opa-opines.net

Over the past few months I have heard some strong messages from friends. Many feel passionately about several national issues, and some believe that they should vote accordingly. Some are for McCain, others for Obama. Why care which? My question is ” when was the last time a national politician did anything that I believe is important?

I can’t find a good solution in our current political environment.

The “troop surge” in Iraq is a “success”, at least as the media increasingly claims, especially the 24 hour news channels. Aren’t we a bit surprised?

Looking for the definition of success can be frustrating.   Is the surge successful because Iraqi has made significant progress toward establishing a functional democratic government?   Is the surge successful because Iraq now has a peaceful, secure relationship with her neighbors?   Is it successful because human rights have been guaranteed to all those who live in Iraq?   Or is it successful because the country has been rebuilt and the utilities and economy reestablished?

Since the answer to all the above is no, then what possible reason could our media have for declaring “success”.  The only claim for success that is clearly verified is that the U.S. Military is more secure and the incidents of violence have decreased.  But, of course, Iraq is not as “secure” as it was before the United States Military invaded Iraq, and we do not really know if the violence is lower now than it was during Saddam’s days in power.

So, dear media, give us a break from your personal opinion. And please stop harassing the current candidates for President on this issue.   Stop the loaded questions like “what should your opponent’s position be on the surge.”   Why not tell the total unvarnished truth – whatever the facts happen to be.   Drop the “spin” and simply report the news.

According to the Ft. Collins Coloradoan, Marilyn Musgrave, current Congressperson for Colorado’s fourth district, wants to remake her image. She now says she was raised in poverty in an alcoholic home. Marilyn says she knows hard times because she has lived them.Why does she need to remake her image? She has been in Congress for six years and has been re-elected twice. The voters should judge her on her record.Do politicians attempt to re-make their image to distract voters from their record? By Marilyn asking us to focus upon her early life, does she want voters to feel sorry for her? Is Marilyn pledging to fight for those in poverty and support programs for the disadvantaged? Will she put those pledges in writing? Is she asking us to overlook her six year record in congress?A friend of mine, a conservative republican, asked Musgrave what she would do to help the farmers in eastern Colorado survive the current multi year drought. Marilyn suggested that there were many other initiatives more worthy of federal help. Is that how she reacts to those in poverty?

I must know exactly where Marilyn stands before I vote. Who is this new Marilyn? What will she do if we return her to Washington. If she can not tells us we should not vote for her.

 

 

 

 

Recently a New York Times article suggested that we are making progress in Iraq. The judgment was based on increased security. 

When will we learn? The whole point is to have a stable society in Iraq. We need a government that functions. We need jobs for the young people rather than high unemployment. The war destroyed much of the infrastructure in Iraq. We need utilities to be stable, public services to be regular and dependable. Before the war Iraq was a leading oil exporter, and should be again. 

One of our major problems during the past five years is that our true emphasis has been on security . The argument is that until we have security it is very difficult to build a nation. That seems true, however it is misleading. Our military conquered Iraq quickly but our rebuilding is extremely slow and poorly managed. Instead of utilizing locals, we tend to import companies and workers to do the job. As a result unemployment increased rapidly. In addition some people in Iraq came to resent us, and young, unemployed males are a recruiting ground for our enemies. 

It is sad that we learned so little from the aftermath of WWII. The “greatest generation” sensed that a destroyed Europe was bad for us. We needed stable allies and trading partners, so we devised the Marshall plan which stabilized western Europe. I believe those actions stimulated our prosperity of the 1950s. Maybe a generous rebuilding plan in Iraq would help our own economy. It is worth a try.

 This week the US Senate, in their wisdom, decided to play games with Medicare. I know that congress has played games with funding bills before, but seldom in an election year. 

The problem is that medical payments to physicians are scheduled to be cut by more than 10 percent starting June 1, 2008. The House passed a bill to fix the problem but President Bush did not like it. So the republicans in the Senate stonewalled and refused to budge. According to the “rules”, without support of 60 Senators, a bill won’t come to a vote (and is not veto proof anyway). So the entire effort stalled and Congress adjourned for the Independence Day vacation.  

Why so much political fighting? What reasonable person would expect a treating physician to attend to a patient for 10 percent less when prices are increasing dramatically? This being an election year with a president who has very low approval ratings that are making some republicans drop the word “republican” from their campaigns, how could a republican Senator allow this. This action alone may cost them election in November. What reaction do they expect from a senior who is denied medical care due to politics? Don’t the republicans know that the democrats will blame them – and use this as a campaign issue? Will this hurt McCain, who I believe still wants to win Florida with its millions of seniors.   

This delaying strategy on federal funding is not new. The republicans and democrats have fought over spending bills for decades. In most years funding for the VA and Department of Defense have been subjected to “continuing resolutions” because congress will not negotiate a budget. Continuing resolution, which simply allows spending at a previous years budget, are a nightmare for administrators of federal programs. I have a tough time comprehending how congress, who typically has six to nine months to approve a budget, is unable to complete the task on time. 

Do we need a different breed of congress person? We need people in congress who focus upon the job the people elect them to perform. When the political fighting is so intense it leads to inaction, I believe that the members are fighting for “special interests” instead of the people. Before I vote in November, I intend to insist that my representatives commit to handling federal funding with responsibility. I want people in congress who actually represent the people. What about you?

Why is it?