28 year old, politically active IT professional in Sacramento. I used to lobby with the California Youth Connection. Now I prefer to comment on under-served congressional races and issues.
(Proudly Cross-Posted at Clintonistas for Obama and ComputerQueen.Net)
I'm just pleased as punch to have been asked to do another blog about Lt. Col. Brown.
Now, let me preface this by saying that I know this will prove to be a tough race. The PVI of the district is R+11, and the GOP is running a carpet bagger from the 19th State Senate district (Los Angeles, Santa Barbara and Ventura counties). It appears they have to transplant someone with a pulse to take over for Doolittle, whom chose not to run again after the scandals of the past year.
The newest polling data I could find was from May, where Brown was 2 points up.
The following is a taste of his issue profile:
On Health Care:
45 Million Americans lack access to health insurance, and the number is growing. Charlie believes increasing access to quality, affordable health care for all Americans is a moral and fiscal imperative. Charlie strongly supports the expansion of SCHIP, to ensure all children have access to affordable care. He also supports the concept of Universal Health care and will lead the fight for a new, constructive dialogue to solve America's health care crisis in the next Congress.
2 Words: Right On!
On Homeland Security:
It is appalling that 5 years after 9/11, the U.S. Government still hasn't implemented most of the 9/11 commission's recommendations.Charlie believes we must immediately secure our borders, implement a national railway, port, and transit security plan, end the practice of using DHS funding for pork barrel spending that doesn't address legitimate security threats, address the communication and interoperability problems that continue to plague intelligence and emergency response operations, adequately fund FEMA and restore it to a Cabinet level post.
I don't even have to bother spinning this one!
On Iraq
Having coordinated surveillance flights over Iraq in the 1990's, Charlie did not support the U.S. invasion because he knew there were no WMD's present, that an invasion could unleash centuries old sectarian conflicts inside Iraq, and leave fewer American military resources available to defeat the enemy who attacked America on 9/11--Al Qaeda.Despite under-manning, under-equipping, bad intelligence and naive post-war planning by politicians in Washington, America's military has toppled a terrible dictator in Iraq. But as General Patreus himself has said, our troops can only create the space for Iraq's newly elected politicians to reconcile the political differences that have fomented sectarian violence and civil war. Ultimately, Iraq needs a political solution, not a military one. And America can't defeat global terrorism by transforming the world's finest military force into the Baghdad police force.
Charlie believes accountability is the key to getting our troops home quickly and responsibly---tying future U.S. aid to the achievement of key political benchmarks by Iraq's elected leaders. Together with limited counterterrorism operations, training of Iraqi Security forces and accelerated reconstruction efforts, only real results from Iraq's politicians can expedite the process of political reconciliation Iraq needs to create a permanent stable government that can sustain itself and defend its own borders. Ultimately, open ended promises of money and troops by our government provide little incentive for Iraqi politicians to take action and ownership of their nation's future.
Ultimately, re-deploying US Troops out of Iraq will enable the United States to refocus on the real front lines against terrorism-fighting the resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, strengthening our strategic alliances, improving intelligence gathering, expanding special operations capabilities, and giving our troops more time here at home- so they can be rested, trained, properly equipped and ready for quick deployment against terrorist concentrations or any other threats to America.
Col. Brown has show his willingness to speak truth to power. He was a vocal opponent of the Iraq War ... not because it was the politically expedient thing to do, but because it was the RIGHT thing to do.
So this brings me to my support of Col. Brown. He already had a good showing in 2006, running against Doolittle, only losing by just over 3 points. The district has grown since then, and a lot more progressives have moved into the mountain regions of the Northern Sierra Nevada range. With all this motion, we have the best chance we've had in 20 years to take back the CA 4th.
On our commitment to Veterans, Col. Brown is setting aside 5% of his fundraising to assist with Veterans charities. Having a Father who is a Vietnam Vet, this is something that is very moving for me. I'd like to see more of our candidates rise to this challenge and help those who have fought for our freedoms.
Charlie Brown also understands the need for retail politics in a rural district, such as the 4th. From appearances at 4th of July Celebrations, to fundraisers at a Vineyard in Penn Valley (which is where I got to meet him ... my friend's parents own the vineyard), he is no stranger to the Grip-N-Grin. When people contribute to his campaign, he sends them a Hand Signed letter of thanks. That is something that is all too rare in today's politics.
So, please join with the Clintonistas for Obama team as we support Our Progressive C4O All Stars.
As always, Just my 2 Cents!
Dizzy
Someone just e-mailed me a link to this video that MORE than underscores my previous article in the Government Fail series from C4O ...
So, A BIG thanks to Liberty Balls for the following video:
Just my 2 Cents - comments always welcome
Dizzy
(Proudly Cross-Posted to Clintonistas for Obama and ComputerQueen.Net)
In the continuation of our "Government Fail" series, I'd like to take a moment to highlight how Senator McCain would be just as bad, if not worse, than the Bush Administration has already been in regards to health care.
What I find the most troubling, is McCain's stance on Bush's veto of the Children's Health Insurance Expansion. Bush's reason for the veto was that he felt it was a step towards "federalizing" medicine.
McCain's response to CNN's John King:
"Right call by the president.
In short, because they don't want to look like they're federalizing medicine, they have left 10 million children without health care through the vetoed expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. What a great way to stand up for our children!
NEXT! ...
McCain is proposing a health plan that is nearly indistinguishable from President Bush's, including dislodging State insurance regulations:
McCain's plan would allow companies to offer national plans based in states that don't have requirements passed by the vast majority of other states, including emergency care, required by 44 states. "Mr. McCain would also allow people to buy insurance across state lines." [Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]
Some of the State Mandates that would be overridden would include :
The McCain plan would also move away from an Employer-based system.
"The existing tax break for employer-sponsored insurance would be eliminated, taking a step away from the work-based model in place for the last half century and toward an individual market." [Wall Street Journal, 10/11/07]
The NY Times also weighed in:
Health Care
Mr. McCain's proposal to eliminate tax breaks that encourage employers to provide health insurance for their workers is very similar to one that Mr. Bush pushed last year, to little effect. The Bush plan offered a $15,000 tax deduction for families buying their own insurance, while the McCain plan would give a refundable tax credit of $5,000 to families for insurance whether or not they pay taxes. Both men opposed a 2007 bill to expand a children's health insurance program for lower- and middle-income families.
I've shopped for insurance - I know that most comprehensive plans for a healthy individual start around $150 per month. And the price increases exponentially for those with pre-existing conditions. McCain wants to claim he's doing this for the little guy, but what little guy can afford to insure his family wihtout the breaks of a group insurance plan, such as the ones that many employers offer. While the current system isn't the best, this plan would only further disadvantage the lowest of wage earners, and give money back to the corporate monster.
And the newest piece to the puzzle - adding ideology into policy.
The Bush Administration recently floated a draft rule to the Department of Health and Human Services redefining how monies are spent. While the basis cited by the Administration was to prevent discrimination in employment based on a medical provider's aversion to abortion, it also gave some new language to what falls under the category of abortion.
Again, from the New York Times:
The proposal defines abortion as follows: "any of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation."
With all of McCain's quotes about America being founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, it takes little conjecture to see where he will land on this issue.
While I can understand the point of not wanting to bar medical providers from employment based on their personal beliefs, I have to be reminded that Roe V. Wade guaranteed that the Right to Choose rested with the woman, not the doctor.
Additionally, the Hippocratic Oath in short requires a doctor to do no harm, regardless of their personal convictions. If a woman might die without an abortion, the doctor is ethically bound to perform it, regardless of their personal beliefs. Bush's plan would effectively give them a policy based exemption that is ethically and morally wrong.
Also, I'm sure I don't need to go into detail, again, about how Bush has (and McCain will further) tear away at the Ryan White CARE Act.
These are just a few examples of how, in the vein of health care, McCain would seriously be McSame, and how the Republican Controlled Government (read President Shrub) has Failed the American People.
Proudly Cross Posted at Clintonistas for Obama and ComputerQueen.Net
The past week has seen the mainstream corporate media continue their love affair with McBush. Ironically, this is the same media that Republicans have for years termed liberal.
Now, follow me on this one, as I'm moving quickly ...
The following block quotes are from an e-mail sent out by the Obama Campaign:
Just last week, McCain and his party attacked Barack Obama and ridiculed the idea that keeping your car tires inflated is an effective way to improve fuel efficiency and keep down the cost of gasoline. They even mailed out tire gauges as a joke.I think the shortest response I can give is "Duh!"
Earlier this week, the McCain campaign put out an ad saying that Washington is broken.Again, another obvious statement. The thing that the Rethuglicans don't mention is that Obama's been there 4 years ... their guy has been there 26 years. McBush has had a LOT more time to fix things, yet chooses to play the blame game. Look at McSame's voting record ... in the past 7.5 years, he's voted with Bush and the Republican Party 95% of the time. Maverick my @$$!
Another ad uses scare tactics to claim Barack's tax policy will hurt middle class Americans.The Media conveniently forgot that McSame's plan only helps the top echelon of wage earners. Over 100 million middle class families will take the tax burden of the upper class . . . the SAME upper class that has the ability to have people lobby for their tax loopholes, and who perpetuate the broken system that McSame talks about. Which party has spoken out against lobbyists and special interests? Certainly not the Rethuglicans!
(Proudly Cross-Posted at Clintonistas for Obama)
So, I was perusing the local news, and ran across a story about some new math coming out of the International AIDS Conference, currently being held in Mexico City.
CBS13 is reporting:
The country had roughly 56,300 new HIV infections in 2006 -- a dramatic increase from the 40,000 annual estimate used for the last dozen years.
While the CDC doesn't think that their "New Math" will dramatically increase the total projected number of infections in the US, they do feel it a failure in prevention efforts.
But some advocates complain that CDC's annual spending on HIV prevention in the United States has been held to roughly $700 million since 2001, while costs have risen. (That's about 3 percent of what the federal government spends on AIDS; much of the rest is on medicines, health care and research.)
This figure is VERY small, considering the total number of ASO's out there that are doing harm reduction programs. We, as a society, need to drastically increase our investment in protecting our future generations from this epidemic.
While both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have signed onto the National AIDS Strategy, we need to hold their feet to the fire to ensure they keep their committment past this election cycle.
That's why I'm proud to be working with the Campaign to End AIDS on their Stand Against AIDS action in Oxford, MS the 3 days leading up to the first Presidential Debate. Sen. Obama's people will be attending a Town Hall meeting the day before the Debate with our participants, and the C2EA is working to get McSame's people there too. We're pretty sure, however, that McSame doesn't really care about AIDS in America .... just like the Bush Administration's current stance.
As y'all can see, this is a pet issue for me, as I am living with HIV. Hopefully, the next administration will do more to help prevent the virus from spreading, and will work to shore up both continuing care for those of us with HIV/AIDS, and working even more agressively towards both a Therapeutic and Preventive Vaccine.
Just my 2 Cents - comments welcome
Dizzy
Crossposted from Clintonsitas For Obama and Obama--Criticism and Support
When I went to the pharmacy yesterday, I noticed a petition to the Governor and the CA State legislature trying to prevent a 10% cut in funding of the Ryan White Comprehensive AIDS Resources Emergency (CARE) Act. This enraged me, as California is only spending an average of 2 months medication costs per patient per year. Moreover, a large chunk of the funding goes to the hardest hit urban areas. In short, the LA and SF metros get over 50% of the funding, and the rest of the state is relegated to fight over the rest. While I'm all for money going where it's needed, the earmark needs to be expanded to truly serve the population living with HIV and AIDS.
Now I know that the Ryan White CARE Act has long been a target of the GOP and fiscal conservatives, but the current funding levels are shameful. While the total amount that is earmarked for the fund seems large at $255,305,160 (FY2006 as reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation in partnership with US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration), when you take into account there are 92,560 reported cases in the State of California (31 May, 2008, California Dept of Public Health, Office of AIDS), it boils down to an average $2758.27 per patient per year. An average month's medication cost for someone who is taking Anti-Retroviral Therapy (HIV Meds) is around $1400.00. With the proposed 10% cutback, the average amount spent per reported case would drop to an average of $2482.44 per year.
In 2005, there was a compromise measure enacted by Congress (when reauthorizing the Ryan White CARE Act) that limited how the monies are allocated. Title's I and II of the act are limited to spending 75% on a core set of medical services, including the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP), and places like the Center for AIDS Research, Education, and Services (CARES), and the other 25% used for "Wrap Around Services" such as housing assistance and food / meal assistance. Those levels are good for places like Sacramento, but don't work for places like San Francisco, where donors have taken the financial burden off the clinics and the San Francisco AIDS Foundation's medical outreach programs. In San Francisco, the SF AIDS Foundation reports that they only use an average of 60% out of the 75% medical allocation, but cannot reallocate those surplus monies to bolster their ailing non-medical assistance programs. Other agencies, such as CARES in Sacramento, are fighting to keep every dollar they get for medical care as they are severely under-funded, and are the only such agency in the California central valley.
So, in short, when I go to the Democratic Platform meeting next week, this is the issue I will bring. This is one of the many issues that need to be addressed by Congress under the Obama Administration, and one that will be kept silent as it's not a big newsmaker. But thankfully for myself (and the 92,559 other reported cases of HIV and AIDS in California), I've got a big mouth ... and am willing to use it to effect change.
Just my 2 Cents - comments and suggestions always welcome.
Dizzy
· Interview at 11:00 AM Eastern/8:00 AP Pacific (Jonathan Singer)
· FL-21: Democrat Raul Martinez Leads Lincoln Diaz-Balart by 2 (HellofaSandwich)
· Richardson to speak at Invesco Field (fbihop)
· West Virginian rebuttal to Sen. Rockefeller DNC08 speech (WVaBlue)
· PUMAs are like the tooth fairy (fbihop)
· Start Preparing Now: Hurricane Gustav Aiming At New Orleans (NickD)
· NRCC Reserves $8.8M in Ad Time in 14 Districts (HellofaSandwich)
· DNC Turns Away Bloggers from Seating Area When Jack Danforth is Sitting There (NickD)
· MN-03: Madia hits the airwaves 'Running' (MN Campaign Report)
· A view from the convention floor (fbihop)
· Tim Pawlenty puts his foot in his mouth (MN Campaign Report)
· Twittering the Democratic National Convention (Jonathan Singer)
