Thursday, May 26, 2011
Issue of the Week: It's Not About Money
If Republicans had stuck to their campaign promises, we'd be looking at a very different state budget—not to mention different laws—right now.
But, instead, they are using their power to craft punitive policies that target their political enemies and make the state's fiscal situation even worse.
Their latest attack is on Planned Parenthood and taxpayer-subsidized family planning services. Despite objective, nonpartisan data showing that for every dollar invested in family planning for low-income women the state saves $4 in Medicaid spending, Republicans on the powerful Joint Finance Committee (JFC) voted to end state support for Planned Parenthood and decrease funds for other providers.
In addition, the committee—co-chaired by a former Planned Parenthood board member turned Scott Walker rubber-stamp, state Sen. Alberta Darling—voted to end state support for family planning services for men and to require teens who want birth control to get permission from their parents.
These changes will jeopardize up to $10 million of federal funding, further exacerbating the state's budget problems.
It makes no sense, economically.
And it doesn't make any sense from a public policy standpoint, either.
Why are we making it more difficult for low-income women to prevent unintended pregnancies?
Why are we making it more difficult for low-income men to get cancer screenings and sexually transmitted infection testing?
Why are we putting more obstacles in the way of responsible teens who want to use birth control?
Why? Because Republicans are using the budget to push policies that are too toxic for up-and-down votes on individual bills that require public hearings. They're wrapping up all of their unpopular ideas into the budget—including, potentially, the allegedly nonfiscal collective bargaining bill—and then forcing a vote on the entire package.
That the budget provision would ultimately weaken Planned Parenthood—whose political arm typically endorses pro-choice candidates, which often happen to be Democrats, since pro-choice Republicans are extinct—is the ultimate goal. Just as the collective bargaining bill had nothing to do with the state's finances and the $6 million Voter ID bill that disproportionately affects seniors, students and low-income citizens has nothing to do with election integrity, cutting funds for Planned Parenthood is a political act meant to mute Republican foes during the campaign season. Unfortunately, those who rely on the agency's services will pay the price for Republicans' cruelty.
Heroes of the Week
But, instead, they are using their power to craft punitive policies that target their political enemies and make the state's fiscal situation even worse.
Their latest attack is on Planned Parenthood and taxpayer-subsidized family planning services. Despite objective, nonpartisan data showing that for every dollar invested in family planning for low-income women the state saves $4 in Medicaid spending, Republicans on the powerful Joint Finance Committee (JFC) voted to end state support for Planned Parenthood and decrease funds for other providers.
In addition, the committee—co-chaired by a former Planned Parenthood board member turned Scott Walker rubber-stamp, state Sen. Alberta Darling—voted to end state support for family planning services for men and to require teens who want birth control to get permission from their parents.
These changes will jeopardize up to $10 million of federal funding, further exacerbating the state's budget problems.
It makes no sense, economically.
And it doesn't make any sense from a public policy standpoint, either.
Why are we making it more difficult for low-income women to prevent unintended pregnancies?
Why are we making it more difficult for low-income men to get cancer screenings and sexually transmitted infection testing?
Why are we putting more obstacles in the way of responsible teens who want to use birth control?
Why? Because Republicans are using the budget to push policies that are too toxic for up-and-down votes on individual bills that require public hearings. They're wrapping up all of their unpopular ideas into the budget—including, potentially, the allegedly nonfiscal collective bargaining bill—and then forcing a vote on the entire package.
That the budget provision would ultimately weaken Planned Parenthood—whose political arm typically endorses pro-choice candidates, which often happen to be Democrats, since pro-choice Republicans are extinct—is the ultimate goal. Just as the collective bargaining bill had nothing to do with the state's finances and the $6 million Voter ID bill that disproportionately affects seniors, students and low-income citizens has nothing to do with election integrity, cutting funds for Planned Parenthood is a political act meant to mute Republican foes during the campaign season. Unfortunately, those who rely on the agency's services will pay the price for Republicans' cruelty.
Heroes of the Week
Running Rebels Volunteers
The Running Rebels Community Organization, founded in 1980 by Victor Barnett, works with at-risk youths to provide positive alternatives to gangs and substance abuse. Headquartered at 1300A W. Fond du Lac Ave., Running Rebels offers educational, athletic, artistic and vocational programs.
In addition to improving the lives of participants, the nonprofit also takes a proactive role in the community, organizing many service-oriented events each year. Volunteers are crucial to the group's continuing success. Readers who wish to help as academic mentors or work with youth in the many outdoors programs, among other opportunities, are encouraged to call 414-264-8222 or visit www.runningrebels.org.
Yup, it is not about money, it is the family value people who indignantly huff "There ought to be a law" doing what they can to fight Roe v Wade.
We are busy saying it's about the money, but common sense is not so common. Those of us who live by gut feel and anger do not have time to think through the long term effects of a program because we refuse to even try to understand how another class of people thinks.
For some, it is king of his castle saying "My woman is my 'propity', she has no right to deny me lots of chauvinistic red-neck boys." In the old days, "My 'propity' did not have the right to vote agin' me, and she has no right to leave. She needs to get used to staying in her place." Deny her the options, force her to comply. Sounds familiar regarding race and workers, too. Also sounds like life as a 16 year old "spiritual wife" on an FLDS ranch in Eldorado, TX
For others, it's "Make it so that the ones who stray cannot get a bailout for thinking with their hormones, maybe that will make them keep it in their pants." Well then, why do they also want to not teach sex ed in the schools? Let the girls know that "Storks don't bring babies. It takes a man/boy's seed. His seed comes from that part of him there, and it gets into this part of you here, no exceptions!" Need to know how it works (and the disease risks, social reputation risks) so people can think of the long term consequences, maybe more will say no. The boys also need to know how the family courts work, garnishing their paychecks, building arrearages for all the babies he accidently makes. We simply pay long after the thrill is gone.
Instead, they think kids are in the candy store, that knowledge of carnal acts is temptation. Then momma needs to stop buying those Cosmopolitan magazines, dad needs to stop buying those Playboy magazines. Kids find them, look at the pictures, read the articles. Yes, Johnny and Suzie can read... especially when it's taboo.
Ever see the 2005 movie "The Island"? Two big plot elements... 1) Clones of wealthy people used to grow non-rejectable organs as "insurance policies" in case an organ needs replacement. 2) These clones educated to no more than a 5th grade level, kept just short of learning sex ed. Don't let them know, and they won't be tempted. Talk about an "indoctrination" of children and adolescents. -- Rent it, Download it on NetFlix. Must see.
----------------------------
I heard a "liberal" talk radio debate earlier this week, about cutting off all funding to any organization that lets one red cent be used for abortions. They had a pro guest and a con guest. Several times the host and the callers tried to ask what would happen if Planned Parenthood would simply split off the abortion part into a separate organization. Nobody gave an answer. Planned Parenthood held the line at "It's part of total healthcare, cannot be split off". The opposition basically said they would like to see abortion removed from the list of services and then they would support Planned Parenthood. No mention of abortion being split off into a separate organization, nobody would go there. Sure they thought about it, like Scott Walker telling "Mr. Koch" that they thought of outside agitators, but decided not to. The consequences of revealing that discussion must be more damaging to both sides plans, can't tell it to the voters.
It's no secret that pro-life wants abortion wiped out of public's consciousness, so no one knows that anyone ever invented the procedures. Makes it easy to deny the option if the option never existed.
I would say that suppose Planned Parenthood did split off abortion. Then it would be so ridiculously easy to make it so the abortion wing could not function. Deny permits for the buildings, make the buildings an Oklahoma City bombing target, "no innocent people in there!" Like the refusal to prosecute the lynch mobs in southern states until these people were on their deathbeds, life goes on with a blind eye, these bombings and killings would never be prosecuted.
Many already hate Viagra swallowing white men seeing their black whores, fear of paternity suits, "good money after bad". Will making it so they cannot get abortions or even contraceptions make your men stop? Abortions will go underground, like the bootleg production of alcohol once did. Organized crime never would have it's power had it not been for Prohibition.
Don't you worry that all the restless, jobless boys and girls will spend their idle time making babies because you never left them with any other options in life? Give them some kind of job, give them a valid non-sexual goal. Oh, that's right. When you were in high school, all you cared about was landing that Homecoming or Prom date. You didn't have any non-sexual goals either!
There is no such thing as an unintended pregnacy. Well for the most part their isn't. What we need are laws that require mandetory paternal custody. Men who refuse to take custody of their children and provide for them will be castrated and jailed. We do that and I'm sure the guys will figure out real fast that maybe they need to use a condom or pull out. Why do we need the taxpayer funded agencies to promote recreational sex among people that don't have the maturity level to deal with it?
Update - I just heard of a 14 year old Milwaukee girl who is pregnant, she just graduated from the 8th grade! Another case of bad parenting from a 33 year old mom who never gave any attention to her own kids, never kept a stable man in this girl's life to show her the proper way a male gives attention and affection to a young lady. Instead, ignored girl takes anything some other dude gives her, even if it means an older man showing her a little "extra special" attention. And mom is yammering about it all over facebook. Mom should have stayed off that PC and done some parenting. Maybe I'll keep watching this story, see if abortion is mentioned.
It made me think of something else, how our society, our parents, our governments have a role in shaping desired behavior from the people, from the businesses. It's not all about the money! There was a time when police caught people to teach them a lesson, not to generate revenues through ticket fees. There was a time when tax credits, deductions, and penalties were given to promote a behavior, not to redistribute wealth or generate revenue.
In the past, this underage girl would have plenty of government help. In the past, AFDC women got a bigger check when there was another child born. Sounds much like bail-outs of the banks, bail-outs of major private corporations. Rather than punish irresponsible behavior, we grant a second chance, a little help.
This AFDC thing was pretty much knocked down back in Tommy's day as governor, but federal bailouts were still happening after Obama got elected (and federal subsidies to corporations are still happening). We prosecute individuals for welfare fraud, but when have we imprisoned, or seized the assets of the players that brought on business and banking failures that needed to be bailed out? Oh, right, we can only do that if it can be traced to a single person, like Bernie Madoff, cannot touch it when a whole industry "acts badly" as a collective group.
A "Corporation" was a legal tool fabricated long ago to insulate the business owners accumulated wealth from being seized when the business he runs goes bankrupt or acts badly. When a "business" does wrong, the business gets prosecuted, but can't touch the past salaries and bonuses paid out to the execs and workers when those same execs had run the business into the ground. Maybe that's why they are trying to pay that money out as fast as they can, and as low a tax as possible. Suck out that wealth before the business gets caught.
Regarding punishment... I remember my sister talking about child discipline "let the punishment fit the crime". Some people get the message from a mere slap on the wrist, whereas others need to get their butts kicked up and down the back alley for a few days before they even begin to get the message. The punishment must be sized to get results, not to fit the crime. Carry that to the unwed/teen pregnancy thing. When people find out PUBLICLY how hard it is when you screw up, the others who are thinking about it may get the message.
A slap on the wrist may work if they bad actors get caught for EVERY bad action they take, that's called classical conditioning. The problem is that learned lesson is quickly "extinguished" if you fail to keep up the effort of catching every infraction. But if you only want to catch some of the bad acts, only make public examples out of some of those bad actors, then the punishment must be huge! As dramatic as hitting the jackpot in a lottery. Study your psychology, when you only get a consequence on random occasion, and random size, while it may take longer to learn the behavior, it also takes much longer to go back to old ways when the consequence is not there any more.
Shall I jay-walk or not? If I know I'm going to get a $10(?) ticket everytime I jay-walk, I'll do it if it's worth the $10 to get across the street now. If I only get caught 1 out of 100 times, I'll jay-walk only when I don't see a cop. But if that choice to jay-walk could mean I get a 1 in 10,000 chance of getting 10 years, then I definitely won't jay-walk, maybe an undercover cop is watching. Here, the punishment does not fit the crime or the personality, but it may fit the psychology.
To the consequences of teen pregnancy or unwed pregnancy. Suppose there is no abortion option, there is no welfare bailout, and you basically have a starving kid you cannot feed and will get prosecuted for child neglect when you fail to provide for that child. Do you think that will make people think again before fooling around? Only if our schools can assure that kids are taught what that fooling around can cause. Only if kids and grown people know that nobody has their back.
Oh, wait, we need lots of under-class workers to do the crap jobs us "better" people don't like to do. Think I should bail that person out?