Letters
- Details
- Written by: Donna Christopher
I came very close to shooting my television set when I heard these words. Then I wondered why Sen. Obama let them go without out rebuttal. Two thoughts came to mind; first, never interrupt your opponent when he is boldfaced lying; and, second, actions speak louder than words, so let us examine Sen. McCain's voting records.
McCain’s record in the Senate contradicts his statement. And America’s veterans know this – which is why groups like the Disabled American Veterans and Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America have given McCain failing grades for his voting record on issues facing veterans and military families. It is also the reason why by a margin of six to one active duty vets are donating to the Obama campaign over the McCain campaign.
McCain opposes the 21st century GI Bill because it is too generous. McCain did not vote on the GI Bill that will provide better educational opportunities to veterans of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, paying full tuition at in-state schools and living expenses for those who have served at least three years since the 9/11 attacks. McCain said he opposes the bill because he thinks the generous benefits would “encourage more people to leave the military.” Sen. McCain, you cannot have retention until you have recruitment. (S.Amdt. 4803 to H.R. 2642, Vote 137, 5/22/08; Chattanooga Times Free Press, 6/2/08; Boston Globe, 5/23/08; ABCNews.com, 5/26/08)
McCain voted against increased funding for veterans’ health care. Although McCain told voters at a campaign rally that improving veterans’ health care was his top domestic priority, he voted against increasing funding for veterans’ health care in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. (Greenville News, 12/12/2007; S.Amdt. 2745 to S.C.R. 95, Vote 40, 3/10/04; Senate S.C.R. 18, Vote 55, 3/16/05; S.Amdt. 3007 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 41, 3/14/06; H.R. 1591, Vote 126, 3/29/07)
Opposed an assured funding stream for veterans’ health care. McCain opposed providing an assured funding stream for veterans’ health care, taking into account annual changes in veterans’ population and inflation. (S.Amdt. 3141 to S.C.R. 83, Vote 63, 3/16/06)
McCain Voted against adding more than $400 million for veterans’ care. McCain was one of 13 Republicans to vote against providing an additional $430 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs for outpatient care and treatment for veterans. (S.Amdt. 3642 to H.R. 4939, Vote 98, 4/26/06)
Voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund for military health facilities. McCain voted against establishing a $1 billion trust fund to improve military health facilities by refusing to repeal tax cuts for those making more than $1 million a year. (S.Amdt. 2735 to S.Amdt. 2707 to H.R. 4297, Vote 7, 2/2/06)
McCain opposed $500 million for counseling services for veterans with mental disorders. McCain voted against an amendment to appropriate $500 million annually from 2006-10 for counseling, mental health and rehabilitation services for veterans diagnosed with mental illness, post traumatic stress disorder or substance abuse. (S. 2020, S.Amdt. 2634, Vote 343, 11/17/05)
McCain voted against providing automatic cost-of-living adjustments to veterans. McCain voted against providing automatic annual cost-of-living adjustments for certain veterans’ benefits. (S. 869, Vote 259, 11/20/91)
McCain opposed increasing spending on TRICARE and giving greater access to national guard and reservists. Although his campaign website devotes a large section to veterans issues, including expanding benefits for reservists and members of the National Guard, McCain voted against increasing spending on the TRICARE program by $20.3 billion over 10 years to give members of the National Guard and Reserves and their families greater access to the health care program. The increase would be offset by a reduction in tax cuts for the wealthy. (www.johnmccain.com/Informing/ Issues/9cb5d2aa-f237-464e-9cdf-a5ad32771b9f.htm; S.Amdt. 324 to S.C.R. 23, Vote 81, 3/25/03)
McCain supported outsourcing VA Jobs. McCain opposed an amendment that would have prevented the Department of Veterans Affairs from outsourcing jobs, many held by blue-collar veterans, without first giving the workers a chance to compete. (S.Amdt. 2673 to H.R. 2642, Vote 315, 9/6/07)
McCain also supported outsourcing at Walter Reed. McCain opposed an amendment to prevent the outsourcing of 350 federal employee jobs at Walter Reed Army Medical Center —outsourcing that contributed to the scandalous treatment of veterans at Walter Reed that McCain called a “disgrace.” (S.Amdt. 4895 to H.R. 5631, Vote 234, 9/6/06; Speech to VFW in Kansas City, Mo., 4/4/08)
McCain Voted Against $122.7 billion for Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted against an appropriations bill that included $122.7 billion in fiscal 2004 for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and other related agencies. (H.R. 2861, Vote 449, 11/12/03)
McCain voted against $51 billion in veterans funding. McCain was one of five senators to vote against the bill and seven to vote against the conference report that provided $51.1 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, as well as funding for the federal housing, environmental and emergency management agencies and NASA. (H.R. 2620, Vote 334, 11/8/01; Vote 269, 8/2/01)
McCain voted against $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain was one of eight senators to vote against a bill that provided $47 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs. (H.R. 4635, Vote 272, 10/12/00)
McCain voted against $44.3 billion for veterans programs. McCain was one of five senators to vote against a bill providing $44.3 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, plus funding for other federal agencies. (H.R. 2684, Vote 328, 10/15/99)
McCain voted against a $13 billion increase in funding for veterans programs. McCain voted against an amendment to increase spending on veterans programs by $13 billion. (S.C.R. 57, Vote 115, 5/16/96)
McCain voted to underfund Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain voted for an appropriations bill that underfunded the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development by $8.9 billion. (H.R. 2099, Vote 470, 9/27/95)
If theses bills contained other legislation that did not involve veterans issues this only begs the question of why Sen. McCain did not fight to clean up these bills and support our veterans with not just words but deeds.
Donna Christopher lives in Lucerne.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Mike Anisman
This has occurred before, several months ago, and I wrote about it then and for a while they changed their pricing to be fairer to those living in the Oaks. Thirty cents more a gallon is not the place any of us should ever buy gas. I won't and hope you will not either.
Mike Anisman lives in Clearlake Oaks.
{mos_sb_discuss:5}
- Details
- Written by: Becky Curry
But buried inside this poorly written proposition are provisions that will cost the state and counties large sums of tax money. Money we don't have. Provisions like mandating unnecessary additional bail hearings for nonviolent crimes. Provisions that increase the standard parole denial period to 15 years up form its current maximum of five years. Provisions that prohibit the early release of prisoners to comply with court-ordered reductions in jail and prison populations. This alone could cost the state untold millions of dollars as we are forced to build new jails and prisons.
Proposition 9 also restricts the Parole Board's flexibility to use nonprison responses when paroles make technical violations of parole when no new crime has been committed.
Worst of all, Proposition 9, as poorly written and unnecessary as some of its provisions may be, can only be changed by a three-fourths vote of both houses of the state Legislature. Normally state statute requires a simple majority vote in both houses. That means if Proposition 9 were to pass it would be virtually impossible to change any part of the law as the needs of the states prison and parole system change in the coming years.
Don't be fooled by law and order get tough shouting, Proposition 9 is bad law and deserves a no vote on Nov. 4.
Becky Curry lives in Kelseyville.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Dante DeAmicis
Public access is based on public forum decisions in court cases. The courts take public forums very seriously as vehicles of free expression under the 1st Amendment. Therefore, any citations in support of banning candidates’ forums that are not in the context of public forum law are irrelevant. Please review articles from “Communications Lawyer” and “The Florida Bar Journal” to familiarize yourself with public forum issues.
This could be the end of the matter. However, the day-to-day policies and procedures are also spelled out in the “Community Programming Members Manual.” This manual has guided TV 8 operations for six years. The current edition has been approved by the joint city/county PEG Board, a body Clearlake City Administrator Dale Neiman has deferred responsibility for PEG matters to in the past. Residents who submit content assume full responsibility for their productions.
This manual states in section 3.8 under “Programming Policies”: “Special political programming shall be scheduled for each election, with reasonable guide lines as to time, place, and manner of such programming to be established by the PEG Committee in cooperation with the PEG Manager.”
The Members Manual, now under the authority of the PEG Board, is the operational interface between Lake County residents and the cable franchisers. The city of Clearlake’s ability to take unilateral action is now limited by not only public forum law but by the voluntary agreement with the county. Clearlake’s status as “lead agency” does not mean “only agency.”
It is my position that public forum doctrine and TV8’s own operation guidelines, now ceded to the PEG Board, give Lake County residents the right to cable cast political programs subject only to the regulation allowed for type two fora. They are residents’ productions, not government productions. Allowing residents to use a public forum, such as TV 8, is not subsidizing the activity with government funds.
Putting a ban on legal programming that people are now producing is taking away a free speech resource that residents already have and must be justified by legally established compelling reasons and not convenience or irrational fears.
Dante DeAmicis lives in Clearlake.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
How to resolve AdBlock issue?