Yesterday, despite the dangerous driving conditions(it snowed. Again.), our whole family drove to Lincoln to take part in the home school Legislative Day, a annual event to help home schoolers learn about our legislature and meet with their senators- something like a field trip. However, due to the recent introduction by senator Shimek of the anti-freedom bill 1141, the focus of the day was primarily to talk to our senators about the bill and to make a show of force, letting our senators know that we are respectfully, but very strongly, opposed to this bill.
The roads were slick and icey in the morning, so instead of the estimated 1000 homeschoolers expected to attend, there were about 600. We arrived around 11am to hear Sen. Hudkins, Sen. Fulton, and Sen. Erdman speak to the group about LB 1141 and other bills of interest. Sometime near 12:30 we were divided into groups according to district so we could go meet our senators and speak to them for hopefully a few minutes. Our Senator, Kent Rogert, is fairly young and new to the scene. Our idea of him is that he is liberal, backed by rich farmers, and not too likely to support the home school cause. After lunch we listened to speakers from Family First, Nebraska Christian Home Educators Association(NCHEA), and Nebraska Family Council. The event ended at 3pm and we rushed home so we could get back before dark and get Dad's car unstuck from a snowdrift. The Lincoln Star Journal and Lincoln channel 10 News(KLON/KGIN) have both given media coverage to LB 1141, though it is generally biased in favor of the bill.
It was a good day, and we are all looking forward to the hearing on the 26th. I would not be surprised if there were 1000 people at that event!
4 comments:
It's fair to note that a man who won 67% of the vote, who answers almost all phones calls and emails personally, unlike most Senators, is backed by "rich farmers". If you know anything about the majority of those in the agricultural business or tied to it in the 16th District, the words "rich" and "farmers" are rarely grouped together. As for calling him a liberal,
"If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate of suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"
-President John F. Kennedy
Jeff Bush did little visual campaigning, and that may account for the fact that Mr. Rogert won 67% of the vote. I am not sure, but I think in your first sentence you are implying that since Mr. Rogert got that percentage of the vote and answers his phone he cannot be backed by rich farmers? I believe there is such a thing as a rich farmer. Farmers can and do get subsidies from the government. One of the sites I found that talked about farm subsidies was http://farm.ewg.org/farm/redraw/
Here is what I meant when I said “liberal”:
“liberals pursue the advancement of maximal corporate liberty, which is accomplished (in their thinking) by ensuring the rights of groups. A big government with expansive jurisdictions and prerogatives, then, is a necessary feature of the leftist vision for society. More often than not, though, ensuring group rights means trampling individual rights.”
That is from patriot post: http://patriotpost.us/alexander/edition.asp?id=546
I would love to see Mr. Rogert welcome home schooling and parental rights as “someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people”. That would be great!
So, anonymous, would you classify Rogert as a liberal or a conservative? And can you give some details on how you define those?
I would loosely say a liberal looks to the government to solve problems, resulting in higher taxes and greater control for the government with less freedom for the people. A conservative wants to limit government, let the people keep their money and make their own decisions.
We all want to learn from the past, yet look ahead, welcome new ideas as they fit into our view of what government should legitimately do, and care about the welfare of people. Conservatives just believe families, communities and churches should do most of the caring and liberals think the government should. Please don't insult some of us through such a broad, sweeping definition that implies anyone who is not a liberal is backward, uneducated and uncaring.
Perhaps Frazzled Sister is correct when she calls farmers rich. This is from heritage.org:
Farming may be the most federally subsidized profession in America. The persistence of farm subsidy programs results from the popular misconception that they stabilize the incomes of poor family farmers who are at the mercy of unpredictable weather and crop prices. Yet a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture report concluded that, "On average, farm households have higher incomes, greater wealth, and lower consumption expenditures than all U.S. households."1 This statement can be broken down into three parts:
* Higher incomes. In 1999, the average farm household earned $64,437--17 percent more than the $54,842 average for non-farmers. Incomes were even higher among the 136,000 households with annual farm sales over $250,000--and who also receive the largest subsidies. Their 1999 average income of $135,397 was two-and-a-half times the national average.2 (See Chart 1.) Farmer incomes are not only high, but also quite stable from year to year, despite agricultural market fluctuations.
* Greater wealth. The average farm household had a net worth of $563,563 in 1999--well above the $88,000 national average.3
* Lower consumption expenditures. Farm households have fewer costs than other households because (1) the cost of living is lower in rural America; (2) farm households need to purchase less food from outside sources; and (3) mortgage and utility bills are often classified as business expenses. Consequently, the average farm household spent only $25,073 on goods and services in 1999, which is $11,000 less than the average non-farm family.4
Post a Comment