Our Caring Leaders "Err on the side of life"

With all the phony, religious, care and concern shown by the administration for Terri Schiavo, one must take into account the following:

As reported this week in the Washington Post, in 1999 then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush signed a law establishing procedures for hospitals and physicians to withhold life-sustaining care from patients with conditions deemed hopeless, even over relatives' protests.

There was also the inopportune fact that recently House Majority Leader DeLay (R-TX) pushed a budget resolution through the House of Representatives that would cut funding for Medicaid by at least $15 billion, threatening quality of care for people like Terri Schiavo.

The Genius of 1789 and Stupidity of 2005

Dear Editor:

Once again the genius of our founding fathers, who debated, wrote, and signed the Constitution of the United States, shines through. They were able to see into the future the absolute need of a system of checks and balances between our branches of government, so that America would not wind up with a dictatorial monarchy as was commonplace throughout Europe in the 18th century.

However, this understanding is evidently not part of the knowledge of our President, Senators, Congressmen, Florida Governor, and the right wing, fanatical, politically advantageous, religious zealots who tried to undue our due process of law in the case of Terri Schiavo. They seem to think that King George and the House of Lords still rule, and are free to force their politically motivated opinion onto the populace. The majority leaders in both the House and Senate should be ashamed of the positions they have taken, especially Senator (Dr.) Frist, who knows better than to give a diagnosis from an old video tape and not from a first hand examination, as done by a long series of doctors who pronounced Ms. Schiavo in an irreversible vegetative state. He should turn in his medical license and resign his position in the Senate.

It is now time for our leaders to get back to the important affairs of state and get out of personal family problems that they have abused for political reasons.

Politically Correct Emergency

Dear editor:

Congress has been held over for a special session just before the Easter break. The president has cut short his Easter vacation at his ranch in Texas to rush back to Washington so he can sign a highly important bill that Congress has just passed.

Does this bill bring our troops home from the war in Iraq that has killed over 1,500 soldiers and marines? No! Does this dramatically important bill deal with our overwhelming deficit? No! Does this emergency bill deal with the burgeoning cost of healthcare in this country? No! Does it deal with Social Security? Of course not! This bill deals with the sad case of a young woman in Florida, Terri Schiavo, who has been brain dead for many years and who’s case has already been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States. Not only has this matter been appealed many times over to the courts, but is in fact a local matter that fits neatly in the area long heralded by the Conservatives of this country as being “States Rights” and not in the purview of the federal government.

So why are Republicans and their conservative base being in such a rush to take a stand on this matter, by passing emergency legislation and having the president fly back to Washington? It is because, as they have been quoted as saying, “Good politics.” The country can go to hell, our soldiers and marines can continue to die, our healthcare costs can spiral out of control, our Social Security can be in danger, while our Congress and president act “politically correct” and fight for one woman’s life. For once, the Congress and president should stick to the nation’s business and true needs.

They need Social Security???????

As reported in today’s papers, the president's mother, Barbara Bush, in an interview with her sons said, "I'm here because your father and I have 17 grandchildren -- all born after 1950 -- and we want to know someone is going to do something about it (Social Security)." Sorry Mrs. Bush, as much as we all love you, your grandchildren's security is tied up in the ill gotten gains in oil that your son and husband secured with the invasion of Iraq. We all know that it's all about oil, and your grandchildren will have more money than they can spend. They will need Social Security as much as the rest of us need a depression.

With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies

Dear Editor:

By their actions the past couple of weeks, our president, congressmen and senators have proven they really know how to do their best for us and manage “our” money. Or did they? In this time period they have voted down an increase in the minimum wage, passed a stricter individual bankruptcy law, and have expressed a desire to solve our Social Security “problem” by cutting benefits in the future. Let’s see.

The last minimum wage law, which resulted in an increase for our lowest paid workers, was passed in 1996. During this same time period (1996-2004) our representatives and senators voted themselves six increases in their pay for a total of $26,000 a year. Those increase alone equaled $15,000 per year more than inflation. If you are on minimum wage you earn just over $10,000 a year, which is $5,000 below what our government considers the poverty line for a family of three. Of course the president signed the bill.

The bankruptcy law was changed to make it easier for credit card companies to collect on debts even after someone is forced into that legal problem by divorce, sickness, or the loss of a job. Evidently congress feels they have to protect these companies that send out “pre-approved” credit offers to infants, young college students and in some instances, the family pet. Of course the president signed the bill.

The president and congress have now suggested that one of the possible solutions for our future “problems” with Social Security could be cutting benefits for those under 55. This from a group that does not pay social security taxes (of course they also don’t collect it), but rather have a retirement plan that is 100% free and paid for by our taxes. Their benefit, free of charge, upon retirement is to continue receiving their salary for the rest of their lives. At present that means $158,100 for the rest of their life. For example, former Senator Byrd and his wife may expect to draw $7,800,000 (based upon an average life span) and his wife will draw $275,000 during the last days of her life. They pay absolutely nothing for this. And they want to cut senior benefits on what is supposed to be a safety net for Americans. Or better still, have a privatization program that will require trillions of dollars of additional debt. This is what the president and his staff are busy running all over the country (of course at our tax expense) trying to sell.

Are these the people looking out for us? Or are they just too busy feathering their own nest?

Best Use of Our Money????????

Dear Editor:

Let me see if I get this straight. A report by the American Society of Civil Engineers (non-political) says that crowding schools, traffic-chocked roads and transit cutbacks are eroding the quality of American life. The report said $1.6 trillion should be spent over the next five years to alleviate potential problems with the nation’s infrastructure. Are we going to spend that? Of course not.

Our money is going to be spent by going deeper into deficit by giving permanent status to the president’s tax cut for the rich, rebuilding the infrastructure of Iraq and fighting an insurgency that his pre-emptive war caused there (at a cost of a billion a week), and setting up his overwhelming costly privatization of social security. Those two items alone would more than pay for alleviating our infrastructure problems over the next five years. I thought charity begins at home.

Local Arrogant Letter

There was a letter in the local paper that was arrogant and bigoted. I had to answer it.

Dear editor:

In the March 6th edition of the American Press a letter was published as part of the ‘Public Speaks’ page, written by Phil Broussard. I must take exception to these unsubstantiated ravings. Evidently Mr. Broussard knows nothing about history, his country or an organization that has fought for the rights of American citizens regardless of creed, race, religion or other labeling.

Let me begin with his self proclaimed speaking for all Christians and our form of government. Mr. Broussard should spend some time reading and studying the Declaration of Independence, U. S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and amendments to the Constitution. The writers of these documents, including the Deist Thomas Jefferson, were very careful to use the word “God” only once in any of their writings (Laws of Nature and Nature’s God) and the word “Lord” only once in stating the date, “In the Year of Our Lord.” They knew what they were doing. Nowhere can there be found a reference to Christianity, and they specified that “all men are created equal.” No religion, faith or creed is given preference. This, according to our founding fathers, absolutely refutes Mr. Broussard’s desire to have “Christian judges appointed to the bench” (Supreme Court).

His need for the Ten Commandments is rather amazing, since the Ten Commandments have no background whatsoever to Christianity. These holy tablets were given to Moses and the Hebrews at Mt. Sinai, and are the religious laws that are the basis of the Jewish faith. Mr. Broussard’s version of the commandments are ones that have been changed from the original and have nothing to do with God’s original word at Sinai.

As for the ACLU that Mr. Broussard says is always trying to stop things “decent or Christian,” perhaps he should look at the accomplishments and goals of this organization.
They defend people whose basic beliefs are unpalatable to many people even when they disagree with their ideology, and because they believe in their basic freedom to assemble and express themselves as they choose. When you defend one person’s right to freedom you defend the same for all of us.

It is obvious that Mr. Broussard uses the word “we” when describing his own desire to have everyone believe as he does. This is what is known as arrogance and bigotry, and has no basis in beliefs or pronouncements by the founder of the religion he claims to follow.

No Separation of Powers Here

Dear Editor:

Is the United States exempt from arm twisting dictatorship?

On Tuesday, March 1st, Senator Bill Frist (R), Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, stated that realistically the president’s plan for privatization of Social Security cannot be acted upon during the year 2005. Evidently he felt that support was not strong enough on either side of the aisle for passage.

On Thursday, March 3rd, this very same Majority Leader of the Senate has done a complete about face and now says that action on Social Security has to be done this year, 2005, as the president wants, and cannot be put off.

Words and actions such as this make one wonder how much arm twisting and threatening the White House did to get this respected, so called leader to make a fool of himself with such contradictory statements only two days apart. If anything it shows the power this president will exert to get his way, and how dangerous dictatorial actions, that he accuses others of, can be.

Is this the kind of democracy Mr. Bush wants to export around the world?