NATIONALVIEW.ORG
Click Here to View Our "Note From a Madman" Newsletter Archives
Click Here to Subscribe to our "Note From a Madman" Newsletter
The
9/11 Mosque: A Student’s Perspective of the So-called “Controversy”by Bonnie Greenberg
The topic of my research paper is one that is quite familiar to Americans—and, nay, people around the entire globe—as a whole, what has come to be known in popular culture as the so-called 9/11 mosque. To be uninitiated to the rampant controversy that is currently surrounding the issue is to have buried your head in the sand and ensconced yourself in a deserted cave in some remote location for the past three or four months. It seems that everyone knows about it, and everyone—from the President of the United States to the everyman construction worker to the lowliest racist—has his or her own opinion on the matter. Democrats and left-wing liberals agree that a mosque, or what is being termed as a multi-religious center, should be constructed at its designated location; hardcore conservatives and right-wing Republicans argue that to build a Muslim religious center a mere few blocks from the devastation of Ground Zero, where thousands upon thousands of innocents lost their lives that fateful day nearly a decade ago is ardently, morally wrong and downright treasonous.
This paper exists to argue that these right-wing conservatives are the ones in the wrong. Their method of thinking: Well, the terrorists were Muslim, so anyone who practices Muslim must be in cahoots with the terrorists, right? Wrong. In the following paragraphs, I will detail just why these people aren’t at all accurate and how believing this falsity to be fact is treasonous in its own way.
In July 2009, a building near Ground Zero was purchased for the purpose of constructing an Islamic community center. In a spot that used to belong to a Greek Orthodox church that was ruined in the attacks on 9/11/2001, the plan was to reconstruct that location into a center for those of Islamic, Christian, and Jewish faith to intermingle and have separate rooms for prayer (The Washington Times). The former Greek Orthodox church was purchased by real-estate company, Soho Properties; the main investor was a man by the name of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, the founder of American Society for Muslim Advancement, or the ASMA (WorldNetDaily). Rauf’s wife, Daisy Khan, is executive director of ASMA, and claims that “Only in New York City is this possible!” (WorldNetDaily)
Famous last words.
Needless to say, back when the original proposition was drawn, no one suspected the backlash that would ensue. President Obama himself ignited a firestorm of controversy when he said these words: "Muslims have the right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country," President Obama said. "And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan." (VOANews) With those words, a political and social brouhaha was started; the right and the left were engulfed in flames, a fire that still continues to rage even today, months later. Just an innocent comment that sent the entire United States into a social uproar. According to VOANews, seventy percent—over half the general population—disapprove of the mosque being built. Seventy percent (VOANews).
The controversy surrounding the completion of the mosque began many months ago, but only recently has it become such a popular culture staple and political platform. Everyone from Sarah Palin, who urged Muslim Americans to reject the Ground Zero Mosque by stating that it is an “unnecessary provocation” (Politics Daily) to Bill O’Reilly, who infamously remarked that “Muslims killed us on 9/11!” on “The View”, a national daytime talk show that caused pontiff Joy Behar to storm off the set in an agitated rage (Associated Content), to even Howard Stern. It seems like everyone has a view on the supposed mosque one way or another. This is mine.
Calling the so-called 9/11 mosque that very moniker is giving way too much power to the institution itself. What the papers and other various media are calling a mosque is actually simply a community center focusing on members of the Islamic faith. According to various columnists, the proposed mosque is literally a reincarnation of what we know today as the Y. It will house a basketball court, a pool, a recreational room, as well as, yes, a prayer room (Cracked). To the same token that we do not call a church a graveyard because it just so happens to have a crypt that we should christen this a mosque. This place is going to have a basketball court. I do not recall reading about the terrorists engaging in a rousing game of basketball just before hijacking a plane and ramming it into the World Trade Center, killing thousands of people.
Secondly, the Islamic center is not strictly at Ground Zero (Associated Content). I could understand if, the reason people are so up in arms about its construction, if it was being placed directly atop the smoldering remains of what was once our World Trade Center; I would be quite incensed if they built a hotdog stand there. But the fact of the matter is, the proposed community center is actually blocks away that, at one point before it was a Greek Orthodox church, it was a Burlington Coat Factory (Cracked). A Burlington Coat Factory. People are getting all up in arms over a now abandoned building three blocks away from the awful grave site that was once a Burlington Coat Factory. I think my point is clear.
Another argument for the rational side of coherent thought: the mosque is not strictly an Islamic prayer center. According to multiple sources, the Muslim center will embrace religious tolerance by constructing different rooms for Jewish, Christian, and Muslim faiths (WorldNetDaily). According to Rauf, the religious center will house the three main religions prevalent in the United States, that at one point, the three religions lived in harmony in Europe and now he wants to bring that unity back (Time). Why should we stand in the way of religious tolerance?
The fact of the matter is, over seventy percent of the United States’ population is against the idea of an Islamic community center, and I see no reason, no voice of truth in this ludicrous up-in-arms argument that sustains their point. Conservatives agree that, in the words of the lustrous Bill O’Reilly, that Muslims killed us on 9/11 but that is explicitly not true. Muslims didn’t kill us on 9/11; extremist terrorists did. They were responsible for the deaths of thousands of American civilians, not Muslims as a whole. Right-wing hardcore voters believe that his mosque will be a front for terrorism, a place to train would-be terrorists into suicidal monsters, but that is certainly not the case. And I for one have seen nothing to prove to me otherwise.
"Sanity"
is in the Eye of the BeholderI was there. Along with 250,000 of my closest friends, I braved the Washington, DC Metro and gained my piece of the Mall to hear what could only be described as America's new profit rage against the machine.
Jon Stewart, along with his friend Stephen Colbert put on a show with a purpose of showing the rest of America and the world that we aren't all crazed defenders of our own version of what our nation should be.
In fact, out of the 250,000 people on the Mall, there wasn't even one apparent fight started nor even an angry word to be heard. It was both civil and, even (dare I say it?) sane.
This past Saturday was Stewart's day. While Colbert and his "March to keep fear alive" was a way of playing on his ongoing joke, Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity" ruled the day. The act between the two played out as Stewart first asked his co-host, some faux 2,000 feet below the stage, to come out and join the fans. They jousted in much the same manner which they do on their pseudo-dueling Comedy Central late night shows, but always with the same end in mind.
This was, in essence, the new Kumbaya, hand-holding rally we Americans got used to during the View Nam era with one major exception: it was done with humor and we were all in on the joke.
My day began the night before the rally - Erev Sanity, so to speak. My son Jason and I drove down to Silver Spring, Maryland to the Days Inn (not the best of Inns to be sure). I had reserved the room the night the rally was announced and was not surprised to find out that this, as well as all of the other hotels/ motels in the area had been sold out. When we arrived it was late and were lucky to get the last parking space in the lot.
We watched one of the handful of channels provided us by the Inn; at dinner at the local Taco Bell; and went to bed that night hoping not be that night's dinner for bedbugs. We woke up early enough in the morning (we thought) to get a cup of coffee, hop on the Metro and get to the Mall in time to gain a strong foothold somewhere in front of the stage.
Man, were we wrong.
We got to the Silver Springs' Metro Station at about ten o'clock. By the time we got to the front of the line to purchase our tickets, more than half an hour had passed. (Enough time was left for Jason to go back to the parking lot and pick up his Wolverine costume which he keeps in his car, I assume for emergencies.) We got on the train, jammed with little space to spare. Somehow at the next stations others piled into the car as well. At the last couple of stations, we picked up few (if any) other passengers - there just wasn't any room.
We got off the Metro's Red Line at the Judiciary Square station and walked to few blocks to the Mall.(Halfway there, Jason turned into Wolverine as he put on his costume over his clothing. "It's really warm in here," he declared.) While walking with our train-mates, a hand-held cameraman (if that's the right terminology) approached Jason and asked his name and where he's from. We later found out that he was from the local FOX affiliate. (The cameraman asked us not to pre-judge him for his job pointing out that it was the "local affiliate".)
We arrived at the Mall and searched for the seventh street entrance. Having to weave our way through the crowd, we entered the overcrowded hole in the fence through the human gate and settled into a patch of turf some 100 yards or so away from the stage. With throngs of people both in front and behind us, the only sniff we had of the stage was a view of the big screen, partially blocked by a tree some twenty yards in front of us.
And it was there we stayed, making friends of those around us, cheering the cheer-able and laughing at the funny stuff.
For his part, Stewart chose to rake the media over the coals, pointing out the fringes the likes of CNN, MSNBC and FOX like to project. They took their revenge later that night and into the rest of the weekend pointing out that he (Stewart) is a part of the problem.
I don't see it their way.
People made and showed signs and many, like Jason, donned costumes. Many of the signs most of you have heard about already (or seen if you were there) ranged from political to the humorous. My favorite was held by a man dressed as Waldo stating "Here I am."
Maybe that's they were most sane people there.
It's hard to know just what Stewart's rally was meant to do. Sure the title - The Rally to Restore Sanity" - should have defined it, but there was more to it than that. Although the crowd was seemingly mostly of the same mind, one couldn't help but notice the diversification present in the numbers, including a Muslim member of our armed services holding a sign stating just that.
-Noah Greenberg, November 1, 2010
The
First Tea-BaggerNow that the election is over and the Tea-Bagger, Sarah Palin-endorsed candidates in the reddest of districts and states have claimed victory, I have a question: Just how far would the Tea-Baggers go if given the chance?
Extreme candidates with the kind of pizazz the far Right loves gained House and Senate seats all over the nation by gaining the support of angry Americans (many of whom we viewed at Tea-Bag rallies televised more for shock value than news-worthiness); then by simply not being Democrats. We've also seen the most extreme of the Tea-Bagger candidates lose races other more moderate Republican candidates, with more wide-spread appeal, would have won over Democrats who now keep, or take their places in DC. Had a more moderate GOP candidate gained the nomination in Nevada and Delaware, it's quite possible that they would be choosing a new Senate majority leader as well as a new Speaker of the House before the end of the year.
I remember the first Tea-Bag candidate. Although the "Tea-Party" wasn't even a gleam in Rupert Murdoch's eye when he ran for the GOP nomination in Louisiana for US Senate, former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke was really the kind of candidate that today's Tea-Baggers would have loved.
Duke had everything: good looks; a populist stance (even receiving the "Populist Party" nomination for President in 1988); and a base of support that almost got him to Washington on more than one occasion. Duke also knew that the new Democratic Party - the party he ran under as a second-place finisher for a state senate race in Louisiana in 1975 - was not the party he wished to be affiliated with any longer. Gone were the days of old where races knew their place and White always ruled. So in 1988 he became a Republican and received thirty-three percent of the GOP vote in a special election to fill a US Congressional seat. (He lost in a runoff.)
I remember when Duke ran for Congress and nearly won in still-stuck-in-the-past Louisiana. While it's true that almost every candidate begins with thirty-five percent of the vote in any two-candidate election, Duke received over thirty-three percent with numerous candidates running.
Duke's candidacy sounded a lot like the Tea-Baggers of today, only with overt instead of covert racism. More recently Duke had called President Obama a "visual aid" for "angry white men" that will "result in a dramatic increase in (the) ranks" of extremists. (http://uprisingradio.org/home/?p=5771)
How right he was.
What Duke might not have guessed was the complicity of a new group of mostly "angry white men" aided by a 24-hour television "news" network (Fox) devoted to: (A) The destruction of the two-party system and; (B) The promotion of a feudal society to replace our democracy.
The Tea-Party, which Duke could (and probably does) claim as his own invention; along with Fox News Channel (and an all-too-willing mainstream media afraid of being called "Liberal") were all willing participants in a perfect storm to not only sway the minds of middle America but poison them with hate.
And this time around, it worked.
The new Republican Party is owned by Fox News Channel and the Tea-Baggers who have infiltrated them. If the old guard GOP leaders think that these far Right wing-nuts who only got elected by playing to the worst fears of their electorate will submit to their will for the better of the party, they've got another think coming.
-Noah Greenberg, November 2, 2010
The
Fox InfluenceLast week (after election day) I watched Jon Stewart interview a beaming Chris Wallace of Fox News Channel. Wallace was presented to Stewart's studio audience as Fox' "news guy", perpetuating the myth that at least someone at Fox News doesn't slant the news towards the right; and is, in fact, "Fair and Balanced" as their slogan insists.
Stewart actually referred to Wallace as "the journalist there."
I'm not here to berate Stewart for not blasting Wallace the way I wish he would have. Stewart, I felt, was even-handed; called Wallace out when warranted; and allowed the Fox News Sunday host to speak his (or Fox') mind.
But make no mistake about it; Wallace's visit to The Daily Show was a victory lap for Fox News.
To begin the interview (http://www.thedailyshow.com), Stewart congratulated Wallace (and his employer) for their great victory on election day. Wallace made like he didn't know what Stewart was talking about and accepted the faux congratulations for Fox' beating both MSNBC and CNN (combined) in the ratings.
The interview itself was not only cordial between the two men, but funny and easy to watch, even for a "Leftie" like me. But watching Wallace's constant smirk got me to thinking: Why is it that not one other show (other than Stewart's The Daily Show on Comedy Central, which comes on after Ugly Americans, a cartoon featuring demons and zombies); nor another news man (fake or real) other than Jon Stewart have even mentioned Fox News Channel as a contributor to the election of so many Republicans.
Are the likes of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, NBC and ABC so scared of being called out by Fox "newsmen" (and women) for being Leftist Liberal media-ite; and a probable barrage from hate-radio fear mongers that they've lost sight of their responsibility as the fourth estate? Seeing what Fox can do to an electorate; and knowing what they did to the likes of Dan Rather, not taking them on was an easy decision.
While MSNBC's tries to be the Left's version of Fox (at least during the evening hours), they simply don't have a Left-leaning audience as easily fooled as Fox's Right-dwellers. In other words, our (the Left's) lunatics are smarter than their (the Right's) lunatics.
A pitiful consolation prize, I admit.
Lies at Fox are taken as truths; innuendos at Fox are taken as givens; and opinion at Fox is offered up as news. We Lefties just won't accept that.
As the Right gained anger at the behest and encouragement of Fox, the left remained silent and disenfranchised by the lack of courage by enough Democrats in Congress to take a stand. Democratic politicians were eager to be the anti-Obama and tried to distance themselves from the President and perhaps, not be attacked too harshly by Fox.
How'd that work out for them? Those Dems are now gone, but so too is the majority.
While the Tea-Party movement wasn't (I think) a Fox invention, It's fair to speculate that without Fox News Channel its existence wouldn't have had quite the impact it did. Surely the "other" media choices wouldn't have given it the kind of merit it attained had it not been for Fox and its Newscorp brethren. While there have been grass roots movements and campaigns all throughout American history, few have started with an agenda that includes the defeat of a political party and the weakening of an American President. With their (Fox') victory on Tuesday, there is no reason to think that the attack won't go on even more fervently than before.
And it isn't just on TV and radio where Fox flexes its muscles. I listen to a lot of non-fiction books on CD and enjoy going to Barnes and Noble to see what's on the shelf. All one has to do is see what books and CD's B&N places in prominent spots on its shelves to see the influence Fox has. One could argue that the non-stop promotion of those books by Fox makes it sensible to place their works on top of the list, but it would be nice to miss the latest leather bustier being worn by An Coulter when I check out the selections.
In the end, the election last week was Fox News' victory. Their success leaves them no reason to change their strategy.
-Noah Greenberg, November 11, 2010
On
Veterans' DayI vote Democrat over ninety percent of the time, but this wasn't always the case. On the national level and all the way down through to statewide elections, I have never voted for a Republican, not even for Ronald Reagan. On the local level however, I've voted for the GOP candidate on six separate occasions.
But that was in the past and today, I can no longer vote for any candidate who sides himself with the party of "No!"
And Veteran's Day is what made me realize why.
When Representative Chris Smith (REPUBLICAN-NJ-4) was in the majority, he was given the chairmanship of the Veterans Affairs Committee in the House of Representatives. When President George W. Bush and Smith's Congressional party-mates voted to strip our military veterans of much needed aid they receive through the VA (Veterans' Affairs), Smith stood up and derided his own party for the slight.
For his honesty and integrity, Rep. Smith was removed as committee chairman.
While Smith's reaction to the GOP insult to our nation's veterans was a rare step out of line by a Republican, it was not the only time it's ever happened... But it appears to be the last time.
Just before this past mid-year election in which the GOP took back control over the House of Representatives (with the aid of Fox News and Right Wing Hate Radio), the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) came out with a report card for Congressional members (which can be found at http://iavaaction.org) and how they voted on veterans' affairs. (Some of you might have seen or heard their founder Iraqi war veteran Paul Rieckhoff on TV or radio.)
While many representatives from the 110th Congress of both parties received high marks (Rep. Smith received and A with A-plus being the highest grade), the disparity between the parties in relationship to the lower grades could not go unnoticed: Out of the combined 154 D's and F's, 142 were received by Republican Party members of both Houses of Congress.
Smith himself would have been an A-plus recipient except for his refusal to sponsor bills that he would eventually support. Certainly it was pressure from his party's higher-ups who made sure that Smith not stray too far. After all, how would it look if a Republican Party leader were to sponsor a Democratic bill?
Perish the thought.
The new 112th Congress' House of Representatives - which will be seated in January - will still have a Democratic US President who will still present bills for their approval. The US Senate, also still under Democratic control, will necessarily have to convince at least seven Republican Senators (or six Republicans and one Independent, depending on how the Alaska election ends up) that their plans for our nation's veterans are better than the "no plans" the minority will put forth.
We don't know what will come out of the House.
And therein lays the dilemma: What's a government to do?
On this Veterans' Day, 2010 we have to ask ourselves if politics should still get in the way of our veterans best interests as it has done for the past two years. We know that there is no compromise possible when it comes to DC's Republicans. Likewise we also know that way too many DC Democrats are way too afraid to take a stand.
With the current crop of further-Right Republicans coming into DC this January can there be any doubt that no bill shall pass unless it's watered down to almost nothing or be left to die, tabled by a feuding Right and a Left too afraid to battle?
Congressional members are like kites in the wind - waiting to feel the breeze to know which way to go. There are few who will fight against the wind and for their constituents, relying rather on appearances than substance.
Think about it: nearly thirty percent - 154 out of 538 members of Congress voted consistently against our veterans. We saw wounded soldiers from Iraq and Afghanistan lying in filthy hospital beds; we have thousands - maybe even tens of thousands - US veterans living in poverty or homeless - on the streets of our nation; and we still have partisan politics taking precedence over their needs.
The argument used by the Right against so many issue ranging from health care to raising the minimum wage are centered around if the American people have "earned it". While that's an argument I personally dismiss, I am also quite as certain that our veterans have "earned it."
And I'm just as certain that those 154 dissenters for veterans' affairs have not.
-Noah Greenberg, November 11, 2010
"Pay Me"
I think back to the movie "Goodfellows" and a narration from the Henry Hill character played by Ray Liotta. In that scene where a semi-connected restaurant owner, bleeding cash and unable to collect from his Mafioso deadbeat customers, offers up a deal to the Big Boss (the "Don"; the Godfather; whatever you want to call him) "Paulie" (played by a Paul Sorvino) and asks him to be his partner. In the end, and with all of the shenanigans played by the crooks, the Restaurant (they used a place on Coney Island Avenue and Avenue Y in Brooklyn formerly known as Russo's) was intentionally burned to the ground for the insurance money.
The line that stuck in my head was Liotta's Hill explaining away Paulie's logic:
"As Paulie always said...business bad? F--- you, pay me. Had a fire in the store? F--- you, pay me. Your place got struck by lightning? F--- you, pay me."
-Liotta's Hill as narrator
In the realm of real estate much of the same is true. Banks holding mortgages don't allow for the possibility of the mortgagee to avoid paying their real estate taxes. Each and every month, the average mortgagee pays into an escrow account the following year's taxes so their (the bank's) property doesn't go into a tax-enforced lien.
That makes sense, but in this day of super-mortgages and declining home values, what happens when the mortgagee can no longer afford to pay the monthly nut on their unaffordable home? The options presented to the owners who simply can't afford it anymore are to either ask the bank for a short sale (where the home is sold for less than is owed, with bank approval) or leave their homes and allow the banks to foreclose on them.
While mortgagees have to pay every dime of what they owe, including their mortgage, real estate taxes and everything and anything that goes wrong with their home, the banks - Big Finance - is let off the hook.
What happens when a home is foreclosed upon? One would think that the bank - the mortgage holder - afraid of losing money after they lent out hundreds of thousands of their investors' dollars for one home would want to get rid of this foreclosed upon house, even if it means a loss. After all, when a small business owner buys an item that doesn't sell, that small business owner licks his wounds, bites the bullet and sells the item for whatever he can get, even if it means a loss.
Big Finance doesn't do that. Sure they collect the money when they can (along with fees and penalties), but when they have to take over the property, they don't have to pay the real estate taxes.
To add insult to injury (our insult and our injury), when the money the available to Big Finance wasn't enough to pay for what they lent out to unqualified borrowers, they came running to those same borrowers-as-tax payers to make up the difference.
But that's not all... to add even more insult to injury (ours yet again), we - the middle class borrower - now loan money to these very same Big Finance institutions to pad their cash balance sheets and charge any new borrower five to six percentage points more to make back the money they lost on their (Big Finance's) own greed in the first place.
Imagine, if you will, a young couple goes into a real estate office circa 2005. Home prices are rising at an alarming rate and homes are selling in days, sometimes hours after they're listed. This young couple is taken by the hand by a realtor (who has a reciprocal relationship with a mortgage company) and told that they can afford a half-million dollar home on an annual salary of fifty- or sixty-thousand dollars. They see a home and are stunned by it. They want it and the realtor, followed by the mortgage company representative/ sales-person is only too happy to comply. They talk about balloon payments, interest-only loans and rates that are "sure to go down" (but never a mention of the possibility that they might go up).
The next step is the signing of papers followed by the selling of the loan in pieces followed by the pain and heartache of the loss of that dream home.
As Paulie said, "F--- you, pay me." Even though there's plenty of blame to go around, only the little people are left homeless, and the American people left holding the bag.
Big Finance is just fine - they get paid.
-Noah Greenberg, October 27, 2010
Comparing
and Compromising on November 2What has always bothered me about our two party system is how each of the respective parties views their loyal voters.
The Right takes the issues that matter to their less educated loyalists and make them the most important issue of the day, whether they are or not. All one has to do is look at pro-choice/ pro-life; health care and its marriage to immigration (not to mention jobs); and even the life of one woman - Terri Schiavo - used so well by George W. Bush and Congressional Republicans that they created a law just for her. They convince their supporters that only they can win the battles against the Evil-Left who want to take what's theirs (whether they have anything or not) and give it to those they (the Right) defines as unworthy. (They define "worth" for their loyalists as well.)
The Left, on the other hand, make promises to their loyalists then lose the nerve to get it done, settling for compromises that leave us wanting or bills left to die in filibuster purgatory.
The difference between the Right and the left, as it pertains to their respective bases (excluding the Right's real "base of haves and have mores", as George W. Bush said), is that the Right's stay in line while the Left's gets disappointed and simply gives up. It's the reason why the Right wants to keep as many voters home as possible on Election Day and why the Left tries desperately to get them off their respective couches and to their respective polls.
The Right treats the issues that matter the most to their base as carrots: they're there to get them to do what they wish but they will never be achieved. While Bush and the Congressional majority raped the treasury and placed us in the recession that brought us to our collective knees, they passed two tax cuts that gave their "real base" millions to their "fake base's" pennies; allowed gas prices to rise two-fold-plus so their Big Oil contributors could make more cash (while explaining it away as the "free market at work"); and made it possible, through lax regulation, for Big Finance to profit, lose, then allow us to foot the bill.
Brilliant, huh?
And while all of this was going on, they played the "fifty-plus-one strategy to the max, promising to pass the laws they never planned to pass if only they would be given another couple of years to try.
Where was that anti-abortion amendments they promised? Never even taken to committee.
Where was that fence they said they would build on the border? It's coming - just give them Congress back and this time it'll happen.
Where was that health care law promised to all who want health care coverage? They'll get it done now, just you wait.
While the Right, through all of their avenues including Tea-Bagger rallies, Fox News Channel and racists disguised as "freedom-fighters", protect their fooled base, the Left tries to convince their everyday supporters that much has been done in the short time they've been given. And while the latter statement is true, it just isn’t good enough for their casual supporter to get off his (or her) ass and get out to vote.
It is November sweeps after all and that blue-ish couch is so-o-o comfy.
-Noah Greenberg, October 18, 2010
Needles
in the HaystackJune 2005: My daughter Bonnie, who suffers from Neurofibromatosis Type 2 (NF2), graduates high school and is scheduled to begin college in late August, after a family cruise in earlier in the month (a trip that her doctor says will be "no problem" in keeping - we take out insurance anyway). But first....
July 2005: Bonnie goes into New York Presbyterian hospital to remove a tumor wrapped around a nerve in her lower back. The tumor could cause a loss of sensation (numbness) if left alone. The operation itself, at its worst, could have the same effect. The best-case scenario has the tumor's removal keeping Bonnie's full range of motion and allow her to continue in a normal, for the time being, life.
August 2005: A "funny-looking" red bump appears at the top of the incision where the doctors opened up Bonnie's back to remove the tumor. We're told that the "redness" could be normal and that we should keep an "eye on it". A few days later, Bonnie has a fever reaching as high as 104 degrees. We rush her back to New York Presbyterian where they check her out, take her temperature, throw a stitch in her back, then send her home. (Her fever had subsided to a near-normal temperature after a dose of Tylenol.) That evening, the fever was back and she, along with my wife, spend one-and-one-half days in isolation because they're not sure what's wrong with her. They test Bonnie's spinal fluid and subject her to a battery of tests looking for infection and the possibility of meningitis, which they "think" she has.
Bonnie is readmitted to the hospital with "stuff" coming out of the incision that no one at the hospital can identify. (At one point, after sitting in a wheelchair and leaving a "gritty substance" on the back of the chair, one resident claimed that Bonnie "must have sat in some apple sauce". From that moment on, I didn't allow this doctor - who a nicknamed "Dr. Apple Sauce" - into Bonnie's room. It was for his own well-being.) Bonnie's doctor gave us the bad news that she wasn't getting better and that they would have to have an additional operation to "clean out" the wound. He told us that the problem was a staph infection and that it most likely occurred during the first operation.
October 2005: Bonnie has another operation to partially remove a tumor on her right auditory nerve. It will be the second time this doctor has to remove the same tumor, which has already taken the hearing in her right ear. (Bonnie would soon loose the hearing in her left ear as well, leaving her completely deaf.)
While at New York Presbyterian (October), no one was allowed to use the water anywhere. There was a "problem" with the water in the "old" building when we had arrived for Bonnie's first visit and that problem grew to all areas of the hospital by her next visit. We wondered if this water problem was the cause of the infection. We wonder that even to this day.
The bottom line is this: Because of serious errors by New York Presbyterian Hospital, Bonnie very nearly died. And because things like staph infections are so common and even accepted, there wasn't a thing we could do about it. (The common excuse is "These things can happen.") It was just "business as usual" and my daughter was nothing more than a statistic.
The thing is, Bonnie is not alone:
"Hospital infections killed nearly 50,000 a year, says new study"
-The New York Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/health/2010/02/23/2010-02-23_hospital_infections_killed_nearly_50000_in_a_year_says_a_new_study.html)
When does Bonnie's not-as-unique-as-one-might-think case become more important. The headline above tells us that 50,000 Americans lose their lives (and I assume most had health care insurance), but how many more Bonnies are out there who came ever-so-close to becoming number 50,001?
New York Presbyterian Hospital has a great, but undeserved reputation. When former New York City Mayor Ed Koch went in for treatment, he got the best of care. Likewise, when then-New York Governor George Pataki went in on an emergency basis, he received that very same, high-quality care. It's the anonymous, like Bonnie, that one never hears about.
Like New York Presbyterian's reputation, health care in the United States is overrated itself. While it takes care of the "Haves and Have Mores" exceptionally well, the vast majority of us either have inadequate or no health care coverage at all. (The official figure is 62 percent.) We do not, in fact, have the very best health care in the world, as so many on the Right say.
"Hospital-acquired illnesses translated into 2.3 million extra patient days in hospitals, at a cost of $8.1 billion in 2006,"
-The New York Daily News, quoting from a study (see the link above for more information)
It isn't as if people wish to become patients. Very few of us want to enter the hospital (after the hospital or health care provider screws up) and use the limited resources that our health care facilities have to offer. Bonnie wanted to go home, go to school and begin her life as best she could.. That life has been put on hold for these past four-and-a-half years and this August, Bonnie will begin college at Rochester Institute of Technology's National Technical Institute for the Deaf. She wants to teach writing to deaf and hard of hearing children. (Bonnie already has a large portfolio including three novels, all of which are close to complete.)
And while 50,000 of our fellow Americans lose their lives due to the failures of our current health care system (I wonder how many have lost their live because they couldn't afford their deductibles or copays?), an additional 19,000 lose their lives because they have no health care coverage at all.
The right wants to keep health care as it stands today: triaged by wealth instead of need. And while sick and semi-sick politicians "get better" on our dime, too many of us go without.
And that has got to change.
-Noah Greenberg, February 24, 2010
"Palin's
Pain"When you have a child with a disability, you have to develop a sense of humor. My daughter Bonnie, who has been in and out of hospitals with a neurological disease called NF2, lost her hearing, has balance problems and has been in constant pain since 2005.
But she, and we (her family) have not lost our sense of humor.
Former and short-termed (by her own choice) Alaska Governor Sarah Palin does not have a sense of humor. It's possible that she never had one. (One need intelligence to have a sense of h8umor.) Since her coming out party after being named the GOP Vice Presidential candidate by John McCain, Palin has attacked any and all criticism of her as an assault against her children and her family. She has crowned herself the Queen of those in Need, but only as far as targeted rhetoric will go.
And Palin treats humor even worse.
The David Letterman fiasco began with a Late Night quip about Sarah Palin and her daughter at a New York Yankee game:
"The toughest part of her visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter."
-Letterman
Letterman assumed that Palin went to the game with her entire family, including daughter Bristol who, at the age of sixteen, made her mother a grandmother, in spite of her good Christian upbringing. (I guess "Just say No" only applies to drugs; and "abstinence only" only applies to other people's children.) Instead, Palin was accompanied by fourteen year old Willow. Palin, husband Todd, and Palin's "people's" rants included the following:
"Laughter incited by sexually perverted comments made by a 62-year-old male celebrity aimed at a 14-year-old girl is ... disgusting,"
-Palin from a statement
"any 'jokes' about raping my 14-year-old are despicable."
-Todd Palin
"It doesn't matter whether he was talking about Willow or Bristol, what he said was unacceptable,"
-Palin spokeswoman Sharon Leighow, in response to Letterman's explanation
Yes, jokes about raping children are not funny. Jokes about the children of public figures are not funny either. It's why even the most powerful of our politicians try to keep their families out of the spotlight as best as possible. Just what did former First Child Chelsea Clinton do to be lambasted in the press back in the 1990's? Oh, right - she wasn't "pretty" enough.
But Palin's son Trig, born with Down's Syndrome, is a different case. It should have started with her mother (Palin) not using him as a launching pad for her 2012 Presidential campaign. The child should never be used as a prop by her parents... and that's exactly how they use her.
More recently, on the Valentine's Day episode of The Family Guy - an animated satirical series on Fox Television (of all places) - Peter (The Family Guy) Griffin's son Chris falls for Ellen, a girl with Down's Syndrome (voiced by actress Andrea Fay Friedman, who really has Down's Syndrome). Palin didn't appreciate the episode (she called it "a kick in the gut") due to this remark by Friedman's character:
"“My dad's an accountant, and my mom is the former governor of Alaska,”
-Friedman as her character
Palin twisted this comment as an attack on Trig. It wasn't, and Friedman's admonishing of Palin was priceless:
"My name is Andrea Fay Friedman. I was born with Down syndrome. I played the role of Ellen on the 'Extra Large Medium' episode of Family Guy that was broadcast on Valentine's day.... I guess former Governor Palin does not have a sense of humor. I thought the line 'I am the daughter of the former governor of Alaska' was very funny. I think the word is 'sarcasm'.
"In my family we think laughing is good. My parents raised me to have a sense of humor and to live a normal life. My mother did not carry me around under her arm like a loaf of French bread the way former Governor Palin carries her son Trig around looking for sympathy and votes."
-Friedman
Ouch! That's gotta hurt - or it would hurt someone capable of feeling real pain. It's my guess that all of this faux pain Palin says she feels has masked any real pain she should feel. Being permanently pissed-off by the Democrats and anyone who isn't firmly planted on the Right's terra firma, while allowing those with her shared agenda to get away with saying and doing anything they want has made Palin a joke that all should be able to recognize...
...Unless they have tea bags covering their eyes (or white hoods covering their heads).
-Noah Greenberg, February 22, 2010
An
Assault on NJ EducationWhat will be Job One in the new administration of New Jersey's Republican Governor Chris Christie? Will the new leader of the Garden State tackle the ever-growing number of New Jersians without health care coverage? Nah. Will Christie go after his state's health insurance industry who are raising their premiums as high as anyone in the nation? He won't even mention it.
No - Job One in the new Christie administration is to attack and bankrupt all forms of public education.
"Gov. Chris Christie announced on Friday plans to slash operating aid to higher education in the state by $62.1 million."
-The Daily Targum, from Rutgers University
Rutgers' share of the higher education cut will be some $18.5 million. That's $18.5 million more out of the pockets of those who send their children to the crown jewel of New Jersey's public higher education.
New Jersey's public colleges and universities already charge some of the highest tuition and fees in the nation, outpacing states such as New York, Florida and California. Prices begin at $4,695 (Thomas Edison State College) and increase to $13,302 (NJIT). Even with the proposed thirty-eight percent increase the California government is trying to get past its students (and their parents), the Garden State still out-prices the Golden State.
But colleges and universities aren't going to be the only education cuts by Christie, if he has his way.
"Christie... issued an executive order that slashes $475 million in aid to schools and will force districts to spend their surpluses and reserve funds to make up the ($2.2 billion) shortfall."
-The Philadelphia Enquirer (philly.com)
Although both Christie and acting Education Secretary Brett Schundler - a two-time loser for the New Jersey State House himself - believe that the cuts will have no effect on education this year, they offered their own caveat:
"Districts should prepare for possible aid cuts next school year - even 15 percent."
-Philly.com
If you're wondering where these education finds will be made up, look no further than yourself. With all of the talk about real estate taxes being lowered by Christie (a campaign promise which already seems to have been broken), no one believes that their own taxes won't be increased. And with the obvious cuts by Christie's state government to both counties and municipalities, my fellow Garden Staters better get ready to open up their wallets wide...
Wider...
WIDER!
Living in the middle of New Jersey, both economically and geographically, it always seems as if the blue-collar towns get hit the hardest when a Republican governor says "cuts are needed." When those "cuts" occur, you can bet that your town and your county will be raising your taxes to make up for the new shortfalls.
Like other Righties before him, Christie won't take responsibility for his tax increases. But when his "cuts" hit us, we'll know, and live with the reality.
-Noah Greenberg, February 21, 2010
Competition
"Competition" is the word
being bandied about more and more by both sides in the health care debate.
Those in favor of health care reform and a "public option" say that
using the might of a federal government health care plan's risk pool will force
Big Health Care to lower their prices and extend their coverage.
The flip side of
"competition", and the argument used by those who like health care
just the way it is but would consider "tweaking" it, states that the
free market is the only way to get prices down and extend coverage.
While the former, a hybrid system such
as the one being offered by HR3200 (the front-runner for passage in the House
of Representatives), has never been tried before anywhere in any nation, has no
history of competitive success; the latter is the system we live under today.
We know that this system doesn't breed the kind of competition - or any
competition at all - that their supporters claim they do.
Is "competition" in health
care reform the main question we should be concerned about? Absolutely not.
Competition is important only as it relates to profits and by focusing on it,
we're losing sight of the real problem: people can't see a doctor when they're
sick.
Even if one has health care coverage,
there is still no guaranty that what your doctor recommends to treat you will
be approved. Although the following is anecdotal, it is emblematic of this
problem in our current system the insured sick face on a daily basis:
The son of a well-off business owner is
suffering from a nasal infection. For the past two months, this college student
has had trouble breathing, sleeping, suffered through terrible headaches and
has had his parents more than worried. His Ear Nose and Throat doctor, after
treating the student with various medications and not having a clear idea of
what precisely is wrong with him, recommended a CT Scan to see if an operation
is necessary. (The doctor said that he has "suspicions", and that the
CT scan would be the only way to determine if they're justified.)
The CT Scan was denied by the business
owner's health insurance provider, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New
Jersey. Their explanation and the ensuing options were both mind-boggling and
infuriating: Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield stated that they wouldn't approve
the test until many, many more medicines were tried and a period of at least
four months had passed since the problem occurred. Additionally, they stated
that if the subscriber wanted to pay for the CT Scan himself, and an operation
was actually needed, thus proving the test's necessity, the test's cost would
not be reimbursed because it wasn't pre-approved. In other words, have your kid
suffer; put him though a series of possibly unnecessary drug use; or you're on
your own.
(Disgusting, isn't it?)
Now here's the kicker: the
business-owner-subscriber who pays a larger premium to go out-of-network when
necessary, is also the health care plan decision-maker for his company. Surely
as the decision-maker (the "Decider") he has the "choice"
of choosing another health care insurance provider from the list of six in the
Additionally, this small business
owner's decision to purchase his company's health care coverage from Horizon
Blue Cross Blue Shield leaves him with a lone option: one and only one
insurance company and no choice whatsoever. You see, with a company of no more
than fifteen employees - a company like so many small businesses in
It pays to remember that
"competition" is the reason that Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield
lobbyists wanted the State of New Jersey to allow their company to become
"for profit" a couple of years ago. But while they were "not for
profit", their rates didn't lower the other five
So much for "competition", I
guess.
Trust
Trust is what those on the Right who oppose
health care reform say they don't have in President Obama and the Democrats in
Congress. The funny thing about this is however, that most of those standing up
for "freedom" and "choice" in health care are the ones also
saying "...and keep you hands off my Medicare!"
While these Astroturfers
"trust" our nation's health insurance companies to deny coverage
while charging huge premiums to the rest of us, they get the best
government-paid health care OUR money can buy. After all, it is us - the
Why is it that those who take our money to
pay for their health care want to keep so many do without? Are they afraid that
heir doctor - their government paid-for doctor - will push their appointment
back an hour or so to take care of a sick child who happens to not be their
grandchild?
I hope it doesn't make them too late for
the earlybird special at their local diner.
While those receiving Medicare play by
the rules the federal and their respective state governments provide; and
having a public employee "in the way" to make sure their doctor gets
paid (and the way Medicare pays, they get paid fast); the rest of us get to
fight for the tests we need with our health insurance provided bureaucrat; get
to argue about "usual and customary" overcharges with our health
insurance provided bureaucrat; and get dropped from our health insurance policy
by our health insurance provided bureaucrat
And to think that they want us to
"trust" their (our health insurance provided bureaucrat's) decisions.
Competition and trust are not the
Siamese twins of private health insurance providers. They are their mistreated
children.
-Noah Greenberg, August 27, 2009
“50-Plus-One”
With as many as 102 Progressive Democrats in the
House saying that they will not vote for any bill which doesn't include, at the
very least, a "public option" in the final health care reform bill,
the question of "What's next?" rears its ugly but necessary head. And
as the dialogue remains nasty, is it time to make partisanship the determining
factor in what we do or don't do in the health care debate?
Probably.
The inclusion of the Blue Dog Democrats makes a true
Blue versus Red vote highly unlikely. There must be however, enough of the 52
member coalition (many from usually Red areas of usually Red states) that could
be negotiated with by President Obama and the other House Democrats to make a
majority and create a Single Payer Universal Health Care system... or at least
something similar.
The 256 Democratic Party members of Congress hold a
large edge over their 178 Republican colleagues (Or should I call them
combatants?). But that edge disappears if the Blue Dogs take their votes over
to the "other side"; and it could poison the health care reform well
like a George Bush environmental policy. If the Democrats can get all of their
204 non-Blue Dog members to vote for a Single Payer bill (such as HR676); and
then convince just fourteen of the 52 more Conservative party-mates to do
likewise, the House can get that bill to the next step.
However, if the House Democrats choose to go this
route (like so many of us wish they would) and fail, more than the future of
health care will be at stake: the loss of a majority in the House in 2010 could
be a result, and we have the 1994 mid-term election to show as proof. (Contract
for
We may even see some of the Blue Dogs turn Red.
Assuming this "50-plus-one" strategy works
in the House (a strategy favored by the Bush administration), the attention
will turn to the Senate. Certainly a sixty vote majority will be needed because
of their stated opposition to a single payer plan, but there are some Democrats
who are hoping that they won't have to make the choice between a great bill and
a watered-down version. Already we've heard from some of them talking about
doing away with the "public option" and conceding what was supposed
to have been a concession to the single payer plan. We've even heard from the
likes of Ted Kennedy, in concert with insurance company-friendly Chris Dodd,
that "97 percent" coverage is enough.
It isn't.
With the very real possibility that the US Senate
couldn't break a filibuster and get a single payer plan done - or one that
would satisfy most of us on the Left - the option of "Reconciliation"
must be considered. Although originally designed to be a way of passing the
budget, it has been modified to include any legislation that would effect the
budget.
Or, in other words, any legislation... period.
And while Reconciliation would have an expiration
date, getting a single payer plan passed and seeing it succeed would make any
Senator vote against its renewal at his or her own peril. No nation which has
adopted a Single Payer Universal Health Care Plan has ever gone back and no
leader - Liberal or Conservative - would ever consider adopting the
If I were a Democratic Congressman, US Senator or
had any kind of pull at all, you can be certain that I'd use my position to
make sure a single payer plan would be enacted. And if my Congressman or
It's time for those we've elected to stand up for
those who put them into office. Health Care would be a good start.
Get it our of committee - we have the votes;
Get it to the floor - we have the votes;
Get it to the White House - we have the vote;
Or throw them all out - we have the votes.
-Noah Greenberg, August 20, 2009
A Social Security Idea
Raising the retirement age for regular, middle-class Americans to begin
collecting the Social security Insurance which they have spent a lifetime
paying into is not a choice I'm willing to make. In fact, there is a much
better choice that would keep the Social Security Trust Fund solvent well into
the latter half of this century and beyond.
Step 1: Stop Raiding the Social Security Trust Fund
President Bush has raided the Social Security Trust Fund to pay for his war of
choice in
Step 2: Lowering the Tax on Middle-Class and Lower Income Americans
No one should have to pay taxes on earnings when they're trying to make ends
meet. To that end, I recommend not charging any Social Security Tax on the
first $10,000 of income earned. That is a savings to everyone of some $620 per
year, regardless of your total income.
Step 3: Lowering the Tax Rate from 6.2 percent to 5.95 percent on Employee-Paid
Social Security Insurance
Next would be to lower the tax rate paid on Social Security insurance from 6.2
percent to 5.95 percent. This would allow for another $150 saved per $50,000 of
income earned for all Americans.
Step 3: Remove the Cap
Today, all taxes paid on Social Security insurance is capped at $97,000 of
earned income. If the cap is removed and all Americans pay equally on all
earned income over $10,000, Social Security not only will become solvent
indefinitely, but its cost will be spread evenly across the board for all
Americans.
In a time when the Bush administration is looking to give those which President
Bush called his "base" of "haves and have mores" even more
in tax breaks, we should be looking for fairness in our tax structure. It's
time for all Americans to pay for Social Security fairly. As it stands now,
Americans earning up to $97,000 per year are paying over $7,400 in Social
Security taxes while some CEO earning $1 million per year pays the same. Under
my plan, the American earner at $50,000 would save some $770 per year while
that CEO would more than make up the difference.
With President Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Plan costing its
beneficiaries 95 percent of their drug's costs during the "Donut
Hole" period, aren't our elderly paying enough? Making sure that Social
Security remains stable at the cost of only six percent of our richest
Americans is the only choice.
If our economy is truly reliant on the middle class, this plan would be just
the spark that would ignite it once again.
-Noah Greenberg, November 19, 2007
The Health Care Tax
I get a little tired of hearing "the other side" tell us all that
Universal health Care, let alone Single Payer Universal health Care, will cause
our taxes to rise to a point where the average American would be left with
nothing. If watching the bush administration has showed us anything, it has showed
us that no matter what is being paid for, the average American - a.k.a. the
middle class - is paying for it.
The average cost of a family's health care insurance policy - all through
private insurance - has risen to nearly $1,000 per month. And making matters
worse are other factors such as the rising cost of deductibles and co-pays, the
rising cost of prescription drugs, employee participation (the amount paid for
by employees versus the amount paid for by their employer), the loss of
disposable income and family savings and, for many families who have to go out
of network, the amount they pay outside of "the usual and customary"
fee allowed by the private health insurance providers.
Many employers have had to either eliminate purchasing health care for their
employees altogether or are requiring their employees to pick up much more of
their monthly premiums. Many of us who live in New Jersey will remember the
outcry to require teachers to pay for some of their health care insurance with
cries of "We have to, so why shouldn't they?" This misses the point.
We shouldn't have to.
American health insurance companies are recording record profits while, at the
same time, claiming poverty. They show overhead costs of up to 40 percent and
their CEO's boast of million dollar salaries and multi-million dollar bonuses
and "golden parachutes". If ever collusion and conspiracy were taking
place, it is surely taking place among the
Many companies use some kind of formula to figure out what their employees will
pay. I have found that many will pay for the employee and make them pay the
difference in cost to cover their families. For arguments sake, let's use that
formula here and figure that employees are paying for approximately half of
their health care insurance costs.
If one were to factor in all of the health care related costs which we, the
average American family, pay for "out of pocket" expense, we can
assume that this family throws more than $600 per month of their salaries at
health care. Taking into account that this family earns less than $4,000 per
month (before federal, state, local and social security taxes), this means
that, at a minimum, we're paying fifteen percent of our income for our medical
expenses. This translates to nearly 20 percent of our take home pay, and that's
just for the average American family of four with four basically healthy
members. If you happen to be, or take care of, one of the chronically ill,
you're probably paying much, much more.
This is the American health care tax and most of us are paying much more than
our fair share. Just because it isn't collected by the government doesn't make
it any less of a tax.
it's too bad that when creating the Social Security Administration FDR hadn't
had the foresight to see what a national health care plan could have done for
his nation in its future. If he and the US Congress had that foresight then,
today, we wouldn't be having this conversation because there would be no health
care companies to form lobbies with the dual purpose of bribing our elected
officials and mis-informing the American pubic that we have the greatest health
care system in the world. We don't and we had better stop thinking that we have
the greatest of everything before we become more third-world-like than we would
ever admit.
Imagine, if you will, that the Social Security administration were never
created (a thought which many Republicans still dream about). How much would
Social Security cost those of us who might be able to afford it? How many would
have to go without any retirement benefits at all? Who would pay for their
living costs?
While health care companies claim their 40 percent overhead; and while doctors'
offices pay exorbitant amounts of money on pushing the paper which health care
companies require, the Social Security Administration pays less than two
percent of its collected monies in overhead. Using that same formula, we could
assume tat a national health care policy would cost us at least half of what it
costs us today.
Even more to the point, if we were to base our national health care costs, in
taxes versus premiums, those who earn more would pay more for the benefit of
all.
We look at other western nations and say their health care systems don't work.
It's a lie.
Is the Bush administration trying to tell us that our national health care
costs would be greater than 20 percent for the Average American Family? How stupid
do they think we are?
Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, was the first to come out with
a comprehensive health care plan. Others seeking his party's nomination have
followed with their own plans to cover the near 50 million Americans without
any health care insurance. While President Bush is still trying to push his
health care plan, which seems to be "plan to stay healthy", by
telling us all to save money, which we don't have, for our future health care
needs; and while those on the GOP side seeking the Oval Office say "I'm
going to fix health care" but show us nothing in the form of any real
plan, most of us either go without or without enough.
A true free market society, which President Bush and the GOP push and push in
the form of corporate welfare programs, will never succeed for the average
American because it isn't designed to. It's design is to make us a feudal
society where the rich stay rich and the rest of us can barely keep our heads
above water. Fixing health care is a way of helping not only our sick, but our
economy as well. After all, with more money to spend, the American middle class
will take more trips, buy more goods and strengthen our economy from the
inside.
Electing a Republican president in 2008 will do nothing towards fixing our
nation health care crisis. Now that we have, finally, a national health care
dialogue we need to make it stick. Newspapers like the New York Times. which
barely give the debate any print space at all, need to come forward and take
the lead. They have to ignore their health care insurance company advertisers
and need to start doing their job as our nation's watchdog. That goes for all
of the other mass media outlets as well. Maybe we'll have to embarrass them to
do so.
It's time to get rid of our national health care tax and institute a better
plan. Beginning to speak about it is a good first step, but rhetoric isn't
enough.
-Noah Greenberg, Friday-Sunday. June 15-17, 2007
A Simple Voting Idea
Incorporating the Paper
Trail
-A voter comes into vote using one of the newer machines (you know... the
ones that don't offer any paper trail, at least as of now)
-They vote
-A 2-part receipt, with a perforation, comes out
-They compare the 2 parts to make sure they voted for whom they say they voted
for
-They tear the receipt at its perforation and put one end in a paper ballot box
(only to be opened if a hand-count is necessary)
-When they get home, they can log onto a government website, put in the unique
receipt number, and view their ballot
-If there are any discrepancies, there'll be a toll-free number to call or, if
they prefer, there will be an online form to fill out.
-Noah Greenberg
SAVING SOCIAL SECURITY
Here's How
·
REDUCE THE PAYROLL TAX on employee earnings from 6.2% to
5.95%
·
NO PAYROLL TAXES ON THE FIRST $10,000 OF
EARNED INCOME, to reduce the burden on the NATION'S MOST NEEDY
·
LEAVE THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION AS IS - 6.2% of all earned income to $87,900, with
Consumer Price Index increases yearly
·
REMOVE THE CAP ON ALL EARNED INCOME
Click here to see the whole SOCIAL SECURITY REVITALIZATION PLAN and to download the PDF files
Send your comments to: mailto:comments@nationalview.org
Compiled by Noah Greenberg