Parts of Wisconsin are less “wacko” than I realized…

Dear Rep. Moore of Wisconsin’s 4th District:

Don’t recognize the name?  Why not — you should!  Look (from Wiki, where else?)

Gwendolynne Sophia Moore (born April 18, 1951) is the U.S. Representative for Wisconsin’s 4th congressional district, serving since 2005. She is a member of the Democratic Party.

The district is based in Milwaukee and also includes South Milwaukee, Cudahy and St. Francis, and part of West Allis. She is the first woman to represent the district. She is also the second woman and the firstAfrican-American elected to Congress from Wisconsin.

You REALLY  got my attention this morning.  Thank you!

Now, may we mothers get yours also?

How it happened:

On some early -morning channel posting House Debates, these were supposed to be about 2 minutes each, I watched while half awake as various people discussed the pros and cons of the Republican Defeat of the Single-Payer Healthcare what not.

Seriously, to me, that’s almost about how it goes.  Since I married decades ago, the primary time any health care was actually in process was when I managed to work FT, and sometimes for a short period after that.  This also applies to about the entire time I’ve been stuck in the family court system, which means for most of us, no job stability, and a lot more.  So while we are AWARE of other major political issues nationwide, there seems to be always some real pressing ones in our faces, year after year.  It really is an alternate lifestyle.

I was stunned!

So, I sat bolt upright with a true shock…

when an authoritative, black, woman elected U.S.Representative, even pronounced the word “WOMEN” in connection with HEALTHCARE.  And she knew what she was talking about, too…

I’d watched black and white, male and female, and most notably, Democrat and Republican, trade comments and soapbox (restrained at times, admirably by Madam Chairman).  I was more focused on the procedures than the contents.  I have long ago figured out that alternative health care is my route, and with the unbelievable chronic and longterm stress [can you say, “PTSD”) this cause has put upon (women like me, if I may, and our children), health care is secondary to staying alive, period, and housed.  Like so many other things (such as “Career development” and “long-term planning”) it rarely gets to the foreground.

Why I couldn’t sleep — I’d just uncovered more details in the extent, scope, (and how to track down) the financial fraud that goes along with the federal programs sent to the courts supposedly to help poor, single mothers, and poor low-income fathers, well, these are supposedly related to helping children through welfare reform.  YOu know the routine (or, should, by now…).  I literally, transfixed to the information, sat on my behind for 12 hours and fell asleep on the couch.  WIth the TV on for noise .  Noncustodial moms sometimes just need noise in the room, ya’ know…my brain had been taken to a new level of whassup, and somehow some mothers had contacted me for help.  Partly on the basis of information in this blog, which it’s known I developed from NAFCJ.net, and personally continuing to pay attention, look, and some other sources.  Geezh, imagine that.

Yesterday, I was all day writing, researching, and communicating with mothers in various states of noncustodial while feeling very homeless, and distressed about some friends of mine who are, and attempting to help another recent MidWestern Contact deal with loss children and having 100% (she claims) of her wages (which are nonexistent — she’s a full-time student) garnished to pay child support to her ex, who has full custody of three children.

Things appear to have changed since Rep. Moore (who is about my age, very close) was a young mother and university student, per her bio.

Path to Power (Whorunsgov.)

Moore, who was raised in Milwaukee, became an 18-year old single mother during her freshman year at Marquette University. She relied on welfare to complete her degree while raising her daughter.

(From her Congress website:)

Born in Racine, Wisconsin in 1951, Congresswoman Moore was raised in Milwaukee. The eighth of nine children, Rep. Moore’s father was a factory worker and her mother was a public school teacher. Congresswoman Moore attended North Division High School in Milwaukee where she served as Student Council President. After graduation, Rep. Moore started college at Milwaukee’s Marquette University as a single, expectant mother on welfare who could only complete her education with the help of TRIO. Congresswoman Moore earned a B.A. in Political Science from Marquette, and went on to serve as a community leader, spearheading the start-up of a community credit union as a VISTA volunteer for which she earned the national “VISTA Volunteer of the Decade” award from 1976-1986.

Obviously, she hadn’t learned of the great risk that female-headed households pose to the nation….

Nowadays, Rep. Moore, alas, it would not play out like that, I fear. Feminism, feminist backlash, and what not has put the government into the Designer-Family mode.  Perhaps, with your solid family background you might have gotten away with this, On the other hand, depending on who the father was, and who he got in touch with, perhaps he might have ended up raising your child, and you paying him, and dropping out of school to do so. This, as I’m sure you know, is called “welfare reform” and came in around 1996, after the Fatherhood Executive Memo, and much more.

I have to THANK you for this.  Perhaps someone else mentioned the word “women” if not “mothers” — but no one could miss that you did, here:

Congresswoman Moore statement on Health Insurance Reform Repeal Vote

January 20th, 2011 by Robert Rosati

Congresswoman Gwen Moore made the following statement after the House voted to repeal the new health insurance reform law that will help more than 30 million Americans afford health insurance, give small businesses tax credits to help insure their employees and implement necessary consumer protections:

“Republicans have the chance to walk the walk, but they are walking away from it. All throughout the debate on health insurance reform, Republicans said they supported consumer protections like the ban on pre-existing condition denials or charging women more than men for the same coverage. Where’d the support go over the past year?

“As chair of the Democratic Women’s Working Group, I led 45 of my colleagues in outlining to Speaker Boehner what’s at risk for women if this new law is repealed. Women were among those who gained the most, and now they’re among those with the most to lose. If this law is repealed, once again, a woman could be denied insurance because she’s been the victim of domestic violence. If this law is repealed, once again, a woman could be denied insurance because she’d been pregnant. If this law is repealed, once again, women could be charged more money for the same coverage as men.

“Just today, I met with a father who told me the story of his 25 year-old daughter who is going to school. She needed emergency gall bladder surgery. Without reform, they would have had to pay out of pocket. Repeal has real consequences.

“When Congress passed health insurance reform, I said that it wasn’t perfect, and that we’ll have to work to make it better. Recent polling shows that only 18 percent of Americans want the law completely repealed. Can we make this law even better? Yes. But should we take away the new protections? Should we repeal the security families now have — knowing that they aren’t one diagnosis away from bankruptcy? No way!”

Information used in this article was retrieved from a press release on Congresswoman Gwen Moore’s official website.

Tags: Congresswoman Gwen Moore, wisconsin

I know, I think, maybe why you are sensitive to the domestic violence issues and women’s issues to the point that you can get up there and even SAY “women” when (that I heard) it seems to have not even occurred as a category of people affected by, say, healthcare issues?  (can anyone say “maternal” “pregnancy” “birth” “Prenatal?”  Does anyone out there still remember that getting beat up might just occasion a trip to a hospital emergency room?  which is “healthcare”??? )  Rep. Moore remembered.  from “WHY SHE MATTERS” (and you do!) on “WhoRunsGov” page:

Why She Matters

Moore, a former community activist who served in Wisconsin’s state legislature for 16 years, now represents Wisconsin’s 4th Congressional District, an urban area that covers all of Milwaukee.

A member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and of the Congressional Black Caucus, Moore urges that more attention be spent on the needs of the lower class and of minority groups. Her political priorities – poverty issues, health care and civil rights – have been shaped by the hardships she encountered as an 18-year old single mother, as a welfare recipient and as a victim of sexual abuse.

Moore leans left on both domestic and foreign policy. In arguing that more attention be turned to poverty issues, she has proposed raising unemployment benefits, championed government-run health care and introduced legislation to help low-income workers acquire cars. A fierce opponent of picture-ID requirements, she joined the “Out of Iraq” caucus in support of a military withdrawal. In 2006, she was arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy during an anti-genocide protest.

And, on the page (same site), “The Path to Power”:

In 2003, after she faced criticism for the intensity with which she unsuccessfully defended an amendment requiring background checks for employees at private schools that participated in Milwaukee’s voucher program. Moore sought to explain herself through an emotional speech delivered on the state Senate’s floor. She revealed that she had been repeatedly molested as a child and had been raped twice as an adult.⁽³⁾

I am so curious whether you went the way of Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau of Kansas, and voted to support Responsible Fatherhood, Marriage Promotion (and all that) and “bought” that the true purpose of this was to help po’ folk. Or, children.  If not (I haven’t checked yet), will you please have a word, someday with Ms. Faust-Goudeau.  I did, on-line, a while back. …

I am not sure (didn’t find out yet), if you, like Rep. Tammy Baldwin, voted apart from other members of the Black Caucus on the bold issues below, per “on the issues.org/Welfare and Poverty”

---

Tammy Baldwin on Welfare & Poverty

Democratic Representative (WI-2): Click here for 8 full quotes OR click here for Tammy Baldwin on other issues.  Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (Mar 2009) Voted YES on providing $70 million for Section 8 Housing vouchers. (Jun 2006) Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003) Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks. (Jul 2001) Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations. (Nov 1999) Develop a strategy to eliminate extreme global poverty. (Dec 2007) Support school breakfast for low-income children. (Mar 2009) Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality. (Nov 1999)

 

Or, in more detail — YES, Rep. WI-2 “Tammy!”  These were the right votes.  And to make that vote in 1999, before the various states’ (United States’ individual state legislatures) got their copycat “fatherhood commissions” into law, took awareness and foresight.  I like to think.  (I was just about ready to break out of an abusive relationship around then.  AbusIVE was the weakest description of it, too — it was violent, dangerous, and injuries and destruction had occured, and were on the increase.  Why?  Because I was protesting it.  Few other people were – not my faith organization, family, pastors, employers, friends, colleagues.  Mostly they observed (the “Tsk., Tsk” factor).  It took something more to put a temporary (at least) stop to it:

Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients.

Welfare Reauthorization Bill: Vote to pass a bill that would approve $16.5 billion to renew the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant program through fiscal 2008 and call for new welfare aid conditions. The bill raises the work requirements for individuals getting assistance from 30 to 40 hours per week. States would be required to increase the number of recipient families working from the current level of 50 percent to 70 percent or more in 2008. The bill also provides an additional $1 billion in mandatory state child care grants and provides $200 million annually for marriage promotion programs.Reference: Bill sponsored by Pryce, R-OH; Bill HR 4 ; vote number 2003-30 on Feb 13, 2003

Voted NO on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks.

Vote to pass a bill that would allow religious organizations to compete equally with other non-governmental groups for federal funds to provide social service, and provide $13.3 billion in tax breaks for charitable giving over 10 years.Bill HR 7 ; vote number 2001-254 on Jul 19, 2001

Contrast THAT with President Obama’s Administration’s current policy at fatherhood.gov and Office of Faith-based Whatnots.

Voted NO on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations.

Vote to establish a program that would promote more responsible fatherhood by creating educational, economic and employment opportunities and give grants to state agencies and nonprofit groups, including faith-based institutions.Reference: Bill sponsored by Johnson, R-CT.; Bill HR 3073 ; vote number 1999-586 on Nov 10, 1999

While I may not have thought it through exactly like this, I’d have to think that it makes some real sense, and identifies a significant problem, and it’s absolutely clear that the above policies (the Marriage Promotion, and welfare structured as “hours per week” rather than seeking to work in some other non-hours-based manner are promoted and founded by major wealth that often does NOT work a per-hour salary, or apparently want certain populations to figure out that this is even an option.

Reduce the concentration of wealth & wage inequality.

Baldwin adopted the Progressive Caucus Position Paper:Economic inequality is the result of two and a half decades of government policies and rules governing the economy being tilted in favor of large asset owners at the expense of wage earners. Tax policy, trade policy, monetary policy, government regulations and other rules have reflected this pro-investor bias. We propose the introduction or reintroduction of a package of legislative initiatives that will close America’s economic divide and address both income and wealth disparities.

The Progressive Caucus could take the lead in the formation of a national leadership steering committee to put this dramatic issue before the public through coordinated media campaigns and local education and action forums. The political program should be concerned with:
• Reducing wage inequality: We are proposing initiatives to both raise the minimum wage floor and prevent the tax code from subsidizing excessive compensation.
• Asset-building initiatives: The government has historically given land to citizens. Unfortunately, the programs were discriminatory toward people of color and kept a whole generation of people off the asset-building train. We are proposing a universal asset building approach that will dramatically reduce the number of “asset less” households and reduce the disparity of wealth for all Americans.
• Addressing the over concentration of wealth and power: The concentration of wealth is a problem because it distorts our democracy, destabilizes the economy and erodes our at our social and cultural fabric. Too much concentrated wealth leads to too much concentrated power and begins to undermine our participatory democracy.

After a decade of economic prosperity, the moral question remains: if we can’t address the persistent economic divide in our nation today, when can we?

 

Please go from this post, to fellow-blogger “www.Randi James” blog and look up OCSE, HHS, and, recently,

“Marketing To Survivors of Domestic Violence,” an eloquent post.  She “gets it.”  I trust you, too, “Get it” regarding the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood grants system agenda (it’s not about helping women, children, or families, though that’s the pretext).

Some people, when they get all progressive, or all conservative, or all successful in politics, forget who gave birth to them, apparently.  Single motherhood is NOT dishonorable, and it’s not a failure sentence on biological basis, or on financial basis, unless the math is based entirely and only on wage-earning -minus childcare, and don’t dare get more creative than that (in this internet business-based era, and it’s truly possible).

However, THIS post, “Marketing,” is about a certain pricey book marketed at the BMCC conference (see my previous post) and practically any other major DV organization these days.  Like Evan Stark’s “Coercive Control,” it’s supposedly new, innovative, and the latest thing in the field.  However, as mothers, custodial or non, we have in interest in eliminating that field as a viable industry, and as a practice upon other human beings.  And we are the majority of the population, at least in the United States.

I just wanted to say thank you for saying “Woman,” in 2011, and for saying with confidence and authority, the words “Domestic Violence” in the House of Representative (or wherever that was broadcast from) and I will find out another day if you vote with, or not with, Rep. Barbara Lee (from my state), and Rep. Danny K. Davis, or against in these matters.  I say, against is better.