Politics

The Abortion Controversy

2012-01-31T15:52:00.000-08:00

With the 2012 elections approaching, abortion is likely to become a hot topic for the GOP nominee. In this article, I will refer to the Pro-Life movement as the Anti-Abortion movement. The reason is that they are pro-life for unborn babies only.

First I want to clarify that I am against abortion at any stage in a pregnancy. I believe life begins at conception. Many people believe that certain forms of birth control are acceptable as long as the form prevents conception instead of aborting a pregnancy.

Let's move on to the US Supreme Court. The abortion controversy does not belong in the US Supreme Court because the court is not equipped with the tools to deal with it. The abortion controversy belongs in the religious institutions and the families.

I think the Separation of Church and State clause in the US Constitution bars the US Supreme Court from dealing with the abortion controversy at the level it should be dealt with. Abortion is unquestionably a moral, religious issue as well as a 'life is sacred' issue.

Furthermore the US Supreme Court has the option not to hear a case brought before it. I think if the US Supreme Court declines to hear a case, the sentence rendered by the other Federal Courts stands.

I can't help questioning why the abortion issue is brought up during election campaigns. Look at the past two unproductive years of Republican rule in the US House of Representatives and Democratic rule in the US Senate. How many tax dollars were wasted on bills and resolutions that would never reach the President's desk? How many tax dollars were wasted by Congress members using their public office to campaign rather than to be productive? Congress had two years to collect new evidence that life begins at conception. Congress had two years to package that evidence in a case that the US Supreme Court would be willing to hear. What did the anti-abortionists in Congress do? They were content to reserve the abortion issue solely for election campaign purposes. Now, suddenly, they are claiming to be anti-abortion. I don't believe them. Their lack of action regarding preparing a case for the US Supreme Court proves that they are anything but anti-abortion. However they are pro-waste-taxpayer-money.

Some Republicans Call Them 'Lazy.'

2012-01-24T12:39:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on the Yahoo Contributor Network under my pen name John Mario. I edited the article before publishing it here.
..

Many Republicans are astute shrewd successful executives, managers and entrepreneurs. Most are hard workers supporting their families and building trust funds for their kid's education. They work hard at their job and at home. They try their best to build an adequate retirement fund so their children won't be burdened with supporting them in their old age. In this manner they are part of the American dream. But that's where the rainbow ends.

These same astute Republicans sound simple-minded when they talk about Welfare, the poor and the unemployed. Apparently they believe in the idealistic concept of everyone being equal. Hence, if someone does not have a successful career, Republicans sum it up by saying the person is content or lazy. If someone is on Welfare, Republicans assume that person is lazy.

Some of these hard working Republicans haven't advanced in their own careers. Are they lazy? They understand their own problems. They have no tolerance and no empathy for other people's problems.

I heard one Republican politician talking about the American dream. He stated that people are losing hope. Parents think that their children's future will be worse than their lives. In the eyes of many people, the American dream is vanishing.

I agree whole heartedly. The difference between me and some Republicans is that I don't think losing hope is a sign of laziness. I don't think being on Welfare is a sign of laziness. I think it is a sign of a much deeper problem. I don't think that there is some magical cure for mental depression. I don't think there is a magical cure for emotional problems. I don't think there is a magical cure for mental problems.

Food stamps is a perfect example. The very fact that some Republicans claim people on food stamps should get a job shows that they know absolutely nothing about the qualifications for receiving food stamps.

Some Republicans think because one person overcame his difficulties, the other 10 million people with similar difficulties can overcome theirs. They think the concept of being equal means everyone can be successful. They think laziness is not a sign of a much deeper problem. They think that if one person advances his career, everyone can and those who don't are lazy. They think every person who is unemployed for over six months is lazy. They think destroying the Welfare system will solve the problem and force people to get jobs. They think retired people lost their money in the equity market are to blame to their own financial problems. They judge people without access to those peoples' medical records.

Some Republicans won't admit that people can spend a life time trying to overcome emotional and mental scars. They won't admit that there is no magical cure for mental depression. They refuse to accept the human condition. These Republicans are totally out of touch with reality. They listen to the politicians and talk show hosts tell lie after lie after lie and they believe every word they hear. They never try to second source the statements they hear.

The Republican's view of the poor and unemployed is their security blanket. Thinking about others in this manner make these Republicans feel less vulnerable. One Republican told me that my comments about the people on Welfare and Food Stamps makes him feel uneasy.

After this savage attack against those on Welfare and Food Stamps, these Republicans claim that the Democrats are waging class warfare. Sounds to me like the Republicans have been waging class warfare for nearly a hundred years.

Why I Hope Newt Gingrich Stays In The Primaries

2012-01-23T14:33:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich carries a lot of baggage both in his political life and in his personal life. I don't think he could win the GOP nomination or the 2012 election. However, I won't dwell on his political and personal troubles.

Newt Gingrich has outlined his 21st Century Plan For America and provided details on each item in the plan. The details are remarkable. There are details about his legislative proposals, job creation, executive orders, etc. Most of his ideas are viable, although they would be modified by Congress.

Newt Gingrich has demonstrated his resourcefulness, his knowledge of foreign affairs, his experience dealing with Congress, and his ability to communicate effectively. He has a doctorate's degree in history. His knowledge is revealed with every question he answers.

Assuming that Romney will win the GOP nomination, Newt will not be chosen for Vice President and furthermore, I don't think the Office of the Vice President would be the best way to utilize Newt's knowledge and resourcefulness. But Newt's ideas including the Contract with America should be part of the GOP platform.

Furthermore, Newt should be appointed as a Cabinet member regardless of which candidate wins the 2012 elections. In view of his knowledge on foreign affairs, Secretary of State would be a good position for Newt. His ideas about the economy also prove that he would perform well in other cabinet positions too.

In order to end this stubborn economic recession, the next President will need a resourceful person to help him. I think it would be foolish not to offer Newt Gingrich a position in the next Presidential administration. Republican voters and candidates should focus more on Newt Gingrich's 21st century contract with America and less attention to his political and personal baggage.

I'll end this post with a link to Newt Gingrich's plan for America. I hope all readers will be open minded and read his plan.

http://www.newt.org/21st-century-contract-america

The Advent Of The Shape Shifters

2012-01-21T23:02:00.000-08:00

The tall slim fair haired boy had his shaggy dog on a retractable leash. He was sitting on the wooden porch in his backyard. Beyond the fence marking the property boundary, the verdant grass, lush maple trees and rolling hills were visible via the light from the full moon.

He was listening to rap music on his iPod when his mother called, "Jim."

"Yeah, mom" He replied while lowering the iPod volume.

"Oh. You can hear me."

Jim loved sitting on the porch on cool clear starry nights. He enjoyed the breeze coming across the porch.
He was watching the dog sniffing the grass when the sky lit up. The dog started barking.

"Come, Mickey" He got up as he pulled the dog towards him.

An oval shaped object with a bright tail streaked over his head and crashed into the ground several hundred feet beyond the fence. White smoke was rising from the crash site.

For a moment, he thought he saw someone running toward him. The person was too far away and the white smoke made it difficult to see clearly. Then the person appeared again; this time slightly closer. There were faint silhouettes of various shapes appearing intermittently. Jim slowly realized that those silhouettes were not just optical illusions. His facial expression changed as he saw the person running toward him overtaken by the silhouettes. Then he saw a woman much closer; close enough to hear her screams for help. But before he could respond, a dark faceless figure that was constantly changing shape came over her as she let out one last desperate scream for help.

Jim opened the back door and pulled the barking dog inside. His face was pale and sweat appeared on his brow. He locked the back door. His mother turned from the window and grabbed his hand. She said nothing as she lifted the phone receiver to her ear and realized that the phone was dead. She took out the cell phone but it was continually searching for service. Then they went to the front door and peered out the window at the creatures in the street. One creature came to the front door and began morphing into a different shape while attempting to open the door.

"This way," she said as she led Jim to the cellar door. She opened the cellar door and Jim descended down the stairs. She locked the door and came down the stairs. They heard something moving around up stairs. The creature morphed into a flat thin sheet and came under the door. As mom was descending down the stairs the creature grabbed her leg causing her to nearly fall. But she gained her balance by holding onto the wooden rail. The dog growled and attempted to stop the creature but was thrown to the ground. With his mom yelling in pain, Jim searched desperately for a weapon to use against the creature. The creature started to cover her body. Only her head was exposed. She could not move. Jim found an old coal shovel, came up the stairs and started beating the creature. He beat the creature relentlessly as the creature slowly released his mom and started retreating up the stairs and under the door.

Just as Jim and his mom reached the bottom of the stairs, two creatures broke down the cellar door. Jim and his mom got out of the way as the door came crashing down the stairs. The two creatures at the top of the stairs morphed into one Tyrannosaurus Rex. Mom screamed.

"We have to get out of here!" yelled Jim as he pulled mom away from the T-Rex. But the roar of the T-Rex drowned out his voice.

The electric furnace was on a cement slab in the center of the cellar. A cabinet was against the sandstone wall. With the T-Rex in hot pursuit, Jim and his mom ran around the furnace and up the stairs. They ran through the living room into her bedroom and slammed the door closed. They heard another angry roar.
Jim opened the bedroom window and they went through the window. Then, for the little good it could do, he closed the window and they moved out of sight. The T-Rex broke down the door and looked around the bedroom.

Jim's mom finally had a chance to think. They were between two houses. Jim looked like he was going to say something when she put one finger across her mouth signaling him to stay quiet. Jim held the shovel ready to strike if the T-Rexes attack. The T-Rex was examining the window. Then it morphed back into the shape of a flat thin shape and moved away from the window.

"It's going to come through that window." Mom whispered, "We have to find help."

"We need a weapon. Where is dad's gun?"

"In the attic."

"Great."

Dad was on a business trip and would not be back for a week.

Inside the back hallway of their hour, the creature morphed into three creatures. Two came out into the backyard and made themselves visible to Jim and his mom. Mickey started barking. They watched the creatures return to the crash site.

"Let's go get dad's gun." said Jim.

"Not so fast. Why didn't they attack us?"

"Doesn't matter. We have no choice. All the stores are closed. And even if they were open, we would not have the gun today. We must get dad's gun. It's our only chance."

They slowly approached the back yard. The white smoke at the crash site had dissipated. Jim looked at the back door. It was closed. They slowly approached the back door and opened it. The back hallway was empty. Mom entered the kitchen. The table and chairs were broken into pieces. The silverware was all over the floor. Mom spotted a steak knife and picked it up. The wall cabinet doors were wide open and the canned and boxed food was all over the floor. She peaked in the bathroom and the bedrooms. Then they headed for the attic stairs.

"If they are here, they're up there." said Jim.

Mom opened the attic door just a tiny bit. Mickey started growling.

"They're up there all right." said mom as she gently closed the door.

"If you stab one of them with that steak knife, it will probably split into two creatures."

"Might do the same if you shoot it."

"Judging by the way they emerged from the crash site, fire won't hurt them either."

"Let's take a look down the cellar." said mom.

They cautiously proceeded down the cellar. The tools were on the floor and the tool box was wide open. The cabinet was wide open, but the contents were undisturbed.

They heard a loud roar from upstairs. The dog barked once again.

"I think we have the answer." said mom

"The answer?"

"Well . . . A hint." she paused, "Why didn't they take the stuff out of the cabinet?"

"I have no idea."

"They ransacked the whole house; bedrooms closets, bathroom, kitchen."

"Bedrooms?"

"Yeah. I peaked in while we were in the kitchen. The beds were ripped apart and our clothes are all over the floor." She paused, "But they didn't touch the contents of this cabinet."

"Strange."

"We must figure out why." Mom reached in the cabinet and removed several old paint spray cans. She looked at Jim.

"Unlikely." said Jim.

They heard another roar and then heard the cellar door squeak. Mickey was growling.

"It's not in here." said mom.

Jim looked at mom.

"Think about it." continued mom, "They was smart enough to try to lure us into the attic. They're smart enough to lead us away from whatever could destroy it. They wanted us in this cellar."

They heard a louder roar. A Tyrannosaurus Rex was coming down the stairs.

"What do we do?" asked Jim.

"I don't know." said mom as she stood there with a spray can in one hand and a knife in the other.

"That's paint spray. That won't do anything."

Mom didn't respond. The T-Rex reached the bottom of the stairs and turned toward them. It backed them into a corner.

Jim held his shovel up as the T-Rex came close enough to strike. Once it had them cornered, it morphed into a large thin sheet and attempted to rap itself around them.

Mom repeatedly stabbed it with the steak knife. Each time she hit it, it split into two smaller creatures; but the creatures would not retreat. Jim repeatedly hit the smaller creatures with the shovel. Suddenly some of the small creatures jumped on Jims shovel forming a cushion so Jim couldn't strike the other small creatures very hard. Then the other small creatures jumped on mom completely covering her. Other creatures covered Mickey preventing him from moving.

"No!" yelled Jim as he picked up a spray can and repeatedly hit the creatures covering his mom. "Let her go!"

Suddenly a thought struck Jim. If nothing in that cabinet could hurt the creature, why did it back them into the corner? Jim used the shovel to fight off the small creatures as best he could while moving toward the cabinet. The creatures on the floor morphed into a large sheet. Jim grabbed a spray can and sprayed the creature. It backed off for a moment as its body absorbed the spray. Then it moved toward him again. He sprayed again but this time did not stop spraying. While he was spraying the creature, he reached for another spray can. The creature was backing away. He emptied the first spray can and threw it at the creature. Then he dropped the shovel and grabbed a second spray can. With both spray cans aimed at the creature, he moved toward the small creatures encapsulating his mom. Then he sprayed the creatures encapsulating his mom and the creature approaching him. The creature approaching him collapsed.

Jim aimed both spray cans at the creatures encapsulating his mom. The creatures squealed and crawled off his mom. Eventually he freed her.

All the creatures released the dog and morphed into one giant creature. It roared real loud and retreated up the stairs.

"Paint" said Jim.

"No," replied mom, "Not paint. The spray." She hugged Jim. "Let's get to the police station and let them know."

When they returned to the kitchen, they heard a lot of vehicles outside. They looked out the back window and saw the creatures retreating to the crash site. Then they looked out the front window and saw Army tanks moving down the street.

The creatures were able to morph into any shape and mimic the actions of any living thing from the present or the past. But they had no natural defense against man-made stuff like paint sprays, bug sprays, air fresheners, etc. Eventually, those creatures sprayed with paint would die because they had no natural shield to prevent their bodies from absorbing it.

The End

For those who are wondering, there are three parallels to politics in this thriller:
1) The aliens were shape shifters. Politicians are always shifting positions on major issues and then denying that they ever advocated the old position.
2) The pollutants in the environment can cause major health problems for us and our children.
3) A subtle reference to gun control.

An Editorial on the War Powers Acts

2012-01-19T23:04:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under the pen name John Mario. I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

The first War Powers Act happened in 1941. It gave the US President broad powers in order to fight the Second World War. It was quickly followed by a second War Powers Act in 1942. The third War Powers Act was passed in 1973. Every President since then believed that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional and acted accordingly. To make matters worse, the US District Courts repeatedly would not render a decision on the War Powers Act.

War Powers Act of 1941 and 1942

http://www.novelguide.com/a/discover/eamc_06/eamc_06_02668.html

US District Courts and the War Powers Act

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Judiciary-Power-and-Practice-The-war-powers-resolution.html

Clearly, this dispute will remain between the President and Congress. Congress cannot force the President to abide by the War Powers Act unless the US District Courts decide to hear the arguments and render a verdict. And that is not likely.

To make matters worse, the House Of Representatives currently had two committees working on the War Powers Act of 2011. After reading the content of this act before it went into committee, I am confident that all future Presidents will not abide by it. To find the latest war powers bill, go to the Thomas Library of Congress and search for HR 1609.

http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.php

That leaves us with the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers as the standard by which to interpret the powers of the President and the powers of Congress with regard to war. Here is a link to an article explaining the history of war and treaty powers.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/warandtreaty.htm

Does Congress have procedures for declaring war? The answer is yes and I found an excellent article on the history of the use of military force and the actions of Congress in each case. You will need Adobe Reader for this link:

http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL31133_20110317.pdf

I think the current controversy over the War Powers Act will never be resolved. It will be revived with every war we enter. The President, as commander in chief of the military, must be given flexibility in initiating a war. In many instances the President cannot afford to wait for Congress to have committees study the justification for the war, draw up a declaration of war, present it on House and Senate floors for a vote, have a joint committee generate the final wording of the declaration and send it back to both floors for a final vote. That would take months if not years. Congress would have to decide how much power to give the President during the war and when that power is terminated. It's not a simple matter. National election politics only make the task more difficult.

Think about it. If Congress simply did a up-down vote on a declaration of war, would the voters be satisfied that all Congressional members really had time to study the international situation and make an intelligent determination?

What about war that doesn't involve an immediate threat to national security? Consider our unmanned drones that hit targets in numerous foreign nations. They are fighting Al Qaida and other terrorist cells, but there is no clear immediate security risk. There is a long term security risk.

Is an amendment to the US Constitution the only way to resolve this issue? I think so. This issue is clearly a Constitution issue that needs to be addressed in an effective manner. The War Powers Act does not adequately address the issue because the US District Courts and the US Supreme Court have not addressed it.

The Effects of Repealing the Federal Minimum Wage Law

2012-01-19T22:54:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under the pen name John Mario. I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

Republicans in the US Congress want to repeal the minimum wage law. If they succeed at this effort many states would eliminate Federal minimum wage laws. But is it really a good idea? Will it achieve the intended results? This is the focus of this article.

The minimum wage law was part of the Fair Labor Standards Act designed to protect the workers from substandard wages. Here is a link to the Fair Labor Standards Act:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/flsa/

Here is a handy reference guide:

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/hrg.htm

Those in favor of repealing the minimum wage law state that repealing it will increase the number of jobs.
It will cause a lot of lay offs as employers seek to replace their workers with new workers at lower wages. This turnover would result in a temporary increase in unemployment and unemployment compensation. The new workers would want more hours. Most businesses I've worked for prefer giving more hours to current workers. They prefer not to hire more workers. The workers who cannot work more hours would look for a second job.

Those workers who cannot work for more hours at their current job and cannot find another job will end up applying for food stamps and financial assistance. Without it, they will not be able to provide for their families nor pay their rent/mortgage. They will spend less because they don't have the money. This will be bad for the retail business, the restaurant business and the entertainment business.

High school graduates from poor homes would find it more difficult to pay for their own education. Unless they earn scholarships, the opportunities to improve would disappear. Their earnings would barely pay for their room at home. Most parents expect the working young adult to contribute money to the family budget.
Furthermore, there will be repercussions up and down the wage scale. People with wages above the minimum wage will not be insulated against the effects. Businesses are always looking for ways to decrease their costs and increase their profits.

Eliminating the minimum wage law will not increase jobs. It will increase the number of people below the poverty level. It will increase the number of homeless people. It will not make companies more competitive in the global market. If the answer was that simple, companies would have taken steps to lower salaries and wages many decades ago. And we would have very low unemployment rate.

Obama's Request To Streamline Government Agencies.

2012-01-15T02:36:00.000-08:00

Obama is requesting the power to create a bill detailing the streamlining of government agencies and submit that bill to Congress for an up/down vote without any amendments added. He stated that the agencies must change to keep current with the constantly changing economy.

According to the Washington Journal on C-SPAN, the changes Obama is proposing will not save that much money. I consider his request a political maneuver to place Republican Congress members in a difficult position during an election year. If Republican Congress members accept Obama's request, they will deprive themselves of the ability to add budget cuts, EPA cuts and the Alaska to Texas Oil Pipeline. If they don't accept his request, Obama has a new political campaign advantage. He could claim that the Republican Congress members obstructed progress in reducing government spending.

The Republican Congress members will have to counter Obama's request with a proposal of their own. Obama will object on the grounds that having Congressional committees follow Congressional procedures to create a bill and get it to the President’s desk would take too long. Obama can claim that Republicans in Congress are deliberately obstructing the streamlining of government agencies for the sole purpose of winning the 2012 elections.

The other half of the issue is the positive and negative effects of streamlining government agencies. Will replacing five government agencies with one super agency create more problems that it will resolve? Obama claimed that it would simplify matters for businesses. I doubt it. The new super agency would be a humongous agency. A business would probably have to contact numerous departments within the super agency instead of having to contact numerous agencies to obtain the information they are looking for. Instead of duplicate efforts by several agencies, we will have duplicate efforts between several departments of the super agency. Also the same cooperation problems would exist. All the problems and friction between agencies would exist between departments of one super agency.

Can Obama do all the research required to generate a workable plan for streamlining government agencies in several months without neglecting other responsibilities? Again, I doubt it.

　

　

A Cure for Our Economic Woes

2012-01-13T23:50:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under my pen name John Mario. I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

**

In order to increase jobs in the USA, the consumer must buy products manufactured by US businesses in the USA. If the US consumer buys products made in another nation, that doesn't help increase US jobs. Unless our government compensates for cheap labor in other nations by adding a tariff on imports from those nations, those imported products will be the least expensive and will sell in the US lowering the demand for US manufactured products. That is a problem if one is trying to boost US jobs. To sum up, if one wants to increase jobs in the US, our government must reverse course. Instead of wasting billions or trillions of dollars encouraging firms to move operations out of our nation, our government should spend those funds encouraging firms to move jobs back into to the US. How do we do that? By putting more money in circulation so that there is a bigger market for products manufactured in the US. That's where improving our infrastructure is a win-win idea; it creates new US jobs now and provides the needs for new businesses in the US. What are those needs? Easy access via our highways for US workers and for product transportation to US markets. Improving our infrastructure is an investment in our future.

We must insulate US worker's wages from cheap labor overseas. The US worker must be able to earn a livable wage. We must protect the union's right to negotiate wages and benefits. We must make health insurance and health care affordable for all people. We are the only civilized nation in the world that abandons the health care needs of the poor and the needy.

The Department of Defense can help create more US jobs by awarding military contracts to corporations in the US and not to any foreign company nor any foreign based US company. All operations for designing, manufacturing and testing new weapons and aircraft must be done in the US by US workers.

What about personal income tax cuts and business tax cuts? Tax cuts are fine but tax cuts alone will not resolve our economic woes. During any future recession, new tax cuts will add to the national debt. Therefore tax cuts must be combined with numerous other actions designed to stimulate our economy.

Modifying our trade agreements must be an integral part of our efforts to revive our economic.

The US national debt can be resolved without placing the complete burden the poor, the needy or the elderly. There are two absolute essentials for lowering the national debt: a robust US economy and new government revenues dedicated to paying the US debt. Cutting spending alone does not result in more US jobs. Eliminating government regulations alone will not create more US jobs. To the contrary, it will create more jobs outside of the US because the tax incentives and the cheap labor in other nations are very tempting to industry. In order to create more jobs in the US, we need a bigger market for US manufactured products. In order to attain a bigger market, we may need to crowd out some foreign competition. If needed, we should crowd out the unfair competition. Suppose we reduce our imports by 10%. Assuming demand remains the same, there would be a 10% increase in sales of US products. That translates into more US jobs. The difference between the US and other nations is that if other nations thought this type of action would boost their economy, they would not hesitate to do it. Look at China's currency manipulation. Look at the nations that block US products from their markets.

Why should the US workers sacrifice US jobs for people in other nations? Do we see them sacrificing jobs for us?

New government revenues must be a part of our effort to lower the US national debt. But new taxes or new spending cuts must wait for the economy to recover. Therefore any new taxes or new spending cuts should be delayed until 2013. At that time we could create a new 0.5% national sales tax. Keep it simple. The tax is applied to every item selling for $2.00 or more. If you spend $200, you pay 200 * 0.005 or one dollar national sales tax. Explicitly prohibit borrowing from this tax fund. Explicitly prohibit using this tax fund for any purpose other than the periodic national debt payment. Require 2/3 approval vote in the US Congress to modify this national sales tax.

In conclusion, I don't care about job creation in other nations. Let them create their own jobs. We need to create US jobs for workers in the US. Forget about creating jobs for workers in other countries. We need a bigger US market for US products; not for imported products.

Mitt Romney's Moratorium on Government Regulations

2012-01-13T20:15:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under the pen name John Mario. I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

Early in his campaign, Romney stated that as President, he would issue an executive order placing a moratorium on government regulations passed during the Obama administration. This Executive Order would temporarily eliminate all regulations including the regulations on the finance corporations that were designed to prevent another financial disaster. In effect, the financial corporations would be able to pack high risk mortgages in securities and mask them with a high credit rating. All regulations requiring financial transparency would be null and void. To make matters worse, it will take years for Congress to review those regulations.

But that's only one disaster area of many in the Romney Executive Order. The other disaster area would be the temporary deregulation of all businesses creating a threat to our environment and consequently to our children and grandchildren.

It would deregulate the insurance firms which means they don't have to cover pre-existing conditions and they can drop you soon as a family member contracts cancer.

And that's just the tip of the ice burg. There were hundreds of regulations passed by Obama affecting every area of our economy including consumer protection, credit card regulations, Internet regulations, renter protection regulations, food safety regulations, car insurance regulations, health insurance regulations, firearm regulations, smoke stack regulations, nuclear power regulations, clean air regulations, auto emission regulations, financial regulations, etc.

Romney's moratorium on regulations is an open invitation for disaster. It leaves the corporations free to be as careless as they choose endangering our fishing industry, our crops, our air, our water. It leaves the people exposed to all sorts of health risks and abuse by corporations and businesses. It could very well affect the air children breath, the food children eat, the water children drink, the oceans and lakes children swim in and the soil children play on.

Republican politicians in Congress ridicule regulations designed to protect our health. Then they lie to our faces telling us they are pro-life. This Executive Order reveals Romney's total disrespect for life. Protect life in the womb; but after birth, the hell with it!

Republican politicians are pro-dollar. Their claims of Christianity ring hollow in the face of their total disregard for the preservation of our air, water and soil.

The Native American Indians put the Republican politicians to shame. "Put back into the earth what you take out of it. Protect that which supports life." Republican politicians would do neither. They will not care until their families are affected by the drastic irresponsible deregulation. By doing so, they contradict their stated belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people: A government that cares about life is not the government Republicans advocate via deregulation! They will sacrifice everything (nothing excluded) for economic growth.

And the sad fact is that the Republicans are wrong. This recession started before Obama's regulations were established. Deregulation, disregard for regulations and lack of regulations contributed to the Great Recession of 2008 and the BP oil spill.

Note: Some of the opinions expressed in this article were expressed by me in blogs and comments on thoughts.com and on Facebook.??

Efforts of the Joint Deficit Reduction Committee

2012-01-13T20:11:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under the pen name John Mario. The article title was 'Senators Portman and Toomey Report on the Efforts of the Joint Deficit Reduction Committee' I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

**

I listened to Republican Senator Rob Portman (Ohio) and Republican Senator Tom Toomey (Pennsylvania) report on the efforts of the Joint Deficit Reduction Committee on C-SPAN.

The Republicans on the super committee took a step in the right direction when they advocating 500 billion dollars in new tax revenues.

Both Portman and Toomey wanted to focus on Medicare and Medicaid spending in order to get us back on a viable fiscal path.

Toomey's description of the Republican effort during super committee sessions

Make the current capital gains dividend rates and estate tax rates permanent.

Implement a revenue neutral corporate tax reform for the top rate 25%, broaden the tax base and develop a territorial system to reduce the repatriation tax.

Reduce the individual income tax marginal rates by 20% and limit value of deductions possibly to a percentage of adjusted gross income.

Restrict the value of deductions for the top two brackets to generate 250 billion dollars in new tax revenues over ten years.

Generate another 250 billion dollars in new tax revenues via user fees, asset sales, etc.

Implement 750 billion dollars worth of spending reductions comprised of items that had gained some acceptance from both the Republicans and the Democrats.

Portman suggestions in super committee

Change the unemployment benefits to incentivize hiring, give small businesses tax incentives, privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and give a tax credit to those who forego Medicare and Social Security.

Portman described the same framework as Toomey did for stimulating the economy and reducing the national deficit.

Tax Reform

Both Portman and Toomey advocated tax reform that broadens the tax base and lowers the rates.

The Democrats demanded over one trillion dollars in badly needed new government revenues.

Both Portman and Toomey agreed that we must stick to the 1.2 trillion dollar spending reduction while lessoning the impact on the military.

Both Portman and Toomey acknowledged that a poor economy causes more debt. They suggested that Congress pass the bills that have bi-partisan support.

Both Portman and Toomey expressed concern over upcoming possible tax increases via the expiring Bush tax cuts.

I hope the Republicans agree to increasing government revenues during the budget talks in Congress. It is a vital part of any plan to reduce the national deficit.

The Republicans are correct when they state that we cannot sustain the current levels of government spending. They refuse to admit that we also cannot sustain the continuing tax reductions that starve the government of funds during every recession.

The Republican method of reducing the debt is obviously based on the myth that tax cuts did not contribute to the current national deficit.

The 2012 campaign affects division between Republicans and Democrats. The size and role of government is the dividing factor

Obama proposes reorganizing trade offices

2012-01-13T19:49:00.000-08:00

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/01/obama-proposes-re-organizing-trade-offices/1?csp=24&kjnd=Gu1NMTeJ49LvRJFPd%2Fcaif7v06yvqEAlTH05PnE4aQAtOmwoJbXvNY7hHr0jCxBp-f43dea24-f6cc-4e31-9b8e-2c4940370f55_2%2FL3UtLbv1hATFrnWCmCfHLbICW8XxKhCmeYPpBhgauRGEwL1w5eAQDUczUcM35U

Politics and the Plight of Homeless Children

2012-01-13T19:43:00.000-08:00

I originally published this blog on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

---

I watched a portion of the House Financial Services Committee's hearing on homeless children. This subcommittee questioned homeless children about their experiences. The answers were heart-wrenching. One boy said his grades went down because he spent time worrying about where his next meal would come from. I'd expect a cold blooded Republican Congress member would scold the kid for not focusing on school work.

Other children told similar stories. They did not tell anyone that their families were homeless because they did not want to be separated from their parents, their brothers and their sisters. They also did not want to be ostracized from other kids and the school. And the saddest of all, they didn't tell anyone because they believed no one would help them. And in a Republican Congress, the child is probably right. Some kids lived in cars. Others in hotels. One common denominator: they all needed help.
Dreams are wonderful, but dreams do not solve problems. Dreams mean little to a 12 year old wondering where his next meal will come from or wondering how he will keep warm during a cold night in a car or wondering if he will ever see his family again. Dreams mean nothing to a boy who knows that if he saids anything, the govenment will take his parents away and he may not see them again for a long time.

Hence, telling a child a story about a boy who came from homelessness and is now a Senator in the US Congress may be a good inspiration, but it definitely does absolutely nothing for the child's current needs. That's what one member of the commitee did. He did not state anything about finding ways to help the homeless children. He only told the story of one out of tens of thousands . . perhaps hundreds of thousands . . . who succeeded. And yes -- as one probably suspects -- this one Congress member was a Republican.

In honesty, thats what Republican politiciana are full of . . . not crap, not compassion (or at least they show none,) not help (i guess they feel the government does not have any obligation to help homeless children,) not even hope . . . just hollow dreams. They tell stories that raise the expectation bar so high that many children might give up. Who can blame those children for thinking that adults, who have not experienced homelessness during their childhood, have absolutely no concept of what the child is experiencing or feeling?

Not understanding psychology or accepting psychology (some of them call psychology bullshit) these Republican Congress members are totally perplexed when a teenager, who feels hopeless and unable to meet adult expectations, experiences depression. They tell the depressed to get off their lazy asses and do things. They expect these kids to lift themselves out of the depression. They are so ignorant that they think activity is the magic pill. That it cures everything. They hear about one out of millions and think because one person suceeded, everyone has that capability.

The act of raising expectations to such unreasonable heights is just plain stupid and brainless. If one wants to give a child hope, one doesn't present a child with goals that are not only beyond a child's reach but also beyond a child's three dimensional world.

Many homless children are too busy worrying about current needs to even think about careers. And even if they do have aspirations, will a Republican Congress do anything for them? Probably not.
The Democrats on the commitee did a far superior job over this one Republican. The Democrats did not fill the children's heads with unreachable goals. The Democrats asked the children about their experiences and about why the children didn't ask for more help. The Democrats were in the real world while this Republican was fanticizing in his own ideal world that every one could be successful.

The No New Taxes Pledge

2012-01-13T02:54:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under my pen name John Mario. I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

The Republican 'no new taxes' pledge was fragile right from the start. I viewed it as an attempt to deprive Congress members of their Constitutional power to raise revenues as defined in Article 2 Section 8 of the US Constitution. It represents a contradiction to the Republican claim that they want a government that abides by their strict interpretation of the US Constitution.

Furthermore, a strict interpretation of the 'no new taxes' pledge reveals that tax reform is not an option for all Republican Congress members who signed the pledge. If the reader disagrees with this interpretation, I urge the reader to read the actual pledge:

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/Congressional_pledge(1).pdf

Notice that it doesn't address net taxes after tax reform.

The absence of a statement like 'The estimated net taxes as a result of any tax reform shall not exceed the current taxes' makes tax reform a virtual impossibility.

This leaves the signers of the 'no new taxes' pledge in a conundrum. If they support any real tax reform that shifts or spreads the tax burden, many will accuse them of violating their pledge.

Cain's popular 9-9-9 tax proposal is a violation of the 'no new tax' pledge. Although the total estimated tax is less than the current tax code yields, Cain's proposal includes a new tax.

Another problem is the Bush tax cuts that will expire soon. Will the act of allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire constitute a violation of the 'no new tax' pledge?

In a surprise statement to the New York Times, Grover Norquist attempted to redefine his 'no new taxes' pledge. The details are provided at the following URL:

http://www.cnycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=643325

This latest definition of the 'no new taxes' pledge raises many questions concerning tax incentives, tax subsidies, tax loopholes, etc. Temporary taxes are not part of the no new tax pledge? If a Congress member does not fight for the extension of any temporary tax cut, that represents a tax increase to voters. Regardless of what Norquist claims, many voters will consider a lack of action a blatant violation of the 'no new tax' pledge.

I wonder how many people caught the contradiction that appears in the 'no new taxes' pledge signed by the members of the US House of Representatives. The top of the pledge reads and I quote: "Americans for Tax Reform." Tax reform is impossible without new taxes! All proposed national taxes like a sales tax, a consumption tax and a value added tax are new taxes and as such represent a violation of the 'no new tax' pledge.

It occurred to me that the 'no new tax' pledge actually means that the Congress member pledges to oppose all new taxes proposed by Democrats. Any new taxes proposed by Republicans are not deemed a violation of the 'no new taxes' pledge.

The Wall Street Protests

2012-01-13T02:46:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under my pen name John Mario. I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

I watched one of those conservative talk shows Thursday evening at 10:30 PM on Fox news. The host was talking about the Wall Street protests. The show was entertaining. The viewpoints were based on the actions and words of a few selected protestors; none of them expressing the real goals of the protest.

The protestors sounded very angry. The host of the talk show criticized these particular protestors as being angry and jealous. He stated something about the protestors wanting the rich to share their money.

Basically, the conservative talk host said everything his conservative viewers wanted to hear even if his statements were not completely true. A few politicians have joined the Wall Street protest, but their comments were not included in the portion of the conservative talk show I watched.

The core reason for the protests is corporate dominance of Congress via powerful influential lobbyists. It is safe to assume that the oil corporations have their lobbyists in the halls of Congress attempting to preserve their tax incentives, loopholes and subsidies. Lobbying public officials has been an acceptable practice for a real long time. To eliminate one or several sources of lobbying while allowing other sources of lobbying would not only be unconstitutional; it would also be disastrous for our nation.

I don't know any method of reducing corporate influence that would be supported by the US Supreme Court or any Federal court. Limiting campaign contributions by corporations has been ruled unconstitutional.

Of course, the conservative talk show host never focused on the influence corporations have over public officials. His sole purpose was to ridicule the protestors and present the worst possible images of the Wall Street protests.

The anger directed at Wall Street is very real and to ridicule it is a mistake. The conservative talk show hosts are giving the protestors more exposure to the general public and I don't see how that could help the Republicans during the 2012 elections. The anger is shared by many voters. Unfortunately, the media focus is also on the anger instead of on the cause of the protest.

I support the Wall Street protests for very different reasons. Our nation responded to the 2008 recession with a host of regulations designed to prevent another occurrence of the events (including criminal activity and other abuses) that led up to the recession. Some of those regulations affect Wall Street; particularly the ones involving transparency. At least one Republican Presidential candidate wants a moratorium on all regulations passes since January 2009. This would include the regulations designed to prevent another recession. I view that moratorium proposal as a very bad idea. Congress should review and study all regulations to determine which are not needed and to determine the negative impact resulting from the removal of those regulations.

The conservative talk show hosts would serve the Republican cause better if they produced non-partisan coverage of the Wall Street protests. Ridiculing the Wall Street protests only produces more resentment, more anger and a better chance of losing the Presidential and Congressional elections to the Democrats. The anger and frustration directed at Wall Street (for various reasons) is shared by voters of both parties.

I think the influence of powerful corporate lobbyists over public officials is the core of the numerous problems cited by the Wall Street protesters.

??

Alternatives: Balanced Budget Amendment and No New Taxes Pledge

2012-01-13T02:41:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under the pen name John Mario. I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

Republicans once again wasted tax payer money (as they have consistently done throughout 2011) debating and voting on a Balanced Budget Amendment that was doomed to failure. This amendment would be used solely for the purpose of destroying programs in order to further the Republican ideology.

If the Republicans were truly interested in a balanced budget, they would denounce the 'no new taxes' pledge and join the Democrats efforts to generate revenues to help lower the national debt. Instead they insist on cutting programs that help the poor and the needy. Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare and Obamacare are among the programs Republicans would love to cut. Cuts in these programs would raise the cost of health care and health insurance far beyond the cost of any tax increase. And the sole reason the Republican are trying to cut these programs is furthering their political ideology.

They don't mind placing the burden of the debt on the poor and needy, but they object to increasing taxes on the rich and well-to-do based on the excuse (not reason) that it will hurt job growth. A small tax increase cannot hurt something that does not exist. Corporations have plenty of money to create jobs. The rich have plenty of money to create jobs. They are not creating enough US jobs. They are using their money to create more jobs overseas. I do not want my tax dollars used to create nor encourage creation of jobs overseas. I want jobs created here in the US.

The Republicans don't want to face the facts. The lack of increase in jobs is partially due to the Republican insistence on not repealing tax incentives encouraging corporations to move overseas. I use the word partially because I believe the major reason for the lack of jobs is the lack of a world market for US products, the unfair trade agreements, and cheap labor in foreign nations.

**

Republicans and Democrats should sign a pledge that includes the following:

1) They will use all powers granted Congress to create a bill that lowers the national debt

2) They will replace Obamacare instead of repealing it.

3) They will denounce and reject the 'no new taxes' pledge

4) They will repeal subsidies for all corporations earning record-breaking profits

5) They will renegotiate all trade agreements in order to give US manufacturers a competitive edge

6) They will repeal all tax incentives encouraging companies to move operations and jobs out of our nation.

7) New government revenues can include any borrowed revenues.

**

The following proposed Constitutional amendment is a better idea than the Balanced Budget Amendment.

1) Congress members and candidates shall not sign any pledge that hinders their ability to uphold and defend the US Constitution and its amendments.

2) Congress shall finance all tax cuts, subsidies and incentives to avoid increasing the national debt during future recessions

3) Congress will finance ALL wars with government revenues.

4) Congress will raise new government revenues to pay back any borrowed money for any purpose within two years after borrowing those revenues. These new government revenues shall not include any borrowed revenue.

5) Any extension of corporate tax incentives and subsidies will require the approval of 2/3 of Congress.

6) Any new tax incentive or subsidy will require the approval of 2/3 of Congress.

7) All tax bills and spending bills shall have an expiration date within 5 years of the time that bill becomes law.

Some of the opinions in this article were expressed in comments and blogs on www.thoughts.com and on Facebook.??

Tax Code Modifications for More US Jobs and Less Jobs Elsewhere

2012-01-13T02:36:00.000-08:00

I originally published this article on Yahoo Voices under the pen name John Mario. I also published it on thoughts.com under the name johnmariow.

Chief correspondent Michael Hirsh for the national journal group, senior editor and the national economic correspondent for Newsweek based in the Washington bureau, was the guest on C_SPAN Washington Journal last Wednesday The ideas in this article were inspired by watching this session of the Washington Journal.

As usual, the host was accepting calls from people who have been searching for jobs.
The following was revealed by Michael Hirsh and by those who called in to the show:
Employers are not hiring people who have been out of work for six months or more. Middle and low skill workers are having great difficulties finding jobs. Retraining often only leads to longer unemployment because businesses are looking for experienced people and not people with no experience who just completed training. Furthermore, in some cases employers want someone with a college degree for a job that did not require a college degree before the recession. The more applicants applying for the job, the higher the qualifications for getting the job. If the job market was robust, we would not have folks who have been unemployed for six months or more.

So my question is: How do we reverse the current trend of more jobs being created outside the US than inside the US? The answer is not simple. Part of the answer is modifying the tax code.

The Republicans advocate a large tax break for the rich insisting that the rich create jobs. But some employers are doing more hiring outside the US than in the US. We must reverse this trend. It could be reversed via the tax code.

While I agree that raising taxes for the rich could be interpreted as punishing those with successful careers, I also think that lowering taxes for the rich could be interpreted as rewarding the rich for sending jobs elsewhere.

I still strongly feel that the rich should share the burden of the national debt. However my idea is different from what I heard on C-SPAN. I definitely think that business taxes for businesses with a large number of employees should be based how many US jobs that business has created during the previous year. Businesses should not be rewarded for creating jobs outside the US. So any business that exported jobs or created more jobs in other countries than in the US should be taxes at a higher rate than businesses that created jobs in the US.

In order for a business to qualify for a lower tax rate, the business will be required to prove that they hired more US workers for jobs in the US. The tax rate could be dependent on the ratio of jobs created in other countries to jobs created in the US.

It could work in many ways. For example: the tax loopholes could be closed for businesses that hire outside the US and did not hire within the US. Congress can pass laws that require a certain percentage of manufacturing by a US business must be done in the US.

Similar conditions could be implemented for the Repatriation tax. For example, the law could state that 50% of the Repatriation tax must be used to create jobs in the US. If not, then the old tax laws concerning the Repatriation tax will be in effect. The rate of the Repatriation tax would be based on the number of jobs created in the US.

It is imperative that the US Senate and the President play an active role in creating a bigger market for US products. This means renegotiating trade treaties. It means being tough with nations that cheat in order to gain a competitive advantage. And it means insulating the US worker from the cheap labor overseas.

Stephen Colbert Enters the Presidential Race

2012-01-13T00:44:00.001-08:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/idUS165624806120120113

Obama Seeks 1.2 Trillion Dollar Debt Limit Rise

2012-01-13T00:41:00.000-08:00

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/13/us-usa-debt-obama-idUSTRE80B20P20120113

2012-01-11T21:13:00.000-08:00

On Jan 7 2012 at the New England College, John Huntsman explained how he would restore trust in the US government. John Huntsman is currently enjoying a surge in the polls. He is the latest in a long list of GOP Presidential candidates who surged to toward the top of the polls and then fell back.

John Huntsman is a good communicator. His presentation at the New England College was excellent. I think that if Mitt Romney were not in the primaries, John Huntsman would be the most likely to win the nomination. I like John Huntsman because he is pragmatic.

He is not an outsider. He has ample experience to qualify him for President including being part of the White House Staff, Secretary of Commerce, Ambassador to Singapore, etc.

John Huntsman believes the US suffers a deficit in dollars, jobs and trust. He is correct. The US people have lost trust in their Government. They lost trust in the Executive Department and in the Congress. The approval ratings for Congress are at an all time low. Congress has become polarized and dysfunctional. The anger aimed at Wall Street by the Occupy Wall Street group reflects the feelings of many US citizens. Restoring trust should be theme of every GOP Presidential candidate.

John Huntsman's plan encompasses tax code reform, government spending, entitlement programs, financial corporations, energy, wars, lobbying and special interests. John Huntsman wants a US Constitutional amendment establishing term limits for Congressional members.

I urge all to carefully read the transcript of John Huntsman's speech at the New England College. The URL of the transcript is:

http://www.jon2012.com/index.php/hblog/post/transcript_of_governor_huntsmans_unveiling_of_plan_to_restore_trust_in_wash

Obama Calls Republican Representatives Obstructionistss

2012-01-11T21:07:00.000-08:00

I've written numerous articles about the Republican Representatives in the US House of Representatives passing bills that had no chance of becoming law. The Republican Representatives should have replaced the Health Reform Law with their own instead of repealing the current Health Reform Law. Their own Health Reform Law would have a far greater chance of becoming law because of a pending US Supreme Court decision this summer. I recall watching a US House of Representatives committee reviewing Health Reform on C_SPAN.

Now Obama has put the Republican Representatives in the spotlight by calling them obstructionists. The following link (to an article in USA Today) details Obama's strategy and the Republican agenda for 2012.

However, the article does not focus on the same tactics used in the Senate by Democratic Senators. Obstructionists is a label that will stick. It will be very difficult for either political party to convincingly deny the charge of obstructionism. The only question is which charge will attract the media's attention.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/story/2012-01-09/house-republican-majority/52509262/1?csp=24&kjnd=u93dPBcLa7ITQKuAzWwHcEGxYwTE7VzFUmcBjRpuM%2Br15y8aQkqvTMlad4sFiIvl-e674d7be-bffc-4ded-9244-c9d10a0e553e_AfSCj7zQJzh4BsgurrkSk2MSn%2FCtFOtS8GhwtOt18wPIBtUwyRJqPJsR37H7%2Fnaz

Newt Gingrich's Child Work Ethics Plan, Costs and the Child Labor Laws

2012-01-05T18:15:00.000-08:00

Newt Gingrich spoke about teaching children work ethics by putting them to work in our schools. I am all for teaching children the ethics of hard work. In this blog, I call Newt Gingrich's plan the Child Work Ethics Plan. Newt Gingrich's Child Work Ethics Plan is a good idea, but the details of the plan must be revealed before I support this particular plan.

Many have criticized Newt Gingrich for advocating child labor because it is a violation of the child labor laws. But that criticism is not totally true. The entertainment industry often employs children. The child labor laws limit the amount of time a child could work each day. Apply those child labor laws to schools. In Connecticut, 16 year old children can apply for working papers and then work in retail. When we talk about child labor, we are talking about children under 16 years old.

Children under 16 years old will need supervision. I don't think it is wise to leave a group of working children unsupervised. Supervision costs money. Current maintenance management in schools may not be qualified to supervise children.

Some schools may request teachers to volunteer to supervise working children for several hours allowing the maintenance manager to perform other tasks. If teachers don't volunteer, then the schools may have to hire extra personnel to supervise the children.

Newt Gingrich did not speak about the cost of child labor while I was listening to him on C-SPAN. I assume those costs would be added to the school budget at a time when most states are trimming their budgets in order to pay up their debts. Private schools might have to raise the cost of admission in order to implement the child work ethics program. This would affect the budget of parents. It might result in an outflow of students from private schools to public schools.

Teaching children work ethics also involves administrative costs. The school might need the written consent of parents before employing children in the Child Work Ethics Plan. Another issue is transportation. School buses might be used to transport the children to and from school.

Newt Gingrich did not mention it, but I assume the Child Work Ethics Plan will be implemented at the state level and paid for by the state and the parents.

Newt Gingrich did not mention the numerous Child Work Ethics Plan that exist across the US. My Internet Google search for 'Child Work Ethics' yielded over 81 million results.

Teaching children work ethics must begin in the home. When I was young, I had certain chores to perform. I had to clean my room, make up my bed, trim the lawn, shovel the snow, dry the dishes, etc. I don't remember if my weekly allowance was linked to my chores.

Republican Plans for Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid Affect Children

2012-01-04T23:06:00.000-08:00

I listened to the Republican candidates talk about the children being the future of our nation. But their campaign promises are contrary to their rhetoric.

Republicans want to eliminate Welfare and make drastic cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. This blog is about how those measures can hurt the children.

Eliminating Welfare is based on their idealism that everyone can overcome their problems and become productive citizens. That's a dream world. Republican candidates are out of touch with reality. Eliminating Welfare will render thousands, possibly millions homeless. That translates into more homeless children living in cars or separated from their parents, brothers and sisters. That is not the way to create a better future for the children.

Let's consider Medicare. If Republican candidates succeed, Medicare patients will suffer radical cuts in coverage. So their children end up helping the elderly pay medical bills. Those funds may have been intended for their grandchildren's education.

One could use the same logic for people on Medicaid except that the cost of a nursing home is much more expensive than most procedures covered by Medicare. Hence, the consequences for children may be more serious.
　