JPB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2012 11:48 am
I read a conservative blog post on this subject this morning that I thought was good.

Quote:
It is in the Book of Matthew that you can read, “I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’”

No country does more for the least among us, especially the disabled community, than the United States.

The Americans with Disabilities Act passed Congress in my first year up on Capitol Hill. I was working for House Minority Leader Bob Michel at the time, and as a newly minted conservative, I wasn’t particularly fond of the ADA. It forced small businesses to build access ramps, required small towns to buy specially-equipped buses so that people in wheel-chairs could have access to public transportation, it required schools to spend money educating disabled children.

The ADA has been and will continue to be an expensive law. But, in retrospect, you would have to say it has been worth it. Giving the disabled a better chance to prosper in America makes this country a better place to live.

Like most Americans, I didn’t know that much about the new United Nations Treaty on protecting people with disabilities. But exporting the ADA seems like a pretty good idea to me. And just looking at it from the outside, the idea that a pretty hefty block of conservatives voted to not ratify it doesn’t sit well with me.

The fact that Bob Dole, an icon in American history, a true fiscal conservative, a true war hero, and a passionate defender of the disabled (and one of the architects of the ADA) was wheeled out to the Senate floor by his wife, only to see Republicans kill the treaty, should be deeply and profoundly embarrassing to national Republicans.

Republicans are becoming the enemy of the disabled and that is not good for them politically (and morally). I bet you that if you took a poll of most white Americans who are not associated with the labor movement who voted for the Democrats in this past election, a surprisingly high number would have a family member who has a disability.

Small government is one thing. Getting rid of the Social Safety net is something else completely. All too often, conservatives forget about the Social Safety net and that scares a lot of voters.

Opposition to this Treaty was led by Rick Santorum, who has a disabled daughter. Santorum and other conservatives have a profound distrust of the United Nations, and Republicans promised Harry Reid that they weren’t going to ratify any treaties in the lame duck.

Reid skillfully guided this vote to maximize the embarrassment for Congressional Republicans.

By ratifying this Treaty, Republicans could have exported American values (and profoundly Christian values). By doing so, they could have struck a blow for the disabled, for American workers and the American economy (by equalizing the playing field for our businesses), and for a better, more compassionate world.

The idea that this Treaty would have impinged on American sovereignty is more than a little suspect. I don’t think Bob Dole and John McCain fought and sacrificed their bodies in foreign wars so that America would sacrifice its sovereignty.

I am not an expert on U.N. Treaties, but I do know a thing or two about political communication. If Republicans were going to kill this treaty, they should have sent the message to Bob Dole and they should have told the rest of us why they were going to kill it well before they killed it.

Looking like you don’t care about the least among us is not a winner politically (or spiritually for that matter).Source
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 Dec, 2012 11:51 am
@JPB,
That IS good, I agree.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:13 pm
KS this time, although I can think of a dozen states where this man would fit right in.
Quote:
A Republican state lawmaker in Kansas says that he opposes cutting the taxes on groceries because it would be a form of “social engineering” that encourages people to buy food over other items.
The Kansas Senate on Thursday voted to cut the state sales tax on food from 6.3 percent to 4.95 percent, but Sen. Jeff Melcher (R) led opposition against the measure, arguing that it would lead to people eating more.

“It seems to me we are encouraging the behavior of purchasing food and discouraging the behavior of purchasing anything else,” Melcher reportedly told his colleagues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/24/jeff-melcher-grocery-tax_n_3333020.html?utm_hp_ref=politics
roger
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:35 pm
@JPB,
Well, couldn't we just cut the tax on wheat germ, tofu, and stuff like that? Not that I would buy it even if it came with a tax rebate coupon.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 04:44 pm
@JPB,
Good article on ADA. I worked at nonprofits for a few years, and those people who work to help the handicapped are dedicated folks who works 24/7 for little pay and benefits.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 05:11 pm
@JPB,
imo, food is one item that should be exempt from all taxation for the consumer. Food is a necessity, not a luxury item to be taxed at 3 or 4 or 5 percent, depending on the sate, same as perfume or designer clothing. Tax the farmers and retailers, yes, on the income they generate from the sale of food; don't tax the poor starving consumers.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 05:11 pm
@JPB,
imo, food is one item that should be exempt from all taxation for the consumer. Food is a necessity, not a luxury item to be taxed at 3 or 4 or 5 percent, depending on the sate, same as perfume or designer clothing. Tax the farmers and retailers, yes, on the income they generate from the sale of food; don't tax the poor starving consumers.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 05:15 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
But don't they buy cars then and clog up the roads and make the lives of the better off more trying.
Lustig Andrei
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 05:23 pm
@spendius,
What's your point? Cars and petrol should certainly be taxed. They are not necessary for survival. Food is.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:05 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
farmers and retailers will lass that tax on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
The consumer always pays for new taxes in the form of higher prices, no matter what the producer says.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:06 pm
@mysteryman,
What's your point?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:24 pm
@mysteryman,
Quote:
farmers and retailers will pass that tax on to consumers in the form of higher prices.


Farmers can pass nothing on to nobody.
0 Replies
 
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:21 pm
@JPB,
"The Kansas Senate on Thursday voted to cut the state sales tax on food from 6.3 percent to 4.95 percent, but Sen. Jeff Melcher (R) led opposition against the measure, arguing that it would lead to people eating more."

hell yes it will lead to people eating more. hungry poor folks that can buy just a little more food with their money.

damn hypocritical mealy mouthed Kansas republicans anyways...
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:27 pm
@mysteryman,
You're not suggesting that taxes on farmers, retailers, and middlemen would be increased if sales taxes were eliminated, are you?
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:35 pm
@roger,
Quote:
You're not suggesting that taxes on farmers, retailers, and middlemen would be increased if sales taxes were eliminated, are you?


Oh look, there's a squirrel!!
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 10:37 pm
@Rockhead,
Rocky, there's a buncha folk waiting for you over ta your place.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/15/2020 at 11:45:14