OK, first things first...I've been feeling under the weather and thus I must apologize for the lack of blog updates. Getting better now and will find more time to blog. I promise.
Now for the important stuff....my new webpage is near completion, but we need a new logo. Here are the 5 to choose from. Pick your favorite, and the one that wins is the new logo. Here they are!!!!
March 28, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (8)
Sorry for the lack of updates the past week. Took my daughter to an indoor water park for a much-needed vacation, and am just now getting back into the swing of campaign life.
March 16, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
OK, so I promised highlights from the Democratic Party Meetup that took place in Canton last night. But I can't say I expected to hear what I heard.
It seems that the local Democratic Party doesn't want the Meetup to survive.
You see, there are about a dozen Democratic groups across the county, from the Western Stark Dems to the Women's Club to the Sam Adams Society, all run out of Dem HQ and the chairman Johnnie Maier. But apparently Maier doesn't have control of the grassroots and doesn't want the Meetups to continue. At least he's not trying to shut it down, but there is word that he doesn't want Dems to attend.
As you can see here at Swing State Project, there are some who are not happy with the way Maier runs the local Dems. Last night, I heard more of the same stories. I heard about volunteers going into HQ and either being ignored or controlled with an iron fist. I heard about candidates being ignored by the party or openly bashed (like me) in front of voters.
Now I'm the type of guy who wants peace all around. I want to know who my enemies are and I want them all to be on the opposite side of the aisle. Sad truth is that I'm kidding myself sometimes. I knew there was trouble in 2004, but I thought it was contained and not open public knowledge. I was wrong.
And it's all about control.
I went to the Meetup last night as two different people, a 2006 candidate and an activist looking to further the grassroots. That's what I am...I'm both. But I'm always an activist first, and if the same old party games (which lost us the last three elections, by the way) are going to be played, then my role as an activist will take precedent. Hell, after I'm elected, I want to help change the party to our roots anyway. Might as well start before the elction and THEN create change from within.
In 2004, the party was not ready for the grassroots, and we hit them hard. They tried to quell us by patting us on the head and telling us they needed us to do what THEY wanted. I still don't think they realize our power. The Republicans recognize our power (thus, the attempts to stifle 527s and groups who organize), but the Dems just don't. Lemme give you an example.
In October, John Edwards came to town on a campaign stop. Besides the party Chairman, two people spoke before Edwards....the candidate for State House and the candidate for County Auditor. I would be recognized from the stage (translation - they say my name, I wave from the crowd). So before the event, I went to everyone I knew in the crowd and asked them to chant "we want Jeff". Then, I worked a little magic to get a seat on the risers next to the stage.
When my name was called, the chant began. We want Jeff! We want Jeff! It grew until the entire place was chanting. We want Jeff! After about 7 times, the Chairman cut it off. I think he realized at that point what a grassroots candidate could do. He hasn't been nice to me since, once giving me grief for going to a Kerry rally with Bruce Springsteen where I was to be....recognized from the stage.....but this time in front of 60,000 people. So it was OK for him to do it in front of 1,500, but bad for me to do it in front of 60K?
So now the gauntlet has been thrown at the public, and the Meetups will continue. I'm so glad that Howard Dean is our chairman, because the Dems HAVE to understand who can bring victory back to us....and it's not the same-old same-old.
We will not go away. We will be heard, and if we have to, we will take back our party before we take back the power of the country.
March 09, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (1)
7pm meeting tonight! Looking forward to it. The group seems to have grown quite a bit since the drop-off in November, so perhaps the interest is revving up again.
I for one am proud that somebody has kept the Meetups going. I know how difficult it was to keep the fires burning after the dark day of November 2nd. Details on the meetup later. Feel free to post your own experiences here too.
Also, I have received an e-mail from a good friend, Jim Kimbler. He suggested a theme for my blog and my website. He also provided several ideas (he's a very dedicated Dem). If you have any ideas or suggestions to add, my ears are always open. Just because I'm running for Federal office doesn't mean I think I have all the knowledge. I'm not that arrogant.
Jeff Seemann
March 08, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Monday morning, about 930am right now. My daughter is getting dressed for school, so here's the last few free minutes of my day until the sun goes down. Thought I'd share a bit about my weekend.
Went to the AFL/CIO Organizing Institute training this weekend in Columbus. Three days of intense training on how to organize workers to form a union and create the leverage to increase workers' rights. Check out the website linked above and if it sounds like something you'd be interested in, they are hiring. The need for union organizers is always there, so go for it.
I got to the training session about an hour before it began (about 10am). Day One went from 11am to 9pm, followed by a great social gathering. Rarely a break in the training, but we didn't need them anyway. The lessons we learned and the tasks given were all hard, but a lot of fun. Best part of the day - we went to the Columbus library to picket in support the Justice For Janitors campaign.
Day Two started with breakfast at 8am and ran through to 9pm that night. This day was MUCH harder, because all the lessons learned were being linked together and the expectations were much higher. Pressure felt a little high by the end of the day, but once Day Two ended, the 'social gathering' plan was abandoned in lieu of a really great party.
Day Three was much much easier. A panel of union organizers, a quick review of what we had learned, followed by graduation and our individual evaluations. I was out of there by 1pm, and drove the 2.5 hours back to Canton. Needless to say, I slept well last night.
Anyway, the reason I posted my weekend on the blog is for one reason - in 2004, I was a rookie candidate. I had WAY too much to learn and way too much to keep up with. Now that I have the experience and the lessons of '04 under my belt, I can go more in-depth. Learning how unions organize and the struggle that takes place to do so was something I had knowledge of, but no experience with. These are the types of experiences I can now carry into my '06 campaign, and I want my voters to know that I am working hard to capture experiences of everybody's day-to-day lives. This way I can better represent them when I am sworn in in 2007.
OK, Blue's Clues is over. Charlotte is dressed. Time to take her to school and get to work. Thanks again!
Jeff Seemann
March 07, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Just wanted to stop in and blog for a few minutes and say "thanks" for making yesterday so very busy. My new blog took in over 1,000 visitors, we had several people offer to volunteer (one person sent a resume' for full-time employment), and many of you contributed financially. Thank you VERY much!
The fundraising aspect of campaigning is the toughest part, so I am extra appreciative to people who find it in their hearts to contribute. With volunteers, I can look them in the eye and thank them for their time....but with so many people sending donations online and through the mail, it's difficult to give a proper thank you. So please accept my gratitude!
In last year's race, we picked up 101,817 votes. So we have set a goal for this campaign, based on that number. We want every person who cast their vote to donate 10 dollars to my campaign. If we reach that goal over the next 20 months, we will have 1,018,170.00 to campaign with (10 times what we had in '04). We know that we can make a HUGE difference in getting our message out with a big fundraising drive.
So from here on out, we will be focusing on our "Adopt A Voter" plan. Many of our donors live outside the 16th District of Ohio, and with each donation of 10 dollars, they will be adopting a voter in this district.
We'll use our fundraising results to saturate the airwaves with a message of hope and peace, a message of jobs and prosperity, a message of security and serenity, and a message that ends the fear and destruction of the current administration.
We'll unveil more on the "Adopt A Voter" plan in the future....but for now, let's just say that we've already made headway with our goal. Thank you!
Jeff Seemann
http://www.jeff06.com
March 02, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Jeff Seemann, 2004 Democratic candidate for US House in Ohio's 16th District, today announced his candidacy for 2006 for the same seat. During a Noon ceremony, Seemann laid out his plans to win next November's election.
"We have 617 days before Election Day in 2006, and we must take advantage of every single day between now and then," Seemann said. "Today is Day One, and the campaign begins right now."
In the 2004 election, Seemann received 101,817 votes, more than any Democratic candidate in the history of Ohio's 16th District. However, a late start to the campaign and a previous lack of name recognition led to defeat at the hands of Representaive Ralph Regula.
"Last year, we entered the race as an unknown and we came away with over 100,000 votes. Those same 100,000 people now know what I stand for and that I will fight for their future. The name recognition problem no longer exists. Now is the time to begin an aggressive campaign to show the people of the 16th District that they CAN do better."
Over the next few weeks, Seemann will launch a new website and a new blog. Fundraising efforts have already begun. Visitors to www.jeff06.com will be treated to regular updates throughout March, leading up to a full-blown website experience in April.
"In 2004, my campaign became the Congressional example on how to reach out to the internet community, and we plan to continue that effort into this new campaign. We will add new twists to internet campaigning like no other campaign has tried before."
In the '04 campaign, Seemann took advantage of his internet experience by inviting the community to manage his campaign for one day in early October. The publicity from the event reached over 100 national newspapers and was reported on overseas.
To contribute to Jeff Seemann's 2006 campaign, please visit http://www.jeff06.com/
March 01, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (3)
So, with this being the first post in my new blog, I figure I'd better
remind everyone that there will be an announcement at Noon regarding my
political future.
OK, so I'm going to run in '06. There, I said it.
March 01, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
You need look no further than my home district in Ohio to see the United States trade policy taking its toll on the average American worker. Well known corporations that were founded in the Ohio 16th, Rubbermaid and Timken, are closing plants and eliminating jobs. Some of these jobs are moving overseas, some go to non-union plants, and others just vanish into thin air. The casualties do not end with large numbers of the population unable to draw a paycheck. As a result of this job loss and plant closings, cities and states lose massive funding for education and other basic services. The tax base erodes, and everyone loses.
Currently, the only thing free about the trade agreements we have with Mexico and China is the free ride U.S. corporations get by sending jobs where labor is significantly cheaper. While globalization is here to stay, there are many options we as a nation can turn to in order to make our workers competitive. We must restrict trade with countries who do not enforce labor and environmental standards overseas. There is no way that corporations can afford to keep jobs in America when they can pay employees 60 cents a day in other parts of the world. Corporations have been globalized and now we must move to globalize workers rights. We must work to strengthen labor unions in foreign countries, and we must impose trade tariffs to enforce labor and environmental standards outside of the United States. We should look to the World Trade Organization to help implement these policies across the globe.
In urban centers where unemployment is rampant, we have to invest in small businesses that employ citizens of the area and keep money in the community. In rural areas of the country, the family farmer cannot compete with huge corporate farms. Independent farmers were the cornerstone of this country for decades, and now they need the help of the government to compete on a level playing field.
Over 2.7 million jobs have been lost across the country since President George W. Bush took office. Despite the fact that so many workers who want jobs are not drawing paychecks, the worst is still yet to come. In the Ohio 16th, trickle down economics means: corporations send jobs overseas, American workers lose them, plants close, tax revenue is lost, schools and basic services deteriorate. Most astonishingly, in the case of Timken Bearings, all of this happened one month removed from record first quarter profits.
Around the same time President Bush decided to attack Iraq, the United States effectively put the war on terror on the back burner. Make no mistake about it, Iraq is not a battle in the war on terror, it is a diversion.
While we spend around four billion dollars a month to wage an unnecessary war against a country that posed no immediate threat to us, we are spending ¼ of that amount to fund the war against Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. This leaves our military operations in Afghanistan searching for Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, and Taliban leaders short of the necessary funding to complete their missions. If this administration truly supported our troops, they would not have diverted funds from the frontlines of the war on terror to fight in Iraq.
There are many steps that need to be taken if we are to be effective in the war on terror. First, we must include the United Nations in the peace keeping and reconstruction process in Iraq. This means we must open the contracts process up to other nations that participate in the peace keeping process. With the billions of dollars we will save by sharing responsibility in Iraq, we can fully fund the war on terrorism in Afghanistan.
This administration has separated the world into two categories: us and them. Instead of dividing the world based on those who choose to agree with our unilateral action of the month (Kyoto, ABM Treaty, Iraq), we must use our leadership to unite the world under the banner of freedom and democracy, and peace.
One of the biggest
enemies the United States has in the war on terror is poverty. The
youth are taught by leaders, parents and in madrassas that their enemy,
the entity responsible for holding them down and keeping them poor, is
the United States and Israel. To win the war on terrorism, we must
export our greatest and most cherished resource, which is democracy.
The best way to export democracy is to use our resources to help build
schools, feed families, and lift up impoverished cities in the Middle
East, Africa, and parts of Asia.
While protection of our borders extends to an overseas effort, there are a number of important issues we must take care of domestically to limit our vulnerabilities within our borders from attack by terrorists.
First, we must fully fund our first responders. In my home district, police departments do not have enough officers. Officers in the administrative branches of departments are forced to patrol beats because there is not enough funding provided to maintain a necessary staff. The same can be said for fire departments as well. We must make sure those who are first to respondent in the event of catastrophe are fully staffed and adequately prepared with the best equipment and technology we can provide them.
I am opposed to extending the PATRIOT Act as it is written when it comes up for vote during the next Congress. I am reminded of the words of Thomas Jefferson; “Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.” The Act was passed in a hurry, with virtually no debate after September 11th. I am cautious to renew any act that allows the F.B.I. to access the most personal records of American citizens, without anyone’s knowledge.
A drastic change in our foreign policy would also go a long way in securing our nation’s borders. Unnecessary aggression against nations in the Arab world, such as Iraq, does nothing but fan the flames of intolerance towards Americans that many in the Middle East already possess. Going to war in Iraq and making threatening overtures to other nations in the region do nothing to increase our standing in the region.
We must also cease alienating our partners in the war on terror. If we are to effectively share information and assist in breaking up cells in nations like Germany and France, we cannot alienate by acting on each unilateral whim the President has.
It is becoming clear that the biggest threat to our borders no longer comes from symmetrical warfare. The days when our greatest fear was the threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union are behind us. That being said, I am against spending up to 1.2 trillion dollars on a national missile defense program. I also believe that the best way to reduce the threat of nuclear destruction on our soil is to assist Russia in the safeguarding of their nuclear materials.
Our homeland
is not secured by building the biggest and most destructive weapons to
use after we are attacked. Our homeland is secured by working with
countries across the globe to ensure we are not attacked in the first
place.
If the President and the Republican Party really wanted to support the troops, they would keep the promise to 6.8 million American veterans who choose the VA as their health care provider. There are brave men and women who have served, fought, and sacrificed for our country, defending democracy. The 2005 budget completely under-funds veterans’ health care for the next five years and was called a “disgrace” by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
How are we to expect young Americans to volunteer for our military, when we are unable and unwilling to keep the promises we made to their predecessors? One of the greatest military generals and Presidents in American history, George Washington, said, “The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.”
The first step we can take is passing mandatory funding for veterans health care. Mandatory funding would ensure the delivery of timely and cost effective health care to all eligible veterans. Too often health care for veterans is made a political issue, hand-wringing over which party provides the most discretionary income for veterans. The time is long overdue to take this issue off the table, and pass mandatory funding as introduced by House Democrats, which is buried in committee by House Republicans.
While the President of the United States is proposing plans to make sure people who make millions of dollars a year are not taxed on their stock dividends, he does nothing to remove the Disabled Veterans Tax. This policy taxes benefits paid to widows of military retirees and must be removed.
The Republican budget also does little to remedy the serious problem of veterans waiting six months or longer for an appointment to VA hospitals. Even worse, with the closing of veterans’ hospitals and another soon to be closed in Ohio, some veterans are forced to travel hundreds of miles just to see a doctor. This is a trend must be reversed.
Veterans’ issues run deeper than just health care. The 2005 budget cuts the number of VA home loans by 50,000. It is also important to remember that the VA employs 180,000 full-time health care professionals and staff across the United States. With funding cuts to veterans’ programs, not only will there be many veterans who can’t afford care, but many people who work in veterans’ programs will be out of jobs as well.
“No Child Left Behind,” is an unfunded mandate that has placed a severe strain on local school boards and citizens in communities that haven’t received the full funding from the Federal government promised in the legislation. In the face of growing deficits, Congress decided to under-fund the program by over four billion dollars. It is imperative that either we fully fund “No Child Left Behind,” federally, or scrap the program entirely. The states are left to pick up the tab on the lack of funding. All this does is create a burden on taxpayers by increasing property and other local taxes. It doesn’t help that in communities such as mine, labor plants are closing—plants which are the largest provider of tax dollars that go to local schools.
I am for state required testing of students. However, my home state of Ohio has already reduced standards because of lack of funding from the Federal government. I believe the key is to set high standards for our children and school boards, looking to the government for assistance in meeting these standards. There is no reason to have state requirements if the standards are just going to be lowered because the states cannot afford to provide quality public school education.
I am strongly opposed to federally funded school vouchers to allow low-income children to attend private or parochial schools. The program has several glaring flaws: First, the program diverts critical funds from the public school system. Secondly, I see no way to implement the plan fairly, deciding who receives the federal funds to attend private schools. Finally, if we institute this program, what are we saying about the quality of education at our public schools? What about the children that ARE left behind at the public schools—are we dealing them an inadequate education at the expense of funding school vouchers?
I also believe that government should not dictate which schools receive federal aid on the basis of whether or not they allow voluntary school prayer. This is a decision best left to the local communities to decide. We should not hold the decision making process about school prayer hostage by threatening to withhold federal funds at the students’ peril.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”
-Native American Proverb
As evidence mounts, it is impossible to dispute the fact that global warming exists and has adverse effect on our environment. It also is important to remember that, as a global community, protecting our environment goes beyond global warming and includes: clean water, overpopulation, human rights, responsible trade, and many other factors. Arguments must turn to action, suggestions to solutions, and discourse to decisions. Time does not wait, and the future of our planet depends on the determination of the next Congress to address these concerns. By pulling out of environmental protection treaties, such as Kyoto, the world has questioned America’s leadership on the protection of the planet. As a member of Congress, I will fight to support and strengthen an American legacy of environmentalism that is proactive in addressing concerns, not unilateral and dismissive.
The most important steps we can take as a nation to reduce and reverse global warming is to improve the efficiency with which we use energy. This starts with supporting and strengthening Corporate Average Fuel Economy ( CAFE) standards. The technology exists to increase the miles per gallon we use in cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles. For example, we have the capacity using existing innovation to turn the Ford Explorer from a 19 miles per gallon gas guzzler to a popular SUV that gets 34 miles per gallon.
Congress must confront growing concerns with emissions from electrical power plants. I will work to help the plants make appropriate conversions allowing them to burn clean natural gases. Every year, electric power plants continue to emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide along with additional pollutants into our air supply.
A consumer advocate once said that the reason we do not use solar power more effectively is because the oil companies do not own the sun. In the past decade, tremendous advances have been made that allow for the conversion of even greater amounts of solar energy into electricity. Along with the sun, wind power is one of the cheapest and promising energy sources available. Wind plants are renewable, produce no air pollution, and there is no reason to unearth land when tapping into the natural resource. In Colorado alone, the potential exists to create 481 billion kWh from wind.
Currently, less than one percent of the energy we use in the United States is renewable and we must work to harness the limitless power of the Sun and wind if we are to maintain acceptable climate conditions across the globe.
In the 1972 faced by a terrible turn in the upkeep of our nation’s lakes and rivers, Congress passed the Clean Water Act. Thirty-two years later and Congress is faced with the task of acting to protecting the vital arteries of our nation. I will work to protect against toxic mercury in our water. A recent study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency showed that one in six women have blood mercury levels that could put a developing fetus at risk. In order to protect our water from mercury deposits that fall from the sky when released by coal-fired power plants, we must reduce the amount of excess mercury emissions allowed. It is completely unacceptable that the current administration issued a proposal that would have allowed those plants to emit three times as much mercury into our air. I will oppose such legislation; new laws must be passed to strengthen laws to protect our precious water supply.
When corporations move large production plants overseas, they often do so to shirk their responsibility to our environment. While we still have a long way to go within our own borders, and many countries around the world have even further. We must level the environmental playing field with other countries if we are going to sign free trade agreements with them. If a country does not take its responsibility to protecting the planet, then there should not be a free trade agreement with that country. Any trade agreement the United States enters into should ensure that those agreements include provisions to encourage protection of natural resources. As a country, our free trade agreements should not allow corporations to lower the bar regarding environmental standards to court additional investment or advantages in trade. I will work for corporate transparency, making available information about human rights, labor, and environmental practices of the corporations. Only seven percent of Americans want to reduce environmental regulations, yet the current administration is working toward just that.
If a corporation on Wall Street managed its budget and spending the way elected officials in Washington do, it would not only be out of business, but a Security and Exchange Commission investigation would be in order.
The President’s $2.4 trillion budget is excessive, misguided, and wasteful.
The first glaring problem with this administration’s budget priorities
is the $1.6 trillion tax cut the President and Republicans are in favor
of. While there is no doubt that for a small number of wealthy
Americans the result is a heavier wallet or purse, for the vast
majority of us that make up the middle and lower class, this tax cut
actually results in higher taxes elsewhere. Property taxes, school
tuition, and many other services maintained by the states have all gone
up. Indeed, for most of us, taxes, tuition, and fees have gone up more
than the cost of our paltry tax rebate.
We must repeal the Republican tax cuts and instead direct those funds towards proper health care for all Americans and towards repairing our educational system. This country will thrive if our children are well-educated and healthy.
The government is often downright wasteful in its spending. Examples of this include: $26,000 appropriated to study how thoroughly Americans rinse their dishes, $273,000 to combat “goth culture” in Missouri, and $50,000,000 for an indoor rainforest in Iowa; an idea contrived by a wealthy businessman contemplating his legacy while riding his treadmill. These kinds of budgetary indiscretions are also part of the reason we cannot afford health care for all Americans and have public schools that are falling apart.
We
have a federal debt that is out of control, to the tune of $7 trillion
or more. The government needs to start moving towards a balanced budget
and paying down the debt. If we are not able to reduce the amount of
deficit we operate on and invest in the reduction of the outrageous
national debt, our children are going to inherit a burden they can not
manage. The policy of increased tax cuts accompanied by record spending
is reckless, irresponsible, and must stop right now.
Millions of Americans work hard and pay into social security with the expectation that when the time comes for them to retire, they will have an additional source of income to compliment any money they might have saved. We need to save social security, ensure its solvency, and keep our promise to the American workers who are the backbone of our nation.
I strongly oppose any effort to privatize Social Security. Exposing the Social Security fund to external market factors is an unacceptable option. In the past four years we have seen the Dow Jones go from just short of 12,000, down close to 7,000, and back up over 10,000 now. We should not expose a program designed as a safety net to this kind of volatility.
I will oppose any effort to raise the retirement age above 67 to save social security. Citizens who have put in the necessary amount of work to receive full benefits deserve them, and should receive them. Raising the age would have a terrible effect on families that have worked and financially planned for retirement at age sixty-seven.
I support fiscal discipline as a strategy in maintaining social security. Whether it is the trillion dollar tax cuts or trillion dollar missile defense system; the government must stop paying out for unnecessary programs we cannot afford, while neglecting programs essential to the economic stability of millions of families. The closing of corporate tax loopholes that allow billion dollar corporations to move offshore and be immune from taxes can also help to fund Social Security.
We had an outstanding opportunity to shore up Social Security with the budget surpluses at the end of the century under Bill Clinton. At that time, we should have moved to require that any surplus could not be spent until the long term stability of Social Security was guaranteed.
While I am in office, I will support legislation that works to ensure the solvency of Social Security for generations to come.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 provided broadcasters the 70 billion dollar digital spectrum for free, in exchange for serving the public interest and promoting diversity in programming. Because of media consolidation, the American public has not received an adequate return on this investment. Instead, we find ourselves compensated with less diversity of voices and programming that does not serve our interests.
The most troubling aspect of media consolidation is the reduction of voices available to provide the public a true marketplace of ideas. It violates every tenet of a free democratic society to allow a handful of powerful companies control our media. One used to be able to turn on the radio or television and find quality local programming. Because of consolidation, there are some cities in the United States that are lucky if they get even one channel that broadcasts local news to them everyday. In smaller markets, like the town of Great Falls, Montana, the further consolidation of broadcast media, as proposed by the F.C.C., could result in one entity owning the cable company, the dominant television station, the dominant newspaper, and multiple radio stations.
The second major problem is the ability of the few voices that do own different mediums of communication minimizing or even completely neglecting points of view they do not agree with, or do not serve their interests. One needs not look any further than the very issue of media consolidation to see our worst fears played out. A Pew Research Study in February of 2003, showed that 72% of Americans “heard nothing at all” about the proposed consolidation rules. The ones who stood to gain the most from the relaxation, the large media conglomerates, had no intention of letting the public know what was going on. This is not surprising when you consider that the same study showed that the more people heard about the proposal, the more likely they were to oppose it.
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 greatly relaxed the rules governing media consolidation in radio. Anyone left who wonders if consolidation causes harm only needs to look at the results that followed this act. Out of 750,000 letters the F.C.C. received during its debate about even more media consolidation in 2003, the most common among them were “complaints about the homogenization and loss of news coverage on the radio dial since 1996.” People begged the F.C.C. not to let happen to television what happened to radio.
Luckily, the United States Congress decided not to approve the further consolidation of broadcast media in 2003. However, there is a provision included in the current broadcast indecency bill (S.2056) pledging that our Representatives will once again review the possibility of further consolidation in one year. Because of the millions upon millions of dollars media conglomerates contribute every year, this issue will come up again. When I am elected to serve you in Washington, D.C., I pledge to vote down any legislation that will allow the buying and selling of the public airwaves at the expense of the public.
My political background includes years of battling to preserve and extend civil rights for all Americans. For three years, the administration and the Republicans in Congress have chipped away at numerous rights of the people of the United States. We are separated and divided daily, based on gender, religion, race, and sexual orientation. We must divert this dangerous path and remember that "all men are created equal".
I have fought for the rights of every American and worked hard to ensure that nobody ever gets left behind. If elected to Congress, I will continue those efforts and I will work even harder.
The words that come from the right wing have made us all fearful of each other. We no longer feel safe in our own hometown and it's all because we have been told to be afraid of anybody who "looks different". The gap must be bridged and we must begin dialogue with each other to combat the hate that we have been taught.
No marriage has ever been threatened because a same-sex couple wishes to be united in holy matrimony. Those who claim that civil unions among same-sex couples is a threat to the institution of marriage are simply wrong. What another couple does in their private life has no effect on anybody but themselves. It is up to you to preserve your own marriage. My lovely wife and I have spent many wonderful evenings having dinner with friends who happen to be a same-sex couple and have been together for 15 years. Our marriage is actually stronger as a result of spending time around two such caring people.
Finally, the Constitution of the United States of America is not a toy. Amendments should NOT be made to take rights away from Americans. The purpose of this document is to protect Americans and is not to be used sparingly as the Government sees fit to use it.
One of the best indicators of a compassionate society is its willingness to provide for the elderly. Medicare should be available for the millions of seniors and individuals with disabilities who rely on the program.
I support expanding the Medicare program to cover prescription drugs as well. The FDA should explore and approve the safe importation of these drugs from Canada, the European Union, Australia, and other countries in order to bring down costs of the program. The program should also be administered by the Federal government, using the buying power of 41 million seniors to drive the prices of prescription drugs.
Medicare should be available to buy in by individuals at the age of 55 and older. The average of 20% out of pocket costs seniors currently pay, should be reduced. It is a tragic byproduct of the current system that some seniors are forced to choose between food and medicine.
I oppose the new Medicare law that increases the payments to HMOs, moving our country even closer to the privatization of Medicare. If these programs cannot compete with Medicare on their own, then they should not be propped up by the government at the expense of Medicare funding. Money from this funding should be diverted from the private sector, making medical care and prescription drugs more affordable for seniors under Medicare.
One of the best ways to ensure the solvency of Medicare is to improve the economy and make sure that people are employed, which allows them to continue paying into the system.
The Republican plans for Social Security and Medicare have more to do with weakening and eliminating these important social programs than increasing their strength or solvency. We had a great chance with the surpluses during and after the Clinton administration to ensure the longevity of these programs, an opportunity that was squandered by the reckless spending and policies of the Bush administration.
The fact that the context of a discussion over women’s rights exists in a climate where women’s equal rights are not protected by the Constitution is unacceptable. The best start in ensuring the rights of women would be to pass the Equal Rights Amendment, proposed over 70 years ago. It is also unimaginable that a piece of legislation introduced in this session of Congress, H.J. 37, attempting once again to obtain equal rights under the Constitution was not even co-sponsored by my opponent. If I were representing the 16th District of Ohio, my name would be among the 203 standing behind the bill.
Legislation should not be based on a politician’s individual moral perceptions. Morality is relative, and Americans deserve more from public policy then legislation rooted in anything other than law. The law is based on Roe v. Wade and should be upheld, not watered down by those who allege compassion for an unborn child, and neglect it after its birth.
In this country, there is a means of shortcutting the democratic process called Appropriations. Politicians with an agenda, like my opponent, use the appropriations process to create policy instead of going through the democratic process. As a potential Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, my opponent would be in a unique position to subvert open discourse on many issues concerning woman’s rights. One example of this is H.R. 1646, when my opponent voted to adopt an amendment that would place restrictions on funding to family planning groups that provide abortion services, counseling, or advocacy.
I believe that health care should provide comprehensive coverage to include reproductive care and consultation with health professionals who preserve rights of an individual’s privacy.
The issue of women’s rights is much more than just a woman’s right to chose. Members of Congress have the duty to support educational programs that increase understanding of human sexuality and its role in society. It is this education that provides the foundation for reasoned decisions later in life. It is also the job of the legislative branch to ensure laws are crafted to ensure equal professional and economic opportunity among the sexes. Finally, quality child care for single mothers should be made more affordable for all women struggling to raise a family and pay the bills on their own.
When we pay our income taxes, portions of those dollars go to the various government agencies that serve as stewards of our public lands. My opponent is pushing through legislation that would privatize that land, while at the same time collecting our tax dollars for their maintenance. As a result, when a family decides to visit lands managed by the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management ( BLM), or The US Fish and Wildlife Service they are forced to pay a fee on top of taxes they already pay.
While my opponent fights to make sure the wealthiest among us are not taxed on capital gains, he has also ensured average Americans who use our public lands are taxed twice. This fee for usage, innocuously called the, “ America the Beautiful Pass,” is a double-tax, and discriminates against the low-wage and elderly that have previously enjoyed an inexpensive way to vacation and enjoy the beauty our country has to offer.
The program makes inadvertent criminals of citizens who either drive through or wander into these large tracts of land without a pass. The penalty is a Class B misdemeanor punishable by six months in jail and/or a $5000 fine.
While my opponent claims the bill is necessary to clear up maintenance backlogs on the land, the General Accounting Office says that it is unclear whether the program has helped agencies meet their needs. Additionally, the maintenance backlogs have yet to be thoroughly identified.
I believe I can help broker a compromise that would allow Americans to continue their stewardship of public lands without having to pay twice. The Senate has already passed S.1107 which would allow for the expiration of the Recreational Fee Demo Program. Under the provisions of the bill, only National Park Services would be allowed to continue to charge entrance fees and use them for maintenance and upkeep.
Once elected, I will vote against legislation that privatizes public lands managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. I support the bill passed by the Senate as a reasonable compromise to this debate. As the song goes, “this land is your land, this land is my land…” It is important to our national heritage that ownership of public lands remains in the hands of the people, not private interests.
March 01, 2005 | Permalink | Comments (0)
Recent Comments