President Obama said he did not want family planning to be used a “political wedge” and refused to continue that “stale and fruitless debate.”

“In the coming weeks, my administration will initiate a fresh conversation on family planning, working to find areas of common ground to best meet the needs of women and families at home and around the world.” — President Barack Obama to CNN

January 21, the day after President Obama was sworn into office, was the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the U. S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion by stating the right to abortion was guaranteed within the 14th Amendment’s  right to privacy.  Even as inauguration crowds dispersed,tens of thousands of members of the right to life movement converged on Washington for the annual Right to Life march, which ended on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.

While Republican opposition to this decision was quickly voiced in tandem with charges that Obama’s decision was a flip-flop on his earlier statements to work to reduce the number of abortions, it is in fact in keeping with that pledge. Finding ways to fund family planning efforts and create a safety net for women of childbearing age is the responsible approach to 21st century health care.

Population Action International said the move will “save women’s lives worldwide” and that the issue is basic health care and well-being for all women and children. Planned Parenthood, which decried the Bush administration action in cutting of funding, took a similar stance, applauding the move as positive direction in women’s health care.

President Obama, in making his decision, said the move to provide funding to family planning clinics would help achieve the goal of reducing unintended pregnancies, “promote safe motherhood,” reduce maternal and infant mortality,  and improve  economic opportunities for women.

“By signaling his intention to restore U.S. funding for UNFPA, the UN Population Fund, President Barack Obama is signaling his re-engagement with the international community on the critical challenge of improving reproductive health around the worl.”  — UN Foundation President Timothy Wirth said.

As early voting opened in Tennessee to heavy turnouts, Senator McCain’s promised thumping of Senator Obama didn’t materialize. Groups gathered at both local Republican and Democratic party headquarters to watch the debate, discuss their preferences and hear the candidates present their proposals.

The final candidates debate of the 2008 presidential election season was a much anticipated showcase of America’s choices for leadership for the next four years. The debate’s focus was to be on domestic policy, with the recent upheaval in the financial markets to be a focal point. The level of negative ads has increased to  near crescendo as McCain’s campaign unleashed new charges and the Obama campaign refuted falsehoods and returned the fire to McCain. The debate was supposed to offer a clear demonstration of McCain’s superiority to Obama. Sadly, for McCain, the smear adhesive didn’t stick.

Viewers were treated to a consistent presentation of proposals and ideas from Obama as he responded to  McCain’s attempts to hang negatives.

Obama noted that McCain’s own campaign said publicly last week that, “if we keep on talking about the economic crisis, we lose, so we need to change the subject.” Such was the tone for the course of the evening.

The differences in economic stimulation and health care coverage ideas made for strong contrasts.  McCain did not deny that under his health care reforms, employer-based health care coverage would be taxed to the employee, a first in the U.S. He stated that his $5000 tax credit would allow taxpayers to purchase insurance on their own. He suggested that this would afford taxpayers typical coverage, except for such extravagances as cosmetic surgery and transplants. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has stated annual health care premiums average $12,000. McCain had no answer for how that shortfall would be addressed. Senator McCain opposes any tax increases, instead proposing to further President’s Bush’s tax cuts and make them permanent. He says that  Obama would raise taxes on the middle class taxpayer and small businesses. He, however, doesn’t want to raise taxes for anyone.

Obama was reasoned in his calm presentation of his proposals for the American people. He stated under his health care reform, employer-based health care coverage would not be taxed, those with such coverage could keep it and see their premiums lowered; and those without coverage would be offered a coverage plan much like one that he and  McCain enjoy as members of Congress, with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions.  Obama stated that under McCain’s plan, employer-based health care could actually disappear altogether. He based this on a finding released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a traditionally conservative, non-Democrat, business advocate. Additionally, Obama would use the discount-buying power of the federal government, as a consumer, to purchase drugs at a lower cost from the drug companies.

Obama has proposed a tax plan where ninety-five percent of taxpayers will not see an increase, but rather a tax cut. Obama noted that small businesses typically earn under $200,000 dollars a year. Under his plan, small businesses which earn $250,000 dollars or less a year would also see a tax cut. Obama stated that McCain’s approach would give an additional tax break of $200 billion dollars to some of the wealthiest corporations in the nation. He cited Exxon-Mobil and the oil industry as a whole, would receive an additional $4 billion in tax breaks. McCain did not deny either of these charges.

On foreign oil dependence, the candidates had differences as well. McCain supported immediate offshore drilling, as well as drilling in ANWR, to provide short-term relief to our energy situation. He said this would give us time to develop more nuclear energy plants, support alternative energy programs for wind, solar, natural gas, tide and flex-fuels to cut our dependence on foreign oil. He claimed this will make the U.S. independent of foreign oil.

Obama corrected him that our oil reserves only total three percent of the world’s total oil reserves and we annually consume twenty-five percent of the world’s oil supply. “We can’t drill our way out of this.” He further pointed out that U.S. oil companies already hold leases on sixty-eight million acres of offshore oil drill sites which they are not developing. He proposed they either drill in these areas or lose them to other developers. He also said he is not opposed to nuclear energy development, but we must also pursue alternative energy in wind, solar, geothermal and bio-diesel and high fuel-efficient vehicles to truly reduce our dependence on foreign oil and reinvigorate the American economy. Energy development can play a major role in revitalizing our economy with job creation and retention. Creation and manufacture of high fuel-efficient vehicles in the United States can serve as a revival of the nation’s economic manufacturing segment and thereby give new vitality to the U.S. auto industry. Realigning our energy perspective can give us the ability to realign so many other segments of the American system- adjusting our education system, focusing on preventive health care measures to reduce later demands on Medicare and Medicaid.

When asked if the federal budget can be balanced in four years,  McCain answered, “Sure, …we can do it with this kind of job creation of energy independence.” He offered to implement an across-the-board spending freeze. However he would not declare what cuts he would impose beyond eliminating the marketing assistance program and some ethanol subsidies. Regarding the fine tuning of specific programs being eliminated, he never quite responded with those details.  Obama suggested that it would take ten years to reach a balanced budget. He suggested starting with eliminating the $750 billion dollars in subsidies to the insurance companies, that doesn’t provide seniors with coverage nor improve the Medicaid/Medicare programs. He also insisted that he would require proper structure of the $750 billion dollar rescue package passed by Congress. He stressed that he has been a strong proponent of pay-as-you-go spending. Every spending bill he has proposed has included financial offsets so that they did not add to the federal deficit.

There were additional questions on education reforms, Supreme Court nominees, suitability of opposing vice presidential running mates, negative characterizations of opponents, NAFTA considerations, and support for human rights. The full transcript of the debate is available at the CNN website.

There is plenty of campaign follow-up activity by both parties. Tonight, the College Republicans and Democrats will hold a debate at the APSU Library. On Saturday, October 18,there will be a Voters Rally at Veterans Plaza, starting at 10 a/m. At the conclusion, voters will proceed to the Election commission to cast their votes. On October 29th, the chairpersons of each political party will hold a debate in the Morgan Center Ballroom on APSU. This event will start at 2 p.m. Both parties offer volunteer opportunities for any persons wishing to support their respective candidates.

[Show as slideshow]

12►

Tim Barnes with his wife, Linda, and their children (from left), Patrick, Fergus and Molly family at a Sept. 19 press conference

Barnes, whose candidacy seemingly ended with his primary election 19-vote loss to incumbent Senator Rosalind Kurita, challenged that vote, citing alleged improprieties in the election process; the Tennessee Democratic Executive Committee subsequently overturned that primary  election race and turned the Kurita/Barnes race over to the executive committees in the three District 22 counties: Montgomery, Houston and Cheatham.

On Friday, September 19, Barnes briefly reviewed the process that led to his reclaiming the Democratic nod, and said that the healing of the party rift had begun. In his statement, Barnes pledged to develop a “cooperative” spirit with other legislators, to work at attracting quality high paying jobs to the area, to work at expanding health care options for the people of Tennessee, and to work at managing the state budget with an intent to keep taxes low while “providing necessary services.”

“It is time to turn our attention to the needs of the people,” Barnes said. “I am not here to work for me, I am here to work for the people of Clarksville and all of District 22. The issue now is ‘What can I do for the people of the 22nd Distict?’”

Surrounded by his family, Barnes outlined several priorities he would pursue if elected:

• Price gouging related to gas prices. Barnes said the current laws which impose a $1,000 fine for price gouging “is an insufficient deterrent” to that practice. He advocates not just raising the fines to a more financially painful level but changing the crime from a Class B to a Class A misdemeanor, with a much heavier overall penalty.
• The HOPE Scholarship. Barnes would re-activate discussion of the HOPE scholarship with the intent of dropping the qualifying grade to a 2.75, a move that would open the opportunity of a college  education to more students. He cited the need for an educated workforce, and the desire of more families to afford a college education. The 2.75 would reflect a high school student’s cumulative four-year average and would the grade standard  for retention of that scholarship through each of the four years of undergraduate study. Currently the qualifying grade is a 3.0.
• Pro-life or Pro-choice. Barnes was candid about the fact that his law practice is heavily vested in adoption and family law, and admitted that particularly “some forms of abortion” (i.e. partial birth abortion) is something he does not personally favor. Personally, “I recognize that it is the woman’s right to choose.”  The  Supreme Court ruled that this decision rests solely with the woman, and “I respect that right.” He personally falls on the side of life, but said candidly that this issue of choice is not one to be made at the state level by state legislators. Barnes cited the Supreme Court as the arbiter and said that “choice” was the law of the land, and that law had to be respected. He indicated he would like to work for feasible alternatives to abortion, not the least of which is adoption, but added that “choice” is the law and the right of each individual woman.
• A Living Wage. Barnes voiced deep concern for the average family’s economic survival, stating that he wants the Tennessee wage scale tied to the federal minimum wage and a “living wage” that would offer more than a subsistence level of living for families. It’s a move that would benefit many, including single parent families, Barnes said.
• Paid Sick Leave that would allow an individual to not be penalized when providing care for a sick child, spouse or parent. “Tennessee lags behind the nation” in that area; the lack of this type of benefit negatively impacts employee morale.

As he wrapped up his statement on Friday, Barnes noted that the Senate District 22 seat “belongs to the people.”