Quick Note: Little Girl Gets Blown Off By U.S. Congressman.

I first saw this six second clip a few weeks ago.  It has been bothering me for reasons I'm not completely able to articulate ever since.  
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=S652EQvLFvw  

The clip shows nine-year old Liz Marquez, who was born in the U.S., approaching Representative Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) in the halls of Congress.  She wanted to ask about her father who is in danger of being deported.  No, it is not the best time or way to approach your congressman; but this is a little girl.   She manages to get out "Please..." before he cuts her off with "I can't help you. Good to see you."

I don't know what bothers me more about this clip...Mr. Cantor's callous dismissal of Liz Maquez as unimportant or the fear that this is the way politicians--Republican and Democrat; national, state or local--view us.  

"I can't help you? Good to see you?" Really?  Is that politican-speak for "I'm important, you're not, I don't care/know what you have to say, get out of my way?"  

There is no answer to this. I just offer it up as a sad commentary on the self-absorption that rules so much of our world today.

Quick Note: 2007 U.S. Lightbulb Regulations -- W. Signed Them. Republicans Say They're Another Example of Obama Overstepping His Authority

Michele Bachmann (R-Minnesota) "I think Thomas Edison did a pretty patriotic thing for this country by inventing the lightbulb.  And I think darn well...if you want to buy Thomas Edison's wonderful invention, you should be able to!" 

Michael Burgess (R-Texas) "People are sick of the government treading where it doesn't belong."

Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee), who, as a member of the U.S. House, voted in favor of the light bulb regulations. "They took away our light bulbs... Nothing is safe from the Obama administration's excessive regulatory tentacles." 

Representative Harold Rogers, (R-Kentucky) called the new light-bulb regulations "the Administration's onerous light bulb standard."

 How do you argue with this kind of logic?

Quick Note: Chris Christie, with Apologies to the Late Paul Harvey

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) is still trying to fight back from the George Washington Bridge closing debacle.  As chairman of the Republican Governors Association, he recently visited Florida for a fundraising event.  Governor Rick Scott (R) and all 2014 state Republican candidates managed to schedule events elsewhere to avoid being photographed with him.  He began a national fundraising tour in Texas yesterday where Republican candidates mirrored Florida's response.  

Shortly after the scandal broke, in a widely viewed, nearly two hour long press conference, Mr. Christie proclaimed his shock over the bridge closing, saying he had no knowledge of it whatsoever and was innocent of any involvement.  A few days ago, David Wildstein, high school classmate, Christie political appointee, (for whom a Port Authority job was created by the Governor) and central figure in the scandal said through his lawyer that there was proof Chris Christie knew about the traffic mess on the George Washington Bridge.  (To this point, that evidence has not been proffered.  What we have is basically one man's word against another man's word--a classic case of he said/she said.)

In a childish effort to bolster his own credibility while denigrating Mr. Wildstein's, Mr. Christie responded:  "As a 16 year old, he was sued over a local school board election" and "He was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior."  

Taken at face value, those statements do seem to weaken Mr. Wildstein's claim.  In an effort to present all the facts, and with apologies to Paul Harvey, I offer "The Rest of the Story"...

As a 16 year old, David Wildstein unsuccessfully sued the County Republican Committee in an effort to get his name on the ballot.  As a 17 year old, and despite being below the age requirement, he ran for the local school board.  The election committee sued to have his name removed from the ballot.  His high school social studies teacher said the 17 year old had tricked him into signing an endorsement letter for the school board race.

It is easy to picture these two supposed adults shouting "Nyah, nyah, nyah!" at each other from opposite sides of the playground.  The average modern-day politician is hardly a poster child for honesty and integrity, but, really when did governing become a game designed for and played by 10 year olds?

Eye Recommend --- Freeing Workers From the Insurance Trap

FREEING WORKERS FROM THE INSURANCE TRAP, by The New York Times Editorial Board --
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/opinion/freeing-workers-from-the-insurance-trap.html?_r=0

I have to admit that when I saw the news about the Congressional Budget Offices' report saying that the Affordable Care Act would reduce full-time workers by 2.5 million, my heart dropped. I thought, "No more Republican ammunition, please!"  

The following article gave me another perspective and some food for thought--though I still expect that "other Party" to be dancing in the aisles over the chance to do some more ACA bashing.

(Any underlines are mine.)

"The Congressional Budget Office estimated on Tuesday that the Affordable Care Act will reduce the number of full-time workers by 2.5 million over the next decade.  That is mostly a good thing, a liberating result of the law.  Of course, Republicans immediately tried to brand the findings as 'devastating' and stark evidence of President Obama's health care reform as a failure and a job killer.  It is no such thing.

The report estimated that--thanks to an increase in insurance coverage under the act and the availability of subsidies to help pay the premiums--many workers who felt obliged to stay in a job that provided health benefits would now be able to leave those jobs or choose to work fewer hours than they otherwise would have.  In other words, the report is about the choices workers can make when they are no longer tethered to an employer because of health benefits...

...Some workers may have had a pre-existing condition and will now be able to leave work because insurers must accept all applicants without regard to health status and charge premiums unrelated to health status.  Some may have felt they needed to keep working to pay for health insurance, but now new government subsidies will help pay premiums, making it more possible for them to leave their jobs.

The report clearly stated that health reform would not produce an increase in unemployment (workers unable to find jobs) or underemployment (part-time workers who would prefer to work more hours per week).  It also found 'no compelling evidence' that, as of now, part-time employment has increased as a result of the reform law, a frequent claim of critics.  Whether that will hold up after a mandate that requires employers to provide coverage, which was delayed until 2015, kicks in is uncertain...

...The new law will free people, young and old, to pursue careers or retirement without having to worry about health coverage.  Workers can seek positions they are most qualified for and will no longer need to feel locked into a job they don't like because they need insurance for themselves or their families.  It is hard to view this as any kind of disaster."'

An anecdote supporting the above opinion, one you won't hear on Fox News:  A friend of mine recently changed jobs, leaving one she hated for one she now loves.  Rather than pay for health insurance for their full time employees, her new employer gives each worker a monthly subsidy and allows them to shop for insurance through the ACA.  This undoubtedly saves the company money; but it also gives more freedom of choice to the individual.  As the employer mandate rolls out next year, I expect that there will be a substantial number of companies taking this approach.  

 As for my friend, she recently crowed that her new insurance coverage is better than what she got from her old job and, when she subtracted her employer's subsidy and the government subsidy she qualified for, her total insurance bill is $6/month. 

Nope, Fox News will not want you to hear about Alice.

The Republican War on Women: One Iowa Hospital's Legal Sidestep

This is the twenty-second in a series of articles on the subjects of women, abortion rights and the Republican Party. 

Republicans continue to say they don’t have to change their core principles, they only have to change the language they use to get their message out.  One perception they want to alter is the idea that they are running a “war on women”.  Looking at the news over the past few years, I’d say the Republican Party has a long way to go on this subject.

• Senator Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky): “Talk about a manufactured issue.  There is no issue.” 
•  RNC Chairman Reince Priebus:  “It’s a fiction.”

The Iowa Front 

the facts and commentary:  Last year, Iowa Governor Terry Branstad (R) went against the prevailing Republican mindset and decided to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.  Hidden in the initiative, however, was a catch involving abortion services. 

The Hyde Amendment prevents federal money from being used to fund abortion, and 35 states also deny the use of state money for most abortion services.  Iowa, one of the 35, does allow state Medicaid funds to be used for abortion services in cases of rape, incest, fatal abnormalities in the fetus or to save the life of the mother.  In the past, Dr. Jason Kessler, M.D., Iowa's Medicaid Medical Director has approved an average of 30 procedures each year that meet one or more of these exceptions.

That's fine and good, but here's the catch I mentioned:  under Iowa's new Medicaid expansion law, which took effect last July 1, cases like these are no longer being decided by Iowa's Medicaid office--final approval must now come from the Governor--personally.  That's right, the final decision on a medical procedure is no longer being made by a medical doctor but instead is being left up to a politician.  As one pundit said, "Start thinking about how a male politician with no gynecological training goes about making life and death medical decisions for indigent women, this new power becomes a nightmare."

Iowa's is the only law of its kind in the country.

Thankfully, there are medical providers and institutions like University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics that are refusing to play politics with poor women's lives. According to University of Iowa Health Care spokesman Tom Moore, the hospital has decided not appeal to the Governor for approval or reimbursement, but instead is covering the costs itself.  Since the law was enacted, the hospital has performed 13 abortions that fell under the legal exceptions and that Tom Moore said  "Medicaid probably would have covered."

A perfectly legal sidestep, using compassion and common sense instead of a cudgel--frustrating Republicans, one hospital at a time.

The Republican War on Women is "fiction?"

WHAT YOU DO SPEAKS SO LOUDLY

THAT I CANNOT HEAR WHAT YOU SAY.

Quick Note: Just When You Thought the Republican Party Couldn't Sink Any Lower

If you want to win an election in this country, you need money--lots of money.  

Next month, Florida's 13th congressional district will hold a special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of U.S. Representative Bill Young (R).  The race, between former Florida CFO Alex Sink (D) and David Jolly (R), is a close one; and the National Republican Congressional Committee has introduced some new win-by-any-means tactics to their money raising efforts.  As reported in yesterday's Tampa Bay Times, deception is their newest fundraising tool:

"Ray Bellamy said he wanted to make a political contribution to Alex Sink.  A Google search landed him at http://contribute.sinkforcongress2014.com.

'It looked legitimate and had a smiling face of Sink and all the trappings of a legitimate site,' Bellamy, a doctor from Tallahassee who follows Florida politics, wrote in an email to the (Times).

What Bellamy overlooked was that the site is designed to raise money against Sink.  "I failed to notice the smaller print: Under 'Alex Sink (for) Congress' was the sentence 'Make a contribution today to help defeat Alex Sink and candidates like her,' " he said.

After Mr. Bellamy had made his contribution, he was directed to a page on the NRCC's website thanking him for his help in defeating Democratic candidates."

The National Journal, a well-regarded, weekly, non-partisan political magazine reported that this deceit is not an isolated Florida incident:

"The National Republican Congressional Committee proudly launched a faux campaign website for Democratic candidate Domenic Recchia this week...They even bought Google ads to direct New Yorkers to www.domenic-recchia.com, designed at first glance to look like it could be Recchia's own, down to the same yellow star replacing the dot in the 'i' of his last name."

There is no firm count of the number of 2014 mid-term races where the NRCC is using this deceptive stunt, though Rebecca Leber, reporter and blogger for ThinkProgress, found six other instances where the same model is being used to raise funds for Republican candidates.  Michael O'Brien of NBC News reported on a similar bogus site being used in the Arizona race against U.S. Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D). 

The National Journal reported that election lawyers say these look-alike sites "may violate Federal Election Commission regulations for confusing the public."  The NRCC, of course, insists that their bogus websites are "technically" legal.  Mr. Bellamy's request for a refund for his Florida donation was initially declined.  After the article was published in the Tampa Bay Times, the NRCC refunded his contribution and announced they will return contributions to anyone who feels they were deceived.

I love that the NRCC qualifies their tactics as "technically" legal, giving themselves some wiggle room on the probity scale.  So speaketh the Republican Party, defender of truth, honesty and Christian values.  

• Deceipt:  the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating
• Deceiver:  to mislead by false appearance; to mislead or falsely persuade others 
• Deception (synonyms):  craftiness, crookery, cunning, dishonesty, duplicity, foxiness, guile 

A final word: 

• Revelations 12:9  ...that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. 

February 3 - Monday Quote

Something to think about.

monday quote:  If you obey all the rules, you miss all the fun. (Katharine Hepburn, actress, 1907-2003)