A Proven Failure

In the blog entry titled “Mandatory Drug Testing To Receive Welfare Benefits” Hit or Miss poorly articulates her argument in favor of the demoralizing mandate proposed by many republican lawmakers.  This proposal not only violates the dignity of poor people but it has been proven to be a financial loss.

Hit or Miss claims that “drug testing will reveal recipients who are wasting taxpayer’s money”.  Actually, the cost of unnecessary drug testing is the where the taxpayer’s money would be wasted.  In the first four months of Florida’s mandatory drug testing for welfare beneficiaries, they lost 45,000 bucks.  They spent more on drug testing than the screenings saved and caught very few people “wasting taxpayer’s money.”  The drug testing in Florida only succeeded in proving that recipients of TANF are actually less likely to abuse drug than the general population.  Florida’s Department of Children and Families found 2.5% of welfare applicants failed the drug test, which is lower than the rate of the general population.

Hit or Miss then points out that some people will claim that this is unconstitutional and that it violates their 4^th amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures.  Yes, I will!  She then claims that “No one hears the people complaining how it is unconstitutional taking drug test for employment.”  Yes, I do!

Aside from being a grammatical failure, the commentary clearly stereotypes the poor.  It’s not a crime to be on welfare and if states were to implement this law we could conclude that being poor and needing help warrants suspicion of drug use.  These states would also like to ridicule and demean beneficiaries of unemployment in their money saving plan.  The supporters of this plan want rip the constitutional rights away from men and women who have just lost their jobs and from veterans who need assistance.

Her solution is to blame the “druggie” and let the children suffer unless the drug user goes into a rehabilitation center or substance abuse class, self paid I assume.  In the end, she says the government can’t screen all welfare recipients, but they can “weed” out the system abusers by finding the drug addicts.  I don’t really know what that means but as a recovering addict who has had the privilege of being in a couple of drug rehab facilities, I know this is not an end all to addiction.

 I believe the solution is equal and efficient education for our children, regardless of their economic status.  The states should take the money that they propose spending on drug testing and spend it on more job programs and educational programs.  The only people who would benefit from this mandate are the private companies who do the drug testing. 

“How reprehensible it is when those blessed with commodities insist on ignoring the poor.  Better to torment them, force them into indentured servitude, inflict compulsion and blows-this at least produces a connection, fury and a pounding heart, and these too constitute a form of relationship.  But to cower in elegant homes behind golden garden gates, fearful lest the breath of warm humankind touch you, unable to indulge in extravagances for fear they might be glimpsed by the embittered oppressed, to oppress and yet lack the courage to show yourself as an oppressor, even to fear the ones you are oppressing, feeling ill at ease in your own wealth and begrudging others their ease, to resort to disagreeable weapons that require neither true audacity nor manly courage, to have money, but only money, without splendor: That’s what things look like in our cities at present.”

-Robert Walser, The Tanners

Repealing DOMA

There is a great deal of hypocrisy  in the U.S. Congress of representatives consistently supporting civil rights and at the same time opposing the right of same-sex couples to marry, and of the LGBT community to experience their other constitutional rights.  Many site God as their homophobic reasoning, others refer to morals and tradition.

There is no moral requirement to get married.  There is nothing immoral about being gay and wanting to get married.  People of all races, religions, genders and sexual orientations can be immoral but only gay people are denied the right to marry.  Rapists and murderers can be married as long as the lovely person they are marrying is of the opposite sex. 

Many traditions of the past would be considered immoral in society today.  Traditions such as dueling and human sacrifice are no longer practiced because we grow and develop as a society and learn to question traditions and beliefs.  We should start a new tradition in America, equality for all. The Declaration of Independence says “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”  Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness clearly includes who you choose to marry.

Churches and other religious institutions can act according to their own beliefs and theologies; nobody is trying to interfere in their lives.  This is not a church or religious issue. Marriage is a civil issue, sadly defined as a legal union of one man and one woman, since the passing of the Defense of Marriage Act.

Despite my complicated love for President Bill Clinton, I have to mention that he, with a large majority of both houses of Congress, signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) on September 21, 1996.  This law prevents the federal government from recognizing marriages of gay and lesbian couples, denying same-sex couples more than 1,100 federal benefits and protections including spousal survival benefits of gay military families and social security benefits.  Also, because of this law, gay couples cannot file joint federal income tax returns and take deductions and surviving gay spouses don’t have any protection from estate taxes. 

The law has been ruled unconstitutional in eight federal courts, including the first and second court of appeals.  The Obama administration communicated that the Department of Justice would no longer defend the act in Federal court and thankfully, in 2009 Bill Clinton said his past position on the issue was “wrong.”  “I think gay marriage is a good thing not a bad thing.  And I just realized that, I was, probably for, maybe just because of my age and the way I’ve grown up, I was wrong about that.”

Five cases are waiting on a response to review in the Supreme Court and the LGBT community is confident that the court will ultimately rule in favor of repealing the law.  The authors of the Defense of Marriage act introduced this unnecessary law to manufacture more hatred in this world.  The gay community has suffered enough discrimination and hopefully this senseless defining of marriage has only brought more awareness to the plight.

It's a Miss on Contraception

The argument is unclear in the blog entry by “Hit or Miss” titled “Against the Odds-Oral Contraceptives.” She attempts to make an argument about the controversial Obamacare contraceptive mandate, but provides the audience with no evidence to back her claims and clearly didn’t do any research on contraception use.

She believes that the “president and the government express concern over the importance to support free birth control pills to insulin or medical equipment,”  which would be a valid argument if not followed by “The citizens of the United States should not have to fund their promiscuous lives.”  I can only assume that she’s referring to women and not the president and the government.   
It’s hard for me to comprehend that a 21^st century woman with a family, like Hit or Miss, believes that only promiscuous women use birth control.  Liberate your mind Hit or Miss!!  Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and do some research on women’s issues before offering your negligent opinion.

Women use contraceptives for a variety of reasons including endometriosis, excessive bleeding, ovarian cysts, acne and the most common reason, family planning.  The latter is important to prevent pregnancies that occur too late or too early and to prevent a woman from having children too close together which can adversely affect the mother’s health and increase the risk of birthing a baby prematurely and with a low birth weight. 

According to Guttmacher Institute, more than 99% of women aged 15-44 who have had sexual intercourse have used a contraceptive method.  Their research also shows that more married than never been married, use contraceptives (79% vs. 39%) and 93% of married women, at risk of unintended pregnancies, use contraceptives. 

In her conclusion, Hit or Miss offers a solution.  She believes that our health care system needs to provide people with diabetes, hypertension and cancer medications and not be so concerned that “Horny Helen does not run out of birth control pills before she hits a fraternity house for a night of boozing and sex.”  Again, I’m dumbfounded.

Hit or Miss is grammatically deficient throughout her blog entry, as well as, in her knowledge on the subject of contraception.  I understand she was trying to argue that many life-saving drugs are not being mandated currently, while a contraceptive no co-pay is.  In my opinion, she didn’t relay this idea as well as she could have.  Nearly every American woman, regardless of age, religion, marital status or race, who has had sex, has used birth control.  Whether a woman is promiscuous or not, she should have access to affordable health care including contraceptives.  The spotlight should be more focused on the hypocrisy and inequality in how society views sexual activity and health of men and women.

 

Football in Congress

I loathe football.  So when I heard a couple weeks ago on the evening news that the NFL was a non-profit organization with a tax exempt status, I told my husband, to quote myself, "I'm going to take down the NFL and make them pay."  Of course, I said that prior to doing any actual research.  The amount of money that flows in and out of the NFL is dizzying, as is the U.S. tax code.
The IRS classifies the NFL as a 501(c)6 tax exempt non-profit which:
     Provides for the exemption of business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, boards of trade and professional football leagues, which are not organized for profit and no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any shareholder or individual.
Is the NFL not organized for profit?  NFL revenue in 2011 was 9 billion dollars and the league paid 8 top executives over $53 million in salary and bonuses in 2009.  The "nonprofit" just signed a $2.3 billion deal with Pepsi.  The number that got my attention was the $1.62 million that the NFL paid on federal lobbying last year.  Not only has the NFL spent record numbers on lobbying congress, but other major football interest groups have also spent historically lofty amounts of money in recent years on lobbying.  These lobbyist negotiate with congress on many topics, including concussions, drug testing, Internet gambling, broadcast policies and maybe a new college playoff system.
Are these the issues that consume congress?  Representative Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., co-creator of the Congressional Collegiate Sports Caucus, defends the involvement of Congress on the issue of a playoff system, saying "Americans care about sports, and they care about fairness.  If something like this isn't fair, it is the prerogative of Congress, and its job, to address it and fashion remedies."
The right to petition government is one of our fundamental precepts and our country's founders wanted to have all interests competing in a free and open marketplace of ideas.  I'm not sure this is what James Madison had in mind, though.
Wouldn't congress's time be better used focusing on the social realities affecting our country such as; homelessness, poverty, increasing gun violence, hunger, racism, classism, sexism, our faulty prison system, unemployment and most importantly fixing public education especially among inner-city and low income youth.  Or closing loopholes and shutting down tax shelters that house "nonprofits" like the NFL and millionaires who don't want to pay taxes.  I don't know, maybe I just hate football.

Pro-Choice Versus Anti-Choice

Disagreement with respect is hard to do, especially on the heavy topic of abortion.  Breeanne Howe does not attempt to do this with her biased article in RedState, on October 12, titled "The Abortion Debate Continues."  She's referring to the question asked of Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan 73 minutes into the debate, and although, abortion is only one issue shared by Catholics, Mrs. Raddatz poses the question of how the candidates' united faith affects their abortion rights policies.
 Mrs. Howe argues that Vice President Biden's stance on abortion is illogical, as is the "left side of the isle", because he separates his personal life from his religious views and doesn't want to force his beliefs onto others.  She believes this is a "weak excuse."  She describes V.P. Biden as "loud and angry" but uses complimentary adjectives such as eloquent and excellent when speaking of Ryan's performance and positions.
She states that Mr. Ryan defends the issue of life and that there should be no exceptions for abortion unless the life of the mother is at risk.  V.P Biden defends the issue of life as well.  It's a matter of pro-choice versus anti-choice.
 She goes on to write that the Romney administrations policies, exception for incest and rape, are "not logical and are as cruel as any abortion."  She then gives an irrational analogy, comparing an abortion to murdering a three year old child.  "Ryan will be a champion for the unborn in the White House", she claims.
It's her job and objective to be fanatically conservative and to try and persuade people who are on the fence about social issues to emulate the herd.  Mrs. Howe clearly hopes to reach people of particular religions and conservative conformists.  She reports to the same people who spend time worrying about government's intrusion upon our liberties, but are insistent upon meddling in the business of whom I can marry or what I do with my body.
Historically, women's freedom and equality have been attacked and compromised by anti-choice lawmakers attempting to control a woman's decisions about her health and body.  Women are now being attacked in media forums across the country.  I believe in democracy and the right to free speech, but my reproductive system is no body's business.  Hopefully, there will be a champion for women and their issues in the White House for another four years.

Arguing the Polls

In Pete Du Pont's September 27th article, in the Wall Street Journal, he attempts to persuade the reader that despite being ahead in the polls, President Obama does not have this election locked up and republicans need to get out and vote for governor Romney.  He, like many right leaning columnists, is hoping that this bandwagon effect will be absorbed by the readers of the WSJ and subsequent publications.  He hopes to reach the affluent and the aspiring, the investor, people with portfolios, the upper middle class republicans.  The general demographics of the readership of the WSJ are 82% male with an average age of 57.  Although, for the uninformed reader, he informs them that Mitt Romney is the republican candidate and that the democrats went with their incumbent and then reminds us that the "polls are volatile and close" and that the election is not over.
In this commentary titled "The Election Isn't Over" he cites polling companies such as Rasmussen Reports, where the president is up in August and then tied with Romney in late September; Gallup shows Romney up in August and President Obama up now; a conservative leaning political polling site, RealClearPolitics.com has the president at a base of 179 in the electoral college and Mr. Romney at 150.  I can't dispute the poll numbers, his opinion or the obvious high unemployment and slow economic recovery, but I can elaborate on the president's policy that Mr. Du Pont vaguely and carelessly mentions.
Pete Du Pont writes that higher taxes are coming with "ObamaCare's new 3.8% tax on investment income."  The 3.8% tax is not a sales tax but a tax on "unearned income" you would gain from investments, rentals, or home sales over the exemption amount of $250,000 for single and $500,000 for married couples.  This tax would only be added for some people with incomes above $200,000 and some married couples with income greater than $250,000.
In the end, Pete Du Pont's argument was honest and concrete.  I desperately wanted him to be wrong about the national debt or the tax penalty and the amount of people it would affect.  Mr. Du Pont states that "Mr." Obama continues to score poorly on job approval.  It's all relative....I think he's doing fine.

Dead or Alive

The title "Zombie Voters and Honesty in Politics" published on September 14 on the Texas Public Radio website, caught my eye not because of the newly resurrected zombie obsession but because I wanted to know if their vote counted.  Turns out, dead people will not be voting in this upcoming Presidential election and people who the Texas Secretary of State's office thinks are possibly dead, might not understand that they can vote.  Confusing?  Maybe it's supposed to be.
 The article written by David Martin Davies, explains why 77,000 notifications were sent out to Texas residents inquiring about their living status.  That is, whether or not they are living.  The Texas Secretary of State's office matched the Social Security Administration's death master file with the voter registration list and required counties to send letters and then to remove people from the voter registration list if they don't respond within 30 days.  Don Sumners, the Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector and voter registrar, is refusing to remove these people from the voter registration list before the Presidential election stating "We can afford to wait until after the election before we start taking people off."  Mr. Sumners reasons that it will be confusing for people but the Secretary of State's office thinks he is violating the law.  Everybody loves to hate the tax man.
This is an important reading because we should be aware of possible voter suppression.  Americans, some of whom started movements and organizations devoted to franchisement, cannot become immune to political corruption and issues like voter suppression.