June 25, 2011
Marie Lozito is a Registered Nurse, Licensed Massage Therapist, wife, mother, grandmother and life-long conservative. She wrote a text on medical massage and taught at New York College of Health Professions.
Interested in, and observing politics since 1960, she
ran for elected office in 2010.
An accumulation of thoughts about a few different topics.
Last week there were two things that bothered me a lot. I'm not a person that gets mad easily but there are a few things that really get my goat.
One of the things that “gets my goat” is when someone deliberately misleads people – whether it's with outright lies or just misleading statements. The deceivers apparently believe that if you tell a lie often enough,
people will believe it's true. People make decisions based either on what they “know” or on their emotions. The logical method is to make decisions based on knowledge.
That knowledge needs to be true for these decisions to be wise decisions. Basing decisions on lies is a very poor way to deal with things. Dealing with the
truth is the best way to deal with any problem or make any decision.
So what happened last week? First was hearing the Working Families ad about the Right to Work
bill. It was totally misleading and deliberately so. With misleading statements and innuendos, it gave the impression that the bill is going to control businesses, especially small businesses, in NH. Not true.
The NH House and Senate passed the bill, but Governor Lynch vetoed it. I personally suspect that the large campaign donations the unions have given to the governor were a large factor in his veto. Overriding a veto is not an easy thing for the legislature to do but leadership in the House would like to override the veto and have the bill become law. There has been a lot of pressure from the unions to prevent this since it might affect the amount of money the unions collect. The misleading advertisement I heard is just a part of this effort.
SO, what is the truth? The Right to Work – it is already the law that you can not force a person to join a union and that unions are allowed to charge a nonunion employee an “agency fee”– usually 60% of the union dues. If the veto is overridden and the bill becomes law, the unions can still charge an agency fee and
employers can still collect the agency fee from an employee's paycheck but only with the
employee's permission. The Right to Work bill also makes it illegal to fire the employee for not paying the agency fee. Personally, I approve of both of those changes.
Another thing that really bothers me is when a person is unfairly picked on by others about what they think or believe. If you don't like
someone's ideas, discuss or debate them. Attacking the individual's personality, appearance or other inconsequential things is just wrong. There is no reason for it.
Remember how vicious the media attacks on Sarah Palin and her family members were? Horrible! Even now when she isn't a candidate for any position, they are still trying to “get” her. The other week there were 24,000 of her emails released from
when she was Governor of Alaska (a Freedom of Information request by main stream media). The media had a bunch of employees (over 100 reporters) pouring over the emails looking for a smoking gun – any smoking gun. What did they get? Nothing. Nothing they could use to attack her again, and were they disappointed! (If they had spent a fraction of
that effort on researching Barack Obama's background, he probably wouldn't be president now.)
The media has a very nasty habit of viciously attacking conservative women and their families. Report after report focusing on personality, appearance, family, rumors, etc. while ignoring the facts and ideas involved in the campaigns.
Michelle Bachman “won” the Republican Presidential Debate last week. She is a strong woman with conservative beliefs. I'm a conservative woman, so why would this bother me? Because of what she and her family will be put though by the mainstream media. Representative Bachman has already been the target of some of this type of “reporting”– after her good showing at the debate, it will only get worse. I hope she and her family members have very thick skin – they will need it.
The discussions in Washington DC about the debt limit are interesting. It amazes me that some of the Democrats are saying that changes in Medicare are off the table. They say the Republicans want to “destroy Medicare” and kill senior citizens. Not true. The facts are that Medicare can not survive as it
is. Only by making appropriate changes to the current Medicare system can it still be here for our senior citizens' health care in the future. To not change it is to doom Medicare and to abandon those seniors who dependent on it.
The changes like the ones Paul Ryan proposed are an honest attempt to avoid this. Michelle Bachman said it should be called the “55 and under plan” since only those under 56 years of age will be affected. According to experts Robert Moffit and James Capretts,
a premium-support system (as proposed by Paul Ryan) would be a ..."better Medicare program … will give Medicare patients control over the flow of dollars and freedom to make decisions about how they access medical services. This will stimulate intense market competition among plans and providers, control costs, and promote rapid innovation and higher productivity through the efficient delivery of quality care, thus guaranteeing value in return for retiree premiums and taxpayer
There is so much waste and misuse of tax payer's money in Washington DC that it's hard to believe they are having trouble cutting more than 1 trillion dollars in spending. Maybe the politicians should go to Heritage Foundation to see their “Saving the American Dream”plan for plenty of ideas. Heritage has also unveiled plans from five other think tanks (both liberal and conservative) that the politicians should consider.
An unwise decision! By a 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court ordered California to release 46,000 felony inmates because the prisons were overcrowded thus “violating” the prisoners Eighth Amendment protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." What about the rights of innocent citizens? How about some judicial consideration of the law-abiding public? Will these
five judges carry any of the responsibility for the crimes these released felons commit? What ever happened to the constitutional separation of powers? Isn't this a state issue, not a Federal issue?