Our differently-winged friend EaBo helpfully pointed to this op-ed by Jim Ogonowski, in which he makes crystal clear his reasons for opposing the expansion of kids' health care under SCHIP:
SCHIP was originally intended to help poor children. Instead Congress worked to expand another big-government program that actually harms those working class children and families it was supposed to help. We all support helping poor children and families, but government seems unable to help those who need us. When I helped organize the largest airlift of aid in New Hampshire National Guard history to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, I saw firsthand how big government programs like FEMA don't work for the American people.
Kids shouldn't get health care because of … FEMA. Gah?
But wait! There's more —
What bothers me the most is the benefits SCHIP gives to illegal immigrants. My great-grandmother emigrated from Poland in 1904; widowed and with four children. She settled in the Merrimack Valley and had very little. America should continue to be the beacon of hope for the world and welcome immigrants. But they must come here legally. I do not support amnesty for illegal immigrants. Laws like the SCHIP bill send the wrong message that our immigration laws are made to be broken, and that it's OK to come here illegally. That is just plain wrong and unfair to American families who depend on those benefits to survive.
So … none of those kids should get health care, because some might be illegal. Unlike his mom.
Gah??
I didn't think it possible, but this op-ed may actually diminish the sum of all human knowledge on earth. As such, I expect it to be applauded for its bold, “novel” vision by certain media pundits, who will sniff profoundly that Ogo's outside-the-box wisdom is unappreciated by the latte-sucking elite who call all the shots.
blowhard republican pundits. This is one thing that worries me about him. I have heard him on talk radio and he seems to naturally take to manipulative convoluted right wing style logic.
Where did David's promised chapter by chapter response go? I finally got my copy from the spiffy RMG Amazon store and think I know the answer. Keller uses Democrats, which are of course not the same as progressives often in Massachusetts, to show how messed up this state is.
The book is brilliant and well written. I suggest picking it up.
I will get back to the Keller book, but a guy’s got to earn a living, and the chapter-by-chapter reviews are quite time-consuming.
you folks keep up. Working for a living certainly can get in the way.
Keller uses Democrats, which are of course not the same as progressives in Massachusetts
<
p>
As the various posts I’ve already written on Keller’s book make clear, one of its central failings is that it does not recognize the obviousness of that statement. Keller constantly lumps “Democrats” in with “liberals” (I don’t think he uses the word “progressives”). Which, as anyone who knows anything about Mass. politics knows, is ridiculous. So I’m amused and yet saddened by the fact that you describe as “brilliant” a book which you yourself, by your comment, realize doesn’t accurately reflect what’s going on in this state.
<
p>
I mean, do you have any idea what we’re trying to accomplish around here? Any idea?
You are trying to drive those “Democrats” who are not progressives to the Republican Party by going further left than they already are. Thank you in advance.
You got him, as far as I’m concerned.
In MA, I mean. Heck, or anywhere.
And, for all I know, may even feel his own world-view changing under the salutary influences of reality and reason. Delighted to have you along for the ride, EBC. We’ll arrange cocktails for you with David Brock when you finally come to your senses. đŸ˜‰
The globe has Ogo's counter to Tsongas on SCHIP.
<
p>Okay. I get it, we can’t fund heath care for children because the republican party completely turned their back on Walter Reed. Huh? More brain cells leaving….
Plus guess what? SCHIP includes specific language that it doesn’t include funding for illegal immigrants.
That's not true. The states have the option of opting coverage for “unqualified children” and many do just that.
Give me the language that states that….
Immigrants– In Massachusetts, under Medicaid only emergency medical services (which
include labor/delivery) are available to legal immigrants who are subject to, but have not yet met,
the five year bar, and unqualified individuals who are otherwise eligible. However,
Massachusetts provides prenatal care regardless of immigration status through its State
Children’s Health Insurance Program, and provides some type of state funded coverage for all
children regardless of immigration status. Some forms of coverage may also be available for
certain elderly and disabled qualified immigrants or PRUCOLs with incomes below 100% FPL.
Finally, some coverage may be available to qualified immigrants and PRUCOLS with incomes
below 300% of FPL through the Commonwealth Care Health Insurance Program. All of these
programs may require that income and other eligibility criteria be met.
Several states are like massachusetts, keeping the SCHIP funding within the MassHealth system and covering 300% poverty for children regardless of immigration status. NY is another. There are probably others of which i am unfamiliar.
http://www.workingforamerica.org/documents/checklist.asp
Federal defines criteria for SCHIP payments, it is up to the state to administer the money how it sees if, but have to meet federal requirements.
But not relevant to the point. As I’ve pointed out, the Fed does not prohibit the state from covering illegl aliens with its Medicaid program, through which the SCHIP funds are delivered.
I don't see any posting from the state.
Mr. Ogonowski, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
What program? Wtf is he talking about? Or is that secret knowledge, like his stand on issues other than immigration?
He's talking about SCHIP. You know, the very first word in the block you quoted.
i am humbled and awed by his powers of obfuscation. he’ll make a fine washington insider.
His sentence is correct if Congress expanded SCHIP or any other program — hence the confusion.
I’m going to quote Charley quoting physicist Wolfgang Pauli:
<
p>
<
p>
Bingo.
…one of my favorite quotations of all time.
Here I thought it was just plain moonbattery that led some progressives to predict that Republicans would try to make political hay out of their incompetent management of FEMA by saying “Government doesn't work.”
But there you have it — a Republican pointing at FEMA saying “Government doesn't work.”
So stupid it hurts!
Bush, Chertoff, & Brown were in charge of FEMA. So the lesson Ogonowski should take away from this is don’t put Republicans in charge of government agencies.
<
p>
To quote Bill Maher from his excellent show “Real Time”:
<
p>
So … none of those kids should get health care, because some might be illegal. Unlike his mom.
<
p>
Some of the kids may actually be US citizens, regardless of the status of their parents.
<
p>
On another note, it seems to me that providing health care to at least the kids is a public health issue. We wouldn’t want them running around spreading disease, which they might do if they are denied health care services.
too deal with this talk-radio created polemicist.
<
p>
I tried to get the point through to co-workers that children born in the US are not illegals and in any case it is unethical not to provide a child with health care.
<
p>
In one ear and out the other.
The border patrol and immigration service as we know it today wasn’t even created until after 1904. Ogonowski’s Mom would probably have been an illegal immigrant under today’s standards: someone who just decided to immigrate to the U.S. and went.
<
p>
According to the official history of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the Basic Naturalization Act was passed in 1906, which established the essential structure we have today, and created the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization.
<
p>
Not only can The Ogre not make a coherent argument, he doesn’t even know how his own family got to this country. Tragic, really: you’d think someone running for high office would know his own family history.
Walking over the border from canada and staying without registering was illegal before 1904. My last name never would have been anglicized anyother way. Ogonowski has mentioned his mother came through Ellis Island. That was the legal procedure. You went through and registered. Don't try that line of BS.
You just had to sign your name in back in 1904 and you were in. Are you actually trying to say that the immigration procedures were just as draconian in 1904 as they are today?
In 1904, though the frontier was closed, the west was essentially unpopulated. Indeed, it had been purposefully de-populated. So there was an awful lot of capacity to absorb immigration on that scale. Even with the huge growth in the manufacturing economy and industrial farming, immigration caused a great deal of social strain– which strain was ultimately to our collective cultural and economic gain.
But there is no longer a huge demand for unlimited labor, nor is there an infinite amount of space to accomodate new arrivals. The American west cannot be sustainably populated at European densities because there is not enough water. It may not even be sustainable at its present densities.
That means that, unless people are to starve, there must now be a limit placed on new immigration. Any reasonable limit necessarily implies that there are some who wish to immigrate whom are unable to do so. In other words, there will be an incentive to immigrate illegally. Unless limits are to be abandoned altogether, that illegal immgration must be prevented and/or undone.
Unless we are willing to countenance a new cebtury of “manifest destiny” in which we depopulate and annex a new swath of the North American continent, it cannot be any other way.
The point Banned was making is that when Ogo’s mom came to the US in 1904, things were a lot different, and it’s a bit silly to blithely compare immigration then with immigration now.
That 'Ogre' didn't even know how his own people got to this country? When he already stated that they came through Ellis Island legally? And you're bitching that the legal procedure wasn't draconian enough?
My own family name would have been Andersdottir had my family not come through Ellis Island and adopted the name of the current US President – Wilson – in an effort to 'blend in' in the New Land.
That ‘Ogre’ didn’t even know how his own people got to this country?
<
p>
His “people” got to this country. It wasn’t via aeroplanes, and it probably wasn’ by row boat. Mediate between the two.
<
p>
A minor nit, then two major nits.
<
p>
Minor nit The point Banned was making is that when Ogo’s mom came to the US in 1904 the op-ed piece said that it was Ogonowski’s great grand-mother who immigrated in 1904, not his mother.
<
p>
Major nit No. 1. Times have certainly changed since 1904. I acknowledge the water problem in the plain states, and agree that it is a major problem, primarily caused by draining acquifers to provide irrigation of what have up till now been agricultural lands. The land is sinking as a result. (NB: Venice is sinking for the same reason.)
<
p>
Major nit No. 2. One of the reasons that you have illegal immigration is the systematic attempt by the US government to dump government subsidized agricultural products on neighboring 3d world countries, thereby decimating the ag industry in those countries. Until that practice is stopped, you are not going to be able to stem illegal immigration.
<
p>
But it won’t be stopped, because Agribusiness is too powerful a political lobby in the US. So I guess that you will just have to learn how to live with it.
<
p>
Someone here (TedF?) a couple of days ago posted the federal statutes about illegal immigration being a crime. He was correct. But query, to an illegal alien, what would be worse: spending a couple of years in an American jail, or starving to death because the US government had destroyed his (or her) livelihood?
that is not what EaBo said. (BTW I hate when people ask you, is this what you're TRYING to say?..like you're too stupid to get a point across and you need their help, but their help is always phrased in a way that makes you look even more stupid)
what EaBo pointed out was Bob was throwingout a lot of BS. The border patrol and immigration service as we know it today wasn't even created until after 1904. But then why assume that Ogonowski's Mom would probably have been an illegal immigrant under today's standards. You have very little basis too suggest that. If his mother immigrated before 1904 then the youngest age she could be is 104. Possible but not probable.
Anyways why speculate that he doesn't know how his own family got to this country? Why can't we just deconstruct his statement without making leaps of faith about his family's personal history? If you have facts and researched his family, then provide them. You possibly are right…but then it would be a lucky guess.
Although Bob is definitely correct that he has a flawed argument.
you don't like the wording of my post? đŸ™‚
Beyond just pointing out that there was legal and illegal immigration in 1904, that line of reasoning implicitly draws equivilance between the circumstances surrounding immigration then as compared to the present time.
While David kindly said as much on my behalf, I just wanted to point out how embarassingly silly it is to try to pat oneself on the back for having an ancestor who had “legally” immigrated 100+ years ago.
Then you couldn't come in at all.
Doesn't it bother you at all that the expansion of SCHIP reaches so high?
Forget immigrant issues. The expansion of SCHIP covers families earning up to $60K in Mass and up to $72K in certain other geographic areas of the US.
Data points: In mass, the average spending per capita on the lottery is $774 per year. Insurance is available for a kid at a cost of $1800 per year.
I didn't believe that number, so I investigated.
FY 2005 revenue: $936 million
MA population 2006 (estimate): 6,437,193
$936,000,000 / 6,437,193 = $145.40 / person.
Now, it's true that the report says “over $936 million”, so there's a fraction of a percent error there. Also, I used 2006 estimate population instead of 2005 population, so there's a fraction of a percent error there. It's also true that MA people buy lottery tickets in other states, and citizens of other states buy lottery tickets in MA, so I just assume that's a wash — another possible source of error.
Still, your number is five times higher than mine. From where does your number come?
I think the difference between $145 and $774 is that is one using money returned to the state ($936 mil) and the other is using total lottery sales ($4.4 bil)
3.2 Billion went to lottery winners and the rest went to operating expenses.
Gary's number of $774 is closer to what I get of $683.
Stomv, what Gary said was spending per capita, which is how much people spend on the lottery per person. Lottery has $4.4 billion in sales (what people spent) and # of people is 6,437,193
what you calculated was how much money the lottery gives to the state per capita, which is a totally different ratio
Probably, to get a meaningful statistic, the population divisor ought be reduced by the number of residents who are ineligible to buy lottery tickets (underage).
Then to reiterate, here we have a state with a median family income of about $46K. That population spends on average over $700 per year per person on scratch tickets, etc…. Congress then says families earning $60K can't afford to spend about $1800 annually toward their kids' insurance?!
Taxpayers have to pay for the $60K families' kids insurance so that dad can buy his scratch tickets. Where's the outrage?
the population divisor should include only people who actually spent money on the lottery.
To add even more meaning, only the earnings of those same lottery consumers should be factored.
To think that an “average” person spends $700 a year on lottery is laughable. For instance, most people I know do not play the lottery at all. Someone must be playing a hell of a lot of KENO in order to pick up all that slack!
…is this stastical exercise trying to make some kind of point or something?
In fact, I was onto something with my number.
$936,000,000 was taken out of the lottery system in the form of “profits”.
$79,200,000 was taken out of the lottery system in the form of overhead [1.8% of which went toward administrative expenses].
This means that $1,015,200,000 is the total amount not paid back in the form of winnings. It seems to me that this is the fair numerator. After all, if I drop $800 in to lottery tickets each year but win $550, I'm really out $250, not $800. It's true that the mean return and the median return are very different [jackpots skew the numerical average], but in aggregate, methinks that Gary's numbers are indeed far too high if you deduct winnings from the money spent, which is a fair and reasonable adjustment methinks.
So, doing the math, the number I get is:
$157.71 per capita net expenditures on lottery per year within Massachusetts.
link 1
link 2
I dig it. I used the wrong “revenue” number [both are listed as revenue on the link I used, which corroborates the $4.4 bil].
That said, my denominator is correct. Gary used per capita and that very specifically means to divide by the entire population, not the participating population. I agree that dividing by other numbers [people over 18, people who play at least once per year] also yield interesting statistics, but the one Gary called for was indeed per capita, which means to divide by the entire population.
Still — point is, I now believe Gary's numbers. Isn't it great to have a civil discussion using facts?
Republican, Conservative,
Republican, Conservative.
Worse, he has a new postion every day. Now he says Tsongas is going to keep us in Iraq and he's for conditional withdrawal. Illegals are causing children not to get health care. What's next? Talk about not ready for prime time and Republican play books.
How's the HQ doing, lots of phone calls being made?
Do you think we don’t notice you evading the valid points Will raises?
What's Will position – that Niki sprung forth fully grown from Paul's forehead? Like Athena did with Zeus? So we mortals need not QUESTION her stances?
But last I looked at his website, he doesn’t. At least, not ones that he is confident enough on to commit his thoughts to retrievable text. Makes me think he makes it all up as he goes along. Just like that essay. I bet he wasted 5 good minutes on that embarrassment.
Yes, let's talk about issues. You have to admit Niki Tsongas did in 23 debates. Ogonowski avoided most of his. Inconsistency and spin are legitimate issues. He needs to learn to back up his statements with facts. The SCHIPS legislation specifically disqualifies undocumented immigrants. I don't personally agree with that because all children are entitled to be humanely treated. Nothing will stop them in any event – likely at a much later time and more expensively – in an ER. By then, these children have spread a case of measels or whooping cough due to lthis ack of treatment. What does this prove? Immigration is a separate issue that should be tackled by Congress. This is just hate mongering in a district built in part by immigrants.
As for where Niki emerged from, she should win or lose on whether people agree or disagree on the issues, her vision for the district and her ability to deliver on critical economic development issues. Did she benefit from her name, sure. But compare the candidates on the issues. As pointed out, Ogonowski has nothing on education, jobs or healthcare on his entire web site!
Ogonowski's vision is how to keep “aliens” out, continue the Bush tax cuts, and to criticize Democrats and Republicans for the purpose of obfuscating his conservative credentials. Which side of the aisle will he sit on? Which committee will they allow him to be on? Do you think a lonely Repbublican freshman will really end political influence in Washington? He'll be redistricted out in the next realignment, which is controlled by the Massachusetts Legislature.
Ogo supporters, you don't need to prove I favor Niki Tsongas, but hey, answer the questions.
Well, I read a lot of poorly constructed essays written by teenagers in my line of work, and I have to say that I’m appalled that this is the work of a man running for the United States Congress.
<
p>
Issue of Concern + Republican Talking Points(Free Association) = Gibberish2
should read at an 8th grade level. You think maybe that's what they were trying to do here?
if that was the goal. my cat has randomly step-typed some very delightful verse, all of it more coherent than that pile of ink.
Serving the GOP proudly since 1980.
radio talk show level which gets through to a lot of people.
Come October, at least it will be like I've said previously:
61% to 39%.
It won't be close, so enjoy the SCHIP-bashing and strange attempted connections between that and illegal immigration now, while it lasts.
MassResistance has never abided by half measures and eschews the middle ground. They are conservative purists. So not surprisingly, they had this to say in their recent email update
Btw, their endorsee, Kevin Thompson, does have an issues page on his modest website. đŸ˜‰
<
p>
As a side note, I agree with MassResistance that Ogonowski’s stance on marriage is totally idiotic. There are married same-sex couples in his own district. By advocating for civil unions, he is advocating stripping his own constituents of their equality under the law. Huh?!
<
p>
It is nice that he is willing to compromise (he calls CUs a compromise), but this is a compromise neither side of the issue will ever agree to. This is why the Lees-Travaglini amendment failed (and was ultimately voted against by one of it’s authors!). I’m not sure where Ogonowski has been the past few years, but it hasn’t been paying attention to the trajectory of this issue in MA. Another indication to me that he’s using some old GOP playbook, and has little understanding of his district or state.
<
p>
So all military veterans should hate gay people. Why not just call the God Hates Fags people to help protest Ogonowski?
MassResistance is consistent in their opposition to all things not Ozzie & Harriett. They see Ogonowski as just another player, or panderer, much like Mitt. From their point of view, I can see how they would draw that conclusion. Ogonowski has reached out too far towards the centrists for uncompromising conservatives to stomach. I think they’re afraid they’ll be saddled with their won version of a Lieberman. Or another Mitt.
My recollection is that the Mass. Legislature assiuously avoided making a law about gay marriage themselves, and prevented the electorate from doing so either.
Stripping constituents of their equality under court decision just deosn't have the same ring, does it?
And before you begin to cite irrelevant examples, the Civil Rights LAW, the ADA LAW, the Voting Rights LAW, and so on, took care of other injusred parties – although I AM still waiting for the ERA to pass….
Specifically, the 14th amendement. As a member of the Army Nat’l Guard, he swore to uphold this document. He will be asked to do so again should he be elected to a seat in the US House of Representatives. I don’t think he can take that oath in good conscience if he’s advocating for special rights under the law for a segment of society (heterosexuals).
And when did the Mass. SJC become the Federal SC?
Peter, just stop before you lose what is left of your credibility.
Because the Mass SJC is, in fact, not the SCOTUS.
<
p>
Specifically, the SJC issues rulings based in state law and the state constitution. If the case involves federal law and/or the federal Constitution, you have to go upstairs to District Court or SCOTUS.
<
p>
The SJC, as you well know, found that all citizens of this state were entitled to equal rights, according to the state constitution. And the Massachusetts state constitution is, in fact, only honored in Massachusetts.
<
p>
An equivalent ruling on the federal level, under the 14th amendment, has not yet occurred.
<
p>
But all this surely isn’t news to you.
<
p>
The aspect that Laurel gets at by mentioning the 14th Amendment is that, if Ogonowski gets elected, he will be a federal officer and therefore sworn to uphold and protect the federal Constutiton, not the state constutition. Including the 14th Amendment.
<
p>
But by advocating for civil unions, he’s advocating against the equal protection ideals that the 14th amendment gets at.
the SJC issues rulings based in state law and the state constitution. If the case involves federal law and/or the federal Constitution, you have to go upstairs to District Court or SCOTUS.
<
p>
That’s not actually true. The SJC can and does routinely issue rulings interpreting federal statutory and constitutional law (as do other state courts). Those rulings are subject to appeal to the SCOTUS, but of course SCOTUS only takes a tiny fraction of them, so there’s a significant body of cases interpreting federal law that come from the state courts. Interestingly, the SJC is not even bound to defer to the interpretation of federal law set forth in Mass. district court decisions or even in the First Circuit, though they probably usually do so as a matter of comity; on the reverse, however, the First Circuit and the MA district courts are bound to adhere to the SJC’s interpretation of state law.
You believe it's unconsitutional to grant or deprive special legal rights for a segment of society? I respectfully disagree.
Example, new law: “Every homosexual gets a free car from the Feds.” Completely constitutional.
Discuss.
proposing that too? If not, prove it.
since it requires no work on your part. you have a penchant for asking posters to write dissertations for you to make your points. my reply was apt – i was calling you on your habit. so, you go first. please reply substantially and satisfactorily.
The constitution does not bar discrimination against all segments of society. Your statement to the contrary was non-considered and wrong.
Got it?
please elaborate.
Discrimination is legal. Sometimes.
If, for example, the US Congress passed a statute that required that all people with the first name “Laurel” who lacked basic knowledge of the Constitution and of the law, to wear a silly dunce cap, then dunce cap clad you'd be. And the Constitution would afford you no protection.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
How egregious must a violation of unenumerated rights against a segment of society be before it is considered unconstitutional?
Federalism — a fundamental value, when convenient.
…a federal supreme court that effectively installed a pResident in an opinion that (a) used bogus reasoning (yes, Ms. Porc, I studied the FL law and all the court opinions at the time), and (b) then had the temerity to declare that their opinion in the case had no precedential value.
<
p>
That federal supreme court? You’ve got to be kidding.
Heck you Republican comrades beat that down 30 years ago. Next time your at a Republican Convention, be sure to make a motion to pass a Resolution supporting the ERA>
for gays and lesbians? All the court decision did was to speciify that the state's constitution as written does not allow excluding gays and lesbians from the existing marriage laws. The lege opted NOT to change the constitution to create a basis for excluding gays and lesbians from laws that apply for everyone else. One would think this would be right in line with Republicans' professed interest in supporting families and dislike for “special” laws for particular groups – but no, instead it provides another opportunity for hypocrisy and doublespeak. “Special” laws are just fine as long as they disadvantage a particular group and “family values” are a code word for fighting to remove protections from gay and lesbian families.
…gays & lesbians are not to be granted equal constitutional rights with heteros. It really is as simple as that.
The Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilites Act were just frills. An amendment giving women the vote was unnecessary since they wre not SPECIFICALLY excluded from voting – they just weren't specifically INCLUDED.
ALL of these 'special' laws defy your stereotype that they disadvantage individuals.
I personally condemn our Legislature for refusing to pass a LAW and instead depending on a court decision. Same problem with abortion rights – ask Dred Scott if court decisions are as permanant as statute.
…it is my understanding that women did actually have the right to vote, in a few US jurisdictions prior to the amendment to the federal constitution. I’m not going to do the research now to provide citations to verify that, but I have done the research in previous years.
<
p>
Even before the federal amendment, the federal constitution did not prevent states from allowing women to vote. What the fedral amendment did was to prevent women from voting merely because they were women.
And by that allowance, it also prevented any state from refusing to allow them to vote.