Today I will fly cross country to visit my ailing hero - my Grandpa.
Grandpa is my hero not because he will leave me a barely-used Cadillac when he passes, but because he double-mortgaged the house once so that I could have a 12 year-old Ford Ranger to get to college on a daily basis.
Grandpa is my hero not because he would hand over the check card when that Ranger acted up, but because he would slide his old man's body underneath it and turn wrenches until "that Detroit son of a bitch" ran smoothly again.
Grandpa is my hero not because he came home from work everyday in a suit and tie, wearing a fat smile and smelling like success, but because he would take off of his construction job early and drive an hour in a truck that had no third gear just to sit in the stands in his pit-stained work shirt to watch me lose a football game to country boys twice my size.
Grandpa is my hero not because he had money or success, but because he had heart and character.
After a hard day's work Grandpa would relax by sitting on the front porch of our old Polish brick duplex on the south-side of Milwaukee, drinking a Pabst and "shooting the s***" with me or anyone else who would sit out there with him. It was a pleasure. Those were the best days of my young life.
Now Grandpa lives in a retirement community in Florida where the elderly flock like seagulls to a touristy spot on the beach.
Now Grandpa is fighting the battle of his life on the shores of the sunshine state instead of the shores of Korea.
Now Grandpa relies on the government to take care of his medical needs, to pay his bills and fill his prescriptions. Grandpa has earned that right.
Grandpa is not rich - He never saved enough money to help me buy books for college or buy me a new catcher's glove when mine tore in the middle of my senior year, but because a man is financially poor does not mean that he should live his last days in squalor and without adequate care.
Thank God Grandpa served his two years in the Army so that the VA is helping to take care of his health care in the sunset of his life.
Thank God Medicare is still around in its current form so that he doesn't have to empty what little there is in his savings account or borrow from family to pay for his surgeries.
Thank God Paul Ryan's changes to Medicare were voted down in his budget proposal.
It doesn't bother me at all that money is taken out of my paycheck to pay for my Grandpa's care or the care of others who no longer have the financial means to fend for themselves.
What does bother me is that people of means like Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney want to privatize Medicare, put a tight cap on its benefits and let the seniors pay the rest out-of-pocket.
Most studies show that Medicare will immediately cost seniors an extra $6,400 per year out-of-pocket for less care under Paul Ryan's version of the program. My Grandpa, who worked his ass off for 50 years has some lint, a pair of car keys and a handkerchief in his pocket - no more money.
Medicare is not a "boondoggle" like Paul Ryan has called it. Social Security, which my Grandpa also lives off of is not a "Ponzi scheme" as Ryan has claimed it to be.
These people - people like my Grandpa have paid their money into the system through a lifetime of sweat and labor and now wealthy one-percenters like Ryan and Romney want to take away these social safety nets for the rest of us. I understand that people of means don't need social security or medicare, but damn it, most of us will, whether we want to admit it or not.
Before Medicare was enacted by LBJ 80% of all seniors lived in poverty. Now less than 16% live in poverty. Take Social Security and Medicare away and watch the number of elderly living in poverty sky rocket again. Take away pensions and increase health premiums, and watch Wall Street gamble away our 401K and that number will be astronomical by the time I am living in Florida.
I don't want any senior who has worked their whole life, or raised a family their whole life to worry about having enough money in their savings to cover their out-of-pocket expenses for end-of-life care.
Someone on their final years of life should be worrying about how often they will be seeing their grandchildren or traveling to places they've never seen instead of worrying if they can cover their prescription drugs this month. No one should have to choose between a bottle of pills for a trip to the grocery store - but that is exactly what is already happening now and it will only get worse under Ryan's austerity programs.
When it is his time, Grandpa will travel somewhere he has never seen before, but until then he needs to spend time with family "shooting the s***" on his screened in "Florida" room in his house in well - Florida, talking to us about the hundreds of little league games and birthdays, and dozens of graduations he has seen over the years...
...Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney seem to think that the elderly and their loved ones should spend their last days sitting around the kitchen table, scouring through family checkbooks and savings accounts to figure out ways to scrap together the thousands of dollars needed for Grandpa's next surgery.
The only thing I want to do while seated at Grandpa's kitchen table this week is play cards, drink Pabst, listen to stories about the '58 Buick he used to own and family road trips involving little kids who I only know as adults.
Grandpa is not perfect: He thinks beer is a nutritional supplement and he couldn't tell you the difference between John Lennon and Vladimir Lenin, but damn it - Grandpa has earned the right to have a decent safety net because Grandpa spent the younger years of his life being a Working Class Hero. He cared more about the needs of those around him than himself. His life savings went into second-hand cars to get people to work and school so that they could have a better shot in life than he did.
There are people right now doing the same thing - working two jobs, trying to put everything extra away for the rising cost of college for their own kids. They will likely end up like my Grandpa, poor in funds, but rich in love and respect.
In my book, people like Paul Ryan (who paid for college with his father's social security survivor benefits) and Mitt Romney (trust fund baby) who want to take away our social safety nets so that corporations and wealthy stock holders can pay lower taxes are Upper Class Zeroes who are rich in material wealth, but who are absolutely morally bankrupt.
Conservatives like Scott Walker and Ron Johnson will tell you that Paul Ryan was "courageous" for trying to take up a plan to diminish the cost of implementing our social safety nets.
But I think there is nothing courageous about taking away from the poor and the elderly. There is nothing courageous about giving tax breaks to millionaires, stock holders and corporations while increasing the medical expenses of the sick and the old.
My Grandpa was a courageous person because he gave when he had nothing to give. We need to be just as courageous and keep Social Security and Medicare strong, even when our pay checks are less than ideal.
I love you Grandpa. Thank you for working so hard your whole life. Thank you for being the most courageous and generous person I have ever known.
Jason
All Jason did was say Paul Ryan wants to take his Grandpa's Social Security away so he can't buy him another car! (OK, I paraphrased that part) Jason, prove to me Social Security is not a boondoggle or a Ponzi scheme! I can not and will not accept that on your say so!
I give it about ten years and then we'll see a push to 'reform' SSI and Medicare for people of my age. Because memories are very short. The other unfortunate effect of a Ryan plan would be that I know my son and grandson will need every penny I can leave to them in order to have savings for their retirement. I'll continue to be miserly at a time when I could have maybe eased up a little. Multiply me manyfold, and there will be a downward force on the economy.
Nothing disturbs me more than waste in government. I don't care what program it is, entitlement or other, and find that the funds have been misused. We have been duped out of billions by medicare providers, all private providers; yet we hold fast to private medical care. Why isn't there this problem with fraud in National Health Service providers? Private is not always good or not always bad, but private has more opportunity to commit fraud. J.P. Morgan sold the Federal Government during the Civil War 3000 known defective rifles. He made huge profits and was never prosecuted for his fraud. He grew to immense wealth by any means possible. Is this the way that assures a good and stable society?
There is nothing "loose" about the framework of the United States Constitution. If that were so government could time and again stifle our first amendment rights. Did you see any of that happening last year during the Capital protests? Not at all. The United States Constitution is our HIGHEST LAW!!! Each state has agreed to that as it entered the union. Why does the Supreme Court, whose only authority is the Constitution, the final authority when a law is passed? Why does the President, every member of Congress, and every member of the military SWEAR to uphold it? I would like to see you explain to them the "looseness" of the Constitution! So again I ask (for the third and final time before I label you a crackpot), where in the United States Constitution does it give the Federal Government the right to implement social contracts or programs? I can tell you where it doesn't: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Your statement displays an insufferable superiority complex. Hey buddy, I will match my resume and net worth with yours, and I never worked for the government, and never took an entitlement, and inherited very little. And I am left-leaning. We can meet at a downtown Milwaukee coffeeshop with our documentation, and I have a lot of friends there that would like to meet you and have you explain why the left should leave the country.
You can label me a "crackpot" if you wish, but that doesn't change the relevancy and accuracy of my arguments.
Stay away from Saul (Alinsky) . Not worth your time. Too young to know anything. Still repeating mom and dads mantra. Hope for him someday to get independent thought.
I'm kinda suprised $$ is agreeing with me.
To quote your response "The last of the clause states to the people. Through our elected representatives..." Wrong. Our elected representatives you refer to ARE the United States, the collections of the states as a whole. "The people" is not some abstract concept intended for Socialist and Marxist to try and create some sort of legitimacy. "The people" are us as individuals. The framers of the US Constitution never intended for the Federal government to be all powerful. Just powerful enough to do the job it was being created for. James Madison wrote in Federalist Paper #45: "...The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite..." (http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_45.html) We as a society do not dictate how the Constitution is to be interpreted. We have a Supreme Court that does it's best to make that decision. The primary source is the Constitution, but it researches other writings, such as the above mentioned Federalist papers to help make that decision.
"In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President,..." So what exactly does "the Same" mean? The big argument was whether Tyler was the President or "Acting-President". While the powers and duties clause may have explained the job well enough, there is a certain air of illegitimacy associated with the Acting-President". Yes, our lexicon has changed over the last 225 years, which is why we need a learned group to research the purpose and intent of the Constitution when it comes to specific laws. NOWHERE does the US Constitution give Congress the power to enact social contracts!!! No, I decided I will not label you a crackpot. Just a well meaning misguided individual that has yet to realize the folly of the world he is trying to create!
By the way, I never said the Federalist Papers were the final word on intent, just that they are one of the sources used!
Your grandpa is a good man. You sir are a whiner. I take it you're one of the many uninformed that thought Ryan's budget would allow your grandpa to me pushed off a cliff when it is determined his healthcare costs surpass his usefulness. SHAME.
Your reference to Lenin misses the mark altogether. Although communism is a radical form of socialism, it clearly doesn't work, especially in large diverse populations. Any workable social system requires the cooperation between all parties sharing a foundation of values, folkways, ethics and morals. This is dependent on a series of small agreements and reciprocity. Social contracts if you will, on a small scale. As the size of the group grows, then those contracts become concrete by being written and formally agreed to. The US and States' constitutions are formal social contracts. According to the Preamble to the Constitution, quoting Wikipedia: "This is an itemized social contract of democratic philosophy. It details how the more perfect union was to be carried out between the national government and the people. The people are to be provided (a) justice, (b) civil peace, (c) common defense, (d) those things of a general welfare that they could not provide themselves, and (e) freedom. A government of "liberty and union, now and forever", unfolds when “We” begin and establish this Constitution.[a][22] Much of what is legislated is done under the social welfare.
However, let's not lose sight of the fact that the term "general welfare" refers to the country as a whole. In a temporary situation, such as WWI or WWII, citizen's were needed to sacrifice certain things in order to win the war. They were meant to be limited in time and were applied to a greater purpose, namely to win a war against an enemy that threatened our security. "General welfare" was not meant to be a mandate to benefit only certain individuals. And it certainly was not meant to bankrupt future generations of Americans. How does destroying the future of my children and grand-children contribute to "the general welfare"?
The reference to Lenin was to point out that by redefining a concept, you can justify anything you want. For example, despite losing big in the national elections of 1917, Lenin justified the October Revolution by redefining "Will of the People" as what the people would really want if they were educated enough and smart enough to make that decision. In the same way you redefine the foundations of a social contract to limit it simply to representatives that do not always have their constituents best interests in mind. The best example I can think of is Obamacare. Despite massive opposition, the Senate and House passed this terrible piece of legislation. The Democrats realized that Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) was the only bill they would be able to pass, and rammed it through simply to get it over with. This bill failed to satisfy ANYONE! Even the few Socialist I know think it's a piece of crap and will only cause more problems. While I don't want to be voting on every piece of legislation, I think something that affects the country that much should have a form of national referendum attached to it.
That social contract you keep referring needs to have some sort of legitimate consent attached to it. In the case of the US Constitution, all states ratified it and made it valid. Where was the consent for Social Security, Medicare and Obamacare? Again, these pieces of legislation should have been put forth in a national referendum (ie, amendment ratified by 3/4 of the states) versus representatives whose intents are often suspect.
Requiring a public referendum to pass significant legislation is not necessary. I agree that Affordable Health Care Act is not a good piece of legislation and I didn't support its passage at the time. It does not go far enough in establishing a national healthcare service.
I'm kinda suprised $$ is agreeing with me." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism Wasted sarcasm on you Saul. You don't get it do you?
By public referendum I meant passing an Amendment that allows the Federal Government to run health care. The reason I suggest it - because I know it would fail. Even on the extremely off-chance it would pass, at least it would be a true mandate as directed by the people through the states.