Wednesday, October 31, 2012

If Romney Were President


If Mitt Romney were president today, 60 million Americans facing $20 billion in "Sandy" damage would be SOL -- or hoping that the state they live in could somehow help them out. That's because disaster relief would no longer be a function or responsibility of the federal government and FEMA would no longer exist, thanks to Romney.

The state of New Jersey, for instance, which brought to its knees by that storm, being solely responsible for preparation, rescue and recovery from the horrendous damage "Sandy" wreaked is about as ludicrous as expecting a patient that has open-heart surgery to sew him/herself up and assume her/his own care, including vital-sign monitoring and IV drips.

"Sandy" made NJ Gov. Chris Christie a true believer of the need for FEMA and other federal assistance. This is what he said:

  Christie told news outlets that the president’s response had been “outstanding,” said that coordinating with the administration had been “wonderful,” and remarked that “the president has been all over this and he deserves great credit.” He even told Fox News the president had done a “great job for New Jersey” while staying above the fray about politics. http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/in-superstorm-sandy-new-jersey-governor-chris-christie-praises-president-obamas-crisis-leadership/2012/10/30/89769e32-22b5-11e2-ac85-e669876c6a24_story.html


That's just one of the reasons I'm voting for President Obama. Others include:
  • Middle-income Americans' mortgage, education, child and other vital tax deductions will NOT be at risk, like they are likely to be under Romney.
  • Pay parity is more realistic.  The Lilly Ledbetter Act, which enables women to know if their male counterparts -- same work, same experience, same training -- are being paid more than they are, and to sue their employers if they are, is a start. Obama will sign into law the Fair Pay Act, which will ensure that women are paid 100% of what their male counterparts earn, not just 73-77%, which is now the case.
  • Women's access to healthcare, preventative care and screening for breast and cervical, including reproductive information and pregnancy prevention methods will not be eliminated as they are likely to be under Romney.
  • Insurance-company ban on from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
  • Stopped the country’s plunge off the economic cliff and ended the Great Recession created by GWBush and Republican Congress fiscal irresponsibility.
  • Substantially cut taxes for working Americans -- twice.
  • Private-sector job growth for the past 36 straight months.
  • Robust and increasingly profitable U.S. auto industry and related businesses.
  • Tough on terror and terrorists.
  • Strong leadership regarding natural and national disasters.
  • Ended Iraq war, ending Afghanistan war, strong leadership in not starting any new wars.
  • Protecting consumers from predatory financial industry tactics by creating the Consumers Financial Protection Bureau.
  •  Will keep intact the Affordable Care Act (ACA)/Obamacare with provisions that:   

Ø     Provides healthcare coverage for millions who previously were uninsured, including people under 26 years old who can stay on their parents’ insurance plans.

Ø Reduces a major reason for skyrocketing rise in healthcare costs – insurance premiums – by requiring 80 percent of premiums to be spent on actual care.

Ø     Ends insurance-premium discrimination against women.


Ø    Extends viability of Medicare and benefiting those who use the program in at least two ways:

*      Covering preventative procedures such as annual physical exams, which Medicare previously didn’t cover, and other screening procedures, all of which is much less costly than trying to treat chronic and acute diseases after they have become advanced and create collateral damage

*      Closing the prescription drug “donut hole” and allowing price comparison

*      All reforms paid for by reductions in costs, not by increased fees to users or costs to taxpayers

·         Being able to achieve major accomplishments despite a Congress that will do nothing that he proposes – even measures that were, in fact, initially Republican proposals, such as the ACA insurance mandate, which was part of Newt Gingrich's 1994 "Contract with America" – that would benefit the country for fear that it might help his re-election.

Here’s proof:

Ø  Republicans have mounted the worst filibuster record in Senate history, blocking bills that would have increased employment and blocking key appointments, including judges, to the detriment of the justice system

Ø  The McConnell rule, which Mitch McConnell articulated two years ago as “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president. That’s the Republicans’ #1 priority.

*      Not create jobs

*      Not reduce the unemployment rate

*      Not improve the economy

*      Not national defense

Ø  While defeating President Obama might be the Republicans’ political objective, making that their number one governing objective has not been and still isn’t in the best interest of the country or the People

It is beyond me why anyone, and certainly why any woman, would ever vote for a Republican and not vote for President Obama.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Americans ARE Better Off, Thanks to Obama

The chart below showing Pres. Obama to be anything but the big spender his critics would have voters believe him to be sparked quite a discussion on Facebook, including this comment from "Ronnie":

"prices of gas are higher food bills higher utilities higher and pay is less tell me how we are better"

I don't know about "Ronnie" but I sure had no problem coming up with several million Americans who are definitely better off thanks to Obama, such as:

Those who were hired to fill the nearly 5 million private sector jobs created in the past 3-1/2 years, the 43 million previously uninsured people who now have healthcare coverage, most middle-income Americans who realized significant tax savings (the tax policy center calculates an average of $3,600 per typical family -- my household's was more than $5,000), the millions of Americans who will no longer be barred from healthcare coverage because of 'pre-existing conditions' that had become as ridiculous as having been pregnant at sometime in their lives, women who now have the right to sue employers for pay discrimination, women who no longer pay higher insurance premiums than men, millions of Americans who invest in a stock market that has more than doubled since Obama took office, thousands of auto industry workers and thousands more in related industries who didn't lose their jobs because of Obama-approved loans to GM and Chrysler most of which have been paid back -- with interest -- and many more Americans who have and still are benefiting from Obama's policies. 

Speaking of gas prices, remember $4 and higher per gallon during GWBush's term? And he was one president who really could do something about gas prices, thanks to his in w/the Saudi royal family, but even he couldn't keep prices from going through the roof.

Some who are certainly better off than Mitt Romney would have them believe are Jeep workers whose jobs are NOT being sent to China -- contrary to what Romney told a crowd in Ohio, where a lot of Jeep employers live and work, gun owners whose rights have been EXPANDED under Obama (unlike what Romney did as governor of Massachusetts when he signed the most restrictive gun law in that state).

Some who might not be better off are former Delphi employees whose jobs Romney's Bain Capital shipped overseas, Sensata Technologies workers in Freeport, Ill., whose jobs Bain is shipping to China next week, and the millions of former manufacturing workers whose jobs have been shipped to other countries by corporations seeking ever-higher profits, some now making record high profits, yet still get federal subsidies that the GOP-controlled Congress refuse to end.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Nothing Honorable About Detroit News Endorsement


A Facebook Friend posted this. It is so worth reading and sharing.

If Undecided 2012
I WAS DISGUSTED TO SEE THAT THE DETROIT NEWS ENDORSED MITT ROMNEY FOR PRESIDENT. THIS IS THE COMMENT I SENT 
TO THEIR EDITOR:

"I once was proud to be a Detroit News paper-boy back in 1960-1965, when I was 13-18 years-old. Back then I respected the newspaper that I sold. But as we both have aged I hav 
e seen The Detroit News become increasingly conservative -- finally reaching the point where I no longer respect my former employer.

In the second paragraph of your editorial endorsing Mitt Romney you describe the current election as a decision between two "honorable" men. In my opinion your choice of words is either grossly incorrect, or intentionally misleading. You also say that you "find Romney to be ... not bound by rigid ideology." I find that to be a creative but tortured euphemism for describing a man who displays only one guiding principle: "The end justifies the means." Mitt Romney grasps onto whatever beliefs he feels are necessary in order to curry the approval of whomever he is speaking to at the moment, and then blithely changes them at his next campaign stop to fit his new audience.

Lastly, I see nothing honorable about a man who cavalierly buys often-profitable companies, plunders them for personal gain, hides his untaxed profits overseas, sends American companies to places like China were he can pay them 99 cents an hour -- coldly casting the company's former American workers onto the scrap-heap. If you support such a person for President, then you -- like Mitt Romney -- appear to possess no sense of fairness or decency, and no honest concern for the well-being of this country and its workers. Shame." --Brian Enright

For All Women, No Dilemma


An undecided female voter called Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" program today. Her dilemma: She thinks voting for Romney might be better for the economy and help her get a job. But she wants to vote for Pres. Obama b/c he will protect her personal and civil rights. 

The obvious, but unsaid, answer is that she should vote for Obama. With Obama, her personal and civil rights are protected and economic progress is on track to continue. 

Romney's multiple and fluid economic plans might or might not succeed. But the continued Republican assaults on women's rights and the guaranteed appointment of at least one ultra-conservative Supreme Court justice would doom Roe v. Wade and possibly access to any form of contraceptives. 

As some people have noted, this is a family issue, not just a women's issue, that will affect not only the "On Point" caller, but all families in America for generations to come. 

For this undecided voter or ANY woman, what is the dilemma?

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

More on Obama Not a Big Spender


Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It's Barack Obama?

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Check out the chart –



Lindsey Graham says (legal) tax avoidance is the "American way."
 

Obama Is Far From Being A Big Spender


So much bogus math and false assertions is being thrown around in this presidential campaign.
One is that Pres. Obama is a big spender. One friend is so sure of that, he provided some of the "proof" being used by Obama opponents. It wasn't even worth a response. A huge factor Obama critics either overlook or want everyone else to overlook that can make Obama appear to have blown up the deficit is how expenditures for GWBush's two wars are counted.
Bush did not include them in his budgets, but put them under "emergency spending." For two terms! When Obama took office, he said it was dishonest to keep war spending off the budget, so he included it in his budgets. Thus, it looks like he's increased spending by a trillion or more when he's actually reduced the budget -- by $200 billion.
Below is a chart that shows how the budget has shrunk since Obama took office, along with some commentary that was posted with it:
"Obama has something to brag about -- very few presidents of the last generation can say they managed to shrink the deficit by over $200 billion, even during difficult economic times." Only two presidents have reduced the deficit this much -- Clinton and Obama. http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/10/12/14399005-us-budget-deficit-shrinks-by-over-200-billion-reaches-4-year-low?lite

How Has Competition in Healthcare Worked Out?


The Milwaukee newspaper, no doubt, gets way more letters from readers than it can possibly publish. That probably explains why the letter below, which I sent on Monday, Oct. 8, wasn't published. Surely, it couldn't be because I criticized the newspaper. Here, for anyone who follows this blog is what I wrote. 

The Journal Sentinel's top Page 1 news story today is that Mitt Romney "supports competition in healthcare". Given that the cost of healthcare has skyrocketed and access to healthcare has shrunk for a vast number of Americans ever since Richard Nixon opened the door to for-profit HMOs and hospitals back in 1971, I have to ask, "How did that 'competition in healthcare' thingy work out for us?" Medicare is the only healthcare program/plan that isn't a disaster. The people who have benefited financially are healthcare industry, including insurance, CEOs and shareholders. The only competition in healthcare for insurance companies is to get more of our money, not in providing better or more affordable coverage. Obamacare is showing real benefits, financially and otherwise, for many Americans, including those on Medicare for whom much less costly annual physicals are now covered before potentially catastrophic illnesses take hold that need highly expensive--and often--ineffective or inadequate treatment. The vast majority of Americans can't afford Romney's idea of returning to the good old days of "competition in healthcare" that has left so many in this country in financial ruin and some even dead.