Forty Acres and a Mule

"There is no longer any need for affirmative action."

In order to build the wealth of our nation, or rather, in order to allow individuals to build vast sums of wealth, Americans, specifically white ones, enslaved those of the African continent.  After a long bloody civil war, justice *cough* prevailed, and those who were removed from their homeland and forced to toil under the whips of their ever wealthier white counterparts for generations were freed.  They were, for this crime against humanity promised "forty ares and a mule," except not exactly…

This was never a Congressional act, but rather just a promise made by General Sherman- Special Field Order #15, that some 400,000 acres be allocated to some 40,000 freedpeople.  The mule was never actually mentioned.  By 1866 Congress had debated, passed and had vetoed one version of the Southern Homestead Act.  Later they amended it and passed, then over-road Johnson's veto.  This bill opened some 46 million acres of Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi, and Florida in 80-acre parcels to homesteading.  Few in the South advertised the bill, resulting in only some 6,500 applicants.  In the end, some 1,000 received actual and grants.  So, as payment for having been uprooted, dehumanized, and enslaved, most were turned away empty handed.

Instead, they faced sharecropping, and today guess how many tobacco companies are black owned?

Money, according to the Supreme Court is both speech, and thus influence.  Ultimate power is found in wealth, not the piddly musing of mere earnings.  You can be a valedictorian, become a doctor, and even get to be the surgeon general, but don't expect to pull down more than a few million a year, unless you write a book that lands on the best seller that nets you $10 or $20 million.  Still, there are those in this country to inherit billions.  How is an individual who starts the game with zero dollars and no land supposed to compete with those who inherit both lands and holdings?

In Brown v Board of Education, we were told that, 'separate is not equal.'  All public high schools, rural to the inner city are supposed to be equal.  So if African-Americans make up 12-14%, shouldn't this number be reflected in higher learning admissions?  When it does not, shouldn't we enact policies to fix it, especially given this historical 'short' America has offered these forced immigrants?

This is to say nothing of the clear and present racism that permeates America today.  Don't we owe the children of those we forced to be here, an opportunity to become educated?

The Purpose of a Minimum Wage

"When we increase minimum wages by legislative fiat, we kill jobs."

So, what is the purpose of a job, if not to provide for that which life requires?  When the minimum wage was conceived the idea was to provide a full-time worker with the ability to access food, clothing, shelter, health and dental care without relying on government relief programs.  Why shouldn't a person working full time be afforded mere existence?  What we need to understand is that by not paying a true living wage to full time workers, corporations are being subsidized by government.

Minimum wage affords a worker now, very little in the way of a living.  Depending on the cost of living in your area, in America, $7.25 an hour is less than $14,000 after taxes.  The average apartment rental rate across the U.S. is around $1,100 a month, so this often leaves those at the bottom of the capitalistic food chain at the door steps of the welfare and food stamp offices.  Why should government, i.e. we the taxpayer be subsidizing businesses?  Shouldn't businesses 'still' be required to pay a living wage?

So, imagine the high school couple who gets pregnant.  Should they be able to make it, as a three-person family, on one full time job?  Is that the standard, because if it is, we are well below it now.  The food alone for the average family of three is $800 a month.  This is to say nothing of clothes, water, and heat or outside communication, another $400 a month, and that's if he can get a job within walking distance of their 2 bedroom apartment.  To pay for all this, he'll need a job that can pay him overtime, or he'll need to get a second job, which means more time away from home, not helping to raise his child.  How much time should be spent away from your family, to pay for their existence? Does the term full-time mean anything?  What is the minimum wage intended to cover?

The biggest question this issue raises is, why should government do, what businesses were supposed to do?  If you are working a full time job, why should you also qualify for government aid?  

Free Speech and Consequences

"Phil Robertson should not have been punished by A&E."

So, in America you are supposed to be free to speak your mind.  You are supposed to have the "Freedom of Speech."  Our founders found it so important that they put in our Bill of Rights, right in the top spot.  In short, it says,

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Now, this does not mean you can run into a crowded theater and yell, "Fire!"  Nor, do I believe it means you can say things that offend your boss, and not get fired or suspended.  So, here the question is, whether or not the marketplace accepts this kind of speech as acceptable?  Moreover, should it be acceptable?  Clearly, "Duck Dynasty" has a fan base, and plenty of supporters from those who would use the Bible to demean others.  Sadly, we still live in an age where homosexuality is viewed at as a sinful choice, rather than something you are born as or not.

"Mr. Robertson, was only stating what the Bible says…"

Really?  To me this comes off as 'cafeteria christianity' wherein you just pick and choose which 'parts' of the Bible you exploit, at any particular moment.  I mean, first to say that just because the Bible says it, it is good public policy, and acceptable behavior is simply old headed thought.  The Bible was written thousands of years ago, for people thousands of years ago.  The no pork rule was for a time when an improperly cooked pork chop could kill you!  Shrimp and lobster too, were banned simple because they were dangerous to consume if under-cooked.

The Bible also supports slavery, the outright ownership of one man or woman of another!  It also says it is sinful to work on the sabbath, not leave the corners of your field for the strange or weird, and literally hundreds of other arcane rules that no longer apply to our lives today.  If my brother dies, I DON'T have to take in his wife and kids as my own!  I could go on, but the point is made.

So, at what point should a private employer get to tell you keep your pie hole shut, about your religious choices?  The answer can be found in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Employers can not fail to hire, or deprive of opportunity, for reasons of race, sex, religion, or national origin an employee.  So, long as the observance of your religion does not interfere with the work setting the acts are protected.  Now, this extension also includes the employers themselves.  They too can practice their religion, so long as they don't require employees to take part.

The law here, it would seem, resides with the Robertsons.  Having and expressing arcane religious beliefs is no reason for termination or suspension from an employer, period.

Website Malfunctions

"The Obamacare site doesn't work."

So, who's fault is this?  The President has already said the buck stops with him, but I seriously doubt that the President was anywhere near any of that HTML code!  Who was, then???  Did they procure the worst web designers and masters of all time, then instruct them to create a site unable to handle more than 1000 hits per hour?  The question I'd really like answered is what political party do these absolute failures belong to?

It is certainly no secret that Republicans did not like this law, and have done everything in their power, or not, to demean, hinder, or stop the implementation of this law.  It is out of the realm of possibility that "republicans" were responsible for some of the programming within the site?  Where did they get their certification or degrees?  Why do we know absolutely nothing about who actually did the programming???

There are template websites wherein they could have cut and pasted a site together that would function better than what they offered.  That would have been free at any number of .com's I could name.  Instead we paid millions of dollars and got something almost entirely dysfunctional.  Who benefited from the creation of something programmers HAD to know would fail!?  I mean even I preview this blog a time or two before posting it.  I have some notion as to what the results will be when I hit submit.  Those who built this site, in this manner, did so to successfully fulfill a specific mission- to watch government fail.

So, who was it?  Will we ever know?  Can we use the Freedom of Information Act to find out?  I wish there were more answers here than questions, but one thing is certain.  The website had massive defects, that its creators knew about.  Republicans had the most to benefit from, with its failure, and if I were an investigator, they are the first place I'd begin looking for suspects.

ANOTHER CRISIS AVERTED

"We won, we got mandatory income verification, before benefits allocation!"

On this side of the fence, that 'win' the GOP is now touting cost the billions in economic losses.  Markets like steady governments that operate effectively, mail out checks on time, and so on.  This Congress, elected through gerrymandering and disproportionate re-districting, has been a wall of inaction.  They voted in scores to repeal something they knew the President agree to, and now they took us to the last minutes of an actual default, all for a hurdle for government relief??

I honestly believe Senator McConnell's, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

I believe because they did get that, they have decided to just do nothing, and be an absolute hindrance to any progress whatsoever.  Some have used the term 'Do Nothing Congress,' but I think they have moved toward destructive ends, with malice and intent to hinder.  Why, what is the goal here?  Anything I offered here would be pure speculation, so I won't delve.

But I do have question and accusations.  What is the goal of those who think government is not the solution, but to make sure that government CAN'T be or act otherwise!?  If a program needs $10 billion, and you fund it at $3 billion, should anyone be surprised that the program doesn't deliver as promised!?

What if half our government wasn't bent on its incapacitation?

Imagine what we could achieve...

Re-Open Affordable Care Act Negotiations

"We want to negotiate, but Democrats refuse."

As a progressive liberal, I wanted Universal Health Care, a single-payer system everyone gets covered, period.  I believe heath care, or rather 'the right to life,' should be a right, and not just a privilege for the super rich.  We didn't get Universal coverage.  In lou of that, I wanted a strong public option, and this too we gave up in concessions.

NOW, conservatives are wanting to negotiate, with our government at a stand still?  So, let's put Universal Health Care back up?  Or how about fully funded municipal co-ops, wherein county hospitals offer coverage with federal financial backing in emergency or catastrophic situations.  Let's do something, anything!  If they don't like this version, let's sincerely improve it!

I say we 'give up this private health care mandate,' and instead demand Universal Health Care, then 'settle' for a strong public option.

If republicans really want to negotiate, I say let's go for it!  Let's start making demands of our own, and let's begin by offering up the private insurance mandate.  How was that a liberal idea anyway!?

Medicaid, Medicare, and the Affordable Health Care Act

"We should defund Obamacare."

If we truly care about caring for those who can't care for themselves, America would fully fund the expansion of medical social services.  There are right now millions of Americans being denied medical attention, and the care that they eventually seek is the most expensive possible, at the ER.  It is costing us too much now not to do more.

I was disabled after a drunk driver decided I didn't need to play basketball anymore.  After a spinal cord injury to C-4,5, and 6, I am now a quadriplegic confined to a wheelchair.  Because I technically worked, and payed into social security before my accident, I qualified for Social Security Disability. In Texas, this means I qualify for Medicaid- Full Medical, One Eye Visit a year, and 3 prescriptions a month.  That's cool, I can get by.

Recently, my Dad was diagnosed with cancer, and was so diminished physically that he to now qualified for this same Disability Program.  Concurrently, I now qualified for another benefits program, as a survivor or beneficiary of someone who is disabled, which means $75 more each month.  This had a negative effect on my status in the Texas system.  I was simply no longer qualified for the Medicaid program, but I could re-apply.  This process takes from between 30-45 days, AND the program I am applying for doesn't cover prescriptions or eye exams, both of which I utilize.  The 'good' news that in November of 2014 I qualify for Medicare, which costs $100, and only covers 80% and no prescriptions.  As of July 31st I am without coverage of any kind...all because my Dad got cancer.  (*ETA:  I just found out that I qualify for another program that will return me to my original coverage, but now I have to re-apply every year, and failing to do so in a timely manner could again endanger my coverage.)

We've got a great system!  Unfortunately, I find myself in a crack.  The Affordable Health Care Act is intended to have states expand Medicaid and fill in these cracks, but MY Congressman, Mac Thornberry voted some 40 times to abolish it.  My next door neighbor, newly elected to the Texas State Legislature winner of the Most Conservative  Republican, Drew Springer, has not responded in a manner that leads me to believe he cares about amending things either.

In places where the Act is being used, rates are falling, people are getting rebate checks back, and more claims are being paid out.  It is all because there are now more people's premiums going into the kitty, and the AHCA forces health insurance companies to pay out 80% in claims.  Among others changes, it also  forces companies to cover pre-existing conditions, which means terminally ill-patients won't show up at ER's for treatment.

If republicans are pro-life, why aren't they pro-health care?