Kansas Free Press

Poor? Who?

2012-02-06T14:26:23Z

Mitt Romney says he's not concerned about the poor? Who would have thought that? What has he ever done to make you think he did? Neither is he worried about the wealthy. That's not surprising, either. The modern Republican's programs have always been more favorable to the perpetuation of wealth and its power.

Both major political parties receive a major portion of their campaign finances from the wealthy. But, statistical analysis show the Democrats have a higher percentage of contributions from grass roots supporters. Both parties have some very wealthy members. Both parties have some scoundrels and both parties have some very good leaders. Bottom line -- -- Vote for the individual. But, if you're not sure about individuals, my opinion is to take a chance on the Democrat. I'm a conservative liberal Democrat. Now you figure out what that means.

]]> Corporations are people. Unions are monopolies with too much power and influence. It is OK for corporate CEOs and board members to contribute the minor stockholders money for political purposes. But, it is not OK for Union executives to contribute union member's dues for political purposes.

Never mind that the minor stockholders may not agree with the CEO or board members. No one ever considered that the corporation could distribute the profits to the stockholders and let them decide who to support. Never mind that CEOs and board members are hired or elected to make business decisions, not political choices for the other stockholders. The minor stockholders are never asked if they want a portion of the corporation's profits to go to political Super PACs. Never mind that the minor stockholder has little or no choice in hiring or firing of CEOs or the election of board members. Every stockholder does not have equal say! The voting power of major corporations is held by a minority of individuals owning shares.

Unions are open to every member's input and all members have equal power, when it comes to voting for their leaders. Members are welcome to open meetings, when it comes election time for the executives who handle the everyday business of the Union. They have equal voting power, regardless of their wealth or lack thereof. Unions are truly 'one man, one vote'. Corporations are not.

If Romney isn't concerned about the poor, then he must not be very concerned about unemployment. The highest percentage of the unemployed are poor. And, certainly, his wealthy peers are not dependent upon employment for their lively hood. He says he's been unemployed for years, and that doesn't bother him. Job creation isn't nearly as important as management's compensation and distributable company profits for the stockholders, especially the major stockholders. Profit trumps all moral or ethical concerns. The corporate structure relieves all stockholders of individual responsibility and accountability.

Should the lower middle class and poor people only be concerned about Romney and his political views and stances? Or, should we be concerned about the Republican Party machine and their desire to find the most fundamental and conservative candidate, who will have the campaign finances to wage the most destructive vendetta against President Obama? Should we be worried about Character assassination? Should we be worried about a return to the eight years of policies and leadership that lead to the mess we were in when President Obama took the oath of office? (Both parties must share the blame.) Should we be concerned about true religious freedom and equal opportunity for everyone?

Should we be concerned about the 'religious right moral majority' that claims God is on their side and it is He who 'appointed' GW Bush, therefore He approved all of Bush's administrative decisions? Their interpretation of scripture that says God appoints rulers seems to fall apart, for them, when the likes of Clinton or Obama get elected. Should we be concerned about what will happen when the 'religious right' begins to have internal disagreements on what God decrees? Could we find our nation in the dilemma that the Middle East Muslim controlled countries are now in? Could we find ourselves in religious political wars that make our political differences of today pale in comparison?

You, rich or poor, have a responsibility. Don't let political or religious ideology or rhetoric interfere with sound reason and judgment.

Romney's Defense of "Romneycare"

2012-01-31T04:55:45Z

It was a memorable highlight in the health care reform debate, one that will undoubtedly be replayed often in the coming months. Afterwards John McDonough, professor at the Harvard School of Public Health credited Mitt Romney with the "most effective and persuasive rationale and defense of the individual mandate" to date during the Presidential campaign.
Rick Santorum elicited the response from Romney during the January 27 debate between the remaining Presidential candidates in Florida. When he tried to attack "Romneycare," what many believe to be Gov. Mitt Romney's biggest policy success in Massachusetts and a model for the federal health care overhaul, Romney responded with one of his best moments of the evening. "If you don't want to buy insurance, then you have to help pay for . . . your bill . . . no more free riders. We're insisting on personal responsibility. Either get the insurance or help pay for your care."

]]> Of course what many regard as a significant accomplishment for Romney will be an albatross for him should he prevail in the primary race to face off against Barack Obama in the fall. He insists that there are significant differences in the federal plan and the one he signed into law as governor. But McDonough, who was involved in the crafting of both, disagrees. He was quoted by National Public Radio after the recent debate as saying that "the essential architecture of the insurance reforms in the Affordable Care Act is taken wholly from the Massachusetts health reform law."
At this point the rhetoric over the Affordable Care Act has gotten so hot that most are content to sit and wait for the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality early this summer. Meanwhile it's interesting watching Romney dance around the health care bill he signed. Recently the journal Health Affairs published a favorable review of the first five years of the Massachusetts' plan. They take note of the fact that Emergency Room visits have been reduced and the numbers of uninsured are "quite low."
Romney has defended the Massachusetts' law at other moments in the campaign as well. When attacked by former rival Governor Rick Perry in a debate prior to the Iowa caucuses he responded that his state has the lowest percentage of uninsured kids in the country while Perry's state (Texas) has the highest.
The irony of such statements brings me back to the best summary I've heard of the debate surrounding health care reform. Following a summit at the University of Kansas on the subject in March of 2009 former Kansas congressman and senator Bob Dole remarked to reporters that "opposition (to health care reform) was driven by knee-jerk partisanship." He later amplified on the comment by telling the Kansas City Star that, "Sometimes people fight you just to fight you."
Dole was a founding member (along with former Senate Majority Leaders Howard Baker, Tom Daschle and George Mitchell) of the Bipartisan Policy Institute. The center issued a template for health care reform in June of 2009 which included an insurance mandate with no public option. In October of the same year Dole and Daschle issued a joint statement supporting the reform efforts. In his August 31, 2009, op-ed piece in the Washington Post, Dole called health care reform "the vital issue of our time."
If Dole is correct, and others share his concern about what our health care system has done to our federal budget deficit, we all have a stake in the Affordable Care Act's success. In a general election contest would Romney be able to simultaneously take credit for and distance himself from his signature achievement?

Functional Poll Tax: Kobach Wrongly Blames Senator

2012-01-30T12:53:56Z

TOPEKA, Kan. - As reported in a recent Topeka Capitol Journal article, KanVote exposed a major discrepancy in new voting restrictions which has
resulted in a functional poll tax.

KanVote found that in order to obtain a free voter ID, voters without access to necessary proof of citizenship would be forced to pay for a birth certificate. KanVote made the discrepancy known this week at a rules and regulations hearing held by the Secretary of State's office.

After hearing KanVote's findings, Kris Kobach stated that free birth certificates are available for accessing the free voter ID. He claimed the discrepancy was mere confusion caused by his senator, Kelly Kultala. Kobach blames Kultala for postponing the implementation of voter registration regulations and creating confusion among related agencies regarding when free birth certificates are available.

Upon further investigation, KanVote discovered that the new voting restrictions do not make free birth certificates available to those applying for a voter ID.

]]> The Law Enacts A Poll Tax and Kultala Can't be Blamed

The new voting law states that a person requesting a free birth certificate must swear under oath that they are doing so in order to register to vote. There is no provision granting free birth certificates for the purpose of obtaining a voter ID. This indicates that free birth certificates will not be made available until the new voter registration restrictions take affect in 2013, and only then for those not already registered to vote. What this means is that a person who is registered to vote but lacks voter ID and proof of citizenship, will be forced to pay for proof of citizenship in order to obtain the necessary ID required to vote. Simply put, some will have to pay to vote even after 2013. There should be no confusion about it, this law enacts a functional poll tax.

Section 13 (3) of the SAFE Act

The secretary shall not charge or accept any fee for a certified copy of a birth certificate if the certificate is requested by any person who is 17 years of age or older for purposes of meeting the voter registration requirements of K.S.A. 25-2309, and amendments thereto. Such person shall swear under oath: (1) That such person plans to register to vote in Kansas; and (2) that such person does not possess any of the documents that constitute evidence of United States citizenship under K.S.A. 25-2309(l), and amendments thereto. The affidavit shall specifically list the documents that constitute evidence of United States citizenship under K.S.A.25-2309(l), and amendments thereto.

A Mess that Can't Be Swept Under the Rug

Kobach claims that Kultala created a confusion that he can clear up with the participation of related agencies. He recently mentioned that he is working with county election officials and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to create a process by which citizens can access free birth certificates. KanVote made several calls to the Sedgwick County Election Office yesterday and found out that no such process has been created as of yet. The employee at the election office informed our caller that they were in the process of developing a document that could be signed by those in need of a free birth certificate.

KanVote is anxiously awaiting the release of this document. It is unclear how the document will maintain consistency with the new voter law while correcting the functional poll tax discrepancy.

How KanVote Discovered the Poll Tax

After attempting to assist citizens in obtaining free voter IDs in Sedgwick County, it was discovered that in order to obtain a free voter ID you must provide a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship. Many of the people who were in need of a free voter ID were also in need of proof of citizenship. KanVote contacted the KDHE Department of Vital Statistics and Brad Bryant, Elections Director at the KS Secretary of State's office, and asked about access to free birth certificates.

Both agencies informed KanVote that free birth certificates would not be made available until new voter registration restrictions take effect in 2013. After reviewing the law we discovered that free birth certificates are not made available for the purpose of obtaining a voter ID.

Should We Buy a Pig in a Poke?

2012-01-29T20:34:48Z

COLBY, Kan. - Let's take another look at some information that Bob Hooper presented in his article. Some people don't agree with or believe those statistics. But then, I've known some people who would swear on a stack of Bibles that up is down and down is up. Reality is beyond the realm of their existence.

Incidentally, the richest 400 gained 12 percent. from 2010 to 2011. Since 2006, their net worth increased by $250 billion, about 17 percent. On the other hand, "Over the past five years Americans, on average, have seen no disposable income growth if you adjust for population and inflation. This also explains why they're spending like it's 2006 -- because they don't have more money to spend. No wonder the recovery continues to feel like a recession: that's an awfully long time to go without a raise."

]]> Where are we headed to if this trend continues? If you go back a few more years, you find the spread in compensation between management and labor has been in a continuous widening trend. The corporate profits have far outstripped individual entrepreneurial endeavors. Oh, sure, corporations have gone bust, but the truth is the CEOs and major stockholders have not suffered the same losses as the little investors or employees.

We, in fact, do not have a level playing field in the economic world. As wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, so is power concentrated into fewer and fewer hands. Unrestrained capitalism gives rise to unfair power of the rich over the poor.
Is it in the best interest of humanity to equalize or limit wealth and power? Can we trust the religious integrity of individuals to protect the rights and freedom of all? Can we trust those who have no religious bearings to control their endeavors to protect society? Can we trust any small group of individuals to determine the fate of all humanity? Or, do we need to attempt to put together a coalition of individuals from all walks of life? (religious, non religious, rich, poor, Republican, Democrat, etc.)

The Republicans have dominated the airwaves with their efforts to select their presidential candidate for next November's election. Most of what we've heard is an effort to convince us that they need to select the individual who can do the best job of trashing the present President. I guess maybe you can judge which candidate is best on the basis of which one of them can do the best job of trashing their caucus or primary opposition. That seems to be more important than presenting realistic policy and goals to address the pressing needs of society NOW.

Can anyone honestly look at the eight years of 'Bushism' and say another eight years of that is what we need? No, George W. Bush isn't solely responsible. The system that includes Democrats, Republicans, Independents, etc. must share the blame.
The economy was in a whirl spin down the drain. In all honesty, the Republican agenda has been to kill any program that the Obama administration has promoted and , they haven't given us anything of substance to replace it with.

Are they saying, "Just trust us!"? Buy a 'pig in a poke', and open the sack when you get home, hoping its better than the pig you dumped on the way to town.

Nation Building or Imperialism

2012-01-28T04:39:32Z

COLBY, Kan. - What is your opinion of the promise to rush into Cuba, as soon as Castro 'kicks the bucket', and establish a democracy? I guess the leading Republican contenders for the presidency don't realize the failure of establishing democracy, U.S. style, in Vietnam and Iraq.

I'm not an expert on the state of the Cuban people, but it seems to me they are better off under Castro's rule than they were under the U.S. backed dictator that Castro overthrew. This, in spite of the embargo and isolationism imposed on Cuba by the U.S.

Perhaps we should let the Cuban people decide their own political system. It appears that some Eastern European countries were fairly successful in establishing themselves, after the fall of the U.S.S.R., without direct interference or aid from the U.S.

A Preview of the Dirtiest Election Ever?

2012-01-27T21:07:37Z

BOGUE, Kan. - A Jan.11 writer to Reader Forum [Hays Daily News] blustered about "non-factual distortion" by the Obama administration and supporters, then made his own claims.

[CLAIM: "All the money from the richest 400 Americans wouldn't pay our bills for a week."] In 2011 the richest 400 were together worth $1.5 trillion. (Forbes Magazine) Current annual federal spending is estimated at $3.6 trillion; state at $1.43; local, $1.63 trillion. So, the 400's wealth would fund all federal spending for 5 months, state for one year, local for 11 months. All federal, state, and local spending for about 3 months.

Incidentally, the richest 400 gained 12 percent. from 2010 to 2011. Since 2006, their net worth increased by $250 billion, about 17 percent. On the other hand, "Over the past five years Americans, on average, have seen no disposable income growth if you adjust for population and inflation. This also explains why they're spending like it's 2006 -- because they don't have more money to spend. No wonder the recovery continues to feel like a recession: that's an awfully long time to go without a raise."

]]>

[CLAIM: "The rich pay most of our taxes."] The rich do pay more in total taxes. However -- as a percentage of total income -- middle class and poorer people may pay more if we include property tax, sales tax, vehicle taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. Taxfoundation.org says the average Kansan must work 100 days to be "tax free" this tax year. Roughly, 27 percent.

[CLAIM: Obama promotes "class warfare."] Class warfare is a Republican campaign sound bite. Ironically, it was the billionaire Warren Buffet who used the term most recently. He said, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

Buffet's estimated wealth is $39 billion; his salary as manager of Berkshire Hathaway for 2011, $524,946. His total reported taxable income for 2010 was $39,814,784. However, he paid a lower percent of income in taxes than his secretary. Congressman Tim Huelskamp (R-KS) asked Buffet to disclose more, and Buffet responded that he would be willing if others in his income bracket did the same. In 2010, Buffet paid an effective 17.4%of his taxable income.

Last week, presidential hopeful Mitt Romney estimated his own effective tax rate: "It's probably closer to the 15 percent rate than anything." (Actually, 13.9 percent on his taxable income for 2010 of $17.1 million.) The official top tax rate is 35 percent.

ABC News: "What Romney admitted is exactly what billionaire Warren Buffet has railed against--the fact that many multi-millionaires actually pay far less in taxes than the people who work for them."

In any case, since 1970 the gap between the wealthy and the rest of us has grown steadily, keeps growing, and is wider now than at any time since the Great Depression. The key question is, "Does the rich getting still richer make life better for the rest of us?" Doesn't look that way.

Tellingly, a recent poll found over two-thirds of those making over $1 million annually thought they should pay more taxes.

[CLAIM: Obama's responsible for our economic problems] In the view of most economists, the Great Recession of 2008 -- a train wreck from which we're still trying to heal -- was largely the result of shredding the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. It had been put in place precisely to restrain financial speculation. Without it came bundled derivatives and credit default swaps enticingly rated AAA. In 2008, the house of cards collapsed.

Spending? According to Congressional Budget Office figures, today's budget deficit comes mostly from continuing Bush/Republican policies -- like two unfunded wars and tax cuts for the wealthiest. Bush administration deficit impact: $5.07 trillion. Obama: $1.44 trillion.

[CLAIM: Democrats have controlled Congress "going back nearly five years when Bush was still president."] Since 1995, Democrats have had a majority only in the 110th and 111th Congresses, a span of 2007 to 2011. In the 110th, Democrats had a 35 vote House majority, a two seat majority in the Senate (51 seats). However, a majority does not automatically mean control.

In the Senate, ending filibusters requires 60 votes. Thus, Democrats had control only in the 111th Congress, but barely. In the 112th today, the 51 Senate Democrats are not enough to assure cloture. Meanwhile, Republicans are setting historic filibuster records. (To learn more visit www.addictinginfo.org)

[CLAIM: the Affordable Care Act is "unscrupulous and corrupt."] Few average Americans really know much about the new law--most of which won't be implemented until 2014. Seniors may know even less. A National Council on Aging survey found fewer than 3 of 10 older Americans knew Medicare payments to doctors won't be cut. Three of 4 didn't know it extends the life of the Medicare Trust Fund. Barely 28 percent knew people with disabilities now have better odds of getting long-term care at home. Only one in 3 knew that Medicare will provide one free annual medical check-up. Finally, the overwhelming majority were unaware that the new law is projected to reduce the deficit by $124 billion over 10 years. In fact, half incorrectly believed "Obamacare" would increase the deficit.

[CLAIM: "According to Obama, we are a racist nation."] President Obama has made no such comment. There are plenty of racists around, however. You probably know some.

State of the Union

2012-01-25T06:08:50Z

COLBY, Kan. - I missed the first part of the President's address. GrannyP recorded it and I'll listen to it in the morning. The last portion of his speech, that I got to listen to, seemed to clearly address the state of the union and the political disparities we face. He addressed some issues that we need to resolve and gave his directions he wanted to go.

]]> I did listen to the Indiana governor's response and a few of the news commentators take on the message. They all seemed to think it was purely 'campaign rhetoric'. I have to disagree with that assessment and say the governor's response was far more partisan campaign rhetoric than the President's speech. He merely made a few gratuitous comments about the President and then proceeded to criticize, without ever really making any real commitments to specific recommendations of how to proceed to improve the State of the Union.

It is an absolute fact that our government has been in gridlock with partisanship stalling any real progress in solving our economic problems. All political parties are guilty. I'm a true 'blue' democrat that believes the Republicans have been more intransigent than others.

Let's hear some comments from others!

His Tax Reform: Increases Taxes for Lower-Income Kansans

2012-01-19T18:02:13Z

COLBY, Kan. - The following is a little snip taken from a Kansas City Star article:

"The Revenue Department's analysis of the Brownback plan examined income tax data from 2009 and breaks down taxpayers into six income brackets. The only bracket with a tax increase ranges from zero up to $25,000.
"That group, made up of 564,328 tax filers, would pay $88.2 million more in taxes under the governor's tax plan. Meanwhile, the highest income bracket making $250,000 a year would pay $110 million less in taxes."

I don't have the resources at my finger tips to validate these figures. But, I've learned that tax reform reflects an advantage for those proposing the reform. Most of Gov. Brownback's agenda is benefiting the upper crust far more than the the hard tack biscuit eaters in the lower income brackets.

]]> Those at the bottom $25K and under will pay more and those in the $250K and higher will pay less. $88.2 million more and $110 million less does not compute mathematically to balance the budget. In addition to those discrepancies, the lower income folks pay a greater percent of their income into sales tax, property tax, and FICA taxes FICA does not go into the State coffers, but it is a tax, in that it is being used to offset increasing federal income tax to pay national general fund expenses. That is certainly an advantage for those in the $100K and above wage earner category and those whose income is not subject to FICA.

Some say rentors don't pay property taxes. Does the $100 per month for apartments or tenement houses not cover the property tax for the landlord?

Our governor seems to blame the exodus of Kansas workers to other states because of Kansas income tax structure. My guess is; you will move to where you can find a job. Or, you'll move to be closer to family, or perceived better climate, or for health reasons, or entertainment venues, etc. etc. But, the bottom line for most folks before moving is job opportunity and pay scale. The bottom line is people don't move from state to state based on state income tax differences.

Many Boeing workers will most likely be leaving Wichita and Kansas. Some will follow the company to a new location. Others will seek similar employment wherever it is available. Income tax will most likely not be a factor. Does Gov. Brownback really think Boeing made their decision to close down in Kansas and move production elsewhere for State Income Tax reasons? I'm not on the upper management team of Boeing (probably not qualified) but I'm quite sure that 1% or 2% difference in income tax liability probably was not a factor in their decision.

Cutting programs that benefit lower income people and increasing their income tax is asinine, coming from a supposedly compassionate religious governor.

Religion Under the Dome

2012-01-18T14:48:30Z

TOPEKA, Kan. - It's official. Kansans can breathe a sigh of relief. According to David Epps with the group Transform Topeka, God has made it possible for Sam Brownback to rule over Kansas.

The Capitol was turned into a Christian Church as the third floor reverberated with songs and prayer. In the small group that assembled, Governor Brownback stood with radical evangelical, anti-abortion messianic prophets (shades of crazy John Brown) to anoint the 2012 legislative session for the glory of their Religious Right God; a God who just happens to support their extreme social agenda.

This Christian pep rally was part of the "Prayer on the Hill" event organized by the Culture Shield Network. CSN is a faith based advocacy group from Wichita founded by Donna Lippoldt . She maintains that they have "people that pray in the Capitol all day, every day during the whole legislative session,"

Lippoldt might be familiar to some Wichitans. She takes credit for keeping casino's out of Sedgwick County but her real claim to fame would have to be the wasted years she spent harassing patients who sought legal abortions in Wichita, Kansas. Nice to know the governor is hanging with the very people who did so much to demonize, threaten and elevate the climate of violence in Kansas against Dr. Tiller.

]]> The governor also did some praying. "May this Capitol radiate in your love," he said. "We pray that in Jesus' name. Amen."

That's right; all pretenses are gone from the governor and his minions. The governor and the Religious Right are openly working together to create a Christian State in America where government will be a model society based upon the Old Testament.

Imagine a society where there are no foolish expenditures for the arts or education but a government where women die in childbirth because it is the will of the Lord. Imagine a place where a tiny cell has more personhood rights than a living, breathing woman. Of course, Planned Parenthood will be demolished because only the Lord is in charge of procreation. Tax credits for frivolous things like child care, the disabled, adoptions, and historic preservation will be cut since they are not part of God's heavenly plan. [Can't these people do anything on their own without needing socialism to save them? Everyone knows God hates socialists.] And forget about the earned-income tax credit for families of the working poor. Everyone knows a wealthy person works harder than the poor and God hates sloth.

And never mind about Kansas officials respecting and upholding the separation of church and state. The Governor just prayed in the name of Jesus in the Capitol! So what if the Capitol is a government building that belongs to Atheists,Jews,Pagans, Christians and all Kansans? Brownback just co-opted Kansas government for his faith and the beauty of his actions is that if criticized, he can scream persecution.

Brownback's participation was hardly a private moment of worship and reflection-which any official has the right to enjoy throughout the legislative day. The governor participated not as an individual who happened to just stroll in, but due to the very fact that he is the chief executive officer of Kansas. He understood this gathering was all about proclaiming one particular faith as the highest authority under the dome to accomplish conservative goals " for God".

The message is loud and clear; the governor signaled he is working for Jesus and his own personal beliefs, and not for the people of Kansas. For the record, I don't see how God is glorified by taking from widows, orphans and the poor.

The access given to these Christians side by side with the governor was simply unprecedented. It would be difficult to contemplate a Humanist or Islamic group having the same opportunity to promote their religion or philosophical views at the Capitol and make audacious claims before the start of a legislative session.

Epps stated, "There has to be a supernatural transaction for us to move forward in the state in such a way that will glorify you." If there is one thing we have discovered about conservative Kansas lawmakers, it's that science, facts, and sound reasoning are considered the tools of the devil and liberals. Conservatives understand that the way to "move forward" with their extreme agenda is by exploiting the supernatural path through prayer and God to sanctify and encode their prejudices under the law.

Which begs the question: "Why should man do anything at all when God can take care of it without man?" We don't even need a legislature or a governor if one accepts Epps' logic.

As long Kansas officials can pull out the God card and pray piously before the voters, conservative republican legislators and the governor do not need to use wisdom or logic in governing. People forgive and ignore a lot the minute prayer breaks out. Politicians know this truth better than anyone.

The governor's prayer, that "God's love radiate all over," will not come to pass for women, children, the poor, and those in desperate need of healthcare in Kansas. And, this my dear Kansans, is what happens when we elect people who are more concerned about upholding their God and religion, instead of selflessly working for the good of the state and its people.

Bush Was Right on Redistricting

2012-01-18T12:46:01Z

SALINA, Kan. - "It's actually pretty good," my uncle insisted. When he asked if I had already read my Christmas gift from him, a copy of George W. Bush's Decision Points, I joked that I had been waiting for it to come out in paperback.

My uncle and I frequently give each other books on or by political figures we hold in low esteem. They're sort of gag gifts, but I still usually read them. By listening to opposing points of view one can frequently learn something, and occasionally discover heretofore unknown areas of agreement. I had such an experience reading the 43rd President's book.

Bush's political memoir didn't redefine for me the major points of what I believe his legacy will be for historians. The Bush Presidency will be forever tainted by two disastrous policy decisions - huge tax cuts which ushered in crushing deficits, and the invasion of Iraq, an undertaking billed to a credit card which was not worth the cost. But in a chapter entitled "Leading," he talks of the need to reduce the ideological extremes in Congress and proposes that redistricting be carried out by committees of non-partisan elders.

]]> Bush argues that since so many districts are gerrymandered to favor one party or the other few districts are competitive nationally in most years. The only true competition in "safe" districts is intraparty in nature. Therefore many members run to the far end of the political spectrum to fend off primary challenges.

President Obama's recent characterization of Congress as "dysfunctional," hit a chord with most of his countrymen, and the institution has an approval rating that hovers around eight percent nationally. So what about former President Bush's idea?

An effort to put such a system in place in Kansas failed during the 2009 session of the Kansas Legislature. Groups in power tend to prefer to use the redistricting process to increase that power. The tradition goes back to Massachusetts Governor Eldridge Gerry's use of the strategy in his state back in 1812.

Such an exercise will be on full display this year in the Kansas Legislature. And one of the main protagonists from ten years ago is back to lead the effort, House Speaker Mike O'Neil. O'Neil, who recently thought a photo of Michelle Obama on a windy day with a racial insult below was so funny that he forwarded it to the entire Republican caucus, led the effort last time that, among other things, split the city of Lawrence in an effort to push Kansas City Democrat Dennis Moore out of his seat.

By law redistricting is a state function. But since the four Kansas congressmen are all Republican, they are rumored to be working on a map among themselves to present for the Legislature's approval. This sets up conflict between Congressman Tim Huelskamp, whose first district needs to gain residents, and Lynn Jenkins (second) and Kevin Yoder (third) who want the tradeoffs to make their congressional seats safer.

Redistricting at the state level will also amplify conflicts during a session in which Governor Sam Brownback has laid out an ambitious agenda. Brownback, schooled in the hyper-partisan environment of Washington, D.C., has brought its influence back to Kansas. Moderate Republican senators who have drawn the governor's ire already have primary opponents. And redistricting will purposely be left for later in the session so that the Administration and its allies can use its threats as coercion to bring legislators into line behind their agenda.

I think most Kansans, like most Americans, feel we need less partisanship in our political system, not more. If Governor Brownback really wants to make a positive contribution to our state he could propose and push former President Bush's idea of a non-partisan redistricting commission. The move would create publicity for our state, this time for the right reasons.

Relearning from Teddy Roosevelt

2012-01-15T22:58:21Z

BOGUE, Kan. - In his speech last December at Osawatomie KS High School, President Obama cited Theodore Roosevelt's remarks there a century earlier.

Republican President Theodore Roosevelt served from 1901 to 1909. In 1912, representing the Bull Moose Party, he lost to Woodrow Wilson--the only time a 3rd Party candidate has finished as high as second. Every place I looked, Theodore Roosevelt ranks in the top 10 US Presidents, and in none lower than 6th.

In 2010, 238 participating presidential scholars at Siena College Research Institute concluded: "Teddy Roosevelt had, more than any other president, the 'right stuff,' and tops the collective ranking of a cluster of personal qualities including imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck, background and being willing to take risks." He is one of the four U.S. Presidents honored on Mt. Rushmore.

Roosevelt was an environmentalist. He led in establishing 5 national parks, 18 national monuments, and 150 National Forests. I have little doubt as President today he would work with climate scientists to deal with the reality of global warming. As governor of Kansas, he would demand something beyond pious rhetoric to end mining of the Ogallala. But...

]]> But Teddy was much more. He fought corruption. He understood, as too few good Americans today do, that good government had to truly be of, for, and by the people. He understood that such a government had to be bigger and stronger than any private business, corporation, or any consortium of them.

From Roosevelt's 1910 Osawatomie speech: "Now this means that our government, national and State must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics."

And more: "I believe every national officer, elected or appointed, should be forbidden to perform any service or receive any compensation, directly or indirectly, from interstate corporations; and a similar provision could not fail to be useful within the States."

He saw the necessity of government regulation. He said, "The man who wrongly holds that every human right is secondary to his profit must now give way to the advocate of human welfare, who rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it."

The Supreme Court decision to grant corporations "personhood" would have infuriated him, as it should us.

The wealthy hated him and missed few opportunities to smear him. Some called him a communist. (Sound familiar?) Nineteen years later, smoke and mirrors investments collapsed. Wall Street went belly up. Government had become not a government of, for, and by the people--but one owned and operated by the interests Roosevelt warned about.

But the Crash of 1929 was just the beginning. Businesses who had invested and lost, cut hours and wages, and jobs. Those people had less money, and spent less. The lack of spending meant even more businesses cut hours or wages, or laid off more workers. Banks closed their doors. Soup lines of desperate men and women were long and sad. In those days, like our own, those who bore the blame for the crash didn't pay much of the cost. Ordinary people did.

To prime the pump took not further cuts but targeted government spending for programs like the Civilian Conservation Corps which, from 1933 to 1942, gave jobs every year to several hundred thousand young male Americans. Among other projects, they built public parks, roads, and bridges. They planted almost 3 billion trees. With Pearl Harbor and World War II, young men stopped planting trees and took up rifles. More government spending.

The Works Projects Association, an ever bigger government program, began in 1935 and lasted until 1943. WPA aimed to provide a 30 hr per week job to one person per family.

Some will argue that WW II and the GI Bill were more responsible for the recovery, also government funded. Families who survived because of programs like the CCC and the WPA might not disagree. Neither would they deny the critical part such programs played.

Like the Depression, the Crash of 2008 and aftermath also has its roots in corporate interests controlling government. Those same interests are spending big money to sell the idea that government has no business regulating business. Today, they blame everybody but themselves for the current mess They pour big money into astroturf propaganda groups like the Tea Party to emotionalize and gull the gullible.

Ordinary Americans, now as then, are paying the price. Many of them don't seem to understand why.

Religious Bigotry

2012-01-14T18:37:08Z

COLBY, Kan. - I copied the following from an email I received.

Dear Kansas MoveOn member,
You might be surprised to hear that Mike O'Neal, the Republican Speaker of the Kansas State House of Representatives, is praying for President Obama.
Unfortunately, he's praying for the President's death. And he's exploiting the Bible to do so, circulating an email that cites Psalm 109: "Let his days be few; and let another take his office. May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow."
Sadly, it's not unusual for Republican politicians to use vile and hate-filled rhetoric when speaking about President Obama. But when they exploit religion to do so, people of faith have a moral responsibility to condemn it...

That's why I created a petition to Speaker O'Neal on SignOn.org, which says...

]]> Scripture should never be used to justify praying for the death of anyone. Speaker O'Neal's hateful abuse of scripture is unacceptable and a disgrace to his office, and he should immediately resign.

Surely people can differentiate honest religious commitment from such blatant political opportunism. We hear very similar kinds of statements from both religious and non religious people. I've heard people in the coffee shop declaring that someone should just shoot whoever they don't like, in the political arena. Their religious affiliation has nothing to do with such irresponsible attitudes. Respect for honest debate and differences is not evident in society, regardless of religious identity.

The facts are that non religious bigotry is just as much a problem as religious bigotry.

Campaign Baloney

2012-01-13T20:28:48Z

WICHITA, Kan. - According to the Wichita Eagle, Congressman Mike Pompeo is announcing an 'America Flies' aviation campaign.

That's right. Pompeo seems to think Americans need to be educated about what an indispensable asset aviation is for Wichita and America as well.

Yes, just after Boeing stuck it to the people of Wichita and has run out of Dodge with its Tanker deal, Pompeo has shown real political courage by reminding us how much we rely on the aviation industry for jobs and the need to bow down and prostrate ourselves to the gods of aviation.

This "I love airplanes and flying along with my congressional job" campaign, is an about face from last week's performance of outrage and protestations. Pompeo, along with other politicians were lined up like jilted lovers.

]]> This week, we are encouraged to start sucking up and feeling the love or who knows what other shoe will drop-especially on Pompeo's head.

The real motivation behind this campaign is for Mike to soften the political landscape where on his watch-Boeing walked. One of the best components to his bogus campaign is the opportunity to attack President Obama. Obama had the nerve to criticize corporate CEOs for flying around in corporate jets while the American people were losing their homes and the ability to send their kids to college. That dastardly Obama! How dare he attack corporate heads flying around in the very planes that provide work for the great unwashed masses. Never mind the fact that Boeing and other American companies are deserting American communities for cheaper labor sources or switching to offshore locations to squeeze out more profit and add to the record breaking profit margins CEOs experienced this year in America.

The message Pompeo is really sending with this campaign is that times are tough and we need to remember who butters our bread. No one knows better than Pompeo who is buttering his congressional race with donations.

It would be far more worthy to put forth a campaign on diversifying industries in Wichita and Kansas. There is nothing wrong with working to attract more suppliers and manufacturers within the aviation industry but, do we really need a campaign just for the aviation industry? It's just redundant. We get it. The fact that aviation jobs are highly skilled and provide good wages and thus a strong middle-class in America is lost on no one in Wichita.

We also understand the need to fly in America because we have no trains. How else are we to quickly travel from coast to coast or get out of Kansas? Aviation has a lock on transportation in America and we have no choice but to sit in sardine cans if we need to travel long distances.

It would be far more exciting and innovating to see Pompeo think outside the box and usher in a campaign to support high speed rail on the Great Plains, or attracting auto manufacturing firms to Wichita that make electric, biodisesel or hybrid cars.

Our elected officials could start by supporting innovative entrepreneurs like Wichitan Jonathan Goodwin whose company,H-Line Conversions was featured in the online magazine FastCompany.com, by Clive Thompson in 2007? The story begins with, "Jonathan Goodwin can get 100mpg out of a Lincoln Continental, cut emissions by 80% and double the horsepower." The question after the quote was, "Does the car business have the guts to follow him?" I guess not.

If there is one thing we can count on in Kansas politics, it's all about protecting the same old companies with the same old political baloney in order for Kansas politicians to keep their political seats.

Activists Mobilize to Demand Availability of Free Voter IDs

2012-01-10T00:29:35Z

WICHITA, Kan. - The recent enactment of Kansas' controversial voter ID law has many concerned that some citizens will not have equal access to the polls on election day and for the soon-to-come referendums.

Those concerned with the law fear that citizens who lack access to the photo ID now required to vote will be disenfranchised this election year. Though the new law requires all DMV's to provide free voter ID's, there has been little effort to educate voters on the new requirements and how to access the free ID's. The Kansas Secretary of State's Website contains incomplete instruction on how to access a free photo ID, and many doubt that DMV employees are prepared to answer these questions.

With Cimarron's first test of this bill happening on Tuesday and Wichita's on Feb 28th a coalition of concerned citizens are ready to take action to ensure that nobody is disenfranchised.

]]> On Tuesday January 10th at 10:30 am, concerned citizens and activists representing KanVote, Occupy Wichita, the KS Tequila Party, Moveon.org, and the SCKS Peace and Social Justice Center will meet at 1407 N. Topeka to caravan to the DMV at 1823 W 21St. North.

The caravan is expected to arrive at the DMV at 11:00am. The group will request instruction on how to obtain free voter ID in order to ensure their availability and to educate the public on the process.

Press is invited to join the caravan leaving 1407 N. Topeka, or to meet the activists at the action site.

SPEEA Ready to Help in Wake of Boeing Plant Closing

2012-01-04T22:35:18Z

WICHITA, Kan. - The Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA) is calling on The Boeing Company to meet all commitments to employees here who worked diligently to help secure the $35 billion U.S. Air Force KC-767 tanker program only to learn Wednesday morning the plant is being shuttered and their work is going elsewhere.

]]> A formal letter was sent to Boeing within hours of the announcement to start the process to schedule and hold effects bargaining for the 550 represented engineers at the plant.

"We've began talking to Boeing immediately," said SPEEA President Tom McCarty. "We will be working very hard to find the best outcome for the people we represent at Boeing Wichita."

While noting there are not a lot of answers yet, McCarty said the union is getting the pieces in place to do everything it can to help members transfer to new jobs, relocate or meet other career needs. McCarty said the company also needs to pay attention to retaining the skills of its Wichita engineers.

"These engineers are experts in their fields and Boeing can't afford to lose those skills," McCarty said.

In September, Wichita engineers agreed to a two-year contract extension with Boeing. Originally set to expire Dec. 2, 2011, the contract locks in terms through Dec. 2, 2013.

Wichita Boeing was slated to do the final modifications on the KC-767 tanker after the planes were assembled in Everett, Washington. During an all-employee meeting at the Wichita plant this morning, Boeing officials said tanker work will land in Everett, Washington. Other programs from Wichita will go to Oklahoma City and San Antonio, Texas. Boeing said the major transition will begin in the third quarter of 2012.

In addition to refueling tankers, recent work at the Wichita plant includes B-52 modifications, maintaining Air Force One, and the 737 Wedgetail program.