Friday, February 13, 2009

A message to Republicans and others: This economic crisis is our new security threat

By Mary MacElveen
February 13, 2009

Lost to all as Senator Judd Gregg backed down smiting the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama to be his Commerce Secretary was this most important story I read in today’s Washington Post: Financial Crisis Called Top Security Threat to U.S.. Which I will get to in a few moments.

Upon hearing this breaking news that Gregg took his name out of consideration as Commerce Secretary was, how dare he embarrass this new president whose polling numbers are stronger than those within the Republican congress. How dare he make this move the day before the Stimulus Bill is to be voted on where hopefully the tools contained within it can turn around this dire economy. Real people’s lives are being affected who are not even a part of this political process and the games played in Washington, D.C. by senators like Gregg is paramount to all of us. With Gregg out of the nomination for that seat, it is not the president’s loss, our loss and that is what we must take away from this. Be gone, Gregg is all that I will say.

With Republicans so concerned with the price tag of this stimulus package and not seeking any bipartisanship, exactly where were they when it came to the billions upon billions spent during the Bush presidency. Instead of reaching across the aisle to seek this elusive bipartisanship, they grabbed across the aisle demanding all get in line with former President Bush or be tagged as being unpatriotic.

We are facing unprecedented times and those Republicans who rebuke this president should be shamed instead of honored for standing on principle as Gregg tried to do yesterday. The American people need all of our elected leaders help and so does the rest of the world as we face down a new and real threat called the global economic meltdown which is affecting this planet in its entirety. The citizens of this country and the citizens from each and every country do need strong leadership and not gotcha games as displayed by the Republican Party.

In listening to President Barack Obama speak at the dinner in honor of the late President Abraham Lincoln who is the father of the Republican Party: I wonder, I wonder what this late president would think of the actions of those within this new Republican Party. Not much I would say.

Now back to the original focus of this piece is the security threat due to this global economic meltdown, the Washington Post wrote, “Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair told Congress yesterday that instability in countries around the world caused by the current global economic crisis, rather than terrorism, is the primary near-term security threat to the United States.”

As we deal with this economic crisis that is endangering our national security, I invite all of my readers to read the original piece I wrote back in May of 2003 titled, President Bush, you do not defend America with a lie or a series of lies. Within it, I wrote which is pertinent to our present day circumstances, “A strong country means a country that is economically solvent, instead of insolvent. We have basically allowed a lie to put us in the red.” Little did I realize just how prophetic those words were.

Isn’t the security of this country paramount instead of playing partisan games as the Republicans are doing? They prided themselves as the party of security during the Bush years and now they decide to drop the ball? Then again, by leaving President Barack Obama with a budget deficit of over $1 trillion dollars, in that act, the ball was thrown off of the basketball court. Thankfully, we have a president who knows a thing or two or three of how to handle a ball both on and off the courts.

Let this be an ominous warning coming from Blair to these Republicans, bank executives who helped cause this crisis and to blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, where Blair stated, "Roughly a quarter of the countries in the world have already experienced low-level instability such as government changes because of the current slowdown," This economic crisis is far more dangerous than Al Qaeda and yet those who refuse to help stem this tide who think, who think the economy will be able to turn around without any intervention are the threat to our security as well.

Tax cuts, tax cuts and tax cuts cannot be the only tool used to stare down this new threat which is a clear and present danger.

Yes, elected leaders like Senator Gregg, Senator McConnell and Congressman Boehner are security threats not only to this nation but the world as a whole. Those who shout out from the sidelines like Limbaugh and Coulter as well as other notables like former Vice President Cheney are the threat and we should treat them as such.

As many within the Republican ranks stood against Immigration reform citing security reasons, I want to point out this observation made and written in this WP article, "He [Blair] also saw the prospect of possible refugee flows from the Caribbean to the United States and a questioning of American economic and financial leadership in the world." What say you, Congressman Peter King, Congressman Brian Bilbray and others such Lou Dobbs now? Will this economic firestorm cause an invasion by said refugees? These are dangerous times and I cannot stress that enough and yet folks who rebuke this popular president who has extended his hand across the aisle are playing petty politics and this is where we as Americans must rebuke them back.

What truly freaked out this columnist was this portion cited in that WP article that, "high levels of violent extremism" in the turmoil of the 1920s and 1930s along with "regime-threatening instability" if the economic crisis persists over a one-to-two-year period." Someone had better send an SOS out to those who would vote against the stimulus that it is urgent in nature that we as a nation pull together and get our house in order. Should those who fail to hear this SOS or just vote no on said principle or smite a president, they are putting self above country. Now what would the late President Abraham Lincoln say to that?

I will leave you the reader to read this ominous column published in the Washington Post in its entirety. It is about time we as a nation start paying attention to what is truly important and relevant to us all for the sake and security of this nation instead of stories dealing with celebs. Paying attention to celeb stories should and must be left behind similar to the way we should and must put the former administration behind us. Get that through your noggin, former Vice President Cheney.

In closing, those like McConnell, Boehner, Limbaugh, Coulter and any within the mainstream media who are talking down this stimulus package and President Barack Obama’s presidency itself, you are all a threat to our national security. Even those who smite President Obama such as Senator Gregg did the day before the Stimulus Bill is to be voted on are as well.

Author’s email address is, xmjmac@optonline.net

Thursday, February 12, 2009

Nadya Suleman is a one woman mini-bailout: Taxpayers may bear the cost

By Mary MacElveen
February 12, 2009

In my prior piece written on February 2nd, I asked who will bear the cost for the California Octuplets? Upon reading a news article today, I did receive that answer and yes, it will most likely be the debt-ridden state of California.

The AP is reporting this morning, "A big share of the financial burden of raising Nadya Suleman's 14 children could fall on the shoulders of California's taxpayers, compounding the public furor in a state already billions of dollars in the red." This is unjust and unfair given the fact she already had six children dependent upon public tax dollars.

In reading that she received, "$490 a month in food stamps, plus Social Security disability payments for three of the youngsters. The public aid will almost certainly be increased with the new additions to her family." I find her decision to become impregnated with eight more children reprehensible given the fact that many families are struggling today and with some living out of their cars.

When the State of California is roughly $42 billion-dollars in debt without the cost of the care of these octuplets being disclosed, the care for them may in fact fall upon the citizens of that state as well Americans living coast-to-coast.

Los Angeles Times columnist, Tim Ritten opined of the Suleman story as being "grotesque" as he also opined, "It appears that, in the case of the Suleman family, raising 14 children takes not simply a village but the combined resources of the county, state and federal governments,"

The conundrum I do see is while I opine that she should be bear all costs of their care, should that occur much less be carried out, it will be the children who will suffer. This is where the private sector must take an active role should they wish to safeguard these children instead of putting that on the backs of the American and Californian tax payer. Is it correct to ask those 10,000 state workers who Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger may have to lay off to bear her burden? No, it is not. They have enough problems already. Many of those 10,000 workers have their own families to worry about and tremble thinking of how they will feed their families.

When she told NBC news in her recent interview with Ann Curry for Dateline NBC, she did not consider the public assistance to her as welfare: Let us get this straight, it is.

In a column I started working on after viewing that interview, I wrote, “On Tuesday night, Ann Curry of NBC News interviewed, Nadya Suleman for Dateline NBC. In this interview, she expressed her need to have as many children as possible as if they were possessions. What I viewed was a woman who clearly resembled cat-hoarders. Not to belittle these precious children, but even cats do suffer at the hands of these hoarders.” One only has to view Animal Planet’s “Animal Precinct” for proof of that fact.

When I heard that one of her subsequent children age three has autism and two others having special needs my immediate thought was someone should have intervened on those children’s behalves. Someone like her doctor should have told her NO! Who is to say what birth defects these eight babies will have growing up? Premature babies stand a higher risk of having them and she may not be able to cope both financially or emotionally.

In that interview, she stated that the sperm-donor signed a contract not to have any financial responsibility for these children or be a part of the upbringing of any of them. On behalf of the tax payers, the state should look into having that contract dissolved especially if he knew of any instability exhibited by her.

She has set up a web site asking for donations and I find that unconscionable given the fact she made this calculating decision. By the way at the end of the AP article they did link the reader to her web site, but in this piece, I will not.

I brought to light in my previous piece of couples making a hard decision not to bring children into this world because of these harsh economic times: Yet you do not see them setting up web sites asking for donations for any children they so desire. Their decision is truly the responsible one and it must be hard on them as they read of her situation.

Many students are finding it hard to obtain student loans due the fact that banks are not lending right now to extend them these lines of credit and it is important for any reading this piece to pay attention here: "In the NBC interview, Suleman said she will go back to California State University, Fullerton in the fall to complete her master's degree in counseling, and will use student loans to support her children. She already owes $50,000 in student loans, she told NBC. She said she will rely on the school's daycare center and volunteers." So, she will be using student loans to care for her children? Isn't that fraud? Student loans are used to pay for education and not the rearing of children. If I were an aspiring student trying to get a college loan, this would anger me.

She already owes $50 thousand dollars and instead of going back to college she should be thinking of ways to pay down that debt since it is her responsibility. Many families are working one, two or three jobs if they have not been laid off and the actions of this woman are selfish. There are many students who work while in college to pay for it and they too are the responsible ones.

The AP also reported, “For a single mother, the cost of raising 14 children through age 17 ranges from $1.3 million to $2.7 million, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.” I was correct in stating that she may have become the recipient of a stimulus package paid for by you and me. I would rather see any stimulus money go to the thousands and now millions of Henrietta Hughes of this country who through no fault of their own or calculating decision find themselves on the street and living in cars.

I think it incumbent upon the California State Attorney General to look into this matter to see if charges can be levied upon the doctor who performed these treatments given the fact the state of California maybe responsible for their care. I would look into his holdings and seize them to recover the cost that the state may have to bear in relief to the tax payers.

When the volunteers who have come into help her presently fade into the background, it will be her responsibility to raise these children and will be left to a debt-ridden state to monitor through social agencies to see if these children are being well cared for. They may have to make the responsible decision in putting these children into the foster care system and that is not fair to these children who I see as the victims.

Author’s email address is, xmjmac@optonline.net

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Henrietta Hughes is the recipient of my ‘Founding Fathers Award’

By Mary MacElveen
February 11, 2009

I have not handed out my ‘Founding Fathers Award’ in quite sometime, but today, I bestow this personal award of mine to Henrietta Hughes who showed courage beyond belief in that town-hall meeting in Fort Meyers, Florida.

When people are forced to live under such hardships as she lives in her car, it can be a humiliating factor where one does not want anyone to know of their plight. Often-times, they feel they have failed in life and in these dire times, it is far from the truth. The government and the system itself failed her, yet she showed the courage to speak saying to the president, “Please help.”

Her pleas must not be ignored when the AFP reported that California may not have any alternative to then to lay off 10,000 workers. As Republicans in the U.S. Senate exhibit their obstructionist powers, Republican governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Crist and Rell back President Barack Obama. They like mayors who came to the White House pleading for help are on the front lines as these Republican senators cling to their ideological beliefs.

As I heard her pleas to President Barack Obama for a kitchen and a bathroom to call her own, the tears came. I could not believe in that any American would be forced to beg to any president, yet she did and grabbed the heart of this lone journalist. She became my hero for speaking up for millions of Americans and she must be our hero as well.

Finally our collective-misery had a face in Henrietta Hughes and we must all in our souls be thankful to her for speaking out on behalf of we the people.

As I think of her courage, the bile rises swiftly in my throat thinking of the greedy CEOs at banks and those who have benefited from our tax dollars through the first TARP bailout. As they hide, swimming in our money, this woman stood up to be the opposing voice.

Ms. Hughes does not want a junket, or any of the perks that we the people have given to them through the first bailout package which had no restrictions: She wants a bathroom to call her own.

As Rosa Parks stood up and sat in the front of that bus telling America what was emphatically wrong when it came to race relations in this country, Henrietta Hughes stood up for all of us. She became the voice of all Americans no matter what race or class you belong to. Even if you are a member of the upper-class, be mindful of the fact, you as well may be forced to live a car like Ms. Hughes.

In looking upon her tearful face, the anger seethed in me knowing how any recovery bill that goes back to the senate after conference must meet the requirements of Senators, Specter, Snowe and Collins. How dare they hold onto their ideological beliefs when people like Ms. Hughes are suffering!

If I could grab the attention of these senators and other Republican senators, I would say, grab a cot for any filibuster they may wish to enact. We the people must be heard. I would remind them of the millions in this country who do not have any cot to sleep on as Ms. Hughes reminded all of us stating she is living in her car.

Lastly, as I viewed President Barack Obama walk over to her to hear her plight, I thought finally we have a compassionate president. As he reached out to her, and kissed her cheek he carried away with him her tears. Her tears were the tears of a true hero in my eyes. Thank you, Ms. Hughes for being the voice and face of we the people and we all owe you our debt of gratitude.

Author’s email address is, xmjmac@optonline.net

I wish to add an addendum to this piece: Hours after writing that article on Henrietta Hughes, I was please to read where some help did come to her. As reported, “A White House press secretary said administration officials asked the local housing authority to contact her after the exchange in Fort Myers.” As well as this, “Meanwhile, the wife of Florida state Rep. Nick Thompson offered to let the woman stay in a house she owns that's vacant about 30 miles away. Chene Thompson isn't sure if Hughes will take her up on the offer.” Whatever the outcome is, I am thrilled beyond belief for her good fortune.

Saturday, February 7, 2009

The $780 billion stimulus bill can be paid down if we legalized marijuana

By Mary MacElveen
February 7, 2009

This may be the most controversial column I have ever written depending upon your views concerning the use of marijuana. Presently, the use of it is illegal for the majority of American citizens. The use of it for medical reasons is legal in 12 states who use different criteria for the use of it.

Just recently, Michael Phelps who won eight gold medals for swimming in last year’s Olympics was caught using marijuana as he smoked it using a water pipe. Since then, he has apologized publicly for doing so and has lost millions in endorsements from companies like Kellogg’s. I feel this is a knee-jerk reaction to punish an athlete for using marijuana where some of our politicians have claimed to have used it in the past. One such politician is our current president, Barack Obama and yet, look at what he has accomplished since he came clean in his past use of it. He became our first African-American president and not because of his use of it, but what he was able to accomplish in serving the people. Those companies pulling their endorsements from Phelps should reconsider.

Now here is the controversial part: Perhaps it is time to revisit this debate on whether or not to actually legalize marijuana. It just may be a boost to our ailing economy. If we actually legalize it to be sold in controlled businesses similar to liquor stores, just think of how the government can tax this new commodity. It can be taxed like cigarettes and liquor presently are and those who choose to use it can come out of the closet so to speak. This country already tried prohibition when it came to the use of alcohol and we see that it did not work. It drove many underground to consume it in ‘Speakeasies’. It was later repealed via the 21st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Think of the manufacturing base that can spring up around it such as making good old American bongs. Something to think about as we see plant-after-plant close. As many industries go belly-up, think of the many cottage industries that can spring up by selling these products. New businesses are always a plus for an ailing economy.

In Rachael Baldwin’s column for The Collegian, right off the bat she writes, “The legalization of marijuana would greatly impact the U.S. economy. According to the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA, website, marijuana is “America’s most valuable crop.” With Washington looking for sources of cash to infuse into our economy, just think if it got down off its moral high-horse and legalized it. Found money!

Baldwin goes onto opine, "Marijuana crops in the United States are worth about 35.8 billion dollars per year, which is 12.5 billion more dollars per year than corn, the second most profitable crop. If taxed like alcohol and tobacco, marijuana could bring in even more money." I see revenue and where those who chose to smoke it, would not have to rely on this commodity coming from South America. Just think of how this will affect those drug lords? Oh they will be kept busy with the production of cocaine and crystal-meth which are highly addictive drugs and should be the ones targeted. But, if the production of marijuana and the sale of it is estimated in the billions, we can take those billions away from their deadly hands.

As congress will be looking to make cuts in certain programs such as food stamps which have been cut from this stimulus bill, Baldwin writes, "Legalization of marijuana could also save law enforcement agencies an astronomical amount of money. Miron estimates that marijuana legalization could save the United States as much as 7.7 billion dollars in law enforcement costs per year."

With the amount we can tax this commodity with, plus how much we can rake in growing our own crops as well as how much we can save in prosecuting any offenders: That $780 billion dollar stimulus bill can be paid down in no time.

Baldwin cites in her article that marijuana is not addictive as I have read in other articles in the past and that can allay the fears of those who would oppose this legalization. Your morning cup of coffee is far more addictive than marijuana. Should you discontinue the use of marijuana, there are no withdrawal symptoms as there is with cigarettes.

If folks are still afraid of legalizing marijuana, Baldwin writes, "there are an estimated 435,000 deaths per year in the United States due to tobacco use and 85,000 deaths due to alcohol...So, how many people die every year from using marijuana? Zero. That’s right, the use of marijuana alone has not been shown to cause any deaths." I have heard of these statistics in the past and it truly boggles the mind how liquor and cigarettes are the legal commodity instead of marijuana.

In the past, I have been resistant to this idea of legalizing marijuana, but knowing how much money it does bring in due to and underground market and seeing the facts of how safe it is compared to cigarettes and alcohol, I feel this is the time to revisit this debate. One thing about our government is if they see dollar signs mentioned in any debate, their eyes pop open and perhaps their minds can be changed. If the government sees something it can tax, that usually gets their attention.

Am I advocating the use of it? No, I am not. That choice if we made marijuana legal would be up the adults that choose to consume it. I say adults because there is already an age criteria for the consumption of alcohol and cigarettes.

What I have not even touched upon but equally important is the production of hemp which is also illegal in this country. In this USA Today article, you will read, “Hemp products still account for only a small percentage of the $15 billion a year market for organic goods, but the Hemp Industries Association says sales are rising by 50% a year. Gero Leson, an agricultural researcher in Berkeley, Calif., says hemp products will account for about $15 million this year in retail food sales and $40 million in cosmetics and body products.” This was an article that was published in 2005. Imagine if we legalized hemp how it can help jump-start this economy. Think of the products which are American products could be sold to consumers. Think of the industries that can spring up surrounding this commodity.

Back when this article was published, they wrote, "Canadian farmers planted more than 24,000 acres of hemp this year, nearly triple the 2004 total." Why not give the farmers in this country a chance when so many have been hurt and allow them to grow these crops which are not only financially beneficial to them, but to our economy as a whole?

Will our elected leaders think this idea is meritorious or stick to their old ways of thinking? Maybe it is about time that we as a people who do see the merit in legalizing marijuana and other products that come from it, should be the ones nudging our politicos along.

I know that this idea will be met with scorn from various anti-drug organizations, but as commercials remind us to drink responsibility, newer ones can say, smoke responsibly.


Author’s email address is, xmjmac@optonline.net

Thursday, February 5, 2009

To the Republican members of the senate….Pass the stimulus package NOW!

By Mary MacElveen
February 6, 2009

I like many have been watching the debates concerning the ‘Stimulus Package’ for many days now and I will be brief in this open letter to all of you who are dragging your feet. We are in a crisis. Get it?! People have actually lost their jobs, losing their jobs or will lose them all together and while you grab camera-time thanks to a 24/7 news cycle, they suffer. Yes, real Americans are having a hard time out here. They have lost their homes, or are losing them. Real Americans are not able to eat as you so pontificate.

Tax cuts or cuts in taxes to corporations will not suffice. Real people need jobs in order to spend that money which will turn this economy around. The Reagan era is over with and thank goodness for this country!

In New York State where I live, a commercial is running pleading to Governor David Paterson not to close state hospitals as you so enjoy top-rate health care. That is where some of this stimulus package will go to. I tremble knowing that a community hospital that I have come to depend upon will be next on the chopping block.

I want you to envision this mental image, this economic crisis is just as devastating as 9/11 and Pearl Harbor where everyone got behind the Commander in Chief to support him and his policies. We as a people elected President Barack Obama and we demand that you get behind him as congressional bodies got behind President Franklin D. Roosevelt and President George W. Bush.

All of you who grab the cameras act as if your party won on November 4th, 2008 when the complete opposite happened. We as a people exiled you. No, you did not get your trip to Disney World, but were exiled to the farthest reaches of this planet given your past and dismal record these past eight years.

If there are elected officials that the American people should be paying attention to besides our president it would be our governors who have loaned their support behind his bill. Governors such as, Schwarzenegger, Crist and Rendell. These governors as are many are on the front lines as you whimper and plea to the American people why this bill is so wrong. They are doing the heavy lifting making executive decisions where you all huddle to in a plan to embarrass our president. Well, we the people will have none of that! As I watched Senator McCain speak of this bill, all I will say is, “Senator McCain, you lost, get over it and loan your support behind our president who was so gracious to you!”

We the people who voted in this change demand it, Senators, now it is your job to make it so. You lost and are in the minority and now is your time to back our president, President Barack Obama.

Author’s email address is, xmjmac@optonline.net

Monday, February 2, 2009

Octuplets in California: Who will bear the financial cost for their care?

By Mary MacElveen
February 2, 2009

In a past piece, I wrote where the State of California is now handing out IOUs since their debt has sky-rocketed and this has a devastating affect on families who need to provide for their families. IOUs do not put food on the family table.

With the birth of octuplets as with any multiple-birth comes with it a heavy financial burden. In the past, communities and corporations have come to the aid of these families, but in these harsh economic times, I do suspect that the unidentified woman who now has fourteen children will not receive as much as couples past.

Presently, we have over 47 million going without health insurance, and that number will climb as many are being laid off. Neonatal care is highly expensive and if a person has no insurance, it is the state who must pick up the tab. I do not know how the State of California can afford to pay for her care and the care of these eight children who will be in intensive care for roughly two months.

This woman along with her fourteen children will become a mini-stimulus package if the state is forced to pick up any portion of the tab. I feel it irresponsible on the doctor’s part to perform any fertility enhancing procedure on a woman who already had six children. In my opinion it is incumbent upon these doctors not only to check whether or not she is physically healthy to go through this procedure, but financially as well. Both patients and doctors alike cannot expect others to pay for the outcome should multiple births such as this one occur.

In this blog, you will read heart-wrenching questions posed by others who feel they cannot afford to bring one child into this world and this is where doctors such as the fertility doctors who performed this procedure on this woman should listen to.

One woman writes: "With the economy in its current edition, that plays heavy on my mind every day. I go back and forth on whether now (or ever!) is the right time to have a baby."

Another woman writes: "What if we weren’t able to make our mortgage payment and bills? I would feel guilty for choosing to have a child and then not able to afford it. What type of a parent does that make me?"

I now wonder how couples who are putting off having a child because of this dismal economy are feeling knowing aid will rush to this woman as is the case with other cases of multiple births. Their arms remain empty.

In November of 1997 in which the economy was fairing far better than today, a couple, Bobbi and Kenny McCaughey in Iowa gave birth to septuplets. They received the following help: “Millions of Americans followed the story. Carter's, Similac, Kmart, and other companies donated clothes, formula and shoes to the family, while Hannibal-Lagrange College (Missouri) offered scholarships for the children. Iowa's building contractors and suppliers gave the McCaugheys a larger house, and celebrities donated money to help the children. Citizens from all over the country sent clothes, money, letters and toys. In addition to financial help, hundreds of volunteers helped feed, clothe, diaper and cuddle the babies.”

Will a community or communities come to the rescue with the birth of these octuplets? Will corporations who are facing leaner times as well come to their aid? Right now, many parents can no longer afford to pay for their children’s tuition at college and how must they feel should any college(s) come forth to offer the aid to these children?

As builders came to the McCaughey’s aid in building them a larger home for their expanded family, in our harsher economy of today, many are facing foreclosure where they have no place to call home.

What those doctors did was perform medical malpractice and should be held to account. The one question they should have asked this woman first and foremost is, “Can you afford to bring these babies into the world?” when so many women are facing economic hardships having but one child. A doctor’s motto is “First do no harm” and medically and ethically, they did. What happens if one, two or more will face any number of debilitating conditions due to this birth? They will be the ones made to suffer as these doctors fade into the background.

Author’s email address is, xmjmac@optonline.net

On a side note: Twenty-years ago today, I gave birth to twins. One lived three days and the other still born. The viable twin lived for three days and I can tell you that the cost of his care was expensive. The hospital two years later sued us for unpaid bills. We did pay them off.
Print Article
-->