. Are you confused?
How did these concepts get so turned around? Is there a difference between a business perk and welfare? Don’t get into argument that one is earned and the other is not because upon close scrutiny it can get very hard to identify which is which. Is a gift really a gift if there are conditions associated with reception eligibility? Most of us have heard of perks that come with the job but aren’t tied to the ability to do the job or to doing the job well. If that isn’t the case, what is all the fuss about bonuses for executives that are considered responsible only when the company shows a profit and not when there is a loss?
Why is it that Republican spending is capitalism and Democratic spending is socialism? Ronald Reagan’s administration ran up the first trillion dollar national debt, George W. Bush funded the first major war without a tax increase, and during the G. W. Bush administration a Republican controlled congress went on a spending spree that dwarfed all previous congressional spending sprees. No one accuses them of being borrow-and-spend Republicans. The cost of the Iraq war wasn’t even included in the normal federal budget; instead it was more on the order of an addendum called a supplement. Where were the current Tea Party protestors then and why don’t the protestors now identify these glaring omissions in their public presentations? Well, the answer to that is not really a surprise to anyone; that would be admitting to some holes in hull of their boat as well as the holes in their opposition’s vessel.
What’s that you say? This opinion piece includes some of those inflammatory words? Nanner nanner nann nerr, big fat water rat . . . That proves my point, we’re both able to tell the difference in how to describe things so that they sting and so are most children when they use name calling. Many times we use these words as devices to get the reader or listener’s attention. Unfortunately, instead of adding a little spice, we end up dropping a dump truck load of salt on an open wound. Then it becomes questionable as to just what the intention was or is for the use of this type of language. There are lots of people that use the strategy of divide and conquer. Why we do what we do depends a lot on the relationships involved.
Many of my conservative neighbors in this state have their personal finances under control. They don’t borrow unnecessarily and they don’t spend that way either. However, they wouldn’t let their children go under financially without trying to help them, even when their children may not necessarily be all that deserving of that help. They do it with the hope that in the end the children will see their own mistakes and avoid them in the future. Why is it so difficult to transfer or apply that same idea and reasoning to the family of man? Many of these neighbors that I refer to, have applied that theory through religious organizations they belong to and/or support. The hang-up is in the terminology and labels that we have learned to apply to public programs. Some how the corporations and certain other groups have convinced us that the perks they receive from our government are something other than the so called nefarious welfare giveaways. You wouldn’t be so confused about that at home, even if your children were to incorporate.
There is enough faulty public and private perception and management to satisfy even the sloppiest and unskilled examples of researchers. Unfortunately, most research is left up to political leaders and news outlets that are more concerned with profits and furthering the political ideals and agendas of their owners than in conducting real investigative journalism. Many people are more inclined to look and listen for what they want to hear rather than to skeptically question what they read or hear. Fortunately, there have always been good journalists that do their jobs and provide the information the public needs to separate the spin from the truth. The trouble is that the other kinds of journalists are many times easier to pay attention to since they are serving the food we like to eat.
Now that skepticism is no longer unpatriotic, we need to do what the Tea Baggers claimed to be doing. We need to question the actions of our elected officials. We should question our foreign policy, question our fiscal policy, question our monetary policy, and generally question all of our government policies; forming our questions with the intent of identifying what is good for the country and not what is good for our favorite political party. Political theory and idealism is good for elections and bad for legislation. Do a little checking and you can find lots of examples of good legislation when the political idealism was checked at the door of the debate hall.
Start by checking your own vocabulary and eliminating inflammatory labels and accusations. One-upmanship is an elementary school device that we should be able to do away with. The conservative and liberal talk show hosts have become trainers for the rest of us in how not to get along. We need to find better examples and better teachers. They exist and some of them helped to write our Constitution. Emulate the speakers that don’t insight riot, let the cooler heads prevail and become a majority. There will be plenty of opportunities to sling mud in the elections, but let us keep our hands clean when we are about the country’s business.
I have a brother-in-law that I think very highly of and he ascribes to a political viewpoint quite different from my own. For a while we had to give up talking about politics because we couldn’t do it without becoming emotionally aggravated. Lately, we have been talking about political issues; not because we have changed the way we think, but because we have changed the way we describe what we think. Now it appears as though we agree on far more issues than before, probably because we always did.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121980.pdf
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121989.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost_of_war_counter_notes
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/10/tax-and-borrow.html
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Letter to the Editor, Published in Rapid City Journal 4-19-09
Thank you for your comments referring to my letter Mr. Johnson. However, what makes you think that I’m defending Democrats? Here is a fact, based on my experience: Visiting numerous Tea Party websites and perusing their lists of slogans, signs, and talking points (when they included those things) did not turn up anti-Bush, anti-Paulson, anti-TARP, or anti-stealing money from our grandchildren to pay for the war in Iraq references. Is it possible that Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and Timothy Geithner are only part-time Democrats? There were lots of examples on those websites that did not specifically name one party or one administration responsible for maximizing levels of taxation and spending. They almost made me want to join in.As you pointed out, we agree that people should protest. Are you are unable or unwilling to see how people with an agenda that is slanted against one party also used this event to further that agenda? Perhaps you’ll be on the front lines of some unbiased Labor Day celebration in the future just to spite me.
As for my letter being presented as something other than my opinion, how did it differ in that respect from your letter?
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tea Party protest in Rapid City
Tuesday, April 14, 2009; Jerry Steinley’s article Spending brings out the tea protest was published in the Rapid City Journal:
http//www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/14/news/opinions/jerry_steinley/doc49de39520221d774387146.txt .
Since then numerous online comments have been posted on the Rapid City Journal’s website and several rebuttal letters have also been published in the print version of the Rapid City Journal. I wrote the following article before reading the online posts and I can see that a number of the people writing in support of the Tea Party should not be included in my one party slant perception of participants. In defense of what I wrote below, my opinion came from the print newspaper rebuttals and from visiting a website that listed the issues of the protest. That list was decidedly one sided and party biased. For better or worse, my letter to the editor appears below:
The accusations and pronouncements of the Tea Party group would be much more believable if their charges of malfeasance included members of more than one political party and more than one presidential administration. Mr. Steinley’s recent editorial very clearly identified the upcoming demonstration for what it is, divisive party exploitation of public anger rather than rational nonpartisan voter indignation.
Mr. Steinley’s editorial also implied that not all of our conservative neighbors accept the one sided accusations. The organizers are apparently not interested in using this opportunity to gather more broad based support for their protest. Broad based, multi-political party, support that could actually and positively affect the future of our nation and help to reduce partisan obstructionism and divisiveness.
We should be outraged by what has happened, demand accountability, demand transparency, and get personally involved. Many of the Tea Party group members think they are doing just that, but they should drop the one political party slant on some of the issues they have raised. They could draw many more participants to their rally.
Americans can be very skeptical at times. Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, some of us seem to have forgotten where we left our skepticism laying.
http//www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/14/news/opinions/jerry_steinley/doc49de39520221d774387146.txt .
Since then numerous online comments have been posted on the Rapid City Journal’s website and several rebuttal letters have also been published in the print version of the Rapid City Journal. I wrote the following article before reading the online posts and I can see that a number of the people writing in support of the Tea Party should not be included in my one party slant perception of participants. In defense of what I wrote below, my opinion came from the print newspaper rebuttals and from visiting a website that listed the issues of the protest. That list was decidedly one sided and party biased. For better or worse, my letter to the editor appears below:
The accusations and pronouncements of the Tea Party group would be much more believable if their charges of malfeasance included members of more than one political party and more than one presidential administration. Mr. Steinley’s recent editorial very clearly identified the upcoming demonstration for what it is, divisive party exploitation of public anger rather than rational nonpartisan voter indignation.
Mr. Steinley’s editorial also implied that not all of our conservative neighbors accept the one sided accusations. The organizers are apparently not interested in using this opportunity to gather more broad based support for their protest. Broad based, multi-political party, support that could actually and positively affect the future of our nation and help to reduce partisan obstructionism and divisiveness.
We should be outraged by what has happened, demand accountability, demand transparency, and get personally involved. Many of the Tea Party group members think they are doing just that, but they should drop the one political party slant on some of the issues they have raised. They could draw many more participants to their rally.
Americans can be very skeptical at times. Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, some of us seem to have forgotten where we left our skepticism laying.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)