Improper stuff

I wouldn’t pay attention to politics if I didn’t enjoy it. I’m generally fine with the convoluted speech and combative tone that many people find off-putting. My tolerance is pretty high, and on some level, I think it’s all kind of cool.

These last few weeks have been a depressing exception. Someone owes that poor Shirley Sherrod lady with the U.S. Department of Agriculture a spa week. We are apparently surrounded by racist elements and spineless politicians of all varieties.

The most celebrated recent news has been the passage of a bill that would, we’re told, help the government prevent future taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions. Taxpayers, if you personally chose to bailout the financial industry, raise your hand. Not many hands.

How many of you are specifically paid and charged with regulating the financial industry? Still not many hands. They need a bill to tell themselves what to do?

The only piece of legislation that may be needed to prevent future taxpayer bailouts of financial institutions is as follows: “The government will not ever bailout a financial institution with tax money.”

Think of all the trees that could have been saved.

It’s all so depressing and silly. By the time the deadline for this column rolled around, I was grasping for any genuinely interesting news. I finally found something that seemed promising.

While watching the evening news, my ears perked up at mention of a bill that passed in Washington, D.C., last week that would actually save some money and sounds like a good idea. According to the report, the bill would save billions by limiting improper government payment, and — here’s the kicker — the story claimed the bill passed both houses of Congress unanimously. Sounds too good to be true.

The first thing I noticed when Googling “improper payments bill” was that Google was attempting to fill in search terms for me including, “improper payments bill of 2002.” Turns out the bill passed — the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 — was an amendment to one passed in 2002 — the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002. Note 2002 would be the year before we invaded Iraq and later heard revelations about no-bid contracts to Halliburton.

I would love to say I read all of this bill and have a real good idea what it actually does. From what I could tell by a focused, miserable, 20-minute skimming, my eyes still haven’t forgiven me for there’s a reason it was passed quietly and garnered unanimous support. It doesn’t actually do anything — certainly nothing really new.

Some people are going to meet. We’re all on the same page about the definition of an improper payment and the definition of a payment — these could be to contractors or individuals. There’s going to be some reporting requirements, and if people don’t comply we’re going to strongly disapprove, stop giving them much more taxpayer money for now and see if we can get some of the money back. If we’re real lucky, we’ll recover or save a little more money than this new set of rules and rule enforcers cost. Yippee!

Not to come across as cynical, but there’s a politically aware devil sitting on one shoulder making snide comments about how the one thing all members of Congress have in common is their status as incumbents. He showed up one day while I was reading a Morton Marcus column.

“Won’t it be handy to pull out the sound bite, ‘Fill-in-the-blank candidate voted to eliminate government waste’ in an ad or debate during their next election? It was an easy one.”

It’s estimated $110 billion was wasted last year, sent out to the wrong people, jailed people, dead people, fraudulent contractors — all the people you want to end up with the money taken from your paycheck. I can’t believe fraud was legal or costly mistakes occurred last year.

It again seems some pretty simple legislation, maybe “fraud is illegal and will be prosecuted no matter who you are, and government employees must do a good job or be fired” would suffice.

As boring as watching politics might become if they did it, it would be nice if politicians spent some time just thinking and civilly discussing things and, when they didn’t know what to do, or how to do it, or what the consequences would be, they should consider doing very little. Nothing can be better than something.

— Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran is still waiting for her eyes to forgive her. You can write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com, but don’t make it too wordy.

MATTHEWS: Howey column biased

SOUTHERN INDIANA — I like reading Brian Howey's political opinions, usually. There is no mistaking his writings as anything less than professional. Plus, he usually presents an even, balanced view which would be the envy of Fox News. That's why it surprised me when he discussed the race for Treasurer of the State but conveniently forgot some of the information which, whether intentionally or not, gave a bias toward the Democratic opponent.

I know that there is no doubt in any reader's mind that my opinions reflect a bias that tends to lean toward getting my Republicans elected. But that is my job. As a GOP Chairman, it is what I am expected to do. So, if you would allow me, please let me add information to the discussion of our State Treasurer's job that presents a clearer, more complete picture.

First, the lawsuit against the Chrysler-Fiat merger was filed for one simple reason. Our current administration was ruling against Indiana pensioners in violation of the law. Never in the history of our nation has a government chosen to pay non-secured investors before paying secured investors 100 percentof their secured investment. That's kind of what the word “secured” is supposed to mean.

Yet, our President ruled that Indiana pensioners should be paid only 29 percent of their investment, declared anyone who contested his “ruling” unpatriotic and pushed through a merger for which Fiat paid absolutely nothing. That is FIAT, an Italian owned company. I wouldn't term this as just a “political swing at the President.” And, I don't recall us asking him to orchestrate the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. When did that become the job of the President of the United States? And to justify such intrusion as absolutely necessary to secure those Chrysler jobs is disingenuous at best. Gee, how many times has Chrysler been in bankruptcy? Does the name Lee Iacocca ring a bell?

Now, it has become necessary, so that if one wants to oppose such radical moves by the Administration, you have to sue the government. Readers might want to check the current lawsuits in place by the Indiana Attorney General and at least 20 other states, challenging the plan where for the first time, this Administration will require all citizens to purchase a commodity — a health insurance plan. It doesn't sound to me like the states are the ones doing the excessive intruding into individuals' lives.

I asked Treasurer Mourdock one time — after one of his brilliant speeches — why he was so passionate about this issue. He replied that he believed that our President should have to follow the same laws every other American must follow and that the principal of protecting pensioner's investments was a job he took seriously. I came away from that discussion seeing our treasurer as a good, honest and sincere individual who cared about what he believed in. Whether that deserves the open attacks of his political opponents or not will have to be decided by the voters in November.

Matthews is the chairman of the Floyd County Republican Party

GUEST COLUMN: The oil spill, conditions and energy

While there is little doubt British Petroleum is at least responsible for the oil spill, our government must assume some responsibility as well.

Unlike a Truman or Reagan, President Obama has foolishly bowed to public pressure instead of sound logic and leadership in addressing the problem. Maybe Brett Favre is consulting Obama on the decision to lift the Jones Act.

What waiving the Jones Act would do is allow foreign ships — some with more capabilities than we have — to suck up and gather the oil. There can be little doubt this would mitigate to some degree the even longer-term damage as well as help businesses in the gulf.

George Bush, with a whole lot less debris and affect from hurricanes Katrina and Rita, lifted it in three and two days, respectively. Sarah Palin would have done the same as Bush.

Then to add insult to injury, Obama stops all drilling for six months (this has since been deemed illegal by a New Orleans federal court). Talk about waterboarding. Conservatively, thousands of people are out of work because of the moratorium, and that number is only going to grow as the moratorium continues. This could be more economically devastating than the spill itself. Oh, and then BP will be paying the lost wages. Huh?

Lastly, when the national disaster with the Space Shuttle Challenger happened, President Reagan established a commission one week later consisting of members qualified in the field.

Obama, by contrast, didn’t announce the formation of a commission until 38 days after it started, didn’t complete filling it until June 14, and then filled it mainly with environmentalists who support cap-and-trade, only one of which is qualified to address this kind of problem.

Conditions

Our government is the root cause of the BP disaster. BP chief Tony Hayward testified before Congress and said the U.S. regulations are the toughest compared to other countries.

We’re our own worst enemy and it involves three things: 1. As Joe Klein pointed out in his Time magazine article, and Lee Hamilton backed up in his opinion piece for this paper, Congress must start overseeing and managing the agencies. If they did, there would be a plethora of regulations that would be scrapped — deregulation — leaving the meaningful ones in place along with revisions and managing enforcement; 2. For the people afraid of deregulation and the effect on social programs’ budgets, think of the duplication and cost. For instance, White House budget director Peter Orszag listed 110 programs dedicated to advance science education, more than 100 to youth mentoring and 40 to employment and job training. Thus, if Congress managed what they passed, there would be a plethora of regulations and maybe agencies that would be scrapped, thus cutting costs and leaving the meaningful ones in place along with revisions and enforcement; and 3. my nephew has been involved in enforcement and quality control for more than 25 years. To give you an idea, he mentioned manufacturers were required to conform to 11 pages of specifications for a simple No. 2 pencil. Ridiculous.

It doesn’t take much of a stretch to visualize the number of people, money and confusion to monitor and regulate the more difficult areas and the failures in the system along with an across the board application to all agencies. This of course is what people mean by a smaller, less costly government. It also must place us at least culpable for the calamity in the gulf.

Energy

As much as we need to wean ourselves from oil, the reality is we will depend on it for many, many years. While work continues on more efficient vehicles that are affordable and can go some distance, we will have “clunkers” for years still requiring oil.

In addition, we have a overabundance of products made from oil that will need alternatives, such as permanent-press clothes, oxygen masks, heart valves, laxatives, telephones, milk jugs and so on.

Addressing this issue hasn’t been a strong suit in Washington. In fact, at a time when we can ill-afford it, their initiative is to make it worse.

Obama, of course, has not “changed” his position of bankrupting coal with a new version of cap-and-trade in the new form of the Kerry-Lieberman bill. As utility companies incur substantial new costs, those costs will be passed unto us, both in our utility bills and higher costs for products and services.

Here in Indiana, it will be even worse and Baron Hill, who supported cap-and-trade, should know it. According to a report by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, almost all of Indiana’s electricity is generated by coal. Thus, our overall expenditures would skyrocket in an economy that’s tanking and jobs are scarce.

Why Washington won’t pursue and cut the time it takes for licenses for drilling on land like Arctic National Wildlife Refuge along with shallower rigs offshore and applying the same urgency and rules to nuclear power while they pursue the infrastructure such as transmission lines and alternatives to oil and coal is beyond me.

In an economy that can’t afford any more costs, an economy wherein private jobs are lacking, it seems inexcusable that a practical cost-efficient process is not developed and implemented rather than another form of cap-and-trade.

HAMILTON: It’s tough to give Americans what they want

The Gulf oil spill has laid bare a series of shortcomings in the government’s ability both to prevent and to respond to such a crisis, and the result is spiraling public frustration. But it might not hurt for members of the public to save a little of that frustration for themselves. Because anyone trying to figure out what Americans want from government as a result of the mess in the Gulf can only be left scratching their head.

“In times of crisis,” the New York Times columnist David Brooks observed a few weeks ago, “you get a public reaction that is incoherence on stilts.”

Most people know that the direct fault was not the government’s, and that there’s nothing the president can do to plug the hole. Yet, as Brooks puts it, “they want to hold him responsible for things they know he doesn’t control.”

They want the government to take decisive action, but not at too great an expense or with too much interference in private oil companies. They want to beef up regulation of the oil industry, but don’t want to stifle efforts to secure our energy independence.

And the Gulf spill is hardly the only issue on which we as Americans contradict ourselves. In a recent USA Today/Gallup poll, almost two-thirds of those surveyed put a high priority on halting the flow of illegal immigrants into the country; yet even more — almost three-quarters — also say that they are somewhat or very concerned that tougher immigration laws would lead to harassment of Hispanics.

Americans are leery of expanding the role of government in health care — but were outraged by the thought that the health care reform might affect their federal Medicare benefits. They are bitter about the growing budget deficit, but resent efforts to cut entitlement spending or to raise taxes. They want government to run frugally, but quickly grow indignant when it turns out there aren’t enough inspectors to ensure the safety of the food supply or basic infrastructure or oil-drilling rigs.

The key problem is that Americans want limited government, but keep demanding expanded government services.

So if you’re a politician, what do you make of this? It is the job of our elected officials — our political leaders — to represent the American people. This is hard to do when the American people give conflicting signals about what they want.

In many cases, each of these desires — less spending and more services, for instance — are quite worthy. And there are certainly a host of matters on which difficult issues are at stake and contradictory principles at work. In a recent speech, for instance, former Supreme Court Justice David Souter noted that a choice often has to be made “because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty.”

The truth is, politicians represent the people rather precisely — and certainly better than most people think. To some extent, you can fault members of Congress and other politicians for not pointing out the contradictions. No successful politician, faced with an impossible request, would say, “You’re crazy.” He or she will instead respond calmly, “I’ll do my best and try to be helpful.”

Politicians may, in fact, be fairly criticized for avoiding hard choices, refusing to ask constituents for short-term sacrifice in exchange for long-term gains and for putting off the day of reckoning. But they understand accurately that their constituents often want contradictory things, and may well punish at the polls members who speak frankly and make tough choices.

It is unfair, then, to place all the onus for government’s failings on our politicians. We — all of us — deserve some of the blame. Americans must understand our own responsibility for creating the problem if we want politicians to fix it.

Above all, it’s crucial to understand that it is the job of the political process — and of Congress, in particular — to recognize the confusion inherent in popular desires and to resolve it. Much of what goes on in policymaking on Capitol Hill is the effort to reconcile seemingly irreconcilable views and to develop a consensus when people are asking government to do worthy but contradictory things.

This is the tough, time-consuming work of representative democracy, and some understanding, even patience, on the part of the ordinary voter seems entirely appropriate — since we so often contribute to the dilemma in the first place.

Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years.

Retired general doesnt want mosque at Ground Zero

Ground Zero belongs to all Americans not just New Yorkers. It is beyond comprehension that an Islamic mosque be built there. Why not also a Shinto Shrine over the U.S.S. Arizona and a Nazi symbol attached to the tomb of the Unknown Soldier?

Americans have had enough political correctness stop this insanity!

Stuart .E. Harlowe, BG USAR (ret.), Floyds Knobs

HAMILTON: How to strengthen Congress

> SOUTHERN INDIANA — This is an uncomfortable time to be a member of Congress. Survey after survey registers deep dissatisfaction with Capitol Hill and, more strikingly, with the individual politicians who make it up. An AP poll in April found that half of those surveyed intended to vote against their own members of Congress. A Washington Post-ABC News survey painted an even more dire picture, with the Post writing, “Members of Congress face the most anti-incumbent electorate since 1994, with less than a third saying they are inclined to support their representatives in November.”

Sometimes I think that criticizing Congress is America’s favorite indoor sport. And it’s not just your average citizen who does it. Members of Congress themselves like to join in, and so do Washington’s army of lobbyists and, often, the White House. It is hard to find a voice that defends the Congress.

Some of the institution’s unpopularity can be traced to issues of the moment, such as worries about high levels of federal spending, the health-reform debate, and lingering concern about the economy.

But the truth is, Congress’ low standing is not of recent vintage — its abysmal approval rate of 16 percent in a March Gallup Poll was actually two points higher than in July 2008. Indeed, its approval has been on a long, slow decline since 2002, according to Gallup. The troubles Congress faces, in other words, are more deep-seated than any given public-policy issue.

So the question is no longer what’s wrong with Congress. Far more important is to ask what can be done about it. For, counter-intuitive as it might seem, we need to strengthen Congress, which over the decades has become too timid and weak. It has fallen far short of the role the Founders envisioned for it, and in doing so has put our constitutional system at risk by becoming less representative, accessible, and deliberative. By allowing itself to become a weakened branch, Congress has made representative democracy itself more precarious.

I often ask the question, “How far down the road can you go in strengthening the executive and weakening the legislature, and still have representative democracy?” We’re perilously close to finding out, which makes strengthening Congress one of the most important challenges we face.

Here’s my list of the most important priorities:

First and foremost, Congress needs to reassert the considerable powers it has been granted by the Constitution: the power of the purse, the ability to set the national policy agenda, and, whenever it comes up again, the decision to go to war.

Our Founders envisioned Congress as a co-equal branch with the presidency, but in recent years it has lacked a strong institutional voice, either because it was too diffident or so tied up in knots that it could barely stand up for itself. Members simply must take much more seriously their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, not the President. It won’t change overnight into the robust, co-equal branch the Founders envisioned, but it could be far more assertive in exercising its prerogatives.

Steps beyond this include:

Strengthening oversight. Tough and continuous oversight holds the President accountable, prevents government missteps, and helps it to learn from its mistakes. Congress simply does not pay enough attention to the implementation and management of the programs it enacts. Most fundamentally, oversight is about Congress’ responsibility to make sure the federal government is serving the American people.

Restoring the deliberative process: Democracy is above all about process — how we arrive at decisions and new policies matters immensely. Yet Congress today frequently shortcuts the deliberative process established over the years. It is Congress’ job not just to pass laws, but to do so in a way that allows it — and the people it serves — to understand the issues before it, reconcile competing views, and find a way of moving forward even when not everyone agrees.

Reducing excessive partisanship: Hard-hitting partisan competition can be healthy, but not when it becomes mean-spirited, blocks dialogue, and gets in the way of productive governance. Stalemate in the cause of partisan gain robs Congress of its credibility.

Strengthening ethics enforcement: Members do not sufficiently understand how important integrity is to the standing of Congress. Quite simply, Congress cannot rebuild its public standing unless Americans trust that its members act always in the public interest and always in a manner that reflects credit on the Congress.

Curbing the influence of special interests: Too many Americans believe Congress is beholden to well-heeled interests. The root of the matter is the money they pour into campaigns and their success in influencing the legislation that Congress passes. Only informed voters can judge whether an individual member allowed narrow interests to outweigh their own — and the general public’s — interests. The absolute transparency to the voter is essential.

Strengthening citizen participation: Much of what I’ve suggested above is Congress’ responsibility. But making Congress a stronger, more responsive institution ultimately will rest with ordinary Americans.

Citizens need to take responsibility for remaining informed — and not just by reading material coming from one ideological side; for backing candidates who respect Congress as an institution, and don’t merely run against it; for rejecting misinformation and especially appeals to extremism; and for insisting that their own members of Congress work to build, rather than destroy, consensus, comity, and common sense.

— Lee Hamilton is Director of the Center on Congress at Indiana University. He was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives for 34 years

CURRAN: Sort of, but not exactly

CLARK COUNTY — A wise but humorous piece of advice writers often come across is to, “never, ever make absolute, unconditional statements.”

One take on the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates suggests he was the wisest man in Athens, though, he was also the one least often claiming to be wise. In fact, it was arguably because he didn’t believe he knew many things for certain and was more prone to asking questions instead that he was the wisest.

As I witness debates between liberals and conservatives, those that are pro-life or pro-choice, evangelical or otherwise in the newspapers, on television, online and first-hand, among the tones that come across as so contentious, so hopeless in terms of meaningful discussion, is this tone of absolute certainty in one’s positions.

Even my Facebook experience, without clicking on anyone else’s pages, is subject to exposure to postings from friends and acquaintances making bold statements, sometimes hateful, insulting and offensive about “all” those people. All those tea partiers or immigrants. All those liberals or Republicans.

Unless sentences begun thusly proceed to say something like, “are human beings,” the speaker or writer is probably both morally wrong and factually incorrect. It is almost always wrong to take unfavorable traits one witnesses or believes some members of a group to have and then assume all others in that group have the same negative traits. You can call it bigotry, prejudice, elitism, whatever. It’s still ignorant and snobby at its best and evil at its worst.

Maybe you were just raised that way or are so passionate about your cause that you don’t see it that way. Maybe you want to argue that it’s really just a matter of perspective. Fine.

However, if you say, “all tea partiers are ignorant and violent,” or “all those immigrants are on welfare, committing crimes and not paying taxes,” and anyone can produce just one example inconsistent with your point — and my money says they can — you’re wrong. Mathematically, factually, logically, provably wrong.

You said, “all.” It was proved, “not all.” You’re wrong.

When someone whom you want to persuade to come around to your way of thinking — or simply want to respect your position — has limited knowledge about you or your position, first impressions matter. If the first impression is that you make factually untrue, or unfairly generalized, statements, the opportunity for persuasion or respect may pass.

Assuming it’s not the first impression you’re making, but instead revealing views you hold to people who had the impression you were much more reasonable and tolerant, you’re likely to disappoint those who consider you a friend.

It is astonishing that so many people are so sure what God is and precisely how he would have us act. Though, since the descriptions and prescriptions differ, we must assume not everyone is correct. It is equally astonishing when anyone is certain current-day science and, importantly, their own knowledge of it, proves the nonexistence of God.

It is further astonishing how many people are so certain as to what would be the best way for everyone else to live, down to the details of how much they should spend on health insurance and how they should raise their children. That scientific studies vary and values change over time neither deters nor humbles them a bit.

Do you really, really know for sure when life begins? Do you really, really know anything at all about each and every member of other political parties, ethnic or religious groups or those of different socioeconomic backgrounds besides their conditions as human beings? If you do, we’ve solved the God thing. You must be him.

Surely there is room for some humility, intellectual honesty and a real attempt at understanding the views of others. Surely there is some little kernel of conscious in nearly everyone that knows making hateful comments about entire groups of people is wrong.

If I’m wrong, and it’s entirely possible I am, surely most people want to be respected and understood. I’m almost sure most people don’t like to be easily proved wrong when they’re taking the time and energy to communicate their ideas.

Probably. Maybe. I think.

Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran knows every single redhead will get mad, but she must point out that the generalization about blondes having more fun is true. Write kelinawriterhat@aol.com

NASH: A pathetic display of apathy

>>SOUTHERN INDIANA — Another primary election day is in the books and things should shortly be back to normal. The congratulations and concessions have been made by now and hopefully the yard signs have all been put away (please keep them away until at least Labor Day). Election ads will still plague our local airwaves for a few weeks until Louisville selects a new mayor but we can all try to ignore these. As citizens of Floyd County we can sit back and relax until the general election comes around in November.

This year’s primary election was suppose to be different. For many years there had been an apathy that had consumed voters but now they were supposedly mad as hell and ready to take action. After the Wall Street bailouts of the insurance and banking industries and the Congressional passing of Obamacare, voters were planning to come out in droves to vote those bums out. The people were assembling and holding “Tea Party” rallies in their preparation for the impending “revolution.” Of course nobody seems to have told the voters of Indiana and Floyd County.

Voter turnout for Floyd County for Tuesday’s primary was an abysmal 17.7% of registered voters. Only 9,642 people came out to vote out of approximately 54,308 that could. While this is about 1.5% (about 400 votes) more than four years ago it is still far below what should be expected. If you look at how people voted by party you may see some of the national trend reflected in those numbers. In the 2006 election 70% of Floyd County voters selected a ballot for the Democrat Party. This year that number dropped to only 45%. This could be a sign of how people will vote in November and could mean certain doom for some incumbents.

Some of the blame for low voter turnout might be for the fact that there were very few contested races. Locally, the only contested countywide race on the Democratic ticket was the Race for Floyd County Assessor. The contest for US House of Representatives was also contested but incumbent Baron Hill easily won against three under funded opponents.

Republicans on the other hand had a couple of hotly contested races at the local level. The race for State Senate in the 46th district, searching for a replacement for the retiring Connie Sipes, and the 9th District House Race, trying to unseat Hill, undoubtedly aided the GOP vote total. The question that remains is, “were these just crossover voters trying to influence the outcome of the other party’s primary or are these disgruntled Democrats switching parties for good?”

In February and early March the whole county seemed to be up in arms over the direction that New Albany-Floyd County School Corporation was headed. Hundreds of people showed up at a public forum to express their displeasure at the decisions the administration was considering. Two months later, when the chance to pick some of the people that would be making those decisions during the next four years, less than 20 percent of registered voters made the effort for their voices to be heard.

During the next six months this primary election will probably be dissected over and over. The candidates will do their best to convince us why they are the best person to lead our community into the future. They should be commended for their strength and determination in getting this far and we owe it to them to listen and learn to make an informed choice in November.

A popular bumper sticker reads, “If You Don’t Vote, You Can’t Complain!” Well there seems to be a lot of people out there complaining but relatively few that are actually voting. The future of our community and our country is counting on the leaders that we will choose in November so we all must all do our part. It is one of the most of important things that we can do as United States citizens and it is often taken for granted. Voting in a free election is one of the fundamental rights that this country was founded on and it is a shame that more people don’t take advantage of it.

Matthew Nash voted In the primary election on Tuesday mainly so that he could complain. He can be reached at dmatthewnash@gmail.com

Matthews: Pick a side

What we really need in America are people who pick a side. We do it with our teams. We do it with our church. Do it with your voting! Choose what you believe and then vote that way. Identify a candidate whom you agree with and vote for him or her. But understand the difference between the Parties and what they represent before you identify with one.

Lots of people also don't know that both parties are private organizations. They identify their beliefs (platforms), they set their rules and they sometimes even choose their own candidates. Both major parties in Indiana still have party conventions where selected delegates choose which candidate you get to vote for. Such will be the case for Secretary of State this year.

Yes, most candidates come from one of the two major Parties…..but this is not absolute. Joe Lieberman abandoned the Democrat Party and was elected to the Senate in his State as an independent. And yes, there is justifiable argument to complain because the two major Parties seem to have a monopoly on success in elections. Unfortunately, complaining doesn't accomplish anything. It doesn't even make you feel better.

Here's an idea. Do something about it. Run for office yourself. Get involved with a group of like minded citizens and run for office….you don't necessarily have to identify with a Party to do so, but it helps. And don't just join a particular Party because you're mad at the other side. Join them because you agree with what they believe.

By the way, no political party (or any other grouping of people for that matter) is perfect. You will never agree 100 percent with everyone in the group or all of their ideals. But, as I said in a previous submission to The Tribune, each of the parties clearly states in its platforms what they believe and where they stand. If you can identify with the ideals of one of the major Parties, join them, volunteer to help, assist a candidate with his campaign. Make a difference. Pick a side and work hard to make things better. That really is the American way.

— Dave Matthews Chairman, Floyd County Republican Party

CURRAN: It’s primary time

>>SOUTHERN INDIANA — Happy primary election day! Did you vote yet? That’s OK. It’s no big deal. Or a really big deal. Or something.

Primaries are weird. We aren’t actually electing anyone to office. Big-party loyalists are choosing whom their nongovernment organizations — political parties — want to back in the general election, and they’re doing it at the taxpayers’ expense. The rest of us are one-day party crashers hoping to support someone we like or prevent a bad guy from getting into office.

The specific form primaries take varies among the states. In Indiana, no one formally registers as a member of a political party, therefore, our primaries are mostly open. You don’t have to be a registered Democrat to vote in the Democratic Party primary, for example. There is a small but impotent catch. You are supposed to support Democrats if you vote in their primary, for example, voting for mostly Democrats in the general election, but as votes are secret, there is little chance for the average voter to be challenged on this.

The primaries are restricted in that you can only vote in one party’s primary. Therefore, if you do vote in the Democrats’ primary, you can have no voice in choosing the Republican candidates. This can be an agonizing choice for some of us who are not loyal, and in some cases not even particularly enthused about, either of the two major parties. Further, even if you are, say, a diehard Republican, but believe a Democrat will likely ultimately be elected to a particular office, you will have no influence over a race that may affect you significantly.

I suspect this choice was once easier in Clark County. For decades, it seemed, the only real players on the local level were Democrats. The Republicans appeared anemic. That has changed in recent years. This year, there have been very active and high-profile competitions within both parties, and the Republican candidates are credible. What is a nonpartisan to do?

There isn’t much of a choice to be made in our household. Though there is a Republican 9th Congressional District candidate I would like to support, and I’m interested in the local state Senate race, we promised support to a Democratic candidate on the ballot several months ago. As the local politics have taken an abhorrent turn, our support has only solidified. I do wish it was a choice I didn’t have to make.

Along with having candidates on the ballot that will not be running in the general election, the primary ballot is also missing candidates that likely will run in the fall. Third-party and independent candidates are not allowed to participate in the primaries. The Libertarian Party is the only other party in Indiana that does not have to go through a grueling signature-gathering process in order to be on the ballot at all. They are still excluded from the primaries, though since they are Libertarians and not fond of funding things with tax dollars, they don’t complain much.

However, participation in the primaries gives those in the major parties an additional advantage over the underdogs come fall due to the publicity of the primary. Even a candidate with no cash to spend campaigning will have their name appear in newspaper candidate listings, likely be interviewed or provided with questionnaires to print out and appear on the ballot. Name recognition goes a long way on Election Day. Those participating in the primaries get a head start.

So, vote today if you must, but if you don’t feel like it, it’s not really one of those elections that people have any basis of fussing at you for abstaining. There is nothing wrong with choosing not to crash a party. There’s not really anything wrong with crashing a party you’re footing the bill for either.

— Jeffersonville resident Kelley Curran used to crash parties but nowadays she’s so tired she usually just does the crashing part. Write her at kelinawriterhat@aol.com

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! EVERY ELECTION IS IMPORTANT. MY HUSBAND AND SEVERAL OF MY FRIENDS FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE EVERY TIME AN ELECTION ROLLS AROUND. BESIDES, PRIMARY ELECTIONS IN INDIANA DO INCLUDE VOTING PEOPLE INTO OFFICE. THE SCHOOL BOARD RACES DON'T HAVE A GENERAL ELECTION, SO THE PRIMARY IS HOW THOSE CANDIDATES GET ELECTED. A REPORTER (IF YOU WANT TO CALL YOURSELF THAT) SHOULD NEVER TELL PEOPLE NOT TO VOTE. PEOPLE IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES, LIKE IRAQ, LITERALLY FACE DEATH FOR VOTING AND WE AS AMERICANS HAVE TO LISTEN TO THE NEWSPAPER TELL US WE SHOULDN'T BE BOTHERED?

Miscellaneous Primary Thoughts

Ah, as the primary approaches I can only wistfully think, “Where have you gone Lee Hamilton? You took care of us and the nation.”

With my focus on congressional races it brings me to something that happened when I served as a councilman. A person came to me with a problem receiving her husbands Social Security. I didn’t know what to do so I contacted Lee Hamilton. He took care of it and the issue was solved in a very short time. Later a veteran approached me with a problem getting veteran benefits. Again Rep. Hamilton resolved it in a very short time. In time as I traveled Rep. Vic Snyder in Little Rock (on 2 occasions), Rep. Luis Gutierrez in Chicago and a U.S. Rep. in Cleveland all produced results for veterans requests. So if Erich Winnecke Sr. is reading this and still hasn’t gotten any results let alone a reply from Baron Hill please contact me at the e-mail address below. I believe I know a person who can address it.

Hill’s office time and again has put out quotes in the media praising his being fiscally responsible. Rep. Hill with all due respect if you’re a fiscal conservative (Blue Dog Democrat) then Bernie Madoff was Scrooge. It’s one thing to talk and advertise about fiscal responsibility while hiding the fact he voted for every spending bill put forward. Heck your touting PayGo won’t go into effect until after the election it will only cover selected items. With Indiana being the largest user of electricity from coal your vote for Cap and Trade would have dramatically raised the prices of all good, services and utility bills...along with costing Hoosiers jobs. You published the number of Hoosiers that will be covered on the health care bill without telling ½ them it will mean Medicaid which is rejected currently by 52% of doctors and yet still cost Indiana another ½ billion. Costs that you and I will have to bare. It’s just not right Rep. Hill.

So we come to the Republicans. Dan Coats. In the early 1990’s I was invited to a Republican get together. I had the opportunity to talk to Sen. Coats. I asked him how he felt about the line item veto for the president regardless of party affiliation and term limits. He indicated he supported both. With that I told him I agreed and if he ran for 3rd term I’d be voting against him. He told me I wouldn’t have the chance since he would be retiring at the end of 2 terms. So now that he comes back from his home in Virginia after lobbying and costing me money Mr. Coats I will be voting for your opponent. I’ll help you keep your word. Hey they keep saying they don’t need a law on term limits. We can do that at the ballot box and I intend to do my part. One more time and let me be clear Mr. Coats. I’ll be voting for John Hostettler in the primary and if you should be on the ballot in November and with Brad Ellsworth running who voted for the tsunami in waiting (the health care bill)…I’ll be leaving it to others as to decide which of you can do the least damage. Hopefully Rep. Hill who worked for a lobbying firm and you can go back to Washington and continue lobbying if you so wish.

As for the candidate I will be supporting for the 9th district the choice is clear. Mike Sodrel will be the clear choice. We need businessmen, not lawyers, in Washington to address the economic and jobs problems. We also need citizens who don’t plan on making a career in Washington. Incumbents are working only for their own self-interest and think it’s their seat. Just go up on Google and enter “Baron Hill+Bill Lamb” and click on Bill Lamb Point of View. Rep. Hill it’s our seat…not yours.

In closing I urge each of you in the fall to not vote a straight party ticket. Common sense let alone statistics clearly tells us no one group had all the best mathematicians, dancers, doctors, athletes or politicians. Vote for your own self-interests, your family and your neighbors…don’t vote for a party. Thanks.

John Krueger wishes to thank the many readers for their input and is a former Clarksville councilman. He can be reached at MeredithSpecial@aol.com.

Reader prefers Republicans

It has come to core values. How much love of God and country is a voter willing to risk?

It’s high stakes, roll of the dice, winner takes all. That’s why my vote in the primary, and later this fall, will be a straight Republican ticket. But, the balance of power rests with the Tea Party.

If the tea movement favors independent votes or for a third party, then chances are the Democratic Party will remain in a mandatory mode of additional taxes and offensive legislation.

If the Tea Party merges an alliance with the Republican Party, there is a good chance America will restore a proper balance of smaller government and less taxes. Therefore, a candidate who believes in the constitution of God (The Ten Commandments) and the written Constitution of the United States, are the wisest of choices.

The Democratic Party is more government, more taxes, more offensive legislation detrimental to God’s Ten Commandments and The Constitution of the United States.

Vote Republican. See you at the polls.

— Leroy Heil, Jeffersonville

Voting Does Make a Difference

It does make a difference what you believe. I am a member of a ministers association that defines its doctrinal beliefs with a document by that title. The beliefs of an organization are vitally important. They define who they are, what they stand for and what they hope to become. The title, however, also speaks volumes to everything we do in life.it does make a difference what you believe.

I spent a lot of time recently highlighting the differences that exist between Republicans and Democrats on our website. I did this after being surprised by fellow conservatives who didnt even know that both major political parties have defined, published platforms that state what they believe. It always concerns me that adamant pro-life Hoosiers can find it justifiable to support obvious pro-choice candidates. Somehow, the Stop Abortion yard sign right next to the Vote for Hillary yard sign seemed like an oxymoron. Ask Roger what the definition of an oxymoron is.

We have an excellent opportunity next week to observe the platform process in action. Wednesday, April 14th in the Hoosier Room at IUS at 5pm, the State Republican Party will hold its Platform Hearings. They have four or five of these around the State to accept public input on formulating the platform for the Republican Party. I observed one of these two years ago and was singularly impressed with the very clear way average Hoosiers expressed their opinions of what the Party platform should be. I was equally impressed with how open the process of defining what a Party believes is to every citizen in the State. I would encourage anyone in our region to attend this event, if for nothing more than the education. It would be great if citizens actually knew what the Party they choose believes.

May 4th, Indiana will hold its Primary Elections. I am always amazed by Hoosiers who claim they are registered Republicans or Democrats. Indiana has no party registration. The only thing that identifies whether you are a Republican or Democrat is how you answer the poll worker on May 4th when they ask you which ballot you would like to receive. I personally think it makes a big difference which way you answer that question because I think it identifies you with a set of ideas that should reflect your personal and political beliefs about a lot of things.

I wont try to convince you which Party you should choose. You can easily find out what each Party believes by Googling Republican Party Platform or Democratic Party Platform on the internet. I can help you see some differences by going to our website at www.floydgop.com and clicking on the PLATFORMS link. There are very fundamental differences in what each Party believes about numerous issues and I think it is imperative for citizens to choose the Party that best reflects their beliefs.

It is also important to know what candidates believe.to identify if they share your beliefs and your vision of our community, State and Nation. Good candidates deserve our support. But you cant know which ones are good without some research. Thats why we encourage all of our candidates to provide websites so they can share that information with you. That is why we encourage so many public appearances, so you can see if you believe them or not. It makes a difference what they believe too!

I encourage everyone I meet to do their homework. Meet the candidates. Learn what they stand for. Learn what each Party stands for.not just what the loudest voices claim. Then, vote May 4th for whom and what you believe. It makes a big difference what you believe. See you at the polls.

Dave Matthews
Chairman, Floyd County Republican Party

BAYLOR: C’mon, tell me: Who are you?

By ROGER BAYLOR

NEW ALBANY — Butler’s unexpected trip to the national championship game isn’t the biggest shocker of 2010. Ready? I agree with Dave Matthews.

Comparing Walmart success to the US Government-run failures.

1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at Wal-Mart every hour of every day.
2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. Wal-Mart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick's Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. Wal-Mart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target + Sears + Costco + K-Mart combined.
5. Wal-Mart employs 1.6 million people and is the largest private employer, and most speak English.
6. Wal-Mart is the largest company in the history of the world.
7. Wal-Mart now sells more food than Kroger & Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only 15 years.
8. During this same period, 31 supermarket chains sought bankruptcy.
9. Wal-Mart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. Wal-Mart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had 5 years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at a Wal-Mart store. (Earth's population is approximately 6.5 billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within 15 miles of a Wal-Mart.

You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the ground work for suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run Wal-Mart to fix the economy.

To President Obama and all 535 voting members of Congress:

The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775.

You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.

Social Security was established in 1935.

You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fannie Mae was established in 1938.

You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.

War on Poverty started in 1964.

You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.

Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965.

You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.

Freddie Mac was established in 1970.

You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.

Fifty years ago we had the best schools in the world, and now with a Department of Education, we are 16th and falling. Amtrak operates in the red year after year.

The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than ever before.

You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal failure.

You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

Bye-bye Bayh, hello Mr. Smith

By TIM MCDONALD

When Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., announced his retirement from the U.S. Senate, many were surprised but could probably understand Bayhs frustration. However, there was one sentence in his announcement that gave me pause to think.

My decision should not be interpreted for more than it is, a very difficult, deeply personal one, he said. I am an executive at heart. I value my independence. I am not motivated by strident partisanship or ideology.

You cannot be independent in the U.S. Senate unless you know where all the bodies are buried, so to speak, and can call in a lot of favors. The late President Lyndon Johnson, a master of cutting deals when he was in the Senate, once said, Youve got to work things out in the cloakroom, and when youve got them worked out, you can debate a little before you vote.

This deal-making is part and parcel of the work of a U.S. Senator.

Bayh asked no one to interpret anything into his statement but his difficult decision to retire. Being at heart an executive leads one to believe a return to the governors mansion might be in mind. As a governor, you can certainly see your influence upon the people you serve versus cutting deals in the Senate.

The Senate requires a lot of compromise and patience in accomplishing substantive work.

Seniority is important in the stature of a senator, which is a combination of length of service to the senate and several other factors as well. As of February 16, one senator is in his 90s; four are in their 80s; 21 are in their 70s; 33 are in their 60s; 31 are in their 50s; and 10 are in their 40s. Thirty-two senators have served more than 20 years or just more than three terms in the Senate. The factors that determine seniority are listed below:

1. Amount of consecutive time serving as U.S. senator

2. Former U.S. senator (nonconsecutive)

3. Length of time serving as a senator in previous nonconsecutive terms

4. Former U.S. representative

5. Length of time serving as a U.S. representative

6. Former president

7. Former vice-president

8. Former cabinet member

9. Former state governor

10. Population of state based on the most recent census when the senator took office

11. Alphabetical by last name in case two senators came from the same state on the same day and have identical credentials.

When some factors are tied, length of time in a prior office may be used to break a tie.

Politics on the national scale has become a kind of one-upsmanship in terms of diminishing your own partys failings and highlighting the failings of the other party. That is the way politics has always been and always will be.

Look at the numbers above and couple with the 1,700 lobbyists in Washington, D.C., and that since 1998, 43 percent of congressmen leaving Congress for private life registered to lobby.

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele said, After Democrats spent billions of taxpayer dollars on a failed stimulus and voted to spend billions more for their unpopular government-run health care plan, I think its fair to say that Americans are disenchanted as well.

I hope that Bayh was sincere in saying that he was disenchanted with the political process. Better he leave the Senate than either hold back his comments or down the line become further disenchanted and negative, which would be to no ones advantage.

Regardless, we continue to elect individuals who bring home the pork to our districts. We keep senators in place because of their seniority and what they can do for our states.

The problems with Congress are not new. They have always been there and probably always will. I am not quite sure that when the framers of the Constitution wrote that document they intended for individuals to spend a lifetime or a career in politics.

They viewed it as a duty for an individual to serve the public in the House or the Senate but not stay there permanently.

Perhaps it should be required of every senator and member of Congress to collectively view the Frank Capra film Mr. Smith Goes to Washington annually to reaffirm why they serve the people. Maybe they will reaffirm civility toward one another and remind themselves that their decisions are for the good of the people and not how it will look when they run for re-election.

Good luck Sen. Bayh and Godspeed. I hope the exodus from the House and the Senate of you and several of your colleagues from both houses and parties will give those that remain pause to reflect upon their motives for serving.

Maybe this next election cycle, some Mr./Ms. Smiths will emerge.

Cheers to Floyd County Republican Party Chairman Dave Matthews kinder, gentler reply published on Feb. 9 (a rebuttal about whether our economic messes were caused primarily by individuals or by the system).

I love a good honest debate, free of politics as usual especially one in which the authors argument on a topic persuades me to change my mind in his favor, as Mr. Matthews did powerfully in this case. Thanks!

Tribune reader Sam Johnson, New Albany

---Thanks for the kind remarks Sam, Dave Matthews

GOP head wants blame redirected

Let me disagree, in a kinder, gentler way than in times past, with the logic of Andrew Albatys' recent Opinions column on economic recovery. I completely agree with the title of his letter that economic recovery calls for hard work and good choices. I must disagree, however, with the quote that the breakdown of 1929 sprang more from a breakdown of men than it did from the breakdown of the system. Fred Holmes was at best only partially right, then as he is now. Individual men have little care for, nor power to change the system that seems bent on destroying the economy.then, as much as now. Most men (and small businesses) are doing their best to just make ends meet while it seems the system is doing its best to thwart their efforts.

It has become popular, in the midst of this economic downturn, to look for sources to blame. I agree in part that it was the breakdown of men that caused them to take loans for mortgages that they knew they would never be able to pay.

However, too little blame is being placed on actions demanded by the Clinton administration, ACORN and then-Sen. Obama forcing the system to give these loans in the first place. It was the system that grouped those bad loans in such a way to make them look profitable. I might also suggest that the current revolt against the system, as evidenced in four recent political elections receiving national attention, is a demand from men that the system must either change or voters will remove players in that system.

I believe that most men actually want what is good for their families, communities and their nation. They want to see an economy succeed because they know it will also bring success for them and their loved ones. Ultimately, what men are telling us, however, is that the system is broken and we need leaders who will indeed make good choices to fix it.

May I suggest three steps all men (and women) need to take now. No. 1, take personal responsibility for yourself. In an environment where everything is conspiring to make you dependent on the system, become independent and self-reliant. Two, work hard and make good choices. Dont go for the easy, get-rich-quick scheme. It didn't work then and it doesn't work now. Last, change the broken system. Vote for those who will demonstrate financial responsibility in their leadership.

I was shocked to hear that a New York college will now receive $390,000 in Stimulus Funds to study the effects of malt liquor and marijuana on adults. Stimulating, indeed! Although that may appear to be a study some of you might like to volunteer for, it is a foolish expenditure of our tax dollars. It is one of many foolish expenditures disguised as stimulating the economy, yet doing nothing more than purchase votes to keep the same players of the broken system in power. Men don't need fixing near as much as a system that spends money this way and tries to call it economic recovery.

Dave Matthews, Chairman, Floyd County Republican Party

HOWEY: The decks were stacked against Obama

By BRIAN HOWEY

INDIANAPOLIS We are not seeing any 1.19.13 bumper stickers yet but at the end of President Obamas first year at the White House, he is receiving a stinging rebuke from the most liberal state in the union with the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate.

It closed an absolutely wild year and prompted me to go back and look at what I said as Obama entered the presidency. I predicted that given the array of problems Obama inherited when he entered the White House, the deck was stacked against him. I said his approval rating would probably be in the 40th percentile by November 2009. There were too many damned-if-you-do; damned-if-you-dont scenarios.

And here we are! Do you pull out of Afghanistan and take heat as a war wimp soft on terror, or push forward with a surge? On that one, Obama committed troops to what appears to be a quagmire, only to find the next terror attack attempt emanating from Yemen, the new al-Qaida redoubt.

Do you let General Motors and Chrysler liquidate? If you do, the 10 percent jobless rate surges to 12 to 15 percent as the rest of the auto sector collapses. The American manufacturing base a bare 12 percent of the economy erodes further. On this one, Obama rejected two GM and Chrysler restructuring plans, forced them into an accelerated bankruptcy, and GM plans to repay its TARP funds by June. Chrysler is still a precarious basket case.

What do you do with Wall Street, the true benefactor of the biggest political payoff in U.S. history with $780 billion at the end of the Bush presidency? Here, Obama has made headlines docking executive bonuses and is now talking about a tax to regain the TARP funds, estranging him from 2008 supporter Warren Buffett. But little has been done structurally to keep the barons from doing the exact same things they did leading up to that meltdown. Here it appears Americans will be condemned to repeat history, though Obama is tagged as the socialist while Bush is not. Go figure.

The stimulus? Its fueling the Tea Party movement. Republicans lash out at the stimulus, but here in Indiana, it bailed the state out and kept severe education cuts temporarily at bay. Without the Obama stimulus, we would be raising taxes and shutting down services. Some economists dont believe the stimulus was enough and others are outraged that Pelosi and Reid back-loaded it for political advantage later this year. With the jobless rate at 10 percent, I can hear James Carvilles wicked voice: Its the economy stupid.

Energy? We had virtually no energy policy during the Bush-Cheney years. Obamas efforts to increase CAFE standards and incentives to the electric car sector appears to be paying off, particularly here in Indiana as EnerDel grows and Th!nk comes to the state. In a normal year, this would have been a major achievement. In the year of Obama, its almost an afterthought.

Education? I remember riding back from Kokomo with Gov. Daniels in the fall of 08 as he contemplated a potential President Obama and said that if he had the guts, he could reshape American education in a Nixon-goes-to-China type scenario. On this front, Obama and Daniels are speaking from a similar script. Daniels and Supt. Tony Bennett have embraced the Race to the Top.

Health care? Now we know why the White House was pressing for the reforms to pass the House last July before the August recess. When they didnt, the Guns of August appeared, watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and young presidents. This is the proverbial snowball in hell that grew into the ballot box shots in Lexington on Tuesday. Republicans like Sen. Lugar counseled Obama to concentrate on the economy and take an incremental approach. Such counsel fell on deaf ears, even for Obama who used Lugar as a campaign example of consensus building.

You can understand how Obama made the decision to use his political capital early, forge historic reforms and hope that good public policy nourishes his reelection three years hence. Today, it stands in shambles. Obama vowed during countless Indiana campaign appearances that he would reach out to Republicans. It was a half-hearted effort on both sides. Leaving the details to the Congressional liberal leaders has provoked a vigorous backlash.

The deficits? Whew! This just makes folks angry, particularly Republicans and Sen. Bayh. The $1.4 trillion deficit is staggering. But give Obama credit for at least putting everything on the ledger; as opposed to the good old Bush-Cheney days where about a trillion dollars spent on two wars werent counted.

So, were looking at a one-term president, right? Not so fast. President Clinton lost the health reforms in 1993 and Congress in 1994. Two years later, he had a relatively easy reelection victory over Bob Dole. The problem for Republicans is they dont even have presidential timber as credible as Bob Dole right now.

The odds were so stacked against President Obama and are even more so today. We just cant wait to get the Republicans back in control so they keep a lid on things.

With the lack of representation in our government, one must wonder of its usefulness. Government, meaning that of all levels.

It cannot be seen as representative at all. Just try to contact your local representative. Trying this will only bring an impersonal voicemail, or the impromptu template e-mail.

Regardless of the question, it will always remain unanswered. They will maintain that you, the constituent, have no valid reason to question their position. In this, they will set motion toward the usurping your constitutional rights.

These rights are considered as negative rights. Just ask your representative. The Constitution is seen as a limit to your rights, and not that of government. Thus, we receive such banter as, Dont tell me how to run my office ... as was the egotistical speech of one Baron Hill.

The examples of ineptness can be seen on an inept level, as with the partisan affairs of our elected officials. For example, the biased views of Sen. Harry Reid, on one Barack Obama.

Oh, was I not supposed to say that? After all, he did apologize. That should make it all better. Who could forget the Baucus affair, and the legal position that followed. Did I just say that?

One question? Where are these allowable excuses, when exhibited by other anonymous members of our esteemed government?

With this, I am reminded of the anonymous members in a most recent time. Can we see the aforementioned reciprocation of the duopoly?

It seems that there is a universal answer to this question. What do you think? Is it really a duopoly?

The actions of each seem to come to a common end. Sure, they ploy the tactics of finger-pointing. One plying off the actions of the other, yet blaming the other. The answer can only be seen as the gain of authority.

They know that the true authority is inherently belonging to you, the constituent. Think about it. They hold their position, because you vote them in. With this comes the opportunity to vote them out. Yet, they show a blind eye to the thoughts of the public.

The word universal seems to be the key. It is used quite frequently by these same individuals. Lets see some examples. Can anyone remember the facade of universal health care, or that of universal registration?

I did it again. Oh well, it is out now. Thats right, universal registration. What is this, you may ask?

Well, to make it short and understandable, the idea of automatic voter registration. Does that not reek of universal suffrage, to the extreme?

With this being said, what is your opinion?

It is one thing to have the right to vote, yet quite another to have it forced upon you. Some might argue that this registration might be a good idea. Let me just go a step further. This registration will be given to all residents of a certain age. Yes, thats right, I said, residents and not citizens. This can only bring about fraud and abuse. We all know where that can lead us.

Anyway, it is just a thought of the partisan Hoosier. The answer is for you to decide. I do believe it is still legal to have personal, self-preserving thought. Or, is it?

It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. Benjamin Franklin

Reform, reform, reform!

Darrell Dillard, Clarksville

The second worst mistake a politician can make is misreading a mandate. The worst mistake a politician can make is not listening to the people when they send a clear message that a mandate was misread.

What happens next in the United States will be very telling. Will Obama, Reid, and Pelosi understand that the people do not support their far left liberal agenda, or continue full speed ahead dragging this country where it does not want to go?

The revolution began long ago. Democrat victories in 2006 and 2008 were a repudiation of Republicans for spending too much, too much government, failure to close the borders, failure to win two wars quickly due to political correctness, and general failure to lead in the direction they claimed to champion.

The revolution is on its way. The people have now told three Presidents in a row. We do not agree with your direction, correct the direction of this nation. What happens between now and November 2010 will determine the form this revolution takes.

Kelly Roggenkamp, Georgetown

KRUEGER: It doesnt matter

By JOHN KRUEGER

At the beginning of the 1990s, we were annexed by the town of Clarksville. Our property taxes doubled and, at the urging of some in the area, I ran for councilman.

Until then, I paid about as much attention to the machinations as the majority of our citizens. Now, Im a political junky focusing almost all of my attention on Washington, as there is nothing I can do at the local level. Why the focus on Washington?

In the 1900s, prior to the New Deal, the percentage of total government spending by local government was 60 percent, while the federal government was 20 percent. By 1940, it was reversed with the federal spending at 52 percent while local government spent 23 percent.

The last time I looked in 1990, local government was at 19 percent and federal government at 67 percent. Without checking, there is no question this imbalance has gotten worse while you, not me, continue to cede you and your familys welfare to Washington. You surrender your pride, freedoms, responsibility, accountability and become a dependent and a slave. Is that how you want to live?

The biggest problem is people listen, but they kiss off the action or lack thereof. Talk is cheap.

But John do you think Im blind? Well, yes, you are to reality. Time and again, you vote for what you call your party instead of your own self-interest. With gerrymandering and your vote, we have a government of the incumbents, by the incumbents and, for sure, for the incumbents.

So when I hear time and again, I vote for the person, I hope youll excuse me for laughing. Now, instead of having politicians such as Mitch Daniels or Steve Stemler who are responsible and whose only self interest is us, you time and again put the incumbent back in office because you say it doesnt matter.

Talk is cheap, so we become captivated by the oratory skills and charisma of a Reagan, Clinton and Obama, but seldom give more than a ho-hum to the follow through if the person belongs to a party you support.

Indeed, you can split hairs until the cows come home to defend it or go off topic and jump on someones action from the opposite party. Certainly, Obama spoke glowingly about achieving energy independence. He followed up by letting Ken Salazar kill 72 oil leases in the Rockies, submitting a budget to kill all funding for the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Storage facility when we all know nuclear energy is the cleanest, refuses to proceed with drilling in ANWR along with offshore drilling and instead submits a bill which will raise prices on all products, services and our utility bills. Lemming Baron Hill of course voted for the bill, but to you, it doesnt matter.

Obama, of course, promise transparency, including televised hearings and debates on everything, no pork and a ban on lobbyists. Again, his actions speak otherwise but many of you say it doesnt matter.

It goes without saying that doing something on health care is long overdue. Doing something doesnt mean doing anything and something that will make it worse. Its much like a cruise ship that docks because it has holes in the structure.

They take on 10 percent more passengers, depart, ask for more money for the trip, and then proceed to put more holes in the structure. Youre simply going to sink faster which is precisely what this Kickback Health Care Deform bill does.

Rather than go into details and statistics, some of which youre familiar with, Ill pass on to you what the orthopedic surgeon told me recently a person practicing the actual care of our citizens.

The surgeon told me he had worked as both a doctor and instructor at the Veterans Administration hospital. The rules and regulations were killers. He went on to say, in time, if a person needs a heart procedure, they will be scheduled for Tuesday five months from now.

He added other comments most of them supporting and documenting opponents arguments of this bill as it currently stands. So, whom should you pay attention to? Washington, the AMA, AARP, SEIU or the health care practitioners?

No, you want anything Washington gives you so it doesnt matter.

The consequences of federal intervention have time and again proven to be costly and wrong. Remember when Clinton was bound and determined to convert English measurements in America to metric? So what happened after billions of dollars were spent in preparing, and mainly redesigning highway plans on the shelf and a few 3-R jobs having been constructed?

The concrete and steel industry flatly refused to retool their plants to produce among other items concrete pipes and steel rebars and bridge girders. Clintons plan, thank God, went bye-bye.

Folks, Baron Hill of course deserves to be retired, regardless if its another Democrat, Republican, libertarian or tea party candidate. Hes a walking, talking, arrogant, inept train wreck.

Should Bayh or Lugar vote for this health care bill, they too deserve a ride into the sunset, because all of the above needs to be reformed and refurbished?

Do you agree or do you just feel it just doesnt matter?

John Krueger is a former Clarksville councilman and can be reached at MeredithSpecial@aol.com

Please let me respond to the arguments of Steven Fetter in his letter, Dispelling Concerns About Health Care. First, I recommend he actually read the Constitution. If he doesnt have a copy, come to any of Mike Sodrels campaign rallies. He hands out copies regularly. Mike thinks it would be very good for Americans to actually know what the document says before we start saying what it says. I agree.

The founders wrote the document stating in the very first paragraph, known as the Preamble, what the purpose of government was supposed to be: establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty. Much has been done by our government in the last two hundred years under the clause of promoting the general welfare that might or might not have been constitutional. It can be argued that taking over private businesses so they dont fail, punishing banks because they dont conform to our ideals of how they should spend money and re-inventing a national health care system to replace the current one does not fall into any of the above categories.

Second, let me correct Stevens notion that the majority of health insurance holders have very little to say about choosing doctors. I assume he has done a nationwide survey to make such a statement. However, everyone I know who now has health insurance, although restricted to the number of doctors they can choose from by the coverage of their insurance, at least has the right to choose among those doctors. I have changed dentists three times in the last ten years. And I have yet to find a health insurer who, when my doctor recommends Zocor demands that I use Prozac. There may be generic drugs that are actually less expensive than the brand name that they recommend, but I thought the argument actually was about reducing the cost of health care. And if you think your medication is rationed now, just wait until government gets to decide what you take!

Last, let me remind Steven that our form of government is a Republic, not a Democracy. In this country we agree, by design, to elect those who vote for us. It isnt a perfect form of government for sure. But for 200 years it has proven to provide us with the ideal environment to bring about the greatest leap of prosperity of any country in the world throughout history.

I would recommend everyone purchase the book, The 5,000 Year Leap. It is the best commentary I have ever read on the principles of freedom our founding fathers said must be understood and perpetuated. In it, Samuel Adams is quoted as saying, The Utopian schemes of leveling [re-distribution of the wealth] and community goods [central ownership of the means of production and distribution], are as visionary and impractical as those which vest all property in the Crown. [These ideas] are arbitrary, despotic, and, in our government, unconstitutional. (William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams).

Given the choice of monarchy, Communist dictatorship, fascist regimes, military rule and republicsI think Ill choose republic.

Dave Matthews, Chairman, Floyd County Republican Party

Debate with Facts and Respect for the Opposition

Mr. Matthews,

You and most all of the respondents to Suzette Wright's editorial missed her main point. As I read in full each and every response to both Wright's original editorial and your response, only one reader (JA) seemed to "get it" on the webpage. We need intelligent discussion and debate from our representatives in government and that requires a well informed citizenry who demands more of its representation. JA debated well enough his/her point of view, and on some points I most certainly agreed.

If we want to get away from the "Party of No" (not my coining guys) and other non-productive efforts, this country and its people would be served best by imposing term limits, severely restricting (if not abolishing) professional lobbyists and finally demanding campaign finance reform get passed. It is time this country's people found their voice in government again and money stopped ruling us all. Congress is certainly not going to cut its own purse strings. It is going to have to be a movement of the people and of all political affiliations.

Now for the lesser points on which many of the respondents focused: bipartisanship, who can shout the loudest, name calling, the Constitution and bleeding our financial future dry.

The facts are readily available from innumerable reputable media sources that President Obama made numerous efforts to get meaningful participation from Republicans at the beginning of his presidency. Unfortunately, Republicans found it more important to start positioning for the next mid-term elections by hanging any and all corrective measures to our economy and our healthcare on the Obama administration and the Democrat controlled Congress. If Republicans could delay or stall out any votes, all the better; the only thing better than a failed policy is a government failing to act when controlled by the opposition. The Republicans, by and large, are betting that our nation's problems will take more than two years to fix as their strategy to regain seats. Yes, Republicans were largely left out of the deal making in the end on both our recovery plan and our ongoing healthcare plan, and it was their own strategy that got them there. Instead of intelligent debate we got dead party mantras and jockeying. You, Mr. Mathews, did little more that echo that strategy in your editorial.

Who is winning the shouting contest these days? Come on, the Bush administration was awesome at it. I swear they could repeat and repeat what I knew from the start was a lie until at least 51 percent of us believed or did not care enough to oppose. They even mislabeled their policies to mislead. From WMDs to Blue Sky Initiative, the Reds got the lead right now on shouting and don't seem willing to give it up.

On the subject of name calling, I would have to say with the exception of Representative Joe Wilson and maybe you, Mr. Matthews, the far right constituents (not politicians) have this one hands down. Now, shame on you folks that can't debate any better than that; and that goes for you Libertarians out there too. But maybe that's the problem with us moderates and progressives; we're just too nice.

For all you Constitutionalists out there, no you read it (no you read it). Constitutional law is interpretative stuff, but under Section 8, The Powers of Congress: The Congress shall have Power To Lay and collect Taxes (yada, yada) and provide for the Defense and general Welfare of the United States. Now if you were not paying attention to the Preamble that's "We the People." Argue all you want. It was an intentionally broad brush with which our Founders painted.

Last, our financial ruin isn't in our current government spending; it was our spending and deregulation over the last several administrations. Bush and the Republican congress most definitely put more than icing on the cake. For the record, I am a moderate who has voted Republican on numerous occasions but not much in recent years (Governor Daniels an exception). I firmly lay the responsibility of our current economic situation at the Republican's door step, and that does not excuse every Democrat that gave the Bush administration carte blanche ruling over our hawkish spending and further deregulation of the financial sector. I am a fiscal conservative who cannot argue against using the government as the financial catalyst for recovery, because our alternatives were non-existent. We would be foolish to ignore history that gave us at least the possibility of avoiding a full out depression. Do we have real fiscal issues to battle ahead, you bet. But if you think less government and regulation in our capitalist society is the way to go, I strongly disagree. The very nature that makes corporate elites rise to the top can be harmful to the overall good of the economy. Right now we are so consolidated in our wealth, it only takes a handful to mess us all up.

I will finish by saying Suzette is most certainly well read, intelligent, articulate and will run all comers to the ground while backing her position on facts. Even if you do not agree with her, respect her; you run the risk of looking the lesser person, otherwise. I wish our entire population, regardless of their political affiliation, would care as much as she does to understand the issues and participate in the political process in a civil manner.

Editors note: Brad Wright and Suzette Wright....could they be related?

Wtfna. Still searching for that elusive clue.

It's always funny to listen to a progressive whine and mock excessive spending simply because it wasn't they who oversaw it. It puts the bald facedness of their quest into clear relief. Apparently to wtfna its OK to go on and on about those OTHER guys, but the ensuing spending by his progressive masters (which dwarfs his pious finger pointing) is simply given a pass. Never waste a good crisis I guess.

Surely Republicans have it coming. They have ignored the Constitution in living memory. However progressives, those avid fans of the living document, are apparently amused, mocking, by the dogged conservatives insistence regarding the superiority of the American Constitution as the ultimate law of the land; our insistence that it is a foundation of our nation; and that's OK too.

Have your fun. Let them make political hay while they can because the back lash is coming. The gloves are off.

Unfortunately we have to listen to yet another wild eyed rant from the local GOP chairman...what an embarrassment that guy is. It's okay to have debates on issues, however it's awfully hypocritical to have conservatives, whose party and president oversaw one of the largest increases in government in the history of our country, now try to plead that they are true conservatives. It's laughable and I've enjoyed watching them knock each other down in an attempt to claim the mantle of conservatism.

Keep it up, Mr. Matthews, you're becoming the butt of many jokes on both sides of the proverbial aisle!

Once again Ms. Wright delights in nothing but inuendo and crystal ball predictions. No facts. Have you bothered to read the health bill? If you had, you might take the time to look at the multitude of taxation that will be placed squarely on the backs of the middle class. Another of Obama's 'promises' that seems to be forgotten. I wonder if Ms. Wright thinks the vote buying that occurred to pass this blunder was bi-partisan. Government growth and spending is at an all time high. I believe it was good ol' Tom Jefferson that said, ' A government large enough to give you everything you want, is large enough to take everything you have.' That's a crystal ball prediction that this administration is bringing to fruition. Sooner or later we the people will run out of money to support the size of government Obama is bent on.

I don't think you're so well informed as you assert, Suzette.

A majority is nice, our Constitutional Republic doesn't operate solely on majorities; the Founding Fathers knew about people with your views; you are nothing new. That's why we have the Constitution, to protect from the simple will of the majority.

What you call for here is simply demanding that your neighbor pay for your health care, demanding that we throw good money after bad by planners who vacuum it out of our pocket for redistribution, demanding that he enact your vision toward a perfect society; that road is UNConstitutional, that road has no end.

This is socialism, Suzette. It's not my job to make you realize it. I do consider it my duty to point it out publicly however.

I have no doubt that you consider yourself well informed but your stance here aligns with those of Karl Marx. You know Karl Marx yes? Call it what you wanna call it; it is what it is.

My article surely appears to have generated some steam from the 'pot calling the kettle black' crowd. I'll rebut at greater length at another time. Unlike some of the bloggers to my original article have speculated, I am employed, have kids to get back to college, and spend my spare time doing a lot of reading on healthcare, the economy, history, and consider myself very well-informed. It seems the title of my article was apt. I am now more than ever concerned for the future when a call to hold Republican politicians to their responsiblity to do more than 'just say no' is met with wild claims that I am a 'leftist' and a 'socialist.' That is exactly the kind of behavior that I was writing about; the Tea Party Express style of name-calling does not contribute to a democratic debate.

For the record: I am for regulated capitalism and favor a society that ensures that basic human needs are met in an efficacious manner. Healthcare reform was favored by a majority of voters -- when the election was held and in recent polls. I think the bloggers who wrote with such venom about government spending should all should be thanking their lucky stars that the Obama administration and Congress have steered us away from Great Depression 2; had that happened I'd have all day to sit and refute the outrageous name-calling leveled at me. Study macro economics. It was necessary for government to spend to fill the gap in the economy left by the trillions in value drained from it by Wall Street greed and speculation. If you want someone to tar and feather, look there and to the deregulation and lax oversight so favored during the years of largely Repubublican control of the White House and Congress.

If there is a local Fox crew. I never heard of one.

There does appear to be a vocal group of loyal, constitution-loving Americans around. Did you read the comments made by conservative Americans? I suggest you stroll on over to the opinion section and read what others have to say about Ms. Wrights idiotic ranting.

We're still waiting for her to show her face around here one more time, stand up for what she wrote, and back it all up with facts.

But ya know what? She won't be back. She has no facts. She has no standing.

And neither do you.

Nothing fake about me Jill. Obama and his cronies will only be remembered as the second coming of Carter. Tax and spend seems to be the only play in the playbook for these current Dems. The real problem is that the other side is only marginally better. At least they don't want to tax the weather as Obama does. Soda pop tax, fast food tax, carbon tax, marijuana tax, insurance tax, death tax...where will it end?

Looks like the local Fox crew planned a coordinated letter writing campaign.

More fake grassroots efforts from the theocrats.

Dear Dave,

Before you get all comfy in your GOP chair you'd better take note. Conservatives are coming for Republicans with a bucket of tar and a sack of feathers too! You and the press are complicit.

Were you screaming during Bush's excesses against the Constitution? Nope, crickets

Are Republicans in the hall of Congress picking fights, and I mean right now, today, picking fights with socialists intent on stripping away the rights of free men and the underpinnings of our great nation? Nah. You're too busy harrumphing for the cameras.

The only thing Republicans have is a reflection, a dim vision of what they once stood for. IF YOU DO NOT return to viewing all proposed legislation thru the prism of our Constitution, you are done as well. Forgotten on the ash heap of history by a furious Joe and Mary Mainstreet.

Discount conservatism at your own political peril.

I just cannot let Ms. Ruthanne Wolfe's letter about the GOP go unchallenged. First, the use of a filibuster is a legislative tool of Congress that has been used by both the Left and the Right throughout the history of our democratic republic. The GOP is trying to stop a socialistic health care plan from fundamentally transforming our republic where for the first time, our citizens will be required by law to purchase something (And before anyone begins to say Auto Insurance, a person is not forced to purchase Auto Insurance because a person is not forced to drive a vehicle. There are bicycles, motorized scooters, buses, trains, trolleys, streetcars, subways, and good old fashioned walking which are all alternatives to driving a vehicle.)

I applaud the GOP's stands against the appointments of the Obama Administration and if anything, the GOP should have made more objections to the people President Obama has appointed to key positions. Just a quick look at a few of these advisors will make anyone with common sense shudder. Anthony "Van" Jones was a self-avowed Communist and defender of a Cop Killer and he was appointed to be the Green Jobs Advisor. Thankfully, Jones resigned after being pressured by true patriots who called him out on his outlandish views. FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd openly admires Hugo Chavez and believes The Fairness Doctrine "didn't go far enough" to circumvent the Freedom of Speech. Regulatory Czar Dr. Cass Sunstein actually wrote an opinion that dogs and cats should actually have the right to have representative council and bring suit in the court system. Former Communications Director Anita Dunn went on record praising Chinese Dictator Mao as "one of the people she turns to most." And before the arguments come out about these comments being a "smear campaign", these statements are straight from the aforementioned people's mouths and writings....

How long will the Obamanites keep blaming Bush and Cheney? They are long gone. Eight years of the blame game while Bush was president and now you want the other side to just tuck their tails and drink the kool aid. Disagreement is natural anytime sides are taken. You are asking us to do as you say, not as you do. The promises made have not been kept. The 'Change' has become more of the same. You should be looking forward as opposed to looking for a scapegoat to justify broken promises. Blaming 'Johnny' for the broken window does nothing to get the window fixed.

Ruthanne Wolfe wrote: "As for the tired charge of 'Big Government spending' "who was it who started two wars while cutting taxes, and pushed through a Medicare drug bill predicted to cost over $1 trillion this decade without any way to pay for any of this? Who inherited a surplus and left the biggest deficit in history, and made China our largest creditor?

------------------

I've noticed a trend - when presented with facts, the DemLibs always fall back on the 'Bush did it,too!' defense.

Oh yeah? Well maybe Bush DID do it, too, but you have to remember that during the last couple of years of Bush's presidency, the Democrats were in power in Congress, and the Democrats are the ones who made the deficit what it was under Bush.

What happened when Obama became president, and the Democrats continued their strangle-hold on Congress?

The deficit went from about 400 billion dollars to $1,750,000,000,000.00.

That's right. It's a fact, and I have no idea how any Democrat can stand up and belly-ache about Bush's deficit when Obama's is FOUR TIMES what the deficit was just two short years ago.

FOUR TIMES!

Got that? The Obama deficit is FOUR TIMES the Bush deficit.

So continue to fall back on the only (and lame it is, too) defense that the DemLibs have - 'Bush did it, too.' Just let's not forget that Obama gave us 'Hope' and promised us 'Change,' but all Obama did was continue the policies of the Democrat-controlled congress, and changed our national deficit from 400 billion to 1,750 billion.

Who stated two wars, Ruthanne writes? Bush did, I would suppose is the answer she wants. Backed by the Democrat-controlled congress is the answer she does not want to hear or admit.

And who is the last president to send more troops to the Middle East? Why that would be Obama, and his loving Democrat-controlled congress. But we won't mention that, will we Ruthanne?

And the high price of Medicare, mentioned by Ruthanne? Tell us, dear: who started Medicare? I'll give you a hint: Democrat president L. B. Johnson. And tell us who has done nothing to reduce Medicare spending in the last year. Here is a clue: It was the Democrat-controlled congress, and your beloved president Obama.

So maybe 'Bush did it, too' but the Democrats started it, the Democrats continued it, and the Democrats are desperate to continue this debacle we call Hope and Change.

Here is an absolutely free tidbit for you, Ruthanne:

It was pointed out to Pelosi by reporters on January 5, 2010, that President Obama, on the campaign trail, promised the health reform process would happen in front of TV cameras.

'There are a number of things that he swore on the campaign trail,' Pelosi said. Supposedly, she was joking, but I see nothing funny about it.

Besides, she argued that the process has been transparent up until now.

'There has never been a more open process for any legislation,' she said.

Now that's some funny stuff. I'm dying here. LOL

PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE BARACK OBAMA: When we are negotiating for that plan, we're going to have C-SPAN on and you will see who is compromising the American people's interest. This will all be televised on C-SPAN. Broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN. I'm going to do it on C-SPAN.

So tell us, Ruthanne: how much of that was on C-SPAN? Here's another clue for you: NONE.

I just cant let the three letters beating up on Suzette Wright go unchallenged. It is especially discouraging that the Chair of the local Republican Party is so woefully uninformed. To publicly pretend that the current minority party is not obstructionist strains credulity. Here are a few facts that can easily be checked:

The use of the filibuster cloture vote has skyrocketed since Senate Republicans lost the majority. They have used or threatened to use this on even minor issues. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell openly pledged to obstruct the health care bill, as have other Senate and House Republicans. They gleefully hope it will be President Obamas Waterloo, to quote Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) The same Sen. DeMint went on TV to criticize Obama for lax airport security after the attempted atack on Christmas Day. Funny thing is, he is the very Senator who has held up the Administrations nominee to head the Transportation Security Administration, a widely regarded counter terrorism expert! Holding up White House nominations is just another tactic in the Republicans playbook to undermine the President and hobble his chances for real change. Dozens of key positions are vacant one year into the Obama presidency, thanks to the Republicans. But you probably wouldnt get that news from Fox or Rush.

As for the tired charge of Big Government spending who was it who started two wars while cutting taxes, and pushed through a Medicare drug bill predicted to cost over $1 trillion this decade without any way to pay for any of this? Who inherited a surplus and left the biggest deficit in history, and made China our largest creditor?

And the charge of not being transparent enough? Do you recall Cheneys secret Energy Task Force?

Cheney wont even reveal who was in the meetings, let alone who actually wrote the energy policy. At least we know who has been involved in the health care hearings.

Most of us have not forgotten that Barack Obama walked into a buzz saw when he took office. To suggest otherwise, or to expect there is a cheap and painless quick fix is hypocritical at best.

Ruthanne Wolfe, New Albany

Wheres the outrage now, New Albany? A little over a year ago, a New Albany small business owner was asked by a Chicago newspaper if he was going to vote for Obama for President. When he said he would not, the reporter asked him why. He responded with something like, I wont vote for him because hes black. The reporter got what he wanted.a neat little sound bite that falsely demonstrated that all white Hoosiers must be racists.

What followed was an aggressive campaign by another small business owner (not even in the same business) attacking him for his remarks. I didnt agree with the comment and responded publicly so. But I understand where his sentiment came from. I believe that most African American New Albanians would never support my Party, not because I am white but because they have been led to believe that only Democrats care about them. No racism there.but certainly a prejudice formed not by what my Party believes but by what they believe us to believe. No real checking of the platforms of each Party. No real examination of individual candidates and their beliefs. Just a prejudiced opinion that because a candidate is Republican he has to be anti-black.

Now we have the Majority Senator from Nevada who said, before the election, that our President would make a good candidate because he was "light skinned" and spoke "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." It was also revealed that the current leader of the Democratic Party once said that if any African Americans were ever attending a GOP event, it would be because they were serving the food. He said the Republican Party was not very friendly to different kinds of people. They're a pretty monolithic party. Pretty much, they all behave the same, and they all look the same. ... It's pretty much a white Christian party.'' Then he turned around and proclaimed "I still want to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." So, I ask againwheres the outrage now?

Another question: Why do you keep electing these people? Third time Mayor Doug England, when addressing the issue of who would get contracts to help the S. Ellen Jones District spend a $6.7 million grant described builders, developers and realtors as vultures. Multi-term incumbent Congressman Baron Hill set the voters straight when he declared This is my town hall meeting. I set the rules. And you're not going to tell me how to run my Congressional office." Hey, it sounds like as the GOP Chairman, I have an agenda here!

The truth is we all say stupid things some times. I admit that I have made more than my share. There are whole websites devoted to giving you all the stupid things politicians have said for all time. With media being what it is today, no one should ever expect that comments will be made in private ever again. So, if you say something stupid, you are surely going to have to admit it. What probably will also never change is that someone will use your stupid quote to try to gain an advantage for his side. It makes good controversy but bad politics. It holds those we elect as accountable but can destroy their lives in the process. No wonder good people have no interest whatsoever in getting into politics. So, as a result, we leave the job of leading us to those less qualified.

May I recommend a compromise? Number one, how about if we give each other a little slack? Recognize that everything we say isnt going to come out perfectly. Second, reel in the attacks when someone says something stupid. Americans have become way too sensitive about stupid things other people say. Third, lets start finding out what those we vote for actually believe.where they actually stand on issues we care about. Get beyond the rhetoric and get involved. We might actually get some smart people elected. I wouldnt, however, expect them to stop saying stupid things any time soon.

Dave Matthews
Chairman, Floyd County Republican Party

To say it was the most reckless thing Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has ever said might be underestimating his reputation of irresponsibility, but it had to be close. In attempting to shame Senate Republicans for not supporting a plan to destroy the quality and affordability of healthcare in the United States, Reid made the following statement:

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right. When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough'....When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today."

Who is advising this man?

There are so many reasons this statement is foolishly unwise, it is tough to know where to start. First of all, Reid might want to remember that it was the Democratic Party that was the Party of slavery. While Lincoln and the Republicans fought for the abolition of this terrible practice, it was Reid's progenitors that bitterly clung to the racist institution of enslavement. Mr. Reid, it's best not to reference the cowardly effort to perpetuate slavery when that legacy belongs to your own party.

Secondly, Reid's comment about the civil rights filibuster is undoubtedly a reference to Strom Thurmond's famous 1957 effort against that legislation. But at the time Thurmond led the filibuster, he was a Democrat. His switch to the Republican Party wouldn't happen until several years later. In fact, over 80 percent of those who filibustered in an effort to kill the civil rights legislation were of the same party as Harry Reid. Mr. Reid, it's best not to reference the cowardly effort to prevent civil rights advancements when that legacy belongs to your own party.

Next, it evidently hasn't occurred to Mr. Reid that the consequence of this healthcare legislation would be to restrict the freedom of choice to individuals. It would require government approval of healthcare decisions, government approval of health insurers, an individual mandate that doesn't allow a person the option to choose not to purchase some government-approved insurance, and (as nearly all of its supporters recognize) is a step towards the complete abolition of the private insurance industry. That means socialized medicine. Mr. Reid, it's odd that someone who favors stripping people of their freedom of choice in something as significant as their health and well being (making individuals completely at the mercy of government for it) would be referencing slavery at all.

But what makes Reid's slavery remark most incoherent is that he apparently fails to recognize that there is but one issue in modern American politics comparable to slavery, and it has nothing to do with legislation currently before Congress. There is only one other similar issue where the basic rights of man are being denied by those in power, and that's the issue of abortion. And it is Reid and his Democratic party that have taken the slaveholders' position. Mr. Reid, it is you who boldly stands in the shadow and proudly walks in the footsteps of the plantation owners.

Remember, those plantation owners were the "pro-choicers" of their day. They believed that anyone should have the choice to own another human being and do with them whatever they pleased. And when the abolitionists spoke up and said that every human had value and should be granted unalienable rights, the pro-choice slave owners scoffed. That is exactly what Harry Reid and the Democrats in Washington are doing right now with regard to innocent life in the womb.

In the name of choice, they are saying that it's okay for one human being to own another human being and do with them what they please even if that means killing them. And when the human rights advocates known as "pro-lifers" speak up and say that every human has value and should be granted unalienable rights, Reid and his Party scoff.

Mr. Reid, there is but one party and one Senate leader that is comparable to the slavery advocates -- and you needn't look further than a mirror to find him.

Dear Steve:

Surely the Tribune can do better than this. She is a fairly typical leftist who still believes in hope and change. President Obama and the Democrats have ignored all attempts at bipartisan health care reform. It is a financial boondoggle that will destroy health care as we know it and sink the nation financially. His "stimulus" package was political patronage, chicago style, at its worst, the most costly bill in our nation's history.

When Americans began to rise and oppose the direction of the nation, Democrat leaders referred to them in the most insulting terms (nazis, racists, right wing militias, astroturf, etc.). We have trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see based on Obama's budget proposals. The country is in alot of trouble because of Obama's policies. Not everyone reading your paper is a diehard leftist. Any chance of a little more balance in your guest columnists?

Thank you,

Richard Moss, MD.

Dear Sir,

So many fallacies in Ms. Wright's column would take a piece of similar length to document and refute. Given space constraints, I would just like to highlight two pieces of information. First, the Republicans have consistently been offering well thought out pieces of legislation to all the draconian measures the Democrats have been forcing on the public; this is easily documented in numerous sources. Secondly, Ms. Wright should acquaint herself with the Wall Street Journal investigation of our very own congressman Baron Hill and the junket he took to Scotland at taxpayer expense, a junket for which he couldn't even be bothered to stay for the duration of but left two days early and was flown back to DC and picked up in transportation specially arranged for the congressional group -- you try to get such VIP treatment. However, this behavior is right in line with that of his fellow Democrats who don't pay "their fair share" of taxes such as Treasury secretary Tim Geitner and Congressman Charlie Rangel, use taxpayer money to fly themselves around in airplanes with capacity far exceeding what is necessary such as the larger aircraft demanded by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and hypocritical environmentalists who use more electricity in one month than a "working man's" household uses in a year such as Al Gore.

Southern Indiana elected two supposedly stalwart fiscally conservative "blue dog" democrats in Bayh and Hill, yet both have voted to spend us into the biggest deficit ever seen in the US, spending more than all previous administrations combined. Yes, our Democratic elite "representatives" simply exude good will and honesty and common ground for those they "represent" -- but with over 60 percent of the American people opposing the health care bill, Hill and Bayh stubbornly cling to the wishes of their Democratic leadership and ignore the wishes of their constituents. Their slavish following of their corrupt leadership over the will and best interests of their constituents (do you know what cap and trade will do to Indiana electric rates? and Hill voted for it) show the plea for "common ground" is merely a smoke screen to pacify the residents of Southern Indiana while Hill and Bayh further their own personal careers and enjoy the fruits of our labor.

Sincerely,
Dianna Meinecke

Why doesnt writer hold President to his promises?

Suzette Wright obviously has a diseased perception of reality. The President promised in the campaign that he would reach across the aisle and bring Republicans into the legislative process and bring change you could count on. As a columnist, I am surprised that she never wrote a column titled Seeing is Believing, because for two years Senator Obama never reached across the aisle to co-sponsor any meaningful legislation with any Senate Republicans. Why arent you holding the President responsible for his broken promises?

The President promised no earmarks under his watch. The Omnibus bill came to him loaded with earmarks from both sides and he signed the bill stating this was old business. Three weeks ago, the President signed another Omnibus Bill, voted for on a Sunday, out of the view of the general public, loaded with earmarks. Did you write a column voicing your concerns?

I could go on an on. The President promised that all meaningful legislation would be broadcast on C-SPAN the process would be transparent yet as I type, they are behind closed doors reconciling the health care bill with the absence of C-SPAN cameras. I assume you will address this broken promise in a future column?

The President has the majority in both houses and the ability to pass any legislation and somehow you blame the Republicans.

The President falling hard in the polls because of Republicans is doubtful.

Jim Bass, Floyds Knobs

Reader wants Wright to wake up

I read Ms. Suzette Wrights Opinions page submission with great interest.

First of all, I would like to know what TV station she watches and what newspapers she reads?

She states, I have watched Obama as he invited Republical Politicians into the discussion.

It is a well-known fact that Obama promised that debates and negotiations would be transparent and shown on C-SPAN. However, now he will not allow C-SPAN to carry the negotiations that are going on between Pelosi, Reid and Obama behind closed doors. No Republicans are a part of any of these negotiations.

Also, near the bottom of Ms. Wrights letter she states that Obama is governing from the middle of the road. That is absolutely incorrect. He is so far left that he has already run himself and this country into the ditch.

Wake up, people! We are about to lose many of our freedoms and be highly taxed as this happens.

Donna Schad, New Albany

GOP Chair upset about Wrights concern for our future

You have got to be kidding me! I was absolutely amazed that [The Tribune] even published the Opinions page rantings of Ms. Suzette Wright and her concern for our future. And, it isnt because she merely represents the views of those who cant handle the truth. She does represent those who see that when the news gets bad enough about those she helped put into office, the most effective counter is to shout the tired old lies of outrage at the other side, who now have no voice in government at all, as being the problem. No, my amazement is that you are publishing the opinions of those who are making this so easy for me. Like our New Albany mayor who recently referred to builders, developers and Realtors as vultures. You all are making it too easy for me to demonstrate that many of the new candidates we have to replace these people this year and next are far better choices than who we have now.

Of course, you dont need me to tell you the opinions of those who read The Tribune dont agree with this drivel. Look at the responses in the online version immediately following her article. They are pretty uniform in their agreement that Ms. Wright must obviously have her head in the sand. All Americans, both liberal and conservative, have seen the locked doors in Congress, virtually eliminating all dissenting opinions about health care from the side she is blaming. Everyone can clearly see, especially here in Indiana, how our representatives are totally ignoring the pleas to them that they stop this irresponsible spending, voting for bills that will double our cost of living and essentially destroying our economy.

Im sorry, Ms. Wright, but everyone can see that your opinions merely represent the standard tactics of lie and distract. This essentially says that if I truly have nothing to stand on that is moral, acceptable to the people, nor truly representative of the voters, just scream loud enough that the other side is well to do while you are not. Continue to blame representatives who cant even participate in the process as being obstructionists. Everyone can see that although this administration promised accountability, transparency and full participation by both sides of the Congressional isle, the totally opposite has been demonstrated for months now. Im sorry, Ms. Wright, but the American people arent that stupid. Certainly, Hoosiers around here arent that stupid. You will discover that anew in November.

Dave Matthews, Chairman of Floyd County Republican Party

Responses to Ms Wright's Letter Below

Bill McKay wrote:

Our Constitution is being flushed and no one is asking (as in NO ONE is asking) what is Constitutional; by this administration, by this Congress, or by any Congress in living memory. Does floyd boy miss the point? Perhaps.

But at least he recognizes what socialism is.
At least he's willing to call it what it is: socialism, communism lite.
At least he can recognize the extremist nature of our current leadership in Congress and the Capitol.

Would any of the Founders have tolerated a President who "likes to spread it around" or would they be searching within easy reach for the immediate expediency of a bucket of tar and a sack of feathers? I know what they'd do; do you?

Our children, and our children's children will be paying for your ineptitude and the staggering, arguably criminal, lack of awareness that our servants are trying to become our masters thru the simple expediency of giving us what we think we want.
Your yammering is yammering. Your yammering misses the point.
Flush them ALL in 2010.


wtfna wrote:

Let's not forget, Floyd Boy, as Bush left office, Republicans were still blaming Clinton for everything going wrong. It's a great gig.

No matter...if Republicans were still in charge, we'd be doing nothing about health care and they'd still be giving tax breaks to the wealthy in yet another vain attempt to prove that supply side economics really works. That is a true LOL.


Mike B. wrote:
Wow Suzette,

Do you really believe any of that hogwash you just wrote? I'm assuming you have been living under a rock last year and just closed everything out. Working together BS! It has been the Democrats meeting on health-care behind closed doors locking the Republicans out. I could go on and on, but from reading what you wrote I can tell that your just the typical lefty that probably still believes in global warming.

Excuse me while I go shovel the 6 inches of snow, in minus 20 degree weather from my driveway.



John wrote:

Its not like playing tennis without an opponent, its like playing tennis with an opponent that returns every serve.

What you want is opponent that lays down their raquet and lets you score off of every serve, but every serve is bad for our country and must be returned with vigor to prevent the point from being scored.



WhatChaNeed wrote:

Ms Write writes:

I've just finished jamming the close button on my Internet browser once again after skimming an article in The Wall Street Journal a favorite read of many well-to-do Republicans which claimed that 'Mr. Obama,' in office for a year, is to blame for the ever more highly polarized partisan conditions in Washington these days.
-----------------
Is this supposed to be a joke? The Journal is a favorite read of Republicans? Well maybe it is, but it is also a favorite read of Democrats.

'A Measure of Media Bias', a December 2004 study conducted by Tim Groseclose of the University of California, Los Angeles and Jeff Milyo of the University of Missouri, stated that:

'One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the most liberal of all 20 news outlets (studied). We should first remind readers that this estimate (as well as all other newspaper estimates) refers only to the news of the Wall Street Journal; we omitted all data that came from its editorial page. If we included data from the editorial page, surely it would appear more conservative. Second, some anecdotal evidence agrees with our result. For instance, Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid (2001) note that 'The Journal has had a long-standing separation between its conservative editorial pages and its liberal news pages.' Paul Sperry, in an article titled the 'Myth of the Conservative Wall Street Journal', notes that the news division of the Journal sometimes calls the editorial division 'Nazis.'

'Fact is', Sperry writes, 'the Journal's news and editorial departments are as politically polarized.'

So tell us, Ms Wright... How are we supposed to get on board with the rest of your biased opinions if you think a proven-liberal rag like the WSJ is really a conservative paper, and the main source of info for conservatives?
'One surprise is the Wall Street Journal, which we find as the MOST LIBERAL of all 20 news outlets (studied).' (Emphasis mine.)


Bill McKay wrote:

I'm stunned that the author has no apparent grasp of what is happeneing...none.
Our country is being bulldozed under, our Constitution has fallen from consideration by all our legislators, our children are being enslaved with debt to finance the whims of socialist plaaanners...and this woman is whining because we aren't playing politics like a tennis match.

I've heard of clueless; her picture should be posted next to the word in Merriam-Webster.
Unbelievable.


floyd boy wrote:

That's hilarious...after the past eight years of blaming Bush for everything from Katrina to 9/11 this author continues with the same nonsense. Keep drinking that Obamaid, history will provide the truth and all of us will pay the price for the socialism you so admire.



cunningham wrote:

Hog Wash

WRIGHT: Concern for our future

By SUZETTE WRIGHT

Ive just finished jamming the close button on my Internet browser once again after skimming an article in The Wall Street Journal a favorite read of many well-to-do Republicans which claimed that Mr. Obama, in office for a year, is to blame for the ever more highly polarized partisan conditions in Washington these days.

In shock, my finger hit the close button and I sputtered my rage.

Like President Barack Obama, since the election and the possibility for good will that it seemed to usher in, I have tried to see my Republican friends points of view, listen, treat their ideas with respect and work to find common ground. Our country has many serious problems that threaten our future. Like Obama, I believe common ground exists, and that it can serve as starting point for addressing urgent problems. I have watched Obama, who has invited Republican politicians into the discussion, waited, been patient and respectful of opposing views. Apparently all this has earned him from the Republican side of the aisle is blame. Blame for what they themselves have failed to do.

Its like trying to play tennis without a partner. On so many topics, there hasnt been much effort by the party of no to craft a compromise, or in some cases, even to listen. Now Obama can keep lobbing the ball over the net, but if the Republican party refuses to volley the ball back, can anyone explain to me how that is his fault? The opinion of the Journal writer underscores what the Republican party has become: A finger that points blame frequently for their own follies everywhere but at themselves. And increasingly, it doesnt matter if their accusations are true or even logical, since they also hold to the notion that if you shout something loudly enough and often enough, truth doesnt matter. People will come to believe you anyway.

Unfortunately, a number of Americans are still so nave after years of this they still fall for the manipulation the shrill, slightly desperate sounding voiceovers on TV ads run by organizations, often sporting names that sound quite high-minded, that are funded by the health insurance industry or the party itself.

The real sleight of hand that well-to-do intellectuals in the Republican party (like Journal readers) have pulled off is that by fanning the emotions that surround hot-button issues (like abortion, gay marriage, and government interference in health care), they can paper over the tremendous amount of damage Republican policies have done to our nations well-being and the average persons hopes for prosperity and a secure life.

The great majority of our population has most decidedly not benefited from recent Republican domination of our nations policies. Republicans have controlled the White House for 21 of the past 30 years, and controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006. Ive been around for all of those years and from where I sit in the middle of the middle class, we have been traveling largely backwards.

I have watched as Republican policies have favored the wealthy and backed corporate profits at the expense of average citizens. I have watched Republicans remove programs designed to keep children healthy and well-fed, and give parents the ability to provide for their families without sacrificing family time to work two jobs in order to make ends meet. We have so unraveled our social fabric in many American cities, I am concerned about a rising tide of crime as individuals are pushed by desperate conditions to take desperate measures. This hurts us all, unless you live you live in a gated community, and are so well-off you can afford to watch your income stagnate, and your retirement savings shrink.

I would have thought that the middle road Obama has taken on many topics since assuming the presidency, not to mention the fact that his administration has steered us away from the economic abyss, would have put to rest some of the outsized fears Republicans continue to feed. But as the health care debate and the Tea Party folks have demonstrated, logic has no place in this.

I just wish average Americans would wake up to the Republican partys manipulation of their votes, and wise up enough to recognize that no great nation can endure that is not founded upon providing and helping to preserve an environment that gives the majority of its people ample opportunities for health, a good education, fair compensation for work performed, and does not neglect elderly, disabled, and socially disadvantaged citizens who have a rightful share in our countrys prosperity.

For this you need at least two parties willing to play ball and not one side whose reason for being seems to be undermining all solutions and compromises proposed by the Democrats, even if requires spreading half truths and in some cases outright lies to an uninformed, fearful citizenry. Yes we are a house divided against itself at any cost, apparently. Unless we demand Republican politicians come up with real suggestions for addressing our countrys gravest problems: Unaffordable/inadequate health care, disappearing jobs, shrinking paychecks, and an economy hostage to big banks and corporations, I dont hold much hope for our future.

JOHNSON: Politics, Religion, and a resolution or two

By RICHARD JOHNSON

For more than a year, I have been writing this column about faith specifically, the Christian faith and how incorporating a faith-based approach in corrections can effectively reduce prison and jail recidivism rates. If, as some say, it is a good idea to avoid talking about politics and religion in polite company, then I am already more than halfway in trouble. Since Ive already stepped on the third rail of religion, I may as well go all the way and write about politics, too.

Let me admit at the outset that I am tired of one thing in particular; when I visit some churches, especially during election season, I sometimes hear from the pulpit that you cant be a Christian and vote Democratic. The following Sunday at another church, I hear from the pulpit that you cant be a Christian and vote Republican. Arrrgh!

As far as I can remember from my study of the scriptures, Jesus had only two things to say about politics:

Give Caesar what belongs to him, and to God what belongs to Him.

When its time to pay your taxes, go fishing.

I have no preference for either political party; in my opinion, each bears a share of responsibility for the current state of our Union. Like most independents, I tend to vote for the candidate who best represents my views and interests. On that basis, I have voted in the past for both Democrats and Republicans; sometimes, for lack of a better candidate, with a clothespin on my nose.

I have also voted for the occasional oddball candidate whose ethics, common sense, and creative thinking get my attention. The convention wisdom says he or she doesnt have a snowballs chance of winning, but I vote for them anyway.

Some of my friends (usually hardcore Democrats or Republicans) chide me for wasting my vote when I cast it for the voice crying out in the wilderness. I dont consider it a waste to vote my conscience or convictions. If more people voted for the long-shot, perhaps our two dominant political parties might lose some of their grip on the reins of power. Then they might be forced to pay considerably more attention to the will of the people.

The only way to waste a vote is not to vote at all. If you dont vote, you cant complain about the outcome. If you want to complain and be taken seriously, then vote.

Politics has always been a rough and tumble business. It is certainly not an occupation for the faint of heart. But it seems to me that we have passed into another season of particularly brutal partisanship. I dont like it, especially when it descends to the level of personal invective. But thats the way it is, at least for the time being.

The current state of our political landscape is not new; we have been here before, and after this particularly nasty phase passes, we will undoubtedly see it again someday. As King Solomon said, there is nothing new under the sun; if you doubt it, look up the presidential election of 1800. Youll find that it looks an awful lot like todays politics.

If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy. - Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, November 29, 1802.

It is the nature of power to gather more power. The more power government gathers to itself, the greater the possibility that the governed will lose their liberties; especially if we become too dependent on the government for many of the basic necessities of life. No one can argue that our dependence on the government hasnt grown considerably in recent decades, whether its a poor person in need of emergency assistance, or an international corporation looking for favorable treatment or a handout.

If Thomas Jefferson and the rest of our nations founders can be believed and their collective wisdom trusted, then we may have reached the tipping point they warned us of, where government needs to be divested of some of its power and made more accountable to the electorate if democracy and our freedoms are going to survive. Therefore, in the form of a series of New Years resolutions, let me offer a few modest proposals designed to reduce the power of our government and make our elected officials more accountable to those who elected them:

A single six-year term for the President. We already lose two years of the first term to re-election efforts; this way, the chief executive has enough time to govern, and wont be distracted by the need to run for office a second time.

Strip Congress of its power to increase its own salaries and perks, and give that power to the states. Let each state set the compensation and provide housing in Washington for their Senators and Representatives. If they want a raise, let them go to their boss and ask for one, as the rest of us do.

Require all Federal expenditures to be included in the budget; no more off budget expenses.

Require a balanced budget, except in cases of declared war.

Make each individual member of Congress personally responsible for expenditures that exceed the budget (Senator, your share of this years excess Federal spending is $50 million dollars; your personal check needs to be received by the Treasury Department before Thursday.).

These things will never happen ... but I can dream, cant I? Ive got a few other ideas along these same lines, but these should keep the seriously political among us busy at least through the end of 2009. So, discuss among yourselves ... and may the New Year bring you and yours peace and prosperity.

Johnson is executive director of Christian Formation Ministries. His organization has numerous volunteer opportunities available. For information, e-mail richard@christian-formation.org, or call 812-945-0886.