The haves and have-nots in the wealthiest country in the world

I can accept - and even celebrate - that there are people of goodwill on both sides of the debate regarding the newly signed health care law. One of the things that has always made this country great is our ability to publicly disagree with each other, and bow to the desires of the majority, even while working to adopt our own desired policies.

So although I may get into a spirited discussion with family and/or friends over the desirability of another government-mandated program, I don't ever place the value of my position above the value of the relationship. I'm a relationship-oriented person. Always have been, always will be.

What I'm not okay with is fear-mongering, name-calling, race-baiting, demagoguery, and outlandish lies to try to influence the citizenry. I'm also not okay with elected officials leading, promoting, spreading, and otherwise encouraging other members of their party to stand in united opposition to an elected official - in this case, the President of the United States. When three members of the Republican House stood on the balcony of the Capitol Building on Saturday, holding three signs saying "Kill" "The" "Bill" I was appalled at their unprofessionalism in playing to a crowd of dissidents. There used to be a standard of behavior that was not only expected but was actually exhibited in Washington, DC. Today it's less like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," and more like Larry, Curly, and Moe.

I'm tired of the lies about "Death Panels," increased costs and decreased coverage for Medicare recipients, and the lockstep behavior of the Republicans in office. Although some Republicans point to the "Nay" votes cast by some Democratic Congresspersons as a lack of support by the full Party, my opinion is that it simply points out that Democrats are able to think for themselves and don't have to all march to the same tune as is the case in the Republican Party.

I was also appalled at the name-calling and threatening signs on display by the "Tea Party" movement on Saturday. As one commenter said, the Tea Party slogan seems to be "Do what we want and nobody gets hurt." I do understand that not everyone in the Tea Party movement or the Republican Party shares these sentiments, but my mother always told me that you're known by the company you keep. Most appalling of all are the people who take this kind of behavior to heart and feel inspired to either act or call upon others to act to rid the nation of a perceived threat.

I must confess, too, that I really don't understand the reluctance among some people to have access to affordable health insurance. When my children were small, good health insurance was a definite plus when you looked for a job. And, for some, it still is. My youngest son and his wife have a health insurance shortage because of his job loss late last year. One of the things he looks for in interviews is what health insurance is offered.

When I was a young wife and mother, we had excellent company-paid health insurance. Yes, fully paid premiums and good benefits. Slowly, over the years, the company began to transfer some of the cost of the premiums to the employees, but it still wasn't an onerous amount and we still had good benefits. It was not the cost of doing business that caused these premiums to increase - since this happened during the corporate-friendly Reagan years - but the sharp increase in premiums, which were also a consequence of the Big Business worship of the Reagan years. Eventually, the company - Eastern Airlines - folded, and health insurance was the least of our worries.

As I grow older and become more and more aware of the fragility of life, I do find it hard to understand why so many people don't think insurance is helpful to them. Another of my sons and his wife do not wish to have any but catastrophic coverage, backed up by a Health Savings Plan for routine medical care. I kind of understand their thinking (and I don't think there's anything in the new law that prohibits this), but I also know that without this law that prohibits lifetime limits and pre-existing conditions clauses, even their choice of coverage wouldn't be practical. With medical costs at an all-time high (and climbing) policy limits would be quickly reached. And with insurance companies denying care to newborns for "pre-existing conditions," a seriously ill infant could mean bankruptcy for the family.

Yes, I know there are those who decry this new law as an "entitlement," and they vigorously oppose it on those grounds. But, if, as some claim, we are a "Christian nation," then caring for others should be second nature. Donating to charity instead of paying taxes may sound like a good idea, but charities have no way to reach the vast majority of those who need help, and can't help all those who ask for it. And those who would choose to donate couldn't - or wouldn't - be able to provide for all those in need.

So instead of decrying our government's attempts to help those who cannot - for whatever reason - help themselves, let us reclaim the compassionate and generous spirit for which we were once known. This new law will have absolutely no effect on my health care - I neither gain nor lose - but I know many for whom it will be a lifeline and I believe that's what America should celebrate.

Hypocrisy, thy name is "Republican"

So much has been going on lately in Washington politics that I've been immobilized by indecision about what to say.

In President Obama's State of the Union Address on January 27, the political divide was embarrassingly obvious. Nearly every point the President made that was not supportive of big business or the banking industry was met with stony-faced silence by the Republican side of Congress. Almost without exception, Republicans showed their dislike for this President by refusing to applaud any of the measures accomplished this past year, including reducing taxes for the majority of Americans and putting a freeze on Federal spending beginning in 2011. The freeze actually elicited snickers of amusement from the Right, who apparently don't understand that budgets are correctly set for a year at a time, and that it would be unconscionable - if not impossible - to impose a freeze on a current year's budget.

Then, just two days later, Obama was an invited guest to the Republican retreat, where he gave a speech and then took questions and gave answers, spending almost two hours with the Republican legislators. Several of the questions - as the President correctly noted - were thinly veiled "talking points," laden with untruths, half-truths, and mis-characterizations of current issues. Pres. Obama wasn't shy about calling these questioners out, particularly Rep. Jeb Hensarling of Texas. He acknowledged that partisanship exists on both sides of the aisle, but also pointed out that Democrats made several concessions, especially in the health care bill, in an attempt to gain bipartisan support. He also chided the Republicans for taking such rigid positions on issues that they leave themselves no room to negotiate. As he said, bipartisanship means that neither side gets everything it wants; each side has to participate in give-and-take. And he also told them that many of the ideas they proposed did not pass the test of feasibility from any credible budgetary standpoint. Interestingly, the President was so effective in his refutation of Republican leaders that FOX News stopped broadcasting the event some 20 minutes before it ended.

Additionally, the Senate recently passed a "Pay-Go" bill that was originally supported by Senators Snowe (ME), Collins (ME), McCain (AZ), and Voinovich (OH). The bill was passed despite "no" votes from each of these Senators, when, in fact, each of them voted for this same bill in 2004-2005.

As if all of this isn't enough, President Obama has invited Republican leaders to the White House for an open and televised discussion about the health care bill. Despite repeated calls by these same Republican leaders for the President to include them in televised discussions, they are now backpedaling on both their participation in talks, and on the public aspect of those talks.

And so it would seem that the Republican Party is not just the "Party of No," but increasingly the "Party Against Anything Obama Supports." There are too many sitting in Washington, DC at our expense who do not have our best interests at heart. They care only for the money in their campaign coffers and will work hard to defeat the will of the people as long as they can keep the goodwill of Big Business, Big Banks, and Big Insurance.

Quite frankly, the Democrats need to grow a pair and stop letting the minority party run roughshod over the principles that this country was founded upon. If they want to filibuster, I say let them do it. Let's have nonstop, televised coverage of Republican Senators reading from the telephone book and show the taxpayers what their elected officials think of Democratic Process.

This is the Republican Party

I've spent the past several days cruising the internet and visiting a number of conservative websites and blogs to try to get a handle on just why some of our fellow citizens have clung to the Republican Party despite recent events. What I've most often found is that there is still a belief - misplaced, in my opinion - that the Republican Party is the party of fiscal conservatism and of less government involvement in our lives. Except for some who cling to far right relgious beliefs, few are as socially conservative as Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin would have you believe - although there are some.

In 1981, when Reagan took office, the federal debt was about $700 billion. in 1988, it was over $2 trillion. After Bush, it was over $4 trillion. Bill Clinton not only managed to pay down some of the Reagan debt, he actually balanced the budget. So when the Republican Party and its adherents claim to be "fiscally conservative," there's a disconnect between what they say and what they do.

Sure, the debt has increased even more during the 10 months Obama has been in office, but remember, much of what is costing us money is a hangover from the Bush II Administration. Something had to be done, and that "something" actually started late last year, during the waning days of the Bush Administration, with the bailouts of banks and automakers.

After 10 months in office, the most memorable thing George W. Bush had done was ignore a memo that Al Quaeda was planning an air strike against the US, and start a war in Afghanistan, ostensibly to capture Osama bin Laden. Instead, four months later, he invaded Iraq.

How much do you think that cost?

So, the Republican fiscal conservatism claim is a bit shaky, I think.

Let's reflect on the Republican claim to smaller government, and keeping government out of our lives.

If Republicans really want smaller government, let's start by keeping government out of our bedrooms and off of our bodies. Up until four years ago, 27 states had laws prohibiting sodomy. (That includes oral sex, folks.) Today, we still fight the battle for the rights of LGBT men and women to be full participants in the American Dream. We forbid them to marry, we penalize them in the tax code (because they can't marry), some places deny them the right to adopt children, and cases abound where child custody was awarded to a "straight" parent because the other parent was gay or Lesbian.

Now we have a passed a health care "reform" bill in the House that invades women's bodies even further. Not only does the Stupak-Pitts Amendment forbid government money being used for an abortion, it also forbids anyone who receives any kind of Federal subsidy from purchasing insurance with their own money to cover abortion - this, despite the fact that access to abortion has been guaranteed by the Supreme Court! So a legal medical procedure is now unavailable to all but the wealthy. How much more intimately involved in our lives can government get? And what woman would want to buy an "abortion rider"? Those who plan to get pregnant just so they can abort, I guess. Forget those who are victims of rape, incest, whose lives are in danger, or whose fetuses are hopelessly deformed!

If that weren't insult enough, Republican Congressman Pete Sessions (R-TX) has compared being a woman to being a smoker, thus justifying higher health care premiums for women. Frankly, I think his mother should charge him retroactive rent, plus interest, for the time he took up in her uterus, with added charges for stretch marks, incontinence, and for growing up to be an idiot.

And today, Dick Army came out from under his rock to say Americans who eat like a pig and get diabetes "don't deserve" insurance coverage.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, who last week proclaimed loudly and for all to hear that she was organizing the "Tea Party" march on the House last week, the next day insisted she really hadn't organized it, that it was a "grass roots" event. This, despite the fact that she told people to be sure to attend while appearing on Fox "News."

This is the Republican Party today. It's a party that in recent years has had no compunction about trying to move the US further to the right, claiming "family values," and that we are a Christian nation. Now that their tactics have cost them both Congress and the White House, they're crying foul.

The voters have rejected Republican fiscal and social mores, for the most part. If the Party continues to allow itself to led around by the nose by the likes of Limbaugh, Palin, Bachmann, Boehner, and company, it will either cease to exist or become a third party. If that happens, it will be a sad day for a party that attracted the likes of Dwight Eisenhower, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and even Susan B. Anthony.

I daresay none of them would even recognize it as their party in 2009.