|
PROGRESSIVES SPECIAL ELECTION (APRIL 5) UPDATE:
We elected one Democrat in Blunt territory, lost one in Kansas City and do not have a declared winner in Jefferson County:
In Jefferson County, Rep. Rick Johnson trails by just 66 votes for the 21st District Senate seat.
Johnson has called for a recount with nearly 200 "undervotes" which were not recorded. He will
be asking for a full recount which may take up to a month for a clear winner to be determined.
And our congratulations to Teresa Loar for running a great campaign. Teresa was defeated by Republican Ryan Silvey in the 38th House District. (Kansas City area).
Rep. Frank Barnitz won big in the 16th District Senate race ( including Rolla) with nearly 60 percent of the vote - formerly Blunt territory. Even though he is not woman friendly (prolife and progun), there is one more Democrat in the Senate.
Our congratulations to every woman who ran for office or volunteered their time and energy on campaigns. We have to keep playing to win!
1. Honor Beckie at Carnahan Dinner - St. Charles Women's Coalition
Join us in saluting Beckie Tilinski, founding member and former chair, as she passes the torch!
Keynote address and book signing, "Don't Let the Fire Go Out", by former Sen. Jean Carnahan
|
Thursday, April 14
6:00 pm - Cash Bar/ 6:30 pm - Buffet
Stegton's Regency Banquet Center - 1450 Wall Street in St. Charles
$20 per person
Checks payable to:
SCWC, P.O. Box 873, St. Peters, MO 63376
Please RSVP immediately to : Eleanor McCune, Dinner Chair
lmccune@sbcglobal.net, 636.947.9133
|
Beckie, a longtime activist, volunteered as the first chair of the St. Charles Women's Coalition - back in May 2003 when a very small group of St. Charles Democrat women banded together to form one of our sister groups. Through Beckie's tireless sweat and energy, the Coalition grew to over 500 members by November 2004. She chaired numerous events including the Inaugural Luncheon with former Governor Bob Holden, Dinner with Robin Carnahan,and Legislative Update with former Senate and House Minority Leaders, Ken Jacobs and Rick Johnson.
Beckie, along with her husband, Fred, was instrumental in bringing Janet Reno, former U.S. Attorney General, to St. Charles last spring for the coalition's wildly successful fundraiser for 2004 candidates. Beckie stepped down in January (for a much needed rest) but is still active as a member of the new Missouri Women's Coalition advisory committee.
2. Republican Revenge on Women - MO Senate Bill 50/House Bill 66
Making it Tougher for Women to Vote in This Century!
Below find Sally Barker's Letter to the Post Dispatch on April 5 and get enraged:
Voting obstacles
The aim of 20th-century voter protection laws - the Voting Rights and Help America Vote acts - was to eliminate obstacles to voting and help bolster low voter participation rates. Republicans in our Legislature now have proposed a step backward to the 19th century era of barriers to voting, such as literacy tests.
Senate Bill 50 proposes the unreasonable requirement that people produce birth certificates or other proof of citizenship to register to vote or to move their registration to a new county. No longer will a drivers license suffice.
Even more outrageous is that people whose names have changed since birth or former registration - mostly married women - also will have to produce proof of the name change, such as a marriage license or divorce decree.
This bill has been proposed without an iota of evidence that such requirements are necessary to stop any known registration by noncitizens, but abundant evidence exists that this legislation would be a major obstacle to encouraging new registration.
Women and minorities who fought long and hard to win the precious right to vote should demand that their representatives vote against this outrageous effort to discourage greater voter registration.
Sally E. Barker
University City
|
5 KEY POINTS OF MISSOURI SENATE BILL 50
SB 50 is:
- Unreasonably burdensome to voters and election authorities. Would not apply to just newly registered voters, but also to those who move from one county to another.
- Discourages voting by making it harder for people to register and vote.
- Unfairly targets married women and others who have changed their name, students and members of the military.
- Poorly drafted... Social Security cards don't prove citizenship and applying different standards to different citizens violates constitutional guarantees of Equal Protection.
- Voters already must affirm they are citizens before registering to vote and are subject to criminal penalties - and loss of suffrage -- if they falsify registration documents. The priority should be to fully punish those wrongdoers who commit registration fraud, rather than punish ALL citizens who wish to participate in our democracy.
OVERVIEW OF MISSOURI SENATE BILL 50
Senate Bill 50 , requiring proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote is:
Unreasonably Burdensome to Voters and Election Authorities and the Language of the Bill does not meet the state goal;
Senate Bill 50 would:
- Make registering to vote unreasonably burdensome and make it harder for citizens to register and vote.
- Require all newly registered voters to include a copy of 1) a birth certificate; or 2) Social Security; or 3) other proof of U.S. citizenship in addition to their Missouri drivers license or ID.
- Apply not only to newly registered voters, but also to any voter who moves from one county to another within Missouri.
- Permit election authorities to require different documents for those who register at motor vehicle offices rather than in some other manner, raising serious Constitutional Equal Protection issues.
|
Is the intent of this legislation to discourage a woman from accepting her husband's name? Or to simply make it harder for married women to register to vote?
This legislation resembles what could be the first step of a systematic dismantling of uniform suffrage standards. Two hundred years ago, you had to be white, male, and wealthy in order to vote. Many women fought hard to get us where we are today. HB 66 and SB 50 will take the right of suffrage many steps in the wrong direction.
3. Terri Shiavo's Final Agony
By Jane Fleming,
Posted April 5, 2005
Republicans who disingenuously stood up for Terri Schiavo's life are the very ones who have blocked legislation that would have granted access to treatment of her eating disorder and that could help millions of women and men who suffer from mental illness.
Why is it ironic that Terri died of starvation? Because the reason she had a heart attack, which resulted in her 15-year life and death struggle, was her life and death struggle with an eating disorder.
The saddest part is Terri is not alone, one in 10 people who struggle with anorexia will die because of starvation, cardiac arrest or other complications, yet Republican leadership continues to block legislation to ensure full and equitable access to mental health treatment.
If you watch TV or skim the papers, you would think the reason Terri was on life support for over a decade is because of some rare genetic disorder that did not have a cure. When I tell people it was because of an eating disorder, they are shocked.
Years ago, if Terri received the right treatment and recovery plan, she would be living a healthy life. Many people with eating disorders who get early and effective treatment fully recover within eight years--I did.
It was not because my insurance plan or a government sponsored health program helped me or my family with the costs associated with treating my eating disorder--it was mostly out of pocket and cost my family over $50,000. Not a bill many families can afford, not to mention how hard it is to admit their loved one struggles with eating and everything that comes along with a mental illness.
It is ironic Terri died of starvation--but you know what is worse, Republicans who disingenuously stood up for her life are the very ones who have blocked legislation that would have granted access to treatment of her eating disorder and not only to Terri but to millions of women and men who suffer from anorexia, bulimia and binge-eating disorder.
Rep. Hastert, who is speaker of the House and who decides what bills come to the floor for a vote, has blocked the bi-partisan Wellstone-Domenici Mental Health Equitable Treatment Act year after year from coming to the floor for a vote. The bill even specifically mentions the treatment of eating disorders. According to Hastert, passing this bill would cost the taxpayers and insurance companies too much money. The government and many independent studies have cited otherwise. It is the untreated mental illness that costs us--financially it is estimated at about $113 billion annually, emotionally it is the look of individuals like Terri every day who never received the right care. This is not about taxpayers for Rep. Hastert and other Republican leaders. It is about winning a political battle. But guess what? People who struggle with mental illness are not a political battle to win or lose--we are human beings who deserve the right and access to affordable and effective treatment.
I hope, as a person who has recovered from an eating disorder, that we now force Rep. Hastert and Sen. Frist to bring the Mental Health Parity Bill to the floor of the Senate and the House for a vote so millions of Terris can get early access to the mental health treatment they need.
Recovery is possible, but it can't be done on will or God's love alone--early and effective medical and mental health treatment is necessary for a full recovery. Stop the irony, stop using Terri has a poster child for claims on morality and start saving millions of lives who need access to medical and mental health treatment to live their life fully and with integrity.
Jane Fleming is executive director of the Young Democrats of America and former executive director of the Renfrew Center Foundation for Eating Disorders. She can be contacted via e-mail at executivedirector@yda.org or at (202) 639-8585.
www.AlterNet.org
4. National Bankruptcy Reform Hits Women Hard
Jennifer Moran was only 23 when she faced a financial nightmare. After quitting a $45,000 sales job because it took her into dangerous neighborhoods, she became a CVS store manager, earning only $23,000. With her salary cut in half, her debts mounted. Her car was repossessed, and bill collectors knocked on her door at 3 a.m. Frightened, she took a lawyer's advice and filed for bankruptcy.
"I was a young, naive girl and had no understanding of finance or legal matters or what my options were," says Ms. Moran, of Point Pleasant Beach, N.J.
Whether she should have filed for bankruptcy is debatable. But under reform legislation now working its way through Congress, debtors like her may no longer have the option of filing in the first place. By making it tougher and, possibly, more expensive to declare insolvency, the bill aims to encourage personal responsibility and restore more power to creditors in an era when personal bankruptcies have become more popular.
If the reform becomes law, however, women will be the most affected, experts say.
"Make no mistake, the new bankruptcy bill will fall hardest on women," says Elizabeth Warren, a professor at Harvard Law School and coauthor of "All Your Worth: The Ultimate Lifetime Money Plan."
Even without the reform, more than 1 million women will find themselves in bankruptcy court this year, outnumbering men by about 150,000, if past trends hold, says Jill Miller, chief executive officer of Women Work! in Washington, D.C.
Women with children, Professor Warren explains, are more vulnerable than ever before. "They're spending more on the basics, so they have less flexibility in their budgets if something goes wrong. Single women early in their career tend to have lower income and higher expenses. That puts them at risk. Older women often have much less built up in retirement funds and are counting on home and cash assets that won't be protected in bankruptcy."
Single mothers, who often work in low-wage jobs, are 50 percent more likely to file for bankruptcy than married parents, and three times more likely than childless couples, says Ms. Miller.
READ MORE HERE
5. Revolutionary Women Update
April 7, 2005 - Volume 2, Issue 3
A note from Revolutionary Women President Barbara Lee:
President Bush has made undoing Social Security his top domestic priority for the second term. That effort seems stalled in the water. In this issue, we will examine the juncture of the politics and policy in the current Social Security debate. How the Democrats are handling this fight is instructive.
Many Americans are watching with great trepidation as President Bush and the Republican leadership try to alter the safety net that has kept many Americans out of poverty in their later years. Social Security affects all of us; however, it does have a disproportionately large effect on women. The National Women's Law Center has done extensive research on exactly how women are impacted by Social Security. They report:
"Social Security is especially important for women; nearly two-thirds of women 65 and over get a majority of their income from Social Security, and nearly one-third rely on Social Security for 90% or more of their income. Without Social Security, more than half of all elderly women would be living in poverty. But, even with Social Security, one of every five elderly women living alone is poor."
We know that when women are elected to public office, they are more likely to support socially-conscious public policy. And the women in Congress have taken the lead on defending Social Security. After a Town Hall meeting with Senators Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray and Mary Landrieu on Social Security in Seattle last week, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported: "Social Security Is Vital to Women, Democrats Say."
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid are working together to make sure that Democrats present a united front and get their message out clearly and effectively. They have resisted Republicans' efforts to drag them into a messy debate over the Bush plan and instead, Republicans are fighting a losing battle on the issue with American public opinion. Check out our polling section below for updated Presidential approval ratings.
In the poll we conducted last month, many of you reported that you felt disappointed and frustrated with politics after the presidential election last fall. This Social Security debate offers Democrats an opportunity to get re-energized. I urge you to learn more about this issue and contact your elected officials to make sure they know where you stand.
Issue Focus: Social Security
President Bush has stated repeatedly that changing social security is his top legislative priority. It is the issue for which he is willing to use his bank of political capital.
The centerpiece of the Bush plan is private accounts. He proposes that 2% of workers' social security payment be shifted to private accounts. Democrats point out two major problems with his approach. The first is that Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. The money paid by workers today covers the current class of social security recipients. Democrats argue that taking money out of the system would create a huge financial hole. In addition, private accounts would not have a guaranteed return and retirees would instead be subject to the instability of the financial markets.
While Democrats and Republicans debate the extent of the problem, Republicans have been playing a mean messaging game. Their talking points include terms like "crisis," "bankrupt" and "collapse" to describe the current state of the Social Security System.
While the policy behind the Social Security debate is critical, the politics are fascinating. George Bush and Karl Rove have approached the issue much like their re-election campaign last fall. The New York Times reported on March 28, 2005:
"As Mr. Bush pushes doggedly ahead with his battle to add investment accounts to Social Security, he is betting heavily on Mr. Rove's well-chronicled political skills to build public support, hold Republicans together and overcome intense Democratic opposition.... Mr. Rove is assuming a more expansive role, bringing the same intensity to the big issues in Mr. Bush's second-term agenda that he brought to the president's re-election campaign. In naming Mr. Rove deputy White House chief of staff for policy last month, on top of his continuing catch-all title of senior adviser, the president formally recognized Mr. Rove's affinity for the nitty-gritty of governance and publicly acknowledged his influence over whatever deal might emerge on Social Security, his No. 1 domestic priority."
To date, the Bush and Rove political machine has met a wall of resistance. Led by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats have been forceful opponents of private accounts. Democratic Leader Pelosi's office has put together a web page that allows individuals to calculate how much they will lose under the Bush proposal: http://democraticleader.house.gov/SScalc/index.html.
In addition to Pelosi and Reid, other key members of the Senate and House have been outspoken in their opposition to the Bush plan. Senator Barbara Boxer of California made a very clear statement on the issue in February. She debunked the idea that Social Security was facing a crisis:
"Because, his initiative is not about meeting the challenges of Social Security to keep it sound; it is not about bringing together Democrats and Republicans as Ronald Reagan did to ensure that full benefits will be there for all Americans. It is about one thing and one thing only: destroying Social Security." http://boxer.senate.gov/issues/socsec.cfm
In an unusual development, the Democrats have until recently refused to offer their own plan. In years past, the Democrats have immediately offered counter-proposals to many Administration initiatives. Only now are we beginning to learn about the Senate Democrats' proposal, as reported by The Hill Newspaper on March 30, 2005:
"After months of criticizing President Bush on his Social Security reform plan, congressional Democrats are crafting their own retirement savings plan that does not call for any change to the entitlement system.
The Democrats' move signals a shift in their strategy on Social Security. Until now, the opposition party has opted to lambaste Bush while declining to reveal its own ideas for encouraging saving.
Democratic senators on the Finance Committee this week quietly floated a document titled ‘Savings Options,' which sources say is designed as a counter to Bush's plan for personal accounts in Social Security."
In addition to facing criticism from across the aisle, President Bush is also facing opposition from a significant portion of the general public. Time Magazine reported that by a margin of 31% to 58%, Americans disapprove of the way Bush is handling the Social Security issue. The Pew Research Center found a similar trend:
"In general, opposition to the plan to allow private accounts is much higher among people who have heard a lot about it than among those who are less familiar with it. Overall, people who have heard a lot about the plan oppose it by 52%-41%, while those who have heard little or nothing favor it by a 47% to 30% margin."
One key finding in the Pew poll was the drop in support among young people:
"Support for the idea among younger Americans - who up to this point have been the most reliable backers of the proposal - has weakened significantly. In February, people age 18-29 favored the idea of private accounts by a 66%-19% margin. Today, just 49% favor private accounts, while 25% are opposed, and nearly as many (26%) say they don't know how they feel about the issue."
In addition to young people, women have a huge stake in Social Security. The research conducted last fall by Women's Voices. Women's Vote. showed that economic security is a top issue for unmarried women. As research from the National Women's Law Center confirmed, Social Security is the bedrock of economic security for many American families. In the last election, Social Security was not a front and center issue. In 2006, we expect it will be.
POLLING
President Bush's approval ratings have taken a nose dive over the past several weeks. The most recent polling numbers between March 17 and March 24, 2005 are compared below:
NBC/WSJ: 48% Approve, 46% Disapprove
(Compared with 50% Approval between February 10 and 14, 2005)
Time: 48% Approve, 46% Disapprove
(compared with53% between March 15 and 17, 2005)
CNN/USA Today/Gallup: 45% Approve, 49% Disapprove
(Compared with 52% Approval between March 18 and 20, 2005)
CBS: 43% Approve, 48% Disapprove
(Compared with 49% Approve between February 24 and 28, 2005)
Pew: 45% Approve, 46% Disapprove
(Compared with 46% Approval between February 16 and 21, 2005)
Newsweek: 45% Approve, 48% Disapprove
(Compared with 50% Approval between February 3 and 4, 2005)
Meet the Candidate
A new feature of the Pipeline is "Meet the Candidate." We will introduce you to female candidates who are already planning for a run in 2006.
This month's candidate is Connecticut Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz, who has announced her intention to run for Governor in 2006.
Bysiewicz began her career in public service in 1992 when she was elected to the Connecticut General Assembly. In 1998 she was elected as Connecticut's 72nd Secretary of the State and is currently serving her second term. Her priorities as Secretary of State have been voting rights, privacy and the development and expansion of small businesses.
Bysiewicz also has a historical perspective on what it takes to serve as a female governor. She is the author of "Ella: A Biography of Governor Ella Grasso."
Bysiewicz has raised over $500,000 since announcing her candidacy. The winner of the Democratic primary will most likely face incumbent Governor Jodi Rell. Rell became governor when John Rowland resigned from office amid charges of ethic violations and corruption.
Learn more about Susan Bysiewicz and her vision for Connecticut by visiting her website, www.susanforgovernor.com.
www.revolutionarywomen.com
6. Right Wing Pushing Anti-Birth Control Agenda on Women
Tell pharmacy chains to stop discriminating against women! Click here.
All over the country the right wing is insidiously promoting its anti-woman agenda: women are being denied their prescriptions for birth control at the pharmacy. Sometimes women can't even get their prescriptions transferred to other pharmacies. We cannot let this stand.
When a woman and her doctor decide that a prescription for contraception is in her best interest, a third party has no right to override that decision.
NARAL PROCHOICE AMERICA is launching a campaign to protect women's right to birth control by raising awareness and getting national pharmacy chains on board with us. Here's how you can get involved:
www.prochoiceamerica.org
7. Sens Clinton and Murray Block Nomination over Morning After Pill
By Sheryl Gat Stolberg, New York Times, April 7, 2005
Washington - President Bush's nominee to lead the Food and Drug Administration is being blocked from Senate confirmation by two Democrats who said Wednesday that they would hold up a vote until the agency settled the long-delayed question of whether an emergency contraceptive could be sold over the counter.
The Democrats, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Patty Murray of Washington, met with the nominee, Dr. Lester M. Crawford, on Wednesday to discuss what they regard as foot-dragging on the issue of the so-called morning-after pill. An expert panel of scientists recommended over-the-counter sales in December 2003, but the agency has yet to issue a final ruling.
"I'm prepared to hold it for as long as it takes to get a decision made," Mrs. Clinton said. She added, "From everything we're able to determine, the agency has substituted politics and ideology for science and facts."
Dr. Crawford could not be reached, and an agency spokeswoman, Kathleen Quinn, said the F.D.A. would have no comment. But at a hearing last month, Dr. Crawford told senators the decision on the contraceptive "will not be based on politics." He did not say then when a final decision would be made and, Ms. Murray said, did not do so on Wednesday.
"It was very frustrating and very unsatisfactory," she said, adding, "I did not get any timeline at all for a decision, and there was no new information."
The hold complicates the future of the food and drug agency at a time when it is already being criticized for its handling of several drug safety scandals.
The White House had hoped Dr. Crawford, who is the acting commissioner of the agency, would help tamp some of that criticism.
"Dr. Les Crawford is a well-qualified candidate," a White House spokeswoman, Erin Healy, said Wednesday, adding that the Bush administration "will continue to work with the Senate to ensure his confirmation."
But ever since his nomination in February, Dr. Crawford has been confronted with questions not only about the safety scandals, but also about the emergency contraceptive, also known as Plan B. The senior Democrat on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, has also raised questions about the morning-after pill.
Mr. Kennedy, who attended Wednesday's meeting, has decided against putting a hold on Dr. Crawford's nomination, a spokeswoman said. But the spokeswoman, Laura Capps, said Mr. Kennedy "conveyed today that he is hopeful that the F.D.A. will do the right thing and make a decision on this product, and until it is settled he believes it's doubtful that Dr. Crawford can be confirmed."
Though Senators Clinton and Murray believe the drug should be made available over the counter, both said that their interest was solely in getting a decision from the F.D.A. and that they would remove the hold regardless of the outcome.
READ MORE HERE
8. Women's Vote Center (DNC) - Week in Review
April 8, 2005
Washington Republicans: Abuse of Power
Washington Republicans Run Rampant Over Rules, Ethics, and the American People
As the Republican-controlled Congress returned to session this week, it seems clear that they will continue the abuses of power that they have pursued with reckless abandon up to this point. Republicans are planning to use the "nuclear option" to obliterate constitutional checks and balances and force confirmation of Bush's extremist judicial nominees. At the same time, Congressional Republicans continue to shield House majority leader, Tom DeLay, from his ethics and campaign finance scandals.
Stop the Abuse of Power!
http://www.democrats.org/nuclear
Republicans Planning to Go "Nuclear" to Pack Courts
Despite public opinion that the Senate should continue its system of constitutional checks and balances, Senate Republican leaders continue to plan for a 'nuclear option' which would change Senate rules to allow a simple majority of Senators to approve a federal judicial appointment rather than the current rule requiring a margin of 60 Senators for approval of a lifetime judicial appointment. Political commentator Bob Novak says the GOP has decided to launch the offensive on an upcoming Senate vote for Janice Brown, who is an African American woman. Brown is also the judge who upheld a California ballot imitative that ended gender and race preferences in government contracts and college admissions and was the first state Supreme Court justice to receive an 'unqualified' evaluation from the State Bar Association.
The American voters are not with the Washington Republicans on this special interest tactic. According to a recent poll conducted by Westhill Partners, a majority of Democrats and Independents oppose the Senate Republican leadership's threat to eliminate the filibuster. This poll also reveals that a sizable number of Republicans would support a Democratic effort to stall normal business on the Senate floor in response to a Republican effort to eliminate the filibuster.
Republicans Threaten the Judiciary
House Republican leaders are also out of step with American values with their recent threats against Federal judges. Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) blasted the judiciary members involved in the Terri Schiavo case, saying in a statement issued hours after Schiavo's death at a Florida hospice that "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior," according to the Associated Press.
DeLay went on to say that Republicans will target "an arrogant and out of control judiciary that thumbs its nose at Congress and the president" according to CNN. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX), on the Senate floor, suggested that recent violence against members of the judiciary might stem from frustration of "activist jurists." Cornyn later attempted to retract his statement but such a suggestion was particularly insensitive following recent killings of courthouse judiciary staff in Georgia and family members in Illinois. The Week in Review points out that these threats and insensitive comments were not made by random members of the Republican delegation but by two significant leaders in the Republican House and Senate political machine.
Republicans Admit to Authoring Political Memo On Schiavo Case
Despite repeated denials by Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL), his staff, and other members of the Republican leadership for nearly a month, Senator Martinez finally admitted that a member of his staff, on U.S. government payroll, authored a crass political memo about how to capitalize on the tragic situation involving Terri Schiavo. Immediately after news broke about the circulation of this memo, some Republicans outrageously deemed their gross political misconduct a Democratic dirty trick instead of fessing up! The Washington Post confirmed that Brian Darling, a counsel to Senator Martinez authored the memo and Senator Martinez himself gave it to his colleagues.
Republicans Blacklist Citizens at Events
University of Arizona Student Had Ticket Ripped Up and was Denied Entrance to White House Event; Student Placed on "List." UA Young Democrat Steven Gerner, a political science and pre-pharmacy sophomore, said he and three other Young Democrats had been waiting in line with their tickets for about 40 minutes when a staff member approached him and asked to read his T-shirt. ... The staffer walked away, returned in 20 minutes, and told Gerner his name had been added to a list banning him from entering the convention center for the speech." Gerner received his ticket from Representative Grijalva's (D-AZ) office and his name was printed on the ticket. [Arizona Daily Wildcat, 3/22/05]
Three Kicked Out Of Republican Event Because Of Bumper Sticker. The U.S. Secret Service is investigating the complaints of three people who say they were ousted from President Bush's event in Denver last week because their bumper sticker criticized his foreign policy. ... They obtained their tickets to Bush's event through the office of Rep. Bob Beauprez, who supports Bush's plan for private Social Security accounts. [Denver Post, 3/30/2005]
Bush's Social Security Plan Creates $4 Trillion More in Debt
This week President Bush visited Parkersburg, West Virginia, home of the Bureau of Public Debt, in another attempt to sell his Social Security plan to the American people. The location is fitting because his plan will add $4 trillion to the national debt on top of the $7 trillion fiscal collapse he already has presided over. No wonder West Virgina's only Republican member of Congress avoided Bush's visit, ducking both the President and a clear position on his plan.
National Debt, by the Numbers, Under Bush:
$7,776,939,047,670: Total national debt. [Treasury Department, 3/31/05]
$26,300: Each American's share of national debt burden. [House Budget Committee Democrats, 4/4/05]
$3.8 Trillion: Increase in national debt over next six years. [House Budget Committee Democrats, 10/13/04]
$1.1 Trillion: National debt held by foreigners, including China. [Treasury Department, 12/04]
Every 51 Days: Another $87 billion will be added to the national debt. [House Budget Committee Democrats, 10/13/04]
Despite His Promises, Bush Exploded the National Debt...
"And we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens." [Bush, Kalamazoo, MI, 3/27/01]
In 2001, Bush inherited surpluses sufficient to pay off available national debt. But, Bush squandered the surplus on tax cuts for his wealthy. During his first term, Bush also increased non-defense spending by 36 percent. A budget analyst from the conservative Heritage Foundation estimates that government spending has climbed twice as fast under Bush as under Clinton. Bush has not vetoed any spending bills.
...And Bush Will Continue to Rack-Up Debt, And Add Trillions in Debt to Pay for Privatizing Social Security
Bush Is Presiding Over $7.2 Trillion Fiscal Collapse. The $5.6 trillion ten-year surplus projected in January 2001 is gone. Over the 2006-2015 period, the Bush's proposals would increase the total deficit by an estimated $1.6 trillion -- a fiscal decline of $7.2 trillion. [CBO, Preliminary Analysis of the President's Budget Request for 2006, 3/4/05, Budget And Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2006 to 2015, 1/05]
National Debt Is Harmful to the U.S. Economy And American Families
Bush Is Saddling Future Generations And Young People With Trillions in Debt. Bush will pass on to future generations (1) the $5.7 trillion cost of making his tax cuts permanent over 20 years; (2) the $8 trillion cost of Bush's prescription drug benefit plan over the next 75 years; and (3) the $2 to $6 trillion cost of Social Security privatization over 20 years. This hoisting of costs on future generations takes place in the context of a federal government that already spends roughly $17,000 on each senior, but only $2,500 on each young person under 18. [Roll Call, 1/27/05]
Deficits increase the proportion of spending on national debt interest payments; interest on debt totaled $321.6 billion in 2004 alone. The national debt increases U.S. dependence on the rest of the world and will hurt the value of the dollar. How does that affect you? Bush's debt will increase mortgage interest rates and reduce the value of stocks. Examples from the Brookings Institute show us a family with a $250,000, thirty-year mortgage will pay an additional $2,000 a year in interest because of Bush's deficits.
Is this the legacy you want for your children and grandchildren? To be saddled with government debt that thwarts the effective delivery of basic government services and affects the country's financial systems that serve citizens saving for retirement, educational costs or homeownership? Democrats have proven they can lead our country in delivering critical services AND cutting government debt!
Shortchanging Women-Owned Business
Citing an inability to put together a program to 'identify industries in which women are underrepresented' the Small Business Administration continues to make excuses for their inability to implement a program designed to bring more women-owned business into the federal contracting process. Similar programs have been established for minority-owned business which leads you to wonder -- is it that they can't put an identification system together or is it that they won't put one together?
Women business advocates are left wondering what it will take for the SBA to 'get the lead out' and move forward. After all, the Small Business Reauthorization Act was passed in 2000. In those four years, the government cannot put together a system to identify industry areas where women-owned business is disadvantaged?
So what are women business owners fighting for? A goal for 5 percent of government contracts to be awarded to women-owned enterprises. That's right. 5 percent. Currently, women-owned small businesses receive less than 3 percent of federal contracts.
This short-changing affects American workers as well. One in seven American workers is employed by a woman-owned company, and the latest statistics show that women-owned businesses are outpacing other companies in overall growth, in number of firms started, employment and sales.
What is the solution? Elect Democrats.
Democrats Taking The Lead
Burmaster Reelected in Wisconsin
Libby Burmaster received overwhelming support from voters on April 5; reelected as Wisconsin's non-partisan State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Burmaster is a leader with experience in all levels of public education -- elementary, middle and high school. As both a former teacher and principal, Burmaster's first priority is the student -- through a program called the New Wisconsin Promise. Raising achievement of all students and closing the gap between children of color, economically disadvantaged children and their peers is the goal through dropout prevention strategies, reducing class size and providing quality vocational education. Kudos to this leader in education excellence!
Democrats Work for Women's Personal Health Care Choices
Here Here for the Good Guys! Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich filed an emergency rule informing all pharmacies doing business in Illinois that prescriptions for contraceptives will be filled without delay. Why the need for such a ruling? The refusal by a pharmacist to fill prescriptions for two women who wanted emergency morning-after pills, citing personal 'conscience.' Now this is the pharmacist's conscience, not the customers. Can you imagine a sales clerk telling a customer they would not sell them cigarettes because of their personal views on tobacco use by persons of child-bearing years or not providing that double cheeseburger to an individual based on their moral concern about the rise in the nation's obesity rate? Blagojevich told pharmacists that women and their personal health care choices come first with this ruling - "No delays. No hassles. No lectures."
Think both political parties fight for women's choices in health care -- think again. This week in Colorado, Governor Bill Owens (R-CO) vetoed legislation to require hospitals to simply inform rape victims about emergency contraception and how to obtain it -- not to require distribution of emergency-contraception, citing 'freedom of religion.' As some hospitals in Colorado are run by religious organizations, Owens decided their right to opinions on birth control supercedes a rape victim's right to information about preventing unwanted pregnancies. Kudos to the Democratic women in the Colorado House and Senate who fought for this bill! One sponsor, Sen. Jennifer Veiga (D) from Denver commented that "it's a sad day when the Governor decides that victims of sexual assault don't deserve compassionate medical care." But it's a proud day for Democrats to know our party's representatives fight for them!
Standing up for Women's Health -- Demanding Action
The Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which makes decisions on products approved for use by the public, continues to delay a decision on over-the-counter access for an emergency contraceptive dubbed 'the morning-after pill." Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Hillary Clinton (D-NY) cited the agency's repeated delay in their move. Lester Crawford, Bush's choice to lead the agency could not give the Senators a timeline for ruling on the emergency contraceptive decision in a meeting this week, despite the fact he is the acting commissioner and is aware that the FDA's own expert panel of scientists recommended over-the-counter sales in late 2003. "I'm prepared to hold it [the nomination] for as long as it takes to get a decision made," said Sen. Clinton, "The agency has substituted politics and ideology for science and facts."
Quote of the Week
"The first lesson we teach children when they enter competitive sports is to respect the referee, even if we think he might have made the wrong call. If our children can understand this, why can't our political leaders?"
-Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT), New York Times 4/8/05. discussing Republicans who seek to undermine the Courts because they do not like their decisions.
www.democrats.org/wvc
| Know of Someone who would Love This Newsletter?
Feel free to forward this newsletter and encourage them to
join the Missouri Women's Coalition - www.missouriwomenscoalition.com - to continue receiving their own!
|
|
