RockSpot

New Name — New Address

2011-04-24T15:41:00.000-07:00

I finally broke down and got myself a domain name and some web space. I've moved my webspace to

http://www.rockblotter.com/blog

And I've renamed my blog to On My Blotter — Things I Just Can't Stay Silent About

Drop on by sometime and take a read.

The Continuing Saga: GOP's War on Women

2011-03-14T10:28:00.000-07:00

I oppose H.R. 3: No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act because I am a woman, and I adamantly believe that Government has no place in my Doctor's office dictating what decisions I can make.

The GOP Jihadists who have overtaken the House of Representatives claim to be for small government and for individual liberty, but HR3 is the exact antithesis of those sentiments:

It's my decision to make whether to carry a pregnancy to term, not the government's decision.
I'm not sure I would ever exercise my RIGHT to abort a pregnancy, but if I were to learn the fetus I was carrying had spinal bifida and a 90% chance of being severely brain damaged, I'd have a serious decision to make.
It would increase my taxes in that my insurance policy covers that type of procedure and thus no premiums associated with that policy could count toward any tax deductible expense.
If passed, and if insurance policies don't cover that procedure, and then if the pregnant woman's life is endangered by the pregnancy ... well then ... would that expense would apparently need to be paid by solely by the mother. What if she doesn't have the money to pay? Too bad … so sad … Die? Is this the GOP's version of death panels?
The GOP claimed they would remove the word "forcible" from their definition of rape. The bill as published on Thomas (read section 309) has not been amended (note there are no amendments to this bill) to remove the word "forcible." Excuse me? That's the equivalent to an open invitation to rapists to figure out a way to drug women before the act … if she's drugged and not resisting, it's thus not "forcible" and therefore "not rape." Give me a break!
This bill is nothing more than back door discriminatory mechanism with which GOP Jihadists can deny services and anything else they so choose based on the fact that one just happens to receive a tax deduction/credit for 'XYZ', therefore allowing them (whoever them might be) to dictate what one can or cannot do with respect to 'XYZ'. If you're thinking this just affects 'abortion' ... you need to rethink that and take another look at the bill's actual language.

Are you also opposed to HR3? Did you know there's a new service called PopVox on GovTrack.us? You can use that service to search for any bill and see what other's have said in support/opposition to the bill, and you can had your own comments as well. Here's a link to HR3 on PopVox.

It's ALL about the Constitution?

2011-01-06T10:35:00.000-08:00

Gavel in hand, Rep John Boehner (R-OH), the 53rd Speaker of the House pledged "to give government back to the people." Yeah right, and if you believe that, I have this ..... you fill in the blank!

Most disconcerting to me is the omnipresent reverence to the Constitution as though it's their sacred Bible, yet no one seems to understand what it says. They read the words, but it's as though they go in one eye and out the other without any mental processing in between.

But that doesn't matter, with great pomposity, the full Constitution is being 'read' into the record during today's (01/06/11) session. Newly adopted rules now require that each bill submitted contain a 'statement of Constitutional Authority.' That statement is to specify the specific section of the Constitution that empowers Congress to enact the proposed legislation. But if that's not enough, in late January, Justice Scalia will be instructing members of the 112th Congress on the first of a number of constitutional seminars for conservative members of Congress.

Excuse me? Justice Scalia? This guy is the poster child for activist justices who attempt to legislate from the bench. As if we didn't have enough confusion about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and Rep. King thinking that he can just pass a bill in Congress that will negate its birthright guarantees, now they're going to have Scalia, who thinks women and gays aren't protected by the 14th Amendment, teach classes for Conservative Congressmen? What are they smoking, or drinking?

According to Justice Scalia, the 14th Amendment shouldn't apply to gays. But, before I go on, let's look at Section 1 (the due process clause) of the 14th Amendment:

14th Amendment, Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

According to Justice Scalia, “The due process clause has been distorted so it’s no longer a guarantee of process but a guarantee of liberty,” Scalia expounded. “But some of the liberties the Supreme Court has found to be protected by that word – liberty – nobody thought constituted a liberty when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Homosexual sodomy? It was criminal in all the states. Abortion? It was criminal in all the states.”

Good grief, if Justice Scalia wants to claim that, then he should also believe that the 2nd Amendment only provides the freedom for people to own and use a musket with which to protect himself, not an Uzi.

Justice Scalia has argued that "the Constitution tells the current society that it cannot do [whatever] it wants to do... Now if you give to those many provisions of the Constitution that are necessarily broad--such as due process of law, cruel and unusual punishments, equal protection of the laws--if you give them an evolving meaning so that they have whatever meaning the current society thinks they ought to have, they are no limitation on the current society at all."

According to Justice Scalia, “The way to change the Constitution is through amendments approved by the people, not by judges altering the meaning of its words.” And that deserves another, Yeah Right! Tell me that one again with a straight face after you, Mr. Scalia, helped create one of the greatest travesties of our time with the Citizens United ruling that gave citizenship rights and privileges to multi-national Corporations, and who just bought the last election and our country lock, stock, and barrel.

The 14th Amendment was intended to prevent discrimination in basic civil rights of PEOPLE. As I see things, not just men, not just whites, but women, people of color, and people with different sexual orientations all 'people' ... and therefore, are covered by the provisions and guarantees outlined in the 14th amendment. There is a reason why our founding fathers chose the word 'people.' They chose that word so as to be inclusive of all of the citizens of our great nation.

Related Reading:

Something's Amiss with Judge Recommending Settlement

2011-01-05T14:26:00.000-08:00

Reposted from "Friends of Black Rock" blog:

Judge Recommends Humboldt County Accept Settlement for Jungo Landfill from Recology Legal Team, her Former Law Partner

Nevadans Against Garbage, a grass roots organization formed to stop Recology’s (Jungo Land & Investment) Jungo Road landfill project has learned Judge Valerie P. Cooke, Federal District Court Magistrate, assigned to mediate lawsuits filed by Recology against Humboldt County and the individual Humboldt County Commissioners, was a partner in the prosecuting law firm representing Recology in these lawsuits. Judge Cooke was a partner in the law firm of McDonald, Carano, Wilson, McCune, Bergin, Frankovich & Hicks LLP prior to her appointment to District Court in 1999.(i) Recology’s (Jungo Land & Investment) attorney is John Frankovich, Managing Partner, of McDonald, Carano, Wilson LLP. Frankovich joined the firm in 1973.(ii)

The proposed settlement terms between Recology (Jungo Land & Investment) and the Humboldt County Commissioners required the commissioners overturn their decision NOT to extend the Recology conditional use permit for another 5 years. (iii) It was this April, 2010 decision by the Commissioners, not to prolong the conditional use permit, that prompted the Recology lawsuits against the county as well as the individual county commissioners. A settlement to extend the permit flies in the face of Commissioner reasons NOT to extend the permit, and voter directive.

Nevadans Against Garbage is calling for officials to look into this conflict of interest between Judge Cooke and Recology’s legal team, led by John Frankovich. N.A.G. is also questioning the recommendation by the legal team for Humboldt County to follow Judge Cooke’s recommendation. On December 20, the Commissioners voted 4-1 to deny the settlement agreement, in spite of the fact that voting to deny the settlment meant they were still on the hook for the individual lawsuits Recology has filed against them.

According to Stephen Balkenbush, the attorney assigned to represent the Humboldt County Public Insurance Pool, the proposed settlement terms between the county, individual commissioners, and Recology (Jungo Land & Investment) were recommended by Judge Cooke, and that she told “…all parties that she believes it is in the best interest of the parties to resolve this case in connection with the terms that are before the board today…”. (iv) Draw your own conclusions; but it seems Judge Cooke's recommendation comes at no surprize given her past relationship with Attorney Frankovich. Attorney Balkenbush also noted “…I concur with her position and that this matter should be resolved along these terms…” (v). Clearly, the insurance company has great legal representation, the Humboldt County Commissioners, may be not.

The proposed Jungo Road Landfill would accept 4000 tons of non-recyclable California waste, via rail, 5 days per week, for 95 years. Recology is looking for an exception to Nevada statute to build the landfill closer to an active aquifer than the law allows. USGS studies on the aquifer feeds have not been completed. No environmental impact study has been required or provided. The conditional use permit for this project was approved when local ordinances did not allow for a second landfill.

Please write Nevada officials and share your concerns about Judge Cooke's relationship with the prosecuting law firm and her direction to Humboldt County in the matter of settling this lawsuit.

Contact Information:
Stat Assemblyman Pete Goicoechea: pgoicoechea@asm.state.nv.us
State Representative Ira Hansen: ihansen@asm.state.nv.us (part Humboldt County)
State Representative John Ellison: jellison@asm.state.nv.us (part Humboldt County)
State Senator Dean Rhoads: drhoads@sen.state.nv.us
US Senator Ensign: http://ensign.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
US Senator Reid: http://reid.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm
US Rep. Heller: https://heller.house.gov/Contact/ContactForm.htm

Govenor Sandoval, State Capitol, 101 N. Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701
(775) 684-5670 / Fax: (775) 684-5683

NV Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto: http://ag.state.nv.us/about/contact/form.htm
US Attorney General Eric Holder, US Department of Justice: http://www.justice.gov/contact-us.html

Reference Endnotes:
(i) Source Nevada US Court web site: http://www.nvd.uscourts.gov/Files/DC_Report2006AALL.pdf#page=9&pagemode=...
(ii) Source, McDonald Carano Wilson web site: http://www.mcdonaldcarano.com/attorney_detail.cfm?AID=53
(iii) Proposed settlement terms at Humboldt County website: http://www.hcnv.us:1403/cadocs/12_20_10/LAWSUIT/terms.of.proposed.settle...
(iv)Humboldt Sun, Volume 41, Issue 103, Dated 12/24-27, 2010, article “County Opts to go to Court” by Heather Gula
(iv) Humboldt Sun, Volume 41, Issue 103, Dated 12/24-27, 2010, article “County Opts to go to Court” by Heather Gula

Support Nevadans Against Garbage:
-www.nevadansagainstgarbage.com
-Join our Facebook group, Nevadans Against Garbage
-Follow DesertPlaya on Twitter

The Non-Stop Circus to Continue

2010-12-22T10:43:00.000-08:00

The 2010 Census has been published, and it's now official, Nevada has won a 4th seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. With Nevada's population at approximately 2.8 million, up 35.1% from the 2000 Census count, that means Nevada will be redrawing Congressional district lines such that each district has about 677,000 Nevadans.

As the gerrymandering begins in early 2011, we're likely to see the strife rise yet again between north and south and blossum into full bloom. Southern Nevada with its higher population counts will want to see more influence, not just in Congress, but at the state level as well. Achieving some balance between the needs of both the Northern and Southern reaches of our state will, needless to say, become quite a balancing act (pun intended) in assuring the needs of all Nevadans are met, and that one part of the state can't disadvantage the other. Before it's all said and done, we'll no doubt see at least one veto, if not more, and potentially a number of lawsuits as various parties allege the newly drawn District maps have somehow wronged or disadvantaged them.

Revisiting our state's strife between the north and the south could not come at a worse time, a time when our legislators need to be focussed on our state's budget crisis, an economy that is in desparate need of diversification, our seriously high unemployment numbers that put a serious strain on state services, a school system that's nearly if not dead last in the rankings, and housing market threatening even higher numbers of foreclosures. Instead of focussing their full efforts on these overwhelmingly important issues, their focus will be diverted to issues of partisan politics in an effort to promote their political futures.

To that end, we can expect to see some jockeying from various politicians hoping the district lines might be draw in such a way to favor their election or re-election to higher office ... and some carping if they perceive another party or side will have an undeserved advantage. And, if many of you had hoped that 2010 was the last you'd see from Sharron Angle ... well I hate to disappoint you ... but I don't think Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or even the almighty can grant a favorable outcome on that wish.

So, if you were hoping for a relatively uneventful year after last year's non-stop political circus, and before the next non-stop political circus next year, you might want to rethink that. 2011 is going to be a non-stop statewide political circus as various parties jockey get one-up on their opponents.

What You Can Do « The Story of Electronics

2010-11-24T06:35:00.000-08:00

I watched What You Can Do « The Story of Electronics, an online short movie about how manufacturer's 'design for the dump' instead of for continued use. If you've ever tried to get a piece of electronic equipment repaired, you'd quickly understand that, as the bench fee (the fee just to put it on their bench, and before they begin charging hourly labor costs) tends to be somewhere in the $50-$75 range. Buying a new unit is cheaper, and the old unit frequently goes to the local landfill ... or if someone is ecology-conscious, they dispose of it through special recycling programs.

For years, I've hoped to see, for example, manufacturer's of TVs make them more modular, sort of like PCs are a bit modular. With a PC you can either use the basic sound capabilities that are built in to the motherboard, or you can add anything from a basic sound card to one that can mimic how the audio should sound based on the setting in which one might be listening (arena, theatre, etc.). You can either use the motherboard's built-in video, or you can buy a card that displays video in more colors, better screen resolutions, on more than one monitor simultaneously, etc. My point is, my PC is modular and I can add additional functionality merely by adding another card, more memory, another or a bigger hard drive, a different processing unit, etc.

Other electronic items that we buy should also be more modular. Take a TV as an example. I should be able to buy a basic model at one of several standard screen sizes. Each model should have a number of slots in which I can add additional capabilities. Like PCs, some might have more slots than others (a 720p TV might have fewer, whereas a 1080p might have more; or 32" models might have fewer slots/add-on capabilities than 65" models). My point is, that I should be able to add additional functionality to my basic TV like:

Internet access to certain online media (a number of new TVs are coming out with that now),
A cable tuner card (to eliminate having to have that cable box),
A satellite tuner card (to eliminate having to have either a DISH/DirecTV box),
A DVD/BlueRay player (to eliminate having to have a separate box to view DVDs/BlueRay disks),
A card reader unit (to enable viewing pictures/video from all those other cards, vidcams, etc.),
A DVR unit with an e-sata pop-out hard drive (so when one gets full, you can pop in another one, or so you can play those movies on your laptop or PC as well),
A home network module that links your home PC network to your PC so you can access various media on your network from your PC.
A video camera unit capable of making a skype audio/video call to friends and family.

I'm sure there are may more things more of you could imagine as well. The manufacturer's just need to come up with a standard that could be used for the 'add-ins' ... and then they could stop designing for disposal and start designing for continued use and easy upgrade.

I hope you'll take the time to watch What You Can Do « The Story of Electronics, it's great food for thought not just for gadget geeks, but for all of us.

Who Owns Your Genes? You Do.

2010-11-05T20:27:00.000-07:00

I've written two previous blog articles on this subject: ACLU Challenges Patents on Human Genes and A Thank You to the Plaintiffs, the ACLU and Judge Sweet. And, as the debate ensued over health care reform, I wrote to Sen. Reid, Sen. Ensign, and Rep. Heller on more than one occasion regarding the Patent Office's practice of allowing human genes to be patented. I argued that if they were going to make a dent in reducing health care costs, they would also need to look at systemic problems created by the Government itself that contribute to driving up health costs. This particular case is a glaring example of one of those systemic problems.

For the past 20 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been issuing patents on human genes -- the segments of DNA that we all have in our cells -- giving private corporations, individuals, and universities the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. There is something fundamentally wrong with companies being able to own the rights to pieces of our human genome.

This raises serious civil liberties concerns in that the Patent Office has essentially been giving patent holders a monopoly over these genes and all the information contained within them. You see, patent holders then have the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying, or even looking at the genes. Like the ACLU, I believe this is a gross violation of our First Amendment rights: our individual right to know about our own genetic makeup, a doctor's rights to provide a patient with crucial medical information, and scientists’ rights to study the human genome and develop new treatments and genetic tests.

The case at hand involves the BRCA genes that are associated with hereditary breast and ovarian cancer. As a result of the U.S. Patent Office granting patents on the BRCA genes to Myriad Genetics, Myriad's lab is the only place in the country where diagnostic testing/treatment can be performed. And, because only Myriad can test/treat for BRCA gene mutations, others are prevented from testing these genes or developing alternative tests. Accordingly, Myriad can charge anything they want for this testing/treatment, driving up the costs of both testing and treatment.

The case went to court and on March 30, 2010, Federal District Court Judge Robert Sweet issued his ruling that human genes cannot be patented, invalidating all 15 patent claims held by Myriad on the BRCA genes. Myriad is appealing that ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. This week, the U.S. Government filed a 'friend-of-the-court' brief agreeing with the stance that 'isolated DNA is not patentable.'

The U.S. government filed a friend-of-the-court brief last week in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) challenging patents on human genes. The government agreed with our stance that isolated DNA is not patentable.

According to the government's brief, "The chemical structure of native human genes is a product of nature, and it is no less a product of nature when that structure is 'isolated' from its natural environment than are cotton fibers that have been separated from cotton seeds or coal that has been extracted from the earth."

"We are extremely gratified that the government has agreed with us that genes are products of nature and therefore not patentable," said Sandra Park, staff attorney with the ACLU Women's Rights Project and a lawyer on the case. "Gene patents restrict patients' access to their own genetic information and chill important research. The lower court correctly found that no one should be able to patent human genes, and we are confident the appeals court will uphold that decision."

Representative Xavier Becerra (D-CA) introduced H.R. 977, the "Genomic Research and Accessibility Act" during the 110th Congress to bar the issuance of gene patents. He would like to reintroduce a new version of the bill this year, but needs your help. Representative Becerra needs support from colleagues on both sides of the aisle if his bill has any chance of being enacted.

Please take the time to ask your Congressional Members to contact Representative Becerra and sign on as a cosponsor of this important piece of legislation.

Take action: Tell Congress your genes aren't for sale!
(This link will take you to an ACLU page where you can fill out their form to send a letter, or where you can copy/paste/modify a form letter into an email to your Congressional Representative/Senators.)

The Election and all the Resulting Incongruities

2010-11-05T06:44:00.000-07:00

Americans want someone who will fight for THEM! The reason for the election slaughter of so many Democrats was twofold: (1) People had lost confidence in the Democrats' abilities to hold their ground and defend THEM (Obama is just too good a christian ... in that he has turned the other cheek way too many times instead of breaking out a set of brass knuckles), and (2) the fear and smear campaign financed by billionaire plutocrats and the US Chamber of Commerce along with their multi-national corporation membership who didn't have to identify a single dollar of their contributions which were used for this hostile takeover of America.

A bunch of scared and gullible people voted to give the keys to the Treasury back to the Republicans. How mad do you think they're going to get over the next two years as the Republican Majority in the House, and Minority in the Senate begin breaking one provision in their Pledge to America, after another after another. Democrats managed to hold the Senate, but with a smaller majority. That means bills passed in the House are going to continually DIE at the door of the Senate. And, judging from Mr. McConnell's speech at the Heritage Foundation yesterday, there will be NO compromise unless Democrats move over to the Republican side. So Mr. Boehner, try as you may, and even if you can manage to get something through the Senate, if the President vetoes the bill, you don't have a veto-proof majority in either house ... so forget about wasting valuable time on trying to repeal bills that have already passed. Do something that will make a meaningful difference for the citizens of this nation!

For those of us with even a modicum of intelligence, the GOP's Pledge is incongruous and filled with far to many false assertions. They say their immediate priorities are policies that promote job growth and reining in spending so they can balance the budget, yet their first bill of the new session, H.R. 1, will be to make the Bush Tax permanent and instantly add yet another $700B to the Budget Deficit and the National Debt. H.R. 2 is likely to be a bill to repeal Health Care Reform with H.R. 3 being a repeal of Financial Reform. Repealing HCR will instantly add another $150B to both the Budget Deficit and the National Debt. So within the very first month they will have slashed the revenue side of their balance sheet without identifying a single corresponding spending cut with which to balance those activities, and accumulated almost another Trillion dollars more debt.

Like many other women across this nation, I manage the household finances. It wouldn't take me very long to figure out that if our income (revenue) stream just got reduced, I won't be able to pay all the bills. So, Mr. Boehner, what are you going to cut?

They say they're going to reduce government, yet they're also supposedly going to create jobs. Huh? Government jobs are jobs too. So, where are they going to create private sector jobs that will more than compensate for both the loss of government jobs as they start paring down the number of government employees as well as the existing number of unemployed people who are no looking for jobs? We don't have a manufacturing sector anymore, at least not one that employs massive numbers of employees. Those jobs have been shipped overseas. If they figure they'll just start another war with Iran and employ them there, well boys ... that's just an expansion of government ... but just as minions of the massive Dept. of Defense (which should be returned to it's former name: Dept. of War).

These simpletons are continually trying to apply a single simple solution to very complex, multi-faceted situations. They haven't taken the time to think through all the intricacies and so when they plug one hole in that dike, another one starts spurting, then another and another. Well, they're running out of fingers to plug all those holes. A prime example was the “American Dream Down-payment Initiative” (ADDI) implemented in 2003 by a Republican Congress and President Bush. Their goal? To get people out of government low-rent housing, into a home of their own, and off the public dole. How did they do that? They gave them $10K and the boot. That put a whole bunch of people in the housing market buying homes they had no business buying. The result? A housing market collapse followed by a financial meltdown, an economic recession and unemployment in double-digit figures.

Now, the Republicans are complaining about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and that something has to be done about them. Well, they created this mess! It's another one of those holes in the dike that now needs to be plugged. The whole purpose of Fannie and Freddie is to purchase mortgages from banks so those same banks can then use that money to lend for additional mortgages. To get more money so they could buy more mortgages from the banks, Freddie and Fannie securitized the mortgages bought from the banks (bundle them up in packages of large numbers of mortgages, as is their normal practice) and sold those various packages to Wall St., which then sold those packages to investors. By introducing low-income home buyers (people who had no business being in the housing market), we ended up with a nationwide collapse of the housing market followed by a full-blown economic recession.

It just goes to show you that people don't pay attention and have VERY short memories, because one bozo after another, at the ballot box, just returned the keys to the Treasury back to the Republicans. But, if that's not bad enough, it going to get worse. I wonder how angry those bozos are going to get when they finally begin to realize they were duped, just so the Republicans could regain the leadership THIS year ... because it's a redistricting year. Being in power in such a year allows them to redraw the district lines to favor the continued re-election of Republicans, who can then continue to rape America for the next DECADE! No... I'm not mad ... I"M ANGRY!

What Kind of Representation Do You Want?

2010-10-07T21:49:00.000-07:00

As you go to the polls this election, I have one question you might want to ponder: "What kind of representation do you want?"

You might be saying, "huh"? But, that's one important consideration you need to make before you make your ballot choices. For example, do you want your representative to listen to his/her constituents and then vote in Congress based on how the majority of those constituents believe he/she should vote? Or, do you want to elect a representative who will vote the way he/she believes things should be regardless of how a majority of constituents might desire him/her to vote?

If your answer is YES to the first question, then you should be supporting Senator Reid. If you answered YES to the second question, you are apparently supporting Ms. Angle.

Given Ms. Angle's voting record in the Nevada Assembly, it's quite apparent that she is pretty much incapable of any form of compromise. It's her or the highway as evidenced by a wide consensus that votes during her tenure in the NV Assembly were called "41-to-Angle" votes. So, if your wishes differ from hers, chances are that she'll vote her personal views regardless of what you or any other constituent might prefer for her to support. After all, in her opinion, you elected her to represent you and therefore, she'll vote as she sees fit based on her values and opinions about whatever is brought to the floor for a vote.

And, given her propensity to only allow interviews by sympathetic news organizations (FOX), it's highly unlikely she will listen to concerns by any constituent who doesn't espouse an identical view to hers. Don't bother to waste the ink to pen a letter, and don't work yourself into carpal tunnel syndrome sitting at your keyboard sending one email after another to a Senator who will be blind to your perspective for anything she might disapprove of.

If you don't know where each candidate stands on issues of importance, this should be of some help in figuring out who you want to represent you and your views of the world over the next 6 year term.

• Issue/Policy	• Angle	• Reid
Social Policy: Abortion; Contraception; Same-Sex Marriage	• Supports a ban on same-sex marriages. • Pro-life, opposing abortion for any reason. • Abortion is the taking of a human life. 8/2010) • All human life is precious. (7/2010) • Worked on Constitutional Protection of Marriage Act. (7/2010) • Would support a constitutional amendment to define marriage as only between a man and woman. • Endorsed by Family PAC Federal, Phyllis Schlafly, and Concerned Women of America	• Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (3/2009) • Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (3/2008) • Voted YES on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (3/2008) • Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (10/2007) • Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (4/2007) • Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (7/2006) • Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (7/2005) • Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (3/2004) • Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (3/2003) • Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (J6/2000) • Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (10/1999) • Rated 29% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (12/2003) • Expand embryonic stem cell research. (6/2004) • Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (5/2006) • Rated 50% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (12/2006) • Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (2/2007) • Sponsored bill allowing emergency contraception. (1/2009) • Voted NO on killing restrictions on violent videos to minors. (5/1999) • Rated 100% by the AU, indicating support of church-state separation. (12/2006)
Budget/Economy	• Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. 7/2010) • Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (7/2010) • Supports/defends Right to Work laws • Supports a "balanced budget" amendment to the Constitution • Dismantle Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae • Supports a constitutional amendment to restrain spending to no more than 20% of GDP (except during a declared war), plus a 2/3 vote of both houses • Maintain the mining laws and provide access to public lands.	• Bush’s deficit is a ‘birth tax’ of $36,000 on every child. (2/2005) • Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (7/2009) • Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (5/2009) • Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (2/2009) • Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (9/2008) • Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (3/2007) • Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (12/2005) • Voted NO on prioritizing national debt reduction below tax cuts. (4/2000) • Reform mortgage rules to prevent foreclosure & bankruptcy. (2/2008) • More enforcement of mortgage fraud and TARP fraud. (5/2009)
Civil Rights	• No same-sex marriage (8/2010) • No gay adoption. (8/2010) • Supports ban on same-sex marriages. • Opposes adding "sexual orientation" as a protected minority under existing civil rights laws • Believes clergymen should have the right to express view from the pulpit on legislative issues	• Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration. (6/2006) • Voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (6/2006) • Voted YES on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes. 6/2002) • Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping. (10/2001) • Voted YES on expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation. (6/2000) • Voted YES on setting aside 10% of highway funds for minorities & women. (3/1998) • Voted NO on ending special funding for minority & women-owned business. (10/1997) • Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage. (9/1996) • Voted YES on prohibiting job discrimination by sexual orientation. (9/1996) • Voted YES on Amendment to prohibit flag burning. (12/1995) • Voted NO on banning affirmative action hiring with federal funds. (7/1995) • Supports anti-flag desecration amendment. (3/2001) • Rated 40% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record. (12/2002) • Rated 67% by the HRC, indicating a mixed record on gay rights. (12/2006) • Rated 96% by the NAACP, indicating a pro-affirmative-action stance. (12/2006)
Corporations	• Businesses need to be liberated from over-regulation and taxation	• Voted YES on repealing tax subsidy for companies which move US jobs offshore. (3/2005) • Voted YES on reforming bankruptcy to include means-testing & restrictions. (3/2005) • Voted YES on restricting rules on personal bankruptcy. (7/2001)
Crime	• Supports death penalty. (8/2010) • Require prisoners to serve full sentences. (8/2010)	• Voted YES on reinstating $1.15 billion funding for the COPS Program. (3/2007) • Voted YES on $1.15 billion per year to continue the COPS program. (5/1999) • Voted YES to limit death penalty appeals. (4/1996) • Voted NO on limiting product liability punitive damage awards. (3/1996) • Voted YES to restrict class-action lawsuits. (12/1995) • Voted YES to repeal federal speed limits. (6/1995) • Voted NO on mandatory prison terms for crimes involving firearms. (5/1994) • Voted YES on rejecting racial statistics in death penalty appeals. (5/1994) • Rated 50% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on rehabilitation. (12/2000) • More funding and stricter sentencing for hate crimes. (4/2001) • Increase funding for "COPS ON THE BEAT" program. (1/2007)
Drugs/Alcohol	• Opposes decriminalization. (8/2010) • No legal marijuana; limit legal alcohol too. (6/2010)	• Voted NO on increasing penalties for drug offenses. (11/1999) • Voted NO on spending international development funds on drug control. (7/1996) • Federal grants to Indian tribes to fight methamphetamine. (12/2006) • Require chemical resellers to certify against meth use. (9/2007)
Education	• Let students and teachers acknowledge God. (Aug 2010) • Vouchers to allow choice of private, religious & home-school. (Aug 2010) • Decisions are best made by local teachers & parents. (Jul 2010) • Believes the Federal Department of Education should be eliminated because it is unconstitutional • Eliminate No Child Left Behind • Believes that parents should have alternative choices and advocates for home school, vouchers and charter schools. • Endorsed by Nevada Home School Network	• Voted YES on additional $10.2B for federal education & HHS projects. (10/2007) • Voted YES on $52M for "21st century community learning centers". (10/2005) • Voted YES on $5B for grants to local educational agencies. (10/2005) • Voted YES on shifting $11B from corporate tax loopholes to education. (3/2005) • Voted YES on funding smaller classes instead of private tutors. (5/2001) • Voted YES on funding student testing instead of private tutors. (5/2001) • Voted YES on spending $448B of tax cut on education & debt reduction. (4/2001) • Voted NO on Educational Savings Accounts. (3/2000) • Voted NO on allowing more flexibility in federal school rules. (3/1999) • Voted NO on education savings accounts. 6/1998) • Voted NO on school vouchers in DC. (9/1997) • Voted NO on $75M for abstinence education. (7/1996) • Voted NO on requiring schools to allow voluntary prayer. (7/1994) • Voted YES on national education standards. (2/1994) • Rated 91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes. (12/2003)
Energy & Oil	• Build our vast domestic coal and natural gas resources. (7/2010) • Ending offshore drilling due to BP is an over-reaction. (7/2010) • Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (7/2010) • Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (7/2010) • Would vote NO on cap/trade • Promote Nevada, as the nuclear energy capital of reprocessing spent fuels for the United States. • Invite scientists to do research and development in a secure test site environment as well as mentoring students who would come to UNR and UNLV to study under these great minds. • Introduce and shepherd legislation that would remove the prohibitions on reprocessing in the United States, as well as, the executive order agreement with France, which prohibits reprocessing in the US and has strangled domestic reprocessing. • Store and reprocess nuclear spent fuels at Yucca Mountain. Use those reprocessed fuels to fire nuclear power plants on site at Yucca. • Educate Nevadans and Americans, on the safe transportation of nuclear spent fuels since 1954 over 400 million miles without an accident. • Supported the three coal fired plants in Ely • Would repeal regulations that prohibit drilling off-shore and in ANWR • Would support elimination of the Department of Energy	• More energy efficiency, no drilling in ANWR. (5/2001) • Voted NO on protecting middle-income taxpayers from a national energy tax. (4/2009) • Voted NO on requiring full Senate debate and vote on cap-and-trade. (4/2009) • Voted NO on tax incentives for energy production and conservation. (6/2008) • Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (5/2008) • Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (6/2007) • Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (6/2007) • Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (5/2007) • Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (11/2005) • Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (10/2005) • Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (6/2005) • Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (3/2005) • Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (7/2003) • Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (6/2003) • Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (3/2003) • Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (4/2002) • Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (3/2002) • Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (4/2000) • Voted YES on ending discussion of CAFE fuel efficiency standards. (9/1999) • Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy. (6/1999) • Voted NO on approving a nuclear waste repository. (4/1997) • Voted YES on do not require ethanol in gasoline. (8/ 1994) • Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (3/2004) • Rated 100% by CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (12/ 2006)
Environment	• Believes the EPA should be eliminated • Does not believe in anthropogenic or man-made global warming and instead believes "there is no sound science to back that up."	• Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (8/2009) • Voted NO on prohibiting eminent domain for use as parks or grazing land. (12/2007) • Voted YES on including oil & gas smokestacks in mercury regulations. (9/2005) • Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (1/2001) • Voted NO on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (9/1999) • Voted NO on transportation demo projects. (3/1998) • Voted YES on reducing funds for road-building in National Forests. (9/1997) • Voted YES on continuing desert protection in California. (10/1994) • Voted YES on requiring EPA risk assessments. (5/1994) • Reduce liability for hazardous waste cleanup. (5/2001) • Rated 84% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes. (12/2003) • EPA must do better on mercury clean-up. (4/2004)
Foreign Policy	• Withdraw from UN	• Voted YES on cooperating with India as a nuclear power. (10/2008) • Voted YES on enlarging NATO to include Eastern Europe. (5/2002) • Voted YES on killing a bill for trade sanctions if China sells weapons. (9/2000) • Voted NO on cap foreign aid at only $12.7 billion. (10/1999) • Voted YES on limiting the President's power to impose economic sanctions. (7/1998) • Voted YES on limiting NATO expansion to only Poland, Hungary & Czech. (4/1998) • Voted YES on $17.9B to IMF. (3/1998) • Voted YES on Strengthening of the trade embargo against Cuba. (3/1996) • Voted YES on ending Vietnam embargo. (1/1994) • Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide of the early 1900s. (3/2007) • Condemn violence by Chinese government in Tibet. (4/2008) • Condemn Iran for state-sponsored persecution of Baha'i. (2/2009) • Pressure friendly Arab states to end Israeli boycott. (10/2007)
Free Trade	• No official statements available	• Voted NO on promoting free trade with Peru. (12/2007) • Voted NO on free trade agreement with Oman. (7/2006) • Voted NO on implementing CAFTA for Central America free-trade. (7/2005) • Voted NO on establishing free trade between US & Singapore. (7/2003) • Voted NO on establishing free trade between the US and Chile. (7/2003) • Voted NO on extending free trade to Andean nations. (5/2002) • Voted YES on granting normal trade relations status to Vietnam. (10/2001) • Voted YES on removing common goods from national security export rules. (9/2001) • Voted NO on permanent normal trade relations with China. (9/2000) • Voted NO on expanding trade to the third world. (5/2000) • Voted NO on renewing 'fast track' presidential trade authority. (11/1997) • Voted YES on imposing trade sanctions on Japan for closed market. (5/1995) • Rated 17% by CATO, indicating a pro-fair trade voting record. (12/2002) • Extend trade restrictions on Burma to promote democracy. (6/2007)
Govt Reform	• Close loopholes in campaign finance system. (7/2010) • Repeal any federal health care takeover. (8/2010) • Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill. (7/010) • Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them. (7/2010) • Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (7/2010) • Supports a 'single subject' rule for all legislation • Require a supermajority (2/3 vote) requirement for passing tax/spending increases • Place a restriction on spending growth to population growth plus inflation • Endorsed by Declaration Alliance PAC	• Voted YES on Congressional pay raise. (7/2009) • Voted YES on providing a US House seat for the District of Columbia. (2/2009) • Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (9/2007) • Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (7/2007) • Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (3/2006) • Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (3/2006) • Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (3/2002) • Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (4/2001) • Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (8/1999) • Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (10/1997) • Voted NO on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (3/1996) • Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (7/1995) • Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (9/2005) • Sponsored bill repealing automatic Congressional pay raises. (1/2009)
Gun Control	• Supports second amendment rights. (7/2010) • Individual constitutionally protected right to bear arms. (7/2010)	• Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains. (4/2009) • Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership. (9/2007) • Voted YES on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.( 7/2005) • Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence. (5/2004) • Voted YES on background checks at gun shows. (5/1999) • Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations. (5/1999) • Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows. (5/1999) • Voted YES on maintaining current law: guns sold without trigger locks. (7/1998)
Health Care	• Replace Obamacare mandates with tort reform & client pools. (7/2010) • Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market (both 'Obamacare' and Medicare). (7/2010) • Repeal any federal health care takeover. (7/2010) • No mandates for Insurance companies to cover autism, mammograms or colonoscopies • Elimination of coverage mandates • TRICARE for the military must be protected from attacks that dilute quality of care and increase costs. • Would support privatizing the VA • Believes solution for health care • Expanded client pools • Tort reform • Purchasing insurance across state lines • Tax credited health savings accounts	• Voted YES on regulating tobacco as a drug. (6/2009) • Voted YES on expanding the Children's Health Insurance Program. (1/2009) • Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (7/2008) • Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (3/2008) • Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare. (2/2008) • Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility. (11/2007) • Voted NO on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (4/2007) • Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (5/2006) • Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (2/2006) • Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (11/2005) • Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (3/2005) • Voted YES on $40 billion/year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (6/ 2003) • Voted YES on allowing re-importation of Rx drugs from Canada. (7/2002) • Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (6/2001) • Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (4/2001) • Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare. (6/2000) • Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction. (7/1999) • Voted YES on increasing tobacco restrictions. (Jun 1998) • Voted NO on Medicare means-testing. (6/1997) • Voted YES on blocking medical savings accts. (4/1996) • Invest funds to alleviate the nursing shortage. (4/2001) • Let states make bulk Rx purchases, and other innovations. (5/2003) • Rated 88% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record. (12/2003) • Establish a national childhood cancer database. (3/2007) • Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn. (4/2008)
Homeland Security	• Maintain strong defense against terrorist & foreign threats. (8/2010) • Staunch supporter of strong sanctions against rogue nations. (7/2010) • Supports a military force of superior strength and readiness to deter all threats to America's national security. • Equip the military with the best possible weapons and intelligence • U.N. is ineffective and costly, and threatens U.S. sovereignty. U.S. should withdraw from the U.N. • Israel's sovereignty, stability and security are in the best interests of the United States, especially when dealing with radical Islamic terrorism. • U.S. must always promote freedom	• Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (4/2008) • Voted YES on requiring FISA court warrant to monitor US-to-foreign calls. (2/2008) • Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (8/2007) • Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (7/2007) • Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (3/2007) • Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (9/2006) • Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (9/2006) • Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006) • Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (12/2005) • Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (7/2005) • Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (3/2005) • Voted YES on adopting the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. (10/1999) • Voted YES on allowing another round of military base closures. (5/1999) • Voted NO on cutting nuclear weapons below START levels. (5/1999) • Voted YES on deploying National Missile Defense ASAP. (3/1999) • Voted YES on military pay raise of 4.8%. (2/1999) • Voted NO on prohibiting same-sex basic training. (6/1998) • Voted YES on favoring 36 vetoed military projects. (10/1997) • Voted YES on banning chemical weapons. (4/1997) • Voted NO on considering deploying NMD, and amending ABM Treaty. (6/1996) • Voted YES on 1996 Defense Appropriations. (9/1995) • Federalize aviation security. (11/2001) • Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (12/2003) • Sponsored bill for Iraq budget to be part of defense budget. (6/2006) • Establish global strategy to defeat al Qaeda. (2/2008)
Immigration	• Secure our borders & enforce the law. (7/2010) • Supports an intensive physical presence on borders, including military assistance to help the Border Patrol do its job effectively. • Opposes amnesty proposals • Eliminate access to benefits for non-citizens and anyone living in the U.S. illegally. • Voted against the Millennium Scholarship because it allowed non-citizens to receive, taxpayer subsidized, college tuition • Supports the AZ immigration law • Supports a requirement for voters to show identification before they can cast ballots. • Endorsed by Minuteman PAC.	• Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (3/2008) • Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (6/2007) • Voted NO on declaring English as the official language of the US government. (6/2007) • Voted YES on eliminating the "Y" non-immigrant guest-worker program. (5/2007) • Voted NO on building a fence along the Mexican border. (9/2006) • Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (5/2006) • Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (5/2006) • Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (7/1998) • Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (5/ 1998) • Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (6/1997) • Rated 0% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (12/2006)
Jobs	• Not her job to create jobs	• Voted YES on extending unemployment benefits from 39 weeks to 59 weeks. (11/2008) • Voted YES on overriding presidential veto of Farm Bill. (6/2008) • Voted NO on terminating legal challenges to English-only job rules. (3/2008) • Voted YES on limiting farm subsidies to people earning under $750,000. (12/2007) • Voted YES on restricting employer interference in union organizing. (6/2007) • Voted YES on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (2/2007) • Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25. (3/2005) • Voted NO on repealing Clinton's ergonomic rules on repetitive stress. (3/2001) • Voted NO on killing an increase in the minimum wage. (11/1999) • Voted NO on allowing workers to choose between overtime & comp-time. (5/1997) • Voted NO on replacing farm price supports. (2/1996) • Protect overtime pay protections. (6/2003) • Rated 100% by AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-union voting record. (12/2003) • Allow an Air Traffic Controller's Union. (Jan 2006) • Form unions by card-check instead of secret ballot. (3/2009) • Ban discriminatory compensation; allow 2 years to sue. (1/2009) • Stronger enforcement against gender-based pay discrimination. (1/2009)
Social Security	• End social security as it is today and privatize it • Redeem promised IOUs with a lockbox & personal accounts. (7/2010) • "We must keep the promise of Social Security by redeeming the "IOU's" that have been written to the Social Security Trust Fund and then putting that money in a lock box that cannot ever be raided again by Washington politicians. The only way we pay for it is by cutting spending. We should also create personalized accounts for the next generation that cannot be raided. "	• Bush’s plan guarantees a 40% benefit cut. (2/2005) • Voted NO on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security. (3/2007) • Voted NO on Social Security Lockbox & limiting national debt. (4/1999) • Voted NO on allowing Roth IRAs for retirees. (5/1998) • Voted NO on allowing personal retirement accounts. (4/1998) • Voted NO on deducting Social Security payments on income taxes. (5/1996) • Rated 90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record. (12/2003)
• Welfare & Poverty	• No official statements available	• Voted YES on instituting National Service as a new social invention. (3/2009) • Voted YES on welfare block grants. (8/1996) • Voted YES on eliminating block grants for food stamps. (7/1996) • Voted NO on allowing state welfare waivers. (7/1996) • Voted YES on welfare overhaul. (9/1995) • Tax credits to promite home ownership in distressed areas. (4/2003)
Judiciary	• No official statements available	• Voted YES on confirming of Sonia Sotomayor to Supreme Court. (8/2009) • Voted NO on confirming Samuel Alito as Supreme Court Justice. (1/2006) • Voted NO on confirming John Roberts for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. (9/2005)
Tax Reform	Will introduce bill to: • Cut back on spending, taxation and regulation • Defund ObamaCare • Audit the "Fed" (Federal Reserve) • Supports a simplification of tax systems and would abolish the 67,000-pages of IRS code • Supports tax reform that leads to a simpler, fairer, flatter tax system. • Make the capital gains and death tax cuts permanent • Sharron Angle, singularly, led the fight in the NV Legislature and in the courts to stop NV's 2003 tax increase • Pay back the deficit • (Deficit = Revenue-Expenses, thus you can't pay back a deficit, you merely operate with red ink. You can, however, pay down the National debt.)	• Voted YES on increasing tax rate for people earning over $1 million. (3/2008) • Voted NO on allowing AMT reduction without budget offset. (3/2008) • Voted NO on raising the Death Tax exemption to $5M from $1M. (2/2008) • Voted NO on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax. (3/2007) • Voted NO on raising estate tax exemption to $5 million. (3/2007) • Voted NO on supporting permanence of estate tax cuts. (8/2006) • Voted NO on permanently repealing the `death tax`. (6/2006) • Voted YES on $47B for military by repealing capital gains tax cut. (2/2006) • Voted NO on retaining reduced taxes on capital gains & dividends. (2/2006) • Voted NO on extending the tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. (11/2005) • Voted NO on $350 billion in tax breaks over 11 years. (5/2003) • Voted YES on reducing marriage penalty instead of cutting top tax rates. (5/2001) • Voted YES on increasing tax deductions for college tuition. (5/2001) • Voted NO on eliminating the 'marriage penalty'. (7/2000) • Voted NO on across-the-board spending cut. (10/1999) • Voted NO on requiring super-majority for raising taxes. (4/1998) • Rated 17% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes. (12/2003) • Rated 80% by the CTJ, indicating support of progressive taxation. (12/2006)
Campaign Finance Reform	• Believes that campaign finance limitations must come from the candidates themselves • Supports a campaign law that requires immediate disclosure, of large contributions, via the internet. • Endorsed by Citizens United

The GOP and the Minimum Wage

2010-10-06T09:35:00.000-07:00

While watching Lawrence O'Donnell last night, I learned that Republican Chairman Steele has no idea how much the minimum wage is, or should I say isn't. It's only $7.25/hour, but there are various minimum wage exceptions that can apply under specific circumstances to workers with disabilities, full-time students, youth under age 20 in their first 90 consecutive calendar days of employment, tipped employees and student-learners. When asked by O'Donnell if he, the chairman of the Republican Party, agreed with a number of Republican candidates that the minimum wage should be abolished, Steele wouldn't answer.

Alaska's GOP Senatorial candidate, Joe Miller, believes that the federal minimum wage law should be abolished, claiming that minimum wage laws should be under the purview of the States. Others, however, believe that minimum wage laws are basically economic ceilings that make it costlier for many businesses to operate than it should, and should therefore be abolished entirely. But, if you would ... take notice of the locus of their concern ... it isn't for the citizens of this country of ours ... but, instead for the businesses and the corporations.

Let's take a look at what a single person making minimum wage in a full-time job (2080 hrs/yr) might expect to earn: $7.25/hr x 2080 hrs/yr = $15,080 gross wages. To get to their net wages, we'd need to deduct income taxes [$1,844 (from 2009 IRS tax table)] and FICA taxes (7.65%, or $1,153). So, after deducting Federal and FICA taxes, take home wages are $12,083. In most states, there are also State taxes to consider, and there may also be city/local taxes as well. If we take Ohio as an example, $208.52 in Ohio State taxes would apply and if this person lived in a taxing local city where a 2% tax applied ($301.60), that would bring the take home wages to $11,572.88 per year.

At $11,572.88, this person would be just barely above the poverty level for the 48 contiguous states of $10,830.00 and we haven't begun to look at other expenses like: health care expenses, auto payments, auto licensing expense, auto insurance, rent, utilities, food, etc.

Ever wonder just how much GOP Chairman Steele makes annually? It's a far cry from our example at $235,000/year. I'll bet he doesn't have any trouble putting a car in his garage, or food on his table each night.

Ensign to Vote Against Kagan

2010-07-23T16:05:00.000-07:00

I don't know why I would expect anything different, but today, Sen. Ensign announced he'll vote against confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.

Washington, D.C. –Senator John Ensign today announced his vote against Solicitor General Elena Kagan to serve as the next Supreme Court Justice. Senator Ensign met with Ms. Kagan this week and was not satisfied with the answers that she provided on a variety of important issues.

“As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court plays a vital role in keeping the overreaching arm of government in check. That said, anyone nominated to sit on the bench of this court must be willing to do the same – set aside personal politics and views and defer to the Constitution for the good of our country,” said Ensign. “While I am impressed with her intellect and accomplishments, my meeting with Ms. Kagan did little to dispel my concerns as to whether she will adhere to the Framer’s intent of the Constitution.”

Ms. Kagan’s barring of military recruiters from the Harvard Law School campus was in violation of the law and instead established a separate but unequal policy for recruiting. This dishonored the military at a time when our servicemen and women were laying down their lives in defense of our country. Even more troubling was that Ms. Kagan expressed unfamiliarity with the intent of our Founding Fathers when they drafted the Second Amendment, especially given her past work and advocacy to undercut this fundamental individual right.

Further, a review of her writings from when she was a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshall and her work as an advisor to President Clinton signaled that her history of political activism would not likely end if she were confirmed as a Justice.

“Ms. Kagan’s lack of support for the United States military, demonstrated hostility toward the Second Amendment and her propensity toward political activism signaled to me that her role on the Court would be one of liberal judicial activism. For this reason, I will respectfully oppose her nomination to the United States Supreme Court.”

Senator Ensign should read his own words. As a Senator, he himself is responsible for representing ALL of the people of the state he was elected to represent, yet he frequently sides with his Plutocratic buddies and against the interests of the people he was elected to represent. That, in and of itself, constitutes political activism.

Because she worked for Justice Thurgood Marshall and worked for the Clinton administration, she should be classified as a political activist? I think not. In case Mr. Ensign has forgotten, Thurgood Marshall was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom and was a strong supporter of Constitutional protections of individual rights as well as equal rights under the law for all. Justice Marshall once said, "Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." Judical activism is currently in play on the Roberts' court. That activism can be seen in the Court's granting of "personhood" to corporations and allowing them to spend unlimited amounts of funds to influence elections. No doubt Mr. Ensign doesn't see that as activism, but for you and I, that's some pretty serious judicial activism whose aim is influence elections in such a way that corporations and the elite can manipulate and control, not just our minds, but the nation as a whole.

Mr. Ensign claims that Ms. Kagan broke the law in barring recruiters from recruiting on campus. If that were true, she would have been arrested, charged, tried and convicted of such a crime. That's not the case. Instead, she merely exercised her Constitutional rights to protest a war and the process by which those who ended up having to fight that war were selected. That, Mr. Ensign, is one of those inalienable rights this is guaranteed to each of us by our Constitution. If anything, Mr. Ensign should be celebrating that she exercised that right, not attempting to perversely twist it into a proclivity to deny others, their second amendment rights.

Mr. Ensign, I am an 8-year Vietnam Era Veteran and you do not speak for me. I applaud Ms. Kagan for standing up in protest to the inequities she and others perceived. As an American, she as do others, have that very right. Veterans and active duty personnel serve this nation each and every day to ensure that we continue to have that right. I chose serve. She chose to protest. That's okay by me in my book, and I'm looking forward to her confirmation, despite Mr. Ensign's Nay vote.

Oh yeah, and one more thing Mr. Ensign, there are a large number of your constituents who are not satisfied with your answers regarding your unethical behavior ... and alleged illegal behavior. So just exactly who are you to judge the suitability of others?

Unemployment Benefits v. Tax Cuts for the Uber-Rich

2010-07-22T17:13:00.000-07:00

Over the past few weeks, we saw the GOP filibuster the extension of unemployment benefits in one vote after another. Senator Ensign claims that he's all for extending unemployment benefits, if that is, they're paid for using as yet unobligated stimulus funds. So, he'd vote for an extension only if the GOP can handicap any ability to stimulate the economy. Thus, instead of using stimulus funds to create jobs which just might help people actually find productive jobs, he wants to target $30B in stimulus funds to pay unemployment compensation.

Ensign and the GOP complain that $30B is an excessive burden to pass on to our grandchildren and great-grandchildren. Yet, the next thing out of his and other GOP mouths is that we not only need to extend the Bush tax cuts (the first of which passed in 2001 and the second passed in 2003) for the uber-rich, but that we really need to make them permanent. Huh? Excuse me? Those tax cuts that only benefited the top 2% of wage earners in this country? Those tax cuts that cost the other 98% of us dearly in terms of budgetary deficits and increased national debt? If I recall correctly, they promised us massive job growth upon the passage of those cuts. What they delivered was pitifully minuscule job growth — the worst on record:

PRESIDENT	JOBS CREATED	JOBS AT END OF TERM	JOBS AT START OF TERM	PAYROLL EXPANSION
George W. Bush	3.0 million	135.5 million	132.5 million	2.3%
Bill Clinton	23.1 million	132.5 million	109.4 million	21.1%
George H.W. Bush	2.5 million	109.4 million	106.9 million	2.3%
Ronald Reagan	16.0 million	106.9 million	90.9 million	17.6%
Jimmy Carter	10.5 million	90.9 million	80.4 million	13.1%
Gerald Ford	1.8 million	80.4 million	78.6 million	2.3%
Richard Nixon	9.4 million	78.6 million	69.2 million	13.6%
Lyndon Johnson	11.9 million	69.2 million	57.3 million	20.8%
John F. Kennedy	3.6 million	57.3 million	53.7 million	6.7%
Dwight Eisenhower	3.5 million	53.7 million	50.2 million	7%
Harry Truman	8.4 million	50.2 million	41.8 million	20.1%

If we were to look at just one year, say 2004, government income in the form of plummeted $297B. Cutting revenues is worse than increasing spending. In fact, those revenue cuts cost us considerably more that the$30B in increased spending for unemployment compensation for our neediest citizens. And to put it more succinctly, that $297B revenue deficit represented 45% of the budget deficit in just 2004.

By 2004, the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts had caused revenues to plummet to their lowest levels, as a share of the economy, in over 50 years. Conferred on the highest-income households, those tax cuts were touted as being the means by which investments would be made in creating new jobs and thus, growing the economy. Instead, investments weren't made, tax revenues plummeted, and war spending and pork barrel project spending escalated through the roof.

At the start of 2001, the cost, ten years down the road, of extending all tax-cut measures then in place was $22 billion. However,the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities found (in 2004) that if the Bush 2001 and 2003 temporary tax cuts were to be extended, their cost in ten years (i.e., in 2014) would be $431 billion. Given the recession, the lowest job growth record of any President in decades, and two wars ... the cost of extending or making those tax breaks permanent is cost prohibitive.

Something in the GOP logic escapes me. Did the Devil take over the house of the Lord used by these "Christian" conservatives? Their treatment of unemployment compensation legislation (as well as other pieces of legislation considered in the last 18 months) has been anything but "christianly." When exactly was it that $30B for unemployment compensation for the seriously needy became so evil, and unfairly rewarding the avariciousness of the uber-rich become such a necessity?

References and Further Reading:

4.23.2004 Analysis by Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (cbpp.org)
It's About More Than Semantics (Desert Beacon)
GOP Fairy Tales (Mother Jones)
GOP Has No Problem Extending Tax Cuts for the Rich (Washington Post)
Bush on Jobs: The Worst Track Record on Record (Wall Street Journal)

The Senate is Just Flat Out ... Broken

2010-07-05T07:43:00.000-07:00

Between 1917-1971, per the Congressional Research Service, there was an average of one "cloture motion" — a maneuver to overcome a filibuster — filed per year. That's now up to 70 per year. And if that's not insane enough, the ability to place a secret hold explains why some 400 bills in this Congress that have passed the House have not been taken up and languish without debate, passage or turn-down in the Senate. The Senate is just broken.

Between 1917-1971, per the Congressional Research Service, a "cloture motion" (a motion to overcome a fillabuster) averaged about one per year. That's now up to 70 per year. Plus, the ability to place a secret hold on a bill explains why some 400 bills in this Congress that were passed by the House have not been taken up and languish without debate, passage or failure in the Senate. We can't even find out 'who' put the hold on the bill so we, the public, can ask that Senator 'why' or attempt to get him/her to lift the hold.

It's just a very sorry state, and the Senate is just flat out ... broken.

Heller Blames Wrong Source for Nevada's Problems

2010-06-21T10:48:00.000-07:00

Following the report that Nevada's unemployment rate increased to 14 percent in May, Rep. Dean Heller, R-NV, put out the following statement:

"I am deeply concerned with the most recent unemployment numbers which place Nevada with the highest unemployment rate in the nation. While our economy continues to struggle and Nevadans seek work, the U.S. House of Representatives just this week voted on measures to recognize that milk and bald eagles are good and to honor the Hollywood Walk of Fame. It is time for Nancy Pelosi and this Congress to focus on measures that will actually improve the economy."

"Since the passage of the stimulus, Nevada's economy has continued to decline. Despite assertions to the contrary, it does not appear that jobs are being saved or created under the current economic plan. I hope the most recent numbers serve as a wake-up call for the Speaker to finally put partisan politics aside and work towards real solutions that get Americans back to work."

Well duh, the stimulus won't necessarily help Nevada, given our economic choices. It's not Obama's policies that caused our problems, nor is it Pelosi's. Nevada's leadership is the sole owner of our economy and its woes. Nevada's economy relies too heavily on 'tourism.' The focus of Las Vegas, our biggest population center, is almost exclusively on tourism. If the rest of the nation is in recession, that means they have less discretionary dollars to spend. Thus, they're not going to fly to Nevada to spend and gamble away precious dollars that they would need to put food on the table or a roof over their heads. Our over-reliance on tourism is the problem. We need to diversify our economic base such that we don't rely so heavily on tourism.

For decades, Nevada has concentrated its efforts on cultivating two primary boom and bust industries, gambling and gold mining. When a recession hits, or the price of gold plummets, our economy tanks, unemployment goes through the roof, housing values plummet and people start filing for bankruptcy.

Then in that same announcement, he went on to tout a bill he had introduced, HR 5453, the Protecting Against Indebting our Descendants through Fully Offset Relief (PAID FOR) temporary extension act.

"This legislation would extend unemployment benefits and COBRA premium assistance, prevents the impending cut for Medicare providers, and extends the National Flood Insurance and Small Business Loan Guarantee Program. Unlike the legislation that passed the House, Heller’s bill is fully paid-for, utilizing unobligated stimulus funds to deliver assistance that Americans need right now."

Well Mr. Heller, you're wrong. Unobligated or not, stimulus funds are borrowed monies and as such, that means that your bill is NOT 'fully funded.' It's borrowed and thus adds to both the deficit and our national debt! So, how is your proposed legislation any different than anything else? If you want to claim something is fully funded, you need to identify a budgetary offset ... you know ... something in the actual budget that you won't fund so you can instead use those funds for your bill. That's what we ordinary Americans have to do. We give up something for Peter to pay Paul. Your proposed bill does absolutely nothing to reduce this nation's deficit spending. Unobligated stimulus funds should be returned to China or Japan, whichever one we borrowed them from this time.

Still think we should trust corporations to do the right thing?

2010-06-02T09:35:00.001-07:00

Constitution Applies to EVERY individual no matter their origin

2010-05-24T10:10:00.000-07:00

Came across this blog article this morning. I couldn't have said it better.

The following article was published at Lew Rockwell and Connor's Conundrums
The Constitution Applies to Terrorists

Yes, you read that right. The Constitution applies to terrorists. It also applies to stay-at-home moms, illegal immigrants, truck drivers, anti-government radicals, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Put differently, the Constitution does not apply only to citizens of the United States. It seems that protectionist collectivists treat this document like a two-year-old treats his favorite toy—unwilling to share, and incorrectly believing that it is his and his alone. This fallacy has become so propagated throughout the country’s general political mindset that a barbaric jingoism has resulted, leading people to automatically support the denial of constitutional protections of freedom for anybody who is a “terrorist”.

But who is a terrorist?

The picture that first comes to mind is the “insurgent” fighting against our military in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the other countries of the Middle East in which our military is increasingly becoming engaged. Some examples of such “terrorists” might be: the vengeful man whose innocent brother was killed by an unmanned drone over the border of Pakistan; the adrenaline-fueled teenager taking on the militarized Goliath occupying his hometown; the man in the wrong place at the wrong time, picked up by a bounty hunter and sold to the American government with a fictional story created about his involvement in terrorist activities; and the list could continue, portraying stories far different than the standard “radical jihadist” that dominates our media’s narrative.

Things hit closer to home when the suspected terrorists have white skin. Take, for example, the Missouri Information Analysis Center report which labeled as terrorists supporters of Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, and anybody sporting paraphernalia associated with the Constitution Party, Campaign for Liberty, or the Libertarian Party.

The absurdity continues—the government has also considered defenders of the Constitution, home-schoolers, peaceful protestors, and a host of patriotic organizations and individuals as terrorists. Do these “domestic rightwing terrorists” not merit constitutional safeguards of their liberty?

In other words, with a “terrorist” being any individual—U.S. citizen or not—upon whom the government arbitrarily imposes that label, why would anybody not consider the Constitution as applying to that individual? Some may take issue with this generality and instead specify the argument as only being relevant to non-citizens. But do these folks even understand what the Constitution is?

The Constitution is a document that created the federal government, and in so doing, specified powers granted to and denied that entity. It does not apply to a person or group of people, but rather to the government itself. In saying above that the Constitution applies to terrorists, truck drivers, etc., the idea is conveyed that the Constitution applies to all people who have any dealings with the federal government.

The cotton picker in Uzbekistan couldn’t care less about the U.S. Constitution, and taken literally, it does not really apply to him. But say this person vacationed in Pittsburgh, or say he visited the local American embassy. Having any interaction with agents of the federal government makes the Constitution relevant to him, since that governing document applies to the federal government and those who comprise it. Whether the person be a cotton picker, an “insurgent”, or anybody else, the federal government is bound by the constraints of the Constitution, and in attempting to administer legal punishment to another person, must give due process and protect other basic human rights—rights which the Declaration of Independence makes clear are given by the Creator to every individual.

Were this not the case, the government could extinguish the life of any non-citizen it wanted, at any time, for any reason—or for no reason at all. For if the guarantees enshrined in the Constitution apply only to U.S. citizens, what prevents the government from denying these rights to any non-citizen? The constitutional restraints are not specific to an individual who happens to be a citizen, thus (allegedly) preventing the federal government from denying them their rights, but rather are shackles of self-restraint placed around the appendages of the government itself, regardless of who the government deals with. Under the Constitution, all are recognized as enjoying basic rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; the government must follow an established process if it wishes to deny these rights to any individual, whatever his or her nationality.

Americans must resist the tendency to be so selfish with our supposed freedoms. We either believe that our rights came from our Creator—and thus exist for all His children—or we don’t. We either believe that the federal government has power to deal as it pleases with any non-citizen, or we don’t. And we either view so-called “terrorists” as human beings entitled, insofar as is possible, to due process when dealing with our government, or we don’t. The alternative is an alarming one, for tomorrow you and I might ourselves be branded with this dubious distinction, finding ourselves the subject of scorn and derision, reduced to a discardable humanoid whose very existence is at the mercy of another person.

This is not the America I grew up in, nor the one I want to pass on to my children. How about you?

***************

From my email ...

2010-05-22T10:03:00.000-07:00

THE SNEEZE

I think this is awesome!!!

They walked in tandem, each of the ninety-two students filing into the already crowded auditorium. With their rich maroon gowns flowing and the traditional caps, they looked almost as grown up as they felt.

Dads swallowed hard behind broad smiles, and Moms freely brushed away tears..

This class would NOT pray during the commencements, not by choice, but because of a recent court ruling prohibiting it.

The principal and several students were careful to stay within the guidelines allowed by the ruling. They gave inspirational and challenging speeches, but no one mentioned divine guidance and no one asked for blessings on the graduates or their families.

The speeches were nice, but they were routine until the final speech received a standing ovation.

A solitary student walked proudly to the microphone. He stood still and silent for just a moment, and then, it happened.

All 92 students, every single one of them, suddenly SNEEZED !!!!

The student on stage simply looked at the audience and said,

'GOD BLESS YOU'

And he walked off the stage...

The audience exploded into applause. This graduating class had found a unique way to invoke God's blessing on their future with or without the court's approval.

Economics for Women

2010-05-20T07:48:00.000-07:00

I got this one in my email today. I'm not sure of it's source, but it definitely bears repeating to all who'll take the time to read it.

How to Think Like a Feminist Economist
Monday 17 May 2010
by: Susan Feiner

As a feminist economist I am constantly amazed—though I suppose I should be used to it by now—by the ways conventional analyses of economic matters completely ignore gender asymmetries.

Because I am a feminist economist, I am hypersensitive to differences in women's and men's economic circumstances. Women earn less, work in jobs with less prestige and few (if any) benefits, and do far more of society's unpaid work. These are not new realities. One is, however, hard-pressed to find discussions of economic policy that place women's disadvantage at the center.

Feminist economists understand how important it is to challenge the assumptions, and hence, the conclusions, of mainstream economics.

The economics that makes its way into the public realm consistently misrepresents the best interests of ordinary folks in their multiple roles as workers, consumers and citizens. Economics as we know it, and as it is taught in countless undergraduate courses, is little more than an apology for the status quo. Textbook economics, replete with supply and demand models demonstrating the market's natural tendency to correct shortages or surpluses, doesn't take the topic of "disadvantage" seriously.

In textbook economics, markets are markets. Competition is competition. And any economic system that encourages competition in markets will, by the very rules baked into the exercise, produce economic outcomes that duly reflect the wishes of the people. Your income is too low? Well, retrain for a job in a higher paying field. Your neighborhood is decaying? Just save more so you can move. The roads and bridges on which you drive are crumbling? Sell them to the highest bidder and let the private owner charge tolls to cover the upkeep. No problem is too large or too complicated that a good dose of market competition won't fix it. There is little in economics that is "gender neutral"

In short, there is no such thing as "disadvantage." There are only individual bad choices.

The spectacular failure of the financial sector with the attendant loss of some 20 odd million full time jobs should reveal -- even to free market economists -- major flaws in this way of thinking. But an intellectual bankruptcy rules the system, as demonstrated by critiques of every aspect of the theory -- its assumptions, claimed links of causation and the failure to match up with historical experience.

My experience as a feminist economist means that I vigilantly watch for intellectual sleights of hand that present the interests of the rich and powerful as the interests of us all. When bankers, corporate executives and their minions unite behind purported economic truths, I challenge their arguments, their logic and their appeals to the so-called "laws of the market." By looking behind and around standard economic narratives, I can construct alternative stories connected to the real world, the actual historical record, and perhaps most importantly, the questions that are not being asked – many of which, it so happens, have to do with women. There is little in economics that is "gender neutral."

Taxes Are More Taxing for Working Women
Feminist economists have contributed their share to the volumes critical of mainstream economics. One of our key findings is that even a topic as seemingly "gender neutral" as taxes is loaded with implications for women's economic well being.

When we go shopping, cashiers include sales taxes regardless of our sex. Tax assessors do not value houses differently for female and male homeowners. Income tax forms do not come in pink and blue. All employees pay 6.2 percent of eligible earnings into the Social Security trust fund and all employers match that 6.2 percent. While tax rates may look gender neutral, I know that they are not. Taxes are a feminist issue.

While the hot button political catch phrase, "no new taxes," may sound like a good idea, the reality is otherwise. That's because the taxes that politicians pledge not to raise are precisely the taxes that are least relevant to women's burden of taxation.

You will be much more likely to see the gender dimensions of an economic issue if you focus on ratios rather than the pure numbers. If, for example, the evening news reported on gender differences in tax payments, they'd likely tell us that men, on average, pay more in taxes than do women (on average). Facts and figures describing the economy are almost always more meaningful when we have information on both the numerator and the denominator. In the preceding example, the raw number "dollars paid in taxes" is the numerator. But if taxes paid are put in relation to income earned (the denominator) we will realize that because women still earn 80 cents for every dollar earned by men, women pay a greater share of their income in taxes.

For me, thinking about taxes in terms of tax burdens -- who pays how much of their income in each type of tax -- is necessary to cut through the political brou-ha-ha about the virtues of tax cutting.

Politicians, pundits, and professors generally ignore the way tax cuts impact the well being of different income groups. Doing this allows them to create the false impression that reducing taxes benefits women as well as men. Not so.

Understanding women's relationship to the U.S. tax system is critical to any advocacy work on behalf of economic equality.

Not only are there many types of taxes, the various levels of government—federal, state and local—impose different taxes on different goods and services.

The broad categories of taxes include sales (and excise) taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes and property taxes.

Sales taxes, payroll taxes and property taxes are regressive. This means that as incomes rise, less is paid in each of these types of taxes. The tax burden shifts downward, the well-to-do pay less, and the folks lower down the income ladder pay more. As a result, women—who earn less than men—pay a greater share of their income in sales, property and payroll taxes.

Because income taxes are progressive, the incidence of taxation rises as income rises. Because women earn less than men, federal and state income taxes help correct gender differences in wage income.

Sales and property taxes, which are levied by state or local governments, are regressive. But, these are not the most regressive taxes: this honor goes to payroll taxes.

Earning Less, Paying More
Every time a worker gets paid, the number at the top of the check -- gross earnings -- is larger, often much larger, than the actual amount that can be deposited in the bank -- the net earnings. Some payroll deductions have little to do with taxes, such as pension or health care contributions.

But for most women in the U.S., the lioness' share of monies deducted from each paycheck goes to contributions to Social Security and Medicare. In fact, the amounts a woman pays annually into Social Security and Medicare are likely to exceed any income tax owed to the federal government. Women in the United States do not need more "tax cuts"

For every $1,000 the typical woman earns in wages, her employer withholds $62 as the woman's contribution to Social Security (6.2 percent). Her employer's share of Social Security contributions is also 6.2 percent, so another $62 is credited to her Social Security account. All wage and salary income, up to $97,500, is subject to Social Security taxes.

Every dollar earned above $97,500 (keep dreaming, honey) is exempt from Social Security withholding. That's why this tax is so regressive. If a woman's annual earnings are $195,000, and Social Security is withheld from only the first $97,500 then the second $97,500 earned is tax free—at least relative to the Social Security tax.

Since men, on average, earn more per year than women, and are more likely to earn more than $97,500 per year, men pay less—as a share of their income—into Social Security. They, therefore, have more to spend and save as a share of their earnings.

Adding insult to injury, studies by such noted think tanks as The Urban Institute estimate that employers don't actually pay 6.2 percent of employees' earnings. Instead, they shift this cost by holding down wages and salaries. This means that everyone who earns less than $97,500 is likely paying the full 12.4 percent of Social Security withholding.

Almost two-thirds of all taxpayers in the U.S. pay more in payroll (Social Security) taxes than they do in income taxes. Virtually all the tax cuts approved by Congress in the last 30 years have been income tax cuts, and the largest such cuts have gone to the top 5 percent of earners -- those folks lucky enough to live in households with average incomes exceeding $172,000 per year. Very few women earn this much in a year.

Social Security is definitely important to women. For 80 percent or more of women over 65, Social Security constitutes all of their income. To be gender-equitable, the way the government finances Social Security needs to be changed.

A critically important progressive reform would make all income -- including those hedge fund bonuses out in the stratosphere -- subject to Social Security withholding.

Thinking like a feminist economist, reveals this stark conclusion: Women in the United States do not need more "tax cuts." What all of us need is a shift away from taxes on work (payroll taxes) and a significant increase in the taxes on the highest income earners—virtually all of whom are men.

A similar gender analysis can be applied to every tax issue and almost every policy issue that the country faces. But, unveiling the gender dimensions of our economic problems and the variously proposed solutions requires a rejection of a standard, gender blind analysis, and to do this, we dig below a seemingly gender neutral surface. Thinking like a feminist economist, it turns out, can be an exceedingly valuable tool for the most critical public decisions in the U.S. and across the globe today.

************************************************
Susan F. Feiner is Professor of Women's and Gender Studies and Professor of Economics at the University of Southern Maine. She is one of the founding scholars in the field of feminist economics and the author of the award-winning Liberating Economics: Feminist Perspectives on Families, Work and Globalization (with Professor D. Barker, University of Michigan Press, 2004). She has written for Women's Enews, Dollars & Sense and The Women's Review of Books. Over the years she has written about gender and race bias in economics education, U.S. economic history, psychoanalysis and economics, and religion and economics, and teaches courses on gender and economics, feminism and Marxism, political economy, among others.
************************************************

Republican? Be Careful What You Wish For!

2010-05-02T08:55:00.000-07:00

It's getting pretty obvious that when the Democrats passed health care reform, it was like a fly landing in the Replican's perceived ointment of success. I commented previously on Rep. Paul Ryan's 'Roadmap for America' which would privatize social security, medicare, and medicaid, as well as repeal the Corporate income tax in favor of a 'consumption tax.' To enact the 'roadmap'... healthcare reform would need to be repealed. That's unlikely given the current majorities in Congress, but then, this is an election year, so be careful what you wish for.

A number of bills have been introduced by Republicans to repeal health care reform. The most recently introduced bill is H.R. 5073. It was introduced by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) and is intended to repeal the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (enacted Senate version) as well as the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (original House version), plus, it would enact the "Offering Patients True Individualized Options Act of 2009." At only 106 pages it's a short read, but its brevity is evidence of just how much would be stripped away from what is now the law of the land.

This bill would:

Repeal of the 7.5% percentage floor on medical expense deductions,
Repeal of the prescribed drug limitation on deduction for medical care,
Repeal of the 2% miscellaneous itemized deduction floor for medical expense deduction,
Expand the use of tax-preferred health care accounts (HSAs),
Establish a charity care credit,
Extension of COBRA,
Allowing preferential tax treatment of distributions from HSAs to 'qualified charitable" organizations
Amend the Social Security Act to create a Medicare voucher program,
Reform EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act) requirements (which allow nurses and EMTs as screeners in Emergency rooms), and
Amend Public Health Service Act to provide for cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage offered in interstate commerce.
Enact rules governing the establishment of 'association' health plans.

While some of these provisions might receive wide-spread approval (tax exempiont repeals in items 1-3), some of the other provisions are problematic. For example, today, there are defined allowable amounts associated with HSAs in the Internal Revenue Code. Under this act, those defined amounts would be replaced with "the amount in effect for such month...". Similarly, it establishes a charity care credit of up to $8,000 annually for doctors who provide up to 100 hours (annually) of "charity medical care" and NO provisions are included within the bill as to what one must divulge to verify such a claim, whether records of that treatment (including the names, addresses, and medical conditions) might become public record as a result of their physician claiming such a tax exemption.

Expansion of tax-preferred HSAs is achieved by opening the HSA tax provisions to include Medicare-Eligible individuals. It would allow medicare recipients to use HSAs that could be rolled over to Medicare Advantage insurance companies.

The extension of COBRA provision is a quite the misnomer since one of the things it does is strip the "maximum required period" provision in section 4980B(f)(2)(i) from IRS Code. It also strips the extension of coverage for disabilities that occur within the first 60 days of COBRA coverage from section 4980B(f)(2)(v) of the IRS Code. Those same coverage provisions are also stripped from ERISA and PHSA.

SEC. 106. COBRA CONTINUATION COVERAGE EXTENDED.
(a) UNDER IRC.—Subparagraph (B) of section 4980B(f)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking clauses (i) and (v) and by redesignating clauses (ii), (iii), and (iv) as clauses (i), (ii), and (iii), respectively.
(b) UNDER ERISA.—Paragraph (2) of section 602 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 2009 (29 U.S.C. 1162) is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) and (E) and by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively.
(c) UNDER PHSA.—Paragraph (2) of section 2202(2) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300bb–2(2)) is amended by striking subparagraphs (A) and (E) and by redesignating subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) as subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C), respectively.

The big bombshell in this bill however is item 8, replacement of Medicare Part A entitlements with a "Medicare Reform Voucher" program. So, if you were (and I mean 'were') entitled to Medicare A, you'd get a voucher that you could use to attempt to purchase replacement coverage, AND, not only would you no longer receive coverage under Medicare part A, but you'd also be ineligible for coverage you used to receive under Parts B and C. The amount of your voucher which would be deposited into an MSA would depend on what geographic area in which you live and could be used only for premiums, deductibles, copayments associated with that person's health care costs.

The 'cooperative governance' section of the bill is a bit interesting. It defines primary/secondary state rules and requires that in order for an insurance company to sell in a secondary state, it must meet the "federal floor" but may not have to meet all secondary state requirements. Let's see if I can explain. The insurance company operaties primarily in one particular state, but can sell insurance in a secondary state. The interesting piece here is that the insurance company would be exempt from any covered laws in the secondary state as to health care requirement. Thus, if your state requires insurers to cover mamograms, but you're buying insurance from a company operating in your state under the 'secondary state' rules and where mamogram coverage is not mandated in the state where they primarily operate, they would not have to cover mamograms. But of course, that'll be okay, because they have to list their primary and your secondary state of operation on your policy and renewal notices in 12-point bold type. Any such policy must also contain the following notice:People don't read much of anything today, so I doubt this 'bold' notice will change that trend. But they need would need to explore all implications of that notice as it would be the the primary state, not the secondary state, that would have sole jurisdication in enforcing the policy provisions in both the primary and secondary state.

‘Notice: This policy is issued by and is governed by the laws and Regulations of the State of ____, and it has met all the laws of that State as determined by that State’s Department of Insurance. This policy may be less expensive than others because it is not subject to all of the insurance laws and regulations of the State of ____, including coverage of some services or benefits mandated by the law of the State of ____. Additionally, this policy is not subject to all of the consumer protection laws or restrictions on rate changes of the State of ____. As with all insurance products, before purchasing this policy, you should carefully review the policy and determine what health care services the policy covers and what benefits it provides, including any exclusions, limitations, or conditions for such services or benefits.’

There is only one mention of 'pre-existing conditions' in the bill, and that mention is in the section requiring the GAO to determine the availability and cost of health insurance policies for individuals with pre-existing medical conditions. There are NO provisions in this bill that would accomodate people who now have 'pre-existing conditions' that would allow insurance companies to deny them coverage.

This year as the rhetoric reaches its high pitch of election year blather, listen carefully. Weigh your choices just as carefully and analyze whether it's in not just your, but our nation's best interest.

A Thank You to the Plaintiffs, the ACLU and Judge Sweet!

2010-03-31T05:31:00.000-07:00

In May 2009, I wrote an article about the Patent Office and its practice of allowing the patent of human genes, specifically, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. The Patent office granted a patent on the BRCA genes to Myriad Genetics which, in essence, gave them exclusive rights as the only firm that could research, test, and provide cures for cancer related to those genes. That meant that Myriad could charge anything it wanted for testing and treatment, and absolutely no second opinions could be sought, because afterall, no one else could research, test or provide treatments for diseases related to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) has been issuing patents on human genes for over 20 years, giving private corporations, individuals, and universities exclusive rights to those genes and to test, study, or even look at them. This is the first time a court has said that this practice is unlawful. [ACLU]

That has all changed, temporarily at least, as Myriad has vowed to appeal. On March 30, 2010, Federal District court Judge Robert Sweet issued his ruling that human genes cannot be patented, invalidating all 15 patent claims held by Myriad on the BRCA genes. When companies hold exclusive licenses for human genes, competition to develop gene-based applications can be restricted, prices can be inflated and innovation is slowed to a crawl. Invalidating the patents on these genes, while it may do little in the short-term, should open up investigation, testing and treatment over the long haul, giving women more choice in the type and quality of treatment. Ultimately, it should increase competition and reduce costs. Today, Myriad is the only one providing that testing and they charge $3,000 just for testing.

Related articles:
• ACLU Challenges Patents On Breast Cancer Genes: BRCA
• BRCA memo (PDF)
• Who Owns Your Genes? You Do.
• First Federal Court Hearing on Whether Human Genes Should Be Patented
• Gene Ruling Could Have Broad Reach

Taxing Miles Driven?

2010-03-29T11:06:00.000-07:00

President Obama, according to press secretary Gibbs will not seek to adopt a tax policy where motorists are taxed based on how many miles they drive, saying, “It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration." The question for Gibbs came after Secretary Ray LaHood told The Associated Press that he wants to consider that idea.

The system would purportedly require all cars and trucks to be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours. The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed. [CBSnews]

Such "an idea" would adversely affect rural residents and have a lesser effect on urban residents, yet funds would, most likely, be more heavily utilized in urban areas where road usage, and thus damage, occurs more. Urban residents would benefit from being able to use their hybrid cars to advantage (the electric side) and avoid the gasoline tax, whereas, rural residents would see double taxation. Even if they were to drive an electric hybrid, to get to the urban center, they'd have to use gasoline. Thus, they'd be taxed twice, first for the gasoline and second for the miles they drove to get to the urban center and back.

Enough disparities exist already between urban and rural already exist without creating more. For example,

Urban residents have multiple choices available to them for television, frequently having options of one or more cable services as well as various satellite services. Rural residents are lucky if a cable service is even willing to serve them and thus are stuck with having the option of only the higher priced satellite service or having only what they can pull in using an over-the-air antenna, which doesn't pull in much.
Urban residents have multiple choices for high speed internet available to them, including multiple-speed DSL and cable high-speed internet services. Rural residents aren't so lucky. If they're lucky enough to have cable TV service, they might be able to obtain cable internet services at one of the slower cable internet speeds. If they're not too far from the telephone office, they might be able to get the lowest of DSL speed internet services. But, most likely, they're either stuck with painfully slow dial-up services, or high cost satellite internet services.
Urban residents enjoy an abundance of doctors and usually, more than one hospital. Rural residents typically have a few family practice physicans and no specialists. To see a specialist, they must travel frequently hundreds of miles just to be evaluated ... and then have to travel hundreds of miles again for any ordered testing ... then hundreds of miles again to receive the results.

An argument that "you chose to live in the rural vs. an urban area" just isn't valid. In northern Nevada, mining operations are immediately accessible to the urban areas. Instead, they're located still remotely from rural communities. The same holds true in the rural mid-section of our country, the farm basket for our nation.

As a "rural" resident of this nation, I am NOT willing to support this disparate method of double-taxation for subsidizing road construction and repair ... which will most likely be more advantageous to urban residents at the expense of rural residents who would be the ones driving more miles to access needed services. For example, within Nevada, rural residents would see their tax monies support Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City metropolitan areas and would most likely see little to nothing in return for their rural communities.

Hobo Heller Has It All Wrong

2010-03-15T18:23:00.000-07:00

What is with the Republicans? Have they no hearts? Their arrogance in the face of this economic downturn simply astounds me. Rep. Dean Heller is yet another glaring example of people who claim to be "American" ... yet who so demonstrably hate Americans.

At the Republican's Lincoln Day dinner held in Elko, Heller had the gall to ask, "Is this government now creating hobos?" He went on to explain that the current economic downturn and Democratic policies will only succeed in bringing back the hobos of the Great Depression, people who are incapable of gainful employment and who wander the country taking odd jobs. Excuse me, but I believe the reason for the "hobos" during that era was that we didn't have an "unemployment insurance" program.

To justify his question and comments, he cited a study that found that people who are out of work longer than two years have only a 50% chance of getting back into the workforce. Uhhh ... Hello Mr. Heller ... how about citing just exactly "when" that survey was conducted? It certainly couldn't be a "current" study, you know, one that was conducted within the last two jobless years. Apparently Mr. Heller is not aware just how difficult it actually is to find gainful employee these days. There are 6 applicants for every job that opens up in this jobless (pun intended) market. That means 5 people are left out in the cold each time only one is hired.

We gave greed-ridden Wall Street, and the banks, money to keep them from failing. Instead of lending that money out they kept it and handed out monster bonuses to the very people who created this mess. We gave money to businesses for them to create jobs, and they kept it without creating jobs. That's not the case when we give checks to the unemployed. They're the ones who actually maintain or create jobs in their communities. That's because they keep the economy moving by spending spending that money. It's the bankers and the businesses that are on welfare. It's the people and their unemployment checks that are giving the country a stimulus where it desparately needs it.

Mr Heller voted against the jobs bill and is now mocking unemployed persons, calling them lazy and incapable of holding gainful employment. I think it's about time for Mr. Heller to become jobless. Let him see just how ugly this jobless market truly is. Let's see if he's capable of finding gainful employment within Nevada's borders.

More Evidence of Republican Shift toward Plutocracy

2010-03-04T07:57:00.000-08:00

plu·toc·ra·cy (noun)
1. Government by the wealthy.
2. A wealthy class that controls a government.
3. A government or state in which the wealthy rule.

Have you read the Lowden Economic Recovery Plan? I have and I can't say I agree with her (nor the GOP's) views on how to reduce deficit spending, eliminate the national debt, and "restore financial security to Nevadans." It sounds more like the GOP's failed "Contract with America" that failed to materialize once their majorities were elected to the House and Senate.

If she's elected to the U.S. Senate to replace Senator Reid, she plans to:

Cut the business tax on American job providers.
Cut the payroll tax.
Work to eliminate the Capital Gains Tax.
Permanent Repeal of the Death Tax.

Who exactly does that really benefit? Isn't that a repeat of the Reagan tax cuts for the rich that has already cost American taxpayers trillions of dollars? Some suggested that these types of tax policies would so spur economic growth that tax revenue would actually increase. The outcome of that experiment is now a matter of record: not only did this response not occur, but the national debt quadrupled in the span of a dozen years.

It just simply defies logic. She says she wants to reduce deficits and debt, yet she wants to reduce a large part of the income needed to bridge the deficit gap and begin paying down the debt. Reducing or eliminating taxes on corporations does absolutely nothing to help ordinary Americans begin digging themselves out of the hole that GOP administrations have vigorously created.

She then goes on to blame the U.S. Debt on Senator Reid and Rep. Pelosi:

Work to significantly reduce the deficits of Reid and Pelosi.

Uhhh ... excuse me, Reid and Pelosi weren't heads of Congress when all this debt began accumulating. From 1995 through the end of 2006, the GOP began amassing huge national debts will they controlled both the Senate and the House. Reid didn't become Senate Majority Leader and Nancy Pelosi didn't become House Majority Leader until January 2007, during the 110th Congress (2007-2008).

Having lost their seats of power, the GOP (Gang of Plutocrats, the elite who believe they've been chosen to rule over us) then started throwing temper tantrums, objecting to everything (even issues they purportedly support), and obstructing (fillabustering) the conduct of the Nation's business by requiring a "super-majority" vote to pass even the most mundane bill through the Senate. Then, they began their propaganda campaign in an attempt to blame all their bad deeds on Reid, Pelosi and the Democrats instead of owning up to their illicit spending spree, corruption of our financial system, the fall of the housing market and the demise of not just our economy but economies across the globe.

Sue Lowden can't be trusted to put the interests of Nevadans first. That can be evidenced through her actions in how she conducts her business transactions. See NLRB Case 28-CA-13367 where it was found that Santa Fe Hotel Inc. (Lowden is President, and her husband is CEO) illegally denied health coverage to their buffet workers and cut their hours in an attempt to make them ineligible for those benefits. At their Pioneer Hotel & Gambling Hall in Laughlin, they cut 25% of their workforce (106 jobs) and did away with a company match for employees' 401k plans (saving $67,000) and then turned around and awarded her husband a $200,000 bonus. She can talk all she wants about being a "jobs creator," but her actions speak far louder than her words.

Other actions you should consider that speak to her character involve her actions during the NV GOP Convention. She halted the election in midstream and without the approval of delegates to the convention. A few weeks after the election at the state convention was abruptly halted, a few state party leaders named the delegates to the national convention, which according to the Republican National Committee, violated an agreement with the national party which required that the delegates be elected at the state convention. So, if she were to be elected would she just violate established rules in the Senate to get her way?

I'm sorry, but Sue Lowden is not a good choice to represent the every day ordinary citizens of Nevada.

How Much Do You Pay for Health Care?

2010-03-01T08:22:00.000-08:00

If you have health care insurance, you probably know how much you pay annually for those premiums. And, you can tally up what you have to pay providers in addition to those costs ... for things such as out-of-pocket expenses, co-pays, etc. You probably think that's what it costs you for your health care, but you're wrong.

Because the bulk of health care policies are subsidized by employers, costs associated with health care are bundled into absolutely EVERYTHING we buy! Until we bite the bullet and rethink how we fund and pay for our individual health care costs, they will exponentially escalate even further.

Everything we purchase has embedded health care costs as a component of its cost: the car you just purchased and the gasoline it takes to drive it off the lot or the oil it takes to lubricate its parts; the electricity to light your home or the natural gas it takes to heat it; the toothbrush, cereal, milk and laundry products you just purchased at the grocery; the hamburger and fries you just bought at your favorite fast-food restaurant, etc. Even though some folks may not pay premiums for their own personnal health care, they're subsidizing the health care costs of millions of other Americans through the embedded components of health care costs in the prices of goods and services we pay for each and every day.

You may say, "What?" But think about it. The manufacturer, who makes a product, embeds the subsidized cost of medical insurance into the cost of each product they make. You might then argue that not all manufacturers or service providers provide their employees with health insurance. Ahh, but, you forget about the distribution chain. What about the oil refineries, the trucking industry, the paper and packaging industry, the advertising industry? I could go on, ad nauseum. It permeates everything! Even those who don't provide health care benefits pay for the benefits of others via the materials and services they buy to enable production of their products and services.

Much ado had been made of the proposed health care legislation now being considered in Congress, both pro and con. Regardless of whether it passes or fails a vote in Congress, it will fail in its attempt to quell the rapid rise of health care costs. Why ... because it perpetuates the problem and fails to recognize and remedy the real problem driving up not just the cost of health care, but everything! Until Congress addresses the real problem, and not just various symptoms of the problem, the vicious cycle we find ourselves in will only continue.

Health care coverage and costs need to be 'unbundled' from the costs of good and services. The only way to do that is through the use of single-payer plans or exchanges that are not part of employment compensation/benefits packages. You may think that what I'm saying is heresy on first glance, but again, consider the ever-increasing embedded costs for goods and services. If we fail to consider the embedded costs on goods and services imposed by using employees for our health insurance delivery system, nothing has changed.

I don't believe that government should be the entity that actually provides the administration of health care insurance plans. Instead, I believe that administration should be provided by multiple non-profits who provide those services thoughout large demographically diverse regions. Government's role would be only to regulate the equity and fairness, and set minimum standards to be utilized by those non-profit profiders. Some of the provisions in the currently proposed legislation fall into those regulatory categories I'm talking about (e.g., no caps, no pre-existing conditions, no expulsions when you do get sick, etc.). And, part of the role of the 10-year census-taking could then be to adjust regional boundaries to assure that demographical diverseness.

Health care costs have been rising at double-digit rates. Recently, the LA Times reported that Wellpoint's Anthem Blue-Cross plans to raise premiums by 39%. Other insurance companies are announcing similary agregious double-digit increases. For employers who are able, they'll pass along those cost-increases through embedded charges in their products and services. For those who aren't, they'll either go under, reduce the number of employees on their payrolls, or just stop offering health care benefits altogether. If we allow the current process to continue, it just becomes an ever-escalating death spiral (pun intended).

People may have voted for change when they elected Barrack Obama to the White House, but when push comes to shove, just exactly how much change are they really willing to fight for? That remains to be seen.

Huge Turnover Projected for Congress this November

2010-02-18T08:00:00.000-08:00

As we approach this year's mid-term election in November, Congress is poised to see a large turnover from just retirements alone. Eleven members of the Senate will be stepping down, and thirty-four members of the house will be stepping down:

RETIREMENTS:

Name	Birthdate	# Terms
Sen. Roland W. Burris (D-IL)	Aug 03, 1937	1
Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND)	May 14, 1942	3
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-CN)	May 27, 1944	5
Sen. Edward "Ted" Kaufman (D-DE)	Mar 15, 1939	1
Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN)	Dec 26, 1955	2
Sen. Christopher S. "Kit" Bond (R-MO)	Mar 06, 1939	4
Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY)	Oct 23, 1931	2
Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)	Feb 14, 1947	3
Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-OH)	Jul 15, 1936	2

Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA)	Mar 07, 1956	6
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN)	Jan 24, 1949	13
Rep. Dennis Moore (D-KS)	Nov 08, 1945	6
Rep. John S. Tanner (D-TN)	Sep 22, 1944	11
Rep. Vic Snyder (D-AK)	Sep 27, 1947	7
Rep. Marion Berry (D-AR)	Aug 27, 1942	7
Rep. Diane E. Watson (D-CA)	Nov 12, 1933	5
Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI)	Jul 14, 1967	8
Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL)	Jan 02, 1961	7
Rep. Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC)	Dec 20, 1935	5
Rep. George Radanovich (R-CA)	Jun 20, 1955	8
Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)	Oct 22, 1949	8
Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R-FL)	Aug 13, 1954	9
Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI)	Feb 06, 1934	9
Rep. Steve Buyer (R-IN)	Nov 26, 1958	9

SEEKING OTHER OFFICE:

Name	Birthdate	# Terms
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)	Sep 12, 1956	3
Sen. Kay Bailey-Hutchison (R-TX)	Jul 22, 1943	4

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)	Jun 26, 1938	10
Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL)	Oct 09, 1967	4
Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH)	Mar 21, 1951	2
Rep. Kendrick Meek (D-FL)	Sep 06, 1966	4
Rep. Charles Melancon (D-LA)	Oct 03, 1947	3
Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA)	Dec 12, 1951	2
Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO)	Jan 10, 1950	7
Rep. Mike Castle (R-DE)	Jul 02, 1939	9
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA)	Aug 25, 1942	9
Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK.)	Dec 09, 1954	2
Rep. J. Gresham Barrett (R-SC)	Feb 14, 1961	4
Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI)	Oct 30, 1953	9
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL)	Sep 15, 1959	5
Rep. Jerry Moran (R-KS.)	May 29, 1954	7
Rep. Adam Putnam (R-FL)	Jul 31, 1974	5
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-KS)	Jun 15, 1951	7
Rep. Zach Wamp (R-TN)	Oct 28, 1957	8
Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL)	Sep 25, 1961	4
Rep. John Boozman (R-AR)	Dec 10, 1950	5

Wow ... that's some serious change ... some newbies and some fossils. And ... it doesn't begin to take into account those who may lose a seat to an opponent after the election.

Goodbye Democracy ... Hello Plutocracy

2010-02-03T09:21:00.000-08:00

For the President, last week brought the State of the Union speech and a grilling at the Retreat for House Republicans. And — since I'm retired, I had the opportunity to watch both events live — as opposed to watching the news media's take on its favorite 10-15 second soundbites. Having watched both live and after-the-event media coverage, I found it interesting how the main-stream media (MSM) framed the content.

As I watched the State of the Union, my perception was that the President appeared to direct a good portion of his speech at Congress, dressing them down for their partisan bickering, filibustering tactics, and being so locked into their individual ideologies that they've forgotten that their constituents are THE PEOPLE, not their individual party ideologies. The MSM apparently missed that or chose to make little to no comments related to the dress-down. Instead, they chose to focus their coverage on the President's going forward proposals and on Justice Alito's discomfort when called out for his judicial activism.

As I watched the Republican Retreat Q&A, I thought the President did a fine job of refuting the GOP (Gang of Prevaricators) talking points that are tantamount to fabrications, distortions and sometimes, outright lies. I also noticed that as the President arrived, he was presented with a booklet, and that no mention was made as to where the general public might be able to find a copy of that document. Well, I think I figured out he was presented with: "A Roadmap to the Future, Version 2.0" (the Republican plan to solve America's long-term fiscal and economic crisis). Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you should make time to read this 99-page document, because if their approach were to be enacted, it has some serious ramifications for the people of this nation and gives a serious shove at moving our fragile democracy toward full-blown corporate plutocracy.

While I agree that the USA is in serious debt and that entitlement programs are rapidly becoming an unsustainable segment of the federal government, I'm not so sure I agree with how they propose to remedy the situation. For example, let's take Medicare. The Roadmap would create a two-tiered set of available benefits under Medicare. Those who are currently 55 or older, would continue to receive benefits under Medicare using current rules. However, those individuals who are currently under 55 would receive a payment of $11,000 and told to go out and purchase their own Medicar certified plan. It also would define tax-free rules for MSAs (Medical Savings Accounts), reform high-risk pools for Medicaid and allow Medicaid recipients to take part in the same variety of options and high-quality care available to everyone through the tax credit option

So, for years, ordinary Americans have been working their butts off so their kids could have a better life. But, that will come to an end under this 2-tiered proposal. Throughout our working careers, we've paid an ever-escalating FICA tax on our wages/salaries into the Social Security Trust Fund, which has been matched by our employers. Today, that combined amount equates to 15.3% of wages/salaries. For those of us lucky enough to be over-55, we'd receive the benefits we paid for throughout our careers, but for those not yet 55, the Republican's solution is privatization. They'll just give you a payment and tell you you're on your own to find effective insurance, either privately or through the exchanges they'd create.

The Roadmap would replace the current Medicaid system (currently administered by States) with "direct assistance" (from the federal govt) for privatization of those plans as well, taking States out of the mix and giving $11,000 to medicaid beneficiaries to purchase their own plan.

The Roadmap goes even further at stomping all over "State's rights" by "allowing consumers to shop across State lines ... (so) individuals no longer will have to pay for health benefits mandated by their home state legislatures." They believe that in placing health care plan decisions in the hands of individuals and families, it will encourage insurance companies to offer more variety, higher quality, and more cost-effective plans to meet the needs of their customers. There assumption then is that health care quality will improve through this increased competition among providers. That process worked real well for the banking industry don't you think?

Their plan is a bit vague as to high-risk individuals. Here's what it says: "Ensuring that “high-risk” individuals – those with the greatest medical costs – can obtain high-quality coverage is critical to the success of any plan to reform health care. High-risk individuals face an insurmountable burden in medical expenses themselves, and that burden is often transferred to taxpayers in the form of uncompensated care expenses from hospitals, or the placement of these individuals in Medicaid after having exhausted their financial resources paying for their medical costs." Well, it acknowledged that they have difficulty, but what is the mechanism that "ensures" they can obtain coverage at affordable costs?

I talked about FICA earlier as it related to medicare, but FICA has two components: medicare and retirement benefits. Most Americans believe that having paid FICA taxes throughout their working careers, they're guaranteed retirement benefits once they attain the legislated retirement age. Well, maybe that's true and maybe that's not. You see, the SS Trust Fund only has the authority to pay benefits from its current revenues and existing balances [in the form of treasury bonds (IOUs) ... paper with nothing but debt owed to foreign governments behind it]. As our nation continues to amass debt, at what point will the Treasury no longer be able to make good on those bonds as our foreign competitor's begin calling in our debt as the baby boomers begin retiring. Social Security's ability to make full payments once annual benefits to be paid exceed FICA revenues depends in part on the federal government's ability to make good on those Treasury bonds to the Social Security Trust Fund. Thus, the federal government's ability to repay Social Security is contingent on fiscal policies taken today and in the future.

To assure solvency of the SS Trust Fund, the Republican's Roadmap again chooses a set of 2-tiered benefits. If you're 55 or older, you'll be able to continue under Social Security rules as they stand today. However, those individuals who aren't yet 55 will have a choice. They can choose to stay with the current system and hope the Treasury will have the funds to redeem all those bonds the SS Trust Fund holds, or, they can choose to contribute to a personal account, using a significant portion of their payroll taxes, and place those monies into a series of funds managed by the Federal Government. The Roadmap claims this will "reduce demand on government spending, lead to a larger overall benefit for retired workers, and restore solvency to the Social Security Program." Here again, this seems to me like just another smoke screen to hide the government's insolvency. They borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund (Treasury Bond IOUs instead of real cash money). The Roadmap may claim that your "contributions will be guaranteed," but will they grow over the term of your career in such a way to sustain you in retirement? If you read nothing else in their Roadmap, I would encourage you to not just read, but 'study' the section on retirement benefits.

Like Medicare and Retirement, the Roadmap also would create a 2-tier system for income taxes for individuals, repeal the AMT and eliminate Corporate income taxes (imposing a single-digit business consumption tax instead). Under the Roadmap, individuals could opt to continue paying taxes under the existing tax schedules, or they could opt for a simplified postcard-sized tax process with no deductions and a 10% for AGI up to $100,000 for joint filers, and $50,000 for single filers, and 25% tax rate on taxable income above that. So if I understand them, they think they can reduce taxes to increase federal income that could then be applied to eliminate not just the budget deficit, the our national debt as well. I don't know about you, but I want some of what they've been smokin'. Hello ... we're darn near $13 Trillion dollars in debt and reducing and/or eliminating taxes is only going to but is further in debt!

The U.S. has some serious fiscal and economic problems. If the Republicans prevail and HR 4529 (their Roadmap) becomes the road to the future, I do believe the next downturn will be much more devastating than the one we in which we now find ourselves. Given the Supreme Court's recent decision to give Corporations rights of free speech as though they were individuals, implementing the Republican's Roadmap will take us even further down the road toward a Corporate Plutocracy and further away from the Democracy we've enjoyed for all these years.

Corporate Speak isn't 'Free Speech' ... it's 'Paid Speech'

2010-01-25T09:24:00.000-08:00

Here's a copy of my lastest letter sent to the people who are supposed to represent 'me' in Washington:

I'm writing to you today because I'm extremely concerned about the recent deplorable decision by the SCOTUS which used 'constitutional rights of free speech' to grant 'corporations' the same rights of free speech as citizens, and placed no limits on spending from the general treasuries of any corporation to influence future elections in this country.

A corporation is not a 'citizen' ... it's a legal entity that does business in this country. And, that entity may or may not be a U.S. corporation, but a foreign-owned corporation with a political agenda not congruent with our own political phillosophies. How many workers of those entities would ardently support the political goals of the leaders of their organizations? How free are they to express their non-support of corporate political activities without fear of losing their employment? How free are those same employees not to participate in their corporation's political action committee for fear of reprisal, stagnation, or loss of employment?

Congress needs to take immediate action to quell the potential chaos that will be created by this horrendously awful decision by a court that has extended its activist reach to potentially corrupt our elective processes. If this decision is allowed to stand as is, we'll no longer have a government of the people, but a government crafted by corporate expenditures assuring only those sympathetic to their corporate issues are elected.

As you consider any legislation, I would ask that you ponder these concerns of just an ordinary citizen of this country:
Are their political sponsorships/activities currently considered as an expense of doing business? If so, enact legislation that would disallow any expenses of this type to be considered as 'tax-deductible' expenses. Regular citizens who contribute to a candidate cannot deduct their contributions, corporations should not be allowed to deduct any such expenses either. Expenses considered should include ALL incurred expenses, including the pro-rata salary and overhead expenses of those employees whose time is devoted to promoting such efforts as well as ALL costs associated with engaging private contractors.
Are lobbying expenses incurred by corporations currently considered as an expense of doing business? If so, enact legislatioin such that lobbying expenses are no longer considered as 'tax-deductible expenses.' As a citizen, I can't deduct any of my expenses to contact you via email, U.S. Mail, or personal visits to curry support for my position on any issue. Corporations should not be afforded any priviledges not afforded to ordinary citizens.
As to the issue of transparency, new legislation should require chief executives to appear up front, before the presentation of any political advertisement, expressing their approval and support of the content of the advertisement. As a citizen, I want to know exectly who is besmirching the record of which politician and/or issue that I personally support.
Can/will corporations that receive any type of federal monies be allowed to push their corporate political agenda? Well, excuse me, but I seriously object to that possibility. Those are my tax dollars and if they get my tax dollars, they shouldn't be able to promote their corporate political agenda, period. If a large number of people in Congress can argue that a woman can't have coverage that covers abortion because federal monies are involved, then corporations can't do political advertisement if government money/contracts are received by that corporation.

When a corporation speaks out on an issue, it's not 'free speech' ... it's 'paid speech!' The ruling by the SCOTUS last week does nothing for citizens. It's merely a delayed Christmas present to big business ... and not necessarily U.S. big businesses, but big businesses owned by foreign entities. As a citizen, I expect Congress to take aggressive action to remedy the court's fraud on future U.S. elections. According to the court, you can't 'ban' their communications, but that doesn't mean you can't tax it.

Senate Raises Debt Ceiling Yet Again

2009-12-28T05:54:00.000-08:00

The Senate voted Thursday, December 24, 2009, to raise, once again, the ceiling on allowable government debt by another $290 Billion, raising the ceiling to $12,394,000,000 Trillion (H.R. 4314). The vote to raise the limit split along party lines with 57 Democrats, 2 Independents and only 1 Republicans voting to pass it. President Obama will need to sign the increase into law to prevent potential defaults on U.S. Obligations.

At the rate government is spending money, they'll spend that newly borrowed $290 Billion by mid to late February, at which time they'll look at passing yet another bill to increase our nation's debt limit yet again. I don't know about you, but I think that should be against the law! They should have a balanced budget within which they have to live unless an increase is approved by the voters.

These increases in our debt ceiling have to STOP! If we don't stop ... our creditors will stop lending (or worse, they start charging loan shark rates like the credit card companies) ... and then where will we be? Families and businesses cut back when they realize there's not going to be enough money in the bank to pay their bills ... but not government. They just sell more bonds and print more money. But debt is debt!

President Obama needs explore imposing wage/budget freezes across the massive number of government agencies. In a different time, another president did just that, President Nixon signed Executive Order 11723 on June 13, 1973 which ordered a freeze on prices such that prices would be held at levels no higher than those charged during the first 8 days of June 1973. It covered all prices paid by consumers.

I worked in Training or in Human Resources the bulk of my career. Those types of organizations are generally considered a "non-productive" expense by most organizations and it's a b**tch to try to get money in your next year's budget for a special project. Well ... government is a "non-productive" expense for all Americans as well as business and industry. They should have to justify each and every dime they spend on our behalf ... and they should have to justify each and every request for budgetary increases. But, that's not the case.

I spent 8-1/2 years in the Navy and each and every November, I remember having to generate a 'wish list' of equipment, tools, and other materials I wish I could have to do my job if there was 'extra' money in the budget. If it looked like we weren't going to max out our budget, they'd start buying items off the wish lists until they max'd out the budget. The logic was, that if they didn't spend their entire budget, they wouldn't get that much money for a subsequent budget, let alone an increase in budget. It's a common practice that's engraiined in the culture across all government organizations to start spending in late November to ensure they spend their full budget. President Obama should end that too. And ... he should just start cutting budgets across the board. We can't afford any more 'deficit' spending. It has to stop! Families have cut their budgets, businesses have cut back to the bare bones ... it's time that governmental agencies and Congress did the same.

And it gets worse ...

2009-11-21T16:24:00.000-08:00

I've been reading the Senate Health Care Reform bill (HR3590). While there is no specific mention of mammogram screening, check out the wording relative to recommendations made by the US Preventive Services Task Force on pages 1189-1190:

SEC. 4105. EVIDENCE-BASED COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE
SERVICES IN MEDICARE.

(a) AUTHORITY TO MODIFY OR ELIMINATE COVERAGE OF
CERTAIN PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—

Section 1834 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395m) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:

AUTHORITY TO MODIFY OR ELIMINATE COVERAGE OF
CERTAIN PREVENTIVE SERVICES.—
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, effective
beginning on January 1, 2010, if the Secretary determines
appropriate, the Secretary may—

‘‘(1) modify—
‘‘(A) the coverage of any preventive service described in
subparagraph (A) of section 1861(ddd)(3) to the extent
that such modification is consistent with the
recommendations of the United States Preventive
Services Task Force; and

‘‘(B) the services included in the initial preventive physical
examination described in subparagraph (B) of such
section; and
‘‘(2) provide that no payment shall be made under this title
for a preventive service described in subparagraph (A) of
such section that has not received a grade of A, B, C, or I
by such Task Force.’’.

Here we go again. It appears that HHS Secretary is going to have to say, "I'm sorry, I mis-spoke when I said women should consult with their doctors to determine whether they should continue participating in annual mammogram screenings." If this bill passes, it does appear the recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force will have some weight in what insurance companies are required to reimburse/pay for.

If this passes, it will pass at the horrendous expense of 1 death per every 1900 women.

Not 'Status Quo' ... But instead ... 'Status Backward'

2009-11-21T12:53:00.000-08:00

This has not been a good year for women. Before President Obama could be sworn into office, the Bush administration enacted their 'conscience' regulation which elevated anyone else's conscientious decisions over that of any woman attempting to exercise her personal reproductive rights. Thus, doctors, nurses, pharmacists, janitors, and secretaries can now essentially deny access to reproductive services and medications, including not just abortions, but birth control pills, in-vitro fertilization, etc. The Obama administration announced that they would rescind that regulation in March 2009, accepting comments on the rescission for a 30-day period. That was a while ago, yet no action has yet been taken to rescind it and it's now November. For those of us that are counting, it's now been 8 months since the announcement.

Next on the list of legislative assaults on women's rights is the health care reform bill. The Affordable Health Care for America Act as passed by the House of Representatives represents a toxic mix of politics and ideology which will end up denying full reproductive health care coverage to a broad spectrum of women across this nation should it become the law of the land. Women have been fighting for rights for a couple of centuries now, and while we’ve gained inches, we’ve also lost feet. The Stupak amendment is the equivalent to losing a couple of yards!

Here's an example of what I mean. If a woman gets a divorce and loses coverage under her husband’s employer-based plan, and is forced to seek coverage via the exchanges, the Stupak amendment applies. That amendment goes so far as to say she can’t even use her own funds to purchase a rider to cover abortion coverage. Plus, any insurer who participates in the exchange is prohibited from offering abortion coverage in ANY plan that company offers … those policies offered through the exchange, as well as those offered privately.

I’m not sure if you’re aware that removal of a fetus that dies in-utero is considered an ‘abortion.’ That condition doesn’t occur as infrequently as one would expect. So if it’s not bad enough that a woman loses a baby at 7 months, the Stupak amendment adds an additional insult to her injury. Since the procedure she'd need would be the equivalent of an abortion, she would then have to pay all the expenses associated with that abortion to remove the dead fetus from her belly out of her own funds, because, under the Stupak amendment, it couldn’t/wouldn’t be covered under her insurance plan.

But, it gets even worse. As I understand the Stupak amendment, abortions would only be funded when the life of the mother was in “imminent danger of death” … in other words, when she’s within minutes of death. A large number of nasty conditions can occur that cause severe health problems for a potential mother. Those conditions can cause conditions such as organ failure. If a woman's kidneys fail, she could end up on dialysis for years waiting for a kidney transplant, and then on anti-rejection drugs for the remainder of her life ... IF she’s even able to get a viable transplant.

What if the fetus she’s carrying is severely deformed and would be born with half a brain and extensive other disabilities. No one but the mother (and her partner) should have a say in whether they choose to carry that fetus to term. No government edict should be able to dictate that they cannot even purchase an abortion rider using their own funds.

I’m sorry, but a woman is a human being, not just a vessel for nurturing a fetus. As a woman, I firmly believe it’s my choice, not that I’d ever exercise that choice, but it’s MY choice … not Stupak’s ... and certainly not the Council of Catholic Bishops’ choice (and I can't believe they sought out the Council of Catholic Bishop's approval ... what happened to separation of church and state?) whether I choose to carry or not carry a fetus to term. If I want to pay for an abortion rider, I should be able to do that … period!

The Senate Bill is not yet affected by the likes of a Stupak amendment, but a floor debate hasn't yet taken place and the GOP bullies and belly-achers on the Senate floor will most likely insist on similar language.

Then ... if all that wasn't enough, we get word from the US Preventive Services Task Force that women shouldn't begin participating in preventive mammogram screenings until the age of 50. The previous recommendation provided for annual screenings beginning at age 40. HHS Secretary Sebelius in responding to the ensuing firestorm indicated that women should ignore the panel’s findings and consult with their doctors about whether or not to use mammogram screenings, but she stopped short of criticising or countermanding the panel’s work. You can bet your bottom dollar those findings find their way into allowable insurance coverage options in the very near future.

In reaching their decision, it appears they relied purely on statistics. Not a single oncologist was consulted or in residence on that committee. Unilaterally, they determined that it was OK for 1 in every 1900 women to die of breast cancer to save money, and not upset any women with potentially false positive reports that would require additional screening. But, they didn't stop there. The panel urged against teaching and encouraging women to do routine self-examination, again because of the anxiety over lumps that might turn out not to be cancer. At that point, I lost my temper completely! Hey folks, women are intelligent human beings, not a group of whimpering dolts who can't manage their emotions.

I'm sorry ... but can someone please tell me when I woke up in Stepford? I'd really like to go home to what I thought was America.

What's Up Next? NAT Gas Bill?

2009-10-30T07:35:00.000-07:00

NAT (New Alternative Transportation) Act bills have been introduced into both the House and the Senate which would promote the manufacture, fueling and use of vehicles fueled by natural gas. Both bills are currently in committee and have not yet reached either floor for debate and passage. So far, only Reid has signed on as a co-sponsor, no other NV elected official has signed on to either bill as a co-sponsor ... so ... it's time to write to Ensign, Heller, Berkeley, and Titus.

I support the need to migrate to Natural Gas and away from foreign oil imports. If you think about it, we import way too much foreign oil. It truly represents a national security risk that we, as a nation, need to remedy ... NOW! During September alone, we spent $573,000 a minute on oil imports. If we want health care reform, spending that much on imported crude simply has to stop!

While I support a number of provisions in either bill that would provide excise taxes and incentives that promote fuel availability and delivery infrastructure requirements, I have a problem with the grants. If we truly are a capitalist nation, I find it curious why we have to essentially bribe the auto industry with "grants" (just another name for bailout money) to get them to manufacture engines and vehicles fueled by natural gas. Don't they already have that engine? It seems to me that they just couldn't get most folks (other than local-only businesses and city buses) to buy natural gas vehicles. That was because there just wasn't an infrastructure out there from which to refuel other than their own facility. So, the auto industry pretty much shelved that idea a few years back other than for that "local-only" niche market. Now, they'll take the grant money, pull it off the shelf and re-introduce what they've already designed and previously introduced ... but which didn't catch on because there was no infrastructure from which people could refuel.

Summary of H.R. 1835:
New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions Act of 2009 - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to: (1) allow an excise tax credit through 2027 for alternative fuels and fuel mixtures involving compressed or liquefied natural gas; (2) allow an income tax credit through 2027 for alternative fuel motor vehicles powered by compressed or liquefied natural gas; (3) modify the tax credit percentage for alternative fuel vehicles fueled by natural gas or liquefied natural gas; (4) allow a new tax credit for the production of vehicles fueled by natural gas or liquefied natural gas; and (5) extend through 2027 the tax credit for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property expenditures for refueling property relating to compressed or liquefied natural gas and allow an increased credit for such property. Requires 50% of all new vehicles purchased or placed in service by the U.S. government by December 31, 2014, to be capable of operating on compressed or liquefied natural gas. Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make grants to manufacturers of light and heavy duty natural gas vehicles for the development of engines that reduce emissions, improve performance and efficiency, and lower cost.

Summary of S. 1408:
New Alternative Transportation to Give Americans Solutions - Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow: (1) an excise tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuels and fuel mixtures involving compressed or liquefied natural gas; (2) a modified income tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuel motor vehicles powered by compressed or liquefied natural gas; (3) an offset against the alternative minimum tax (AMT) for tax credits for alternative fuel motor vehicles and refueling property and provide for the transferability of such credits; (4) a tax credit through 2019 for investment in natural gas vehicle project bonds; (5) expensing of property used to manufacture vehicles fueled by compressed or liquefied natural gas; and (6) a tax credit through 2019 for alternative fuel vehicle refueling property relating to compressed or liquefied natural gas. Requires federal agencies to purchase dedicated alternative fuel vehicles for their fleets unless such agencies can show that alternative fuel is unavailable or purchasing such vehicles would be impractical. Authorizes the Secretary of Energy to make grants to manufacturers of light and heavy duty natural gas vehicles for the development of engines that reduce emissions, improve performance and efficiency, and lower cost. Expresses the sense of the Senate that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should streamline the certification process for natural gas vehicle retrofit kits.

Health Care Reform As It Is ... Is Broke

2009-10-03T06:04:00.000-07:00

For some time now, I've been watching the debate, writing my Congressional representatives, and reading extensively. Maybe I'm becoming more pessimistic as I age, but I've come to the conclusion that no matter what health care reform proposal ultimately gets passed, it just isn't going to yield the results that the American Public is hoping for. You see, whatever proposal gets passed is going to be hobbled by the systemic problems that are currently present and that they've failed to address.

If you don't know care where you're going ... then any road will get you there. Most folks who design training programs for a living know that adage well. Training designers, instead of using "forward" thinking that could allow all kinds of unnecessary information to become integrated in the program, use "backward" thinking instead. In other words, they start their design with the end in mind. They ask what would successful performance look like and they work backwards from that specific point so they can figure out exactly what a worker needs to learn to enable successful performance. Congress hasn't done that in designing health care reform legislation that would truly make a difference in health care across our nation. Not one plan, in either house, was designed with the end in mind. They're all just mixed bags of various initiatives that probably, in the long run, won't make a bit of difference in ordinary citizens' lives.

Systemic problems are being totally overlooked ... or worse ... being protected.

U.S. Patent Office. The Patent Office grants patents to drug companies and research firms on things like human genes that cause or contribute to cancer, which gives those companies/firms exclusive rights (monopolies) to research and provide treatments. "In the United States, gene patents are now being used to halt research, prevent medical testing and keep vital information from you and your doctors. Gene patents slow the pace of medical advance on deadly diseases. And, they raise costs exorbitantly: A test for breast cancer that could be done for $1,000 now costs $3,000. Why? Because the holder of the gene patent can charge whatever they want, and they do." [NYT] Just try doing a Google search on: patent gene and read through a few of the articles that come up.

Existing Premium Rates and Fee/Service Schedules. If you've really listened to the debate and understand a small bit of what's going on in the industry today, you know that those of us who actually have insurance end up paying higher premiums and service fees to doctors and hospitals. That's because factored into those rates/fees are monies that help doctors/hospitals provide services for the uninsured. While a number of the bills now before Congress mandate that we all have to have insurance (a serious gift to the insurance industry), I see nothing in any of the bills that addresses the inflation in service fees and premium rates once everybody is insured. "The average U.S. family and their employers paid an extra $1,017 in health care premiums last year to compensate for the uninsured..." [USAToday]. I don't know about you, but I seriously doubt if many of us will see reduced charges from our doctors, hospitals, clinics, pharmacies and insurance companies should any of the current bills become law. What we'll most likely see is today's costs as the baseline for future rate and premium increases ... in other words, maintenance of today's overpriced status quo.

Medical Liability Tort and Insurance Reform. Doctors pay malpractice premiums that can run up to $250,000 a year for specialties such as neurology or obstetrics. Doctors also police their own, frequently allowing doctors who shouldn't be practicing to continue opening their doors to new patients. And ... especially in the big cities, people are becoming more litigious ... and worse, juries are becoming excessively generous in dubious cases. Opponents of reform claim that tort reform would yield only 1-2% savings, but for a $Trillion industry, that's 1-2 $Billion in savings to consumers.

Need for Corporate Lobbying Reform. The health sector spent $150 million on campaign contributions in the 2008 election cycle, more than the $123.7 million it spent in 2003 and 2004. It spent $365.1 million on lobbying in the first three quarters of 2008. Those are dollars we spent for health care that instead are going to campaign coffers of our elected officials. Personally, I don't get to deduct any contributions I make to elect a Congressman or Senator, therefore, lobbying expenses should NOT be deductible for corporations. Allowing lobbying efforts and contributions as an allowable expense of doing business does two things: (1) it corrupts the political process in the direction of those with big pockets, and (2) the views and desires of ordinary citizens are ignored in favor of the desires of those with lobbyist dollars.

If health care reform passes without a viable public option, it won't represent health care reform, but instead, an early Christmas present to the health care industry.

HR 2918 Passed, Increases Funding for Congress

2009-10-01T06:49:00.000-07:00

I am rapidly losing faith in our elected officials! What is wrong with them? In the same week, they vote down a public option for health care reform and they pass a bill that would bestow an increase in funding for both houses of Congress of $99 million. I'm outraged!

At a time when their constituents have seen job losses, home foreclosures, real estate values plummet, outrageous increases in health insurance premiums, loss and/or denials of coverage and the values of their 401k savings accounts plummet, Congress has the audacity to increase allocation of funding for themselves. At the very least, in times such as these, the prudent action to take should have been to hold their spending flat ... if not find ways to reduce spending below that allocated for 2009. But no ... they garnered even more money for themselves and others in the legislative branch of government.

I'm sure they'll pat themselves on their backs and call it a success that they cut millions of dollars from the proposed budget ... but the fact of the matter is ... HR2918 represents a significant increase. It racked in at $155 million dollars (5.8%) above the 2009 budget. It increases Senate funding by 3.5% to $926 million and increases funding to the House by 5.2% to $1.37 billion. I doubt that very many of their constituent's households were able to garner such a generous increases in income, yet these guys are going along, business as usual, continually borrowing ever more money to sustain their status quo.

Uh ... Hello Congress ... have you looked at the National Debt figures lately? You're bankrupting our nation ... something I consider a serious National Security threat!

References:
Democratic Perspective on HR 2918
Republican Perspective on HR2918

If CON is the opposite of PRO, why is CONgress the opposite of PROgress?

The Banks, as I See Them

2009-09-24T07:26:00.000-07:00

I must be getting old, for I long for a simpler time when banks were local organizations who actually provided good customer service to valued customers within their communities ... when your true credit worthiness was assessed by that local bank, and when the mortgage loans they made stayed in their portfolio of accounts. Something horrible has happened over the years as apathetic American citizens weren't watching, as lobbyists got their way with Congress and as the big corporate banks swallowed up our local banks, supplanting them with corporate drones whose only mantra is bottom-line profit and greed.

We retired in 2006, moved and built our retirement home in Northern Nevada expecting that our Columbus, OH home would sell in a reasonable period of time. That, however, hasn't been the case. We've now been trying to sell our previous home without results for almost 4 years. Had we sold it during the year before retirement, we'd be in great shape, but we waited until we were a couple of months from retirement. Looking back, that was a mistake.

Act I of our saga began almost immediately after our home hit the market. Dominion Homes, a mega-builder in Columbus, OH flooded the market with the first of the foreclosures. Needless to say, everybody who was looking scooped up some newer homes at bargain basement prices and we weren't able to find a buyer. In year 2, the city, in its infinite wisdom, decided to rip out the street on which our home sits. There was this big gaping hole all the way up and down the street. And, while all the new water, sewer, gas and storm lines are great for resale, it did nothing to help us find a buyer because there was no way to get a moving van to the house if someone decided to buy it. Then, in year 3, the economy boarded a rocket ship and blasted off to some distant galaxy! In all that time, we've continually dropped the price, we've had NO offers, and we've watched housing values plummet ... and I firmly believe the banks are at the root of that decline.

Back to my earlier point, banks no longer hold home loans in their portfolio of accounts. This may be an oversimplification, but ... they sell off those loans which are then packaged with other loans and then sold off again (you know ... all those junk loans they talked about in the news throughout last year). So, when a homeowner gets financially distressed and finds it difficult to make payments, the bank that made the loan is no longer in a position to be able to refinance that loan by adjusting the term or rates. It's no longer their loan and it's practically impossible to separate it from the other loans in whatever package it got sold in.

Because the banks no longer hold their own loans, it allows them to spawn bad practices. Greed and the almighty bottom-line profit motive set in. Since they aren't holding the loans, riskier policies and practices supplanted tried and true practices. No longer did people have to have 20% down ... 100% was financed using a regular home loan for the purchase (75-80%) and a home equity loan (20-25%) for the down payment. And, if that wasn't insane enough, because the housing market had done so well over time, the Banks decided to promote interest-only loans, with a balloon payment down the road. People (some of whom would probably have had trouble financing a stick of bubble gum) started buying homes with literally nothing down using interest-only loans, figuring they'd make interest payments for a couple of years, then sell, take their profit to use as a regular down payment and then buy another home. But, the housing market collapsed before they could do that.

So now, we have even more foreclosures out there and the Banks are now serving up Act II. Since the Banks can't or won't (that's not exactly clear) renegotiate loan terms by adjusting the rates or length (term) of the loans, they're foreclosing on massive numbers of loans and putting people on the streets. Then, to make matters worse they're doing really stupid things that are causing housing market values to plummet even further.

A case in point is my competition for the sale of our 2500 sqft ranch-style home. In 2005, it would have probably sold for somewhere close to $400K. It's now listed below tax appraisal price and below $300K ... and still no offers. A bank foreclosure of a 8000 sqft home that was purchased around 2 years ago for just under $900K (2 stories, full basement, in-ground swimming pool on acreage). Now, if you know anything about mortgage loans, you know the owners didn't manage to pay down the mortgage by any serious amount in the first couple of years. Rumor has it the remaining mortgage is just under 600K ... but get this ... it's listed in the MLS for $300K! So let's see if I got this right. They foreclosed on the homeowner instead of renegotiating a change in interest rate or term of the loan and forced them out on the street so they could list the house for a price that would yield a $200-300K loss? How can I compete in this market against that? It just infuriates me!

I'm really beginning to despise the guys at the top at those banks, who make million-dollar salaries and who are destroying the housing market and ordinary American families in their pursuit of the almighty dollar to line their personal pockets.

Loan Shark Rates on Credit Cards

2009-08-28T16:38:00.000-07:00

Some time ago, while Congress was considering legislation to help credit card holders, I wrote my representatives asking them to make sure the legislation addressed limits on what I consider to be "loan shark" rates charged by credit card companies. Unfortunately, no such provisions were included in the bill signed into law by the President (Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure (CARD) Act of 2009).

This last week, I got the required notice from Citi, who is the backer of my Sears card, announcing rate hikes and informing me how I could opt out (which basically means, if you want to opt out, they cancel your card). Even though I have an excellent credit rating, the notice said,
"We are increasing your variable APR for regular Sears and External purchases. Your regular Sears and regular External purchases Annual Percentage rate will equal the U.S. Prime Rate plus 21.99%. As of July 1, 2009, this APR is 25.24%. This APR equals a daily periodic rate of 0.06692%.

We are increasing your variable APR for cash access. Your cash access Annual percentage rate will equal the U.S. Prime Rate plus 23.90%. As of July 1, 2009, this APR is 27.15%. This APR equals a daily periodic rate of 0.0744%.

We are increasing the transaction fee for cash access ... You make a cash access transaction if you use a cash access convenience check; get money through an automated teller machine (ATM); or get money through home banking or a financial institution. You also make a cash access transaction if you make a wire transfer, buy a money order, traveler's check, lottery ticket, casino chip or similar item; or engage in a similar transaction. For each cash access transaction we add a transaction fee finance charge of 5% of the amount of the cash access transaction, but not less than $5.

We are increasing the Transaction Fee for Balance Transfers ... You make a balance transfer if you use a balance transfer convenience check or contact us to transfer a balance. For each balance transfer, we add a transaction fee finance charge of 5% of the amount of the balance transfer but not less than $10."

Good grief … you’d think it was enough that they are going to charge 27.15% interest without having to also charge an additional 5% transaction fee up front. What’s wrong with them? I called their customer service number and immediately cancelled the credit card, which incidentally had a ZERO balance.

So ... what was achieved by the "CARD" legislation is that they now speak clear English in their notice of change in terms, but they continue to increase their loan shark interest rates to obscene levels.

I'm lucky that I could cancel my card and refuse anything to do with their loan shark rates, but others across our nation are not so fortunate. At least they can cancel their card and continue to pay off their existing balance at their then-current rate. I wonder how many people will never be able to pay off their balances, or be forced into bankruptcy through the greed of these financial institutions.

The interest charged to lending institutions is and has been, for quite some time, at an all time low. Yet, financial institutions are continuing to rape customers with all-time-high interest rates. When is President Obama going to ask Congress to take action related to placing reasonable limits on interest rates charged by credit card institutions?

Main Stream News Media — Fact-Checking Ads

2009-08-28T13:00:00.000-07:00

A while back, I subscribed to news updates from NewsMax.com ... so I could keep up with and try to understand the other side's point of view. I'm afraid, however, that I'm desperately failing at that task. I just don't understand their logic ... if it's even logic at all.

This morning I got an email from NewsMax proclaiming that ABC and NBC won't run a national ad critical of President Obama's healthcare reform plan.

Well, first off, let's get something straight. It's not President Obama's plan. HR 3200 is a healthcare bill proposed in the House of Representatives by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI). The bill has 8 other co-sponsors: Robert Andrews [D-NJ1], Dale Kildee [D-MI5], Carolyn Maloney [D-NY14], George Miller [D-CA7], Frank Pallone [D-NJ6], Charles Rangel [D-NY15], Fortney Stark [D-CA13], and Henry Waxman [D-CA30]. These are the nine Representatives responsible for proposing HR3200. It won't become President Obama's plan until he signs it. And he's not going to be doing that anytime soon because the House hasn't yet brought their final bill to the floor ... and the Senate hasn't even got theirs written yet.

HR3200 is STILL languishing away in committee and hasn't yet been brought to the floor for discussion and a vote, though a series of amendments have been made to it by the Ways & Means, and Labor & Education committees. I'm sure that when it finally comes to the floor, it will likely see additional activity from those Representatives who weren't part of the committees reviewing and amending it before it even got to the floor.

The NewsMax email goes on to say that, "A doctor in the League of American Voters ad asks: How can Obama's plan cover 50 million new patients without any new doctors? It can't." Is this guy a moron, or what? I'd like to know how he managed to graduate from college with a medical degree? Just because people don't have health insurance doesn't mean they don't have a doctor, or that they don't seek medical treatment. Come on, does he really believe that 50 million Americans have never, ever seen a doctor?

And if that didn't scare you into thinking healthcare reform is bad for America, it offered a quote from Bob Adams, the Executive Director of the League of American Voters (not to be confused with the League of Women Voters who actually present factual materials). He claims, "It tells the truth and it really highlights one of the biggest vulnerabilities and problems with this proposed legislation, which is it rations health care and disproportionately will decimate the quality of health care for seniors." The email gave me a link to watch the ad, so I did. All I can say is OH PLEASE, give me a break! No facts, just more Party of Nope lies claiming that seniors will see rationed medicare health care, cancer patients will see long delays before treatment, limit will be imposed on distribution of life saving drugs, and that we don't need a healthcare system like they have in England and Canada. Read these words: HR3200 is NOT proposing a single-payer plan like they have in England and Canada! I don't care how many times these guys tell their lies, I'm just not buying it. I actually took the time to read the bill, so I know what's in it and what's not ... and I can spot their lies as they spew forth from their lips.

Surprisingly, FoxNews (prime defender of the Party of Nope) is challenging the veracity of the ad's purported factual claims, as is NBC. Apparently however, you'll be able to see the ad on CBS since they approved it to air, but ABC has labeled it "too partisan" and declined to air the ad. It's about time the main stream News media started doing their jobs. A sportscaster would never allow misinformation to be broadcast ... the same standard should be used by main stream news media.

More Teabagger Lies about HR3200

2009-08-25T09:21:00.000-07:00

This morning I got an email from a friend asking me to watch a video and forward it to others so they could be thusly informed about HR3200 being considered in the house. Unfortunately, he didn't do any homework before forwarding it on to others ... and he's become part of the Party of Nope's distribution machine.

Here's a link to Rep. Mike Roger's distorted teabagger statement before Congress about one of the sections within HR3200.

It's apparent to me that this guy has an agenda ... and partakes of the Party of Nope's koolaid. He also can't apparently read because he specifically cites "Section 141" as the defective section of the health care bill (HR3200) and claims that it would allow the government to disenroll individuals from their insurance plan as well as disenroll entire companies from plans. Section 141 merely creates a "Health Choices Commissioner" who would be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

Section 142, however, discusses the duties and authorities of the Commissioner, one of which is determining whether a QHBP (Qualified Health Benefit Plan) being offered by an entity is in conformance with the act. Under Section 142, if and when the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of the act, the Commissioner can: (1) assess penalties to the entity (similar to what might be assessed under the Social Security Act); (2) suspend enrollment under the plan until the violation is corrected and until it can be assured that the violation is not likely to recur; (3) suspend subsidy payments to "exchange" entities until the violation is corrected and it can be assured that the violation is not likely to recur; and (4) work with state insurance regulators to disqualify entities and terminate plans of those entities who have repeat violations under the act. Nowhere in the wording does it give the Commissioner the authority to disenroll individuals or entire groups of individuals from any plan. 'Suspending enrollment' and 'disenrolling' are two different terms with two different definitions. This guy needs to spend some time reading Websters or just understanding terminology used within industry at large. If he's relying on item (4) which speaks to 'disqualify and terminate plans' ... well geez luiz ... if the insurance carrier is so bad (remember ... these are health care exchanges, not governmental agencies) that the Commissioner has to take it before a State Insurance Regulator ... well I would think those employers and employees would be looking for all the help they could get to be relieved of a fraudulent contract so they could obtain effective health care coverage. Plus, if it is item (4) that he's relying on to make his claim, it would be the State Regulators who have the most impact over the Insurance carrier.

The Health Choices Commissioner is the person who is responsible for administering the Health Insurance Exchange program. I certainly would hope that this person could disqualify shady insurance operations and protect consumers. Would Congressman Mike Rogers prefer to give this commissioner no power to act to protect consumers? With all the windfall the Insurance Companies will get if this bill passes, if anything, the situation will be ripe for fraud on the part of unscrupulous parties within the insurance industry. This is just another "teabagger" lie being perpetrated to stir up the masses who, in all likelihood, won't read the bill for themselves to fact-check his statement.

Here's the full text of Sections 141 and 142:

SEC. 141. HEALTH CHOICES ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CHOICES COMMISSIONER.
(a) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby established, as an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, a Health Choices Administration (in this division referred to as the ‘‘Administration’’).
(b) COMMISSIONER.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Administration shall be headed by a Health Choices Commissioner (in this division referred to as the ‘‘Commissioner’’) who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(2) COMPENSATION; ETC.—The provisions of paragraphs (2), (5), and (7) of subsection (a) (relating to compensation, terms, general powers, rulemaking, and delegation) of section 702 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902) shall apply to the Commissioner and the Administration in the same manner as such provisions apply to the Commisioner of Social Security and the Social Security Administration.
SEC. 142. DUTIES AND AUTHORITY OF COMMISSIONER.
(a) DUTIES.—The Commissioner is responsible for carrying out the following functions under this division:
(1) QUALIFIED PLAN STANDARDS.—The establishment of qualified health benefits plan standards under this title, including the enforcement of such standards in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretaries of Labor and the Treasury.
(2) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange under subtitle A of title II.
(3) INDIVIDUAL AFFORDABILITY CREDITS.— The administration of individual affordability credits under subtitle C of title II, including determination of eligibility for such credits.
(4) ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.—Such additional functions as may be specified in this division.
(b) PROMOTING ACCOUNTABILITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—The Commissioner shall undertake activities in accordance with this subtitle to promote accountability of QHBP offering entities in meeting Federal health insurance requirements, regardless of whether such accountability is with respect to qualified health benefits plans offered through the Health Insurance Exchange or outside of such Exchange.
(2) COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—
(A) IN GENERAL.—The commissioner shall, in coordination with States, conduct audits of qualified health benefits plan compliance with Federal requirements. Such audits may include random compliance audits and targeted audits in response to complaints or other suspected non-compliance.
(B) RECOUPMENT OF COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH EXAMINATION AND AUDITS.—The Commissioner is authorized to recoup from qualified health benefits plans reimbursement for the costs of such examinations and audit of such QHBP offering entities.
(c) DATA COLLECTION.—The Commissioner shall collect data for purposes of carrying out the Commissioner’s duties, including for purposes of promoting quality and value, protecting consumers, and addressing disparities in health and health
care and may share such data with the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
(d) SANCTIONS AUTHORITY.—
(1) IN GENERAL.—In the case that the Commissioner determines that a QHBP offering entity violates a requirement of this title, the Commissioner may, in coordination with State insurance regulators and the Secretary of Labor, provide, in addition to any other remedies authorized by law, for any of the remedies described in paragraph (2).
(2) REMEDIES.—The remedies described in this paragraph, with respect to a qualified health benefits plan offered by a QHBP offering entity, are—
(A) civil money penalties of not more than the amount that would be applicable under similar circumstances for similar violations under section 1857(g) of the Social Security Act;
(B) suspension of enrollment of individuals under such plan after the date the
Commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph (1) and until the Commissioner is satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur;
(C) in the case of an Exchange-participating health benefits plan, suspension of payment to the entity under the Health Insurance Exchange for individuals enrolled in such plan after the date the Commissioner notifies the entity of a determination under paragraph (1) and until the Secretary is satisfied that the basis for such determination has been corrected and is not likely to recur; or
(D) working with State insurance regulators to terminate plans for repeated failure by the offering entity to meet the requirements of this title.
(e) STANDARD DEFINITIONS OF INSURANCE AND MEDICAL TERMS.—The Commissioner shall provide for the development of standards for the definitions of terms used in health insurance coverage, including insurance-related terms.
(f) EFFICIENCY IN ADMINISTRATION.—The Commissioner shall issue regulations for the effective and efficient administration of the Health Insurance Exchange and affordability credits under subtitle C, including, with respect to the determination of eligibility for affordability credits, the use of personnel who are employed in accordance with the requirements of title 5, United States Code, to carry out the duties of the Commissioner or, in the case of sections 208 and 241(b)(2), the use of State personnel who are employed in accordance with standards prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management pursuant to section 208 of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4728).

Health Care Reform Bullies May Be Winning

2009-08-16T17:22:00.000-07:00

It looks like the bullies have told a sufficient number of lies for people to believe that a public option would be bad for America, that it would ration health care, that it would be too expensive, and that it would provide substandard quality care ... never mind that we have a number of programs that are currently run by the government — Medicare, VA health care, active military health care, just to name a few. Those governmental health care offerings haven't put the for-profit insurance corporations out of business, and they don't provide substandard care. Plus, medicare, as an example, has created a niche for a number of insurance companies who offer "supplemental" policies that extend coverage levels beyond what is covered through basic Medicare.

It also looks like the Party of Nope, with no real plan of their own, who is spreading one lie after another relative to the reform efforts, one distortion of facts after another, and disrupting one town hall meeting after another where concerned citizens are trying to get answers to their questions, is well on its way to scuttling health care reform for a second time. In his comments at a town hall meeting in Colorado, President Obama appears to be caving to the pressure to not provide a "public health care option" and is now leaning toward a bill that would help establish "not-for-profit health care cooperatives" instead.

Playing down their shift to embracing "not-for-profit cooperatives", Kathleen Sibelius, HHS Secretary has begun stressing that a government-run health care option is "not the essential element" in the health reform effort and that health care cooperatives could effectively compete with private insurers to potentially begin lowering health care costs. That however, remains to be seen. The Party of Nope, with its treasure trove of contributions from the health care industry securely in their pockets still has the opportunity to handicap the co-ops as the debate restarts anew in September.

Frankly, I don't know about you, but I don't think we can rely on the for-profit insurance companies to do those things that are needed to make health care affordable for ordinary Americans. Insurance companies are in the business to make money. After all, you can't pay those million dollar executive salaries with peanuts. That means they're going to do everything they can do to take your money. Then they'll turn around and do everything possible so as not to pay out any claims on that policy.

If anyone is guilty of "rationing" ... it's not the government, it's the insurance companies. They ration health insurance to the healthiest people and use pre-existing condition clauses to preclude having to cover anyone with an existing medical condition. So, if you're older, or if you have some medical condition that might require them to potentially pay out on a claim, forget it! No insurance policy at all ... or if you can get one, it's limited in its scope and it's going to be excruciatingly unaffordable.

If Congress is to do anything meaningful with respect to health care reform, it has to be "outlawing the use of pre-existing condition clauses." They're caving on the public option and it looks like they're caving on and removing the Section 1233 provision. My hope is that the Democratic majority does NOT cave in to the Party of Nope and remove the provision from the final bill that would outlaw pre-existing conditions. Heck, if they give in and drop that, they might as well table the whole darn thing and wait another decade or two to try again. Maybe the third time would finally be the charm.

Health Care Reform: End-of-Life Planning

2009-08-11T07:16:00.000-07:00

Much is being written (and misrepresented) about Section 1233 of the Healthcare Reform bill currently in the House bill. This is the section of the bill that modifies the Medicare regulation and provides for medical payments for consultations with your personal doctor related to end-of-life care (living will preparation). Radicals on the far right are characterizing this section of the bill as legislating the creation of death warrants for seniors, thus denyingcare for seniors. That mischaracterization of this section is anything but the truth and is merely a scare tactic to mobilize opposition to the bill.

Over the past few days, I read two quality articles on this subject in the Washington post. The first was an op-Ed by Charles Lane titled, Undue Influence. The second was an article detailing readers responses to the Undue Influence article, titled Views on the Goverment's Role in End-of-Life Planning.

I would encourage you to read both articles. The "Undue Influence" article is written from a skeptic's point of view, questioning whether a doctor might place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign, and questions whether the motivation for this section is monetary, or to really ensure end-of-life wishes of the patient. The "Views" article contains a number of email responses from WP readers who responded to the Undue Influence article with "thoughtful and often eloquent comments." The last "Views" response, from Sara Billings who was a daughter of an ailing father and who is also a healthcare professional, is well worth reading. It accentuates that gray area between feelings and finances, guilt and grief that plays into the hands of those trying to use it to incite fear and enlist people to work against the bill.

Section 1233 of the Healthcare bill does nothing to "limit" healthcare for seniors. If anything, it provides them the opportunity to have an extended consultation, paid for by Medicare, with their personal physicians (and with family members present, if so desired) regarding all types of end-of-life procedures, with discussions of both pros and cons of all types of treatment. It actually would help people (and their relatives) make informed choices. As it stands today, realtives are left to interpret on their own what their relative might have wanted and most of all, what the person's lawyer meant by "extraordinary measures" in their loved one's living will (or DNR—do not rescusitate order) after circumstances have turned awry.

Related Articles —
• The Death Panels are Real [Huffington Post]
• The Real Death Panels: Insurers Deny 22% of Claims [Daily Kos]

Ensign's Latest Weekly Update

2009-08-07T09:54:00.000-07:00

Got the "Weekly Update: Monthly Recap" in this morning's email. Notably absent in his recap is the fact that he voted against the nomination of Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonya Sotomayor. I wonder why that is? Does he think that if he doesn't say anything in his weekly update that hispanic voters won't notice? I think not.

At least he didn't re-broadcast his hypocracy once again ... he left his "sanctity" comment — “While I believe Judge Sotomayor is an impressive role model for millions of Americans, I take my responsibility as Nevada’s Senator very seriously, and feel I need to protect the sanctity of our Constitution."

Like this guy really understands the true meaning of "sanctity."

Party of Nope Fails to Stymie Confirmation

2009-08-06T12:17:00.000-07:00

Today, the Senate, in a 68-31 vote confirmed the appointment of Associate Justice to the Supreme Court Sonya Sotomayor. Senator Reid voted in the affirmative, and Senator Ensign as expected toed the GOP line and voted against her confirmation.

Health Care: The Continuing Saga

2009-08-01T21:09:00.000-07:00

I sometimes wonder why I take the time to write to the members in Congress who supposedly represent 'ME.' It's obvious that Rep. Heller and I are at odds with one another on most things, and there's apparently nothing I can do to change his mind ... or should I say ... deviate from the party line.

My latest foray into letter writing has been with respect to the healthcare debates taking place in Congress. I wrote Rep. Heller (I wrote Senators Reid and Ensign as well) to ask him to make sure that a public plan is included in the final legislation, that they look at and fix other systemic problems within governmental agencies that contribute to higher medical and insurance costs, and that when all was said and done, that Members of Congress should be covered by the same plan that they ultimately make available to the American public at large.

I got my response back from Rep. Heller today. Here's what he had to say:

"Thank you for contacting me to express your support for efforts t make Members of Congress enroll in the government-run healthcare plan proposed in the Democrats' healthcare bill (HR 3200). I appreciate your input on this important issue, and want you to know that I agree with you.
I share your belief that Members of Congress should abide by the same rules the government-run healthcare plan will impose on the American people. As a member of the House Ways & Means Committee, which recently considered the Democrat healthcare bill, I offered an amendment that would have required all Members of Congress and our dependents who choose to receive healthcare coverage to do so through the government-run plan. While my amendment received bipartisan support, it failed on an 18-21 vote. I am very disappointed that my colleagues are not willing to live by the same laws we are about to impose on the American people. I have also cosponsored House Resolution 615, which expresses the sense of Congress that Members who support this government-run plan should enroll in it themselves.
I am very concerned by the current congressional majority's focus on expanding government-run healthcare, which will reduce Americans' health insurance options and make taxpayers responsible for trillions in new spending over the next decade. Introducing a "public plan," which is included in the healthcare bill being considered in the House, would aactually force an estimated 100 million Americans or more from private insurance onto a government plan. Such a proposal is outrageous. Most Americans who have private health insurance are happy with the care they receive and should be able to keep their plan. A taxpayer-funded "public plan" would create an unlevel playing field that would drive many private insurers out of the market — limiting choice for millions of Americans.
Government-run healthcare won't provide the quality care Americans need and deserve. While I understand how some aspencts of a single-payer, nationalized healthcare system may seem attractive, America would do well to learn from other nations' examples before embracing such a policy. For instance, Canada's system recently came under scrutiny by the Canadian Supreme Court because it is failing to deliver healthcare in a timely manner. Many Canadians suffer unnecessarily or die because they cannot see a doctor. Recent reports reveal that thousands of Canadians have to sue their government-run healthcare bureaucracy in order to access the care recommended by their doctor. If that doesn't work, many Canadians actually come to the United States for care.
Instead of relying on big government to fix our healthcare system, Congress should take commonsense steps to ensure the 47 million uninsured Americans have access to health insurance, and reduce the cost of care for all Americans. We must undertake meaningfull medical liability reform, which will reduce overutilization and defensive medicine, which burdens our system with billions in needless costs each year. I have cosponsored legislation that would take significant steps to reduce the number of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits, similar to the changes I fought for in Nevada several years ago.
I also support injecting free market principles in the healthcare system through small business health plans, which would allow small businesses to band together to purchase more affordable insurance, as well as prescription drug reimportation, which will lower the cost of life-saving medication. Tackling these issues will bring us closer to a healtcare delivery system that meets the needs of our diverse population. You can be sure I will keep your thoughts regarding healtcare reform in mind as related issues come before Congress.
Again, thank you for contacting me to share your thoughts. Please continue keeping me informed of the issues that matter to you."

Well, I do have to admit that we agree on just two things, (1) that Members of Congress should be subject to the same plan(s) as they legislate for the rest of us, and (2), that something has to be done relative to frivolous medical lawsuits. The rest of his drivel parallels the bold-faced lies the Republican Party is perpetrating on the public at large. I guess they still subscribe to the proposition that if you tell the lie enough times, the masses will begin to believe it is the truth.

He claims that "his amendment" to make Congress subject to the same coverage legislated for the masses failed to garner the requisite number of votes. So, I thought I'd do some rudimentary fact-checking. Since he's a member of the Ways and Means Cmtee, I started there. But no amendments to HR3200 were noted on their website, nor any evidence of votes taken. A similar check on the Energy and Commerce Cmtee site revealed 38 amendments from that committee (none of which were from Heller and none of which were settled with an 18-21 vote). So much for transparency! As to H.Res. 615, yes indeedy, Rep. Heller is a co-sponsor of this resolution, along with 65 other Republicans (it's disappointing to see that no Democrats have signed on as co-sponsors).

I actually took the time to read HR 3200 ... which was quite the ordeal since it weighs in at more than 1,000 pages and definitely isn't an easy read. Maybe Rep. Heller should also take the time to read the bill instead of sitting around the table with his Republican colleagues drinking the latest flavor of Koolaid. For instance:

His claim that HR3200 would bring Canadian-style health care to America is seriously bogus. Don't believe me, check out FactCheck.org. (1) HR 3200 would not legislate a "Canadian-style" healthcare system, and (2) it does not legislate a purely, public-run system of healthcare delivery.

HR3200 would not reduce opportunities for families and individuals to obtain insurance. Instead, it would actually increase options available to most Americans. Today, people who aren't employed by a company offering medical benefits most likely can't afford a private policy. People who've lost a job in this economy probably can't even get a private police because of cost and because they most likely would be denied coverage based on a determination of one or more pre-existing conditions. HR3200 would not only disallow the use of pre-existing conditions, but it would help create more economical healthcare exchanges through which those who don't qualify for employer healthcare programs that are much more affordable not just for individuals but families as well.

HR3200 would not drive insurance companies out of the business, though it may reduce the outrageous profit margins they have enjoyed over the past decade. The same argument was made when the TVA was created, yet it in no way caused other energy producers to leave the market. In fact, not only do we have regulated utilities today, we have public power producers and even private power producers, so if anything, introduction of the TVA increased competition within the industry. I firmly believe that the introduction of a public healthcare option will increase competion and make health care insurance more affordable for individuals and families throughout our nation.

Rep. Heller's claim that HR3200 will cost tax payers "trillions" apparently suffers from some weird form of rounding error. According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report delivered to Rep. Rangle (chair of the Ways & Means Cmtee), the net increase in budget deficits over a 10 year period would be $1.042T. So that's more than 1 trillion, but far short of $2T. So his claim that it will cost tax payers "trillions" is a bit of a distortion of facts on record.

I haven't a clue where Rep. Heller's getting his information about more than 100 million people being forced off their private insurance and onto a government plan. The CBO's report (pages 4-5) clearly indicates that in an example year of 2017, an additional 3 million individuals are expected to obtain insurance via employer plans, and approximately 29 million would obtain insurance using exchanges (29 million who aren't eligible for employer plans).

I challenge Rep. Heller's claim that Government-run healthcare can't or won't provide the quality care Americans need and deserve. Medicare, ActiveMilitary Healthcare and VA Healthcare are government health care programs, all of which provide effective health care for a vast number of Americans. Sure there are a few isolated problems that get blown out of proportion, but I would argue that private health care organizations are plagued by similar blow-ups in the media.

Rep. Heller claims that Canadians have to sue their government to obtain health care services. Well, Mr. Heller, have you taken a look at how many US Citizens die every year as they are suing their insurance companies in an attempt to obtain the benefits they had paid for, but never received ... and died while fighting to obtain them? I truly believe that in offering a public insurance exchange option to individuals and families just might finally turn that tide. As individuals and families learn the history of individual insurers in granting and denying cases, they just might have more choices of insurers than they do today, to ensure that they can actually obtain effective health care as needed.

Congress is set to adjourn at the end of this week and it's apparent that not only will HR3200 not see a house vote, a companion bill in the Senate has yet to be wrritten. While Democrats have crafted a bill in the house, Republicans have done nothing but complain, distort facts, and promulgate bold-faced lies and misrepresentations. They've brought nothing to the table, and they have no plans whatsoever to bring anything to the table. They they want to be treated in a bi-partisan way, yet they have no intention of bringing anything to the table but one word, "No." Well, that's not going to do anything to help their constituents who are unable to purchase cost-effective insurance for their families, or unable to get their insurance company to actually pay for claims submitted through policies they've purchased.

It's apparent that my efforts haven't yet made an impression on Mr. Heller, but that doesn't mean I'll give up. I've written him again. Please send an email/letter to your Congressmen (both Senators and Representatives) asking them to craft healthcare reform proposals that will guarantee high-quality and affordable healthcare for all and establish a comprehensive public plan option, and urging them to reject proposals to tax employer-provided benefits. Here's a copy of a letter I wrote.

Dear (your congressman's or senator's name),

As Congress considers comprehensive healthcare reform, I am writing to urge you to put partisan politics aside and work diligently to craft a plan that will guarantee high-quality and affordable healthcare for all Americans.

Healthcare reform is a crucial ingredient in strengthening this country. Rising healthcare costs have placed a tremendous strain on families, businesses, state governments and the federal budget. By working together to enact fair reform, we can create a better healthcare system that truly serves all Americans, making us healthier both physically and economically.

Successful reform should establish a comprehensive public plan that guarantees a choice of high-quality, affordable coverage, whether through an individual, employer-based plan or a government-sponsored, public health insurance plan.

I am strongly opposed to any proposal to tax employer-provided health insurance, and I urge you to reject such a plan if it emerges. Individuals, for quite some time, have been struggling to keep up with the rising costs of healthcare. Taxing employer-provided plans would create a disparate impact through additional taxes on 160 million working Americans who currently get health benefits via their employers.

In addition, I urge you to look at systemic problems within government itself that promote rising costs in health care. While I'm sure there are many examples, one
specific example would be the policies at the Patent Office that allow research companies to patent human genes. Such a policy grants an exclusive monopoly to one specific research firm meaning that they are the only firm that can research and provide treatments associated with those patented genes. These monopolies can then charge whatever they wish as there is no competition. The human genone should never be patentable. Any reform package passed by congress should address not just this issue, but any other systemic issue that artificially causes unrealistic increases in healthcare costs we are forced to pay.

Lastly, I would ask that whatever health care reform you choose to impose upon the American Public, that you similarly impose those same rules and policies upon on yourselves ... as you too, are a member of the American Public. You are no better than any of us.

HR3269: Compensation Fairness Act

2009-08-01T08:09:00.000-07:00

The House voted 237-185 in favor of passing HR3269: Corporate & Financial Inst Compensation Fairness Act. Nevada's CD-2 Representative, Dean Heller, toed the Republican line and voted against the bill (Rep. Titus and Rep. Berkeley voted in favor of passage). It still needs to be voted on in the Senate where we'll probably see the same negative response from Sen. John Ensign.

This bill would amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to allow shareholders to express their pleasure, or displeasure, with executive compensation packages. These votes would not be considered binding on the corporation or the board of directors. (Though non-binding, it would most likely impact shareholder votes for board of director members at subsequent shareholder meetings.) It also requires bank regulating agencies to prescribe joint regulations that prohibit any compensation structure or incentive-based payment arrangement that encourages inappropriate risks by financial institutions or their officers or employees that could: (1) threaten the safety and soundness of covered financial institutions; or (2) present serious adverse effects on economic conditions or financial stability.

It's too bad that I live in a Republican-dominated area of the state where two of our elected representatives strictly toe the Republican party's neoliberalistic free market line. I guess they haven't learned that unlike human beings, corporations have no souls, they've never heard of the 'golden rule,' and they will do what's best for themselves at the expense of all others and continue to do so until stopped. I view these modifications of the SEC Act of 1934 as positive and necessary changes to curb the runamuck greed and outrageous risk-taking created by defective compensation schemes used not just in the banking sector, but in other large corporations throughout our country. And ... I'll continue writing and calling the offices of Heller and Ensign even though I'm sure my comments are falling on deaf ears.

What Planet is He From?

2009-07-31T14:00:00.000-07:00

I don't think Mr. Ensign will be running for President of this nation any time soon, because its painfully obvious to the most casual observer that he has to have been born on some other planet entirely. If you're not one of the privileged to get one of his "Weekly Updates," (I'm on his list because I sent him regular emails about how I think he should vote, not that he ever does) here's what he had to say about health care reform in this week's update:

Over the last couple of weeks, I have held numerous telephone town hall meetings with Nevadans in both the north and south of our state. From these calls, it is clear to me that the American people are extremely wary of the healthcare reform proposals coming from the other side of the aisle. Back in Washington, D.C., healthcare reform is turning into quite the partisan battle, but both sides do agree that our health care system is in need of reform. The time has come to set aside
party differences and to put a reform plan in action that will benefit all Americans.

As a Republican leader on health care (pardon me, but what????), I am hopeful that we can put forth a bipartisan plan that will cover those who need health insurance, without hurting those who are already covered with a government takeover. My vision for health care is ust that; reforming the system, not creating a new government-run program that will end up hurting millions of Americans and their choice in health insurance.

Health care is a very personal issue for Americans, and choice in their coverage should play a vital role in a healthcare bill. Further, Americans should be incentivized to lead a healthy lifestyle. Weight management, preventive care, and smoking cessation should be reflected in lower insurance rates. Medical costs and errors could be greatly decreased through electronic medical records and medical liability reform.

With these cornerstones, I am working with my colleagues to develop a healthcare reform bill that will improve health care in America, won’t increase the deficit, and will continue to put patients and their doctors first – not government bureaucrats. With this in mind, I will continue to work hard for you in the United States Senate.

To whom has he been talking? Must have been a bunch of upper-class elite Republicans, because it sure sounds like a bit of group-think going on during those townhall meetings. Did any of you get invited?

The Republicans don't have plan, and have publicly stated they don't intend to introduce a plan. And now that we've read Mr. Ensign's update, we all know why: we wouldn't have any problems if we'd all just lose some weight, stop smoking and eat healthy. Problem solved. Next.

Where's the Plan?

2009-07-24T12:50:00.000-07:00

Republicans are certainly generating a lot of wind about how the health care plan currently being considered in the Congress, saying it will cost too much, it will cause working Americans to lose their current employer-subsidized plans, and that it will only create a system for rationing socialized medical services.

Well ... I'm getting tired of all the negative rhetoric being spewed out by the GOP machine. Thus far, the best the GOP has been able to do was present a vague 4-page outline of their health care reform plan ... but they couldn't predict how much it would cost, nor could or would they say how they would fund their plan and who it would actually cover. You'd think in the 5 weeks since they introduced that pitiful excuse of a plan that they could have at least fleshed it out to let Americans know how they would approach the health care dilemmas facing vast number of Americans. Everybody knows that if you want to debate the subject, you need to bring something of substance to the table. Heck, my grand kid's homework assignments have considerably more substance than the GOP's plan. But instead of substance, the Party of NO merely chose to fall back on their traditional scare-tactics political advertising machine.

Clara Peller said it best in those all familiar Wendy's commercials when she said, "Where's the Beef?" So hey GOP, "where's YOUR plan?"

And the Circus Begins

2009-07-13T10:53:00.000-07:00

This morning marked the beginning of the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court Nominee, Sonya Sotomayor, and it seems that we're in store for some serious political theatrics. Already, just in the opening statements from a number of Senators from each party, a marked difference in the tone and tenor of their remarks.

While each side has congratulated her on her nomination, it pretty much stops there for the Republicans. Where Democrats have praised the depth and breadth of her judicial experience and record, the Republicans are trying to paint her as an activist who is not qualified to sit on our nation's highest court.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) implied that she would substitute her own beliefs in deciding cases, thus corrupting our legal system with her empathy. He further went on to state: "I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any President who is not fully committed to fairness and impartiality towards every person who appears before them. I will not vote for—no senator should vote for—an individual nominated by any President who believes it is acceptable for a judge to allow their own personal background, gender, prejudices, or sympathies to sway their decision in favor of, or against, parties before the court. "Sen. Sessions also indicated that looking at judicial opinions is not a good test, because Supreme Court Justices cannot be reversed. I beg to differ with that statement. A perfect case in point is that of Lilly Ledbetter, where Congress just passed legislation that reversed the opinion of the Supreme Court ... and that legislation was recently signed into law by President Obama on January 29, 2009.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) implied in his remarks that even if she has an impressive legal record and a superior intellect, he fears she will use her "empathy" to legislate from the bench ... that she would be "a creative jurist who will allow his or her background and personal preferences to decide cases."
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) condemned her experience from the appellate court by claiming that "... she appears to believe that her role is not constrained to objectively decide who wins based on the weight of the law, but who, in her opinion, should win. The factors that will influence her decisions apparently include her 'gender and Latina heritage' and foreign legal concepts that get her 'creative juices going." He also implied that she may not be able to "...faithfully interpret the laws and Constitution and take seriously the oath of her prospective office ... Until now, Judge Sotomayor has been operating under the restraining influence of a higher authority—the Supreme Court. If confirmed, there will be no such restraint that would prevent her from—to paraphrase President Obama—deciding cases based on her heart-felt views."
Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) implied that, if confirmed, she would steer the Court in the wrong direction limiting the fundamental rights of generations of Americans stating, "Judge Sotomayor: some of your opinions suggest that you would limit some of our basic constitutional rights – and some of your public statements suggest that you would invent rights that do not exist in our written Constitution."

Judge Sotomayor is a restrained and moderate jurist who was put on the bench initially by Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush. She dilligently reviews all relevant information before her in making a decision. In fact, her decision on the appellate court regarding the New Haven firefighters (which was recently overturned by the Supreme court and which the GOP seems to want to rant the most about about) was one that clearly followed precedents set in earlier court rulings ... the exact kind of rulings that conservatives purportedly claim to embrace. In defense of Judge Sotomayor, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) took exception to some of the political theatrics stating: "Mr. Chairman, every senator is entitled to ask whatever questions he or she wants ... Judge Sotomayor will finally have an opportunity to answer some of the unsubstantiated charges that have been made against her. One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record ..."

But, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD) said it best today, "Nominated by both Democratic and Republican presidents, for 17 years she has been a distinguished jurist and now has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in the last hundred years. "

Let's all hope the political theatrics affecting this confirmation are minimal and that Judge Sotomayor's confirmation happens quickly.

Too Much Heat in the Kitchen

2009-07-04T07:20:00.000-07:00

It appears that Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin has found that there is too much heat in the kitchen and has opted to leave ... mid-term. Citing in her resignation speech the amount of negative attention she has received since accepting to run as McCain's running mate, she condemned those who participate in the "politics of personal destruction."

She made two claims (watch the video): (1) that this undue attention has cost Alaskans thousands of hours and approximately $2M dollars to defend her against 15 frivolous etchics violation allegations, and (2) that it will personally cost she and her husband $0.5M to set the record straight. So ... what's her solution? She won't run for re-election. Oh ... but that creates a "lame duck" situation. Oh, no problem, she'll just resign so Alaskans don't have to endure her lame duck status over the next 18 months. And since everybody believes in freedom, Alaskans are then "free to progress" as is she.

To her, the circular reasoning is flawless. But, in announcing she wouldn't seek re-election, she herself created her "lame duck" status, which she then exploited to justify quitting mid-stream. Well Sarah, Americans don't look too fondly upon quitters. I seem to recall that quitting mid-stream didn't work so well for another political hopeful (Ross Perot). When the flames got to hot, he got out of the pot and he never managed to find a way back in. I, personally, hope that proves to be the case for you as well. You're the last person we ever need to see sitting in the oval office making decisions that will affect each and every one of us.

Conscience Rule Still on the Books

2009-06-07T07:40:00.001-07:00

Like Barbara Coombs Lee of the Huffington Post, I cannot be silent about the fact that the Obama Administration has not yet rescinded this onerous regulation, that puts the consciences of anyone working in and around the medical fields above those of the women of this nation.

"Most physicians believe that even if they object to a legal treatment, they still have a duty to tell the patient it is available. After all, how can patients make informed decisions about their various treatment options if their doctors refuse to disclose all treatment options? But a good number of morality-driven doctors said they don't tell patients about the treatments they find morally objectionable. The HHS authorities (under Secretary Leavitt) clearly wanted to protect them by establishing a provider's right to withhold crucial information.

Before this rule went into effect, it was unlikely that people with strong objections to certain medical treatments would choose to work in a hospital or clinic where the treatments occur. With the "conscience regulation in place, that may no longer be the case in that the rule may now urge ideologues into action. It encourages them to go to work where they can impose their beliefs on the maximum number of medical patients."

With all the attention on the economy, not much is being paid to whether our new HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, is taking any action to rescind this regulation. A search on Google, however, reveals that those who wish to impose their religious ideologies on others are quite active in their attempts to retain the regulation on the books.

I'm sorry, but I personally view Leavitt's "conscience regulation" as not just a threat to the reproductive health of women, but a first step in the subjugation of women in our society. This regulation is far too broad and affects more than just the singular issue of "abortion." It impacts the full range of women's reproductive health issues, from the ability to obtain effective contraception, to seeking invitro fertilization, to obtaining information about alternative reproductive treatments, to family planning counselling, to the "morning-after" pill, to obtaining tubal ligation procedures, to stem cell research, to referrals, to you name it.

A number of Federal rules/regulations already shield health care workers from participating in services they find objectionable. They're able to step back and let another staff member take their place in handling objectional procedures. However, using the new regulation protections, they can now impose their religious beliefs on others, by denying treatment, by denying information, by denying coverage, and by denying access to prescriptions. Something's very, very wrong with that premise and that's not what I grew up believing America was all about.

The deadline for submitting comments related to the rescission of Leavitt's "conscience regulation" expired on April 9, 2009. Today is June 7,2009. I wonder how long it's going to take them to make their decision?

ACLU Challenges Patents on Human Genes

2009-05-18T16:58:00.000-07:00

Image via Wikipedia

Got this one in my email today ... and I have to agree with their stance:

There is something fundamentally wrong with companies being able to own the rights to pieces of the human genome. Yet more than 20% of the human genetic code has been patented.

Last Tuesday, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed a groundbreaking lawsuit charging that patents on two human genes (BRCA1 and BRCA2) associated with breast and ovarian cancer are unconstitutional and invalid. These two genes, the patents on which are controlled by Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah, are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers.

For the past 20 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has been issuing patents on human genes -- the segments of DNA that we all have in our cells -- giving private corporations, individuals, and universities the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. There is something fundamentally wrong with companies being able to own the rights to pieces of the human genome.

This raises serious civil liberties concerns because the government is essentially giving patent holders a monopoly over these genes and all the information contained within them. Patent holders have the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying, or even looking at the genes. The ACLU believes this is a gross violation of First Amendment rights: individuals’ rights to know about their own genetic makeup, doctors’ rights to provide their patients with crucial medical information, and scientists’ rights to study the human genome and develop new treatments and genetic tests.

As a result of the U.S. Patent Office granting patents on the BRCA genes to Myriad Genetics, Myriad's lab is the only place in the country where diagnostic testing can be performed. And, because only Myriad can test for the BRCA gene mutations, others are prevented from testing these genes or developing alternative tests.

Myriad's monopoly on the BRCA genes also makes it impossible for women to access other tests or get a second opinion about their results and allows Myriad to charge a high rate for their tests -- over $3,000, which is too expensive for many women to afford."

Patents are meant to protect inventions, not things that exist in nature like genes in the human body," said Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the ACLU. "Genes isolated from the human body are no more patentable than gold extracted from a mountain."

>>Learn more about the case and the plaintiffs.

>>Watch the video and learn why it is important that we stop the government from allowing companies like Myriad to own our genes.

>>Take Action: Sign a message of support.

Oil Imports

2009-04-03T14:58:00.001-07:00

"Right to Refuse" Rescission Up for Comment

2009-03-25T07:24:00.000-07:00

Posted on Regulations.gov on March 10, 2009 is document HHS_FRDOC_0001-0050 which describes the process for submitting comments relative to the rescission of the Regulation entitled "Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law."

SUMMARY: The Department of Health and Human Services proposes to rescind
the December 19, 2008 final rule entitled "Ensuring That Department of Health
and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or
Practices in Violation of Federal Law.'' The Department believes it is important
to have an opportunity to review this regulation to ensure its consistency with
current Administration policy and to reevaluate the necessity for regulations
implementing the Church Amendments, Section 245 of the Public Health Service
Act, and the Weldon Amendment.

DATES: Submit written or electronic comment on the regulatory changes
proposed by this document by April 9, 2009.
CFR Citation 45 CFR Part 88
Page Count 5
RIN 0991-AB49
Fed Register # E9-05067
Date Posted 03/10/2009
Comment Start Date 03/10/2009
Comments Due Date 04/09/2009

You can submit your comments online relative to rescission of this regulation here. All comments must be received by 4/9/2009.

Wake Up Mr. Liddy ... Kill the Bonuses!

2009-03-17T06:38:00.000-07:00

The 'bonus' situation on Wall Street, and more particularly with AIG is beginning to seriously anger American taxpayers, especially since we are the ones who enabled them to remain in business and not go under. It's like a slap in our faces that they hand out unwarranted and outrageous bonuses to poorly performing executives. Must be nice to be able to receive a bonus for unsuccessful performance. Only on Wall Street!

AIG, along with other Wall Street and Banking Corporations, need to fire their Human Resource Compensation staffs and replace them with people who understand how to create equitable compensation and incentive packages. Bonuses should not be payable just because there is a warm butt in a chair on a certain date. Bonuses should be payable only when certain parameters are met that positively impact the bottom-line effectiveness of the firm. Various factors (multipliers) should be assigned and assessed that can have a range of from ZERO to some number (e.g., 0-10%) that when multiplied against base salary determine whether and how much of a bonus is warranted for the performance.

When the bottom line is ZERO or in negative numbers, the performance factor would also be ZERO ... thus yielding ZERO bonus ... since we all should readily understand that ZERO times any number would yield ZERO dollars bonus.

Having worked in Human Resources during my working career, I understand how compensation packages work and fault the HR-Compensation group and the upper executives of AIG for designing such a faulty compensation mechanism that rewards ineffective and destructive performance of not just it's executives, but by extension, all of its employees since those executives will then lead their departments in ways to maximize their own personal compensation package ... at the expense of the health and welfare of the overall firm.

Edward Liddy, AIG's CEO, claims his hands are tied in that the employee contracts require him to pay out these bonuses. Um ... that didn't stop the Auto industry to renegotiate their labor contracts to restrict auto workers' compensation packages! If the taxpayers hadn't stepped in with bail-out money ... I doubt he'd be paying out those bonuses ... or that employees would prevail in bankruptcy court in recouping any bonus compensation. I simply cannot fathom how these executives (toxic assets, themselves), who amassed such toxic assets (loans and other illiquid assets) for a firm that needed to have taxpayers bail them out, could themselves worthy of any form of additional compensation for their outrageously ineffective performance?

Mr. Liddy also claims that if he doesn't pay the bonuses, he'll be "unable to retain talented staff members." Excuse me? Sounds like his staff has a talent he could afford to lose. Not only that, where exactly, in this pitiful economy does he expect that his 'talented' staff is going to go? Has he looked at the number of truly talented people who are currently out there desperately looking for positions and who are eager to do a wonderful job for employers willing to give them a chance to once again bring home enough money to put food on the table and to pay the mortgage?

Apparently the term "toxic assets" no longer describes just bad loans and financial instruments. It now extends to those people on the payroll who created them in the first place. Maybe, just maybe, Mr. Liddy ... you should seriously consider ridding AIG of some of the toxic personnel assets now found in your HR-Compensation group and executive ranks who may be preventing or inhibiting a turn-around in AIG's bottom-line performance!

Related Posts:
• AIG Bonuses 'Staggering' in Size (ABC News)

Ensign Touting GOP Line Against EFCA

2009-03-16T06:38:00.000-07:00

I'm not a fan of organized unions, but that's another discussion for another time. However, I do draw the line at the tactics now being used by Senator Ensign to promote the Republican line against the "Employee Free Choice Act" ... dubbing it the "Employee NO Choice Act." Clearly, he doesn't know how the current union certification process actually works (or doesn't work), and he hasn't taken the time to read the proposed EFCA for himself to see what it 'really' says.

Here's his latest video release essentially ranting that he'll oppose this act to his last dying breath:

A quick read on Wikipedia reveals:

In order for a workplace to organize under current U.S. labor law, the card check process begins when an employee requests blank cards from an existing union, and requests signatures on the cards from his colleagues.^[3] Once 30% of the work force has signed the cards, the employer may decide to hold a secret ballot election on the question of unionization.^[3] In practice, the results of the card check are not presented to the employer until 50 or 60% of employees have signed the cards to help ensure winning the election.^[3] If the majority of votes favor the union, the National Labor Relations Boardwill certify it as the exclusive representative of the employess for the purpose of collective bargaining.
Under current labor law, workers can select union representation either through an election process or through majority sign-up (also known as “card check”). However, the U.S. National Labor Relations Board will certify a union as the exclusive representative of employees only if it is selected by a secret ballot NLRB election. Such an election is held if more than 30 percent of employees in a bargaining unit sign cards asking for representation by a union. Yet a company can refuse to bargain with a union chosen by workers through majority sign-up, even if 100 percent of the workers want to be represented by the union. The choice of whether to use an election process or majority sign-up to form the union is now exclusively controlled by companies. If enacted, the Employee Free Choice Act would require the NLRB to certify a bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed such cards through the majority sign-up process.[1]

If enacted, EFCA would require the NLRB to certify the union as the bargaining representative without directing an election if a majority of the bargaining unit employees signed cards;^[1] however, employees may still request a secret ballot election if 30% of employees petition for one.^[3]The EFCA would "allow the employees—rather than the employer—to decide whether to hold a secret-ballot election."^[3][emphasis added]

So Mr. Ensign ... yell at the wind all you want. Employees WILL have a choice ... it's just that it's the EMPLOYEES, not the EMPLOYERS, who will have the choice in HOW their union is certified.

They Raised the Debt Ceiling Again!

2009-03-12T10:57:00.001-07:00

I find it interesting that in all that we heard about HR 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill), we never heard the media telling us about the provision that raised our US Debt Ceiling, this time to $12,104,000,000,000.00.

HR 1; Subtitle G - Other Provisions; Section 1604 - Increased the public debt limit to $12.104T.

Must be nice to be able to merely vote to increase the value of your available credit limit whenever you like. As ordinary citizens, we don't have that opportunity and can't spend more than what is available in our personal bank accounts. If we start spending money we don't have, a lawman picks us up and throws us in the pokey ... but if Congress wants to spend more money than they're taking in, they just throw a provision in whatever bill is currently being considered to raise the debt ceiling and wallah ... they can spend even more of taxpayer's money on every whim of fancy they can dream up!

Change We Can Believe In?

2009-03-12T10:19:00.000-07:00

Today... President Obama has earned his first Flip-Flop award for flip-flopping on his campaign promise to change how business is done in Washington through vetoing bills with excessive earmarks. Behind closed doors, he signed the $410 billion omnibus budget bill that provides as much as 8-10% in increased funding for a number of governmental agencies through September of this year. The omnibus budget bill also contained more than 8,500 earmarked projects that will cost taxpayers more than $7.7 Billion ... that's Billion with a B ... not pocket change by any measure of the word.

At a time when middle income taxpayers have had to tighten their belts to make ends meet, and when those same taxpayers are worried about whether they'll even have jobs by the end of the week/month/year, Congress as well as the President apparently don't understand that it's no longer "last year" ... that economic conditions have taken a severe downturn ... and that the spending they just approved was excessive and totally inappropriate.

Spending earmarks that don't have a corresponding budgetary offset should be outlawed!

Dead Woman Walking

2009-03-11T08:27:00.000-07:00

Over the years, women have come a long way in terms of getting the police and prosecutors to take their complaints of domestic violence seriously. I still vividly remember a San Diego policeman's callous discussion with me as he explained the only thing my restraining order was good for was for figuring out who might have killed me should I turn up dead. Yet ... young women like Rihanna don't seem to be paying all that much attention to the experiences so many of us fought for so desparately just to be able to survive.

Rihanna should take heed of Oprah's sincere warning. "If he hit you once, he WILL hit you again!" Chris Brown didn't just "hit" Rihanna, he literally beat her up ... enough that she'll need some reconstruction surgery ... and then he threatened to kill her. Believe me, he'll do it again and she'll be lucky to survive the second attack. And I'm speaking from experience when I say that.

Young women can be a bit naive and think "oh ... he loves me ... and he'll change." Yep ... been there ... done that. I can attest that he will change alright ... but probably not in the direction she's expecting. The violence will only escalate. As a survivor of a domestically violent first marriage and having personally looked down the barrell of a loaded 45 before being able to finally talk him out of killing me, I can attest to the fact that it doesn't get better, but in fact, gets much worse. Had I not been in the Navy and had they not shipped me half way around the world (to Iceland ... of all places) ... I'd probably have been buried 6' under somewhere in San Diego long, long ago. I was also lucky not to have any children at the time ... which probably would have guaranteed him the access to me that he would have needed to carry out his threats of continued violence. After all ... in his mind, I wasn't a human being, I was his personal property, to do with as he pleased.

Walk away now Rihanna, and count yourself lucky if he never darkens your doorstep again.

Video: Oprah Warns Rihanna

Earmarks ... Corrupt and Corrupting

2009-03-01T08:32:00.000-08:00

Has anyone out there been paying attention to the debate over the omnibus budget bill ... and that was just passed by the House of Representatives? It has ~9,000 earmarks ... or pork! In other words, it has ~9,000 spending additions to the bill that are above and beyond what is forecasted by the 2009 budget. It's now before the Senate and the number of personal earmarks for additional funding could rise even higher before it finally heads to President Obama's desk for signature.

As President Obama signed the stimulus bill, he bragged about this claim that there were no earmarks in his stimulus bill — yet he's been silent as he prepares to put his signature on the Omnibus Budget bill that contains 9,000 earmarks. Regardless of whether this bill is a carryover from the Bush days, it's being debated and approved for implementation under the Obama Administration, and as far as I'm concerned, he owns it and it's the equivalent of going back on his campaign promises if he signs it without a word about all of the earmarks.

For those of you who may not understand the term "earmark," the rules committee of the U.S. House of Representatives defines the earmarking process as:

“To set aside funds for a specific purpose, use, or recipient. Generally
speaking, virtually every appropriation is earmarked, and so are certain revenue
sources credited to trust funds. In common usage, however, the term is often
applied as an epithet for funds set aside for such purposes as research
projects, demonstration projects, parks, laboratories, academic grants, and
contracts in particular congressional districts or states or for certain
specified universities or other organizations.”

The earmarking process has become corrupt ... and is corrupting in and of itself. Need a vote for a particular bill? No problem ... use an earmark for some Representative's/Senator's pet project in his/her home state as a bribe to get their vote. Want to assure your re-election? Stuff a bunch of pork in one bill after another to "bring home the bacon" so to speak for your constituents. The problem is that earmarks aren't offsets to the approved budget, they're appropriations above and beyond what's in the approved Federal budget.

According to Senator Harry Reid, "Who better knows the needs of each district and state, he argued, than the members representing those populations? Since we've been a country, we have had an obligation as a Congress to help direct spending," Reid told reporters on Capitol Hill. "We cannot let spending be done by a bunch of nameless, faceless bureaucrats buried in this town someplace."

I take exception to Harry's statement. And let me put that exception in terms that everybody will clearly understand. Your family has a monthly/annual budget. You have fixed (mortgage, car loans, utilities, taxes, etc.) components and discretionary (food, gasoline, clothing, entertainment, etc.) components. You've worked hard to balance your budget so you won't be faced with bankruptcy or foreclosure ... but then all of a sudden ... someone, let's say your mortgage lender comes along and decides that to keep your mortgage, you have to spend money to replace all the carpet in your house, or that you have to add a pole barn in your back yard. You didn't budget for that. There's no income to fund that ... but needless to say ... you now have to comply, because, afterall, the mortgage lender knows best. The homeowner might be forced into bankruptcy or foreclosure.

Well ... by continually approving budgets that contain deficits (more outlays than income), and then by approving one earmarked appropriation after another that is above and beyond the approved budgetary outlays, our elected representatives in Congress are killing the financial and national security of not just us, but our children, and their children as well as their children. It's criminal! At some point, China and Japan will start calling in the debt, and then where will we be?

Related Posts:
• In Senate, Bipartisan Love of Earmarks (By Paul Kane)
• Are Earmarks Defensible? (Washington Post)

"Right to Refuse" Regulation Re-do

2009-02-28T10:05:00.000-08:00

As I perused the Columbus Dispatch this morning I came across an article indicating that President Obama's administration will be publishing a notice of its intentions to repeal the "right to refuse" regulation promulgated by Secy Leavitt in the waning days of the Bush Administration. That will open a 30-day comment period for advocates on both sides, and both medical personnel and the public to speak out for and against repeal of the regulation.

I figured we'd have to wait until they finally nominated and confirmed a new Secretary of Health & Human Services, but it looks like they're moving ahead without waiting. I'm looking forward to submitting comments calling for the repeal of this onerous regulation that demoted women to second-class citizen status. This regulation goes far beyond the issue of abortion in restricting available reproductive health services. As it stands now you can only obtain those services your health provider is willing to provide based on his/her religious beliefs. And that same physician no longer is required to provide you with a referral to another doctor who might provide the services you're seeking. That's just not right and it adversely affects women in rural areas of the country worse than those in urban areas ... but it adversely impacts us all on the basis of someone else's religious beliefs, making our beliefs subordinate and inconsequential to theirs.

An Inconvenient Debt -- Glenn Beck

2009-02-27T12:09:00.001-08:00

Fixing the Damage Left by the Bush Administration

2009-02-27T10:50:00.000-08:00

Here is a video of Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) speaking in favor of a new commission proposed by Senator Leahy to investigate damage to our democracy resulting from the Bush Administration:

New Prez ... Different Party in Control ... But ...

2009-02-25T05:23:00.000-08:00

It's been a while since my last post. I'm temporarily in Columbus, OH trying to sell our previous home located there. It's taken me a while to get it fixed back up and once again on the market. In the three years we've been trying to find a buyer, it's been one disaster followed by another ... first a major Columbus builder flooded the local market with belly-up mortgage defaults from people they financed who normally wouldn't have been able to finane a stick of bubble gum ... the following year, the city ripped out the street in front of our home leaving a huge gaping hole where a street used to be while they ran all new water, sewer and gas lines up and down the street (even if someone couldn't live without our home they wouldn't have bought it because they couldn't have gotten a moving van anywhere near it) ... and then finally, the entire economy apparently taking a trip to some other planet. Add to all that, realtors who fail to act on reasonable requests to turn on the furnace in preparation for winter, or to turn off the water just in case there might be a lengthy power outage, and you get the general impression of the kind of other disasters that can result. Needless to say ... I'm here until it sells and it's now listed as FSBO, For Sale By Owner. With the loss of 25% of its previous value ... we can no longer afford another 6% (but that's another story for another day).

Since we're directly affected by the downturn in the housing market, I sat down last night to listen to our new President's speech to Congress, the Joint Chiefs, the Supreme Court, the Cabinet ... and of course, the American People. I have to say that he's one hell of an orator. I may be a Democrat ... but I'm also a fiscal conservative ... and in that regard, I definitely was NOT impressed.

If you haven't noticed lately, our national debt is rapidly approaching $11 Trillion! Yes, he talked about cutting the 'deficit' in half by the end of his term ... but for those of you not paying close attention ... the "budget deficit" is not the same thing as the "national debt." Let me explain. A budget deficit is like not having enough money in your monthly budget to pay all the bills that will come due by the end of that month. The national debt is like your home's mortgage. However, the government isn't and hasn't been paying anything each year against principle for quite some time. They've been handling the debt more like folks who took out interest-only mortgages. And if you've been watching the news, those are the folks who found themselves in default when they could no longer keep up with payments, or when portions of that debt came due. At some point, we're going to have to begin paying down the National Debt instead of continually growing it beyond our ability to pay back during our lifetimes.

I listened carefully as President Obama promised to cut the 'deficit' in half by the end of his "first" term. Well ... frankly, that just isn't good enough. At the rate things are going this year, the deficit is rapidly approaching $2-3 Trillion. So ... if in year 2 it's only $1.8T, year 3 it's only $1.3T and year 4 it's $1T" ... that means that the national debt ... you know ... that borrowed money your kids, grandkids and great grandkids are going to have to pay back (because you'll be long gone), is going to approach somewhere between $16-17 Trillion before the end of his first term.

That is totally, and absolutely unacceptable! It's criminal! The U.S. economy is never going to get better if the U.S. Government is continually fighting to borrow the same monies, and crowding out "consumers" and "small businesses" from getting loads from banks who are weary about loaning to anybody these days. Who can blame them? The government itself is getting to the point where they aren't going to have the physical assets nor the political clout to finance of stick of bubble gum. No wonder Secretary Clinton broke from tradition and went to the far eastern countries on her first diplomatic mission (China and Japan are the biggest financers of our national debt, with our social security funds coming in a close third). She had the ominous task of making sure they weren't getting ready to call in a good portion of our national debt.

Low interest rates and out of control spending is what helped get us where we are today. Congress needs understand it's no longer business as usual. Just like American families across this nation have had to learn, Congress needs to learn the difference between "wants" and "absolute needs." "Wants" ... while nice to have, they're out of the question! And ..."absolute needs" need to be scrutinized to make sure they're not the equivalent of 'wolves dressed up as sheep' just so some Congressman can get his pet project through the butgetary process. According to Senator McCain on CNN this morning, a current bill before Congress has over 9,000 earmarks in it. Hello Congress ... you need to change they way you do business! The corrupt use of 'earmarks' (or government-sponsored bribery) needs to end. It's not 'free' money! We, the American public, just can't afford the frivolous Congressional spending.

Mark my words ... taxes ARE going to rise ... they'll have to! Budget Deficits fuel the National Debt which is rising far too rapidly ... and unlike our 401k monies ... that debt isn't going to evaporate on its own, not today, not tomorrow, and definitely, not in the future.

A different opinion:
• Deficits and the Future, Paul Krugman

Leavitt Promulgated Midnight "Right to Refuse" Rule

2008-12-19T08:16:00.000-08:00

Despite the opposition of women's health advocates and many other U.S. citizens who submitted comments in opposition to this rule, Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt announced on Thursday, Dec. 18th that he was implementing his 'conscience protection' rule for the health care industry. The rule which was published in the Federal Register that same day, will take effect the day before President Bush leaves office. President-elect Obama has already indicated his criticism against this rule and said he was "committed to ensuring that the health and reproductive rights of women are protected."

This rule not only says providers can be charged with discrimination if an employee is pressured to participate in care that is "contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions," it also broadens the scope of 'who' can exercise their beliefs, from the janitor who cleans the operating rooms and doctors offices, to the person who sterilizes the instruments, to the receptionist scheduling appointments, to the pharmacist who might be asked to fill a prescription. This rule also sets a new precedent. Doctors who conscientiously object to providing certain health services on religious grounds no longer have an obligation to refer that patient to someone who might.

So let's see how that plays out. Let's say you're a woman who lives in rural Nevada. Let's also say you're covered by an HMO where you have to select a primary care physician (PHP) and to see a different doctor, you must have a referral from your PHP. Now, let's say your PHP has certain religious convictions that you're unaware of and that would prevent him from performing (or referring you for) an abortion under ANY circumstances, or from providing emergency contraception for rape victims, or for providing invitro fertilization services, or even for prescribing birth control pills. Given the realm of possible women's health services, the list could go on and on. Once in effect, this rule would mean, that your doctor not only doesn't have to provide these services (which is the case today under existing law), but he would no longer have to provide a referral (the new precedent in this rule). He also wouldn't be required to provide you will full medical options. For example, if you were pregnant and the fetus had a severe abnormality that might affect your decision-making whether to carry the fetus to full-term, he doesn't have to tell you anything. It also means you paid an insurance premium for medical services for which you can no longer be reimbursed if you can't get that PHP to provide you with a referral slip.

Now let's take it a step further. Remember, this new rule will broaden "who" can exercise their religious convictions to prevent you from receiving certain services. Let's say you call your doctor's office to make an appointment. The first thing the receptionist is going to say is "... and why is it you need to see the doctor?" When you explain that you want to see the doctor to explore potential contraceptive options, she'll be able to legally refuse to make the appointment if she opposes the use of contraception based on religious grounds.

But, we haven't yet seen the second foot fall. I'm waiting to see how the insurance industry will view this potentially lucrative Christmas present from HHS Secretary Leavitt. He has indicated in his blog posts about the rule, that it is to be intended to be interpreted 'broadly.' Thus, the insurance industry, which provides funding that could enable certain services, could choose to exercise their religious beliefs and refuse to pay for certain women's reproductive health services. So, if you could find a PHP who would provide you with full information and options, your insurance policy would deny any payment.

I realize that the constitution guarantees us 'freedom of religion' ... but what the women of this nation truly need is 'freedom from religion.' This rule of law takes it well more than one step too far. It gives health professionals and everyone who serves them more rights than women, and relegates women's rights to those of second-class citizens. Under this rule of law, we'll no longer have access to full reproductive health information and services. We'll have available to us only what the religious convictions of our provider dictates we can have. I, for one, believe that rule is an affront to the women of this nation and that it is unconstitutional.

Related Posts:
• Los Angelos Times: Health providers' 'conscience' rule to take effect
• Washington Post: Rule Shields Health Workers Who Withhold Care Based on Beliefs
• NPR: Bush's Last-Minute 'Conscience' Rules Cause Furor
• NY Times: Medical ‘Conscience Rule’ Is Issued
• HHS: HHS Issues Final Regulation to Protect Health Care Providers from Discrimination
• My Previous Posts regarding HHS Secretary's Actions

Incoming ! ! ! !

2008-12-16T13:17:00.000-08:00

I love this cartoon by Jeff Danziger. We, too, should have such a custom.

Jeff Danziger provides a scathing international take on politics, finance, and everything else you aren't allowed to discuss at the dinner table. Combining spot-on caricatures with razor-sharp writing, this feature will make you listen a little more closely to what they tell you on the news.

Bush Admin OKs Religious-Based Discrimination

2008-12-16T08:41:00.000-08:00

I've been following HHS Sec'y Leavitt's efforts to expand protections for religious objectors to women's reproductive services for some time now. As I googled my usual daily search for "leavitt conscience regulation," I came across an article on Daily Kos: "Bush's Final Double Standard on Religious Discrimination."

I thought that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it unlawful for an employer to discriminate as to hiring, firing, compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. However, it seems that the Bush Administration quietly posted a ruling for a case involving a 2007 World Vision case in mid-October 2008 that allows taxpayer monies to be given to religious-based groups who hire as employees, only those who espouse their particular faith. In arriving at this ruling, I do believe they stretched their logic a bit in relying on the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. And ... if this ruling goes unchallenged, it will be a giant leap backwards.

I grew up in Utah as what I'll call an NCF (not of the common faith). Not only was I an NCF, but I was a female ... that meant two strikes against me when I got old enough to go out seeking my first job. It was common practice back then to see a block for "ward number" on the employment application. If you weren't a Mormon, you wouldn't belong to a ward, which meant you didn't have a Ward number nor a Bishop who would give you a recommendation for the job. Thus, you wouldn't receive a job interview, let alone an offer of employment. I finally managed to get a Catholic nun at the local hospital to hire me as a Nurse's Aide.

World Vision's Web site notes under its employment qualifications that U.S. applicants will be "screened for Christian commitment." How many more "religious-based" organizations will now follow World Vision's lead and begin discriminating on the basis of religion in their employment practices. This ruling in conjunction with Leavitt's proposed "conscience" regulation, would mean that Catholic nun at that Catholic hospital could now hire only Catholics ... since they purportedly should possess the same values as the Catholic administration.

Related posts:
• Bush Aides Say Religious Hiring Doesn’t Bar Aid
• Justice Department Permits World Vision's Hiring Policy

Bail Out: No Wealth for our Grandchildren

2008-12-07T09:49:00.000-08:00

When the Administration finally had to admit that the "fundamentals of our economy" were anything but "sound" ... I remember President Bush saying, "The government is responding with decisive action." Huh? Decisive? He needs to lay off those heavy doses of Prozac he must be taking!

The actions taken by this Administration thus far have been anything but decisive. Paulson continues to waffle and can't make up his mind how he wants to spend the bailout money. Instead, he continues to throw good money after bad without out oversight. Bernanke has committed billions if not trillions to shoring up banks using his office's authority, above and beyond the congressionally approved $700 billion. And Congress, let's not forget them, haven't insisted on reports nor have they approved the oversight czar.

Instead of recovery, what we've seen so far is bailout money being used by the banks to bolster their own financial situations and to buy other banks, normal dividends being paid out to stockholders as though it is business-as-usual, and junkets being taken by banking officers ... on the taxpayer's dimes. We have yet to see their actions begin to free up the credit markets or help mortgage holders who are teetering ever so closely to foreclosures.

Bernanke's latest tactic is to attempt to drive down yields on long-term Treasury bonds, such as 10-year Treasuries, through buying them up. He figures that might lower the 30-year fixed mortgage rates which are typically tied 10-year Treasury note yields. Well ... isn't that just great? The rates will be lower, but hey buddy, the banks aren't loaning! Even if they were, the values of those properties in trouble have plummeted, the people now owe more money than their properties are worth, and those same home owners probably don't have any savings left for a downpayment that the banks will demand before approving a new or replacement loan. So how is that going to 'fix' the economic crisis? It's like adding insult to injury. Who the hell's going to be able to take a bite out of those carrots?

It's becoming far more evident, the Administration and their minions haven't a clue as to what it is they're attempting to fix ... and trying to rely on Reganism's trickle down theory for applying a fix at the top and letting it trickle down to the folks who are really in trouble isn't going to make one iota of a difference. According to Michael Silversteen, "It’s a debt-based economy-wide problem with financial industry overtones."

Hey ... take a look at the debt calculator on the left side of this blog. It's rapidly approaching $10.7 Trillion and it's not slowing down. Our government bureauacracy is huge. It alone is consuming huge volumes of all available currency just to pay interest on our debt to China and Japan, and doing zip-point-nothin' to repay the monies they've borrowed from the Social Security Trust Fund. The government is competing for the same funds as regular Joes and the government is hogging most of what's available. China's economy is beginning to falter too. What exactly would we do if China called in their loan of $600B? (About $600 billion of China’s savings is invested in US Treasury bonds.)

We now have only 44 days 'til this Administration is finally gone! It will be interesting to see how the new Obama administration will handle the ever-ballooning economic fiasco. While we'll have some new folks in charge, I'm not all that hopeful they'll be able to fix it soon, since some of Obama's appointees were the ones in charge at the banking firms who helped to get us to where we are today.

As I've commented before, let's look at the ballooning national debt numbers in relation to the U.S. Population, which was estimated to be 303,824,646 in July 2008. If we divide the population number into the debt, that means every man, woman and child in the U.S. is in debt to the tune of $35,152 each. If the debt continues rising to the projected $15 Trillion by mid-2009, that would mean every man, woman and child in the U.S. would see their individual contribution to that debt rise to $49,370.

Hey, I don't know about you folks, but I'm just an ordinary citizen who's retired. The debt is rising, manufacturer's are firing and producing less, and the GDP is declining. That means the debt is consuming an increasing larger percentage of GDP with each passing day. Personally, we've already seen the value of our home decline, 40% of our 401k evaporate into thin air, and now between my husband and me, responsibility for nearly $100K of the national debt. I'm just an ordinary citizen who's worked all her life, who's played by the rules, paying her bills and saving for retirement along the way. Seeing everything I've worked for simply evaporate is heart-breaking. This insanity simply has to stop!

Wanda Sykes On Bailout Stock Market

2008-12-05T10:11:00.000-08:00

Lt. Governor Krolicki Indicted

2008-12-04T07:59:00.000-08:00

As if it isn't bad enough that our Governor seems to be regularly investigated for one thing or another. Now Nevada's Lt. Governor, Brian Krolicki, has not only been investigated, but indicted for crimes he allegedly committed while State Treasurer (the job he held before becoming Lt. Governor).

Looks like the GOP's lead contender in a run against Harry Reid for the Senate next go-around just may be down for the count and serving time instead in either state or federal prison, depending on whether a federal case is in order instead of a state case. Krolicki faces four felony counts of misappropriation of public money and falsifying accounts stemming from his management of the Nevada College Savings Plan during his two terms as treasurer. Kathryn Besser, his chief of staff in the treasurer’s office and on his current staff, faces two felony counts on the same charges. [RGJ]

Related Posts can be read here ...
• How Catherine Cortez Masto Did A Huge Favor for Harry Reid
• 'Partisan Enterprise': Krolicki blames Reid for inquiry
• RGJ: Krolicki, top aide accused of mishandling state money
• Mercury News: Nev. Lt. Gov. Krolicki says he's indictment target
• My Silver State: Krolicki to Be Indicted? When Did He Know?

Leavitt's Poised to Promulgate 'Conscience' Regulation

2008-12-03T18:53:00.000-08:00

Here we go again! Despite the overwhelming number of negative comments submitted throughout the comment period (which ended September 25, 2008), it seems that Secretary Leavitt is hell-bent on imposing his personal religious beliefs in the form of a federal regulation that would adversely affect all women of this nation. And, if he is indeed successful, women can kiss their full citizenship status good bye in a heart beat. We'll be nothing more than second-class citizens ... and relegated to the status of expendable baby birthing machines who have less rights than any yet to be fertilized egg that has yet been implanted in our womb's wall.

We're already seeing isolated denial of service/care under existing regulations ...

In calling for limits on “conscientious refusals,” ACOG (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology) cited four recent examples.
In Texas, a pharmacist rejected a rape victim's prescription for emergency contraception.
In Virginia, a 42-year-old mother of two became pregnant after being refused emergency contraception.
In California, a physician refused to perform artificial insemination for a lesbian couple. (In August, the California Supreme Court ruled that this refusal amounted to illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.)
And in Nebraska, a 19-year-old with a life-threatening embolism was refused an early abortion at a religiously affiliated hospital.
— LA Times

This loosely written regulation, which as Secretary Leavitt has clearly stated, is intended to be interpreted 'broadly.' And through those interpretations, it will make it even harder to women to seek and obtain effective and appropriate reproductive health information and services.

But it won't stop there. By opening up the definition of 'who' can conscientiously object and their looseness of interpretation, there's no doubt that the insurance companies are lustfully eyeballing this gift of a regulation. You think your premiums are high now? Well guess what, when this regulation gets promulgated, you'll be paying those same high premiums for even less coverage when their consciences kick in and the insurance companies refuse coverage for things they find conscientiously 'objectional.' Oh, and get this, if you're covered by an HMO, they'll be able to simply refuse to provide you with information, prescriptions, services and a referral to another doctor ... and you'll have NO recourse. Your husband, however, will still be able to get his little blue pills any time he so desires!

If the regulation is issued before Dec. 20, it would be final when the new administration takes office. To overturn the regulation, a new proposed regulation would need to be posted for public comment. Then, after waiting several months to accept comments, a final replacement regulation could finally be promulgated. It would take at a minimum, 6 months to rescind Secretary Leavitt's action. You might want to take a few minutes and write your Congressman an email now asking him to take immediate action to muzzle Secretary Leavitt! I did.

Current posts on this issue ...
• LA Times: Broader medical refusal rule may go far beyond abortion
• ACOG: The Limits of Conscientious Refusal in Reproductive Medicine
• NOW: Bush Administration Scurries to Finalize Harmful Regulations
• Birth Pangs Blog: Pregnancy equals Death Sentence?
• Progressive Puppy Blog: Bush Attempts Outgoing Jab to Women's Health

Lieberman Remains in Democratic Caucus

2008-11-19T08:17:00.000-08:00

Not only did the Democratic Leadership in the Senate vote to retain Independent, Joe Lieberman's membership in the Democratic Caucus, they voted to allow him to retain his chairmanship of the of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and head of the Armed Services subcommittee that oversees air and land power issues. His only 'slap on the wrist,' so to speak, was removal from the less powerful Environment and Public Works Committee. Oh, but I almost forgot, there was that silly little resolution the Democratic Caucus passed "rejecting" Joe's remarks about Barack Obama during the campaign. Not acceptable!

Like many other Democrats across this nation, I believe they should have stripped Mr. Lieberman of his Homeland Security chairmanship. I truly hope they don't later regret their compromise to let him keep that chairmanship to ensure he stays in the Democratic Caucus ... just so they can get closer to what they believe will be a 60-vote filabuster-proof position. I'm sure that Joe, the turncoat, Lieberman will choose to abandon the Democratic Caucus once again when the vote really counts, when they need him the most, and when he sides, once again, with the Republican Caucus instead. Worse yet, by retaining the Chairmanship on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee he can actively continue the policies of Bush/McCain and undermine the change for which America yearns.

From 'Daily Kos':

The question was whether or not to strengthen the hand of one of the fiercest proponents of Bush-McCain foreign and homeland security policy.
Ask yourself this: will it be easier or harder for us to repair the damage we've inflicted on our reputation around the world with Joe Lieberman in charge of one of the key national security committees? What happens when he uses that committee to highlight phantom threats to the homeland emanating from places like Iraq? Do you think this is a sign that Democrats are serious about withdrawing from Iraq, or a signal that they too plan to stay the course?
Senate Democrats were right about one thing. This was a pragmatic issue. The problem is that by misunderstanding the situation they face, they made the wrong pragmatic decision.
And because of that, it will be even harder to achieve the change that we need.

Something's beginning to stink very badly in Washington. Gee, you want someone to vote on a particular bill, bribe them with an earmark or two. Gee, you want to reach that magic 60 number, bribe a traitor with a chairmanship of a prestigious and powerful committee. I'm beginning to think they're all corrupt!

2004 Voter Fraud Case Moving Forward in Courts

2008-11-12T08:25:00.000-08:00

I used to live in Ohio and voted in Ohio for the 2004 election. Many things went visibily wrong during that election, the most noticeable being the shortage of voting machines in democratic strongholds and the over-abundance of machines in republican strongholds. We all knew something was terribly wrong with the election results and were surprised when no flack was raised about the election results as it had for the Florida results during the 2000 election.

Well, apparently challenges were made ... but they weren't publicized in the main stream media (MSM) and have been stalled in the courts. Here's a couple of links that have been published in the op-ed news, but that I haven't yet seen picked up the MSM.

But ... it doesn't appear all 2008 elections were run fairly and squarely ... take Alaska, for instance. It seems that polsters predicted 7, 8, and 22 point leads for Democratic candidate Begich who ran against Sen. Ted Stevens. It now appears that a large number of democratic ballots have just disappeared, and Stevens may now win the election.

Stealing America: Vote by Vote
(from Concentric Media on Vimeo)
Narrated by Peter Coyote, this documentary film runs a little over an hour, but is well worth the watching and helps you realize just how easy it is today for someone to steal your vote. (View lower resolution version here.)

Related Stories:
• OpEdNews (1/6/2009): Prosecutors Bully Ohio Voters

Thank You ... Thank You ... Thank You

2008-11-10T08:18:00.000-08:00

Thank you America for not electing the Republican ticket ...

What if Things Were Switched Around?

2008-11-03T07:19:00.000-08:00

Received in my email:

What if things were switched around? Think about it. Would the country's collective point of view be different?  Could racism be the culprit? In the following, all the "what-ifs" are true for the other side.

What if the Obamas had paraded 5 children across the stage, following the debate, including a 3 month old infant and an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter? 
What if John McCain was a former president of the Harvard Law Review? 
What if Barack Obama finished fifth from the bottom of his college graduating class?
What if McCain had only married once, but Obama was a divorcee?
What if Obama had met his second wife in a bar and had a long affair while he was still married to a wife who had become disfigured in a car accident?
What if Michelle Obama was the wife who not only became addicted to pain killers, but also acquired them illegally through her charitable organization? 
What if Michelle Obama's family had made their money from beer distribution? 
What if Cindy McCain graduated from Harvard? 
What if Obama had been a member of the Keating Five? (The Keating Five were five United States Senators censured for corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s.)
What if Obama couldn't read from a teleprompter?
What if Obama was the one with military experience that included discipline problems and a record of crashing 5 planes? (To be fair, only 3 of the 5 crashes appear to be John's fault; all occured while flying too low. The rocket mishap on his aircraft carrier could not have been prevented by McCain. And it is uncertain whether his lack of flying skill led to McCain's being shot down in Viet Nam, once again while flying too low.)
What if Obama was the one who was known to publicly display a serious anger management problem?

You could easily add to this list. If these questions reflected a reality, if the tables were turned, do you really believe the election numbers would be as close as they are?  This is what racism does. It covers up, rationalizes and minimizes qualities in one candidate and emphasizes negative characteristics in another when there is a color difference. Do you really want an impulsive self-professed 'maverick' in the White House who would access to 'the button?'

And, think of this - the candidates' educational backgrounds: 
 
Barack Obama: 

Columbia University - B.A. Political Science with a Specialization in International Relations
Harvard - Juris Doctor (J.D.) Magna Cum Laude

Joseph Biden: 

University of Delaware - B.A. in History and B.A. in Political Science
Syracuse University College of Law - Juris Doctor (J.D.)

John McCain: 

United States Naval Academy - Class rank: 894 of 899

Sarah Palin:  

Hawaii Pacific University - 1 semester
North Idaho College - 2 semesters - general study
University of Idaho - 2 semesters - journalism
Matanuska-Susitna College - 1 semester
University of Idaho - 3 semesters - B.A. in Journalism

Education isn't everything, but this is about the two highest offices in the land as well as our standing in the world.

The Name May Have Changed, But The Game's Still The Same

2008-11-02T07:25:00.000-08:00

The Army's 'School of the Americas' (SOA) was originally established in 1946 and was later moved to Fort Benning (located near Columbus, GA) in 1984. In 2001, it's name was changed to WHINSEC (Western Hemispher Institute for Security Cooperation) to divert attention from it's historical reputation. However, it's mission remained the same: to instruct Latin American soldiers in military and police-keeping tactics. Tactics being taught include coercive interrogation techniques and torture ... tactics the U.S. Government supposedly condemns as violations of human rights. Yet, they promote human rights violations via their teachings and thus, erode our country's image as a defender of democracy and human rights. It's kind of like saying one thing publicly ... yet doing something entirely different behind closed doors.

Among the SOA/WHINSEC's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. You'd think the army would have learned by now that the curriculm they're teaching is not stabilizing the Americas ... but destablizing them instead.

Latin American soldiers who have been trained at the SOA/WHINSEC have repeatedly committed human rights violations and atrocities on the peoples of their home nations ... so much so that 5 Latin American countries (Coasta Rica, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina and Uraguay) have severed all ties with the SOA.

President Evo Morales of Bolivia criticized the institution for training Latin American militaries to identify social movement leaders as “enemies of the state.” He also noted that “they are teaching high ranking officers to confront their own people, to identify social movements as their enemies.”

A bill in Congress attempted to close the SOA/WHINSEC, but it failed. Maybe next year, after this election, Congress will finally have sufficient votes to close the school and begin to restore our image and credibility throughout the world as a true defender of human rights ... instead of a country that says one thing ... yet does another.

Give Me a Break!

2008-11-01T22:39:00.000-07:00

I can't believe the Republican Party thinks this woman would make a good VP and potentially a good President should circumstances call for her ascendancy. She took a call from nowhere ... and believed it was the President of France? Didn't they look at the caller-ID? Listen to her goofy conversation as she gets punked by a famous comedy radio team:

Related Posts:

Sarah Palin Pranked by Sarkozy Impersonator

McCain ... A Return to McCarthyism?

2008-11-01T21:26:00.000-07:00

What is with McCain and his associates? I have yet to hear him say one constructive thing about "how" he intends to achieve anything he may have mentioned that he wants to do should he be elected to the Presidency. Instead of telling us the "how" so we can evaluate for ourselves whether we think that's a good approach, he endorses one smear after another claiming Obama associates with terrorists.

First, it was Bill Ayers, who during the Vietnam War era protested the war using violence. He has since reformed and is a respected professor, but that doesn't mean anything to McCain, since he hates Ayers for what Ayers did while McCain paid the ultimate price of being a POW.

Now he's claiming Rashid Khalidi, a sometimes controversial, but widely respected Middle East scholar is nothing more than an anti-semite who walks among us and who poisons our children's minds with his teaching. And, he's now attempting to smear Obama for having 'associated with Khalidi the Anti-Semite' because, like Ayers, Khalidi just happened to teach at the University of Chicago, during the period of time Obama taught there. Did McCain forget that he, himself has an association with Khalidi? McCain was chairman of the International Republican Institute, which gave several grants (of ~$500,000) to the Centre for Palestine Research Studies, an institution co-founded by Khalidi.

The last time I perused the U.S. Constitution and it's amendments, I do believe that it still contained the right to 'freedom of speech.' At least ... I hadn't read or heard that it had somehow been repealed. What is with the Republicans? If you don't 'toe their line' and agree with their distorted view of the world (which incidently, I don't) ... then you're unAmerican! Disagree with the war? You're unAmerican. Associate with anyone on their 'unAmerican' list ... you're unAmerican!

Sound familiar? It took Americans a while to see through Senator McCarthy's fascist attempts to impose stringent socioeconomic controls, suppress any opposition to his views through terror and censorship, and dictate a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. I certainly hope that on Tuesday more Americans see the parallel between Senator McCain's "he's a terrorist" and Senator McCarthy's "he's a Communist" ... and choose NOT to vote for McCain and the fascist tactics he'd employ in governing the people of this nation.

From My eMail: Catching Wild Pigs

2008-10-31T09:24:00.000-07:00

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt. The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow the government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, "Do you know how to catch wild pigs?"

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punchline. The young man said this was no joke. "You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come every day to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in the last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd. Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor, that is exactly what he sees happening to America. The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. Meanwhile, we continually lose our freedoms -- just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government 'help' is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America; you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life, then you will probably delete this e-mail; but God help you when the gate slams shut!

In this 'very important' election year, listen closely to what the candidates are promising you. Just maybe you will be able to tell who is about to slam the gate on America.

"A Government that is big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have" -- Thomas Jefferson.

It's ALL about the economy

2008-10-28T08:05:00.000-07:00

Joe the Plumber isn't a Plumber!

2008-10-26T12:52:00.000-07:00

Looks like the McCain campaign may have done a bit of creative staging that's now beginning to unravel. Upon a bit of investigation, some bloggers have learned that not only is 'Joe' not a licensed plumber, he's never even apprenticed as a 'plumber.' 'Joe' is a member of the Associated Builders & Contractors, a nonunion trade group that has endorsed McCain. Also, Joe's annual earnings amount to only $40,000, and the business he's thinking of buying makes nowhere near the $250,000 he claimed in his discussion with Obama.

And while McCain and the conservatives have been raising so much havoc about ACORN, it seems that 'Joe' would make a wonderful poster child for an inaccurate and therefore illegal voter registration. There is no voter registration for S. Joe Wurzelbacher, however, there is one for S. Joe Worzelbacher who voted Republican in the Ohio Primary. He made to effort to correct the spelling, but it has been acknowledged as a spelling error by Linda Howe, executive director of the Lucas County Board of Elections.

One particular blogger upon calling the limited number of Wurzelbachers in trying to determine if S. Joe Wurzelbacher of Cincinnati, Ohio juat might be related to one Robert Wurzelbacher Jr. of Cincinnati, Ohio, who happens to be Charles Keating's son-in-law. Robert Wurzelbacher Jr. was implicated in the Keating 5 scandal, and sentenced to 40 months in prison in 1993.

Related Posts —

The Vet Who Didn't Vet

2008-10-25T13:01:00.000-07:00

Give Me a Break!

2008-10-25T11:39:00.000-07:00

The highest paid individual in Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign during the first half of October was Amy Strozzi. Ms. Strozzi, who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show “So You Think You Can Dance?”, is Gov. Sarah Palin’s traveling makeup artist.

According to campaign records, Ms. Strozzi was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone. Payments made to Ms. Strozzi were recorded as “Personnel Svc/Equipment.”

So much for campaign reform ...

Plus ... if a whole bunch of idiots actually vote this pair into office ... I am not, as a taxpayer, going to pay for a daily makeup artist. If she can't learn to put her makeup on just like the rest of the hockey moms do across this nation, she can pay for that herself ... out of her VP salary ... but not out of some 'make-up bonus' so she can be eternally beauty pagent lovely. Not only that ... I don't believe there should be anyone by the title of 'make-up' artist on the white house payroll.