The Senate passed a historic $871 billion health care reform bill Thursday morning, handing President Obama a Christmas Eve victory on his top domestic priority.  The bill passed in a 60-39 party line vote after months of heated partisan debate. Every member of the Democratic caucus backed the measure; every Republican opposed it. 

Should it become law, the measure would constitute the biggest expansion of federal health care guarantees since the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid more than four decades ago. It is expected to extend insurance coverage to 30 million additional Americans.  

"We are now finally poised to deliver on the promise of real, meaningful health insurance reform that will bring additional security and stability to the American people," Obama said shortly after the vote. "If passed, this will be the most important piece of social legislation since the Social Security Act passed in the 1930s." 

The bill now must be merged with a $1 trillion plan approved by the House of Representatives in November. Democrats hope to have a bill ready for Obama's signature before the president's State of the Union address early next year.

Left of Center

 

  

 

1)      Previous approved budget set asides of $635 Billion over 10 years from the Health Care Reserve Fund.  Over $300 Billion will come from raising revenue by limiting tax deductions the wealthiest Americans can take.

 

2)      Medicare Program Spending cuts
[projected to save ~$25 Billion over 10 years]

 

a.      End over payments to Medicare Advantage 
                     - Offer competitive bidding into the Medicare Advantage Program. 
                              A program under which private insurance companies can offer
                             Medicare Coverage. 
                      [projected savings of ~$180 Billion over 10 yrs]

 

b.      Use Medicare reimbursements to reduce preventable hospital readmissions.  (approximately 20% of Medicare patients discharged from hospitals are readmitted within a month, often because their not getting the comprehensive care they need.  This puts people at risk and drives up cost.

 

3)      Introduce generic biologic drugs into the market place, thereby getting better deals on prescription drugs for poorer seniors, while better off seniors pay a little more for drugs they want. [projected saving of ~$30 Billion]

 

4)      Adjust Medicare payments to reflect new advances and productivity gains in the economy 
[projected savings of ~ $110 Billion]

 

5)      Reducing Medicare payments to hospitals for treating uninsured people by providing a system where people have coverage. [projected savings of ~ $105 Billion]

 

6)      More efficient purchasing of prescription drugs. [projected savings of ~$75 Billion]

 

7)      Weed out waste, abuse, and fraud of the healthcare system.
[projected savings ~$1 Billion]

 

{Cost Savings on the Table ~$850 Billion}

  

In its surprise choice out of 205 entries, the Norwegian Nobel Committee cited the president's creation of a "new climate in international politics" and his work on nuclear disarmament, even though he is just nine months into his presidency.

In announcing Obama winner, the Norwegian Nobel Committee praised “his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people

Speaking with White House reporters yesterday, Obama said he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the “transformative figures” who had won it before him.  Notwithstanding, he said, “I will accept this award as a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the challenges of the 21st century.”

According to Nobel's will, the Peace Prize should be awarded "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

Left of Center

  

It would be false to assume that a majority of protesters at Town Hall Meetings and Tea Party Rallies are racist. On the contrary, the majority of of protester are well versed and educated in their party politics, holding fast to core party values, while engaging in civil discourse and debate of the issues.

Ideologies all parties share is a committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American, along with economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, open, honest and accountable government, and securing our nation while protecting our civil rights and liberties of all Americans.  However, how to best implement these ldeologies has always been up for political, and party, debate.  Debate, and protest, is good for America politics, as long as the discourse is civil, non-violent, and non-racial.

Althought and minority, there are "Fringe Elements" who express themselves openly at many of the recent Town Hall Meetings and Tea Party RalliesNo one believes there is large contingency of protestors at town hall meetings and Tea Party rallies that are racist, rather a small fringe blended in this way:

• 20% Staunch Republicans, who depend on their information by “research”
• 40% Republicans who depend on their information by “word of mouth”
• 30% Born into republican family. “Do as your told”
• 5% Ethnic/ Cultural followers. Loyalties based on fear and ignorance.
• 5% Racist Fringe. Loyalties based on anger and racism.

Campbell Brown on Racism at Tea Parties

  

Motivation for much of the anger and rage expressed by the so called "Fringe Element", often comes from divisive and racially charged commentary from some prominent T.V. talk show hosts.  Often, disguised as news and information shows, these shows are a mixture of political ideological differences , self promoted opinion and inflated ego.  Topics regularly stray from political debate to unrelated personal attacks laced with racial overtones. 

It's one thing to have a fundamental debate concerning differences in political ideology, but engaging in racial attacks is unacceptable, and only serves to fuel the fire of the "Fringe". 

<strong>Leave a comment and let us know what you think</strong>

Left of Center

<strong>Glenn Beck calling President Obama a racist</strong>


<strong>Rush Limbauch suggesting President Obama is “not qualified”</strong>

  

Unfortunately, some are still taught supremacy philosophies, which give way to disrespect, intolerance, privileged mentality, and a lack of diversity. Supremacy philosophies are often found in the make up of the so called, “Fringe Group” of racist motivated individuals, or groups, in America today. The Fringe often displays deep seeded resentment, intolerance, and lack of respect for the achievement, accomplishment, and authority of those outside of their own race.

These strong principles of privilege and resentment drive this group to express their resistance and outrage to change, such as the first African American President, with racial epithets, slurs, and effigies, displayed at many recent Tea Party protests and rallies.

Political debate and discourse related to the issues and policies that best serve the American people is a good thing, and has shaped the fabric of our great country. However, resistance to change related to race and ignorance, is deplorable and offensive.

<strong>Leave a comment and let us know what you think</strong>

Left of Center

Tea Party Racist Protest

  

Respect, tolerance, cultural awareness, and diversity are lessons best served young.

Post Jim Crow and segregation, America’s multi-cultural children (the Rainbow Generation) were free to play, laugh, and share life together, they also realized their equality of creation. Sure they noticed the color of each others skin, but moreover, they noticed what they had in common. Sharing the same dreams, joys, disappointments, and pains, the <em>Rainbow Generation</em> was free to respect and appreciate their obvious differences, while celebrating and embracing their range of commonality. As they grew and matured, this diverse and culturally aware generation went off to college together and became adults together, they also worked together and shared communities together.

As an era of Jim Crow and segregation came to a close, many would agree, America’s Rainbow Generation can take credit for reducing racism and bigotry in America.

As a result, this generation is less likely to exit the political debate in order to express their objection, or disagreement, to an issue using racial overtones, slurs, and insensitivity's.

Racial unity taught early, can be lived daily, even in the midst of political indifference.

Left of Center

  

 

Why is race such a sensitive issue in the United States?  What does it mean to “Play the Race Card”?
Can we as Americans have an honest debate about race?  Or, will race continue to be the most polarizing theme of our time? 

For some, “Playing the Race Card” infers minorities’ use of race to game the system, while soliciting empathy in order to gain a racial advantage, or edge, while justifying apathy, and making excuses for a systemic plight.

For others, “Playing the Race Card” infers an attempt by some to slander, and mischaracterize, minorities as inferior, more likely to commit a crime, or less qualified.  There by, justifying economic and social disparities, police brutality, racial profiling, and the disproportionate number minorities unemployed, or incarcerated, while strengthening racial stereotypes. 

From another perspective, the fictitious “Race Card” is an opportunity to invoke “white guilt”, in order to receive, what some may perceive as an undeserved ruling, or unearned recompense.  

And yet another perspective, the illusory “Race Card” is a legitimate resistance to social, economical and political disparities and injustices in society, serving to protect and support the fundamental American principle of justice, liberty, and equality for all. 

As a result of the polarizing nature of “Race in America”, talk shows, news papers, and the media in general, often use the subject of race to increase readerships and viewerships while boost ratings.   Nevertheless, because race matters in America, there needs to be honest and open discussion in order to progress as a nation if we are to co-exist and compete in a globalized world.

How do we as Americans have a meaningful and progressive dialogue concerning race with such varying, and often exploited difference about race?

Left of Center

Leave a comment and let us know what you think

  

Talking about racism is a hollow conversation without first discussing its origin, from slavery to Jim Crow, the segregated south and separate but equal, Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity laws, and most recently corporate Diversity/Sensitivity Training and Cultural Awareness. The purpose of each of these initiatives was to change and cultivate old ways of thinking that suggested any race was inferior to another. These initiatives were designed with elements to reverse racist ideologies, and behavior, that prohibited African Americans from pursuing, and participating, in the American Dream as described in the delayed, but not denied, Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Most realize African Americans did not endure the struggle for freedom, equality, and respect alone. No doubt, there were white abolitionists during reconstruction who risked their lives and reputations for the cause of African Americans freedom. There were also white clergy and white citizens who marched with Martin Luther King for equality. The stench of racism only began to lessen as recent as the mid-1970’s, as schools, neighborhoods, the workforce, and athletics continued to integrate.

Left of Center

  

Reminiscent of many African American firsts throughout history, there is no question that some of the resistance and protest to President Obama’s presidency is motivated by race.  From Jack Johnson to Tiger Woods, African Americans have had to endured many forms of racial ridicule, whether through the denial of entry, or death threats, purely as a result of race for dare trying to challenge the white establishment, or status quo.

Who can forget the pressures and struggles Jackie Robinson endured while breaking the color line in baseball.  Or, the many death threats Hanks Aaron received white attempting to break Babe Ruth’s home run record.  When Tiger woods was set to be the first African American tot win the Masters Golf Tournament, he received numerous death threats.  And the list goes on.  Many African American athletes on the brink of making history have stories of racial indifference toward their achievement, while enduring slurs and death threats.  Therefore, how much more will the first African American President have to endure resistance, and ridicule from “fringe elements” who are purely motivated by race?

Also worth mentioning; during his early bid as a potential Democratic nominee for the Presidency of the United States, Barack Obama required extra security due to racist death threats because of his race.

Left of Center

                      Leave a comment and let us know what you think

  

What is your opinion of the stereotypical images, and effigies, depicting President Obama in the media or at public rallies and town hall meetings?  Are the images over the top racially?  Do these images have anything to do with political ideological differences related to the issues?  Or just plain racist?

Do you believe there are elements of racism, fringe or other wise, because President Obama is African American?

Left of Center


                              Leave a comment and let us know what you think



Other images depicting, or implying, President Obama

  

Recently, former President Jimmy Carter suggested, “because Barack Obama is the nations first African American President, much of the resistance to his administration was due to race, and the inability of some to except a black man as being president”.   President Carter attributed some of the anger, and confrontation, at town hall meetings, at so called Republican sponsored “Tea Parties”, and the most recent outburst, and breach of Congressional decorum, by South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson when he shouted out “You Lie!” during President Obama’s address on Health Care Reform to congress, to latent racism. 

President Obama received nearly 53% of the American vote to become President, which means an overwhelming amount of white voters voted for Obama in order for him to win the nomination.  Is this then an indicator that America is now a post-racial society?   Or, could racism still lurk in a small remnant of the 47% who did not vote for him?


Left of Center

                                                 Leave a comment and let us know what you think.

President Carter – Is Race a Factor? (part 1)

President Carter – Is Race a Factor? (part 2)

  

On September 8, 2009, President Barack Obama delivered a national address to the students of America. During this historic address, the president spoke directly to the nation's children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president challenged students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.

Many schools across America denied students to hear the live address, in fears of the President's speech would somehow brainwash children politically. The speech was nothing of the sort, but simply motivational, moving and inspirational. Now you too can hear the speech in its entirety and judge for your self.

Left of Center

  

Back-to-School Controversy:
Many school districts across the country making a decision not to allow the President of the United States of America to address to school children.  Are these decisions politically motivated? 

  

Read the FACTS concerning President Obama's planned address to school children and a complete transcript of President Obama's prepared remarks on Education at:

 

              www.whitehouse.gov/MediaResources/PreparedSchoolRemarks/ 

 

Left of Center

  

 

There are many LIES and MYTHS being spread around about Health Care Reform.  Orchestrated disruptions at Townhome meetings designed to confuse the issues and deny civil discourse. Don't be mislead or misinformed by the OLD politics as usual crowd, who use scare tactics to keep Americans from an honest debate over Health Care Reform.  Get a reality check! 

 

To learn more about the TRUTH and FACTS in the Health Care Reform Debate, visit: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck/

 

Left of Center

  

Why Health Care Reform is essential.

Some Key Statistics:

 

• Nearly 46 million Americans, or 18 percent of the population under the age of 65, were without health insurance in 2007, the latest government data available.1

 

• Nearly 90 million people – about one-third of the population below the age of 65 spent a portion of either 2006 or 2007 without health coverage.3

 

• In 2007, 37 million workers were uninsured because not all businesses offer health benefits, not all workers qualify for coverage and many employees cannot afford their share of the health insurance premium even when coverage is at their fingertips.1

 

• About 20 percent of the uninsured (vs. three percent of those with coverage) say their usual source of care is the emergency room.2

 

For more statistics on Health Care visit: http://www.nchc.org/facts/coverage.shtml

 

Notes

1.      DeNavas-Walt, C.B. Proctor, and J. Smith. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2007. U.S. Census Bureau., August 2008.

2.      The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. The Uninsured: A Primer, Key Facts About Americans without Health Insurance. October 2006. http://www.kff.org/uninsured/

Families USA. Wrong Direction: One Out of Three Americans are Uninsured. September 2007. http://familiesusa.org/assets/pdfs/wrong-direction.pdf



Left of Center

  

On June 15, 2009, President Obama gave his most extensive remarks to date detailing his vision for health care reform to the American Medical Association in Chicago.

 

Health Care is one sixth of the U.S. Economy.  The cost of our Health Care is a threat to our economy, as well as an escalating burden on U.S. families, and businesses, and a real challenge to the federal budget.   People should not have to worry and suffer with Health Care issues in a nation as wealthy as the U.S.  Health Care premiums over the last decade have doubled at a rate of 3 times faster than wages, as out of pocket cost for health care continue to soar.  Health Care costs have forced many Americans to skip checkups and forego some of the prescriptions they made need.  In some cases, a single illness can wipeout a lifetime of savings. 

 

Doctors are also strained with having to spend a large percentage of time with paperwork and explaining insurance claims, reducing the amount of time to actually care for patients.  The current Health Care system incentivizes doctors to perform more tests and services, even if not necessary, to increase profits.  Some doctors also perform extra tests and services to avoid being legally vulnerable.  Rewarding the quantity of care rather than the quality of care, has taken the pursuit of medicine from a profession to a business.

 

Small business owners struggle as well, having to lay-off valuable workers because Health Care costs are so high.  Over one third of small businesses in recent years had to reduce benefits, and one third of small businesses have dropped workers coverage all together since the early 1990’s.  Large companies have suffered as well when it comes to Health Care.  The big part of what lead GM and Chrysler into trouble in recent decades were the huge cost of Health Care provided for their workers, cost that made them less profitable and less competitive with auto makers around the world. 

 

Health Care reform at this point is a necessity.   The cost to reform Health Care will be great, but inaction on Health Care Reform will be more costly, not just in dollars and cents, but in lives and quality of life.  President Obama stated, “When it comes to our Health Care, the status quo is unsustainable.  Health Care is the single most important thing we can do for Americans long term physical health”.  

 

The fear of change in Health Care Reform is that one might lose what works about the U.S. Health Care system, while trying to fix what does not work.  Presidents have called for Health Care reform for nearly a century.  Teddy Roosevelt called for it, Harry Truman called for it, Richard Nixon called for it, Jimmy Carter called for it, and Bill Clinton called for it.  While significant individual changes have been made in Health Care, such as Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children Health Care Insurance Program, effort at comprehensive Health Care reform that covers everyone and brings down cost, have largely failed.  Part of the reason for failure of a comprehensive Health Care reform is mostly due to doctors, insurance companies, businesses, workers and others, could not agree on the need for reform, or how it should be implemented. 

Also, fierce opposition has used fear tactics to associate healthcare reform with socialized medicine and a government takeover of healthcare, which is not the case.

Left of Center

  

Millions of Americans are content with their Health Care coverage and have developed a good relationship and trust with their doctors.  With presidents Obama’s proposed Health Care reform bill, you can keep your doctor if you chose to.  If you like your current Health Care plan, you can keep it.  The plan for Health Care reform is to fix what’s broken and build on what works.

Left of Center

  

Health Care reform should:

• Reduce paperwork for doctors

• Give Americans the best care at the lowest cost

• Ease up pressure on businesses

• Create jobs

• Increase take home wages

• Grow the economy

  

 

• Upgrade U.S. medical records by switching from a paper to an electronic system of record keeping.

• Invest in preventive care to avoid illness and disease

  

 

1) Compensation Reform for doctors and hospitals.

 

Incentivizing Excellence –

• Bundle payments that pay for the treatment of the overall condition, not individual treatments.
• Create incentives for physicians to team up
• Give doctors bonuses for good health outcomes
• Rethink the cost of a medical education. 
• Reward medical students who choose a career as a primary care physician, who chooses to work in under served areas.  (Investment in the National Health Service Core to make medical training more affordable for primary care doctors and nurse practitioner)

2) Improve the quality of medical information making its way to doctors and patients.

 

Replicate Best Practices-

• Investment in research to identify the best treatment for a variety of aliments and conditions.
• Build on the examples of outstanding medicine from other medical institutions.

 

 

President Obama pledged to listen to and work with doctors and physicians to pursue Health Care Reform that works for Health Care professionals. 

 

President Obama also wants to expand the role of a commissions created by a republican congress, The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission, to evaluate how to eliminate waste, reduce cost and improve quality healthcare.

  

 

• Protect what’s working in U.S. Health Care system
  • Keep your current doctor at less cost
• Create a Health insurance Exchange
  • A One-Stop-Shop for a Health Care plan
  • Compare benefits and prices
  • Choose a plan that is best for individuals and their family
  • One of the “Options” needs to be a “Public Option”
    • Present a broader range of choices, and inject competition into the Health Care market, so that waste is forced out of the system, and keep the insurance companies honest.
• Provide “Hardship Waiver” for those who still can not afford Health Care
• Change the approach of “Pre-Existing Conditions”
• Health Care Reform that is not a cost that adds to the deficit
• Health Care reform that is deficit neutral in the next decade

 

Expanding coverage for all Americans will come at a cost.  Making Health Care affordable for all Americans will cost approximately $1 Trillion over the next decade.

 

Failing to reform the U.S. Health Care System to reduce cost growth will cost trillions of dollars more in lost economic growth and lower wages.

  

Health Care Public Option: 

Allows for a Public Health Insurance Option or continuation in the Private Sector Insurance.

 

Give Americans a choice between the system that is run by a fair intermediary, which is the government, to make sure that the insurance companies stop denying people coverage, stop taking insurance away when people get sick, and stop having bureaucrats in private insurance tell doctors what to do.

 

Left of Center

  

                                 by Men Let’s Talk Radio Host: Elder Edward N. Jackson

In the Christian Faith “The Act of Sex” can be either Celebrated or Condemned.

• Celebrated inside of Holy Matrimony
• Condemned outside of Holy Matrimony

 

Christianity admonishes abstinence before marriage.  Although abstinence is the desired practice and lifestyle, there are realities and instances that present other outcomes.
 

The Scenario:

Mom/Dad, I’m pregnant

Can mean 2 different things

• Married, this could be music to your ears
• Unmarried – could be the opposite effect

3 Options:

1. Accepting the Responsibility / Raising the child              
2. Adoption
3. Abortion

For those who may have chosen the latter options

Move past the emotion: (not necessarily easy)

Giving / Receiving Direction

• Be supportive / Be open to help
• Family counselor
• Seek professional medical healthcare
• Consider the options as well as the consequences
  

Forgiveness:

• God does offer forgiveness amidst honest remorse, but also expects a change in behavior (.i.e. Repentance)
• Be forgiving and forgive self.
• Be prayerful through it all. 

  

Christians, whether republican or and democrat, often see the issue of abortion from different perspectives.  For many Christian’s the issue of abortion is settled by scripture that’s says, “Thou shall not kill”.  Many Christians also suggest, “Life trumps choice”.

 

While other Christians, who likewise agree that “Life” is the right choice biblically, but realize that not all Americans practice, or adhere to biblical principles, or practice the same faith.  Complicating matters are the laws governing the separation of Church and State, and the many hypocrisies of imperfect people with, and without, Christianity as the bases of their faith.  Most devout Christians would agree, in a perfect world, scratch that, in heaven, there will be perfect beings making perfect choices. 

 

Christians may differ on whether, or not, there are circumstances that would justify abortion, Christian’s in general agree sins of commission, or omission, are ultimately forgivable by God.  Christian’s also agree, consequences of sin are between the individual and God, as the faith teaches all are free will beings. 

 

Though we live in a nation founded on Judea-Christian principles, we also live in a nation of religious freedoms.  Therefore, basing the legality of abortion purely on Christian values would be unconstitutional.  Abortion is more an issue of what is humane.


"Left of Center"

  

It’s important to note that Pro-Choice does not infer abortion as the only option for pregnant women.   The majority of women in America do carry pregnancies to full term. 

 

The Pro-Choice decision for an abortion can be either one of “Circumstantial” or “Consequential” when related to pregnancy.  A circumstantial abortion would include violent acts such as rape, or incest, eminent or irreversible birth defects affecting the potential for life, and instances where the life of the mother is at risk.   Consequential abortions would be defined as the choice to abort life based on fear, panic, embarrassment, shame, or inconvenience.  

 

 President Obama’s plan to reduce abortion, and provide women other alternatives to abortion, can be best served in instances where a consequential abortion is the primary rational for contemplating abortion.  However, not limiting the plan for those who do choose to carry full term, regardless of the situation or risks related to their pregnancy.

 

Many others contend Pro-Life is the only right choice, regardless to circumstantial or consequential pregnancy.  Christian-Right Pro-Life Advocates further suggest the first defense against abortion is abstinence (no sex outside of marriage).  With a 100% effectiveness rate, abstinence is by far the most effective method for eliminating abortion, as well as unintended pregnancies.  However, achieving 100% compliance for abstinence is neither attainable, nor realistic. 

 

Although President Obama strongly supports abstinence education, the issue of abortion comes down to a decision after conception.  President Obama supports abortion prevention, and highly recommends family counseling, consulting with clergy, and other abortion prevention services.  However, education and prevention is not always accessible, or the desired option.

 

Many forms of contraception can be effective, but they don’t provide 100% effectiveness, yet they do aid in reducing the number of unintended pregnancies.  Not withstanding, there are also debates over whether, or not, to teach sex education, provide birth control, or teach abstinence only.  Each course of action has its opponents and proponents.  Many proponents say, "If the goal is to govern a diverse people and reduce the abortion rate in the U.S., then diverse measures must be implemented to achieve the goal."  Opponents say, "sex education and birth control go hand-in-hand to promote irresponsible sex at an early age, and with no 100% safeguard against pregnancy, or the use of birth control, teenage pregnancy has more potential to increase rather than decline the abortion rate."

 

For Many Christians, neither abortion, or contraception, are justified options for dealing with unintended, or unwanted pregnancy, sighting abortion and contraception as denying life as intend by God, and in more harsh terms, another term for murder. 

 

Yet other Christians view contraception as pregnancy prevention, and not a sinful practice to deny Gods intended purpose for life, and certainly not equivalent to murder.   

 

Although Christians may differ on whether, or not, there are circumstances that justify abortion, Christian’s in general agree any sin of commission, or omission, is forgivable by God.  Christian’s also agree, consequences of sin are between the individual and God, as the faith teaches all are free will beings. 

 

For more on abortion, from the Christian perspective, stay tuned for The Political Post follow on discussion
How do Christians see the issue of Abortion differently? 

 

For more on abortion and Roe vs. Wade visit:  http://womenshistory.about.com/od/abortionuslegal/p/roe_v_wade.htm


"Left of Center"

  

Recently, President Obama was invited to the commencement ceremony at the prestigious Norte Dame University.  With Notre Dames deep seeded root and affiliation with the Catholic Church, it was no surprise protestors of Pro-Choice would use the President’s visit as an opportunity to voice their dissent on the issue of abortion. Protestors rallied outside the commence ceremony of the 2009 graduating class.  Inside the commence ceremony, protestors were removed during President Obama’s address to the Notre Dame Graduates and faculty.  During his address, President Obama did acknowledge the controversy of abortion which surrounded his visit, suggesting Americans should engage in “open and fair minded words” when debating the issue of abortion.

 

President Obama called for all to consider the Light house and Crossroads: "A light house that stands apart, shinning with wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where difference in culture, and religion and convictions can coexist with friendship, civility, and hospitality, and especially love."

 

Attempting to find middle ground over the decades long debate over Pro-Choice vs. Pro-Life, President Obama understanding there may never be total agreement on the polarized issue of abortion, solicited bipartisan support to:

 

• Reduce abortion,
• Reduce unintended pregnancies,
• Make adoption more available,
• Provide support to women who do carry their children to full term

 

Left of Center

  

  

 The History of Education in America is lengthy and diverse.  For the most part, education in the colonial days was primarily done at the home.  Parents were the primary educators during the early years of the United States.  Learning about agriculture and farming was the mainstay for survival, although some parents were able to teach their children to read and write and perform basic calculations.  Thought boys were taught to work the land, they were also traditionally taught more academic subjects, while a woman’s education, beyond basic reading, writing, and math, was limited to learning how to run a household.

As the country became more heavily populated, schools became more common, but the level of education remained the same and actual schools were all private catering mostly to the wealthy.  By the mid-1800’s reformers from Massachusetts and Connecticut pushed for mandatory state-funded schooling.  Massachusetts passed the first bill requiring all children to attend elementary school in 1852.  By 1918 every state in the Union had a law requiring that all children be required to attend school.

Today, we live in such a contentious society; public schools are often at the center of intense debates over spending, culture, economics, and religion as well as the future and direction of our country.  Standardized tests, bilingual schools, school choice, vouchers, all these debates have been hashed and re-hashed.  We have been debating these issues since the institution of mandatory publicly funded education.  For a country as big and as diverse as the united States a cookie-cutter style education has created many problems.  

Under President Bush, the government attempted to reform education in America with the NCLB
“No Child Left Behind” policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act  
There were as many Criticisms of the Act as there were Claims made in favor of the Act. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act#Criticisms_of_the_Act

Stay tuned to www.the-poitical-post.com for more in a series of
Education: The most important domestic issue of our time
We will also discuss President Obama’s plan for educational reform.

For more information on the history of education in America, please see
PBS' History of Public Schools and History of Public Education

"Left of Center"

 

  

Please join The-Political-Post in a series of discussions dealing with Education.

Education at all levels empowers individuals to gain skills to afford a lifestyle or standard of living of their choosing.   Does the current educational system afford all individuals an opportunity for success?  How does “economics” effect “opportunity” for higher learning?  After so many attempts over the years to reform education, how will President Obama’s plan for reform be different?

The Premise for Education in America is based on:

All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost.  This promise means that all children by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment, and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of society itself.   Source: A Nation At Risk - April 1983

In the series, Education: The most important domestic issue of our time, I will be discussing:

• The History of Education in America
• A synopsis of Education: “A Nation at Risk”
• Alternative methods of Education for the 21st Century
• A breakdown of Presidents Obama’s Education reform

Please share your views and comments on education, and how it affects your world, at:
www.the-political-post.com

"Left of Center"

  

  

  

  

  

Welcome to my blog. Please check back soon for new entries.

  

During a well received visit to Europe and the Middle East, President Obama presented an Olive Branch approach to diplomacy, dispelling the Ugly American air of arrogance, or dominance, too often expressed by some Americans traveling abroad, and too frequently expected throughout Europe and the Middle East. Yet many on the right have criticized President Obama’s humility, and mischaracterized his demure as a sign weakness. President Obama made it very clear, he came to “listen” rather than “dictate” foreign relations in Europe and the Middle East. President Obama was most criticized by the ‘Right’ for allegedly bowing and/or shaking the hand of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, proclaiming, “A United States president should bow to no one”. Also, First Lady Michelle Obama, not to be left out, was criticized as well for apparently touching Queen Elizabeth, which is an apparent no-no according to English folklore. It is however, acceptable to curtsy, or bow to the queen. Now let me get this straight, critics believe its O.K. to show customary respect, however pomp and circumstance, in Europe, but not in the Middle East? Come on, is this all the critics of the Obama administration got!? It has become increasing evident to many, the “Party of No” is poised to criticize, nitpick, and continue to “Just Say NO”, no matter how trivial. I contend, this strategy will eventually backfire, only to serve to strengthen forces within Independent and Moderate parties, while Centric Republican’s continue to fragment and grow exhausted from attempts to purely discredit President Obama by any means necessary. At some point, in the interest of what is good for democracy and the country, bi-partisanship politics must be embraced.

Left of Center

  

Once the snowball is ¾ down the hill, you can’t then blame the last ¼ of the hill for the size of the snowball. Let us not forget, the economic decline and title wave of job loss is a direct result of America taking its eye off the ball during the last eight years. A 1.2 Trillion dollar deficit, a war under false pretenses, subprime mortgages and predatory lending, unregulated investment companies and corporate greed. The current Presidential administration was dealt a very bad hand, but has made great strides towards recovery. It took eight years to get into this mess, and it will take some time to get out. Albeit small steps, the recovery process has begun. If we could only get some bi-partisan support, and stop the political posturing for the 2012 elections, we might be able to come together as a country and expedite our recovery. I understand the core principles that forever divide us by party lines, but our current economic crisis, and the solutions for our upturn is bigger than party politics. Pretty soon the American people will grow weary of “Just say No”, and began to demand “Yes We Can”. There are many statistics offered to define the problem, but too often a reticent response for alternative plans and strategies for recuperation. The last ¼ of the hill the snowball will get bigger before it comes to a rest and thaw slowly diminishes its mass, but a thaw is coming. The Recovery Plan is an “Investment in America”, not a onetime give away. There is an expected Return on Investment.

Left of Center

  

As part of the Economic Stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 modifies and extends federal tax credits for eligible building components that improve energy efficiency.

Just a few companies rehiring as a direct result of the Obama Stimulus Plan
· Andersen® windows and patio doors rehires 180 employees…
· Simonton Windows Rehires More Than 100 Employees…
· Caterpillar's to rehire some laid-off workers…

For information about tax credits for homebuilders for new construction in 2009, please refer to the following IRS website: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=154658,00.html.

In addition, Budget-challenged police departments, some of which have had to layoff officers as the economy went deeper into recession over the past year, have a new financial rebirth through a federal stimulus program that will help departments hire and retain officers or rehire those who have been laid off. The government is accepting applications for its Hiring Recovery Program, part of the $787 billion stimulus package signed into law last month by President Obama. The program makes available $1 billion for police departments across the country. The Obama administration projects it will create or save 5,500 law enforcement jobs.

Left of Center

  

Comment #1: (From the Right) I think reducing the tax deductions on charitable giving is a bad idea. The top 1% give 50% of the charitable gifts in the US. I think this would have a terrible impact on universities, city missions, and churches.

What do you think?

From the Right

Response #1: (Left of Center)
Well, first of all the 1% would still get a tax deduction, just not a large as before. Secondly, if I (we) as middle class Americans have to make adjustments to stretch our dollar, why should the 1%? We give to charities and churches every year, regardless to economy, (assuming one is

employed and able to give). I don't base my giving on what I can write-off, or get back, that is just an added perk. The 1% should be just fine with their continued giving, while still receiving an extra perk, again just no as big as before. This is all to do about nothing. If the 1% only base

their giving on the ability to reduce their taxable income, then their heart is in the wrong place to begin with. God's law of sowing and reaping trumps the IRS. A tithe is based on 10% of your income, not a % of your tax write-off.

Left of Center

Comment #2 (From the Right)
You can give up to 50% of your income and receive a tax deduction. You are sadly mistaken if you think rich people do not include that in their estate planning and give accordingly over the last 5-10 years of their life.

So, the churches, city missions, and universities will suffer. Which I think is the plan. They want everyone to rely 100% on government for all needs. This is a great way to push out the church, city missions (most with a religious mission), and private universities (many of them founded on Christian Principles).

From the Right

Response #2: (Left of Center)
Keep in mind "The Rich" are still getting a tax deduction. There are all types of "Rich". I consider myself extremely rich, not so much financially, only because I don't quiet make over $250K, yet. But even if I were over $250K, I would be willing to make additional sacrifices for my country and I believe in what President Obama is trying to do.

If everyone (rich, poor, or some where in between) had a godly heart, I dare say we would not need government at all. We would all live in harmony under a theocracy, rather than a democracy. Under a Democracy, there has to be checks and balances when it comes to power, wealth, and accountability, otherwise there would be total chaos. When I say balance, I am not implying equal, but I am implying fair. You have the Greedy-Wealthy, as well as the Charitable-Wealthy. Honest government should aid in keeping the balance. I think President Obama is trying to establish honest government.

Left of Center

  

President Obama is doing a great job! I'm glad I voted for President Obama. So far, the CHANGE is in the pudding, and I'm eating the pudding. Change is good. President Obama is the right man for the time.

Democrats, Moderates, Independents, and 3 Republicans for Obama.

Let's continue to pray God's wisdom, favor and protection for President Obama.

  

The recent description or characterization of the Republican Party has been “The Party of No”.
Lead by Dr. No -- Rush Limbaugh. Republicans have been accused of organizing a secret solidarity pack against any plan President Obama and his administration proposes. It’s also been implied that the new Republican Party slogan is “Just Say No”. From GOP (Grand Old Party) to PON (Party Of No).

When asked if republicans offer Economic Recovery Plan alternatives, solutions, or plans, the response was, you guessed it, No. The 16 page Economic Recovery Brief, released earlier this week, does not count. (i.e. = to No)

Since the stimulus plan was signed, the markets has begun to show signs of consistent positive gains, the average 30 fixed rate mortgages have dropped, new home sales have begun to rise, and durable goods are on the increased. Will the “Party of No” give the Obama administration some credit??? I guessing, No.

Left of Center

  

As President Obama continues to reach across the aisle, and across the country, garnering support for the Economic Recovery Plan, finger pointing persists over who is responsible for the AIG debacle. I assure you, there is enough blame to go around. Should the current administration have attempted to re-negotiate contract language, written in 2008 by the former administration, for payouts of AIG bonuses, meanwhile delaying the stimulus package as the country continues to hemorrhage from economic blunt trauma? No one argues the point that paying out those bonuses given the country's current predicament -- which was intensified in great part by AIG's reckless behavior -- was inappropriate and distasteful, contract or no contract. But the legislative proposals on the table to rectify the situation may end up doing more damage than good in the broader scheme of things. No legal means existed to resolve AIG like FDIC resolves banks. "The government was faced with no good options", Treasury secretary Giethner added.

In order to prevent a recurrence of the AIG catastrophe, officials requested Congress to grant regulators resolution authority. This would give the government power to reorganize or restructure a non-bank company. Such powers would include selling off assets and subsidiaries, imposing limits on executive compensation and taking action on risky holdings.
Republicans argue, too much regulation would impose more “big government”, fearing government control of private business. Democrats argue, there needs to be some regulation over financial institutions deemed too big to fail. Democrats suggest corporation be responsible to carry large enough Capital reserves, to help stave of a financial crisis.

Perhaps Republicans and Democrats can come to an agreement of how must regulation is enough, but there needs to be some regulation. Allowing major institutions to fail, effecting loss of pensions, demised 401K, and job loss, is not the best option.

Left of Center

  

I can't help but liken the AIG fiasco to the Frankenstein Monster, best portrayed by famed actor Boris Karloff. The monster was put together by various parts to form one giant being. When the monster was exposed to the public, it came across a little girl who was not frightened by his appearance. If my memory serves me correct, the little girl may have been blind. In any event, the little girl sensing the monster’s presents, offered him a flower off the river bank. When the towns folk saw the monster near the little girl they instantly assumed the monster would harm the little girl, when in actuality it was not the monsters intent to harm the little girl at all. Had the monster stayed in its element, within the mad scientist laboratory, not trying to venture out into unknown territory, life would have been great for the monster and no one, including the monster, would have been hurt.

If AIG had just did what it does best, offer sound insurance, and not venture out into the risky business of derivatives, credit default swaps or toxic assets, no one, including AIG, would have been hurt. The public outrage to kill the perceived "AIG monster" has gotten out of hand. Some of the employees have actually received death threats. While I understand the public's anger and outrage over using tax payer dollars to payout retention bonuses, while the country is in economic straits, this is still no cause for rioting or burning people at the stake. Calm down, take a deep breath, and get more of the facts.

Many AIG employees don't even work in the financial division, but are still berated because of guilt by association. A few employees agreed to take a salary of $1 for several months with promises of a paycheck (the now infamous bonus) by March of 2009. Those bonuses were included in employee contracts written in early 2008. Now imagine your salary is $50K per year, and your employer negotiated to pay you $10K now and the balance of $40K six months. Six months later, would you expect to receive your $40K, or would you be O.K. with the company telling you, "my bad, we had a problem at the payroll office and you won't be getting your $40K balance, but thanks for the tireless hours and free labor." Still no sympathy for AIG employees?

Perhaps if AIG bonuses weren’t tied to our tax payer dollars funding these payouts, or the fact that so many other people, like auto-workers, were asked to make deep sacrifices and be willing to reduced their pay in order to keep a job, perhaps you (we) could have a little more sympathy. Maybe like some Americans, who may have lost their jobs all together, a $750 to $1 million dollar bonus just still doesn't seem like much of a sacrifice. I’m beginning to feel your pain, but it’s still no cause for death threats or violence.

Left of Center

  

In case you haven't noticed, American International Group's (AIG) property/casualty insurance headquarters building in lower Manhattan is nameless after the removal of the AIG logo from its façade of its New York location. In an effort to become less conspicuous, in the wake of public outrage over retention bonuses paid out to employees in the company's financial products division, AIG chief Edward Liddy is looking to change the company's signature building name at 175 Water Street in lower Manhattan. AIG announced in early March that it had formed a new holding company named AIU Holdings Inc. for its worldwide property/casualty insurance operations. The name comes from AIG's well-known international brand, American International Underwriters, but it isn't necessarily the name the company will settle on.

This is perhaps a smart move, giving the fact “branding” is an integral to product perception of any product. As you may recall, ValuJet changed to Air Tran in the wake of a tragic crash in 1996.

Left Of Center

  

A Republican friend commented: I think reducing the tax deductions on charitable giving is a bad idea. The top 1% give 50% of the charitable gifts in the US. I think this would have a terrible impact on universities, city missions, and churches.

Here's what I think: Well, first of all the 1% would still get a tax deduction, just not a large as before. Secondly, if I (we) as middle class Americans have to make adjustments to stretch our dollar, why shouldn't the 1%? I give to charities and churches every year, regardless to economy, (assuming one is employed and able to give). I don't base my giving on what I can write-off, or get back, that is just an added perk. The 1% should be just fine
with their continued giving, while still receiving a tax break, again just not as big as before. This is all to do about nothing. If the 1% only base their giving on the ability to reduce their taxable income, then their heart is in the wrong place to begin with. God's law of sowing and reaping trumps the IRS. A tithe is based on 10% of your income, not a % of your tax write-off.

Left of Center

  

"By the time Obama notched his 50th day last week, he had already signed seven bills, many of them epic in size and scope. They included the enormous $787 billion stimulus package, another aimed at guaranteeing equal pay for women, and an expansion by 4 million kids of the nation's largest health care program for children. Bush? In his first 50 days, he signed one bill - extolling the virtues of former President Ronald Reagan on the occasion of his 90th birthday.”
... nydailynews

President Obama has been all business since day one in the White House. Whether one totally agrees with every detail of each bill, it is extremely refreshing to see a president in the White House who is intellectual, articulate, and determined to move the country in the right direction towards economic recovery, equality, and taking care of the least of these, our countries children. President Obama has been the man with the plan, or should I say plans.

It is unfortunate that President Obama, and the Democratic Congress, inherited such a deficit. As a result, any necessary spending can easily be targeted by Republicans as wasteful government spending, but in fact, in order to be in such a deficit in the first place, speaks to the excessive government spending by the former administration.


Left of Center...