I noticed in this week’s Clarion Ledger that “Tuxedo Girl” is back. If you remember last Spring, a high school senior in South Mississippi demanded to have her picture included in the yearbook – a reasonable expectation. She was a honor student, active in school organizations and apparently well-liked and well behaved. So what’s the problem? She only wanted her picture included if she could wear a tuxedo not the traditional gown that was expected and accepted by all other female students.
And her reasoning?
The young lady said she should get to decide how she looks in the senior photo. The school should have no right to enforce their stereotypical views of gender upon her. The student indicates that she doesn’t wear feminine clothing while attending school and that she shouldn’t be obligated to wear them in the yearbook. It is here that it should be noted that it is doubtful that she wore a tuxedo to class either.
The school policy (unwritten but certainly understood by all the other students at the school) is that male students wear a tux and female students wear a gown for inclusion in the yearbook. This student doesn’t claim to be male or suffer from gender confusion, so why is she determined to wear a tux?
Here’s a quote:
"I feel like I'm not important, that the school is dismissing who I am as a gay student and that they don't even care about me. All I want is to be able to be me, and to be included in the yearbook."
So it wasn’t a dress issue after all or even a policy issue – it’s a gay issue – a publicity stunt - designed to draw attention to herself.
Her treatment in the press at that time and by advocacy groups was decidely “pro-tuxedo.” NOW and the ACLU vowed support and threatened the school district with legal action if they didn’t capitulate. To their credit, the school district didn’t and “Tuxedo Girl’ didn’t appear in the yearbook.
Now, after the fame and publicity enjoyed by the gay teenager in North Mississippi who halted a school prom because of her threats against a school district, “Tuxedo Girl” has decided to file her own lawsuit against her school. She seeks unspecified damages and legal costs.
This is what her attorney from the ACLU said, “It’s unlawful to force students to conform to outdated notions about what boys and girls should look like without any regard to who they actually are as people.”
It really comes down to - who sets the standards? Do you accept my standards – Do I accept yours? Maybe Obama can set them for us or Pat Roberson. The ACLU is certainly trying to set some kind of standard for us but I’m not sure what gives them that right other than their deep pockets. Or maybe we should acknowledge that given these choices, there is a place in our culture for tradition, authority and historical precedent because that’s the best option we have.
I can’t help but believe that “Tuxedo Girl” is perpetuating a fraud upon the public by claiming discrimination due to sexual orientation when the issue has nothing to do with sexual orientation – all to obtain publicity.
“Tuxedo Girl’s” claim of discrimination is without a doubt – false. The school system did not single out this young woman and force her to dress differently or treat her differently from other students. She chose to single her self out – her choice.
The school system did not make an issue of her sexual orientation – only her gender. A policy that apparently sits well with all the other students. I’m sure there are some female students that are more masculine than others and some male students that exhibit feminine characteristics from time to time. These students didn’t deem it necessary to draw attention to themselves by dressing in the garb of the opposite sex for their yearbook photo – why not? – Because they didn’t have an agenda – they weren’t seeking attention.
Tuxedo Girl says she had a right to decide how she wishes to appear in the yearbook and that a gown did not represent how she dresses in her daily life. I doubt very seriously that a tuxedo is an accurate representation of her daily wear either. This young woman had a right to choose – whether to be included in her high school yearbook or not but she didn’t have the right (at the expense of others) to use a tradition and a right of passage to adulthood as a means of drawing attention to herself or her sexual orientation – no more than a student who demands to flash a gang symbol or wear an Atlanta Braves jersey or hold their deer rifle in their photo because in their mind it symbolizes who they are.
I have to say to Tuxedo Girl: “ Grow up a little and get on with your life. If you believe that your clothes define who you are, then you are going to have much bigger problems in life than a simple yearbook photo – and if you don’t want people to base their impressions of you upon your sexual orientation then I suggest that you not define your life that way.
As for NOW & the ACLU, I can’t help but wonder how solid their support would be if Tuxedo Girl had decided to add a little something else to her attire – like a ball cap with the slogan “Jesus Saves”.
W. McCully
Commentary
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
I Know What's Wrong with Pelosi, Reed & Obama
Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama are not real popular right now, even with a lot of the folks that put em in office. It seems like they're just unhappy folks in charge and misery loves company. Now I'm not going to talk any specific politics here. Lord knows there's enough of that out there on the news and Facebook and Twitter. I'm just looking at these folks at a personal level.
Just take a look at them; Obama always going around talkin about whose *ss he's gonna kick, Nancy looks like she swallered a sour pill and Harry, poor Harry, just can't seem to keep his foot outa his mouth.
I know there's a lot a stress in their jobs yet it looks to me like they create a lot of it themselves. But I know what's really wrong with em. I discovered it when I saw a picture of all three of em together. It becomes real obvious when they pose together at some bill signing that just cost us taxpayers - some umpteen trillion dollars;
They 're hungry.
Just look at em. This has got to be the skinniest bunch of leaders this country has ever seen. Nancy looks like one of them stick figures you draw when you're playing hangman, Harry looks like the scared school teacher, Ichabod Crane, in the Tale of Sleepy Hollow and heaven help me- the Prez looks like Jack Skellington in Tim Burton's Movie "Nightmare Before Christmas".
It's hard to make good decisions or be agreeable if you're hungry. Your ol' stomach's a growlin and maybe you got a little low blood sugar to make you a bit dizzy. Things might improve up there in Washington if we could just get these folks to eat proper- fatten em up a bit as my Momma used to say.
It's interesting to note that none of these folks are from the South where we know how, when, what and where to eat. I know they say we're the fattest folks in America and as to how unhealthy we are, but compared to the rest of the country- we do manage to get along better than most and if you look around, we've managed to control our state budgets better than them skinny folks out in California or them high-falootin sushi (we call it bait down here) & salad eatin socialites in New York. A little meat on your bones tends to make you calmer and more thoughtful in your decision making - you see the world with a little more ease.
Now I don't know exactly why these folks aren't eatin - maybe they've got some misplaced concern about their health or appearance but it's obvious it ain't workin for em. Nancy got access to all that fresh seafood at Fisherman's Wharf, Harry could probably eat free at any casino buffet in Las Vegas and the President has got his own personal chef. There ain't no excuse for them to be as skinny as they are. I can only assume it's the environment that they're workin in. I mean everytime I think about the stuff goin on in Washington, I lose my appetite too.
So maybe instead of fussin and cussin at em from a distance, we oughta invite em down here just for some real food. Governor Barbour who is more than qualified in the ways of Southern cookin, could invite them on the pretense of discussing the Gulf situation and then we could whisk them up here to Louisville for some good ol' fashioned fare. We all know Ms. Aline Haynes and a few others could throw a meal together to put anybody in a good mood. People just tend to be more pleasant when their bellies are full of fried chicken, garlic mashed potatoes, purple hull peas, fried green tomatoes and southern cornbread. Now - if you were to top that off with a slice of pecan pie and a serving of Alene Ingram's homemade ice cream, I guarantee them folks couldn't be anything but more agreeable.
Just take a look at them; Obama always going around talkin about whose *ss he's gonna kick, Nancy looks like she swallered a sour pill and Harry, poor Harry, just can't seem to keep his foot outa his mouth.
I know there's a lot a stress in their jobs yet it looks to me like they create a lot of it themselves. But I know what's really wrong with em. I discovered it when I saw a picture of all three of em together. It becomes real obvious when they pose together at some bill signing that just cost us taxpayers - some umpteen trillion dollars;
They 're hungry.
Just look at em. This has got to be the skinniest bunch of leaders this country has ever seen. Nancy looks like one of them stick figures you draw when you're playing hangman, Harry looks like the scared school teacher, Ichabod Crane, in the Tale of Sleepy Hollow and heaven help me- the Prez looks like Jack Skellington in Tim Burton's Movie "Nightmare Before Christmas".
It's hard to make good decisions or be agreeable if you're hungry. Your ol' stomach's a growlin and maybe you got a little low blood sugar to make you a bit dizzy. Things might improve up there in Washington if we could just get these folks to eat proper- fatten em up a bit as my Momma used to say.
It's interesting to note that none of these folks are from the South where we know how, when, what and where to eat. I know they say we're the fattest folks in America and as to how unhealthy we are, but compared to the rest of the country- we do manage to get along better than most and if you look around, we've managed to control our state budgets better than them skinny folks out in California or them high-falootin sushi (we call it bait down here) & salad eatin socialites in New York. A little meat on your bones tends to make you calmer and more thoughtful in your decision making - you see the world with a little more ease.
Now I don't know exactly why these folks aren't eatin - maybe they've got some misplaced concern about their health or appearance but it's obvious it ain't workin for em. Nancy got access to all that fresh seafood at Fisherman's Wharf, Harry could probably eat free at any casino buffet in Las Vegas and the President has got his own personal chef. There ain't no excuse for them to be as skinny as they are. I can only assume it's the environment that they're workin in. I mean everytime I think about the stuff goin on in Washington, I lose my appetite too.
So maybe instead of fussin and cussin at em from a distance, we oughta invite em down here just for some real food. Governor Barbour who is more than qualified in the ways of Southern cookin, could invite them on the pretense of discussing the Gulf situation and then we could whisk them up here to Louisville for some good ol' fashioned fare. We all know Ms. Aline Haynes and a few others could throw a meal together to put anybody in a good mood. People just tend to be more pleasant when their bellies are full of fried chicken, garlic mashed potatoes, purple hull peas, fried green tomatoes and southern cornbread. Now - if you were to top that off with a slice of pecan pie and a serving of Alene Ingram's homemade ice cream, I guarantee them folks couldn't be anything but more agreeable.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Press Release from Congressman Gregg Harper
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 30, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Gregg Harper (R–Miss.) opposed two bills today that would lead to a halt in offshore drilling.
“As millions of unemployed Americans search for jobs, the White House and some Members of Congress are determined to advance regulations and policies that will put tens of thousands of those in the oil industry out of work,” said Congressman Gregg Harper. “The White House ignored industry experts, a federal judge, and pleas from Members of Congress when it issued yet another moratorium on deepwater drilling.”
To date, 14,000 deepwater wells have been drilled without any major issues. During the six decades of Gulf water drilling, thousands of wells have been successfully drilled.
H.R. 3534, the “Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009” (CLEAR Act), would consolidate regulatory authority of federal mineral and energy resources into one entity. The bill would also create challenges for smaller, independent companies by lifting the liability cap on oil companies in the aftermath of an oil spill.
H.R. 5851, the “Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010,” would create whistleblower protections in the offshore oil and gas industry.
Harper said that these bills will simply increase costs on the petroleum industry and serve as a de facto moratorium putting more jobs at risk.
“Many of my constituents depend on the offshore oil industry for their livelihoods. During this time of economic uncertainty, our country does not need new policies that destroy jobs,” Harper added.
The oil industry employs tens of thousands of offshore drilling workers nationwide. These high-paying jobs account for $12.7 billion in annual wages. According to the U.S. Bureau of Statistics, there are 107,210 oil-related jobs along the Gulf Coast.
July 30, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Representative Gregg Harper (R–Miss.) opposed two bills today that would lead to a halt in offshore drilling.
“As millions of unemployed Americans search for jobs, the White House and some Members of Congress are determined to advance regulations and policies that will put tens of thousands of those in the oil industry out of work,” said Congressman Gregg Harper. “The White House ignored industry experts, a federal judge, and pleas from Members of Congress when it issued yet another moratorium on deepwater drilling.”
To date, 14,000 deepwater wells have been drilled without any major issues. During the six decades of Gulf water drilling, thousands of wells have been successfully drilled.
H.R. 3534, the “Consolidated Land, Energy and Aquatic Resources Act of 2009” (CLEAR Act), would consolidate regulatory authority of federal mineral and energy resources into one entity. The bill would also create challenges for smaller, independent companies by lifting the liability cap on oil companies in the aftermath of an oil spill.
H.R. 5851, the “Offshore Oil and Gas Worker Whistleblower Protection Act of 2010,” would create whistleblower protections in the offshore oil and gas industry.
Harper said that these bills will simply increase costs on the petroleum industry and serve as a de facto moratorium putting more jobs at risk.
“Many of my constituents depend on the offshore oil industry for their livelihoods. During this time of economic uncertainty, our country does not need new policies that destroy jobs,” Harper added.
The oil industry employs tens of thousands of offshore drilling workers nationwide. These high-paying jobs account for $12.7 billion in annual wages. According to the U.S. Bureau of Statistics, there are 107,210 oil-related jobs along the Gulf Coast.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Marriage Interviews Should be Required
I spend a lot of time looking at the absurdities of life. We do and think a lot of things that don’t make sense. We idolize that Hollywood actor but we hold our nose at the guy who cleans our septic tank. Now which one do you think is more vital to your quality of life? We can all name the star quarterback for our favorite college team but how many of us can name the president of that same university? And we do this in almost all aspects of our lives. We don’t concentrate on what’s important and leave certain aspects of our lives to chance.
Best example; picking a spouse. Most employers wouldn’t dream of hiring someone for a long term position without an in depth background check and job interview yet we leave our choice of lifetime partners to chance. That’s why I think people should advertise for mates and do a detailed interview before even considering marriage. As women often have the most at stake, I think they should conduct the interview. As someone who has given this a lot of thought, I’ve developed some questions along with appropriate answers and not so good answers;
Q: What do you do for a living?
POSSIBLE CORRECT ANSWERS: Teacher, lawyer, plumber, welder, doctor, etc.
WRONG ANSWERS: telemarketer, “I’m between jobs right now”, ACORN Field Representative, Chief Safety Officer for British Petroleum.
Q: How long have you been on the same job?
CORRECT ANSWER: For six years. I’ve had two promotions and four raises since I’ve been there.
WRONG ANSWER: Since last Spring. You see I quit my job every Fall when hunting season starts and then I find me a new one every Spring. That way hunting don’t get in the way of my job. I figure that’s the only way to be fair to whoever you work for.
Q: Why do you feel that you would be good at marriage?
CORRECT ANSWER: I’m ready to settle down and build a future with someone I can love and respect.
WRONG ANSWER: Well, I’ve had a lot of experience.
Q: Do you like children?
CORRECT ANSWER: I’d love to have a couple of kids.
WRONG ANSWER: Rugrats? I’m crazy about em. Love to have 10 or 12 of em!
Q: Where do you see yourself 10 years from now?
CORRECT ANSWER: I hope to have a home and family with a little money put away for retirement.
WRONG ANSWER: I’ve always dreamed of being a NASCAR driver, so I’m putting all my money into a car me & my buddies are workin on out back of the house.
Q: What’s your idea of a pleasant evening on the town?
CORRECT ANSWER: After a nice meal in a good restaurant, we might catch a movie or concert and spend the rest of the evening just talking.
WRONG ANSWER: Well, after the wrestling match, we’d grab a case of Old Milwaukee and a couple of bags of pork rinds and go down to the lake and have us a good ol time.
Q: Are you an introvert or an extrovert?
CORRECT ANSWER: Well, I don’t mind being alone but I really like being around other people and being involved in lots of activities.
WRONG ANSWER: I’m not really into any of that kinky stuff.
This is just a sampling of things that you might want to know about someone before you enter into a long term relationship or a legal contract with them. Even under the best of circumstances, marriage is tough and without the proper thought and effort, that wedding ring can turn into a suffer-ring.
Best example; picking a spouse. Most employers wouldn’t dream of hiring someone for a long term position without an in depth background check and job interview yet we leave our choice of lifetime partners to chance. That’s why I think people should advertise for mates and do a detailed interview before even considering marriage. As women often have the most at stake, I think they should conduct the interview. As someone who has given this a lot of thought, I’ve developed some questions along with appropriate answers and not so good answers;
Q: What do you do for a living?
POSSIBLE CORRECT ANSWERS: Teacher, lawyer, plumber, welder, doctor, etc.
WRONG ANSWERS: telemarketer, “I’m between jobs right now”, ACORN Field Representative, Chief Safety Officer for British Petroleum.
Q: How long have you been on the same job?
CORRECT ANSWER: For six years. I’ve had two promotions and four raises since I’ve been there.
WRONG ANSWER: Since last Spring. You see I quit my job every Fall when hunting season starts and then I find me a new one every Spring. That way hunting don’t get in the way of my job. I figure that’s the only way to be fair to whoever you work for.
Q: Why do you feel that you would be good at marriage?
CORRECT ANSWER: I’m ready to settle down and build a future with someone I can love and respect.
WRONG ANSWER: Well, I’ve had a lot of experience.
Q: Do you like children?
CORRECT ANSWER: I’d love to have a couple of kids.
WRONG ANSWER: Rugrats? I’m crazy about em. Love to have 10 or 12 of em!
Q: Where do you see yourself 10 years from now?
CORRECT ANSWER: I hope to have a home and family with a little money put away for retirement.
WRONG ANSWER: I’ve always dreamed of being a NASCAR driver, so I’m putting all my money into a car me & my buddies are workin on out back of the house.
Q: What’s your idea of a pleasant evening on the town?
CORRECT ANSWER: After a nice meal in a good restaurant, we might catch a movie or concert and spend the rest of the evening just talking.
WRONG ANSWER: Well, after the wrestling match, we’d grab a case of Old Milwaukee and a couple of bags of pork rinds and go down to the lake and have us a good ol time.
Q: Are you an introvert or an extrovert?
CORRECT ANSWER: Well, I don’t mind being alone but I really like being around other people and being involved in lots of activities.
WRONG ANSWER: I’m not really into any of that kinky stuff.
This is just a sampling of things that you might want to know about someone before you enter into a long term relationship or a legal contract with them. Even under the best of circumstances, marriage is tough and without the proper thought and effort, that wedding ring can turn into a suffer-ring.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Blue Suede Toilet Seats
My family and I took a little trip back a few months ago. Spring Fever had set in and we needed to get away from yard work and chasing down income tax receipts. We decided to run up to Memphis and visit Graceland. My daughter has always been curious about Elvis and I thought she might enjoy seeing his home and memorabilia and we could buy a t-shirt or two.
If it’s possible, Elvis is more famous dead than he ever was alive. He’s everywhere and without a doubt the biggest money maker in Memphis. He’s probably still selling more records (CD’s for you younger folks) than most new artists which isn’t surprising considering the sad state of the current music industry. People are still fascinated by his life and music and as a tourist destination; Graceland must rival the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.
But I have to say that I was disappointed. For eighteen bucks a person, you get a bus ride across Elvis Presley Boulevard, a digital recorder and headphones to hang around your neck instead of a tour guide and the opportunity to stand in a crowd of hot, sweaty people; many of whom speak in a foreign language (strangely enough, mostly Northern European) and be herded through the mansion and grounds like livestock at a sale barn. I kept waiting for them to bring out the cattle prod for the older couple in front of us who kept holding up the line because they couldn’t get the lens cap off their camera. The highlight of the tour for my daughter was when the security people watching through surveillance cameras would say “Thank you – Thank you very much.” As they cautioned people to not lean over the railing or attempt to touch the displays.
Now I love Elvis. It’s hard not to love Elvis. It’s a rags to riches story of a young man who changed not only American culture but was a worldwide cultural phenomenon as well. His story has all the pathos and tragedy of any good made-for-TV movie. But what’s been done to his memory is even more tragic.
Elvis has become like Sponge Bob. He’s everywhere. His image is on everything from clocks to cell phone covers. He is an A-number one marketing tool because people just can’t seem to get enough of him. The souvenir shops across the street from Graceland are loaded with everything Elvis. Products range from bobble heads to put on your dashboard to recipe books with “Hound Dog Chili Dogs” and 101 variations of the peanut butter and banana sandwich. I half expected to find “Elvis Hunk-A-Burnin Love Condoms” and “Now or Never Chocolate Laxatives” behind the check out counters.
Something just seems inherently wrong about using Elvis in this way. I felt slimy after the whole experience, like I needed a bath. Granted, Elvis was marketed during his whole career and he wasn’t necessarily known for his good taste. He also didn’t die in the most dignified manner. I think that’s God’s way of reminding us not to get too big for our britches (literally and figuratively). But for his family to license his image for the most inane products isn’t something that should sit too well with his true fans.
I don’t think I’ll go back to Graceland anytime soon. It just tarnished Elvis’s memory for me and I don’t really need another “Blue Suede Toilet Seat”. I’ll just try to hold on to a more pleasant memory of the Elvis that use to be while I’m singing “Don’t Be Cruel” in the shower and using my Kentucky Rain Shampoo, Love Me Tender Conditioner and my Elvis soap on a rope.
If it’s possible, Elvis is more famous dead than he ever was alive. He’s everywhere and without a doubt the biggest money maker in Memphis. He’s probably still selling more records (CD’s for you younger folks) than most new artists which isn’t surprising considering the sad state of the current music industry. People are still fascinated by his life and music and as a tourist destination; Graceland must rival the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.
But I have to say that I was disappointed. For eighteen bucks a person, you get a bus ride across Elvis Presley Boulevard, a digital recorder and headphones to hang around your neck instead of a tour guide and the opportunity to stand in a crowd of hot, sweaty people; many of whom speak in a foreign language (strangely enough, mostly Northern European) and be herded through the mansion and grounds like livestock at a sale barn. I kept waiting for them to bring out the cattle prod for the older couple in front of us who kept holding up the line because they couldn’t get the lens cap off their camera. The highlight of the tour for my daughter was when the security people watching through surveillance cameras would say “Thank you – Thank you very much.” As they cautioned people to not lean over the railing or attempt to touch the displays.
Now I love Elvis. It’s hard not to love Elvis. It’s a rags to riches story of a young man who changed not only American culture but was a worldwide cultural phenomenon as well. His story has all the pathos and tragedy of any good made-for-TV movie. But what’s been done to his memory is even more tragic.
Elvis has become like Sponge Bob. He’s everywhere. His image is on everything from clocks to cell phone covers. He is an A-number one marketing tool because people just can’t seem to get enough of him. The souvenir shops across the street from Graceland are loaded with everything Elvis. Products range from bobble heads to put on your dashboard to recipe books with “Hound Dog Chili Dogs” and 101 variations of the peanut butter and banana sandwich. I half expected to find “Elvis Hunk-A-Burnin Love Condoms” and “Now or Never Chocolate Laxatives” behind the check out counters.
Something just seems inherently wrong about using Elvis in this way. I felt slimy after the whole experience, like I needed a bath. Granted, Elvis was marketed during his whole career and he wasn’t necessarily known for his good taste. He also didn’t die in the most dignified manner. I think that’s God’s way of reminding us not to get too big for our britches (literally and figuratively). But for his family to license his image for the most inane products isn’t something that should sit too well with his true fans.
I don’t think I’ll go back to Graceland anytime soon. It just tarnished Elvis’s memory for me and I don’t really need another “Blue Suede Toilet Seat”. I’ll just try to hold on to a more pleasant memory of the Elvis that use to be while I’m singing “Don’t Be Cruel” in the shower and using my Kentucky Rain Shampoo, Love Me Tender Conditioner and my Elvis soap on a rope.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Congressman Greg Harper on CMS Appointment
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 9, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC – The White House is at it again. This time the President has used a recess appointment to fill the top vacancy at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The President is ignoring the Constitution and the American people in the middle of a critical election year.
Some Washington insiders have defended the President, claiming that “Republicans in Congress [had] made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points.” Considering the Democratic leadership never called a hearing on the President’s nomination, Republicans were never afforded a chance to delay his confirmation. To boot, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus voiced his concern that public questioning was removed saying, “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power…”
And what about the President’s pick? Dr. Donald Berwick has publicly knocked the free market and supports rationing as a cost control mechanism. Dr. Berwick will oversee an $803 billion budget at CMS and is responsible for implementing the bulk of the overreaching “Affordable Care Act.” His responsibilities will only grow under this new health care law as the CMS administrator has be tasked with reducing Medicare benefits nearly $523 billion. Yet Members of the U.S. Senate, both Republican and Democratic, were denied the opportunity to question Dr. Berwick regarding his plans for steering this federal agency.
This appointment comes amid the White House’s campaign to sell their new health care law. The Administration has used taxpayer money to mail 4 million postcards to small businesses and millions of dollars touting a $250 Medicare rebate check that only 1 in 10 beneficiaries will ever receive.
While the President may have dodged a painful Senate confirmation process, this recess appointment has brought new light to the health care debate, reminding concerned citizens of just how damaging this law could be. Mississippians deserve to know that the current health care law will result in lost coverage, raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a new government entitlement program.
For someone who has claimed to be “committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government,” the President sure has spent a lot of time telling just one side of the story.
So I ask the President: Why aren’t you being open about the 87 million Americans who could lose access to their current health care plan under the “Affordable Care Act?” Why aren’t you advertising the $569 billion in new taxes as part of your health care campaign? Why aren’t you promoting the $523 billion in reduced Medicare benefits in the mailing to seniors about rebate checks? And why do you continue to hide behind procedural gimmicks to avoid public reckoning for someone appointed to control a bureaucracy whose budget is larger than 15 of the world’s economies?
If the President were focused on real solutions to control the cost of health care, he would embrace Republican proposals that would lower health care premiums by up to 20 percent compared to the Democratic Members’ plan.
Of course, the White House will defend Dr. Berwick’s appointment and the taxing “Affordable Care Act.” But if the President should opt to show his commitment to transparency in government, he can start with confirmation hearings for his appointees.
For more information, visit www.harper.house.gov.
July 9, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC – The White House is at it again. This time the President has used a recess appointment to fill the top vacancy at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). The President is ignoring the Constitution and the American people in the middle of a critical election year.
Some Washington insiders have defended the President, claiming that “Republicans in Congress [had] made it clear in recent weeks that they were going to stall the nomination as long as they could, solely to score political points.” Considering the Democratic leadership never called a hearing on the President’s nomination, Republicans were never afforded a chance to delay his confirmation. To boot, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus voiced his concern that public questioning was removed saying, “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power…”
And what about the President’s pick? Dr. Donald Berwick has publicly knocked the free market and supports rationing as a cost control mechanism. Dr. Berwick will oversee an $803 billion budget at CMS and is responsible for implementing the bulk of the overreaching “Affordable Care Act.” His responsibilities will only grow under this new health care law as the CMS administrator has be tasked with reducing Medicare benefits nearly $523 billion. Yet Members of the U.S. Senate, both Republican and Democratic, were denied the opportunity to question Dr. Berwick regarding his plans for steering this federal agency.
This appointment comes amid the White House’s campaign to sell their new health care law. The Administration has used taxpayer money to mail 4 million postcards to small businesses and millions of dollars touting a $250 Medicare rebate check that only 1 in 10 beneficiaries will ever receive.
While the President may have dodged a painful Senate confirmation process, this recess appointment has brought new light to the health care debate, reminding concerned citizens of just how damaging this law could be. Mississippians deserve to know that the current health care law will result in lost coverage, raise taxes, cut Medicare and create a new government entitlement program.
For someone who has claimed to be “committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government,” the President sure has spent a lot of time telling just one side of the story.
So I ask the President: Why aren’t you being open about the 87 million Americans who could lose access to their current health care plan under the “Affordable Care Act?” Why aren’t you advertising the $569 billion in new taxes as part of your health care campaign? Why aren’t you promoting the $523 billion in reduced Medicare benefits in the mailing to seniors about rebate checks? And why do you continue to hide behind procedural gimmicks to avoid public reckoning for someone appointed to control a bureaucracy whose budget is larger than 15 of the world’s economies?
If the President were focused on real solutions to control the cost of health care, he would embrace Republican proposals that would lower health care premiums by up to 20 percent compared to the Democratic Members’ plan.
Of course, the White House will defend Dr. Berwick’s appointment and the taxing “Affordable Care Act.” But if the President should opt to show his commitment to transparency in government, he can start with confirmation hearings for his appointees.
For more information, visit www.harper.house.gov.
Sunday, July 4, 2010
Immigration - at the Basic Level
You have worked all your life and built a nice home. It's comfortable, fits your needs and you feel safe sitting in your living room or working in your backyard. One day, a man from a neighborhood a few blocks over takes a short cut through your yard. It upsets you a bit and you grumble to your next door neighbor but that's about it. Soon he has worn a path in your well manicured lawn and occasionally grabs a deck chair and once even took a steak off the grill as he passed by. You call the Cops who sympathize with you but explain that they are really too busy chasing real criminals to put any effort into catching this guy.
One day you come home to find him rummaging through your refrigerator and medicine cabinet. This time when you call the Cops, they don't even bother to come as the decision was made to no longer enforce trespassing or breaking and entering laws in your town. The man is pleasant enough as he provides a list of groceries and medical needs that you should pick up for him because he's going to be staying in your spare bedroom for the forseeable future. And since he is now considered to be a resident of your home, if the need arises, you are responsible for putting him on your health insurance and supporting him until he can find a job.
You continue to complain to police and the mayor who sometimes sympathizes with you but never seem to do anything. All your efforts have now caught the attention of the folks who live up the hill in the fancy gated community. Without bothering to discuss the situation with you, they use the local newspaper as a platform to explain why this guy deserves to live in your house and you should be proud to provide for him. When you write a letter to the newspaper editor asking why the man can't live with the folks in the gated community, he refuses to publish it as it is too imflammatory. During this whole situation, you have been subjected to ridicule for your selfish, uncaring and even racist attitude.
In an attempt to be understanding, you ask the man why he wants to live in your house when you know he has one of his own. He simply explains that your house is so much more comfortable and in a safer neighborhood. Life is just so much easier in your neighborhood and besides his kids are out of control at his house and he can't do anything with them.
Throughout this whole situation, financially things are getting tough. You are no longer able to save for retirement or your kid's college fund as you must pay for not only your family's expenses but those of your new house guest. Soon it becomes obvious to you that something has to change or in the near future, you may have to let the house go back to the bank and then no one will have a decent place to live.
Over the years, the immigration issue has become very convoluted by politics and sometimes by legitimate debate. But when you actualy break it down to its simplest level, the obvious situation surfaces.
Obama's administration plans to sue Arizona over its immigration law stating that it is the Federal government's responsibility to set immigration policy. Apparently it is the Obama Administration's "policy" to not enforce existing immigration laws already on the books. To add insult to injury- the planned lawsuit was announced not by official letter to the authorities in Arizona or even in a national press conference but by the Secretary of State while on a visit to Ecuador.
Meanwhile many areas of federal land in Arizona are off-limits to our citizens for safety issues due to the illegal human and drug trafficking and the violence such activities bring to these areas. So in effect Mexican drug lords are controlling parts of our country. There seems to be very little concern in Washington over this invasion of American soil.
It is very obvious that the administration's actions are steeped in some strange brew of liberal politics, elitist guilt and practical ignorance and not in its constitutionally ascribed responsibility of law enforcement. If a fraction of the money, time and effort that will be spent on a lawsuit against the state of Arizona was actually spent on border enforcement in these federal lands, maybe taxpayers could actually enjoy the use of these areas that they pay taxes to the federal government to maintain.
One day you come home to find him rummaging through your refrigerator and medicine cabinet. This time when you call the Cops, they don't even bother to come as the decision was made to no longer enforce trespassing or breaking and entering laws in your town. The man is pleasant enough as he provides a list of groceries and medical needs that you should pick up for him because he's going to be staying in your spare bedroom for the forseeable future. And since he is now considered to be a resident of your home, if the need arises, you are responsible for putting him on your health insurance and supporting him until he can find a job.
You continue to complain to police and the mayor who sometimes sympathizes with you but never seem to do anything. All your efforts have now caught the attention of the folks who live up the hill in the fancy gated community. Without bothering to discuss the situation with you, they use the local newspaper as a platform to explain why this guy deserves to live in your house and you should be proud to provide for him. When you write a letter to the newspaper editor asking why the man can't live with the folks in the gated community, he refuses to publish it as it is too imflammatory. During this whole situation, you have been subjected to ridicule for your selfish, uncaring and even racist attitude.
In an attempt to be understanding, you ask the man why he wants to live in your house when you know he has one of his own. He simply explains that your house is so much more comfortable and in a safer neighborhood. Life is just so much easier in your neighborhood and besides his kids are out of control at his house and he can't do anything with them.
Throughout this whole situation, financially things are getting tough. You are no longer able to save for retirement or your kid's college fund as you must pay for not only your family's expenses but those of your new house guest. Soon it becomes obvious to you that something has to change or in the near future, you may have to let the house go back to the bank and then no one will have a decent place to live.
Over the years, the immigration issue has become very convoluted by politics and sometimes by legitimate debate. But when you actualy break it down to its simplest level, the obvious situation surfaces.
Obama's administration plans to sue Arizona over its immigration law stating that it is the Federal government's responsibility to set immigration policy. Apparently it is the Obama Administration's "policy" to not enforce existing immigration laws already on the books. To add insult to injury- the planned lawsuit was announced not by official letter to the authorities in Arizona or even in a national press conference but by the Secretary of State while on a visit to Ecuador.
Meanwhile many areas of federal land in Arizona are off-limits to our citizens for safety issues due to the illegal human and drug trafficking and the violence such activities bring to these areas. So in effect Mexican drug lords are controlling parts of our country. There seems to be very little concern in Washington over this invasion of American soil.
It is very obvious that the administration's actions are steeped in some strange brew of liberal politics, elitist guilt and practical ignorance and not in its constitutionally ascribed responsibility of law enforcement. If a fraction of the money, time and effort that will be spent on a lawsuit against the state of Arizona was actually spent on border enforcement in these federal lands, maybe taxpayers could actually enjoy the use of these areas that they pay taxes to the federal government to maintain.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)