Politics - As It Was Intended

The Voice of a Generation ...

2010-12-12T09:56:00.000-08:00

We Choose To Go To The Moon

2010-04-05T20:17:00.000-07:00

The OBAMA Healthcare Plan

2010-03-20T13:51:00.000-07:00

“At this moment, we are being called upon to fulfill our duty to the citizens of this nation
and to future generations... I don’t know how passing health care will play politically, but
I do know that it’s the right thing to do. It’s right for our families. It’s right for our
businesses. It’s right for the United States of America.”
PRESIDENT OBAMA

Americans across this country agree that our health care system is broken:

Unaccountable insurance companies ration care, soaring premiums cripple the budgets of our businesses and families, and vital care remains out of reach for far too many.

The time for change has come.
President Obama’s final proposal incorporates the best ideas from both parties to put
Americans in control of our own health care.

HERE’ S WHAT THE PRESIDENT’S PLAN FOR HEALTH REFORM WILL DO:

PROTECT AMERICANS FROM INSURANCE COMPANY ABUSES
• You will never be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions
• You will never be hit with arbitrary premium hikes
• You will never see your coverage revoked just when you get sick or injured
• You will never face unlimited out-of-pocket expenses for your care
GUARANTEE AFFORDABLE CHOICES
• If you like your current doctor and you like your current plan, you keep them
• Uninsured individuals and small business owners will become part of a powerful negotiating
pool, just like members of Congress and other federal employees, lowering prices and
increasing choice
• Struggling middle-class families will receive a tax credit to make coverage even more
affordable – the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history
REDUCE THE COST OF CARE FOR OUR FAMILIES, BUSINESSES
AND THE GOVERNMENT
• We’ll save billions of dollars every year by reducing waste and abuse in our current system
• We’ll save and create millions of jobs, raise wages and strengthen the economy
• We’ll cut the deficit by nearly $1 trillion over two decades

WHAT WILL HEALTH REFORM MEAN FOR YOU?

“I HAVE INSURANCE THROUGH MY WORK.”
Keep your doctor and plan if you like it, but your plan will be strengthened and you'll be protected from insurance company abuses.
• According to the independent
and non-partisan
Congressional Budget Office,
people who get coverage
through their employer today
will likely see lower premiums.
• If you like the health plan you
have, you will be able to keep
it.
• The President’s proposal will
strengthen the coverage you
get at work by reining in the
worst insurance company
abuses.
• Nothing about the President’s
proposal will interfere with
the choice of doctors you
have today, or cause you to
change the coverage you
have at work today.

“I OWN A SMALL BUSINESS.”
You won't be required to
provide health insurance to
your employees, but if you
choose to, new tax credits
will make covering your
employees more affordable.
You will also have access to a
new insurance exchange to
find the best deal, and the
entire process will be simpler.
• The President’s proposal
provides tens of billions of
dollars in new tax credits to
small businesses to make it
easier for them to provide
coverage if they choose to do
so.
• You will be protected from
sudden, arbitrary rate hikes
because a worker gets sick;
under the President’s
proposal, insurance
companies will no longer be
permitted to base the cost of
coverage on health status.
• The President’s proposal
gives small business owners
the leverage that big
businesses enjoy by allowing
them to buy coverage
through the exchange.

“I HAVE MEDICARE.”
Health reform protects
Medicare. The President’s
proposal makes Medicare
more financially secure and
seniors who hit the
prescription drug "donut
hole" will be protected from
high costs for their medicines.
• Your guaranteed Medicare
benefits will not be cut, and the
Medicare Trust Fund will be
extended for more than 9 years.
• In addition, you will have
benefits you don’t have
today: Preventive services like
cancer screenings at no cost,
and a substantial reduction in
prescription drug prices if
you fall into that gap in
coverage known as the
“donut hole.” Over time the
proposal closes this coverage
gap completely.
• Health insurance reform will
not affect the choice of
doctors you have today and it
won’t affect your relationship
with your doctor. The
President’s plan aims to
increase the number of
primary care providers, giving
you greater access to doctors
than you have today.

“I DO NOT HAVE
INSURANCE.”
You will have access to new
insurance choices in the
same insurance marketplace
where all members of
Congress will buy their
insurance, receive tax credits
to help you afford coverage
if needed, and enjoy
protections from insurance
company abuses.
• For the first time in history,
there will be limits on how
much anyone will have to pay
to receive health care
coverage.
• If you need it, you will receive
a tax credit to help pay for
your coverage – part of the
largest middle class tax cut
for health care in history.
• Insurance companies will no
longer be allowed to simply
tell you “no.” They will be
required to offer coverage
regardless of your health
status or because of
pre-existing conditions, and
they cannot jack up rates or
drop you from your coverage
when you get sick.

“I BUY MY OWN
INSURANCE.”
There will be new protections
from insurance company
abuses, and tax credits will
make coverage more
affordable. You will have
access to new insurance
choices in the same insurance
marketplace where all
members of Congress will buy
their insurance.
• You will likely pay
less—perhaps much
less—than you do currently.
• In addition, many Americans
buying coverage in the
individual market will qualify
for tax credits that reduce
their premiums by an average
of nearly 60 percent – and
they will get better coverage
than what they have today.
• Health insurance reform will
limit what you have to pay
out of pocket, a protection
that does not exist today.
And for the first time, no one
will be required to pay more
than a set percentage of their
income on health care
coverage.

“So how much higher do premiums have to rise until we do something about it? How
many more Americans have to lose their health insurance? How many more businesses
have to drop coverage? How many more years can the federal budget handle the crushing
costs of Medicare and Medicaid? When is the right time for health insurance reform?”
PRESIDENT OBAMA

THE COST OF INACTION
IF WE DO NOT PASS HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM:
Up to 17 million more people will be uninsured by 2019 than today.

The average family's health care costs will nearly double by 2020, from $13,000 to $24,000
— meaning they'll be paying a quarter of their income toward health care costs.

Insurers can continue the massive and arbitrary premium rate increases we've heard about
recently — such as Anthem Blue Cross raising rates for customers in California by nearly
40%, and rates in Illinois going up by as much as 60%.
As many as 275,000 people could die prematurely over the next 10 years because they
don't have health insurance.

Health care costs will take up a staggering amount of our national budget. In 1960, it was 5
percent of gross domestic product (GDP), last year it was 17 percent. Costs will reach 21
percent of our economy by 2020 if we fail to act.

Rapidly rising costs will make it harder for employers — particularly small businesses — to
provide quality health insurance to employees, leading many to drop coverage or shift to
plans that cover less.

Even those who have insurance today will be less secure, and more likely to lose coverage if
they switch jobs or lose their job due to rising costs on the individual market or being
denied coverage due to a pre-existing condition.

1. http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411965_failure_to_enact.pdf

2. Commonwealth Fund, via NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html

3. Families USA, via NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/weekinreview/28abelson.html

4. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Blog/The-Costs-of-Failure.aspx

5. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/Content/Blog/The-Costs-of-Failure.aspx

6. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/07/opinion/07sun1.html?pagewanted=all

It's time to show the insurance lobbyists that no smear campaign can match
the power of millions of regular citizens who are ready for change and
committed to the truth.

Congress must understand that if they pass reform, their constituents will
know the truth about what we've finally achieved.

UNDER THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN FOR REFORM:

• If you have health insurance through your employer and you like your plan, you can keep it
• If you're a small business owner, you'll receive new tax credits that make it easier for you to
provide coverage for employees if you choose to do so
• If you have Medicare, the President's plan guarantees that your benefits will not be cut, and
the Medicare Trust Fund will be extended for more than 9 years
• If you're uninsured, you could receive a tax credit to help pay for coverage if needed — part
of the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history
• Even if you currently have health insurance, there will be new protections from insurance
company abuses, and tax credits will make coverage more affordable

THE PRESIDENT'S PLAN GUARANTEES THAT:
• You will never be denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions
• You will never again be hit with arbitrary health insurance premium hikes

IF WE DO NOT PASS REFORM:
• Up to 17 million more people will be uninsured by 2019
• Insurers can continue their massive and arbitrary premium rate increases — such as Anthem
Blue Cross raising rates for customers in California by nearly 40%, and rates in Illinois going
up by as much as 60%
• As many as 275,000 people could die prematurely over the next 10 years because they don't
have health insurance
• The average family's health care costs will nearly double by 2020, from $13,000 to $24,000

Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care

2010-03-09T11:50:00.000-08:00

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/08/palin-crossed-border-for_n_490080.html

Palin Crossed Border For Canadian Health Care

First Posted: 03- 8-10 11:59 AM | Updated: 03- 8-10 12:26 PM

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin -- who has gone to great lengths to hype the supposed dangers of a big government takeover of American health care -- admitted over the weekend that she used to get her treatment in Canada's single-payer system.
"We used to hustle over the border for health care we received in Canada,"

Palin said in her first Canadian appearance since stepping down as governor of Alaska. "And I think now, isn't that ironic?"

The irony, one guesses, is that Palin now views Canada's health care system as revolting: with its government-run administration and 'death-panel'-like rationing. Clearly, however, she and her family once found it more alluring than, at the very least, the coverage available in rural Alaska. Up to the age of six, Palin lived in a remote town near the closest Canadian city, Whitehorse.

Officials at several hospitals in that area declined to give out information on patient visits.

Get HuffPost Politics On Twitter, Facebook, and Google Buzz! Know something we don't?
E-mail us at huffpolitics@huffingtonpost.com

An American cry for help

2010-02-24T20:52:00.000-08:00

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

An American cry for help
Olbermann:
All Americans should be able to make medical decisions free of worry about cost

SPECIAL COMMENT
By Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown' msnbc.com
February 22, 2010

Finally tonight, a Special Comment about health care reform and tomorrow's summit at Blair House. If I prove to have trouble getting through this, I apologize in advance. Last Friday Night my father asked me to kill him. We were just shy of six months since he was hospitalized and it was the end of a long day at the end of a longer week.

Not to get too clinical or too grotesque on you, but he'd had his colon removed at the end of September and that went so well that it was no more complicated than an appendectomy. But what followed was a series of infections, like storms in the monsoon season, one arriving, blossoming, inundating him, my Dad shaking it off and cheerfully bouncing back, and then within days another one coming in to flatten him once again.

Pneumonia, three or four times — I've lost count. Kidney failure, liver failure — the liver failure got better, remarkably enough. Dialysis, feeding tubes, drainage taps, drainage tubes, breathing tubes. Couldn't talk through that. Then he got strong enough and they could put a cap on the breathing tube and one day he scared the crap out of a friend of his who didn't know, who came in and gave him the customary "how you doin' Ted?" only to jump out of his shoes when my father suddenly and gleefully answered him in a strong full voice, "surprisingly well."

Sometimes he swelled up and looked like as puffy as prizefighter who'd had a bad night.

Sometimes he'd get dialysis so effective or an antibiotic so specific that he would look like he did twenty-five years ago.

Three weeks ago they had found something extraordinary. A nurse noticed what seemed like a minor infection just below the surface of the skin, a kind of super-pimple if you will. It was actually the edge of a series of abscesses which would be drained and would produce, all told, about six liters of infected stuff. Six liters. You know how much that is? You know what that looks like? You don't want to know.

But you do want to know it's been found because it means he hasn't been weak all this time, he's been incredibly, inhumanly strong. The abscesses were swimming pools for these infections. The strongest one would emerge, then my Dad with the help of the antibiotics would kill it off, then the antibiotics would be discontinued, and the next infection would pop out and challenge him.

As he pointed out you know: just like the organized crime families. Then last week they found another abscess of sorts, in the chest. So they needed to put in drains there, too. This was Friday morning. His surgical team came to see him, he did his non-verbal caricature of their chief, they laughed like hell, they numbed him up, snip snip, plug plug, and this infection starts draining, and they leave him alone for awhile.

And then in the afternoon they changed a few of the plugs the IV's attach to. And the respiratory therapist had been in, checking the ventilator and his tubes because there was a leak somewhere. And to improve dialysis, they changed his dialysis port. And then in the evening they needed a CAT-scan of his chest to make sure the drains were in the right place. And they had to change a dressing on some bad skin. And every hour they had to draw blood to check how well he was getting oxygen. And then at night it was time for dialysis using the new port.

And that's when I showed up. My father was a little annoyed, the way he often gets in there annoyed about all the activity. That day, it was like being Sisyphus with the boulder, only at the top of the hill, when he loses the boulder, it doesn't just roll back down hill, it rolls over him, first.

He's brave about pain, provided you warn him in advance, and provided the sheer volume of activity doesn't terrify him. As in terrorism, it isn't just terror when it happens, it's terror that it might happen. So he's annoyed, but in a good mood, and, as I usually do, I sit down to read to him. Thurber. I've been reading him a lot of James Thurber short stories lately and he's insisted that I should do it on the show, and we'll see about that. But a few pages in, the x-ray technician shows up

They have to take one more picture of him, to see if those new drains in his chest are working. And I have to leave his room for, at most, three minutes. I come back in and my father is thrashing his head back and forth. You can't hear him, he can't speak at the moment, but you become a lip-reader in those circumstances and this one word he keeps repeating is not tough to discern.

"Help." He is mouthing the word "help," over and over and over again. And I get his attention. He is in full panic. Maybe the x-ray tech hurt my Dad's back, or touched those new chest drains — more likely he did nothing very much at all. But it was just too much for my father.

"Stop this," he mouths. "Stop, stop, stop." And I say to him: I know for a fact they are not doing anything more to you tonight. And he looks at me and starts thrashing his head again: "Help, help, help."

I get his attention again. I ask him: do you want me to stop all of this? And he looks at me and mouths "yes." And I ask him: you understand what happens then. And he looks at me and mouths "yes." And I ask him: you realize you are not terminally ill, and if we do stop all of this, it might not be quick. And he mouths "stop this." And I say, trying to joke him out of it — and trust me, gallows humor is your best defense in this situation — "what? You want me to smother you with a pillow?" And he mouths "yes — kill me."

I told him that obviously I wouldn't do that, but I would go and talk to the doctors. When I came back, I told him they'd be really put out by this, because he wasn't sick enough and all the indications were he could still fight off what remained of the infections. And he went back to thrashing his head and mouthing "help" because clearly I was not giving him the sense of relief — relief from the paradoxical truth that people desperately trying to save your life, sometimes manage only to torture you. Of course, I actually was getting him that sense of relief.

When I went to see the Surgical Intensive Care Unit resident I told him my Dad had hit his wall. That he couldn't take any other work, that it was now terrifying torture, that he needed it to stop. But I said, look, I'm his health proxy, we've had conversations about end-of-life care — we've had them in here, we've had them when he was home and well, I'm not operating in the dark here. I said I think he really wants the one word he keeps mouthing: He wants help. Is there any medical reason not to give him some sedation, a little mental vacation from being a patient?

The resident thought that was a damn good idea and that it would help his breathing, which the respiratory therapist had noticed wasn't quite right. So when I came in and gave my father the song and dance about how "put out" the doctors were, really, I was just stalling. I started to read to him again, and he was still thrashing his head from side to side in frustration, and then he started to calm down and enjoy the story and as he began to rest, the nurse slipped in and injected a sedative into one of his IV's.

And as I left that night the full impact of these last six months washed over me. What I had done, conferring with the resident in ICU, the conversation about my father's panicky, not-in-complete-control-of-his-faculties demand that all treatment stop, about the options and the consequences and the compromise — the sedation — the help for a brave man who just needed a break… that conversation, that one — was what these ghouls who are walking into Blair House tomorrow morning decided to call "death panels."

Your right to have that conversation with a doctor, not the government, but a doctor and your right to have insurance pay for his expertise on what your options are when Dad says "kill me" or what your options are when Dad is in a coma and can't tell you a damn thing, or what your options are when everybody is healthy and happy and coherent and you're just planning ahead your right to have the guidance and the reassurance of a professional who can lay that out for you that's a quote "death panel."

That, right now, is the legacy of the protests of these sub-humans who get paid by the insurance companies, who say these things for their own political gain or like that one fiend or money. For money Betsy McCaughey told people that this conversation about life and death and relief and release, and also about no, keep treating him no matter what happens, until the nation runs out of medicine, she told people it's a death panel and she did that for money.

It's a life panel. A life panel, it can save the pain of the patient and the family it is the difference between you guessing what happens next, and you being informed about what probably will, and that's the difference between you sleeping at night or second-guessing and third-guessing and thirtieth-guessing. And it can also be the place where the family says 'we want you to keep him alive no matter what, we believe in miracles' and the doctor saying yes.

Nobody gets to say no except the patient and the family. It's a life panel. And damn those who call it otherwise to hell. And that brings up the other point of all this. They've rolled my father under every piece of machinery in there except an atom-splitter. They've pumped him full of every drug and remedy. And he's got Medicare and a supplemental insurance and my out-of-pocket medical bills over the last six months have been greater than my Dad's have.

And why in the hell should that not be true of everybody, in every hospital, in every sick room, in every clinic, in this country? What is this country for if not to take care of its people? Because whatever I've been through these last six months and whatever my Dad's been through, not once were our fears or our decisions amplified by the further horror of wondering how in the hell we would pay for this. What about families having these conversations tonight about kids? Or about uninsured adults?

Or what about the guy out there whose father is 50 and he's mouthing the word "help" and the guy knows what his father doesn't know that the insurance company has just declared the illness the father has is a "pre-existing condition" and he has no insurance, and when that son goes out to talk to that doctor about what to do next, even if there's a chance of recovery, that son can't afford to pay for it! That is the goddamned death panel, Sarah Palin.

Since Friday night, my father has been comfortable. He has been breathing well, and there has been no sign of stress or discomfort. He has also not awakened. His white blood cell count, the indicator of infection, is now at about four or five times normal. Doubtlessly, in removing that much infection from him, some of it got loose and into his bloodstream.

He's not being sedated any more; he only has the strength to fight off the infections, or wake up — not both. We're hoping he does the first, then the latter. We're prepared for the probability that he will do neither. His team and I had another "life panel" discussion not six hours ago. And thank God I had those conversation with my father.

Thank God I got his instructions about when to use my judgment and when to stick with his; when if he's capable of recovery to let them use everything they have and when to make sure they're not just keeping him alive with no hope; when to listen to the instruction "help" — first, and then the one about "stop" — later.

So, considering that if he does not recover, you will not see me here for awhile, I have some requests. First of you: Please have this conversation with your loved ones. Don't wait. Do it now. It's tough. It acknowledges death. And it also narrows the gray area you or they will face, from infinity to about a foot wide. It is my greatest comfort right now and I want it to be yours.

And to the politicians who go into Blair House tomorrow for the summit: I have some requests as well. Leave your egos at the door. I want, I demand, that you give everybody in this country a chance at the care my father has gotten. And I demand, that you enact this most generous and most kind aspect of the reform proposed: the right to bill the damned insurance company for the conversation about what to do when the time comes, the Life Panel.

And I want all of you to think of somebody lying in a hospital bed tonight who needed that care and needed that conversation, and imagine that that is your father, or mother, or son, or daughter, or wife, or husband, or partner. If you cannot do that, if you cannot put aside the meaninglessness of your political careers for this, my request to you then, is that you not come back out of that meeting for you would not be worthy of being with the real people of this country who suffer, and suffer again because you have acted on behalf of the corporations and not the people.

If you cannot do this, go into that room and stay there and we'll get new ones to replace your worthless roles in the life of our country. My father cannot speak for himself. He appointed me to do so for him and I haven't the slightest doubt he wants me to say this tonight, right now.

He mouthed the words to me and I will now give them such voice as I have to you going into that summit tomorrow.

Help. Help. Help. Help.

Stop Education Cuts

2010-01-10T18:29:00.001-08:00

Obama Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech

2009-12-10T21:35:00.000-08:00

Biden on Kennedy's death

2009-08-26T15:17:00.000-07:00

Conservative Admits Government Healthcare is Best

2009-07-28T23:13:00.000-07:00

Conservative columnist and pundit William Crystal admitted on Jon Stewart's program that the government-run healthcare used by the military was superior to any and all private healthcare plans. Crystal, who once served as Vice-President Dan Quayle's Chief of Staff, and whose father Irving Crystal, was one of the founders of the modern conservative movement, told Stewart that the best healthcare should go to those serving in uniform and that the military's healthcare plan was one run by the Federal Government.

Bob Hope - 1988 PSA for GLBT rights

2009-07-17T23:24:00.000-07:00

This is really pretty amazing and courageous when you consider the risks Hope took with his core audience.

Standing up for what is right and damn the bigots of this world ...

nice job Bob!

Palin Was Bad For The GOP

2009-07-12T23:09:00.000-07:00

WALL STREET JOURNAL

A Farewell to Harms
Palin was bad for the Republicans—and the republic.
By PEGGY NOONAN

(Former Chief Speech writer to President Ronald Reagan)

JULY 11, 2009

Sarah Palin's resignation gives Republicans a new opportunity to see her plain—to review the bidding, see her strengths, acknowledge her limits, and let go of her drama. It is an opportunity they should take. They mean to rebuild a great party. They need to do it on solid ground.

Her history does not need to be rehearsed at any length. Ten months ago she was embraced with friendliness by her party. The left and the media immediately overplayed their hand, with attacks on her children. The party rallied round, as a party should. She went on the trail a sensation but demonstrated in the ensuing months that she was not ready to go national and in fact never would be.

She was hungry, loved politics, had charm and energy, loved walking onto the stage, waving and doing the stump speech. All good. But she was not thoughtful. She was a gifted retail politician who displayed the disadvantages of being born into a point of view (in her case a form of conservatism; elsewhere and in other circumstances, it could have been a form of liberalism) and swallowing it whole: She never learned how the other sides think, or why.

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity.

She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.
In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.

McCain-Palin lost. Mrs. Palin has now stepped down, but she continues to poll high among some members of the Republican base, some of whom have taken to telling themselves Palin myths.
To wit, "I love her because she's so working-class."

This is a favorite of some party intellectuals. She is not working class, never was, and even she, avid claimer of advantage that she is, never claimed to be and just lets others say it. Her father was a teacher and school track coach, her mother the school secretary. They were middle-class figures of respect, stability and local status. I think intellectuals call her working-class because they see the makeup, the hair, the heels and the sleds and think they're working class "tropes." Because, you know, that's what they teach in "Ways of the Working Class" at Yale and Dartmouth.

What she is, is a seemingly very nice middle-class girl with ambition, appetite and no sense of personal limits.

"She's not Ivy League, that's why her rise has been thwarted! She represented the democratic ideal that you don't have to go to Harvard or Brown to prosper, and her fall represents a failure of egalitarianism."

This comes from intellectuals too. They need to be told something. Ronald Reagan went to Eureka College. Richard Nixon went to Whittier College, Joe Biden to the University of Delaware. Sarah Palin graduated in the end from the University of Idaho, a school that happily notes on its Web site that it's included in U.S. News & World Report's top national schools survey.

They need to be told, too, that the first Republican president was named "Abe," and he went to Princeton and got a Fulbright. Oh wait, he was an impoverished backwoods autodidact!
America doesn't need Sarah Palin to prove it was, and is, a nation of unprecedented fluidity. Her rise and seeming fall do nothing to prove or refute this.

"The elites hate her." The elites made her. It was the elites of the party, the McCain campaign and the conservative media that picked her and pushed her. The base barely knew who she was. It was the elites, from party operatives to public intellectuals, who advanced her and attacked those who said she lacked heft. She is a complete elite confection. She might as well have been a bonbon.

"She makes the Republican Party look inclusive." She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated.

"She shows our ingenuous interest in all classes." She shows your cynicism.
"Now she can prepare herself for higher office by studying up, reading in, boning up on the issues." Mrs. Palin's supporters have been ordering her to spend the next two years reflecting and pondering. But she is a ponder-free zone. She can memorize the names of the presidents of Pakistan, but she is not going to be able to know how to think about Pakistan. Why do her supporters not see this? Maybe they think "not thoughtful" is a working-class trope!

"The media did her in." Her lack of any appropriate modesty did her in. Actually, it's arguable that membership in the self-esteem generation harmed her. For 30 years the self-esteem movement told the young they're perfect in every way. It's yielding something new in history: an entire generation with no proper sense of inadequacy.

"Turning to others means the media won!" No, it means they lose. What the mainstream media wants is not to kill her but to keep her story going forever. She hurts, as they say, the Republican brand, with her mess and her rhetorical jabberwocky and her careless causing of division. Really, she is the most careless sower of discord since George W. Bush, who fractured the party and the movement that made him. Why wouldn't the media want to keep that going?

Here's why all this matters. The world is a dangerous place. It has never been more so, or more complicated, more straining of the reasoning powers of those with actual genius and true judgment. This is a time for conservative leaders who know how to think.

Here are a few examples of what we may face in the next 10 years: a profound and prolonged American crash, with the admission of bankruptcy and the spread of deep social unrest; one or more American cities getting hit with weapons of mass destruction from an unknown source; faint glimmers of actual secessionist movements as Americans for various reasons and in various areas decide the burdens and assumptions of the federal government are no longer attractive or legitimate.

The era we face, that is soon upon us, will require a great deal from our leaders. They had better be sturdy. They will have to be gifted. There will be many who cannot, and should not, make the cut. Now is the time to look for those who can. And so the Republican Party should get serious, as serious as the age, because that is what a grown-up, responsible party—a party that deserves to lead—would do.

It's not a time to be frivolous, or to feel the temptation of resentment, or the temptation of thinking next year will be more or less like last year, and the assumptions of our childhoods will more or less reign in our future. It won't be that way.
We are going to need the best.

Obama in Egypt - The Speech

2009-06-09T09:27:00.000-07:00

Barack Hussein Obama - President of the United States...
Obama's speech and images courtesy of CBS News ...

Overcoming the stigma of ‘toilet-to-tap’ water

2009-05-31T10:25:00.000-07:00

Overcoming the stigma of

‘toilet-to-tap’ water
By
E.A. Barrera
San Diego News Network
May 27, 2009

(San Diego River at mouth to Mission Beach jetty. Photo by E.A. Barrera)

Water resource specialist Chris Reilly would often take his sixth grade students to waterways - streams, ponds, estuaries - when he was a teacher for the Boulder Creek YMCA in Santa Cruz. A 1985 graduate of Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and a future water resource specialist with the San Diego County Water Authority, he would take the kids on field trips to discuss nature, water and the life-cycle of all living things on the planet.

“I would have them look at the life in the water and think about the water they were playing in or drinking,” said Reilly, who spent 12 years with the San Diego County Water Authority and now serves Northern California’s Indian Valley as Water Master for the California Department of Water Resources. “I would remind them that the water they were studying was the same water the dinosaurs had once drank and lived on. All water is recycled and the same water that was around 5 million years ago is still with us. There is no such thing as new water.”

With the city of San Diego declaring a Level 2 drought alert and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issuing a water shortage emergency, water specialists like Reilly feel it is critical communities across the state develop as many water retention, conservation and reserve capabilities as possible.

“We can’t afford to take anything off the table and that includes indirect potable reuse water that is very safe when the proper filtration systems are in place,” Reilly said.

For almost two decades, San Diego has debated the use of Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) water as a source of replenishing the reservoirs in the city and county for its drinking supply. From water officials at the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) and the local water districts within the county, to academics, and private business experts, all agree that the reuse of water for drinking is safe, affordable and necessary.

But buttressing this argument is the “yuk factor” associated with the concept of drinking treated sewage water, and the belief by many that trying to blend sewage water into the drinking supply is a recipe for disease and a public health disaster. The term “toilet-to-tap” has become the rallying cry for opponents to IPR, who include San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders.

“Mayor Sanders is concerned with the public’s perception of indirect potable reuse and feels there are other priorities which the city should focus on - mainly in the area of conservation of water,” said Bill Harris, deputy press secretary to Sanders.

In San Diego County, water is delivered and collected through three primary sources: The Sacramento/San Joaquin River, the Colorado River, and the many reservoirs built within the region. But more than 80 percent of the county’s water comes from the Colorado River, with less than 15 percent collected through local sources. According to the Southern California Metropolitan Water District (MWD), most water supplies in Southern California begin as snowmelt or rainfall that flows into rivers. However, 75 percent of that runoff occurs in the northern parts of the state, while the majority of California’s population lives in the south.

[Colorado River (courtesy of Colorado Tourism Office)]

In order to bring that water supply down to residents in Southern California, the water is carried through aqueducts that are several hundred miles long. Whether from the Colorado River - that has a point of origin just north of Colorado’s Grand Lake in the Rocky Mountains - or snow melt and rain runoff transported south via aqueduct, MWD notes both federal and state rules protect the drinking water along its journey.

Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, water safety is monitored and regulated so that it will be safe before coming in human contact. Several agencies - including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, the California Department of Health Services, and of course, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California - keep an eye on water, even before it reaches a treatment plant.

Nevertheless, millions of people also make use of the river water and other sources, fueling the complaint by IPR advocates that there is something inherently cleaner about water originating from these sources over supplies already being used.

“There seems to be a myth that water coming down the Colorado is ‘pure Rocky Mountain spring water.’ In fact, nothing could be further from the truth,” said San Diego State University professor Phillip Pryde in 2004.

Pryde, who served as chairman of the San Diego County Water Authority’s Reclamation Committee, noted that water from the Colorado River passed through several towns and cities on its way to San Diego.

(courtesy of Colorado Tourism Office)

“Tens of thousands of recreational users of the river make direct use of it for ‘fast, fast relief’ while floating down it or swimming in it (as do, in some cases, their pets),” he said. “A portion of this water goes directly into our drinking water plants without prior treatment. It may be argued that it’s highly diluted, if that makes people feel better, but it still contains untreated human wastes.”

The process for treatment of water involves a multi-phase filtration system broken down into nine steps.

During the first two steps, the water passes through various screens and sedimentation, including beds of anthracite coal, which removes most suspended solids from the water. According to experts familiar with the process, the water at this point is safe for irrigation and other non-drinking uses.

After these initial steps, the water is sent through a treatment called “microfiltration” which further filters out any remaining solids. Water is then run through a procedure called reverse osmosis, which pumps the water through special membranes whose pores are so small, only water molecules or something smaller are said to be able to pass. During a 1998 debate on the topic, the SDCWA issued a pamphlet describing the differences in size between water molecules and other molecules, by claiming that if a water molecule were the size of a tennis ball, a virus would be the size of a semi-truck, a bacteria the size of a pyramid, and a protozoa the size of a volcano. The SDCWA further stated that even the molecules of microscopic metals and other inorganic compounds, as well as organic compounds, would be too large to pass through the Reverse Osmosis membrane.
After the Reverse Osmosis procedure, the water is further cleaned by introducing Ion Exchange, which reduces nitrate concentrations to negligible levels, much as a water softener works. Then Ozone, a disinfectant, is released into the water for further cleansing.

In the next phase, the recycled water is blended into the surface water reservoirs of San Diego, where it is mixed with the raw water supply. From the reservoir, the water is once again run through the normal filtration process before being distributed to the general public.

“The re-purified water is cleaner than the water that comes out of the tap,” Reilly said. “Then that water is blended in with the reservoirs and run through the normal filtration process, so that nobody should be worried about the safety of that water.”

Former Ramona Municipal Water Water Disrict manager Tom Brammell agreed.

“Personally, drinking recycled water is OK with me,” Brammell said. The filtration and dilution make the water extremely clean.”

(San Diego River at Alpine. Photo by E.A. Barrera)

County supervisor Bill Horn, an avocado rancher, said re-purified water was so clean he often had to add components into the mix before using it for his crops.

Horn’s board colleague - Pam Slater-Price said it was important the region look at every option for sources of water.

“We definitely have to do it. We no longer have the luxury of not using Indirect Potable Reuse water and in fact are already doing it,” said Slater-Price. “People have the conception of water coming from the Colorado River or other natural sources as pristine and they may be repulsed by the thought of sewage water being reused for drinking. But when you understand that all water is reused and the system of treatment in place cleans the water so thoroughly that it is cleaner than when it comes out of the tap, then you realize it is something we can do and is necessary.”

Yet worries about the health of the water persist and memories of the 1993 cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee fuel continued fears about what can happen when sewage water is mixed into a drinking water supply. Cryptosporidium is a virus which passes through the intestines of animals, mostly cattle, and exits through their fecal matter. It can cause severe stomach flu-like symptoms, such as diarrhea, nausea, vomiting, fatigue and low grade fever. The disease is particularly susceptible to waterborne delivery.

In healthy persons, the infection can last up to two weeks, according to Dr. William R. Mac Kenzie in a 1994 article for the New England Journal of Medicine. But in people with weak immune systems, such as the elderly, babies and those diagnosed with other illnesses such as the HIV virus, cryptosporidium infection can be deadly. During the Milwaukee outbreak, 50 cryptosporidium-associated deaths were reported, according to the Wisconsin Bureau of Public Health. The outbreak resulted from flooding which overwhelmed the Milwaukee sewage system.

“A heavy snowfall followed by spring flooding and a heavy storm contributed to sending record amounts of overflow from the Milwaukee Harbor into Lake Michigan,” Mac Kenzie wrote. “This caused sewer overflows and a sewage bypass which created an overworked waste water treatment plant system and sent the cryptosporidium virus into the water.”

San Diego does not suffer flooding problems from heavy snow and ice, but other natural disasters do occur, including wildfires and even the occasional earthquake. But, Reilly said, what happened in Milwaukee resulted from older technology that has been improved in the last 15 years.

(Lake Jennings Resevoir. Photo by E.A. Barrera)

“That outbreak was a result of mechanical failures within the treatment plant and it is always possible mechanical devices will break and some portion of the treatment process will fail. But there are so many backup systems and safety procedures in place, that you have to trust they will work in the case of a natural disaster,” he said.

Mike Espiritu, the former water quality superintendent with the Helix Water District, shares Reilly’s view. During San Diego’s debate over reusable water a decade ago, Espiritu said that what happened in Milwaukee would not happen in San Diego.

“Milwaukee was an aberration. They were ill-prepared. Every one of their multiple barrier systems broke down. San Diego’s system is much better. The safeguards we have in San Diego would prevent such an accident,” he said in 1998.

Slater -Price said that before she ever voted on a system for using IPR water, she would discuss the safety conditions with all available water experts and would tour the treatment plants, making sure health safeguards were in place.

Yet the term “Toilet-to-Tap” persists and registers in the public arena very easily. Originating from Gerald Silver, an angry Encino homeowner’s association president who used the phrase in 1995 during a debate over IPR in Los Angeles, the phrase quickly became the term most opponents used to refer to the idea of IPR.

In San Diego, when the plan was put to public review in 1998, angry protestors including then city councilmember George Stevens, assemblymember Howard Wayne, and former San Diego city councilmember Bruce Henderson used the term to state their opposition to IPR.

Bernie Rhinerson, who served as chair of the SDCWA in 2003, said inflammatory language such as phrases like “toilet-to-tap” were more for political purposes than scientific ones.

“It’s used because the public is still against it,” he said. But all the science I’ve read says (IPR) is a viable source of potable water. Diversity of water supplies has to be at the center of our commitment to provide enough water for residents.”

During an October 2007 water conservation summit held at the University of San Diego, mayor Sanders spoke to a large collection of academics, engineers and other water experts. While he supported their efforts on conservation and the use of non-drinking recycled water for agriculture and landscapes, his opposition to IPR created frustration with many of the other speakers.

Among them was James Stayer, Division Manager for the PBS&J West Water/Wastewater Group, which is based in Carlsbad. The firm works on water and water reuse projects tin California, Nevada and Arizona. Stayer blamed both politicians and the media for the continued use of the term toilet-to-tap.

“This is a drought proof water supply and the media is to blame for creating this image of toilet to tap. It does not allow any room for meaningful discussion of the subject,” said Stayer.

But Slater-Price, in assessing why an idea that so many agree works well is still not in use after more than a decade of debate, said the blame for the lack of support among the public was universal.

“There are a lot of people living with ignorance on this subject and it is not just politicians. We have not done a good job of explaining this, but neither have those in academia and professional circles. A lot of them were way ahead of the public on this topic and they don’t seem to understand that. It is incumbent on all of us who care about this and want to see IPR put in place to do a better job educating people why it is needed.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from San Diego News Network: http://www.sdnn.com

URL to article: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-05-27/special-sections/water/overcoming-the-stigma-of-toilet-to-tap-water

URLs in this post:
[1] Image: http://static.sdnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/san-diego-river-at-mouth-to-mission-beach-jetty.jpg
[2] Image: http://www.colorado.com/photos/lowres/CO_PhotoProject2007_0031.jpg
[3] Image: http://www.colorado.com/photos/lowres/CO_PhotoProject2007_0557.jpg
[4] Image: http://static.sdnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/reverse_osmosis.jpg
[5] Image: http://static.sdnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/sd-river-at-alpine.jpg
[6] Image: http://static.sdnn.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/lake-jennings-reservoir.jpg

The Heat in the Kitchen is Just Fine ...

2009-05-30T08:47:00.000-07:00

Doing right ... when scolded by the wrong ... It's called A Badge of Honor!!!

Question of the Month - Should English be the Official Language of the United States of America?

2009-05-29T12:06:00.001-07:00

With President Obama's decision to elevate Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court,

a lot of attenion has been placed on her heritage and Latino ancestry

(Despite the fact that Justice Benjamin Cardozo was of Portugese descent, thus calling into some question the issue of who would be the first Hispanic Justice).

It has raised questions of racism (both directions) and the debate about English as the official language of the US.

This, coupled with the ever expanding population of Americans of Latin American and Spanish ancestry, raises the question of whether English should be the official language of the United States.

Would not America still be America under any language or culture?
Or is there something inherantly "English" about America that must stand as our foundation?

A question that can raise tempers, my goal is for discussion, so I will assume all who particpate are of genuine, American heart and not of any other lesser motives.

Please take the poll at right and leave your comments below.

President Kennedy's 92nd Birthday

2009-05-29T00:11:00.000-07:00

Today -
May 29, 2009 -
Would have been

John F. Kennedy's 92nd birthday.
Please remember a man who reminded us all what America can be

when we live up to our heroic decency and elegance.

Radio and Television Report to the American People on Civil Rights
President John F. Kennedy
The White House
June 11, 1963

Good evening my fellow citizens:

This afternoon, following a series of threats and defiant statements, the presence of Alabama National Guardsmen was required on the University of Alabama to carry out the final and unequivocal order of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Alabama. That order called for the admission of two clearly qualified young Alabama residents who happened to have been born Negro.

That they were admitted peacefully on the campus is due in good measure to the conduct of the students of the University of Alabama, who met their responsibilities in a constructive way.

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. And when Americans are sent to Viet-Nam or West Berlin, we do not ask for whites only. It ought to be possible, therefore, for American students of any color to attend any public institution they select without having to be backed up by troops.

It ought to be possible for American consumers of any color to receive equal service in places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants and theaters and retail stores, without being forced to resort to demonstrations in the street, and it ought to be possible for American citizens of any color to register to vote in a free election without interference or fear of reprisal.

It ought to be possible, in short, for every American to enjoy the privileges of being American without regard to his race or his color. In short, every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated. But this is not the case.

The Negro baby born in America today, regardless of the section of the Nation in which he is born, has about one-half as much chance of completing a high school as a white baby born in the same place on the same day, one-third as much chance of completing college, one-third as much chance of becoming a professional man, twice as much chance of becoming unemployed, about one-seventh as much chance of earning $10,000 a year, a life expectancy which is 7 years shorter, and the prospects of earning only half as much.

This is not a sectional issue. Difficulties over segregation and discrimination exist in every city, in every State of the Union, producing in many cities a rising tide of discontent that threatens the public safety. Nor is this a partisan issue. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics. This is not even a legal or legislative issue alone. It is better to settle these matters in the courts than on the streets, and new laws are needed at every level, but law alone cannot make men see right.

We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.

The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free.

We preach freedom around the world, and we mean it, and we cherish our freedom here at home, but are we to say to the world, and much more importantly, to each other that this is the land of the free except for the Negroes; that we have no second-class citizens except Negroes; that we have no class or caste system, no ghettoes, no master race except with respect to Negroes?

Now the time has come for this Nation to fulfill its promise. The events in Birmingham and elsewhere have so increased the cries for equality that no city or State or legislative body can prudently choose to ignore them.

The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand. Redress is sought in the streets, in demonstrations, parades, and protests which create tensions and threaten violence and threaten lives.

We face, therefore, a moral crisis as a country and as a people. It cannot be met by repressive police action. It cannot be left to increased demonstrations in the streets. It cannot be quieted by token moves or talk. It is time to act in the Congress, in your State and local legislative body and, above all, in all of our daily lives.

It is not enough to pin the blame on others, to say this is a problem of one section of the country or another, or deplore the fact that we face. A great change is at hand, and our task, our obligation, is to make that revolution, that change, peaceful and constructive for all.

Those who do nothing are inviting shame as well as violence. Those who act boldly are recognizing right as well as reality.

Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing.

But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is in the street.

I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public--hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments.

This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do.

I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last 2 weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts.

I am also asking the Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to desegregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow.

Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court's decision 9 years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job.

The orderly implementation of the Supreme Court decision, therefore, cannot be left solely to those who may not have the economic resources to carry the legal action or who may be subject to harassment.

Other features will also be requested, including greater protection for the right to vote. But legislation, I repeat, cannot solve this problem alone. It must be solved in the homes of every American in every community across our country.

In this respect I want to pay tribute to those citizens North and South who have been working in their communities to make life better for all. They are acting not out of a sense of legal duty but out of a sense of human decency.

Like our soldiers and sailors in all parts of the world they are meeting freedom's challenge on the firing line, and I salute them for their honor and their courage.

My fellow Americans, this is a problem which faces us all--in every city of the North as well as the South. Today there are Negroes unemployed, two or three times as many compared to whites, inadequate in education, moving into the large cities, unable to find work, young people particularly out of work without hope, denied equal rights, denied the opportunity to eat at a restaurant or lunch counter or go to a movie theater, denied the right to a decent education, denied almost today the right to attend a State university even though qualified. It seems to me that these are matters which concern us all, not merely Presidents or Congressmen or Governors, but every citizen of the United States.

This is one country. It has become one country because all of us and all the people who came here had an equal chance to develop their talents.

We cannot say to 10 percent of the population that you can't have that right; that your children cannot have the chance to develop whatever talents they have; that the only way that they are going to get their rights is to go into the streets and demonstrate. I think we owe them and we owe ourselves a better country than that.

Therefore, I am asking for your help in making it easier for us to move ahead and to provide the kind of equality of treatment which we would want ourselves; to give a chance for every child to be educated to the limit of his talents.

As I have said before, not every child has an equal talent or an equal ability or an equal motivation, but they should have an equal right to develop their talent and their ability and their motivation, to make something of themselves.

We have a right to expect that the Negro community will be responsible, will uphold the law, but they have a right to expect that the law will be fair, that the Constitution will be color blind, as Justice Harlan said at the turn of the century.

This is what we are talking about and this is a matter which concerns this country and what it stands for, and in meeting it I ask the support of all our citizens.

Thank you very much.

Obama Chooses Judge Sonia Sotomayor to Replace David Souter on U.S. Supreme Court

2009-05-26T15:19:00.000-07:00

Introducing Judge Sonia Sotomayor:

Judge Sotomayor has made the American dream her own.

Born and raised in a South Bronx public housing project to Puerto Rican parents, Sotomayor has distinguished herself in academia, as a big-city prosecutor, and as a leading figure on the federal bench. If confirmed, Judge Sotomayor would start with more federal judicial experience than any new Justice in 100 years.

First appointed to the Federal District Court by President George H.W. Bush, and then elevated to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals by President Bill Clinton, Judge Sotomayor is widely admired as one the finest legal minds in America today. As a trail-blazing Latina whose career has spanned nearly every aspect of the law, Judge Sotomayor will show fidelity to the Constitution while bringing to the Court a common sense understanding of how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives.

Happy Memorial Day 2009

2009-05-24T10:09:00.001-07:00

Obama At Notre Dame

2009-05-20T08:43:00.000-07:00

Text of Obama's Notre Dame speech
By The Associated Press May 17, 2009

Text of President Barack Obama's commencement address Sunday as the University of Notre Dame in South Bend, Ind., as delivered, as transcribed by the White House. The Rev. John Jenkins is the school's president. The Rev. Theodore Hesburgh is Jenkins' predecessor. Brennan Bollman is the class valedictorian.
------
Well, first of all, congratulations, Class of 2009. Congratulations to all the parents, the cousins -- the aunts, the uncles -- all the people who helped to bring you to the point that you are here today. Thank you so much to Father Jenkins for that extraordinary introduction, even though you said what I want to say much more elegantly. You are doing an extraordinary job as president of this extraordinary institution. Your continued and courageous -- and contagious -- commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all.

Good afternoon. To Father Hesburgh, to Notre Dame trustees, to faculty, to family: I am honored to be here today. And I am grateful to all of you for allowing me to be a part of your graduation.

And I also want to thank you for the honorary degree that I received. I know it has not been without controversy. I dont know if youre aware of this, but these honorary degrees are apparently pretty hard to come by. So far I'm only 1 for 2 as President. Father Hesburgh is 150 for 150. I guess that's better. So, Father Ted, after the ceremony, maybe you can give me some pointers to boost my average.

I also want to congratulate the Class of 2009 for all your accomplishments. And since this is Notre Dame ...

(Speech is interrupted by anti-abortion protesters.)

We're fine, everybody. We're following Brennans adage that we dont do things easily. We're not going to shy away from things that are uncomfortable sometimes.

Now, since this is Notre Dame I think we should talk not only about your accomplishments in the classroom, but also in the competitive arena. No, dont worry, I'm not going to talk about that. We all know about this university's proud and storied football team, but I also hear that Notre Dame holds the largest outdoor 5-on-5 basketball tournament in the world -- Bookstore Basketball.

Now this excites me. I want to congratulate the winners of this year's tournament, a team by the name of "Hallelujah Holla Back." Congratulations. Well done. Though I have to say, I am personally disappointed that the "Barack OBallers" did not pull it out this year. So next year, if you need a 6-2 forward with a decent jumper, you know where I live.

Every one of you should be proud of what you have achieved at this institution. One hundred and sixty-three classes of Notre Dame graduates have sat where you sit today. Some were here during years that simply rolled into the next without much notice or fanfare -- periods of relative peace and prosperity that required little by way of sacrifice or struggle.

You, however, are not getting off that easy. You have a different deal. Your class has come of age at a moment of great consequence for our nation and for the world -- a rare inflection point in history where the size and scope of the challenges before us require that we remake our world to renew its promise; that we align our deepest values and commitments to the demands of a new age. It's a privilege and a responsibility afforded to few generations -- and a task that youre now called to fulfill.

This generation, your generation is the one that must find a path back to prosperity and decide how we respond to a global economy that left millions behind even before the most recent crisis hit -- an economy where greed and short-term thinking were too often rewarded at the expense of fairness, and diligence, and an honest day's work.

Your generation must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it. Your generation must seek peace at a time when there are those who will stop at nothing to do us harm, and when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many. And we must find a way to reconcile our ever-shrinking world with its ever-growing diversity -- diversity of thought, diversity of culture, and diversity of belief.

In short, we must find a way to live together as one human family. And it's this last challenge that Id like to talk about today, despite the fact that Father John stole all my best lines. For the major threats we face in the 21st century -- whether it's global recession or violent extremism; the spread of nuclear weapons or pandemic disease -- these things do not discriminate. They do not recognize borders. They do not see color. They do not target specific ethnic groups.

Moreover, no one person, or religion, or nation can meet these challenges alone. Our very survival has never required greater cooperation and greater understanding among all people from all places than at this moment in history.

Unfortunately, finding that common ground -- recognizing that our fates are tied up, as Dr. King said, in a "single garment of destiny" -- is not easy. And part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man -- our selfishness, our pride, our stubbornness, our acquisitiveness, our insecurities, our egos; all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin. We too often seek advantage over others. We cling to outworn prejudice and fear those who are unfamiliar. Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game. The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice. And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see here in this country and around the globe violence and want and strife that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.

We know these things; and hopefully one of the benefits of the wonderful education that you've received here at Notre Dame is that you've had time to consider these wrongs in the world; perhaps recognized impulses in yourself that you want to leave behind. You've grown determined, each in your own way, to right them. And yet, one of the vexing things for those of us interested in promoting greater understanding and cooperation among people is the discovery that even bringing together persons of good will, bringing together men and women of principle and purpose -- even accomplishing that can be difficult.

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then -- the question then is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

And of course, nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called "The Audacity of Hope." A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an e-mail from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the Illinois primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life -- but that was not what was preventing him potentially from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my Web site -- an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said he had assumed I was a reasonable person, he supported my policy initiatives to help the poor and to lift up our educational system, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words." Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and I thanked him. And I didn't change my underlying position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my Web site. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that -- when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe -- that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually, it has both moral and spiritual dimensions."

So let us work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions, let's reduce unintended pregnancies. Let's make adoption more available. Let's provide care and support for women who do carry their children to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded not only in sound science, but also in clear ethics, as well as respect for the equality of women." Those are things we can do.

Now, understand -- understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. Because no matter how much we may want to fudge it -- indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory -- the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words. It's a way of life that has always been the Notre Dame tradition. Father Hesburgh has long spoken of this institution as both a lighthouse and a crossroads. A lighthouse that stands apart, shining with the wisdom of the Catholic tradition, while the crossroads is where "differences of culture and religion and conviction can coexist with friendship, civility, hospitality, and especially love." And I want to join him and Father John in saying how inspired I am by the maturity and responsibility with which this class has approached the debate surrounding today's ceremony. You are an example of what Notre Dame is about.

This tradition of cooperation and understanding is one that I learned in my own life many years ago -- also with the help of the Catholic Church.

You see, I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. And a group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

And it was quite an eclectic crew -- Catholic and Protestant churches, Jewish and African American organizers, working-class black, white, and Hispanic residents -- all of us with different experiences, all of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help -- to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in these neighborhoods -- perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I was really broke and they fed me. Perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn not just to the work with the church; I was drawn to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

And at the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him or known of him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads -- unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty and AIDS and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together, always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, "You can't really get on with preaching the Gospel until you've touched hearts and minds."

My heart and mind were touched by him. They were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside in parishes across Chicago. And Id like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.

Now, you, Class of 2009, are about to enter the next phase of your life at a time of great uncertainty. You'll be called to help restore a free market that's also fair to all who are willing to work. You'll be called to seek new sources of energy that can save our planet; to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education. And whether as a person drawn to public service, or simply someone who insists on being an active citizen, you will be exposed to more opinions and ideas broadcast through more means of communication than ever existed before. You'll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you'll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they're talking about. Occasionally, you may have the great fortune of actually seeing important issues debated by people who do know what they're talking about -- by well-intentioned people with brilliant minds and mastery of the facts. In fact, I suspect that some of you will be among those brightest stars.

And in this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. In other words, stand as a lighthouse.

But remember, too, that you can be a crossroads. Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It's the belief in things not seen. It's beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us. And those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

And this doubt should not push us away our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, cause us to be wary of too much self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open and curious and eager to continue the spiritual and moral debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works and charity and kindness and service that moves hearts and minds.

For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together. It's no coincidence that it exists in Christianity and Judaism; in Islam and Hinduism; in Buddhism and humanism. It is, of course, the Golden Rule -- the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. The call to serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.

So many of you at Notre Dame -- by the last count, upwards of 80 percent -- have lived this law of love through the service you've performed at schools and hospitals; international relief agencies and local charities. Brennan is just one example of what your class has accomplished. That's incredibly impressive, a powerful testament to this institution.

Now you must carry the tradition forward. Make it a way of life. Because when you serve, it doesn't just improve your community, it makes you a part of your community. It breaks down walls. It fosters cooperation. And when that happens -- when people set aside their differences, even for a moment, to work in common effort toward a common goal; when they struggle together, and sacrifice together, and learn from one another -- then all things are possible.

After all, I stand here today, as President and as an African American, on the 55th anniversary of the day that the Supreme Court handed down the decision in Brown v. Board of Education. Now, Brown was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children. There were freedom rides and lunch counters and Billy clubs, and there was also a Civil Rights Commission appointed by President Eisenhower. It was the 12 resolutions recommended by this commission that would ultimately become law in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

There were six members of this commission. It included five whites and one African American; Democrats and Republicans; two Southern governors, the dean of a Southern law school, a Midwestern university president, and your own Father Ted Hesburgh, President of Notre Dame. So they worked for two years, and at times, President Eisenhower had to intervene personally since no hotel or restaurant in the South would serve the black and white members of the commission together. And finally, when they reached an impasse in Louisiana, Father Ted flew them all to Notre Dame's retreat in Land OLakes, Wisconsin -- where they eventually overcame their differences and hammered out a final deal.

And years later, President Eisenhower asked Father Ted how on Earth he was able to broker an agreement between men of such different backgrounds and beliefs. And Father Ted simply said that during their first dinner in Wisconsin, they discovered they were all fishermen. And so he quickly readied a boat for a twilight trip out on the lake. They fished, and they talked, and they changed the course of history.

I will not pretend that the challenges we face will be easy, or that the answers will come quickly, or that all our differences and divisions will fade happily away -- because life is not that simple. It never has been. But as you leave here today, remember the lessons of Cardinal Bernardin, of Father Hesburgh, of movements for change both large and small. Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family, the same fulfillment of a life well lived. Remember that in the end, in some way we are all fishermen.

If nothing else, that knowledge should give us faith that through our collective labor, and God's providence, and our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens, America will continue on its precious journey towards that more perfect union. Congratulations, Class of 2009. May God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

Remembering Jack Kemp

2009-05-03T10:24:00.001-07:00

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat."
Theodore Roosevelt, April 23, 1910

The news that former New York Congressman Jack Kemp passed away from his battle with cancer was a sad note to wake up to on a beautiful Sunday morning. I am a proud Democrat and rarely, if ever agreed with Kemp on political and economic issues. But as a political junkie who came of age under the first-term excitement of Ronald Reagan's 1980 victory, Kemp was a standard of my political awakening.

For those of you who do not love politics, it may be hard to understand that politics can get under the skin of a young person the way music gets into the bloodstream of most in high school and college. Kemp was on the other side of the spectrum from me. I was a Kennedy Democrat and he a Reagan Republican. But his passion for the politics of his times coincided with my own and thus it feels as if I have lost a part of my own youth with his passing. I felt much the same when President Reagan died in 2004.

And I am not alone in feeling this for a partisan of the other side. I have known, worked with and against, and been good friends with many Republicans and conservatives over the near 30 years I have actively participated in politics. From arguing politics with my conservative friends in high school during the 1980 election; to waging friendly (and some times not so friendly) battles with my conservative college friends during the 1988 election at SDSU; to this last amazing race which brought so many young and new voters into the political blood stream of America for Barack Obama; I have always been impressed by how many of them held admiration for Presidents Kennedy, Truman and Roosevelt.

Political people appreciate masters of their art and craft, regardless of position, because we know how rare it is to find someone who can spark the imaginations of millions and get people involved in the political process. Ronald Reagan did that for my generation, and Barack Obama has done that for the current crop of young political junkies waking up every morning excited by their times and the issues and the history they want to be part of and shape.

Below are two messages from Kemp. The first is his wonderful statement to his Grandchildren after the election of President Obama. The second is Kemp's 1987 announcement speech when he declared for the Presidency in the 1988 election. Many of us, who thought he was the logical heir to Reagan, were always surprised at how poorly he did on a national stage. But in that speech, all the enthusiasm and joy for both politics and issues Kemp inhaled can be seen.

What is perhaps most striking is how Kemp yearns to bring in so many fom the sides conservatives usually do not attract. He sees conservatism as a large tent capable of incorporating liberal values of inclusion, battling poverty, welcoming immigrants, ending racism, improving education, and seeking a peaceful world. There is no desire to purge from the Republican Party those who do not agree with him. He does not seek to minimize the problems of poverty, racism and inequality by dismissing those who suffer from these maladies as losers - the way so many in today's conservative world of talk radio politics often do. He understands these problems exist. He simply feels his conservative principles blended with the American ideals and tradition of inclusion can do the job better.

I disagreed with his assements, but I loved the political passion he brought to my world during the 1980s and 1990s. He was what all citizens and all political people should strive to be ... passionate about the times they occupy and wanting to make a difference.

Like his political hero, Theodore Roosevelt, he was a man in the arena.

And he will be missed.
A Letter to my Grandchildren
November 12, 2008

Dear Kemp grandchildren -- all 17 of you, spread out from the East Coast to the West Coast, and from Wheaton College in Illinois, to Wake Forest University in North Carolina:

My first thought last week upon learning that a 47-year-old African-American Democrat had won the presidency was, "Is this a great country or not?"

You may have expected your grandfather to be disappointed that his friend John McCain lost (and I was), but there's a difference between disappointment over a lost election and the historical perspective of a monumental event in the life of our nation.

Let me explain. First of all, the election was free, fair and transformational, in terms of our democracy and given the history of race relations in our nation.

What do I mean?

Just think, a little over 40 years ago, blacks in America had trouble even voting in our country, much less thinking about running for the highest office in the land.

A little over 40 years ago, in some parts of America, blacks couldn't eat, sleep or even get a drink of water using facilities available to everyone else in the public sphere.

We are celebrating, this year, the 40th anniversary of our Fair Housing Laws, which helped put an end to the blatant racism and prejudice against blacks in rental housing and homeownership opportunities.

As an old professional football quarterback, in my days there were no black coaches, no black quarterbacks, and certainly no blacks in the front offices of football and other professional sports. For the record, there were great black quarterbacks and coaches -- they just weren't given the opportunity to showcase their talent. And pro-football (and America) was the worse off for it.

I remember quarterbacking the old San Diego Chargers and playing for the AFL championship in Houston. My father sat on the 50-yard line, while my co-captain's father, who happened to be black, had to sit in a small, roped-off section of the end zone. Today, we can't imagine the NFL without the amazing contributions of blacks at every level of this great enterprise.
I could go on and on, but just imagine that in the face of all these indignities and deprivations, Dr. Martin Luther King could say 44 years ago, "I have an abiding faith in America and an audacious faith in mankind."
He described his vision for America, even as he and his people were being denied their God-given human rights guaranteed under our Constitution.

You see, real leadership is not just seeing the realities of what we are temporarily faced with, but seeing the possibilities and potential that can be realized by lifting up peoples' vision of what they can be.

When President-elect Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln on the night of his election, he was acknowledging the transcendent qualities of vision and leadership that are always present, but often overlooked and neglected by pettiness, partisanship and petulance.

As president, I believe Barack Obama can help lift us out of a narrow view of America into the ultimate vision of an America where, if you're born to be a mezzo-soprano or a master carpenter, nothing stands in your way of realizing your God-given potential.

Both Obama in his Chicago speech, and McCain in his marvelous concession speech, rose to this historic occasion by celebrating the things that unite us irrespective of our political party, our race or our socio-economic background.

My advice for you all is to understand that unity for our nation doesn't require uniformity or unanimity; it does require putting the good of our people ahead of what's good for mere political or personal advantage.
The party of Lincoln, (i.e., the GOP), needs to rethink and revisit its historic roots as a party of emancipation, liberation, civil rights and equality of opportunity for all. On the other hand, the party of Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy and now Obama must put forth an agenda that understands that getting American growing again will require both Keynesian and classical incentive-oriented (supply-side) economic ideas. But there's time for political and economic advice in a later column (or two).

Let me end with an equally great historical irony of this election. Next year, as Obama is sworn in as our 44th president, we will celebrate the 200th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln's birth.

I'm serving, along with former Rep. Bill Gray of Pennsylvania, on the Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Board to help raise funds for this historic occasion. President-elect Obama's honoring of Lincoln in many of his speeches reminds us of how vital it is to elevate these ideas and ideals to our nation's consciousness and inculcate his principles at a time of such great challenges and even greater opportunities.

In fact, we kick off the Lincoln bicentennial celebration on Wednesday, Nov. 19, in Gettysburg, Pa. The great filmmaker Ken Burns will speak at the Soldier's National Cemetery on the 145th anniversary of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address.

On Thursday, Nov. 20, at Gettysburg College, we will have the first of 10 town hall forums, titled "Race, Freedom and Equality of Opportunity." I have the high honor of joining Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., Professor Allen Guezlo and Norman Bristol-Colon on the panel, with Professor Charles Branham as the moderator.

President-elect Obama talks of Abraham Lincoln's view of our nation as an "unfinished work." Well, isn't that equally true of all of us? Therefore let all of us strive to help him be a successful president, so as to help make America an even greater nation.

ANNOUNCEMENT FOR THE PRESIDENCY OF THE UNITED STATES
BY CONGRESSMAN JACK KEMP
APRIL 6, 1987

Ladies and gentlemen. Six years, ago the leadership of our President and our party helped jar our country from despondency, and a long retreat and rekindle a renaissance of hope here at home and throughout the Free World.

We rejoice at America's new beginning and our steady progress under Ronald Reagan's leadership these past six years. But we have so much to do and a long way to go, as we get ready for the 1990's. Like the good shepherd, America must reach out to the weak and to those who have fallen behind. That has always been the strength of America.

There are those, in both political parties, who look to the future with such anxiety and pessimism, that they can only think of ideas which would impose austerity and pain, protectionism and isolationism.

At a time when families are under stress, they would meet the challenge of budget deficits by increasing taxes, cutting back on Social Security and weakening our national defense. They would meet the challenge of global competition by raising new walls to foreign imports. And, they would meet the challenge of securing global peace by conceding territory and human freedom to those who respect the rights of neither.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is a better way, a more confident way and that's why we're here!

America must have a vision for the future that includes victory: A victory for the idea that there is nothing wrong with America that cannot be fixed; and that there are no limits to our future if we don't put limits on our people; a victory for the American Idea of peace, prosperity, democracy and freedom -- not just for America, but for the Americas; not just for our hemisphere, but for the whole world.

I believe that our future begins with faith -- faith in the Jeffersonian ideal that God is the Author of life and liberty; that He is the Author of our personal freedoms -- political, economic and religious -- and that these freedoms are at the heart of all human progress. No government in history has been able to do for people what they have been able to do for themselves, when they were free to follow their hopes and dreams.

The American Dream is not to make everyone level with everyone else, but to create the opportunity for all people to reach as high as their God-given potential allows. in this Nation, if you're born to be a mezzo soprano, or a master carpenter, or even an NFL quarterback, there ought not be anything standing in your way, not color, not creed, nor station in life.

What a long - way we've come in the last six years, but what a long way we have to go. There is more hope and less poverty, but too many are left behind and there's too much despair.

As we look out on the world, we can take satisfaction that the Soviet Union has made no real territorial gains on President Reagan's watch. But we must continue to hope and plan realistically that the next President will win back to freedom what has been lost in both hemispheres. In short, there is much for our next President to do.

So where do we go from here? I believe there are three great challenges facing us in the decade ahead: The defense of peace and freedom; the defense of our children and the family; and a national commitment to the highest ideal of economic justice -- full employment without inflation for all Americans.

I believe in growth. I am proud to have carried the banner of growth for our party; proud to have fought for two historic pieces of legislation: The Kemp-Roth bill which lowered tax rates on workers and savers; and our historic tax reform which raises the personal exemption to $2,000, and lowers the tax rate to 15 percent for more than 80 percent of American families.

I believe in liberating both labor and capital from high taxes and bureaucratic tax forms, and I have opposed, and will continue to oppose, any plan, from any quarter, to raise taxes on the American people.

The biggest threat to our Federal budget is not American families being under-taxed, it is too much spending, too much unemployment and too little growth. More growth, more jobs, lower interest rates and less government spending is the only real way to balance our federal budget.

We must not only fight, we must win the war on poverty by enlisting the greatest weapon ever invented -- free enterprise.

We must enact free enterprise zone legislation to reach into the most stubborn pockets of urban and rural poverty with a helping hand of job creation; and we won't rest until we pass urban homesteading legislation, so that families in public housing who work hard and save will got the chance to become homeowners.

We must assist farm families whipsawed by the inflation/deflation cycles of the last decade. We must give our farms and factories a stable dollar, low, long-term interest rates, a chance to work out from under their debts and new markets for their products.

As we move forward, we must increase our vigilance against wasteful public spending. I favor strict limits an spending, starting with the line-item veto, which 43 governors-have but the President is still shamefully denied by big-spending liberals.

We have seen an end to the ruinous inflation of the 70's. But we, need- to, ensure the integrity of the currency, so that interest rates can drop further, and Americans will know that their job security, savings and ability to earn a living in the world marketers not at the mercy of fluctuating currencies and volatile exchange rates.
We must guarantee the purchasing power of the dollar, make the dollar, once again, an honest dollar, a dollar as good as gold. And we should move, without delay to convene an international conference to convince our trading partners to open their markets, stop their subsidies, and stabilize their currencies.

I believe in growth for the whole world. While we are an independent Nation, we live in an interdependent world. Encouraging greater growth abroad is an imperative for us at home. Growth in Asia and Europe, and particularly in the economies of Africa and Latin America will do more than anything else to help create new customers for American factories and farmers, while helping the world combat poverty and underdevelopment.

We should negotiate free trade zones to break down barriers to U.S. exports. We need an International Monetary Fund and a World Bank that understand growth, and that are willing to support it, rather than impose the austerity of endless tax hikes and currency devaluations upon developing nations. We must have a State Department that sees people as a resource, not as a drain on resources.

But all of our efforts to build opportunity and prosperity will be for naught if we do not meet our second great challenge: The defense of the West and the expansion of freedom in a world at peace.

The central drama of the 20th century is the struggle between democracy and totalitarianism; and the central dilemma of our day is that we lie defenseless against Soviet missiles.

As we speak, we have protection against tanks, submarines and aircraft, but we have no protection -- none -- against accidental or deliberate missile attack. America's survival rests precariously on a thin ledge of strategic deterrence -- and that ledge continues to erode under the growing Soviet strategic threat.

I want to be able to tell our children and our grandchildren that we found the way to protect America, to move the world from the Doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction to a far safer world of strategic defense. My friends, we can. The Strategic Defense Initiative is the greatest peace initiative in postwar history.

The sane technology that is revolutionizing medicine and industry can help protect this planet from the nightmare of nuclear war. Laser technology that can today eliminate a cancer cell could tomorrow neutralize a Soviet ballistic missile in space. What then prevents us from going forward with strategic defense? Not technological know-how, but political tunnel vision.
The State. Department and the Democratic Party would rather use SDI as a bargaining chip, and would rather bind this country to a treaty the Soviets have violated since day one, than give America and our allies the defenses we need. More important than any paper promise from the Soviets is the ability of the West to verify and enforce Soviet-compliance with treaties -- on this there can be no compromise.

The most urgent question facing this Nation is -- will America be defended in the 1990's or not? I believe our highest defense priority demands in 1988 a national referendum -- not just on the research and testing of SDI in the laboratory, but on the research, testing and deployment of SDI as soon as possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, all I have seen in my travels to Europe, Asia, the Middle East, throughout Latin America, and to the USSR, convinces me that freedom is the most powerful, progressive and successful political idea the world has ever known.

America is on the side of history. But we must be on the side of democracy for all people, on the side of human rights for men and women across the world struggling against the Soviet Colonial Empire. In a very real sense, America defends her own freedom and values when we help other brave people struggling to win their freedom. Sadly, the Democratic Party has all but turned its back on the noble tradition of Presidents Truman, Kennedy and Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson.
This country cannot abandon its friends or appease an adversary who defines "peace" as the final triumph of communism. Let us unite behind a strategy for victory that says we must go beyond containing communism to the ultimate triumph of freedom and democracy. We can start by formally acknowledging and marshalling support for the legitimacy of freedom fighter movements around the world.

Just as we must decide whether or not America will be defended, so, too, must we decide -- what kind of America will we defend, what values will we stand for, what kind of people will we be?

It all begins and ends in one place: The family. I believe our third great challenge for the 1990's is to fortify, nurture and protect the bedrock of our Judeo-Christian values - our families and our children.

Of all the challenges we face at home, none stand more menacing to the future of our democracy than the threats to families: we see these threats in the breakup of families, and in all too many cases, their failure even to form; we see the decline of discipline and erosion of values in education; the danger of sexually transmitted diseases; the loss of many young people to lives of crime, drugs, and even to suicide.

There is a common denominator here. America needs a rebirth of respect and compassion for the value, dignity and sanctity of each and every human life. And the first human value is what our Declaration of Independence called the inalienable right to life.

As we commemorate the. 200th anniversary of the world's oldest constitutional democracy, we must come to grips with this core constitutional question: Will the right to life be withheld by the Supreme Court, or can and shall it be protected democratically, by all the American people?

In 1857, a tragic Supreme Court decision, Dred Scott v. Sandford, declared that Congress could not outlaw slavery in the territories. But that decision was overturned five years later by a simple act of Congress, clearing the way for the Emancipation Proclamation. As democracy and human dignity prevailed over Dred Scott in Lincoln's time, so can democracy and human dignity prevail over Roe v. Wade in our time.

Let us press forward, appoint judges who uphold our Judeo-Christian values, and continue to seek Constitutional protection for human life. The time has come for Congress to pass legislation that permits the citizens of each state, for the first time since 1973, to protect the inalienable right to life of all children.
A compassionate society cares as much for each child's life after it is born as before. There are children to be loved and there are parents eager to love them. We need leadership and laws that honor and encourage adoption.

As our children grow, let us remember that the quality of our culture, as well as the security of our Nation are ultimately determined by the character of our children. Education must continue to be reformed along the lines of Secretary Bill Bennett -- rewarding excellence, and the teaching of values.

For example, in a pluralistic society, we need the competition and choice, as well as the quality, of Magnet schools, so successful in my hometown of Buffalo and other cities. This idea should be promoted and extended to other communities throughout the country.

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one office that can mobilize the ideas, talent and dedication to help unite America, make our lives more meaningful, and our world more secure.
Understanding the solemn responsibility of that high office, and the historic opportunity of this moment, I announce today that I am a candidate for President of the United States.

I am confident I can lead our party to victory in 1988 -- not for one person, nor for one party, but for one nation, under God.

I have spent the last 17 years developing ideas, building bridge&, advancing the strategy for jobs and freedom that captured people's imagination -- a strategy that can make the Republican Party the majority Party of America.

We will take this campaign to company halls and to union halls; to young people and to senior citizens; to entrepreneurs and yes, to inner city families so that we, the party of Lincoln, can once again hold up the dream of liberty and justice for all.

Like so many Americans, I remember the history of my family, who followed their dreams from England to America, who settled in New York, then founded a new town in South Dakota and eventually moved on to California.

The dream came alive for my Mother and Father as they started their own business -- a small trucking company in Los Angeles, which supported our family through the Depression, and helped provide a college education for their four sons.

I knew the dream was real when I married Joanne and we began our family. Our journey took us from college to pro football, from the San Diego Chargers to the Buffalo Bills, and in 1970, here to the Halls of the United States Congress.

Today we are embarking on a great new journey. I stand with colleagues whom I respect and esteem so very much. As I look at our family and sea Jeff, Jennifer, Judith, and Jimmy, and Jeff's dear wife Stacy -- I think of all our families -- all our hopes, our dreams, our future, our freedom and peace ... I know that's why I am in this race, and why I want to be President.
Thank you.
God bless you and God bless America.

Source: The Library & Archives of New Hampshire's Political Tradition

Olympia Snowe: What Has Happened To The Grand Old Party?

2009-05-01T07:27:00.000-07:00

CQ TODAY PRINT EDITION –
CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS April 30, 2009 – 8:39 p.m.

One of Senate's Remaining GOP Moderates Vents, And McConnell Listens
By Bart Jansen, CQ Staff

After losing Arlen Specter to the Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell moved quickly to gauge the level of discontent of one of his caucus’ few remaining moderates.
McConnell sat down privately with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe of Maine on Wednesday and let her vent about what she thinks is going wrong with the Grand Old Party. It was a one-on-one follow-up to a New York Times essay in which Snowe contended the party didn’t need to lose Specter.
After the meeting, Snowe had nothing but good things to say about McConnell, R-Ky., and focused her criticism on other wings of the party.
“My concern is that it’s hard for the leader and others who work here to try to create a more inclusive message that could well be overshadowed or neutralized by the national party,” Snowe said Thursday. “It’s been a painful lesson, but hopefully we will learn from it and build on it.”
A McConnell spokesman said the leader met often with Specter and cultivates relationships on the floor and in office meetings.“He tends his garden,” spokesman Don Stewart said.
Maine’s two senators, Snowe and Susan Collins , are among the Republicans most likely to vote with Democrats on policies such as energy, entitlements and social issues such as support for abortion rights. Snowe, Collins and Specter were pivotal to passage of the economic stimulus (PL 111-5), as the only three Republicans in Congress who voted in favor of the bill.
Snowe, who served 16 years in the House minority before winning her Senate seat in 1994, and Collins both insist they would never change parties.
Snowe said the party must emphasize issues such as tax reduction and a sound national defense. “It should be more inclusive and responsive and listening to all sides,” she said.
For example, some GOP senators have harshly criticized Snowe and Collins in the past for opposing oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. On fiscal matters, they prefer to offset additional spending or tax cuts as they are approved.
In her New York Times essay, Snowe argued that Republicans turned a blind eye to the 2001 defection of Sen. James Jeffords of Vermont, who left the GOP to become an independent caucusing with the Democrats.
That move tipped Senate control to the Democrats. Snowe said Republicans also overestimated their successes in 2004.
“We can’t,” Snowe wrote, “continue to fold our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand.”

April 29, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor
We Didn’t Have to Lose Arlen Specter
By OLYMPIA SNOWE
Washington
IT is disheartening and disconcerting, at the very least, that here we are today — almost exactly eight years after Senator Jim Jeffords left the Republican Party — witnessing the departure of my good friend and fellow moderate Republican, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, for the Democratic Party. And the announcement of his switch was all the more painful because I believe it didn’t have to be this way.
When Senator Jeffords became an independent in 2001, I said it was a sad day for the Republicans, but it would be even sadder if we failed to confront and learn from the devaluation of diversity within the party that contributed to his defection. I also noted that we were far from the heady days of 1998, when Republicans were envisioning the possibility of a filibuster-proof 60-vote margin. (Recall that in the 2000 election, most pundits were shocked when Republicans lost five seats, resulting in a 50-50 Senate.)
I could have hardly imagined then that, in 2009, we would fondly reminisce about the time when we were disappointed to fall short of 60 votes in the Senate. Regrettably, we failed to learn the lessons of Jim Jeffords’s defection in 2001. To the contrary, we overreached in interpreting the results of the presidential election of 2004 as a mandate for the party. This resulted in the disastrous elections of 2006 and 2008, which combined for a total loss of 51 Republicans in the House and 13 in the Senate — with a corresponding shift of the Congressional majority and the White House to the Democrats.
It was as though beginning with Senator Jeffords’s decision, Republicans turned a blind eye to the iceberg under the surface, failing to undertake the re-evaluation of our inclusiveness as a party that could have forestalled many of the losses we have suffered.
It is true that being a Republican moderate sometimes feels like being a cast member of “Survivor” — you are presented with multiple challenges, and you often get the distinct feeling that you’re no longer welcome in the tribe. But it is truly a dangerous signal that a Republican senator of nearly three decades no longer felt able to remain in the party.
Senator Specter indicated that his decision was based on the political situation in Pennsylvania, where he faced a tough primary battle. In my view, the political environment that has made it inhospitable for a moderate Republican in Pennsylvania is a microcosm of a deeper, more pervasive problem that places our party in jeopardy nationwide.
I have said that, without question, we cannot prevail as a party without conservatives. But it is equally certain we cannot prevail in the future without moderates. In that same vein, I am reminded of a briefing by a prominent Republican pollster after the 2004 election. He was asked what voter groups Republicans might be able to win over. He responded: women in general, married women with children, Hispanics, the middle class in general, and independents.
How well have we done as a party with these groups? Unfortunately, the answer is obvious from the results of the last two elections. We should be reaching out to these segments of our population — not de facto ceding them to the opposing party.
There is no plausible scenario under which Republicans can grow into a majority while shrinking our ideological confines and continuing to retract into a regional party. Ideological purity is not the ticket back to the promised land of governing majorities — indeed, it was when we began to emphasize social issues to the detriment of some of our basic tenets as a party that we encountered an electoral backlash. It is for this reason that we should heed the words of President Ronald Reagan, who urged, “We should emphasize the things that unite us and make these the only ‘litmus test’ of what constitutes a Republican: our belief in restraining government spending, pro-growth policies, tax reduction, sound national defense, and maximum individual liberty.” He continued, “As to the other issues that draw on the deep springs of morality and emotion, let us decide that we can disagree among ourselves as Republicans and tolerate the disagreement.”
I couldn’t agree more. We can’t continue to fold our philosophical tent into an umbrella under which only a select few are worthy to stand. Rather, we should view an expansion of diversity within the party as a triumph that will broaden our appeal. That is the political road map we must follow to victory.

Olympia Snowe is a Republican senator from Maine.

Obama - 100 Days

2009-04-29T09:40:00.000-07:00

Obama’s first 100 days
by

Congressman Bob Filner

Posted By eric.yates On April 20, 2009 @ 11:35 am

San Diego News Network

The end of President Obama’s first 100 days is time to take stock of the enormous progress we have made on jump-starting the American economy and laying the foundation for prosperity for years to come.

Change has come to Washington with unprecedented speed since the election of Barack Obama and the 111th Congress. We have taken swift action in a New Direction to begin to get our economy on track and create and save jobs. But our challenges are, in many ways, unprecedented.

President Obama inherited a massive economic and budget mess from the Bush Administration. The last eight years have seen the slowest job creation in 75 years, with 4.4 million jobs lost in the last 14 months, and the longest recession since the Great Depression.

Paychecks have remained flat in the face of rising prices. Millions of families are losing their homes because of irresponsible and predatory lending. The national debt has nearly doubled, with record $5.6 trillion surplus built under President Clinton turned into a record $5.8 trillion deficit under President Bush.

This economic crisis is impacting everyone. American families lost 18 percent of their net worth in 2008 alone, including home values and retirement savings. Businesses are having trouble getting loans because of the credit crunch, brought on by eight years of lax oversight and a failure to bring common-sense rules to Wall Street. Now 12 million Americans are unemployed
and many families are facing extraordinarily difficult choices about health care, child care, education, and housing.

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

Just three weeks after President Obama’s inauguration, Congress enacted his historic economic recovery plan to create and save 3.5 million American jobs, including 396,000 here in California. It gives 95 percent of American workers, including 12,420,000 Californians - one of the fastest and broadest tax cuts in history - that is starting to show up in paychecks now.

This plan will begin to transform our economy for the 21st century and rebuild America with investments in roads, bridges, mass transit, flood control, clean water projects, and other essential infrastructure projects.

To lay the groundwork for long-term economic growth, the plan invests in clean, renewable

energy and energy efficiency, science and innovation, and lowering health care costs and improving care with electronic medical records. To make sure our children are able to compete in the world economy, it also strengthens education from the preschool level to college.

Only by tackling these urgent national challenges, like our dependence on foreign oil and crippling health care costs, can we ensure that America’s recovery will bring sustained economic growth and widespread prosperity for generations to come.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act’s job-creating investments are starting to pay off - hatching entrepreneurial ideas for home weatherization and renewable energy companies, preventing the layoff of police officers and teachers, and repairing road and bridges.

To help ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and effectively, the Recovery Act also contains unprecedented accountability and transparency measures - no earmarks, new whistleblower protections, strong oversight, and a new www.recovery.gov Web site that, for the first time, allows Americans to track these investments online and contact elected officials about how it’s working.

Stabilizing the housing and financial sectors

President Obama has launched a comprehensive housing plan to help stem home foreclosures
that have reduced home values for all. Progress is underway with a financial stability plan to get credit flowing to businesses and families with tough accountability and transparency.

Congress will also take up new common-sense rules for our financial system, to keep the irresponsible actions of a few from jeopardizing American families and small businesses. In the coming weeks, we will also take up a Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights and new legislation to
fight predatory and abusive lending practices.

A blueprint for the future

Building on the new direction for the economy in our Recovery Act, the House and Senate have passed a five-year budget blueprint, reflecting the priorities of President Obama. The budget is a road map for all the work we do. It lays the foundation for lasting prosperity and economic growth for America’s workers and families. To begin to restore tax fairness, the budget cuts taxes for middle-income families by at least $1.5 trillion. To create jobs, the budget will make targeted investments and reforms in affordable health care, clean energy, and education.

This budget begins to restore fiscal responsibility - cutting the deficit by nearly two-thirds by 2013 - making serious progress after years of reckless economic policies. The budget reduces non-defense discretionary spending to its lowest level as a percent of the economy in nearly half a century and - in Fiscal Year 2010 - by 1.5 percent below the President’s budget blueprint.

It took years to get into this mess, and it will take time to get our country back on track, but the American people have always risen to the challenge in times of crisis. This Congress and President Obama plan to tackle historic reforms to make health care more affordable, to create millions of jobs in a clean, renewable energy market, and to make education more competitive for a 21st century economy.

Ultimately, our work will be measured by results. But at the 100-day mark, President Obama and the 111th Congress are beginning to move America in a New Direction. As your federal representative in Washington, I welcome your input. Please do not hesitate to contact me through my District Office at (619) 422- 5963. Thank you for all the good work you do!

Rep. Bob Filner represents California’s 51st Congressional District. This commentary was first published in La Prensa.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Article printed from San Diego News Network: http://www.sdnn.com
URL to article: http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-04-20/news/filner-the-first-100-days

Specter Switches To Democrats

2009-04-28T11:59:00.000-07:00

CQ TODAY ONLINE NEWS – CONGRESSIONAL AFFAIRS
April 28, 2009 – 1:06 p.m.
Specter to Run as Democrat in 2010
By Kathleen Hunter and Bart Jansen, CQ Staff

Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania announced Tuesday that he will campaign as a Democrat in 2010, a decision that appears to bolster his re-election prospects and would move the Democrats closer to a 60-vote supermajority in the Senate.

“I have been a Republican since 1966,” Specter said in a statement. “I have been working extremely hard for the party, for its candidates and for the ideals of a Republican Party whose tent is big enough to welcome diverse points of view. While I have been comfortable being a Republican, my party has not defined who I am.”

Specter, whom polls showed trailing former Rep. Patrick J. Toomey in a potential Republican primary next year, cited the GOP’s shift to the right in explaining his decision to run in the Democratic primary in 2010.

“I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election,” Specter, a 79-year-old cancer survivor, said.

With Specter aligning with the Democrats, Senate Democrats would control 60 votes if Democrat Al Franken is certified as Minnesota’s new senator. Senate filibusters are much easier to overcome with a 60-vote majority.

“This is a very significant change,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California. She said Specter becoming a Democrat “dramatically changes the dynamic and strengthens our party, our caucus in the United States Senate.”

“I’m stunned. I had no idea this was coming,” said Republican Sam Brownback of Kansas.

Republican Pat Roberts of Kansas called it “not a good thing” that Democrats can reach the 60 votes needed to limit debate.

“I think it’s most unfortunate obviously for the Republican Party,” Roberts said. “I respect him. If he feels strongly about this and wants to change, obviously that’s his decision.”

Specter conceded that his move will disappoint many friends and supporters.
“I can understand their disappointment,” he said. “I am also disappointed that so many in the party I have worked for more than four decades do not want me to be their candidate. It is very painful on both sides.”

Specter also stressed that his decision does not mean he will be “a party-line voter any more for the Democrats than I have been for the Republicans.”

The senator declined to answer a barrage of questions from reporters in the Capitol Tuesday about whether he would immediately begin to caucus with the Democrats, when he informed his colleagues of his intentions or whether he would attend the GOP lunch on Tuesday.

A spokesman for Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nev., said Specter came to see Reid in person on Monday to inform the majority leader about the decision.

The aide said he did not yet know how Specter’s decision would affect committee structures or when Specter might officially make the switch.

Specter would say only that he plans to address reporters later Tuesday.
Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell , a Democrat, had both encouraged Specter to switch parties earlier this year, but he had indicated plans to stay in the GOP.

“It’s a personal choice — happy to see him,” said Sen. Max Baucus , D-Mont.
Senate Minority Whip Richard J. Durbin , D-Ill., said there had been many efforts over many months to convert Specter. He said he was not a part of them, “other than occasional conversations,” but declined to be more specific.

Durbin said he didn’t know if Specter was offered anything, or whether he would shade his views on any issues.

“This man has been in the Senate for many years, has established a political platform, philosophy, and most of the time he found himself as a moderate Republican,” Durbin said. “I don’t know what he has said publicly about his view of the Republican party today but it’s clearly a much different party today than when he joined it.”

Reid said he and Specter, over the years, “have had a long dialogue about his place in an evolving Republican Party. We have not always agreed on every issue, but Senator Specter has shown a willingness to work in a bipartisan manner, put people over party, and do what is right for Pennsylvanians and all Americans.”

Judiciary Chairman Patrick J. Leahy , D-Vt, said he hoped Specter would remain on the Judiciary Committee but declined to comment on how seniority on that panel would work if Specter made the switch during the this Congress. Leahy recalled the 2002 decision of Jim Jeffords of Vermont to leave the GOP and caucus with Democrats.

“I know what Jim Jeffords went through, and in my conversation earlier this morning with Sen. Specter, I think he was feeling pretty much the same - that it wasn’t so much he leaving the Republican Party but the Republican party leaving him,” Leahy said.

Reporters Greg Vadala, Keith Perine and Adam Graham-Silverman contributed to this story.

Al Gore vs. the Idiot-Right

2009-04-27T13:42:00.000-07:00

Edward Kennedy SERVE AMERICA ACT

2009-04-21T13:30:00.000-07:00

www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-service_for_wrsapr22,0,3708499.story
chicagotribune.com

Obama hails Kennedy, signs volunteerism bill
By
Rebecca Cole
Washington Bureau
April 22, 2009

WASHINGTON— At a time community service is already growing, openings for federally sponsored volunteers will more than triple under a bill that President Barack Obama signed into law Tuesday.

The legislation, which won broad bipartisan support, authorizes an expansion of AmeriCorps and other national service programs. It is named for its lead sponsor, Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts, who attended the signing along with former President Bill Clinton, who started AmeriCorps in 1993.

With his signature, Obama called on Americans to "stand up" and take part in community service. "I'm asking you to help change history's course, put your shoulder up against the wheel," he said.

Kennedy called it "a wonderful day for all of our country and all Americans, who will now have a chance and the opportunity to give back to their communities and the nation, the nation that we love so much."

Obama, for his part, said he wouldn't be where he is today without the service of others: "When I moved to Chicago more than two decades ago, to become a community organizer, I wasn't sure what was waiting for me there. But I had always been inspired by the stories of the civil rights movement and President [John] Kennedy's call to service."

Propelled by Edward Kennedy and Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah -- the "odd couple of the Senate," Obama called them -- the act will deliver $1.1 billion to AmeriCorps this year, in addition to $200 million that the president's economic stimulus act has funneled to the organization.
The funding will allow the organization to expand openings for AmeriCorps volunteers from 75,000 to 250,000 positions over the next nine years and to establish four new areas of volunteer corps in health care, education, clean energy and conservation.
The legislation ties service to education, increasing the stipend paid to volunteers to $5,350, the same as that of a Pell Grant for college students. It also creates a $50 million Social Innovation Fund to provide matching grants to nonprofit organizations. And it establishes Sept. 11 as a national day of service.

Alan Solomont, chairman of the agency that oversees AmeriCorps, notes that interest in the program already is growing--with 17,000 applications collected online in March, triple the number recorded in March 2008.

"We know that people want to serve, as witnessed by 'the Obama effect' of people answering the president's call to service," Solomont said in a conference call with reporters Tuesday.

Melody Barnes, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, calls the new Social Innovation Fund consistent with Obama's commitment to look outside of Washington for programs that have an impact on their communities.

"One of the things we are very focused on here is not just the number of people who participate, the number of hours that are committed, but impact and transformation," Barnes said.

The White House also announced the nomination of Maria Eitel for chief executive of the Corporation for National and Community Service, the agency that operates AmeriCorps. As president and founder of the Nike Foundation, the former Nike vice president for corporate responsibility has worked at increasing opportunities for girls around the world.

Eitel, Obama said, "will bring new, creative thinking to the growth and mission" of the organization.

rcole@tribune.com

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

KENNEDY ON THE SIGNING OF THE SERVE AMERICA ACT
April 21, 2009
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

WASHINGTON, DC- Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, made the following remarks today at the signing of the Serve America Act. Written by Senators Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, this bipartisan legislation will provide for a sweeping overhaul and expansion of national service programs.

The signing of the bill will be at the SEED School in Southeast DC, a public charter school that serves about 300 students in 6th through 12th grades. One of two SEED schools in the DC area, it is a tuition-free public boarding school that serves predominantly minority and low-income students. The SEED School has demonstrated a commitment to providing service opportunities for its students – there is a 100 hour service requirement for graduation, and a service learning program for students in the upper grades.

As Prepared for Delivery

This is a wonderful day for our country, and for all Americans who will now have the opportunity to give back to their communities and to this nation we love so much.

Special thanks to Barbara Mikulski, who gave her heart and incredible leadership to bring us to this day. And to Orrin Hatch, our partner from the beginning, who helped us win broad bipartisan support.

To Senator Enzi, Chairman Miller and Congressman McKeon, all champions of the cause, we thank you.

And a very special thank you to all who serve. This bill was forged by you.

I will never forget the 5th anniversary of the Peace Corps where I sat with the very first group of volunteers. I asked each of them why they decided to get involved. They said it was the first time anyone asked them to do anything for their country.

Today, another young president has challenged another generation to give back to their country.
Last spring, at Wesleyan University, candidate Barack Obama summoned our nation to a new era of service. He said: “I believe with all my heart that this generation is ready and eager and up to the challenge.”

Mr. President, I couldn’t agree with you more. You have inspired a new generation of Americans with your own example and your call to service.

You have walked the walk --and today, you pave the way for others.

I am deeply honored to introduce him now. My friend, our leader, the President of the United States.

###

A summary of the legislation and a sampling of letters from the over 400 groups supporting this bill are below and attached.

THE SERVE AMERICA ACT (S. 277)
Expanding and Improving
Domestic and International Service Opportunities for All Americans

The Serve America Act is a bipartisan measure to strengthen service and volunteer opportunities, after 16 years of inaction on this issue. It expands opportunities for individuals of all ages to serve, and its passage is especially important now, when so many communities are struggling to deal with pressing problems.

I. The Act Invites Many More Americans to Give a Year of Service to Solve Specific Challenges: Building on the success of AmeriCorps, the legislation authorizes the creation of focused “Corps” to work on specific areas of national need such as Education, Healthy Futures, Clean Energy, Opportunity, and Veterans. The Act:

· Expands the number of national service participants to 250,000/year, as part of a new national commitment to addressing these challenges.

· Increases the Eli Segal Education Award from $4,725 to $5,350 to keep up with the rising cost of college, and link it to Pell Grants so it will continue to increase in the future. The Award can be used for pay for higher education, including student loans.

II. Support Increased Service Opportunities for Students. Service early in life will put more youth on a path to a lifetime of service. The Act strengthens the current Learn and Serve program and authorizes a Summer of Service program for middle and high school students.

III. Support Increased Service Opportunities for Retirees. Many retiring citizens are ready, willing, and able to be involved in service and have skills needed by our communities.

The Act:
· Strengthens and expands the current Senior Corps programs – RSVP, Senior Companions, and Foster Grandparents.

· Enhances incentives for retirees to give a year of service through the new Corps, by enabling them to transfer their educational award to a child or grandchild.

· Creates “Encore Fellowships” to help retirees participate in longer-term public service.

IV. Support Increase of Opportunities for Volunteering by Persons All Ages. Many Americans who are not able to make a significant time commitment to service can volunteer in other ways.

The legislation expands the volunteer pool by establishing a “Volunteer Generation Fund” to assist nonprofit organizations in recruiting and managing additional volunteers.

V. Support Innovation in the Nonprofit Sector: Social entrepreneurs who have launched innovative organizations such as Teach for America and Citizen Schools are experimenting with new solutions to pressing problems.

The Act recognizes and supports the effective role of social entrepreneurs in meeting community and national challenges by establishing a “Social Innovation Fund” to serve as venture capital to help the nonprofit sector recruit talent.

VI. Support International Service Opportunities: The Act strengthens the current “Volunteers for Prosperity” program, which coordinates and supports short-term international service opportunities for skilled professionals in developing nations.

Press Contact
Anthony Coley/ Melissa Wagoner (202) 224-2633