Sunday, October 26, 2008

This is worth seeing and reading. I can't find anything on McCain's site about people with disabilities and nothing so extensive about early intervention. I'd love to see a link if you find something I couldn't. Here's a few excerpts:

Zero to Five Plan: The Obama-Biden comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, the Obama-Biden plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama and Biden will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.

Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama and Biden will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.

Affordable, High-Quality Child Care: Obama and Biden will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.

Early Intervention for Children with Disabilities: Children's ability to succeed in school relies on the foundation they build in their first three years. Pre-kindergarten for four-year-olds is important, but it is not enough to ensure children arrive at school ready to learn. This is particularly so for children with disabilities and/or special health care needs, who already face challenges in the early years that can set them behind their peers before they ever enter school. Barack Obama and Joe Biden will invest $10 billion per year in early intervention educational and developmental programs for children between zero and five. Their plan will help expand Early Head Start to serve more children with disabilities, and will spur states, through programs like Early Learning Challenge Grants, to expand programs for children with disabilities, such as IDEA Part C, and integrate these programs with other early childhood programs.

Support Universal Screening: Roughly 90 percent of infants in the United States are screened for various potentially disabling or life-threatening conditions, but fewer than half the states screen all infants for the American College of Medical Genetics’ full recommended panel of 29 disorders. Many of these conditions, if caught early, can be treated before they result in permanent impairments or even death. And parents are often unaware that the tests are available. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe that we should ensure that all states have comprehensive newborn screening programs. In addition, they support setting a national goal to provide re-screening for all two-year-olds – the age at which some conditions, including autism spectrum disorders, begin to appear. Part of Obama's early childhood intervention plan will be directed at coordinating fragmented community programs to help provide parents with information about screening for disabilities as infants and again as two-year olds. Achieving universal screening is essential so that disabilities can be identified early enough to help children and families get the special supports and resources they need.

I think it's exciting that someone is recognizing 0-5 and the need for broader testing of newborns and putting it in their campaign platform!


oma said...

Please go to to learn more about mccain.


The Other Lion said...

i did. i couldn't find what i was looking for. that's why i was asking.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but I can't support Obama. His views on late term abortion because a child with disabilities would "be a burden" are just SO offensive to me. I also cannot support his views on making this a Socialist country. Our Founding Fathers would be rolling in their graves.

McCain doesn't have the charisma that Obama does but he does have the passion of his convictions. He may come across as angry at times but I believe it's because of his passion and his love of this country and wanting to do best by it.

Don't buy into the "hollywood hype"
The stars can afford his plans. They'll just ask for $25 million a picture instead of $20 million to pay the increase in their taxes but who will ultimately pay for it??

Kristiem10 said...

While I agree that it sounds like a good plan, and education is very important, there are many other factors (for me) that go into making a decision about who I'll vote for. I cannot say I am well-pleased about John McCain as a candidate, but I know that he doesn't support socialized health care and the redistribution of wealth. That is a major concern for me.

SB said...

I think you shold ask How is he planning on paying for all of this....

I will agree that BO has run a fine campaign, like a long glossy commercial. Very well put-together. But he's not being truthful. Our country cannot addord his pipedreams.

And his views on abortion? Atrocious. He would systematically murder children like ours. Remember this is the man who says he wouldn't won't his own daughters "punished with a baby"....

He's slick. And he's good at convincing you. But I think he's a menace to good values.

I can appreciate wanting a change after 8 years of a Republican president, but remember this: the Dems have had a strangle-hold on the House and The Senate for these past two years.

if you REALLY want to learn about your candidate, get your info from a NON-partisan source. John McCain is not my 1st choice but he's better than BO.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

Another thing...Our current economic situation had a start with Clinton signing the legislation in 1999 that helped de-regulate the mortgage industry. And Obama's CURRENT economic advisor was a supporter of this legislation. Hmmmmm.
To have a Democratic congress and President? Recipe for disaster.

d. said...

My understanding of the effect of an Obama Administration on the issue of abortion is simple: he would maintain the right to privacy enshrined in the Constitution and protected by Roe v. Wade. I think it's highly disingenuine to suggest he would alter the balance we have in place with respect to life and a woman's right to choose. If you have a copy of his policy proposal in that respect, I would love to see it. As for the claim he would "systematically murder children like ours," that's red meat of the very worst kind, and I can't even respond to it.

I will, however, respond to the claim that Obama is a socialist, as it wears on my patience.

I hate to break it to you, but if you think Obama is a socialist, then so is McCain, Bush (sr.) and Reagan. And pretty much every other president we've had since 1913. When I hear folks claim Obama is a socialist, it tells me that they're listening to stump speeches or FOX News commentators, and not reading the actual tax plans. This also tells they don't really understand what socialism is.

I'll say this quickly as I can (which, you know, is never all that quick):

All tax plans are redistributive. Period.

All of them pull from private funds for the public use. In this way, every tax plan aims to "share the wealth" -- we have consistently required wealthier individuals to pay higher tax percentages than middle/lower classes, because they have a proportionally higher interest in the health of the economy, and are therefore asked to pay proportionately more. This does not mean that you take a CEO's dollar and put it in a janitor's pocket -- this means that the CEO has a proportionately higher investment in, say, roads, or schools, or basic social services, than the janitor does, because sustaining the road or the school does not cut into the CEO's ability to sustain himself. It has nothing to do with "handouts" -- that's confusing the issue with welfare, which is totally, totally separate (and not even an issue in this election).

All Obama's plan will do to the wealthy is what would happen to them in 2010 anyway -- put the upper 2% of the country back to the tax levels they had under Reagan. And since most Republicans wet themselves at the mere mention of Reagan, you won't hear anyone calling him a socialist.

I say this would happen in 2010 anyway, because that's when Bush's tax cuts expire -- and those tax cuts ONLY benefited the wealthiest. When he resets the taxes on the wealthiest 2% of income-earners (from 35% to 39%, only a 4% difference), he's going to lower the tax burden on people in lower tax brackets. This is how you pay for tax cuts without increasing the national debt (which, under McCain, will increase by over 5 trillion dollars in his first term).

My mom had to take money from her home equity loan to pay her taxes last year. She's a retired school teacher. That's the insane country we live in, my friends. That's why the lower and middle classes need a tax break -- because for THEM, it means the ability to spend money on necessities, like my mom's mortgage payment, or her heart medication. A tax break for the wealthy simply does not impact their lives in a similar way -- nor does it stimulate the economy, as conservatives have argued for decades.

The total tax burden on the private economy would be somewhat lighter than it is now under Obama's plan, and that's doubly important for our markets.

Federal income tax has for the last 100 years attempted to soften -- albiet only slightly -- the inevitable inequalities of a free market economy. We have had, for all intents and purposes, the mildest form of socialism at work, whether you're talking about taxes under Reagan, George Bush Sr., or Clinton. It is always the same. Otherwise we'd have had a flat tax all this time (remember Steve Forbes?), which is an economic concept that has been flatly rejected again and again.

The fact is, McCain/Palin, until very recently (and conveniently), are just as "socialist" as Obama -- and the overwhelming majority of politicians, whether liberal or conservative. Allow me to quote:

During the 2000 campaign, on MSNBC's "Hardball," a young woman asked McCain why her father, a doctor, should be "penalized" by being "in a huge tax bracket." McCain replied that "wealthy people can afford more" and that "the very wealthy, because they can afford tax lawyers and all kinds of loopholes, really don't pay nearly as much as you think they do." The exchange continued:

Young woman: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .
McCain: Here's what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there's nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.

For her part, Sarah Palin, who has lately taken to calling Obama "Barack the Wealth Spreader," seems to be something of a suspect character herself. She is, at the very least, a fellow-traveller of what might be called socialism with an Alaskan face. The state that she governs has no income or sales tax. Instead, it imposes huge levies on the oil companies that lease its oil fields. The proceeds finance the government's activities and enable it to issue a four-figure annual check to every man, woman, and child in the state. One of the reasons Palin has been a popular governor is that she added an extra twelve hundred dollars to this year's check, bringing the per-person total to $3,269. A few weeks before she was nominated for Vice-President, she told a visiting journalist—Philip Gourevitch, of this magazine—that "we're set up, unlike other states in the union, where it's collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs." Perhaps there is some meaningful distinction between spreading the wealth and sharing it ("collectively," no less), but finding it would require the analytic skills of Karl the Marxist.

Anyway, that's what I think about THAT. Apologies to everyone if I come off as too snarky.

d. said...

Also, McCain may not support the idea of government supplementing the system of healthcare in this coutry, but he certainly seems keen on having the government buy up home mortgages and step into the shoes of mortgage providers/servicers -- which is perhaps the most "socialist" proposal we've seen in the last two years of campaigning.


Sarah said...

I was already an Obama supporter, but now I have even more reasons to be one - thanks!! : )