I have to agree. It's a pretty big thing for someone to recognize, and then not only to recognize to openly state a desire to change it. I give much respect to Giddy. I also want to say one thing about not belonging to any party in the system is that I would kind of like to vote in the primaries so that I have a choice of which candidates get presented. If I voted in the dem. primary there's a greater chance of running Howard Dean or John Kerry, than someone like Joe Lieberman. In that sense it's good to belong to the party even if you don't agree with everything about it. It's kind of the old changing the system from within argument I guess.
I think what is really sad about politics in general and party-specific politics especially is that all the emphasis is on the highest offices, which often do very little to affect out day-to-day lives. In reality, the smallest and most specific elections are the one's that most affect us and are the most poorly attended. School boards, water boards, local commissioners, judges, justices of the peace along with local and state referendums, amendments, etc are the most important races usually on the ballot. Yet, a school board runoff that may effect the very books your children read in school, often has a turnout of less than 5 percent of registered voters. We're talking about a few thousand people choosing the leaders of millions. Judge races may be the most important and most overlooked. Ask any attorney that deals with the criminal court system in Houston and they will tell you what a mess it has become because of politics. Nevermind all the amendments and referendums in every election. Oftentimes, they are ver specific to one area of the state, county or city, but they are terribly misunderstood by nearly everyone. Every year, I go to the League of Women Voters website and read their voter guide. I then make a special point of checking on specific offices and ballot issues of great importance to my immediate community. Not only do we have poorly attended elections but we have uneducated voters doing the voting. It's lazy and it makes the mess we are in worse.
I disagree, Jeff, except for the very last part of your post. It's not that the votes on the most local issues and offices aren't important, but that the state representatives, senators, the Lt. Governor, Governor and the other state-wide offices are FAR more important... and I'll tell you why. They decide who gets how much money, who doesn't, what the "rules" are about spending it, and a host of other things that have a direct and immense impact on the way your local communities can do what they what to do and their ability to do it. The current state government has decided to slash spending in ways that your local governments are still trying to digest and cope with. Your local school boards, county governments, hospital districts, cities... you name it... are all going to be wrestling with how to fund essential services with a major reduction in state funds. And these state funds were already being reduced over the last several years... since G. W. Bush became governor and pushed through a large part of his agenda... cutting taxes. This past session, soon to continue Monday with the special session on redistricting and other issues still to be decided by Perry, made Bush's policies seem moderate in comparison. The Federal government is pushing the responsibility for a host of services they used to fund (or fund in much higher %'s) down to the state level. The states, Texas being a prime example, are pushing the responsibilities down to the county and local level. So all those "tax cuts" are going to become tax increases that you will pay anyway. The major difference is that who pays those taxes changes... far more of it will be increased property taxes, increased fees for services, increases for YOU on the local level. To me, at least, as a tax paying homeowner with kids, it's not a pretty picture. Ask your school board and the teachers how pretty the picture is. Ask the elderly, the indigent, the disabled and the children of the poor how pretty the picture is. You won't like the answers you get.
Jeff, I disagree with both of your posts on principle BUT IF IT WORKS FOR YOU IN YOUR PERSONAL LIFE, FINE. I certainly appreciate the good "political" action you took on the local level on the Rockets referendum and I'm sure you've done other similar actions. As Heath says enough of the arm chair quarterbackingor a pox on all parties or organized political groups since none are pure enough . It is imho a sort of abstract intellectual conceit to claim for one's self the obvious ideal that one has no ideology or party that one just votes for the best policy or candidate. Personally of course it can be comforting to always say one is in the middle. As Deckard says it all right and good to want to try to deal with the local effects of State or National policy failures. You could for instance lobby Commissioner's Court to try to raise taxes for the Hospital District or lobby Houston City Hall to come up with additional tens of millions to take care of the indigent children's health care that the State is cutting back on. It might or might not be more effective than involvement in the State politics to try to have prevented the cut backs. There is an old saying "Think globally; act locally". You probably would agree with that.
I don't understand how anyone who follows poitics closely could go without choosing a party or at least the conservative or liberal point of view. As a conservative, I would want the conservative point of view to prevail, but I would much rather have a liberal government than a partyless government with no point of view. The competition between the parties helps to reduce corruption and helps classify candidates with similar points of view.
I think JEff's post about local elections is accurate. While the state may decide who gets which funds, the way they are spent is decided by local boards. If the schools receive $100 and instead of buying books with them, the school board decides to paint the football hash marks blue, then then it was the school board that made the biggest difference. Even if the money is earmarked for books, the local board may buy dick and jane books, instead of updated more effective teaching tools. Also the money given by the state or federal govts. happens once. The management of that money on a local level is ongoing. Local politics affects people's day to day lives more than statewide or national politics. This was actually a principle that was covered in my Pol. Sci course in college. City council, shcool board, etc. have the most influence over citizens daily lives.
I've always agreed with former Alabama governor George Wallace, who drawled in the early seventies "There ain't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties." Now Bush spends just as much money as the socialists on stupid social programs. Why vote Republican if you support limited government? You sure as hell aren't going to get it from George W. I-Never-Met-A-Socialist-Democrat-Program-I-Never-Liked Bush. For chrissakes, Ted Kennedy wrote the stupid education bill and the Dems wrote the ridiculous pork barrel "farm" bill. I never liked this idea of this "new tone" and this stupid moniker of "compassionate conservatism." I never could reconcile my beliefs in limited govt., legalized pot and prostitution with all those mega-fanatical Christian fundamentalists who want us to turn into a theocracy who make up the vast rank and file of the GOP. So finally I made a break and now I'm a Libertarian and I couldn't be happier.
I agree. Gerrymandering stinks, no matter who is doing it, but this one pisses me off more than others because the congressional district where I live will be eliminated and replaced by one that stretches up to 1960 and out to Austin. My new congressman will be John Culberson, a Tom DeLay goon of epic proportions. I am truly dancing with glee...not!
Our political system forces us to compromise; that's a good thing, right? It's supposed to be... Someone once said, "Compromise is the language of the Devil." So now what do we do?
He didn't miss the point of the thread. Don't be such an arrogant... well I'm on a short leash here so I'll leave it at that.
Lol! yeah, nothing pre-determined there... So let's review...The thread is giddy's complaint against knee-jerl partisan reasonong...the idea that people look at things as Republican vs. Democrat, liberal vs. conservative, ( or relevent right here, pro-war vs. anti-war)etc...and automatically take sides based on that stance... At which zz responds with the political version of a blonde joke to show how, yeah, sides are wrong...but the Republican one is just better. I think that misses the point, and politely say so, whereupon he questions my stances, or awareness of stances on several issues as a means of retorting to my observation, and irespond by listing my stances.....and you take issue with my arrogance...lol..Point of thread proven, IMO.
Me too, me too, me too, me too; yet I identify myself as a Democrat. Just goes to show how close the two parties really are on the broad scale of political ideology. Over time I have come to realize that these two parties are just not as much fun as some others I have been to.
I remember that line from the movie Braveheart: "The ability to compromise is what makes a man noble." Yeah, right.
This seemed like as good a thread as any to post this article. It doesn't make for pleasant reading. With cuts go hopes of health for mentally ill Local agencies trying to fill budget gap By Andrea Ball AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Monday, July 21, 2003 Heidi Carabine can't imagine life without help for her little boy. The 7-year-old is bright, sweet and loving, she says. He likes peanut butter. He loves computers. But Collin Carabine lives in a state of chaos. He suffers from pervasive development disorder, a problem that affects his motor skills, speech development and social behavior. He's easily distracted and has trouble learning. Simple tasks — such as bathing and dressing — require supervision. He obsesses. He fixates. Sometimes, he throws things. "If he drops a crayon in art class, and it rolls away so he can't reach it, he may start throwing scissors," Carabine said. Managing that chaos takes time, energy and money. State and local programs provide the Austin boy therapy, case management and after-school care. Now, as budget cuts passed during the 78th Legislature take their toll on health and human services, Collin risks losing that help. "They are leaving these children with no chance," Carabine said. "I am so angry and appalled at the government right now." On Sept. 1, more than 500,000 children with coverage statewide — including 13,397 in Travis County — will lose most of their mental health coverage through the Children's Health Insurance Program. And the Austin Travis County Mental Health Mental r****dation Center lost $3.5 million, or 9.4 percent of its annual budget, for 2004. The center estimates that 32 mentally ill adults will, in turn, lose in-home services such as rental assistance and dental care. Another 68 people with mental r****dation likely will lose home-based help with respite care, job training and wheelchair ramps. The center will discontinue its counseling and information hot line, which receives more than 48,000 calls a year. It will also cut 25 employees who work with people with mental r****dation, said David Evans, executive director of the center. In a 1999 "Lehrer NewsHour" interview, former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher, who issued a 1999 report on mental illness, identified untreated mental illness as the root of much criminal behavior and homelessness. Local officials say they're trying to save the imperiled services, but there are no guarantees, board member Donald Dumas said. "Lord, it's just a nightmare," said Dumas, whose daughter has mental r****dation. "The Legislature isn't saving money. It's going to cost us money when these people end up in emergency rooms or the juvenile justice system." Bracing for the toll Human services advocates knew money would be tight. This spring, as officials struggled to plug a $10 billion hole in the state's $117 billion state budget, legislators warned people that programs could be cut. The advocates lobbied, testified before committees and rallied consumers to write their representatives. In the end, the cuts were even worse than expected, said Lila Carl, executive director of Any Baby Can, which works with needy children. "Every day, it was a new blow," she said. Politicians cut approximately $55 million from mental health centers across the state, including $5 million for psychiatric drugs. They eliminated mental health services for adult Medicaid recipients. They cut programs for people with mental r****dation and mental illnesses — the kind that help people get jobs and keep them out of more expensive hospitals and rehabilitation centers, said Susan Eason, executive director of ARC of the Capital Area. "They cut the most cost-effective programs, and they're the ones that work," she said. They also cut most mental health benefits from CHIP, a state and federal insurance program for children who don't qualify for Medicaid and can't afford private insurance. In fiscal year 2003, the state paid approximately $6.5 million to buy mental health insurance for the roughly 500,000 CHIP participants in Texas. The federal government paid for most of the program with about $16.6 million. That coverage, which has been used by approximately 57,000 children statewide, provided children with 60 outpatient visits and 45 days of hospitalization. About 525 Travis County children use those mental health benefits. Benefits disappear That CHIP coverage is now gone. Children still will receive medication and limited psychiatric care, but they will no longer get the kind of services covered by outpatient benefits, such as life skills training. The state's Health and Human Services Commission plans to ask the federal government to reimburse Texas for the CHIP-eligible children who will now likely turn to the state mental health system for help. There's no guarantee that it will agree. "We're in that state where we're dealing with the rubble the Legislature left behind and figuring out how it will affect the community," Evans said. The center can't do anything about the CHIP program. But to find money for its services, the center plans to refinance 12 properties and is researching more community partnerships. Staff members also are working with county and city leaders to soften additional cuts. But Carabine says she knows she'll lose out. The single mom estimates she's received more than $10,000 a year in aid from the center. She's expecting $2,500 next year. Now Carabine will have to come up with money for the attendant who cares for Collin and medical expenses not covered by insurance, both provided now by the Travis County mental health system. She knows she'll have to choose between her son's attendant, therapy and medical care because she can't afford all three. "If these children are not helped, they'll end up in prisons or institutions," she said. "That's where our tax money is going to go, and they're going to be dependent on it for the rest of their lives." www.stateman.com/legislature/content/coxnet/texas/legislature/0703/0722mental.html
Hey giddyup, I just wanted to say that I think the initial post in this thread (which is a neat one) is one of the classier things I've read on the board in awhile.
i have two responses here actually, one to each way this thread has turned . . . first, i agree with giddyup wholeheartedly. i am a republican who jumped in to politics head-first and was very involved in the the bush/cheney campaign and then later in the admin up in dc. for basically two years straight i was totally engrossed in the happenings inside the beltway and followed everything. after a while though, i just grew extremely tired of all the partisan bickering and crap that goes on between the two parties and had to just step away. i basically turned my attention instead to foreign policy matters to avoid even listening to what was going on domestically. my disenchantment is due to exactly what giddyup is talking about. it's not that i have abandoned my views in any way, i still vote for republicans b/c they tend to theoretically agree with my beliefs. but, that doesnt mean that i am happy with what goes on with the party and the fighting back and forth with the dems. i just want to throw up my hands every once in a while and give up. now my second response has to do with the local politics issue. i think jeff is right to a certain extent, in that local politics does really matter. state and national politics obviously make many important decisions regarding our daily lives and i believe u understaed its importance jeff, but the local stuff is pretty darn important too. people don't care enough about it unfortunately, but they really should. i certainly do, and that's why i still havent changed my voter registration from houston even though havent lived there full time in over 3 years. i plan on being back there soon and so i vote absentee whenever i can so that i can still have my input on important local issues like light rail and the mayor. those are decisions that will affect the lives of many houstonians in the future and shouldn't be looked over. not sure what the heck all this crap i just typed means, but oh well
It's strange the way that so many of us have developed such strong allegiances to parties that we look at with distate ourselves. I've gotten into huge arguments about party politics... but I don't really like the Democrats. I just think some (and not even all) of their policies are better. It's sad when I'm tremendously embarrassed by the chairman of the Dems. But, then, I can't tell that the Republican chairman is any better. And what's worse, I don't think it's really the people involved that are so bad, just the system. I've worked in politics, and I liked many of the people. The allure of MacBeth's stance is tempting, but hopeless for me. Pretending to be a "neutral" party-wise would be artificial for me. I don't agree with the Democrats on everything, but I do agree with them on so much more than the Republicans that I could never truly feel "free" in selecting a party. There are some minor parties I feel more closely aligned with, but I wouldn't ever vote for one because I'd rather the lesser evil win than make a very minor "statement."
Sorry for the double post, but a quick metaphor: Rockets Fan #1: Maurice Taylor sucks! He's a PF who can't bang or rebound. Rockets Fan #2: Yeah, and he's not quick enough or a good enough shooter to play the 3! Clippers Fan: Yeah, Mo Taylor sucks! Rockets Fans #1 and #2: Shut up! The entire Clippers team has sucked for a couple of decades! And Mo has a sweet spin move and is an offensive threat that can take over games! We get invested in groups...
