BARACK OBAMA ON THE REPUBLICAN’S ATTEMPT TO RE-WRITE AMERICA’S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
Posted on: June 23, 2017
- In: Commentary | Health Care | Politics
- Leave a Comment
…if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm.
Yesterday President Obama posted his thoughts on the Republican bill currently on the floor of Congress that would radically change what we know as health care in this country.
I know this post has been widely circulated. But I believe it is important, and hopefully helpful, to isolate a few of his thoughts from the post. The entire post is included below.
“We didn’t fight for the Affordable Care Act for more than a year in the public square for any personal or political gain – we fought for it because we knew it would save lives, prevent financial misery, and ultimately set this country we love on a better, healthier course.”
“For the first time, more than ninety percent of Americans know the security of health insurance. Health care costs, while still rising, have been rising at the slowest pace in fifty years. Women can’t be charged more for their insurance, young adults can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, contraceptive care and preventive care are now free. Paying more, or being denied insurance altogether due to a preexisting condition – we made that a thing of the past.”
“I still hope that there are enough Republicans in Congress who remember that public service is not about sport or notching a political win, that there’s a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and that hopefully, it’s to make people’s lives better, not worse.”
“The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else.”
“Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.”
POSTED June 22, 2017; on FaceBook by President Barack Obama
Our politics are divided. They have been for a long time. And while I know that division makes it difficult to listen to Americans with whom we disagree, that’s what we need to do today.
I recognize that repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has become a core tenet of the Republican Party. Still, I hope that our Senators, many of whom I know well, step back and measure what’s really at stake, and consider that the rationale for action, on health care or any other issue, must be something more than simply undoing something that Democrats did.
We didn’t fight for the Affordable Care Act for more than a year in the public square for any personal or political gain – we fought for it because we knew it would save lives, prevent financial misery, and ultimately set this country we love on a better, healthier course.
Nor did we fight for it alone. Thousands upon thousands of Americans, including Republicans, threw themselves into that collective effort, not for political reasons, but for intensely personal ones – a sick child, a parent lost to cancer, the memory of medical bills that threatened to derail their dreams.
And you made a difference. For the first time, more than ninety percent of Americans know the security of health insurance. Health care costs, while still rising, have been rising at the slowest pace in fifty years. Women can’t be charged more for their insurance, young adults can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, contraceptive care and preventive care are now free. Paying more, or being denied insurance altogether due to a preexisting condition – we made that a thing of the past.
We did these things together. So many of you made that change possible.
At the same time, I was careful to say again and again that while the Affordable Care Act represented a significant step forward for America, it was not perfect, nor could it be the end of our efforts – and that if Republicans could put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we made to our health care system, that covers as many people at less cost, I would gladly and publicly support it.
That remains true. So I still hope that there are enough Republicans in Congress who remember that public service is not about sport or notching a political win, that there’s a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and that hopefully, it’s to make people’s lives better, not worse.
But right now, after eight years, the legislation rushed through the House and the Senate without public hearings or debate would do the opposite. It would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid as we know it. That’s not my opinion, but rather the conclusion of all objective analyses, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which found that 23 million Americans would lose insurance, to America’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals on the front lines of our health care system.
The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else. Those with private insurance will experience higher premiums and higher deductibles, with lower tax credits to help working families cover the costs, even as their plans might no longer cover pregnancy, mental health care, or expensive prescriptions. Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions could become the norm again. Millions of families will lose coverage entirely.
Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.
I hope our Senators ask themselves – what will happen to the Americans grappling with opioid addiction who suddenly lose their coverage? What will happen to pregnant mothers, children with disabilities, poor adults and seniors who need long-term care once they can no longer count on Medicaid? What will happen if you have a medical emergency when insurance companies are once again allowed to exclude the benefits you need, send you unlimited bills, or set unaffordable deductibles? What impossible choices will working parents be forced to make if their child’s cancer treatment costs them more than their life savings?
To put the American people through that pain – while giving billionaires and corporations a massive tax cut in return – that’s tough to fathom. But it’s what’s at stake right now. So it remains my fervent hope that we step back and try to deliver on what the American people need.
That might take some time and compromise between Democrats and Republicans. But I believe that’s what people want to see. I believe it would demonstrate the kind of leadership that appeals to Americans across party lines. And I believe that it’s possible – if you are willing to make a difference again. If you’re willing to call your members of Congress. If you are willing to visit their offices. If you are willing to speak out, let them and the country know, in very real terms, what this means for you and your family.
After all, this debate has always been about something bigger than politics. It’s about the character of our country – who we are, and who we aspire to be. And that’s always worth fighting for.
- In: Commentary | Education | Learning | Politics | Self-Discovery | Social policies
- Leave a Comment
I have long been a fan of the short story form. In fact, the short story form is far harder than longer forms of writing. Making your intention clear in a limited amount of words is not an easy task. There is a long line of authors whose work I enjoy but top of the list in this regard has always been Harlan Ellison. There are many reasons I am a life-long, die-hard Ellison fan, but chiefly, my admiration is for his ability to select just exactly the right word for every moment in his stories with never a word wasted.
Here’s a favorite example:
“A foot was planted between my shoulder blades and the fist let go of my shirt, and I was booted forward onto my suitcase, which slid a few feet, carrying me as on a raft.
I fell off, rolled over and tried to sit up. Conquest, Slaughter, Famine and Death were staring down at me.”
Quoted from All the Lies That Are My Life by Harlan Ellison
There is no need to give the reader any more detailed description of the four guys who are about to beat up our protagonist. The phrase “Conquest, Slaughter, Famine and Death” tells you everything you need to know.
Another master at choosing just the right words is Theodor Geisel, better known as Dr. Seuss, who sums up this thought beautifully:
“So the writer who breeds more words than he needs is making a chore for the reader who reads.”
And another famous author offers clarity on the subject. When asked his opinion on cursing Mark Twain had this to say:
“The English language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. I figure we ought to use all the words we got.”
Notice here that he did not advise using MORE words than needed at one time but choosing the RIGHT words for what you are trying to convey at that moment.
Words matter. They can offer great kindness but also great sorrow. They can build relationships or tear down entire communities. Words have weight and meaning and sometimes great consequences.
When you are attempting to evaluate someone’s character listen very closely to the word they choose to use. Their choices are not casual. They are a result of a lifetime of attitudes and perceptions and are evidence of the state of their inner psychology.
The speaker is telling you something about who he is and how he chooses to participate in this thing called Life.
Words matter. Listen closely.
Today we say goodbye to one of the most unique, beloved figures I have ever had the privilege to know.
Ed Terry (AKA Ed Theriault; AKA Eddie The Spoon Man) has been a fixture in the Southern California acoustic music scene for many years. His enthusiasm, natural musicality and love of people made him a sought-after guest in the many bands he played with and a welcome presence everywhere he went.
Ed Terry – The Spoon Man – Still making music and Joy at age 80
Eddie started playing the spoons as a young boy and never stopped. Among his accomplishments are a stint playing with the Horace Heidt Orchestra (circa 1940), a 1st prize win on the Ted Mack Amateur Hour and he has the distinction of being one of the few people to ever appear on The Gong Show and NOT get gonged off!
Eddie was 76 years old when he met John Zipperer and very quickly became part of our band family. He performed with us over a period of years in concert halls, at senior homes, backyard parties, coffee houses and was a big hit with audiences every time. (He was also a big flirt and always got lots of attention from the ladies!)
Ed Theriault had his share of life challenges but I never saw him without a smile on his face. And the same goes for his wife of more than 60 years, the wise, wonderful Virginia. He was a joy to be around and the world is a brighter place because he was with us.
Rest Easy, Eddie! Your shinning soul, sparkling humor and enthusiasm for life touched many people and we will remember you!
Take a look for yourself:
- In: acting | artist's rights | Commentary | Theater | Unions | worker's rights
- Leave a Comment
There has been so much misinformation and misunderstanding about the 99 Seat situation that it boggles the mind.
As a 37-year member of Actor’s Equity Association I have been a working member on many of AEA’s contracts as both performer and stage manager. I have also served – as a volunteer, mind you – as a Councilor, Chair of the Western Advisory Committee on Chorus Affairs, and as a member of a handful of AEA committees. (These are the people who discuss details and make recommendations to Council and the union negotiators for wages and working conditions for the various contracts that protect actors and stage managers working in professional theater.)
Twenty-some years ago I was on the committee that met with, and wrestled with, the Waiver Theater Operators, the Actors who made themselves into Producers so they could produce theater while asking their fellow actors to work without pay. In that process I learned much about the history of what was originally called “Waiver Theater” which after 16 years became “99-Seat Theater” and has now become a collection of three plans; one of which is the new Agreement that controls working conditions for AEA members working in small theater.
So, I know a little something about all this. And, I gotta tell ya, if you don’t know the history, and the real facts behind this issue, you are likely to come to the wrong conclusion about what is rapidly turning into a lawsuit by the 99-Seat producers against Actor’s Equity. Those who do not know their history are bound to repeat it.
Twenty-Some Years Ago this exact same scenario happened. And wasted hundreds of thousands of dollars of YOUR dues money so that the union could continue to do what it is, by design, meant to do: PROTECT THE ACTOR FROM ABUSIVE PRODUCERS!.
As you read the following press release sent today by Actors Equity I ask you to put aside emotional responses and remember: Actor’s Equity Association is a Labor Union. Not your psychologist. Not your acting teacher. Not your means of creative expression. Their mandate is to negotiate and monitor wages and working conditions so that their members can actually make a living in professional theater.
⇒ Read on.
MOVING 99-SEAT THEATRE TO LEGITIMATE PAYING PRODUCTIONS
Equity Puts Forth the Actual Facts
Los Angeles, June 30, 2016 – Actors’ Equity Association Executive Director Mary McColl issued the following statement:
Actors’ Equity Association (Equity) remains disappointed that the facilitated discussions with the plaintiffs in the Asner vs. Actors’ Equity lawsuit were unsuccessful.
If the end of the facilitated talks brings the service of the lawsuit, Equity will stand up for its members and will immediately file for a dismissal of all claims brought in the suit. Equity, a labor union representing more than 50,000 stage actors and stage managers across America, was founded upon the belief that actors should be paid for their work and treated fairly. Actors on Broadway. Actors in Kansas City. Actors in Los Angeles. All actors.
The lawsuit, which is procedural in nature, claims that Equity did not follow the steps outlined in a 1989 settlement agreement to alter the terms and conditions by which 99-seat theatre is produced in Los Angeles. Some producers and actors in Los Angeles, however, claim that the goal of the lawsuit is to retain a system that allows producers to cast actors in productions without paying for their services. And the plaintiffs have been talking about it.
Absent the facts, confusion is created. The plaintiffs have been generating misinformation while at the same time releasing insupportable “data” as their rationale for why actors should not be paid.
Let’s look at the facts.
More than 7,000 Equity members live and work in Los Angeles County. Despite being the “entertainment capital of the world,” with actors flocking from around the globe to Southern California, Equity’s data reveals that LA County actually provides less paid work for stage actors than markets such as Baltimore/DC, Boston, Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul.
Incredibly, in the most recent period where data is available (2014-2015), LA County (with 7,000 members) had 6,500 paid work weeks for Equity members; whereas, Baltimore/DC (with 854 members) had more than 8,700; Boston (with 845 members) had over 7,900; Chicago (with 1,589 members) had more than 15,800 paid work weeks; and Minneapolis/St. Paul (with 437 members) had more than 6,700.
The fact that these far smaller markets eclipsed LA in paid work weeks confirms the fact that a theatrical community can thrive and still pay the performers.
As you drill further into the data, more interesting facts about the plan become apparent. During the same period (2014/2015), there was a total of 11,013 unpaid work weeks for actors in Los Angeles County. If those unpaid work weeks were actually paid work weeks, then 99-seat theatre would represent the second largest source of paid employment in the Western Region – second only to LORT.
In markets from Seattle to Chicago, unpaid work weeks are below 1%. This begs a simple question: How is it that the rest of the nation can afford to pay its actors who perform in small theatres, yet Los Angeles cannot? Equity takes great pride in the diligence with which its producing partners nationwide work toward adding contracts. It’s time LA producers — some of whom are incorporated as not-for-profits, but all of whom sell tickets to their productions — play by the same rules as everyone else.
Another argument often cited is that the system results in creating productions that go to Broadway. While it’s true that some shows have made the move, the path is not a direct one. Generally, years of work in multiple productions on paying contracts occur before a production that began in a 99-seat theatre makes it to a Broadway production. Along the way, there may be productions in LORT or other theatres, changes are often made and enhancement money may be made available for development. The data shows that when a 99-seat production is staged again, the actors in the original cast — who were not paid a wage to develop the work — seldom move on with the production. One production, SMALL ENGINE REPAIR, has been cited as an example of a 99-seat production that moved to New York, but, of the actors in the original cast, only one (who was also the playwright) made the move, which was two years later.
The old 99-Seat Theatre Plan represents an unnecessary and avoidable roadblock for actors in Los Angeles attempting to make a living in live theatre. An ecosystem has been allowed to develop where even midsize theatre suffers because it is competing with a small theatre system that pays actors little, if anything at all. This has created a downward spiral, or race to the bottom, where the real losers are the actors, the stage managers, the audience and the theatre industry overall.
It is one of the founding principles of Actors’ Equity Association that those who work in live theatre deserve to be paid for the work that they do. Every actor and stage manager who has joined this union has agreed to work under conditions that, to the best of Equity’s knowledge, are most beneficial to the whole. This is one of the fundamental definitions of a union. When an actor works through a rehearsal break, he or she contributes to an expectation that everyone else will give up that break as well. When an actor develops work without ever expecting any return on that development, he or she makes it more difficult for colleagues to ask for developmental compensation. Finally, when a member — any member — works for a few dollars a show, with no pay for rehearsals, he or she damages the earning power of every other member, both monetarily and philosophically. This has not been an easy process, but Equity is committed to doing the right thing.
It is for these and many other reasons that Equity stands behind its decision to bring Los Angeles County in line with the rest of the nation, and defend its members’ right for fair compensation.
The following paragraphs are excerpts of an excellent article written by Anu Partanen in the March 16, 2016 issue of The Atlantic which explains the realities behind “Nordic-style social programs” and how so many Americans, including current political big-wigs, are getting it wrong. Don’t let the politicos sell you their claptrap!
(All emphases is mine.)
“Bernie Sanders is hanging on, still pushing his vision of a Nordic-like socialist utopia for America, and his supporters love him for it. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, is chalking up victories by sounding more sensible. “We are not Denmark,” she said in the first Democratic debate, pointing instead to America’s strengths as a land of freedom for entrepreneurs and businesses. Commentators repeat endlessly the mantra that Sanders’s Nordic-style policies might sound nice, but they’d never work in the U.S. The upshot is that Sanders, and his supporters, are being treated a bit like children—good-hearted, but hopelessly naive. That’s probably how Nordic people seem to many Americans, too.
BUT THIS VISION OF HOMOGENOUS, ALTRUISTIC NORDIC LANDS IS MOSTLY A FANTASY. The choices Nordic countries have made have little to do with altruism or kinship. Rather, Nordic people have made their decisions out of self-interest. Nordic nations offer their citizens—all of their citizens, but especially the middle class—high-quality services that save people a lot of money, time, and trouble. This is what Americans fail to understand: My taxes in Finland were used to pay for top-notch services for me.
Here are some of the things I personally got in return for my taxes:
- nearly a full year of paid parental leave for each child (plus a smaller monthly payment for an additional two years, were I or the father of my child to choose to stay at home with our child longer)
- affordable high-quality day care for my kids, one of the world’s best public K-12 education systems
- free college
- free graduate school
- nearly free world-class health care delivered through a pretty decent universal network
- a full year of partially paid disability leave
As far as I was concerned, it was a great deal. And it was equally beneficial for others. From a Nordic perspective, nothing Bernie Sanders is proposing is the least bit crazy—pretty much all Nordic countries have had policies like these in place for years.
….THE TRUTH IS THAT FREE-MARKET CAPITALISM AND UNIVERSAL SOCIAL POLICIES GO WELL TOGETHER—this isn’t about big government, it’s about smart government. I suspect that despite Hillary Clinton’s efforts to distance herself from Sanders, she probably knows this. After all, Clinton is also endorsing policies that sound an awful lot like what the Nordics have done: paid family leave, better public schools, and affordable day care, health care and college for all.
…supporters of not only Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, but also of Donald Trump, are worried about exactly the kinds of problems that universal social policies can help solve: worsening income inequality, shrinking opportunity, the decline of the middle class, and the survival of the ordinary family in the face of globalization. What America needs right now, desperately, isn’t to keep fighting the socialist bogeymen of the past, but to see the future—at least one presidential candidate should show them that.”
The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-nordic-countries/473385/
LIVE AND LET LIVE
Posted on: January 20, 2016
This is an excerpt from Tara’s upcoming book Speaking Truth; Words that Matter written with and about co-author, John Glass. More details can be found at www.SpeakingTruthTheBook.com
“A bird may love a fish but where would they build a home together?”
When the question is about life choices there is usually more than one right answer. Case in point: 
One of my very favorite Broadway musicals is Fiddler On The Roof. I have always felt it is one of the better written scripts in the vast Broadway repertoire. Every word of every line of dialogue and every lyric of every song is there for a reason. There is always a nugget of a story to tell or a window into the mind or soul of a character. Or, as is so often the case with Jewish material, there is a lesson to teach.
That is not to say every point of view in the story is agreeable. When his young daughter falls in love with a man outside of their faith Tevye says to her, “A bird may love a fish but where would they build a home together?” This one line has always stood out to me as slightly disturbing. He is trying to tell her that their differences are too great to overcome. After all, a bird cannot swim (unless it is a duck. See what I mean?). A fish cannot fly (well, OK. There is one species that can. But we’re looking at this particular quote here). A bird cannot live underwater. A fish cannot breathe out of the water. How could they share a life? It seems, on the face of it, to be a practical statement of a physical limitation.
But when you take a deeper look what you might find is a limitation in thinking and an intolerance for choices that do not mirror your own. Stick to your own kind. Take the easy route. Don’t make the neighbors uncomfortable. It never occurs to Tevye that some form of cohabitation different than his own traditional choice might be a better fit for someone else.
Yes, most birds live in the trees and fish live underwater. But songbirds come to the pond in my backyard and sit at the water’s edge. They drink, bathe, rest and sometimes seem to be looking into the pond to see what may be under the water’s surface.
I question even the notion of the bird and the fish being so very different from each other. Look at the photo on this page. Both bird and fish have round bodies, pointed mouths, round eyes and tails. They both spend their day foraging for food. Traveling around their environments and resting in the sun.
And, perhaps, even their differences are a benefit to our very non-traditional partners. The bird’s song can speak for the mute fish. The fish provides a stable home-base for the adventuring bird to return to.
That may not seem like enough to some. Well, then, you’ve made your choice. But to say that no other choice is acceptable, or even possible, is to deny others the right to choose what is best for them. You may decide that you can’t live without a swimming partner. Others might be content to coexist in the same back yard.
Fiddler On The Roof opened on Broadway in 1964. And yet, more than 50 years later, the analysis of this world view is just as relevant. In the past 50 years we have seen overwhelming amounts of inhumane treatment and intolerance justified by our “differences”. We have seen ever growing amounts of environmental degradation justified by corporate greed and the notion that those “other” people don’t matter. If they knew what was good for them they’d be living like us!
Growing gun violence. Open hate speech. Devaluing of entire groups of people based on race, gender, sexual orientation or economic status. All because we are taught to fear each other’s differences.
And we all breathe the same air.
Wouldn’t it be a nicer world if we all remembered that? After all, flowers come in a huge variety of shapes, sizes and colors. Some need a full day of sun. Other varieties thrive in the shade. Is a lily really more “correct” than a sunflower?
Higher education is the road to career success. Career success is the path to financial stability. Financial stability makes it possible to look beyond your own immediate survival needs. Only then can you have the time and resources to notice what the corporate and legislative bigwigs are doing to our society.
NOW you know why the bigwigs are trying to ruin our educational system. Keep the masses uneducated, uniformed and too busy trying to survive to notice anything outside their own immediate circle and the Bigwigs can pilfer, steal and destroy without any limits.
Senator Bernie Sanders Introduces a Bill to make College tuition free
WE NEED an educated electorate! GO BERNIE!!
The Artist As Widget
Posted on: January 19, 2014
- In: artist's rights | Commentary | Education | Music | Politics | worker's rights
- 2 Comments
So I am one of the few oddballs who actually watches C-SPAN. I find it to be a window into a very distant world. But a world whose actions and decisions affect us in ways we only begin to comprehend. And sometimes those decisions have consequences that we, down here on the ground, only feel after it is too late to do anything about it.
In yesterday’s House Sub-committee Hearing on Copyright Regulations and Intellectual Property Law I had a moment of clarity that revealed why, when it comes to legislation about the arts, those mountain-top decision makers so often get it wrong.
The House panel was asking questions of a number of “experts” including Professor Glynn Lunney of Tulane University Law School. The question of the moment had to do with copyright restrictions applied to the music industry that used to exist but that had been recently eliminated. The Professor was asked if the elimination of the copyright laws had any effect on “content producers” (meaning song writers, composers, music producers, etc.).
The professor cited a study that charted the amount of content produced before and after the elimination of those restrictions. The study showed that the amount of content produced by the industry before and after the lifting of those artist protections had not changed. So the conclusion the professor and his ilk have come to is that those protections must not have been necessary!!
WOW!! Talk about a major misunderstanding of your intended subject!!
The inference here is that the additional protections the laws had been providing would motivate artists to produce more because income from your work is more likely. And conversely, without those protections artists will produce less music.
This is stunningly wrong.
These conclusions are based on a business model that, I suppose, works for shoes or driveway pavers or plumbing pipe. But artists produce because we HAVE TO! Not just because we are getting paid to do it. Don’t get me wrong, here. Getting paid for what you create is important. I have always felt the creator of the art should be fairly compensated for each creation. But it is also true that we do not choose to become artists. We are called to it by something greater than ourselves. And it is a demanding calling.
Whether you are a musician, a writer, a painter, a poet, a sculptor, a clothing designer, a novelist, a choreographer or any other type of creative spirit there is something within you that demands to be expressed. Those who ignore that demand will pay the price, one way or the other, in personal anguish.
Artists will create whether or not we are fairly treated by society. And that is the crux of the misunderstanding of the politicians and industry experts who are creating the laws that either protect us or leave us to be taken advantage of.
As long as the politicians treat art the same way they treat widgets we will never have a system that truly understands why we create art or that values what artists contribute to society.
If any of you out there are brave enough to contact Professor Lunney, please explain this to him.
Tara Sitser, Proud Singer/Songwriter
Los Angeles, CA
January 19, 2014
Tara Sitser
True Public Service
Posted by: Tara Sitser on: November 22, 2017
I published this post six years ago. It has gotten only more relevant as time passes. As we reach this year’s Thanksgiving celebration I give thanks for those in public service who actually understand that their jobs exist to serve the public.
George Bernard Shaw (26 July 1856 – 2 November 1950) was a playwright, journalist, public speaker and champion of the working class. He wrote more than 60 plays in his lifetime and was the only person to have been awarded both a Nobel Prize for Literature (1925) and an Oscar (1938), for his contributions to literature and for his work on the film Pygmalion (adaptation of his play of the same name).
Many of us may be surprised to learn that he was also a co-founder of the London School of Economics. No slouch he.
In stark contrast to the attitudes of so many of our currently elected officials, here is his statement about public service:
Share this:
Like this: