War Spending Helps Rural Economies -- Is That Good?

"Facing South", the Institute for Southern Studies' blog, asked the question first but we couldn't have said it better ourselves: "Is it good that war spending is helping rural economies?"

"Facing South" is based in North Carolina, but the report actually covers eight Southern states (Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia). All have seen big influxes of military money.

Certainly, money matters, but so do a lot of other things, including the "big" ones like whether our country's international reputation is better now, or better before we went into Iraq ... we say, "No." Or, do we have fewer enemies -- or more enemies -- than we did before 9-11? ... we say, "More." Or is our economy in general better or worse? ... when we answer this question, we're thinking about working families. Are jobs more secure? Is it easier to send a child to college? and more. We say, "Everything is more difficult."

You may agree, or disagree, but one way or the other, we challenge you to read, consider, and also to ask yourself hard questions. Because of the higher recruitment rate for soldiers from rural communities, our sons and daughters are dying at a 60 percent higher rate than urban families' children (Carsey Institute data).

Ask yourself too? Did your Senator or Member of Congress vote against the new GI Bill that Senator Webb and others worked so diligently to pass? President Bush opposed as did Senator McCain. The Washington Post recently offered an editorial about "What the GI's Deserve." Long story short, Bush eventually signed the bill into law but McCain continues to oppose.

Health Benefits Inspire a Rush to the Altar, or to Divorce Court

Let's just say this very clearly: Access to basic health services should NOT be based upon whether you're married or divorced.

The divorce rate for American marriages is over 50 percent these days, and the problem of how difficult it is for people to access affordable health care is making things worse. Kevin Sack wrote the story "Health Benefits Inspire a Rush to the Altar, or to Divorce Court" for the New York Times. Read it here.

Overall, it's a pretty sad state of affairs that getting good health care depends on whether you've got a spouse that has it, or for that matter, that you have to divorce your spouse in order to be poor enough to get assistance with your medical bills. This said, it brings us to some key differences regarding what the two leading presidential candidates (presumptive nominees) have to say about health care. We credit National Journal -- not the campaigns, for these differences, noting that National Journal frames the key difference as "over the scope of government involvement in America's health care system."

To put this another way, Senator McCain's plan depends primarily on tax incentives to individuals, while Senator Obama's plan pays for his proposed program by allowing President Bush's tax breaks to expire for people who earn over $250,000.

There are differences in their voting records, including:

• State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP)
  
• McCain voted NO; Obama voted YES .. for reauthorization and expansion in 2007
  
• Stem Cell Research
• Obama SPONSORED 2006-07 legislation -- VETOED by President Bush & OPPOSED by McCain -- that would have expanded federal funding of embryonic-stem-cell research
  

National Journal lists SEIU, the American Hospital Association, Families USA and America's Health Insurance Plan as key supporters of Obama. National Journal does not list any organizations as advocates for McCain.

SEIU made its endorsement of Obama based upon his work in support of universal coverage, with employers, individuals and government sharing the financial burdon.

Republicans for Obama -- Jim Leach, Susan Eisenhower & More

We're fascinated.

Newsweek reported this growing story early --February 2008, calling it, "Barack + GOP = Obamacans." According to the story, Susan Eisenhower said she,

"Has no plans to officially leave the Republican Party. But in Eisenhower's view, Obama is the only candidate who can build a national consensus on the issues most important to her—energy, global warming, an aging population and America's standing in the world."

Now -- August, 2008, Republicans are organizing for Obama. Mike Glover, for the Associated Press reports, "Former Republican Congressman Endorses Obama."

The New York Times reports,

"About 20 current and former Republicans make up the group’s leadership committee, including Douglas Kmiec, a Republican who served in the Justice Department under President Ronald Reagan and was a supporter of Mitt Romney during the Republican primary, and Dorothy Danforth Burlin, a Washington lawyer who is the daughter of former U.S. Senator John Danforth, another moderate Republican."

And FT.com reports, "Three Prominent Republicans endorse Obama," saying that

"Most "Obamacans", among them Susan Eisenhower, the grand-daughter of the former Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, come from the so-called realist wing of the Republican party which has fallen into deep disenchantment with George W. Bush's foreign policy."

• Most fascinating of all, is the LA Times reporting from Florida ... all about how rank & file Republicans are feeling, "Long Time Republicans Are Airing New Views."