Is a public official supposed to engage in partisan politics?

Help me out here. This LTTE is in my local paper today. Is this okay? It sure sounds like Fred Schuster has partisan views about health care. Am I wrong?

Children’s health program

Press reports may be raising fears that American children will lose their health insurance because of a debate in Washington over renewing the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (7/24, A-1, “Congress struggles with kids’ insurance; A boost in health coverage is the goal, but Republicans fear a move toward more control by government”).

The president supports reauthorizing this important program for low-income children with enough new funds to ensure that no one currently enrolled loses coverage. His budget also calls for enough funds so that eligible children not already enrolled can be covered.

But the Senate and House are each proposing bills calling for a massive expansion of the program to those in higher-income families, moving them from private insurance onto public assistance.

The president does not support those proposals, which would more than double spending in the insurance program and extend eligibility to millions of children who already have private insurance or whose parents earn enough to afford private insurance.

The bills proposed by Congress are not about helping low-income children. They’re about using the insurance program to stage a gradual government takeover of American health care.

Some members of Congress have said publicly that this is what they intend, but neither the president nor the American people will stand for it.

Fred Schuster

Regional director, U.S. Department

of Health and Human Services

Kansas City


http://www.kansascity.com/309/story/208450.html

And he's wrong about public opinion.

of children who already have insurance

And I bet you my first born he didn't even write this agitprop.

It would be interesting to see how many papers print this fax.

"Some members of Congress have said publicly that this is what they intend, but neither the president nor the American people will stand for it."

What Americans...? Also, "The president does not support those proposals, which would more than double spending in the insurance program and extend eligibility to millions of children who already have private insurance or whose parents earn enough to afford private insurance." What is sadly missing is the fact that the extensions will be given to people who "barely can afford insurance", and with the extension, perhaps now they will be able to spend the extra money on new shoes or better quality food.

http://www.futureofchildren.org/information2827/information_show.htm?doc_id=175188

Anything that shrub does not like deserves some further investigation. Besides, I guess in shrub's world, it is ok to spend billions on the illegal war and cut funding for subsidized health care...

Democrats Press House to Expand Health Care Bill

By ROBERT PEAR
Published: July 23, 2007

WASHINGTON, July 22 — After a rare bipartisan agreement in the Senate to expand insurance coverage for low-income children, House Democrats have drafted an even broader plan that also calls for major changes in Medicare and promises to intensify the battle with the White House over health care.

President Bush has threatened to veto what he sees as a huge expansion of the children’s health care program, which he describes as a step “down the path to government-run health care for every American.” The House measure calls for changes that the administration will probably find even more distasteful, including cuts in Medicare payments to private health plans.

Like the bill approved last week 17 to 4 in the Senate Finance Committee, the House bill would increase tobacco taxes to help finance expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

House Democrats hope to portray the issue as a fight pitting the interests of children and older Americans against tobacco and insurance companies. The White House says the Democratic proposals would distort the original intent of the children’s program, cause a big increase in federal spending and adversely affect older Americans who are happy with the extra benefits they receive from private health plans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/washington/23health.html?ei=5088&en=338d2e2458f1adae&ex=1342843200&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1185643665-Zg+kEtfSy0ex4uAmgbbGrQ

There's so many bigger fish to fry right now that even if it is, spending resources on this when the administration is establishing a precedent of permanent immunity for all executive officials from all contempt of congressional laws isn't going to be productive. An example needs to be made of the bigger fish first before worrying about minnows, if the interest is strictly enforcing the laws meant to prevent partisan lobbying by civil officials.

I say we nail these bastards in every way we can. I am going to contact my congressman about this. It takes only a few minutes to write a letter.

Then again, maybe this'll lead to another set of political briefings like the one that got that GSA head in a bit of trouble, like the briefings for the diplomats and the Peace Corps and so on. Maybe if it's part of a larger net it'll do more to ensnare the higher ups who are responsible for this foolishness.

Hard to say.

First you say, don't do it. There are bigger fish to fry. Don't do it.

Now you say, okay fine. If you want to waste your time doing it, don't get your hopes up.

I never told anyone not to raise the issue with Congress. I said that Congress has bigger fish to fry and therefore is unlikely to be much help. I consider that to be the truth of the matter, for the simple reason that Congress is already investigating the same issue as relating to the GSA, the Peace Corps, the diplomatic corps, the Department of Justice, etc... at present, without tangible results. For that matter, another poster suggests it's not actually a Hatch Act violation if it doesn't involve federal resources. (I wouldn't know the details.)

I'm sorry if you expect me to cheer on every action that I think is actually a poor use of energy given the larger picture. I like to focus on the big things: making an example of big fish to give the little ones reason to resign before Congress gets around to beating them with a stick.

You have other options rather than posting cheers / boos. If someone wants to take some action, why throw roadblocks in their way? One doesn't have to cheer, but why post a boo?

More people need to take active participation, not less.

I should just keep my big mouth shut.

Activism is one of my hot buttons and I get a bit aggressive in supporting it.

But in no way do I wish for you to remove your voice from the conversation. Please accept my apologies.

Believe me, I really hope that this behavior by appointed officials in civil service comes to a crashing end, one way or another. It's a big job.

is being astroturfed? Because betcha it is.

The insurance companies will be losing money over this and the Thuggery can't have that!

In Google news, the only copy of this LTTE that I was able to find is the OP one in Kansas City.

If he is going to astroturf it, it is possible it may hit other papers in the next couple of days.

do you see what I mean?

How can I search for this text, because I'm 100% sure that this text was given to Fred and to others to try to plant in their communities.

One was by the guy's name and I found the Kansas City one

the other was I chose unique three word phrase in the body of the letter, the phrases I used was

"president supports reauthorizing" and no results
then
"Children’s Health Insurance" and no LTTE other than Kansas City

This is an archive page. The links are no longer being updated.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, May 6, 2002 Contact: HHS Press Office
(202) 690-6343

FRED SCHUSTER NAMED HHS REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE
FOR KANSAS CITY REGION
HHS Secretary Tommy G. Thompson today announced the appointment of Fred Schuster as the Secretary's Regional Representative for Region VII, based in Kansas City, Mo. Schuster's appointment completes the placement of regional representatives in all 10 U.S. regions, further enhancing the Secretary's connection to state and local health agencies across the country.

In his new position, Schuster will be the secretary's direct representative responsible for official dealings with state, local and tribal government organizations. The area includes the states of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska.

"Fred Schuster truly knows his region," Secretary Thompson said. With nearly 20 years of hands-on experience, he will serve the people in the Kansas City area well as he takes on this key position in the department."

Since 1984, Schuster served as regional director and periodically as acting state administrator for Sen. Charles E. Grassley, providing issue management for an 18-county area. Schuster was a liaison to several key officials and was instrumental in managing casework involving Medicare, Medicaid, child support, immigration and the IRS. Additionally, in 1999, Schuster organized major relief efforts in Northeast Iowa after severe flooding devastated the area.

In his home state of Iowa, Schuster has been vice president of the Cedar Falls Library Board, and has been involved with the University of Northern Iowa Institute for Decision Making, and the Iowa Juvenile Justice Advisory Board.

Schuster earned a bachelor's of science in industrial administration from the Iowa State University. During his college career, he was elected president of the student body, representing 23,000 students, and was inducted into Cardinal Key, the university's highest honorary. Schuster also took one year off to serve as a volunteer in the VISTA program -- Volunteers in Service to America.

He begins his new position today.

###
Note: All HHS press releases, fact sheets and other press materials are available at www.hhs.gov/news.

http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2002pres/20020506b.html

They can comment on legislation. I think they just can't participate in a campaign on federal property.

lol

:)

than commenting on it.

That's what it was about, legislation and how much employees could do to get the word out about the changes Bush was making to the program. I don't know what happened with the law suit, but DU was livid that they would try to prevent Head Start from speaking out. Same as the National Park service when they were speaking out on some of Bush's legislation. You can't call it nazi fascism when you like the message and partisan interference when you don't.

As a teacher myself, I saw the Head Start folks as speaking out on behalf of the kids they serve. And the Natl Park deal was pretty much the same. They felt the proposed legislation was harmful. And I think we can agree it was.

But this is an administrator promoting a piece of legislation. I am not objecting because I don't like bush or don't like the legislation.

He's expressing his opinion that the legislation is being misrepresented. Same as what the Head Start and Natl Park people were doing. I see these kinds of LTTE's all the time, from all kinds of agencies. I think people aren't being objective. The facts need to be rebutted, the author shouldn't be silenced.

I think in that case they can come out in support of bush policies.

"The president supports reauthorizing this important program for low-income children with enough new funds to ensure that no one currently enrolled loses coverage."

A Bush administration lie. The program cost $25 billion over the last five years. Bush is proposing $30 billion.

CBO estimates it will take $39 billion to maintain the same coverage. Fred Schuster should know that. Fred Schuster is either a liar or totally incompetent.

If the first statement is false, then this is total bullsh*t

"His budget also calls for enough funds so that eligible children not already enrolled can be covered."

It's not really partisan politics though, since "For the record, the senate plan is authored by one Democrat and two Republicans. Max Baucus is the Dem; Charles Grassley and Orrin Hatch are the Reps."

Since it is coming from the rightwing, I wonder if it isn't a plan to defuse the 'health care crisis'. Once all children are covered, then the Republicans can say 'problem solved'. Most people don't give a rip about uninsured adults.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071907.shtml

Will the American public stand for public officials who lie to them? I will not. I think Fred Schuster should resign right now.

I think I will contact Congressman Cleaver and see what he thinks. I am also considering a LTTE.

Yes, their parents care very much about them. That's why one of the new health care proposals is allowing kids to be on their parents insurance until age 25.

But I do hope somebody bothered to send the correct info to both Fred Schuster and the KC newspaper.

actual legislation passed and what it means to enforce it, and not to lobby for or against any.

But that is assuming that I would be President, but I also would not live in the White House, rather a nice bungalow somewhere on the Camp David grounds. . . and I also am rather a stickler for Kantian ethics. . .