Blog For Stover

The President and Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL19) have almost always (more than 80% of the time) been on the same side of a debate. In the most recent national debate, Shimkus and President Bush seem to share a common cause – namely, no federal funding for embryonic stem cell research.

The President used his first veto on a bill which Congressman Shimkus voted against, a bill that would have, under strict guidelines, allowed federal funding for such life-saving research.

It is not every day that the American people see an issue misrepresented as much as this one has been. The president announced his veto in the presence of children born through in vitro fertilization, asserting that such actions would infringe on the right of an embryo to live and become the beautiful child sitting on the president’s lap.

The problem with this argument is that, in short, it is entirely untrue. Under the guidelines set in this bill, not a single child would be denied the right to live because of stem cell research. In fact, the bills calls for the federal funding of research only from embryo’s that are scheduled for destruction.

Stem cells are cells that have not specialized. They have not yet become heart cells or brain cells or lung cells or muscle cells. Scientists believe that they have incredible potential in the curing of such debilitating diseases as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s, and some lines have shown significant usefulness in bone-marrow transplants for Leukemia patients. While adult stem-cells and cells from umbilical blood have been used, there is no argument in the scientific community that the most miracle-making potential lies in embryonic stem-cells.

Embryonic stem cells come from embryos created under laboratory conditions for the purpose of in vitro fertilization. Whenever IVF is pursued by potential parents, several embryos are created in order to produce one that has the potential to implant and grow into a child. The process thus creates embryos that are deemed unsuitable, and are scheduled for destruction.

If the President had signed this bill, scientists could have taken stem cells from those embryos with no life-creating potential, and given them life saving potential. Scientists could have grown and studied new and numerous lines of stem cells, and medical research could have taken unbelievable leaps.

Instead, those extra embryos created in every fertilization attempt will see no purpose other than destruction. Congressman Shimkus, in voting against this bill, and President Bush, in vetoing it, stand at odds with a vast majority of Americans when they stand at odds with the continuation of this lifesaving research. They also stand at odds with science, and the pursuit of miracle cures for people with spinal chord injuries, diabetes, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, Leukemia, and a host of other diseases.

Those who, like the President and Mr. Shimkus, fall on the wrong side of this issue, have been misrepresenting the facts, misleading the public, and, more importantly, misrepresenting the people who elected them.

Posted by M.B. at 12:39 AM | Permalink

The already tense situation in the Middle East has been given additional heat today, as the Israeli Defense Forces attacked Hamas in Gaza, and a seemingly full-scale situation has emerged between Israel and guerilla forces in Lebanon.

The thoughts and prayers of myself and everyone at the campaign are directed toward those who are in harm’s way, their families, and all Americans with families and friends in the Middle East.

We will stand, as we should, in solidarity with Israel, but we must not forget nor belittle the importance of the fledgling democracy that has emerged in Lebanon. As we fight boldly against terrorism, and against those, like Hezbollah, who would seek to incite violence rather than find peace, we must remember that we have allies on both sides of this conflict.

The United States should and must urge restraint in this region, lest this conflict spin out of control. I support the reported efforts of the UN in their attempts to urge such restraint. Israel’s very existence has been disputed hotly throughout the entirety of its history, and this dispute has led to sacrifice on scales much too high.

If there is to be peace in the Middle East, we all know that it will come in the wake of bitter trials. History has shown us that mutual understanding and cooperation has often had to follow mutual sacrifice. Let us pray that the sacrifices on this already bloody alter will not be too great to bear. Let us pray that the price the world has already paid will not escalate, and that one day, Middle Eastern peace and stability will be permanent.

Danny L. Stover

Posted by M.B. at 2:29 PM | Permalink

Congressional Pay Raise $31,600
Minimum wage up 0
Living wage - Priceless

Stover Challenges Shimkus: No Congressional Pay Raise Until Congress Takes Care of Working Families

Danny Stover, candidate for the United States Congress in Illinois’ 19th District, is calling upon his opponent, incumbent John Shimkus, to reject a Congressional pay raise until such time that Congress mandates a raise in the federal minimum wage.

“As a constituent of Rep. Shimkus, I would like to see him do the honorable thing and vote to give American workers a raise before giving himself and his colleagues one,” says Stover.

The minimum wage has not been raised since 1997, the second-longest period of time the wage has gone without being adjusted for inflation. In that time 530,000 more American families have dropped below the poverty line, according to the US Census Bureau. In those nearly ten years, however, Congress has seen fit to raise it’s own annual salary by more than $30,000.

John Shimkus, however, has allowed his own salary to increase based upon rising cost of living, while steadfastly refusing to help American families living on a minimum wage that has dropped 17% of its value in the last ten years alone.

"His position illustrates neglect and abandonment of working Americans,” says Stover.

The Congressional pay raises occur automatically with the approval of a certain appropriations bill each year. This automatic increase, signed into law in 1989 with the Ethics Reform Act, adjusts the salaries of Members of Congress based upon the rising cost. Congress can, however, vote down the pay increase, as it has done five times since the law was passed.

The questions that Mr. Stover is asking are simple - Are Members of Congress the only ones suffering from rising costs of living? Are they the only ones having to pay $40 at the pump to fill their cars to get to work? Are they the only ones suffering from the rising cost of health care in this country? Are they the only ones trying to send their kids to college?

The answer is, of course, no. If the cost of living has risen enough for Members of Congress to raise their own salary by $30,000, then it’s gone up enough to warrant a raise in the abysmally low minimum wage.

"Nation wide, profits are up and incomes of average americans are down," Mr. Stover points out. "People are deeper in debt, the employment rate has fallen while poverty is on the rise. Health care costs and gasoline prices erode our income".

About 48% of minimum wage earners are between the bread-winning ages of 25 and 64, contrary to the rants of opponents about teenagers in entry level jobs. They’re office assistants. They’re child-care teachers. They’re landscaping workers. Even a good majority of those teenagers working minimum wage jobs live in households making below-average income.

It’s time to treat the plight of America’s working families with the same respect that Congress gives itself. Don’t raise Congressional salaries until the minimum wage has been raised.

Posted by M.B. at 5:36 PM | Permalink