Congress is not Big Enough?

I saw What's wrong with Congress? It's not big enough on the news feed and could not believe my eyes. Having read the story, I only have one thing to say: ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FRIGGIN' MIND?"

With all the problems we have in Washington today, we do not need a bigger House of Representatives. What we do need is a House of Representatives with members who cannot be bought. Granted, that in itself is a tall order, given the state of the economy and the failure of the system to keep track of their members. But you can minimize the opportunity to "buy" a Congressman by imposing one simple rule: Term Limits!"

First of all, Term Limits ensures the Representatives are chosen from currently active people in their community. And for the House of Representatives, this is what you need. People who are in touch with the wants and needs of their communities, not staid, old rich guys who have become rubber stamp bureaucrats. You want men and women who have an agenda based on the needs of the voters in their community, not corporate powers and special interest groups.

Secondly, it is far easier to catch someone taking a bribe or being paid off in the early part of their tenure than after they have been in office for five or six years. A good example is Aaron Schock, the current Representative in the 18th district in Illinois. When he first took office in 2008 (like any good fraternity boy, he was a legacy from his predecessor, the current Secretary of Transportation, Ray LaHood), he was from a well to do area, and became the fair haired boy of the district. Today, this junior House member boasts a Campaign War Chest in excess of $3,000,000.00, has an estate close to the river, and is the consistent favorite of Caterpillar, Inc. and other corporate entities in his district. It is obvious by looking at his voting record that he is the property of the rich, a tool designed and honed for the purpose of maintaining their lifestyle at the expense of the "middle class", a group that is quickly disappearing from American Society. Without Term Limits, he will continue to serve his constituents, since he represents the money, and the money will always find a way to keep their boy in office.

Yes, I am aware that we also need to change campaign funding so there is a chance for a real representative to be elected instead of purchased, but we need to focus on one battle at a time to win the war. The beauty of Term Limits is they can be used to elect representatives who would actually vote to regulate campaign financing and contributions instead of simply giving you lip service.

We need Term Limits on ALL elected officials to ensure our nation has the kind of government intended by the framers, a Citizen Government! Three terms in the House of Representatives, Two terms in the Senate! This is what the Term Limits Amendment folks are asking for. Six years as a Representative, Twelve years as a Senator(which I believe is excessive, but let's go with this one for the moment), and not only the Federal government, but the States as well.

Passing Term Limits on the elected officials is the first step in retaking the government from the greedy and corporate entities who want to return the USA to a "company town" of have's and have not's. Term Limits are the first step in returning America to all Americans!

The Politics of Reason

It would seem the Democratic Party of the 18th Congressional District has given up on the people of the 18th. Why else would they continue to tout a candidate who has no chance of winning?

The Democratic party has all but given up on the 18th, since it is in the lower half of Illinois, and that area has classically been represented by Republicans. The odds are slim indeed that a Democrat will be elected, no matter which candidate is successful on March 20th. But does that mean the party should promote a candidate who has absolutely no voter appeal, a candidate who was not going to run, but was convinced to run by a local blogger and retired journalist who simply cannot stand the thought of a gay man in office?

That may seem like a bold statement, but its the only reason I can think of for this vehement and constant attack on Matt Woodmancy. Steve Waterworth is a nice guy, a fair guy, and a man who served his nation in both the Air Force and the Air National Guard. But he's been presented to the voters twice now, once in 2006 and once in 2008, and he has fallen far short of the mark on both occasions.

Matthew Woodmancy has a criminal record for a foolish act and is paying his fines and has moved on with his life. He is ready to serve, ready to listen to his constituency, and ready to support real changes to the government. He wants to see Term Limits on all Senate and Congressional members to stem the rising tide of career politicians, another term for pawns of the corporations.

Woodmancy's commitment to family and family values is impressive. He cares for his mother and his grandmother while working full time as a manager at a Normal, Illinois Pizzeria. Like many of us, he is in financial straits, so his campaign is being funded on a shoestring, yet he refuses to accept corporate or PAC money, relying instead on the small donations of supporters. He understands that most of us distrust big money, as does he, and wants to stand firm to take politics out of the hands of the rich and corporate contributors.

Woodmancy fully supports the “Buffett Rule” and believes the richest ten percent of this nation need to pay their fair share of the tax burden that is classically passed on to the quickly disappearing Middle Class. He extends this rule to include Social Security earning, which are currently capped at $108.600.00. While employers would pay their 6.2% up to a maximum of $120,000.00, wage earners would pay 6.2% on all of their earnings with not limit. This last change would put the Social Security system in the black in a matter of five to ten years!

Steve Waterworth does not support Term Limits, nor does he fully endorse the Buffett Rule. His preoccupation with Foreign Trade deficits is admirable, but will do nothing to secure immediate relief for the citizens of the 18th Congressional district, or the nation as a whole. And most importantly, he is a candidate who has twice proven ineffective against Republican opponents.

If we are going to run a Democrat in the 18th, shouldn't we consider a candidate who might have a chance of winning?

An interesting development in the Primary

The Debate in Macomb was an interesting comparison of Waterworth and Woodmancy. If you missed the debate, you can listen to it here, on Elaine Hopkin's blog.

The two candidates varied little in their stances, but there were a couple of points that seemed important. One was the topic of Term Limits, which Woodmancy supports and Waterworth opposes. Woodmancy believes that Term Limits would be the first step in returning this nation to a Citizen Government and eliminate Career Politicians. Waterworth believes that having fresh congressmen in office every three terms would make them more susceptible to "big money" influences. Another would be the trade deficit, which both agree is a topic to be tackled, but Waterworth seems to think this would be the way to turn the economy around, while Woodmancy believes the way to tackled the trade deficit is to educate the public on buying choices and therefore reduce the influx of foreign goods.

Both candidates appear to support President Obama in most topics concerning the rebuilding of infrastructure and the saving of Social Security and other "entitlement" programs. However, one statement by Mr. Waterworth concerning President Obama's health care program "Its the Christian thing to do." tends to concern me. While I am a Christian and support Christian morality, our political system needs to be a non-partisan, non-dogmatic affair. I would rather Mr. Waterworth support these programs because they are the right ones to support.

But one thing was missing, and perhaps that is the main point. Twice before Steve Waterworth has run for this office, and twice before he has lost. What I was looking for is the answer to the question, "What makes you electable this time?" It is a question I have asked several times without a decent response. Matthew Woodmancy is an underdog on many levels, to be sure. But Matt is a young person who admits to his past mistakes, is atoning for those mistakes, and has shown himself to be knowledgeable on the issues that appear to be important in this election.

To top it off, I understand that someone has begun a "Robo-call" campaign against Woodmancy. These automated calls emphasize his past, and do not address the issues of the campaign. In short, Woodmancy has become such a threat to Waterworth that whoever is supporting Waterworth (and I do not believe this has come from the candidate himself) is so convinced that he is unelectable that they are willing to shell out hard cash to smear Woodmancy and emphasize his past to the voters. That is mud-slinging, the worst kind of politics. And I would be loathe to support a candidate who uses these sorts of tactics, either by consent or ignorance.

Repeating the same old thing is not news!

A story in the Pantagraph today seems to think it is cutting edge. In Fact, it is old news. Matt Woodmancy has a felony conviction in his past. The part they left out? He has since turned his life around and is currently seeking office as the US Congressional Representative for the 18th District of Illinois.

I am amazed the same people who want to talk about using the system and respecting the law never want to give the guys with obvious errors in their past the benefit of a doubt. Let me clue you in on something. Our system of justice says that once someone has paid their debt to society, the slate is wiped clean unless they continue to screw up. Officially, this is called recidivism. That's if the man or woman continues to screw up. If they don't, they are deemed fit to return to society.

As far as Matt goes, I can tell you a few things that may or may not surprise you. For one, he isn't owned by anyone. He has no great political favors outstanding, owes no one in politics, and is not beholding to any company, corporation, or PAC for any reason. For another, he went into his race knowing it would be an uphill battle, and is still standing there, with a clearly posted platform he has not backed off on since he started his campaign. Lastly, he is not only running for office and holding down a full time job, but also caring for his invalid grandmother and standing by his mother in her battle against cancer, a battle that recently included brain surgery.

If you want to talk about issues and answers, lets talk about issues and answers. If your only reason to print an article is to further defame someone, then not only are you pursuing the path of sensationalism and dirty politics, but you are obviously unable to cite any real objections to the man's qualifications or platform.

Pancakes and Politics at State Farm.

Matthew A. Woodmancy (D) was one of two candidates for the 18th Congressional Seat who attended the State Farm Insurance "Pancakes and Politics" event at corporate south this morning. In addition to him and Steve Waterworth (D), there were many others running for Illinois Congressional seats. With the number of politicians in the room, there were at most 30 employees gathered to listen to a brief introduction and comments from each candidate.

Of particular note was Republican candidate Tom Pliura (R), running for the State Senate for the 51st District. Instead of the normal intro and bio, he instead began with a diatribe in favor of Term Limits and a return to Citizen Government. "I'm running because I am fed up!" It was refreshing because the remainder of the candidates had little to say about why they were running, although plenty to say about what needs to be fixed.

In fact, the catch words of "Fiscal Conservative" came up in almost every candidate's presentation. Dan Brady (R), the incumbent from the 88th District, spoke passionately instead of being accessible to his constituency. Keith Sommer (R), the Illinois House Incumbent from the 106th District, bemoaned the size of government, emphasized the need to fight Obamacare, and applauded State Farm for hiring veterans. Bill Mitchell (R), currently the incumbent for the 87th District, showed up in a sweater and blue jeans, claiming he had another event that would be outdoors and apologized for being dressed "down", then proceeded to tell us this upcoming election was one of the most important in decades. He claimed that Public Assistance programs have grown by 96% in the last 10 years, and left us with the question, can we afford it?

Three of the five candidates for the newly formed 106th district were also available. Tom Bennett (R), had no qualms about telling us he has recently been endorsed by the Illinois Farm Bureau, and is in favor of Concealed Carry. He wants to make Illinois more "Business Friendly" to keep the businesses we have and attract more. Richard Thomas (R), a Nurse and outspoken advocate for Fiscal Conservation, was at least entertaining. He has an excellent manner about him and a firm handshake. Brian Gabor (R) was the last of the three to speak, and is a solid proponent of smaller government and lower taxes. He also wants to make Illinois more business friendly.

You may have noticed with the exception of the two candidates for the 18th Congressional District, all of the other candidates were Republicans. Seems like sort of a stacked deck to me. Or, perhaps, the rumors are true and the Democrats have written off the 18th Congressional District. The incumbent, Aaron Schock, did not appear, although there was a placard for him at the atrium at corporate headquarters after the meeting.

Overall, the event was nice, but only a few individuals dropped by the breakfast, and just a few managed to drop by the atrium at corporate headquarters.

Update on the Woodmancy Campaign

Matthew Woodmancy is on the primary ballot for March 20th, running against a very able opponent who apparently stands for absolutely nothing.
I mean, I understand that some politicians like to keep their politics close to the vest, but Steve Waterworth's blog reads like a third rate Dear Abby. And I have yet to read one bit of information about the man other than he has unsuccessfully run for office twice. Not once. Twice.
Matt Woodmancy, on the other hand, has made full disclosure on his facebook page and now on his website. His platform is posted for all the honest world to see and he doesn't back down. He's participated in reddit discussions with constituents, has agreed to participate in the League of Women Voters Debate on February 29th in Macomb, and will continue to speak out against the corporate owned politicians that are ruining this nation.
Can anyone tell me the appeal of Waterworth? I'd really like to know.

Matthew Woodmancy on Social Security @ Youtube

Thought you might appreciate the link.

Guest Editorial - Matthew A. Woodmancy on Social Security

Saving Social Security

Social Security has been called the third rail of American Politics: if you touch it, you die.

That is exactly the kind of thinking that has led to Social Security reform falling not only between the cracks, but has so endangered the program that experts are telling us by as early as 2020, the program will no longer be able to sustain the millions of Americans who will be depending on it to survive.

The streak of not talking about Social Security ends now. We have a real problem in this country and now is the time for real solutions. Taxpayers pay 6.2% in Social Security taxes while their employers pay a matching amount. Self-employed workers pay it all themselves. But it caps at 12.4% and nobody pays any Social Security tax at all on any income over $108,600 a year. That means individuals pay a maximum of $6,733.20 and their employer pays the same amount. Once again the Republicans are protecting their power base of wealthy donors while leaving 98% of Americans out in the cold.

If we were to raise the tax on Social Security 2.2% and split that increase equally between taxpayer and employer, we would ensure that Social Security is there for the next 61 years. In 1998, a general tax increase of 2.2 percent was planned out to aid in social security, but in 2011 it still has yet to happen. The idea of a 2.2% solution is simple, but short-term, at best. With the current funds, Social Security can exist until 2032, and with the 2.2% it could last until 2072. So that isn’t the only step that needs to be taken.

A CEO, a major sports figure, or actually anyone making more than $108,600.00 a year gets a free ride on all income above that level. If that CEO makes $6 million dollars in a year, his Social Security contribution has been paid in the first week. The rest of their income is not taxed for Social Security. The average American will always be paying Social Security tax on 100% of their income while the richest among us will never pay more. Somehow they think their obligation to their employees ends at the failed pension plans and diminishing health plans that now permeate our society and threaten to destroy our economy. They are wrong.

America is a land of opportunity, a land where everyone deserves to receive a living income when they have reached the age where they can no longer work. I am not talking about a free ride for the poor or the rich, but a level playing field where the wealthy can still enjoy the fruits of their labor while allowing the average Americans to live out their lives in comfort, not poverty.

If we level the playing field and make everyone pay the same 6.2%, no matter of how much they make, we can save Social Security. Employer contributions would cap at 6.2% of $200,000.00, and the remaining income above $200,000.00 would be paid fully by the employee. In this way, we shift the burden of Social Security on all Americans, preserve the ability of employers to create jobs and pay decent living wages, and protect our senior citizens from poverty.

Guest Editorial - Matthew A. Woodmancy

We live in a dream, an ideal, and a promise that declares that we are all the same, that even the poorest among us can become respected and rich. That no matter our background, our belief systems or family values or the God we pray to, we are united as one. The United States is the Promised Land for all of the Human Race. Should we allow our political differences to divide this great nation once again? Should we turn our backs on the sacrifice of those who died to ensure that our light of Liberty will brighten this small planet and banish the darkness of inequality and fear?
This nation is an experiment that has shone as the brightest beacon of hope for all mankind for two hundred and thirty four years. It is our duty to protect every American in every corner of this county to ensure that they have the ability to achieve the American dream that we all strive for. We are a diverse collection of back grounds, of languages, of Religions and states but we are one country, we stand together to face those that wish us harm.
It is our duty to bring the light into the darkness, to make the wrongs we see into rights. We can never falter in the most sacred trust, of being the guardians of the memories of those that came before us who died giving what President Lincoln called the last full measure of devotion. We, as Americans, are living examples of what a true greatness is.
The journey begun by Washington, Jefferson and Franklin, that was saved by Lincoln, that was made better and safer by Roosevelt and Kennedy, is the same journey we continue on today. We must ensure that when we pass the torch to the next generation, it is burning brighter than when it was passed to us. Giving equal rights to everyone, leveling the playing field for our children, changing how the criminal justice system handles drugs, making it easier for those that wish to enter this county legally to do so and ensuring that those who attempt to defraud our systems of trust are only the first of many steps that must be taken.
The tasks that lie before us are not impossible; they can be overcome by strength of will, by setting aside political and ideological differences. 18 years ago a new President proclaimed “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” Those words are still true today. We have made great strides since then; we must continue to change this great nation into the realization of the dream handed down to us by our founders, to keep it worthy of those lives that have been lost defending it.

Matthew A. Woodmancy

Memorials and Meetings

I had the distinct pleasure to participate in the Labor Memorial March yesterday along with Matt Woodmancy. We gathered behind the Labor Temple (that big white building on the right side of the bridge as you're coming in on 74 from the East Peoria) around 4:30, milled around and talked with a few of the folks, and took in the atmosphere.
Around 5 pm, we joined in behind the single fire truck and marched to the sound of a lone bagpipe as the procession began. The streets were mostly empty, and what traffic there was held at bay by a lone police officer who moved ahead to the next intersection each time we needed him. We proceeded down Jefferson and turned right at Fulton, arriving at the Labor Memorial adjacent to the Police and Firefighter memorial near the courthouse.
Mike Everett, the President of the Labor Council, presided, introducing the speakers. I'd give you all the names, but frankly, this event was not about them. It was about remembering the thousands of workers who have died on the job. Each speaker had something to add, and in respectful and solemn silence, the mostly blue collar crowd stood reverently as they heard the names of fallen workers and fallen soldiers from the state of Illinois over the past year read aloud. At the end of the ceremony, the lone piper played Amazing Grace as members of the crowd were invited to place red carnations at the base of the memorial.
**********************************
We wandered over to the Pere Marquette and sat down with General Parker for a cup of coffee and some insight into Peoria politics. If you're never met General Parker, you've missed one of the most pleasant conversations you might have in Peoria, although I understand from the General there are several people in Peoria who might disagree. The former Mayoral candidate and youth advocate talked with Matt and I for about an hour, sharing his knowledge and experience concerning the political climate in Peoria. I walked away from that meeting with some great insights, as well as some information about the General's latest effort. On May 10th at 8:00 am in Springfield, his organization (Illinois Fathers) will sponsor Fatherless Day, and event in support of the Steven Watkins Bill (HB 1604) to protect the rights of non-custodial parents. You can find out more about this noble cause at IllinoisFathers.org. Like his many efforts before this, the General is advocating the preservation of the family for the welfare of the children. And somehow, Kevin Lyons thought this man would be unfit to serve on the School Board for District 150.