They lose, we lose
How are requests at the state level for financial aid from the federal government, to emergencies (like the governor’s declaration Monday, Oct. 29, regarding the destruction caused by Sandy), justified by those on the political right?
How can people argue for “less government” and cuts to health care access for people in poverty, while justifying their own version of the distribution of our collective resources? I bet most answers would center on thoughts like, “It’s a natural disaster,” and “Those victims couldn’t help what happened to them.” If that’s true, my last question is, who made who the ruler of the community chest and determiner of whose suffering is justified?
We are able as a nation to send resources overseas and (appropriately) to our own victims of major storms, but when it comes to the poor, the mentally ill and those who are homeless in our own country we seem more capable of delivering blame than relief. The longer we do not act to provide real help to them, the longer they suffer and unintentionally act as a drag on our economic development potential. Thank God for those individuals and families who act on their own values and share their personal wealth for the good of others.
Dennis Marble
Hampden
Not a priority project
As stated in the Certificate of Need Procedures Manual, the 108th Legislature reflected that duplication of health services are substantial cost factors and expressed intent to avoid excessive duplication in a region or community that already has such services.
The manual also states that if a certificate-of-need application has the potential to cause more excess in duplicate services, then that application must not be considered a priority project.
The Department of Health and Human Services would be wise to reject Central Maine Healthcare’s application to acquire control of Parkview Adventist Hospital on the basis that approval will give CMHS future potential to create additional excesses of costly duplicated services in the Brunswick region. By definition, CMHS’s application does not categorize as a priority project and should be treated as such.
Keith Kool
Litchfield
Comparing history
An article by Dr. Richard H. Thaler, of the University of Chicago School of Business, prompts me to write this. While my American colleagues and I were going into debt to earn our Ph.D’s, our Danish colleagues were getting paid $60,000 a year by the state to do their doctoral studies. They paid 50 percent in taxes, but their health insurance was free. So they came out of their graduate studies with no debt, and now if they have a marketable idea, they can try it out without putting themselves and their families at risk of crushing lifelong debt in the event of a serious illness.
The consequence? I believe that Denmark, a “socialist” country, today has more functioning small businesses and family farms per capita than the “capitalist” United States. Before the industrial revolution, the strength of America was in its self-reliant semi-communal family households and semi-socialist, semi-capitalist town economies. In those days, when Denmark was still a nearly feudal aristocracy, America had more successful small businesses per capita
than any Scandinavian country. America’s town schools were free, and what medicine was available to any was available to all at, whatever they could afford to pay.
Maybe we could learn something by comparing our own history and theirs. There is economic strength in some kinds of socialism and weakness in corporate hegemony.
Dr. W. B. Leavenworth
Searsmont
Christian judgment
I was disappointed to see editorial prominence given to an OpEd by Debra Wagner on Oct. 29 in which she opposes giving full marriage rights to all couples regardless of gender.
Wagner, as the wife of an Episcopal clergyman, would use her position to impose a narrow sectarian view of the sanctity of marriage. She presents a personal bias, based on a conservative interpretation of a presumed Christian consensus.
She does not say whether she speaks as a mainstream Episcopalian or as a an Orthodox Episcopalian, a branch which broke with the mother church over the ordination of women priests and a gay bishop In New Hampshire. The Orthodox Church still resists the ordination of women.
More important than doctrinal disagreements within a particular church is the divisive tone of Wagner’s opinion piece in regard to a whole range of Protestant denominations. She repeatedly refers to “leftist” and “liberal” trends within the body of modern Christianity and seeks to suppress honest discussions within theologians, all in the name of preserving “traditional” values. She also neglects to mention that many Protestant churches, Congregationalist and others, stress their “open and affirming” nature to show their inclusive Christian love for a broader humanity.
I should hope that people of all faiths and non-faiths could engage in an honest, non-acrimonious dialogue on the proper role of government and religion regarding the covenant of marriage in our democratic society, which has its own tradition of resistance to establishment of a state religion.
James B. Wagner
Sorrento
Gas price
I write in reference to a front page article in the BDN on Oct. 28 about a gasoline price promotion sponsored by the conservative group Americans for Prosperity-Maine. Carol Weston, the group’s leader, stated $1.84 was the price when President Barack Obama took office, and according to her the subsequent increase is due to “President Obama’s failing green energy prices.”
Not surprisingly, she and her group were totally silent on this issue during the reign of President George W. Bush when the price of gas went from $1.25 on the day he took office to $4.25 in January 2008, a gain of 340 percent in the first seven years of his administration. Gasoline prices plummeted during the last eight months of the Bush presidency because the American economy totally collapsed during the last year of his presidency.
Intelligent people know why the price of gas has gone up and down. It’s because of market demand. When the market gets stronger, the price goes up. One can assume Weston and her group are ill-informed. And, of course, they are if we accord legitimacy to what they say, but one could also assume they believe the public is dumb. Either way, public policy discourse sponsored by these folks is devoid of any substance. In short, laughable.
Harold C. Pachios
Cape Elizabeth
Harold Pachios:
The GOP brain is incapable of recognizing the name ” George W. Bush” or any event prior to January 20, 2009.
And on November 6, 2012, Americans proved they do not believe in GOP Fairy Tales.
Yessah
While there was certainly no dobut that President Obama won reellction, it was certainly not a landlside, nor a “mandate”. The popular vote was 62,278.404 vs 58,901,020. Whn you say Americans’ you offer a huge statement, which does not necessarily ring true.
He won period.
And we will probably have to remind the republicans of that fact from time to time. They do seem to have a short memory; George who?
It Republicans yell that LePage was a mandate, then this certainly was.
Collectively grouping “Republicans” is at best a
dis-service, at worst it is just wrong. My point (okay 2 points) is that the
President won, did he do well with the electoral college, absolutely. Did he do
as well with the popular vote, no. I
would have the same argument with any recent elections, it is harder and harder
for anyone to claim an election is a mandate based upon the popular vote. I do
take umbrage with the GOP fairy tale crap from above.
Odd, one week prior to the election, all of the right-wing pundits were saying that Romney would win in a “landslide” of 300+ electoral votes:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/romney-landslide-here-are-the-biggest-names-predicting-it-how-it-will-happen/
In every case here, “landslide” victory is connected to the electoral vote outcome of 300+.
Now that Obama has won 332 to 216, the electoral vote LANDSLIDE is ignored for the popular vote, which was always predicted to be close.
Spin how you want, but by the Republican’s OWN STANDARDS this was a landslide for Obama.
He had larger margins of victory then either of GW Bush’s elections and Bush claimed a mandate from both of his wins.
and he was wrong as well.
I think he got more than LePage.
Dennis Marble: excellent letter. For many Republicans, big govt. is fine when it comes to federal bailouts of banks but not when it comes to bailouts of the poor, the homeless, and the unemployed/barely employed. The GOP’s hypocrisy here is as great as their hypocrisy re opposition to more govt. intervention save when it comes to abortion, the dying, etc. It hardly takes a logician to recognize their self-serving nonsense.
Here is some data to support your position: http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/
Thanks for the link.
This why there is a rift in the Republican party. The old time Republicans are Progressives and fully willing(?) to subjugate the people of the US to the Federal government.
There is also a Progressive wing of the Democrat party, but that wing is more obvious, even if most members of the party refuse to see it.
This is why both parties need to be fumigated, this is what both the OWS and Tea Party movements were about.
I truly hope the Republican party can abandon the social wedge issues which plague it, and become a more moderate voice focused on fiscal responsibility, limited government, and individual liberty.
Oh, and the next male Republican who opens his mouth about rape—except to decry it as a horrible crime that should be condemned— needs to be kicked out of the party.
Since both republican candidates that made stupid statementd on rape were abandoned by the Republican party, what should they have done? Killthem?
The next time a Democrat COMMITS rape they should be punished, not protected by the Party.
Here I am pointing out a path forward for Republicans, and you insist on hyperbole? Okie doke.
Since the Republican’s adopted party platform supported bans on abortion (with no exception) and supported stomping on states rights by banning same-sex marriage nationwide, I think the Republican reaction to their comments was “shhhh! Don’t say that out loud!”
I would rather they honestly abandon this pandering to southern social conservatives, who only joined the Republicans because their Democratic party let black people attend the same schools as their white kids.
S having any moral standards is bad and having none is good. What a pant load.
Again with the hyperbole.
So wanting to abide by our Constitution, treat Americans equally under our laws, and respect the rule of law in regards to the decade-settled issue of Abortion is “no moral standards”.
If I predicted the sun would rise in the east, would you try to deny THAT too?
Which Constitution do you refer to? Certainly not the one was written and ratified in 1787 for the United States
Certainly you aren’t saying that the US Constitution has never been amended, are you?
When you insist on demonizing fiscal conservatives as “having no morals” when we disagree with your social conservative viewpoints, you shouldn’t wonder why our party lost this last election.
The Republicans lose because: first they nominate a moderate, second will not stand up to the attacks of the Democrats, third will not return the attacks.
How have I demonized fiscal conservatives in ANY way.
The Constitution has been amendmended many times almost every time the amendments have been poorly written which ahs allowed the Constitution to be undermined OR purposly written to undermine the Constitution.
How do you demonize fiscal conservatives? By saying that we have no morals because we’re unwilling to stand behind social issues that belong in the 1950’s.
The Republicans don’t lose because they nominate moderates, they lose because they force moderates to pander to extremist social issue views of ‘the base’ which is dying off demographically. It’s a recipe for failure in 2016, that’s for sure.
Go ahead Larry… get a good solid “socially conservative” candidate like Sir FrothyMix Santorum in there. I’ll be very curious regarding your views when they lose by a wider margin than Magic Underwear Mittens did.
And I’ve not seen any amendment that was written to “undermine the constitution”… can you elaborate on that?
I, as a Republican absolutely agree iwth you, much as I would also point out how terrible the DNC Convetion was when God (being added to the platform) was booed by the floor, thrre times even, how ironic.
I agree, the boos were poor behavior. The audiences for our political process reinforce our divisiveness, which is a shame (boos at the DNC about god, boos at the primary debates about active soldiers because they’re gay…)
The Republicans can never abandon the “wedge issues” The Democrats will just create more to keep the rable roused.
There hasn’t been an old time Republican who genuinely saw the government as a force of good for our society since Eisenhower. Nixon embraced the racist Dixiecrats and it has been all downhill for the GOP since. Now we have ideologues like Paul Ryan who has spent most of his adult life in government and yet screams about how destructive government is (except for that government money he brings home to his district, per Ryan’s letters seeking stimulus money).
As for your Tea Party fantasy, the sign that best exemplifies the cognitive dissonance of the Tea Partiers is the one that said “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” Ignorance is not bliss for this group.
It would have more “pure” if Ryan had not tried to get some of the “stimulus” funding but it would have been political suicide and the money was going to be given away no matter what he did.
I would have said that the Republican Party started it’s decline with Roosevelt and the progressive wing has been slowly gaining power within the party since. Yes Nixon was certainly a progressive “Republican”.
Those getting Medicare have paid for that benefit for their entire working lives, as opposed to most welfare recipients that have collected their entire lives.
Abraham Lincoln was the ultimate Progressive Republican. The Party has drifted from its origins and reverted to the states’ rights fanaticism of John C. Calhoun of South Carolina, who believed in nonsense such as nullification.
This blasting of Teddy Roosevelt tells me that you are a refugee from GlennBeckistan, for which you have only my pity.
The average Medicare recipient is drawing far more in benefits than he ever paid in Medicare taxes.
Lincoln was a fool thought that war was the answer to the break up of the US over the problem of agrarian states vs industrial states.
The agrarian Southern states were being crushed by the industrial Northern states and the Southern states decided to suscede from the nation, which was their right to do.
Those powerful rich politicians in the North saw much of the economy leaving their grasp and convinced the uneducated poor in the north that the war was over slavery and killed a large percentage of the Country and managed to line their own pockets with the wealth of both the North and the South.
The greed that caused that war is the same greed that is destroying the country today. It has been destroying the country ever since the country was formed.
Your delusions make for an interesting read.
You dislike Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, and Ike. You must dislike Reagan, since he raised taxes, expanded the earned income tax credit, and granted amnesty to undocumented immigrants. Is the only Republican you like Santorum?
Reagan was a fairly decent President, his error was that he accecpted the promises of the Democrats to fix the problems after giving them his side of compromise.
The Democrat lying is why compromise does not work. You should never compromise with lying sacks of feces.
This must be why no one has ever compromised with you. I am pleased to see such self-awareness on your part.
I have been party to many compromises, but never twice with a person that does not keep their part. So I doubt very much that I would make a second bargain, deal or compromise with you.
Understand that I have not invited any compromise.
You typed “You should never compromise with a lying sack . . . ” I suggested that this explained why no one ever compromised with you. Were your logical powers more finely tuned, you would have discerned that I had suggested that you were described by your own turn of phrase.
I am sorry that my turn of phrase hurt your senseibility but how should someone that prevaricates at every turn be refered to? My estimed collegue? I forgot, that is how they are refered to in congress.
larryincamden, you should study the history of the civil war. No matter what you happen to believe about the reason for the fight it is a fact that for millions in the southern states the war was about slavery. There are numerous pieces of personal correspondence that reference the fight for freedom and Union forces and President Lincoln were welcomed by joyful crowds in the south.
Before he was president, on June 17, 1858, Lincoln gave a speech commonly refered to as the “House Divided” speech. I suggest you read it. Lincoln was no fool; to the contrary he was an uncommonly wise man.
Big government is always great if it helps me me me, just not if it helps them them them.
James Wagner, you cannot be serious. The BDN has been so lopsided in their coverage on the SSM, support of SSM articles and letters outnumbered by far those who wanted to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman. The BDN used the “news”paper as their personal agenda daily to spread their way of thinking. It is a disgrace to newsreporting. The Portland, Waterville and Augusta papers did the same, with their new owner Sussman.
He’s very serious. It came out in another article that the husband of Debra Wagner is a priest of an Episcopal church that is against SSM and had a no on 1 sign out front. Apparently, he is breaking with Episcopal policy (which Ms. Wagner terms as coercion) but hasn’t seemed to have formally broken with them, like going to the American Anglican church or what ever. One wonders how their parishioners fell about the situation. As for the number of letters and articles published, maybe the no on 1/don’t redefine marriage group didn’t write enough publishable letters or articles. Then number of comments seemed to favor SSM regardless of the stand taken.
Trust me, we got the message that we were going to He!! quite clear from what was written in the BDN. The letters were even.
So? Just because there are two sides to an issue, it doesn’t make the two sides equally valid. It’s so lazy to simply state the two are equal and move on. Sometimes there IS a right and wrong. If we were having a debate about whether the world was flat, would you demand that the BDN expend energy on those claiming flatness? It’s obvious how history is going to treat this issue.
Harold you are right on. Carol Weston was the state chair for ALEC when she was in the legislature. Need any more be said?
Dennis Marble – Excellent letter.
Dr. Levenworth – I like your idea, but (for some) you used a “naughty” word, tax.
Mr. Pachios should check his stats!
Liberals don’t have to check their facts, they just spin them up as they go along. If her group was the republican party, they were complaining also. Obama said he wanted $8.00 gas and looks like he’ll get his wish.
Please point us to anywhere on this planet where gas is much lower in price as it is here.
Venezuela and China feature lower prices, are you saying we should nationalize the oil industry here in America and turn to socialism?
LOL! Is that why you guys spent the last two months pretending polls are all lies?
I just read his letter, and did not see anything that was factually incorrect.
Please, do share what exactly you disagree with there… or are you just mad at reality?
If that’s your real name Keith, I am envious. :D