Legalize It

I've only written about marriage equality a couple of times, but as things have hit a fevered pitch around Trenton, I've been thinking a lot about it. I listened to the testimony given by both sides for hours yesterday. The more I hear, the more I keep going back to my classic conservative roots, which Barry Goldwater explained the best:

The conscience of the Conservative is pricked by anyone who would debase the dignity of the individual human being.

The Conservative movement Goldwater helped start certainly has fallen very far from the tree when it comes to respecting the dignity of the individual human being. I have yet to see an argument from opponents that does not fall into the category of debasing the individuals I know who happen to be gay.

The more these new conservatives use the language of segregation, the stronger a supporter of equality I've become. A good example of what put me over the top was this misleading video from the Family Research Council, claiming equality means people are losing their right to be intolerant. That's simply not true, people will still have the right to be and teach their kids intolerance. It disturbs me that this has been deemed an effective message, but the FRC would not use it if they did not already know they'd make some money off of it.

Then there's the religious argument. I firmly believe in the First Amendment's protections to practice as denominations see fit. Catholics' right to not marry gays is no different than their right not to recognize divorce, even though divorce is legal. It also should in no way impede Episcopalians' right to allow equality. The law specifically protects the rights of each to practice as they see fit. It's a non-argument.

Fifteen years ago, Goldwater had a very quotable comment specifically to this issue:

"The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they're gay," Goldwater asserts. "You don't have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that's what brings me into it."

Classic conservatives, including President Reagan understood this when push came to shove. Those that make their profit off of these anti-equality campaigns will continue perverting what true conservatism is as long as there's a buck to be made. Anyone that's claiming to be a conservative by arguing against anything but all men and women being treated equal is anything but a true conservative.

It's time our legislature man and woman up and protect the rights of the individual, and the rights of religious institutions to practice as they see fit.

PEPFAR to President

President Bush took today's radio address to talk about passage of PEPFAR this week:

I thank members of Congress from both sides of the aisle for working with my administration to pass this important bill, and I will be honored to sign it into law next week," Bush said in his weekly radio address.

The program is dedicated to fighting AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria around the globe, helping more than 33 million people to date since Bush expanded it the first time.

Back in February, Representative Scott Garrett had this to say about the bill expanding the program to $48 billion:

I hope the Democrats are happy with themselves, because this is just down-right disgusting.

Notice, Garrett only blames Democrats for what the President said was a bi-partisan effort? Granted, his piece was written back in February, but Republicans were working on it then as well.

Garrett's opposition was grounded in opposition to the mythical availability of abortions through the program; as well as his opposition to the very real need to include the availability of condoms as another tool to stem the spread of AIDS. The current version of the bill also requires reports to Congress if spending on abstinence and fidelity education fall beyond certain levels.

I said then this would become a campaign issue, and those running Dennis Shulman's new blog didn't miss Garrett's vote against the program:

However, when it comes to worthwhile Bush Administration initiatives to combat fatal diseases in Third-World countries, he takes a heartless and short-sighted approach.

I'm not sure Shulman's intern even knew the extent of Garrett's opposition.

I've got to believe there will be a 527 somewhere that comes out with something targeting the 115 members of the House that don't understand the practical, moral, and soft power implications of this program on the future. Who knows, maybe the Shulman campaign can get Bono or Matt Damon to do an ad explaining why Garrett's stand is as horrendous as it is.

Garrett vs. Reducing AIDS in Africa

This has to be a campaign commercial this year.

In his most recent post on Townhall.com, Representative Scott Garrett came out strongly against the compromise bill to re-authorize the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Here are Garrett's thoughts:

More than 25 million people have died from AIDS and many lawmakers want to extend this compassionate effort, but sadly this proposal does not help the people of Africa, it only hurts them.

Okay, here are the results of the program thusfar:

• Prevention of mother-to-child HIV transmission services for women during more than 10 million pregnancies;
• Antiretroviral prophylaxis for women in over 827,000 pregnancies;
• Prevention of an estimated 157,000 infant infections;
• Care for more than 6.6 million, including care for more than 2.7 million orphans and vulnerable children;
• Over 33 million counseling and testing sessions for men, women and children.

Only hurts them? Really?

Now there was a bit of controversy regarding certain provisions of the bill allowing funding for condoms and the perceived potential for funds to be used for abortion. However, at least to the White House the issue has been resolved. From Voice of America News:

"We appreciate the effort to draft in a thoughtful, bipartisan way; we appreciate that we were able to work with them," said Dana Perino. "It retains the important policy principles that have made the program such a success and we applaud the committee's work in quickly moving this bill forward and we hope that the House and Senate will soon follow suit and send it on to the President for signature."

So it's condoms in, abortion out. In fairness to Garrett, he did publish his piece before the final bill came out of committee. However, he had to understand in order to get the the President's signature the core principle would have to remain regarding funds not going for abortion.

However, like with SCHIP, Garrett is only attacking Democrats. He fails to mention the Republicans working with the Dems to improve on a Republican program. So, this program that has helped millions of people is described like this by Garrett:

I hope the Democrats are happy with themselves, because this is just down-right disgusting.

I'm pretty sure the President, Democrats and Republicans working on this bill ARE happy with themselves. By the time this is done 100 million people's lives will likely have been saved, and there is nothing disgusting about that.

Garrett: Holiday Hypocrisy

As I noted earlier today, HR 847 acknowledged the start of Christmas. Unlike when Representative Scott Garrett was given the opportunity to acknowledge the start of Ramadan and voted present; on the Christmas vote Garrett voted yes.

Now I didn't have a problem with either resolution. However, Garrett had a problem with the Ramadan resolution because, as he said, "Congress really should not be doing, should not be picking one faith out and commending that faith."

Yet today, when presented with the exact same type of resolution, Garrett decided it was okay to pick and commend one faith. The reason I raise this is because it is complete hypocrisy, and shows how flimsy Garrett's principles are. This isn't about faith, this is about Garrett claiming to be principled and proving how devoid of principle he really is.

Election Reflection

Most of the elections in our District played out exactly as they were expected to. Voter turnout was in the 30s; Steve Oroho, Kevin O'Toole, and most incumbents cruised to victory; the Republicans won the Legislative races; and the Democrats won Bergen County.

The only eyebrow raiser, if you will, was Sen. Gerry Cardinale's margin of victory going from 12,000 in 2003 to 5,000 yesterday. While the guys over at CWA-NJ count the victory as award worthy, in this "obscure" blogger's opinion, in a Republican year that sort of drop should raise an eyebrow.

I stand by my belief the direction Cardinale took was the wrong path during the campaign. This race was never close. Cardinale has served long enough to make enough friends, and do enough good things for constituents on a personal level that most people I know were planning on voting for him regardless of party. However, taking the route he took, many walked away.

Compare Cardinale's campaign's actions with those taken by Steve Oroho, which I highlighted earlier. At the end of his second debate with Ed Selby, Oroho said the following:

"You've heard some very clear differences between my opponent and myself. It doesn't mean Ed's a bad guy. It doesn't mean I'm a bad guy. It just means we're different," Oroho said. "We should all be happy we live in a country where it's OK to be different."

My hope is going forward more politicians embrace this kind of civility and decency. I realize it may not be flashy, but we're at a point in our State where we don't need flashy. Our state is in serious trouble on a number of fronts, and as shown by voting down the stem cell and sales tax initiatives, the people of our state know it.

It's important to note that we're not in these crises as Democrat, Republican or Unaffiliated: we're in this as Jerseyians. While differences of opinion exist as to how to fix the problem, it's unlikely we'll get anywhere if our politicians do not rise to the challenge in a decent and honorable way.

Garrett: Earmark Blogging with Murder Fantasies

I was intrigued today to read the blog by Representative Scott Garrett about the earmark debate over at Townhall.com. Not once did he say how pleased he was about the reforms he voted against being passed earlier in the year. I suppose he only saves that kind of misleading language for his constituents.

One thing that is a point of concern with Garrett's piece is where he chose to post it. I realize my cross-posting on other sites can put me in with some folks that say some outlandish stuff in the comments section, but I appreciate the dialogue and passion for beliefs. That being said, each site has a certain standard when it comes to their primary content and comments, and I've seen it enforced more than once.

In contrast, Townhall.com is currently playing host to an ongoing story about a group of "Patriots" running around the country hunting "socialists." This group roams around the country and kill US Attorney Johnny Sutton, torture Keith Obermann and Chris Matthews, kill Senator Arlen Specter and other current members of Congress, and mock the Constitution.

Several Republican bloggers have called to have the storyline removed, as well as others in the comments section of the fantasy's posts questioning the legality of it. As of this writing, Townhall has yet to remove the piece. Here's how the Sutton segment ends (remember, this is a current US Attorney):

As a group, we entered the room at approximately 2215. Sutton was hunched over a table studying a map of the region. When he looked up and saw us, his eyes widened into saucers and he blanched, sweat popping out on his forehead. He threw up his hands and started babbling unintelligibly – a huge disappointment coming from a “great” attorney – and at my signal we all fired simultaneously. His head exploded like a ripe melon, thankfully shutting him up for good.

The comment sections on all of the installments I looked at were rather, um, interesting. The Sutton piece includes such things as bonfires fueled by the bodies of liberals convicted by Chief Justice Ann Coulter (who later takes a recurring role) and what caliber bullet you need to effectively kill liberals so they don't live and charge at you like a "RINO".

Whether or not Garrett knew about this is kind of irrelevant. Townhall is very popular with a certain segment of the population, and obviously Garrett's reaching out to them. There are many notable conservatives who contribute to the site, driving traffic and helping them sell advertising. Aparantly, all of that comes without any sort of moral compass or ethical standard. There is a moral and ethical line, and Townhall has crossed it. Until Townhall either removes that story line or Garrett pulls his content from the site, Garrett's sitting right there with them.

Garrett's Travels

Members of Congress being flown everywhere by private funders is a bone of contention. While some trips have legitimate educational purposes, and all trips are supposed to be related to a Member's duties, it's pretty safe to say that the sponsors want a return on their investment. While The Center for Responsive Politics shows that Rep. Scott Garrett takes relatively few trips compared to others, sometimes the number of the trips can be outweighed by what the sponsors want.

When Herb Jackson of The Record broke the story last July about Garrett traveling around the Pacific rim, the furor over possible ethics violations for having one trip paid for by a foreign agent and reporting trips well past the 30 days required died down pretty quickly. It would be interesting to see what economic benefit the area received from the provisions within the Garrett co-sponsored tax cuts of 2003 that gave foreign companies a competitive advantage raising capital over domestic companies.

In January, Garrett took another trip with an interestingly small price tag: $239. The sponsor was the Emmanuel Foundation, publishers of the Kairos Journal. Garrett was the only member of Congress to attend the Kairos Journal Awards dinner, or at least the only one the Foundation paid for. Kairos sees their mission as providing a ministry to pastors; providing Biblical context to deal with the world's challenges. Since they require ministers to register and be approved to receive this content, I looked at what I could find for free.

After reading their arguments against abortion, contraception, and evolution; as well as commentary on Gov. Elliot Spitzer's intent to legalize gay marriage, and the phrasing of their Biblical support for capitalism; it's pretty safe to say they are a very conservative journal. While their understanding of scripture differs from mine on many points, Garrett's pretty open about his interpretation of faith and from what I've read, this group's a good fit for him. I could see him going to an event like this on his own dime and I wouldn't write about it.

However, he didn't go on his own, he went as part of his "official duties" as our Representative, and as with all privately funded trips, it goes back to what the funders want. This is the first and last paragraph of an essay Kairos deems as a KJ Insight.

“What is your attitude towards politics?” From the beginning—and in the development of the Israelite nation—God was the ruler, and His law and His will was the focal point of political and social life.

[snip]

Nevertheless, the Church should be following the example of the prophets in calling the nation back to a proper relationship with God and to behave as God commands. God’s laws and standards are not just good in themselves, they are also good for us as human beings. So our aim as “salt” and “light” must be to try to bring human politics and law into conformity with God’s will and law. Only in the final “eschaton” will the rule of God be fully known and experienced, but that is no reason for failing in our duty to pray and work for more of God’s rule and will to be followed in political life.

I don't know whether or not Garrett sees his role as our Representative the same way the publishers of Kairos do. However, some insight might be gained from his speech at the March for Life rally in Washington, which happened about a week before this dinner (you can listen to the whole speech here, I did the transcription).

So just as Nehemiah worked to build that wall of stone and rock and wood around
Jerusalem. To build and protect his vulnerable people. So now all of us come here today to Washington to build a wall of law, around our most vulnerable people.

[snip]

Let us follow the word of the scripture. Let us follow after Nehemiah’s example. May we pray that God bless this nation. May God bless our undertaking today. And that we take the actions to carry out our work.

My first instinct is to always say "and exactly whose interpretation of God's law are we using?" As a minister's son growing up in a predominantly Catholic town, I was well aware of differences of interpretation at an early age. I'm very suspect when any group claims to have the monopoly on God's insights, and I know I'm not alone.

Defending the Defenseless

With it's recent ruling, the New Jersey Supreme Court took a major step forward in defending the defenseless. By striking down a number of eligibility restrictions that served as barriers for the developmentally disabled and their families to receive care, our fair state will take a major step forward to providing for those most in need of help. The question now becomes one of money, priorities and morals.

Ranging from high to extremely low functioning folks, I got to see first hand the ranging demands on both caregivers and families while serving at a non-profit housing provider in Michigan. I also learned the harsh reality it is somewhat easy to raise donations for children with developmental disabilities; however funds for adults are harder to come by. Government funding is often the only way to provide services to those in need.

In his effort to curb entitlement (mandatory) spending, particularly Medicaid, developmentally disabled adults and even children are squarely in the cross hairs of President Bush and his fellow "compassionate conservatives" like our own Representative Scott Garrett. Medicaid is a lifeline to roughly 9.9 million people with disabilities and their families, which accounts for 16.5% of Medicaid recipients. The most recent budget proposed by the President and supported by Garrett would cut $28 billion from Medicaid over the next ten years. Here's some of the ways they plan to do it, courtesy of The Arc:

Optional Formulary and Pharmacy Changes: Would adjust pharmacy reimbursement policies and would permit states to operate “closed formularies” that permit states to deny coverage for drugs, even when medically necessary. Under current law, states can restrict access to certain drugs as long as individuals can get
exceptions through prior authorization.

New Limits on IDEA-Related Services: Would phase out Medicaid reimbursement for some services, including some transportation and certain administrative costs related to Medicaid services (e.g. physical, speech, and occupational therapies) provided to special education students;

New Restrictions on Rehabilitation Services: Would define allowable services that can be reimbursed as rehabilitation services (to restrict reimbursement to medical services only). In particular, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) wants to narrow the option to finance medical services only. This approach – which will be incorporated in new regulations later this year – may jeopardize such “habilitative” services as social skills training, employment-related rehabilitation, and some transportation services.

One of the primary goals of any provider of services to the special needs community is to make the lives of those they serve as independent as possible. This varies depending on the individual and their needs, but the cuts outlined above increase the barriers to achieving independence. Transportation, job skills and social skills are integral components of many treatment programs for higher functioning special needs individuals. Eliminating access to certain medications, such as anti-psychotic drugs, can mean the difference between a semi-independent life and being relegated to full-time institutionalization.

It is immoral that Bush and Garrett, among others, see cutting programming to the developmentally disabled as sound fiscal policy. However, if forced to engage the amoral individual, it is also important to point out this is bad fiscal policy. Every family shouldering the burden of these cuts becomes less productive in the workplace, if not having to completely be taken out of the workforce to care for their child or adult child.

Individuals who could live independently or semi-independently with the appropriate training and medical supervision, very well could become wards of the state when their parents die. With the nation's highest autism rate and over 19,000 developmentally disabled adults living with parents over 60 in New Jersey, this should be of very real concern for those watching property taxes. I could go on, but you probably get the point.

We must not continue to balance the budget on the backs of the defenseless simply because they don't have lobbyists. The Constitution empowers Congress to levy taxes to "provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." While traditional Republicans and Democrats can argue until they're blue in the face over how far that goes, they must unite to stop the conservatives without conscience who are attacking the lifelines of those who can't fight back.

One Marine's Story

The Record today carried the story of Marine Cpl. Visnu Gonzalez. This is how it started:

Marine Cpl. Visnu Gonzalez was manning a machine gun in battle-torn Fallujah, Iraq, three years ago when a sniper shot him in the neck, leaving him paralyzed from the waist down. Now, from his wheelchair, the highly decorated Purple Heart recipient is fighting another battle: to get a home of his own in the Pascack Valley.

A U.S. citizen who grew up in the Dominican Republic, Gonzalez feels at home in Hillsdale, where he spent summers with his uncle and worked as a clerk at the local ShopRite. "My family is all there," said Gonzalez, whose aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews and grandmother live near Hillsdale. "I can't wait to have a place of my own and go back to school to study computers. That's all I ever wanted to do."

Until recently, the 23-year-old was receiving treatment at the James Haley Veterans' Hospital in Tampa, Fla. But his mother, Maria Baez, a native New
Yorker, took him back to the Dominican Republic two weeks ago because they have nowhere else to go.

This is one of those stories that makes you wonder what is wrong with Washington that they can allow this to happen. This comes on the heels of a conversation with a friend of mine who has first hand knowledge of how the VA functions, and Cpl. Gonzalez's experience is not unique.

We have to take care of our Vets. While groups like Homes For Our Troops and Hope For The Warriors have been created for individuals like Cpl. Gonzalez, the void they are filling is an unconscionable one to begin with. With over 63,500 U.S. military amputeed, wounded, severely injured, injured, mentally ill, all now out of Iraq, the non-profit and church based efforts cannot possibly piece together all of the lives impacted by this war.

The housing of Cpl. Gonzalez should have been worked out by the VA while he was in treatment, once his needs were known. And yes, taxpayers should foot the bill for the necessary renovations to the homes of the family members who would have taken him in. If it takes a massive revamping and corresponding increase of funding to the VA to honor the service provided by these men and women we have to do it. Regardless of how people felt about the war, most people I spoke with during the campaign agreed playing politics and balancing the budget on the backs of our wounded is completely immoral.