I Don't Keep My Promises... I'm A Republican...

Quote of the Day

By Steve BenenThu Apr 26, 2012 1:25 PM EDT

Getty Images

Democrats and Republicans struck a deal last summer on spending levels for the upcoming year, clearing the way for a smooth budget process. House GOP leaders recently decided to ignore the agreement they accepted, make even deeper cuts, and tell Democrats they have to give in or there will be a government shutdown shortly before the election.

House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), in other words, has said he will no longer honor the agreement he helped strike. Last week, the White House said that's unacceptable -- President Obama is fully prepared to keep his word, but won't tolerate House Republicans breaking the hard-fought deal.

Today, reporters asked the Speaker about the administration's veto threat. Here's a transcript of the exchange:

Q: Last week the acting OMB director sent a letter to Congressional appropriators saying that basically the top line agreed to in the Budget Control Act, that the President would veto it if it's not met.
BOEHNER: Blah blah blah blah blah, alright, so?
Q: Is that an official response?
BOEHNER: Yes.

Just to be absolutely clear about this, "Blah blah blah blah blah" is not my mockery of the House Speaker's response to the question. Rather, Boehner literally said, "Blah blah blah blah blah."

The Speaker is breaking his word, he's being called on it, and he doesn't care.

Incidentally, in the exact same press briefing, Boehner complained that Obama's efforts on student loan interest rates are beneath "the dignity" of the presidency.

No word yet on whether the Speaker believes "Blah blah blah blah blah" is beneath "the dignity" of the his office.

Incidentally, House Republicans continue to push ahead with a spending plan that ignores the agreement they already accepted, and some of the sillier members of the Senate Republican caucus, including Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), agree with the House GOP's push.

If Republicans keep this up, the likelihood of a government shutdown shortly before the November elections grows.

HOUSE GOP WOULD KICK 280,000 CHILDREN OFF SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM TO PROTECT TAX FOR MILLIONAIRES

By Guest Blogger on Apr 25, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Our guest blogger is Melissa Boteach, director of Half In Ten at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.


House Republicans recently proposed cuts to nutrition assistance that will kick 280,000 low-income children off automatic enrollment in the Free School Lunch and Breakfast Program. Those same kids and 1.5 million other people will also lose their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly food stamp benefits) that help them afford food at home.

Ten years’ worth of these nutrition cuts could be prevented for the price of one year of tax cuts on 3,340 multimillion dollar estates that House Republicans are protecting in their budget.

On April 18 the House Agriculture Committee passed a bill cutting over $33 billion from SNAP over the next decade. About one-third of these cuts ($11.5 billion) comes from putting restrictions on “categorical eligibility,” a provision that enables states to better coordinate between programs and improves access to assistance for low-income families.

By restricting this provision, the bill would kick an average of 1.8 million low-income people a year off of food aid and end automatic enrollment in free school meals for 280,000 children in struggling families.
The Republican budget sells this bill as an effort to “reduce lower‐priority spending” to avert military cuts that will otherwise take place in January 2013 due to the debt deal agreed to last summer. But when it comes to reducing the deficit, it’s clear the House would rather ask low-income kids and families struggling against hunger to foot the bill than asking multimillion-dollar estates to pay their fair share.

Case in point: As part of the 2010 tax-cut compromise, House Republicans insisted on including a tax cut on multimillion dollar estates, adding an estimated $11.5 billion to the deficit this year alone. That’s the same amount they’re now claiming is necessary to cut from low-income families through these restrictions.

By making it more difficult for low-income schoolchildren to access school breakfast and lunch, this bill will likely increase child hunger, which is associated with worse educational outcomes and higher long-term health costs. Both of these trends affect our economy and our deficits over the long run.

We should reconsider reduced spending on “lower priority” items — a.k.a breakfast, lunch, and dinner for low-income children — and instead adopt a deficit-reduction approach that asks everyone to pay their fair share—including multimillion-dollar estates.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
MY THOUGHTS:

What we are learning about how the brain is wired and the mental behaviors of individuals is revealing that our compassion and empathy for others is almost predetermined in our genes. Nature if you will.  However there is also a nurture component as well. Even if  you have the gene for fear, the need for strict order in your life, have limited ability to comprehend abstract thoughts, if you are nurtured in a compassionate and empathetic environment, you could overcome to a controllable degree the fear and strict order wiring of the brain. The brain can be somewhat adaptive to nurturing in certain areas of the brain. And the converse is also possible.

But if a person has the genes to cause this state of fear and need for strict order and is nurtured in the same environment, they are incapable of compassion or empathy, they are the Ayn Rands of the world. They are the despots, the Hitlers, the Stalins, the Idi Amins, and the many other dictators throughout history.

This is the only logical reason that individuals who share these traits, fear and lack of empathy, vote against their self interest. They are emotionally incapable of researching the facts, using critical thinking in their evaluation of the information they find and applying that knowledge in their decision of what to do.

These are the same people who take their religious scripture as absolute facts, almost obsessed obedience to their religion, and reject any other factual data, such as science, that contradicts there religious thoughts.  Therefore, the two, ideology and theology merge so nicely in the Republican Party's governance plan.

5 Right-Wing Governors Gutting Schools to Fund Prisons, Tax Breaks for the Rich...And a Bible Theme Park

 February 9, 2012  |   

When state after state slashes education dollars, we see what matters to them--and where they spend while cutting schools tells us even more.

It's budget time again, and with the economy still in rough shape, that means it's time for governors to show where their priorities are.

It's probably not surprising that right-wing governors claim they can't fund education properly when revenues are low—we've been seeing this happen for years, even before an actual economic crisis knocked states sideways. But cutting funds to schools isn't the only option for states even if they do have to balance their budgets. There are many other places to cut—and of course, they have the option of raising taxes, something the conservative crowd simply refuses to do.

Like any other choice made by a politician, budgeting is a decision laced with ideology. When state after state slashes education dollars (and often at the same time funnels more of the money they do spend to private companies running charter schools, or gives it away as vouchers) we see what matters to them. And when you take a look at the programs that get funded, or the people who get fat tax cuts as money is drained out of the schools, well, you see what matters to state governments.

Here's a look at five of the governors taking money away from their states' kids, and a look at some of the things they are still funding.

1. Pennsylvania

Governor Tom Corbett set off a wave of anger this week when his new budget hit—and slashed a full $1.2 billion from pre-kindergarten through 12th grade education. According to the Education Law Center, that's taking a full 15 percent out of the budgets of the state's already-struggling schools.

That would be bad enough. But, as the Law Center noted, “the cuts fall hardest on school districts with the greatest student poverty.” That means schools in poor districts will get less funding, while wealthy districts lose very little. So the Reading School District in Berks County, which has a frighting 90 percent student poverty rate, loses $1,083 per student, while the Wyomissing School District, with only 22 percent student poverty, is losing just $112 per student.

Corbett expects the schools to make up the funding cuts, naturally, by cutting teachers' pay and firing more experienced teachers—which probably means bigger classes and more work for those who remain with lower salaries.

And then there's the state's universities, which already took a 20 percent hit last year. According to the Delaware County Daily Times, Corbett's cutting $230 million from Penn State, Pitt and Temple—an “astounding” 25 percent.

Meanwhile, what doesn't get cut in this budget? While schoolkids in poor districts will see their teachers laid off and their classes get bigger, Corbett's pumped up funding for prisons (11 percent) probation and parole (6 percent) and state police (6 percent). Guess we know where he expects those kids to wind up.

2. Ohio

Ohio governor John Kasich should be used to protests by now—he certainly has seen enough of them since he decided to attack his state's public workers last winter. So although candidates for the state legislature joined Occupy protesters in decrying Kasich's budget cuts to education while eliminating the estate tax for the state's wealthiest, it doesn't seem to have made much of an impact.

According to Policy Matters Ohio, the state's budget (signed this summer) takes $1.8 billion in funding away from Ohio's elementary and secondary schools over the next two school years. The new report noted that 65 percent of respondents to its survey of Ohio school districts say they are facing budget shortfalls as a result of state budget cuts—that means pay freezes, pay cuts, not replacing teachers who retire; 45 percent report “reductions in force”--layoffs.

In his State of the State speech, Kasich touted education as a solution to the state's struggles, but it's hard to see how the state can educate its way out of anything when school districts keep facing cuts. (He urged universities to “commercialize” their research, which is a fancy way of saying produce things they can sell to corporations or that will entice grants from corporate America.)

If Kasich really wanted to demonstrate a commitment to education, he could change his mind about the state's estate tax, which hit the 7 percent of wealthy Ohioans who inherit more than $338,333, and will be abolished next January. That'd save about $250 million a year that could go to the far more than 7 percent of Ohioans who make use of public schools.

3. South Carolina

Kasich's elimination of the estate tax is certainly one example of policies that favor the 1 percent and leave students out in the cold, but South Carolina governor Nikki Haley has gone Kasich one better and proposes to entirely eliminate the corporate income tax in her state. That would cost nearly $140 million in the first year alone—so Haley's taking a chunk of that cash out of public schools.

Her budget, according to Columbia, SC news channel WLTX , cuts “a key funding stream” for public schools, one that primarily goes to teachers' salaries. And another local station, WJBF, reports that while Haley cut public school teachers' incomes, she includes an extra $10 million for charter schools. So that's less money for public employees, more money for private companies using state education funds.

John Ruoff, policy analyst and founder of South Carolina Fair Share, pointed out that eliminating the state corporate tax is likely to have little impact on job creation—but a big impact on much-needed public programs like the schools. "Governor Haley ought to be a lot more concerned about how we develop a state that businesses want to come to," Ruoff told Tax Analysts. That means having decent infrastructure and a well-educated workforce, not just a zero tax rate.

4. Alabama

In no state is it so abundantly clear that the governor is prioritizing other spending over education than in Alabama, where Governor Robert Bentley has proposed taking $230 million from the Education Trust Fund and putting it into the General Fund, which pays for prisons, courts and other parts of the state government.

Henry Mabry of the Alabama Education Association (a teachers' group) told the Birmingham News, “The governor's actions are absolutely outrageous and do nothing but cut education to bail out the prison system.” And Bentley seemed to inadvertently echo Mabry when he defended his move by saying, “By doing that, we will not have to let a single prisoner out of prison.”

He also wanted to shift Medicaid costs for children's healthcare into the education fund, an additional drain of about $185 million, and his budget for 2013 cuts 1,381 public school teachers, principals and other staffers, and takes $41.1 million from universities and $5.4 million for two-year colleges.

Bentley's plan is so outrageous that it's drawn condemnations from both parties in the state legislature—including the chair of a committee it would need to pass. "It's not going to fly. It's dead," Rep. Jim Barton, 

 R-Mobile, told the Birmingham News.

5. Kentucky

Just to note that it's not just Republicans who cut education dollars and spend on ridiculous things instead—Kentucky governor Steve Beshear is a Democrat, albeit one who brags on his official Web site about “trimming the state workforce” and “reforming” child welfare. Yet his budget offered up a 6.4 percent cut to higher ed and a decrease in funds to K-12 students as well.

But that's not the best part. Travis Waldron at ThinkProgress explained that the governor did preserve a $43 million tax break for a “Bible-themed amusement park — which will include a 500-foot by 75-foot reproduction of Noah’s Ark,” as well as $11 million in spending on the highway interchange that will be near the park.

Waldron pointed out, “...lawmakers could jeopardize Kentucky’s substantial gains in K-12 education and ensure ballooning tuition rates at its colleges and universities, all while they preserve tax breaks for what critics have dubbed the “Ark Park.”

Sarah Jaffe is an associate editor at AlterNet, a rabblerouser and frequent Twitterer. You can follow her at @seasonothebitch.

Paul Ryan Falsely Claims Republican Budget Would “Not Change Benefits for Anybody 55 and Above”

On Fox News Sunday today, Republican Budget Chairman Paul Ryan falsely claimed the Republican budget would “not change benefits for anybody 55 and above."

In reality, the Republican budget would reopen the prescription drug donut hole, costing the four million seniors who fall into the coverage gap $2.2 billion this year alone. Ryan’s budget would also cut funding for the nearly 1 million long-term care patients currently relying on Medicaid. The National Journal wrote “Republicans say their Medicare plan wouldn’t affect anybody near retirement age. But it would.”

FACT CHECK
Republican Plan Would Affect Current Seniors. “Republicans say their Medicare plan wouldn’t affect anybody near retirement age. But it would. Republicans are convinced that burnishing the public’s view of their unpopular proposal to overhaul Medicare depends on assuring today’s seniors that they won’t be affected […] There’s only one problem with the strategy: It’s not true. The policies in the House GOP budget, if enacted, would begin affecting millions of seniors almost immediately by increasing their costs for prescription drugs and probably long-term care. Further, Medicare costs could rise over time if healthier seniors choose to abandon the traditional benefit program.” [National Journal, 6/2/11]

FactCheck.Org: Ryan Plan Would Reinstate “Doughnut Hole.” According to FactCheck.org, in May 2011, “Ryan’s budget plan does indeed reinstate the so-called ‘doughnut hole,’ a gap in Medicare Part D prescription drug coverage. As the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said: ‘The proposal would repeal the provisions that created the Independent Payment Advisory Board and that expanded subsidies for the “coverage gap” in Part D (a range of spending in which many enrollees have to pay all of their drug costs, sometimes called the doughnut hole).’” [Factcheck.org, 5/6/11]

The Republican Budget Will Force Nearly Four Million Seniors To Pay An Additional $2.2 Billion For Prescription Drugs in 2012 Alone. “The Republican-passed budget will force nearly four million seniors to pay an additional $2.2 BILLION for prescription drugs next year alone.” According to the Associated Press, “The coverage gap in the Medicare prescription drug benefit would be brought back.” [DPCC, 4/21/11; Associated Plan, 4/6/11]

AARP: Budget Undermines Vital Programs for Older Americans. “Among its provisions, the proposal would drive up costs for people in Medicare, take away needed coverage for long-term care from millions of older and disabled Americans and reduce critical help for seniors facing the threat of hunger.”  [AARP, 4/7/11]

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
The intent of the Ryan plan and the Republicans are to terminate Medicare all together. This is a way to start the process.

They have convinced the younger generations that Medicare will not be around when they retire because the country can't afford it. So they claim that by providing premium assistance to the younger generation when the reach retirement, they will be able to go out to the open health insurance market and purchase insurance that meets their need.

There is a huge flaw in that argument. The health insurance industry does not want to insure seniors. Why? Because it costs too much in claims and they premium would be so high that no one could afford it. Most humans consume most of their health care costs after they reach about 60 years old. They have more chronic ailments that require frequent doctor visits, high cost prescriptions to manage these ailments and more hospitalization.

That is why President Johnson created Medicare, since no insurance company wanted to insure them. Once they were no longer on the companies health plan, they were left without coverage at the time they most needed it. Many seniors went without health care which allowed ailments to progress to the point of death.

One of the reason longevity has increased since the 1960s is because of Medicare and having access to health care when you are no longer working and have company sponsored insurance, living on a small fixed income, sometimes only Social Security. To remove this program would reduce that longevity. Well, maybe that is their plan?

Since the Republicans are focused on running the country like a corporation, a corporation must reduce unproductive costs to maintain a profit, so these unproductive seniors should leave this planet and not reduce the productivity value, thus profitability, of those who are still producing for the corporations.

Yes, there needs to be reforms to bring costs under control, but the only way to do that is through a better structured organizational and compensation model. Combined with slightly higher tax on income to pay the premium of the program while you are in your working years.

So think carefully when the Republicans are saying they want to SAVE MEDICARE! That has not been their goal since it was passed 50 years ago. The same holds true about Social Security.

Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security

The Paul Ryan 2012 budget proposal that just passed the House will not balance the budget, as it also reduces the tax rate for the upper income earners to 25%, currently 35% and it was 39.5% under Clinton. That adds a minimum of 1 trillion dollars to the debt over 10 years. Not smart.

As for his Medicare voucher (premium support) program, it will not work. The very reason Medicare was created is that very few insurance companies would insure people over 55 years old. The few companies that did issue policies, they would terminate the policy at age 70. Remember all these policies were called major medical and only covered inpatient services, not regular visits to the doctor. Seniors had to pay for their doctor visits out of pocket. Many seniors could not afford to see a doctor, so they would wait until the illness required hospitalization. If they were lucky enough to have a major medical policy, then they still had to pay a deductible for the hospital stay. Before Medicare, there was a high rate of premature deaths due to lack of medical care because the seniors could not afford it. As we all know, as you reach 55 or older, your health care needs increase dramatically, thus the reason insurance companies will not issue policies to this age group, unless you are covered under an employer group plan.

To think that a voucher of say $12,000 would be enough to purchase a private policy is insane. Since most seniors would not be able to pay the difference between the price of the policy and the voucher amount, I doubt any insurance company will issue policies. So we will be back to the original situation of seniors not having access to health care when they need it the most, thus many of them will die at a much earlier age. Fortunately, I'm of the age that so far will be grandfathered into the current program and will receive some sort of benefit. But the younger generation will not and that will be a major problem for their generation to deal with. The biggest problem with Medicare is the escalation of medical costs. The payroll deduction and employer contribution share has not kept pace with the increase in health care advances and longevity. Thus the reason it is consuming such a large portion of the budget. Adjustments in the contribution rates would cover the operating costs and thus neutralize the budget demand. But that could be rather dramatic.

Currently an employee pays 6.5% of his wages to Medicare and his employer pays 6.5%. So when the Republicans say you are paying 13% of your wages to Medicare, that is somewhat misleading, as most employees calculate their share based on the gross wages listed on their W-2. However, when an employer calculates total compensation to an employee in their accounting ledger, it includes their Medicare matching amount, as well as their Social Security matching amount, whatever share of the employee's health insurance policy premium they may pay and any contribution to an employee's 401(k) or pension, so in that case, you could say it costs the 13% of the total calculated compensation by the employer.

Medicare was designed for a life expectancy to about age 72. But more people are living longer due to a better standard of living and advances in medical care, such as pharmaceuticals. The only true way to reduce medical costs not only for Medicare recipients, but also every American is with a single payer national health system. This system would be able to negotiate better prices for services and medications. It could work with health care providers to improve the delivery of care more efficiently.

Tort reform has to be addressed. I suggest eliminating tort and have a no fault system, since the patient's health care will be taken care of anyway by the single payer system. A no fault fund would be established that is paid into by health care providers and from that fund, the national health care system would be reimbursed for expenses directly caused by an injury. No pain and suffering or penalty awards would be available. No lottery win for the lawyers and patient. That would save billions of dollars a year in health care costs. If there a bad provider, then that should be handled by the state licensing board. If the panel that approves the no fault claim see there was gross negligence by the provider, then that provider would be turned over to the state licensing board for discipline, training or termination of license. If there is a monetary penalty for what the provider did, then that money goes into the no fault fund, not the patient and their lawyer.

He also reduces Medicaid to block grants to the states for covering the medical costs of the indigent, disabled and poor. As we can see now, even with the federal funding, these health care costs are exceeding their state budgets and combined with the federal funds they receive. To think that they can continue providing these services is again insane. What will end up happening is that Medicaid will be terminated completely. All those who need assistance, like the very elderly that should be in a nursing home and have no children to take them in will be part of the homeless population and die. Those who are quadriplegic or otherwise in need of residential care will be homeless. Poor women with children will be homeless and without medical care for themselves and their children. Young girls who find themselves pregnant, unmarried and poor will not get prenatal care and who knows how they will deliver their baby or feed it when it is delivered? Of course we could eliminate Medicaid by having a single payer health system for everyone, regardless of income or disability.

Social Security is a self funded program. The only money it receive from the general budget is the interest paid on the treasury bonds that it purchases, like other investors does, such as your 401(k) or mutual fund. But that money would be owed to any bond holder, regardless if it was the Social Security Trust Fund or your 401(k). Does it need modification? Yes. Increasing the amount paid into the system each paycheck would take care of the problem of the future shortfall in 35 years. Privatizing it would not secure the future of the program. If half of retirees social security funds had been placed in the stock market when it crashed in 2008, they would have not received enough money to live on and would be homeless and without food. What they get now is very little. Can you live on $12,000 a year? From this small amount they have to pay for food, taxes, utilities, health care premiums, yes their is a premium taken out of the social security check each month for Medicare, and transportation. Thus they are very sensitive to variants in the market, should part of their funds had been invested in the stock market, that could drop their income from $12,000 to say $8,000. You can't live on that... I would suggest that the amount paid in by employers who have 50 employees or more be increased considerably, unless they have a well funded pension plan that can't be touched by the company and the funds guaranteed to the employees.

Is this the Republican America you want? Taking away the social safety nets for the less fortunate of our society for the profit of the wealthy and corporations, who have plenty of wealth right now. And these are the same conservatives who preach Christianity and family values. Their actions do not reflect the teachings of their faith and stated values. It is all about greed by those who have nearly all the wealth of the nation. America is better than that. Shame on those who voted in these extremist conservatives. It will be you who have to answer to future generations why you forsake compassion for your fellow human for financial greed.

Conservative Vs Progressive. Why the budget stalemate.

The current budget issues America is dealing with will be a battle ground with very little common ground to compromise on. Why? The philosophy and mind set of the two parties.

Republicans are now made up to three primary groups:

The Tea Party. They are more or less pure libertarians. That is to say that they lean more toward anarchy as a form of self governance. At a minimum they will accept a government limited to the President, Congress, Defense Department, State Department and the Judiciary. They want to eliminate the Federal Reserve or a Central Bank. Go back to the system that each private bank issues their own currency and all government payments must be paid with gold. This was the way it was in the 19th century. They support survival of the fittest, that is if you are unable to earn enough wealth to take care of your needs and retirement, tough. It is not societies responsibility to assist you in any way. If you need charity, then that should be provided by private charitable organization that are funded by donations. They want a country as it was centuries ago in a feudal type of system. The peasants are the working class that most of us are in.

The second group in the GOP are the "social conservatives" who actually want an evangelical ruled society. They would like to eliminate the separation of church and state. To them God's laws are supreme and all public policy laws must conform to the supreme laws of God.

The third group are the pure capitalists. They want a country that is governed totally by the free market system. Much like the libertarians, they want government reduced to just Congress, the President, the Judiciary, and the State Department. Defense can be contracted to private military corporations like Black Water through the Administration, as well as federal law enforcement and the prison system. The only court they would have publicly funded would be the Supreme Court. All other courts would be contracted out to private corporations to operate. The theory is that if there are no governmental oversight and regulations, the wealthy and corporations will invest in businesses and employ the working class to a point of near 100% employment. That of course is fantasy and one can see that during the George W administration, his lower tax rate for the very wealthy did not stimulate jobs, but actually killed jobs by moving them over seas.

If you look at what has happened since Ronald Reagan's Revolution, "Government can not solve the problems, government is the problem," you will understand how these Republican groups have methodically enable a crisis that would afford them the ability to change our country back to the feudal form of system. Milton Friedman had a statement that was widely used in the Reagan White House, "starve the beast." That meant that you spend and spend at the same time as reducing taxes to a point that you are so far in debt that all government services will have to be curtailed in order to pay off the debt. Reagan increased the national debt by 184%, Bush I actually tried to reduce it, as he did not support what he called Reagan's Voodoo Economics. Clinton was able to balance the budget and was on track to pay off the total national debt within a decade. He however was also complicit in supporting deregulation of the financial industry that was started by Reagan. This of course led to the economic collapse of 2008, if anyone remembers.

Now on the other hand, the Democrats are made up of several groups as well:

The largest group are Progressives or sometimes called Liberals, that see government not as the problem, but as a way to support and better society as a whole through limited social programs that aid those in need, such as seniors, the disabled, and those who just made back choices or bad luck. But still support the Capitalist system, with limited oversight and control by government to make sure that everyone is on a level playing field and consumers or ordinary citizens are protected from corporate greed. They believe that workers should receive fair compensation in comparison to executives. That is why they have supported labor unions. They want to see government operated efficiently and without corruption. They also want transparency in all government transactions so that the citizenry knows what they are doing. This group wants a progressive tax system that taxes those who make more money by requiring them to pay more taxes.

A very small group are pure socialists. They would like to see most every basic need provided by government and harsh restraint and control of corporations and the very wealthy. This group wants the huge taxes on the very wealthy and corporations to support the socialist programs. These programs range from housing, food, transportation and health care.

The next group that also agrees with the Tea Party libertarians regarding civil liberties, are the Civil Libertarians, but moderately fiscal conservative. They believe that there should be very limited laws pertaining to personal behaviors. Only the most egregious, such as murder, fraud, violence against person or property, etc. should be outlawed. But most all other behaviors such as who you can love, have sex with (limited to humans with age limit), what you read, watch, or hear, woman's right to choice regarding pregnancy should not be considerations of government or laws. This actually is in agreement with the pure libertarians of the Republican party.

As it come to what America should become, you can see there are two very different ideas. For most of the past 70 years, we have been the compassionate country with limited social programs to help the needy and elderly. It made us the greatest society ever on the planet. But that is threatened today by the Republican push to turn the clock back centuries to a time that most of the wealth is held by a very small part of the population and all others are in servitude to them for their lively hood.

In combination with this, the Republican movement is attempting to manipulate the electoral system to insure they are in constant power and any opposition is a minority, a very small minority, so as to not effect their ability to pass laws that they or the corporations want. This is part of Karl Roves plan that the Kock brothers are funding. We see this in all the states that are controlled by Republicans this year with all their draconian laws that are stripping collective bargaining rights, stripping funding for government services, and lowering taxes for corporations and the wealthy.

So will the average working American wake up to this movement and challenge it, as they have in Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan? Only time will tell.