August 4, 2009[edit]

Dear Dcmacnut,

I feel that your editing is arbitrary and blocks the purpose of an encyclopedia that by definition is a compilation of articles of knowledge on topics. I am adding firsthand knowledge about Sherrod Brown for Ohioans to read. By editing it out you are limiting access to his writings and you have determined it is controversial on your own. You are arbitrary limiting Ohioans ability to gather knowledge that Senator Sherrod Brown has disseminated in emails to people who have contacted him.

Budget[edit]

July 20, 2009[edit]

Thank you for expressing your concerns over government spending.

I support the targeted spending contained in the recently passed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Fiscal Year 2009 Omnibus Appropriations bill.

It is crucial that we get money into the pockets of Americans. We are facing an economic crisis the likes of which has not been seen in decades. Americans are in desperate need of jobs. The recently passed spending bills will create or protect millions of jobs. When individuals have jobs, they can then spend money and help spur our capitalist economy.

However, I agree with you that the government has a responsibility to address the ballooning federal deficit. When President Bush began his first term, he inherited a federal budget surplus of $236 billion from President Clinton. President Obama inherited a nearly $1.3 trillion budget deficit from President Bush. The national debt stood at $5.8 trillion when President Bush took office, and now it is close to $12 trillion. I support President Obama's goal to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.

If you have specific suggestions or thoughts on how to improve our economy, I would be glad to hear them. Thank you again for being in touch with my office.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown United States Senator

Energy[2][edit]

July 1, 2009[edit]

Thank you for sharing your views about energy legislation.

Effective clean energy legislation will reduce carbon emissions and promote the production of renewable energy—but most importantly it will also ensure the creation of new clean energy jobs and industries. Clean energy legislation must also ensure the competitiveness of domestic manufacturers and protect consumers by keeping utility rates affordable. We must work to reduce our dependence on foreign oil by making America a global leader in clean energy manufacturing.

For this reason, I recently announced legislation called the Investments for Manufacturing Progress and Clean Technology (IMPACT) Act. This legislation, which was included in the House energy bill, would support manufacturers' transition to the clean energy economy and ensure clean energy jobs are created here in the U.S. This legislation would create a revolving loan fund for small and medium size manufacturers to retool and expand facilities to produce clean energy technology and energy efficient products. It is estimated this measure will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

A growing consensus of scientists agree that human activities are contributing to rising sea levels, extreme weather, and climate change across the globe. As the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States has a clear obligation to be at the forefront of climate change policy. Without action, we risk our health and the health of future generations, the well-being of our coastal areas, and the productivity of our farms, forests, and fisheries.

As climate change legislation continues to be discussed in Congress, I will work to ensure that an unfair burden is not placed on Ohio families and businesses and that clean energy legislation creates new jobs and economic opportunities across Ohio.

I will certainly keep your views in mind as this legislation moves through Congress. Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown United States Senator

June 18, 2008[edit]

Thank you for sharing your concerns regarding the Climate Security Act of 2008 (S.3036).

S.3036 is a bipartisan bill that seeks to combat climate change by reducing carbon emissions through a market-based cap and trade system. While I think this legislation is a step in the right direction, I voted against limiting debate on the bill. Because this is an issue of global importance, I am working to ensure that American manufacturers are competing on a level playing field with foreign competitors. And as we transition from an energy intensive economy to a low carbon economy run increasingly on clean renewable and alternative energy sources, we must ensure that utility rates remain manageable for all Ohio consumers.

America can and should be a leader in efforts to combat climate change and I will continue to fight for legislation that is environmentally strong, economically feasible, and does not place an unfair burden on Ohioans. I appreciate your thoughts on this matter and will keep them in mind as work continues on climate change legislation in the months ahead. Thank you again for writing.

Sincerely, Sherrod Brown

Health Care [3][edit]

July 29, 2009[edit]

Thank you for getting in touch with my office.

I appreciate your question about whether I read every word of bills that come before me. While I study every major section of a bill, I do not read every word. Because members of Congress have a responsibility to meet with constituents, travel in the state, and work on emerging issues affecting Ohioans and the nation as a whole, we rely on staff members to assist us in poring through legislation. I am fortunate to have an excellent staff to assist me.

Thank you again for sharing your concerns with me.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown United States Senator

July 8, 2009[edit]

Thank you for expressing your views regarding the state of the American health care system.

The Senate will be examining many issues relating to health care reform. I have received numerous letters providing recommendations and I appreciate the input I have received from you and other Ohioans on this issue.

Health care reform is desperately needed in this country. While costs mount for those with health care plans, 50 million Americans remain uninsured and millions more are underinsured. I strongly believe that our health care system is in need of reform that reduces the long-term growth of health care costs for business and government; protects families from bankruptcy or debt because of health expenditures; guarantees choice of doctors and health plans; invests in prevention and wellness; improves patient safety and quality of care; assures affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans; and ends barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.

I have passed your concerns and suggestions along to the legislative assistants in my office who monitor health care reform initiatives. Please be sure that I am considering all the options carefully and that I will keep your views in mind as legislation related to this issue come before the Senate.

Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this matter.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown United States Senator

May 6, 2009[edit]

Thank you for expressing your views regarding employer-provided health benefits.

The Senate will be examining many issues relating to health care reform in the 111th Congress. I appreciate the input I have received from Ohioans on this issue.

Health care reform is desperately needed in this country. While costs mount for those with health care plans, 50 million Americans remain uninsured and millions more are underinsured. However, I agree with you that we can address the problems with our health system without jeopardizing employer-sponsored coverage.

One promising solution to the problems of cost, quality, and access that plague our health care system is to increase competition in the health insurance market. If the private insurance industry was truly competitive, then there would be strong incentives to provide coverage to as many Americans as possible and to build customer loyalty through cost savings and quality improvements. Unfortunately, insurers do not truly compete against one another; instead, they make use of the same basic strategies to earn significant profits. These tactics include selectively insuring the lowest risk enrollees, slow-walking claims payments so they can earn interest on every premium dollar, and denying as many claims as possible.

What the insurance industry needs is some healthy competition from a public insurance option. This option would not replace employer-sponsored coverage; it would simply give uninsured or underinsured Americans the choice of enrolling in an insurance plan that does not engage in the same cost-avoidance tactics as private insurance plans do. The public insurance option would also be a vehicle for quality, coverage, and provider access improvements that set the bar higher for private insurance plans.

I understand that the private health insurance industry has launched a massive campaign against the public insurance option. I truly believe it is in the best interests of all Americans if the industry is unsuccessful in its attempts to prevent additional competition in the insurance market.

Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this matter.

Sincerely,

Sherrod Brown United States Senator

April 22, 2009[edit]

Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the state of the American health care system.

The increasingly fragmented and inefficient health care system in the U.S. is a major concern. While premiums mount for those with health care plans, nearly 50 million Americans remain uninsured and millions more are underinsured. And despite staggeringly high health care costs, our nation lags behind other developed countries across a spectrum of health indicators.

I support legislation that would establish a dual coverage system that gives Americans the option to enroll in private coverage or a public insurance program. Whether the measure is cost, access, or quality, competition between private and public insurance coverage encourages plans to excel in order to attract enrollees. I am convinced it is in the best interest of our nation to foster such competition.

Thank you again for getting in touch with me on this matter. As work on health care form continues in Congress, I will be sure to keep your views in mind.

Sincerely, Sherrod Brown

-

Healthcare[edit]

-

July 23, 2009[edit]

- - Thank you for contacting me concerning healthcare. I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me about this very important issue.

- - As you may be aware, Congressman John Dingell introduced the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200, on July 14, 2009. I think most people will agree with me that our healthcare system is in need of some reform. There is no question that medical costs are skyrocketing out of control. Healthcare needs to be more affordable to more people and small businesses. Unfortunately, I do not believe that H.R. 3200 is the solution. This $1.6 trillion plan does nothing to reduce costs for people with coverage or for the companies that provide health care. All it does is continue to add to our already record deficit. I am puzzled how we can spend more than a trillion dollars reforming health care and the only reform achieved is higher taxes on people and business, less care, and endangering more than 160 million people with good quality health care. Last but not least, to approach this important piece of legislation at a frantic pace with arbitrary deadlines is dangerous and prevents the best solutions from being worked out.

- - I’ve been asked what my solution is, since I do not like this plan. As you may be aware, Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) and I have introduced H.R. 956, the HealthCARE Act, which would establish insurance pools at the state level very similar to the program federal employees participate in. Specifically, these pools would allow small businesses to purchase coverage benefits for their employees, and individuals up to 200% of the federal poverty level would also be eligible to participate. You may wish to visit the Library of Congress’ website at http://thomas.loc.gov/ to review either piece of legislation more closely.

- - Once again thank you for your correspondence. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me again.

- - - Very truly yours,

- - - Steven C. LaTourette

- Member of Congress

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to the page Steve LaTourette has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 14:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sherrod Brown, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

I agree with you that it's important to include information about Sherrod Brown and Steve LaTourette's positions on issues in their articles. But posting constituent correspondence verbatim is not the way to do it. First, these letters cannot be verified since they are private, constituent correspondence. Are the letters posted anywhere on-line? Secondly, to include information on their positions, we need multiple reliable sources, perferably from secondary sources. Letters would be a primary source, which by itself is insufficient for inclusion. Letters from a congressman would also be considered self-published sources per WP:SELFPUB. Self published sources are discouraged unless there is "no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" (How do we know these are authentic letters?) and "the article is not based primarily on such sources" (The sections use only the letters you posted as the source and the article text).

Even if the letters are verifiable and notworthy for inclusion, posting the letters verbatim does not comport with Wikipedia's manual of style. If you want to add the information, it needs to be rewritten in an encyclopedic manner. Posting the letter's verbatim detracts from the flow and look of the article. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a forum and including just these letters provides undue weight to the issue. We need to present articles in a neutral point of view, which means including sources that may contradict what the senator/congressman says in his letter.

Finally, I assume you are the original recipient of these letters. If not, then you would need permission from the recipient since it is private correspondence.DCmacnut<> 17:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Sherrod Brown has been reverted, as it introduced unsourced or poorly sourced negative or controversial biographical material. Please do not continue to add such information. Thank you. Irbisgreif (talk) 17:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. DCmacnut<> 17:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Sherrod Brown. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post private correspondence on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a webhost for letters to constituents. Please do not edit-war to post position letters. Acroterion _(talk) 17:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please allow me to state this plainly: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum to post letters from Ohio's congressmen to their constituents. Please stop adding unencyclopedic content in violation of Wikipedia requirements. Acroterion _(talk) 18:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User:Dcmacnut. Zhang He (talk) 18:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last comment on this matter. My edits are not arbitrary, and are designed to further the encyclopedia and protect biographies of living people from vandalism, no matter how well intentioned. Verbatim posting of letters on an article page is inappropriate. Sherrod Brown is not a forum only for Ohioans to learn about their Senators positions, but rather an encyclopedic article for the entire world to learn about Sherrod Brown. I have proposed to you a compromise that could permit incorporation of these issues. If you feel the issue ares need to be expanded, please add the information in appropriately-cited prose, not verbatim private correspondence.DCmacnut<> 18:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, you are in violation of the three-revert rule, and I would therefore be justified in blocking you for that alone. You've not been told that on your talk page, so I will not block you right now, but any more warring will result in a block. Nyttend (talk) 20:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]