As Obama Begins “Word Tour”, Reality Hits Home

CNN and the BBC are reporting that presidential hopeful, Barack Obama arrived in Afghanistan this morning. Obama is traveling with substantial security due to fears that the Taliban might take a shot at him. Matt Drudge has entitled this jaunt the “Obama Tour”, with the three major news networks toddling along. Are the networks showing bias? A few, very few, journalist are asking if the media is a tad biased when it comes to Barack Obama. Thomas Roeser, of the Chicago Observer, notes that no other unelected official in U.S. history has received more favorable coverage than Barack – you think?

Meanwhile, back up in the northeast, the high cost of gasoline is adversely affecting the tourist industry. On a stop at an Old Orchard Beach, Maine, beach shop, the owners noted that this year was the “worst year in 28 years of business". It is mid-July and the traffic is smooth, the streets are not teaming with people, it is not a ghost town, by any means, but unusually quiet. In talking with business owners, the blame is being placed on – Congress. Shockingly enough, this beach town, within easy distance from Boston, is talking politics and policies. George Bush, of all people, is being praised for lifting the ban on drilling, while the Congress is being blamed for stalling, specifically the Democrats in charge. The locals also commented on the presidential candidates – McCain, although not a great choice for Mainers (see primary results), is seen as less of a threat than Obama. When asked why – the answer is his stance on oil drilling, followed by the constant media attention. Granted this is not a scientific poll, however – this may be one of the reasons that Obama is in a “statistical dead heat” in recent polls. Newsweek asked the question: “is the glow fading”? The answer might be, the more the spotlight is on Sen. Obama, the more the “folks in the street” get to know him. The constant media attention has given people the opportunity to watch his position on virtually every issue “evolve” (otherwise known as a politically opportunistic flip-flop) over the last 8 months, and that has made a difference.

While the Northeast prepares itself for a challenging summer and a more challenging winter (home heating concerns), the suspicion is rising as to the real reason the Democrats (and some Republicans) in Congress are refusing to move to lift the ban on drilling. People aren’t buying the “it will take 7 years for this to make a difference” angle - they understand speculators (as the media has described, at length, how speculators affect the price of oil)- and the fact that oil prices dropped after Bush lifted the Executive ban has them convinced this is a politically motivated stall on the part of Congress. After all, Democrats do well in a bad economy – don’t they?

Feeding the Beast – Massachusetts Health Care Reform Act

gutenberg.org image

Communities across Massachusetts are expressing disappointment with budget cuts made by Governor Deval Patrick this past week. Give the Deval his due, the budget must make room for the States mandated health care plan, a program that is already running 200 plus million over budget with no end in sight – and a legislature fully prepared to include more state mandates that will insure the trend continues. The FY2009 budget is not yet set in stone, as the legislature still may override the governors veto on certain programs.

Those eligible to receive Commonwealth Care include families of 4 earning less than $63,612 annually (or poverty level in Massachusetts). Those not fortunate enough to qualify under the state program are paying family premiums upward to $1,200 per month (insurance premiums have risen to compensate for those numerous federal and state mandated health benefits). Woe to those that fall through the cracks (unable to qualify for Commonwealth Care and unable to afford private insurance) - they are assessed a fee, this fee is then charged to ones Massachusetts Income Tax. Mandated insurance can be added to reasons why the state is losing population.

The Governor has had to make tough decisions regarding this budget, and although one may disagree with types of programs left untouched. (The program to eliminate Racial Imbalance – METCO – FYI 09 Budget, granted $21,615,313 – may be viewed as critical by some in State Government but one must ask, in this Democrat run state, how racially imbalanced can Massachusetts possibly be? The governor did make cuts to programs that in today’s economy appear essential ($545,195 requested for the “Open Pantry” a Springfield MA community outreach program that feeds those who cannot afford to feed themselves (rising fuel and food costs) has been cut from the budget) outlining just how difficult the role of governing with a house, senate and executive branch of like political ideology may be, especially when the House Speaker rules with an iron fist and individual in the executive branch lacks – experience. (There will be no hope for a stable economy should the Massachusetts political model be exported nationwide.)

The Massachusetts Model of Health care, bearing no resemblance to the program that Hillary Clinton envisions (one which, when viewed objectively, is sound), should be a warning bell to those states who are considering implementing a similar plan. Suggestion, compare the current runaway Mass Health Care Reform Act to the proposals made by Sen. Hillary Clinton (National Health Care Reform) prior to making a commitment. (Sen. Clinton’s views on National Health Insurance can be found in the archives of this blog – interview with Bill O’Reilly)

Massachusetts Senate Votes by Voice – Out-of-State Gay Marriage Law

The Massachusetts Senate voted by "voice" to repeal a 1913 law banning marriages that would not be recognized in other states – allowing gay couples from around the country (or the world) to marry in Massachusetts. Those in support of the repeal suggest that the state will benefit from an increase in tourism, while those who opposed the legislation cite the imposition of Massachusetts societal rules on other states. Governor Duvall Patrick supports the bill.

The legalization of gay marriage in Massachusetts produced several negatives. The Catholic Church was no longer able to offer adoptions in the state, as the law requires that all adoption providers include gay couples. The church had sought an exemption from the law, but was forced to halt adoptions in order to “exercise religious freedom in Massachusetts”.(Boston Globe) Economically, the legislation placed a burden on companies doing business in Massachusetts, a state that relies on tourism, tech and service industry.
Additionally, gay couples attempting to obtain a divorce out-of-state found it difficult. A Rhode Island Gay couple, married in Massachusetts, were denied a divorce ABA Law Journal, in Rhode Island as that state does not recognize Gay Marriage. Those party to a gay marriage seeking divorce and living out of state, must return to Massachusetts and complete a years residency prior to obtaining a divorce. The ACLU is putting pressure on Rhode Island – and is lobbying hard for those gay couples involved in divorce and custody battle around the nation.

In Massachusetts, residents questioned the need for a Senate "voice" vote over a traditional and transparent roll-call. Fear might be a motivating factor. The Massachusetts Legislature, under the direction of Governor Duvall Patrick, struck down a petition to place a marriage question on the ballot last year despite overwhelming support for the ballot question by residents (World Net Daily A Western Massachusetts representative, Angelo Puppolo, who first supported a vote by the people and later changed his mind was assailed by a highly visible billboard comparing Puppolo to Judas.

Those state legislators, who were under pressure from constituents regarding this issue, as well as pressure from special interest groups and the Governor, needed protection from similar Billboard attacks. Is it any wonder that the vote taken yesterday was by “voice”? (No record available as to how a particular Senator voted).

Massachusetts residents have only one recourse, those in opposition to the question, should send a clear message with their vote this November and the subsequent Novembers until there has been a complete replacement of those elected officials too spineless to face the wrath of a billboard. Resident in other states, where this ruling will eventually have an effect (if only to cost taxpayers money vis a vis court cases), should pay careful attention.

On the question of Marriage: The term marriage is a religious, not civil term. The Massachusetts judiciary in concert with the legislature and the Governor has trampled on the Constitution of the United States (those who take separation of church and state literally) by attaching a civil meaning to a religious term. This produced uproar by the 80% of this nations religious (approximate percentage) (See the 2004 presidential election: states with Marriage Questions on the ballot overwhelming voted Republican and for Traditional Marriage.) However, calling for a civil union is not enough for these interest groups, as it does not carry a religious overtone, by using the term “Marriage”,
Churches may be forced to marry Gay couples or face loosing their tax free status – in neighboring states. Is it really a civil rights issue designed to give gay couples rights, or is it a Progressive Issue designed to denigrate religion to a practice of no import? Civil Unions allow the same rights under the law as Marriage – support of Civil Unions - not “Gay Marriage” would leave religion out of the civic arena and give full and equal protection to those same couples under the law. Further gay couples may receive the support of those who now stand in opposition on religious grounds.

Additional References

Theological Education Institute, East Hartford, CT

California, Same Sex Marriages Will Affect Other States (USA Today)