Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss has announced he will not run for re-election
in 2014. Among others who are signalling a run, Rep. Tom Price is likely to run and would be considered
the strongest GOP candidate, and therefore the most dangerous candidate for the liberal cause. But this week, Rep. Paul Braun has let it be known that he plans to run.
Paul Braun is the infamous Georgia congressman representing the district the include Athens. Yes, that Paul Braun. One whom the GOP leadership picked to be a member of the House Science committee and who is now infamous for his belief that the idea of evolution is "straight from the pits of hell."
So let's get behind Braun. He would be the easiest candidate for a Democrat to beat.
We could retake one senate seat for Georgia and break the deadlock the
Republicans have on all state-wide elected office holders.
Besides having views that could only appeal to the wacko-fringe of conservatism, Braun is pretty stupid and easy to lampoon. For example, in last year's election, he was running unopposed in his Athens district. Yet he had a big billboard up in Sandersvile.
Now you could say that it's good to keep his image before the voters, even if he had no opposition. But, folks, Sandersville is not even in Paul Braun's district. Nobody living in Sandersville could possibly vote for him. They have a different congressman.
Stupid? Yep. So that's why we need to have Paul Braun be the GOP nominee.
Ralph
PS:
Now the question is? Can he run for his own seat in the House and
also run for Senate? I would have said no, but Paul Ryan was re-elected
to the House in the same race he was on the ticket as Vice President.
Remains to be clarified.
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Lobbying influence
On Jan. 26 I wrote in "A few thoughts" about someone slipping into the "fiscal cliff" bill at the last minute a paragraph that gave a certain drug company another two years of high profits through extending the time in which Medicare is prevented from negotiating for lower prices. The company is Amgen and the drug is used in kidney dialysis -- and apparently it is very expensive, at least as long as Amgen has the exclusive rights to make and sell it to Medicare.
Now Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Max Baucus (D-MT) have come forward to defend the inclusion (but the secrecy?).
Hatch's reasoning: Rural doctors might not be able to handle dialysis if they are not able to get the drug and thus rural patients would suffer.
Oh, come on. Nobody is saying that Amgen can no longer make and sell the drug. The idea is for Medicare to be able to negotiate a lower price -- and potentially save $500 million over the next two years. All that would change is Amgen's profit.
Of course, Amgen would like to be able to continue without having to negotiate a price or face competition from generic versions. They're saying no one else will be able to make it, so doctors will have to substitute something else and may not know how to use the substitute safely. Hatch implies that Amgen would just quit making the drug rather than settle for a lower profit. Not likely.
This, folks, is why our medical bills are so high and why Medicare and drug costs are hurting our economy. The pharmaceuticals are making a killing -- and they generously reward politicians who give them an advantage -- like Hatch and Baucus, both of whom sit high on the Senate Finance Committee and both have received big cash contributions from Amgen. In addition, two former Baucus staff members now lobby for Amgen.
Hatch weeps falsely for the rural dialysis patients; it's the taxpayers that both these greedy senators ought to be worrying about. But why should they worry? Hatch just got re-elected, and Baucus is retiring. I hope their consciences keep them awake at night.
Ralph
Now Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Max Baucus (D-MT) have come forward to defend the inclusion (but the secrecy?).
Hatch's reasoning: Rural doctors might not be able to handle dialysis if they are not able to get the drug and thus rural patients would suffer.
Oh, come on. Nobody is saying that Amgen can no longer make and sell the drug. The idea is for Medicare to be able to negotiate a lower price -- and potentially save $500 million over the next two years. All that would change is Amgen's profit.
Of course, Amgen would like to be able to continue without having to negotiate a price or face competition from generic versions. They're saying no one else will be able to make it, so doctors will have to substitute something else and may not know how to use the substitute safely. Hatch implies that Amgen would just quit making the drug rather than settle for a lower profit. Not likely.
This, folks, is why our medical bills are so high and why Medicare and drug costs are hurting our economy. The pharmaceuticals are making a killing -- and they generously reward politicians who give them an advantage -- like Hatch and Baucus, both of whom sit high on the Senate Finance Committee and both have received big cash contributions from Amgen. In addition, two former Baucus staff members now lobby for Amgen.
Hatch weeps falsely for the rural dialysis patients; it's the taxpayers that both these greedy senators ought to be worrying about. But why should they worry? Hatch just got re-elected, and Baucus is retiring. I hope their consciences keep them awake at night.
Ralph
Sunday, February 3, 2013
The Oscars
Take heed, those who decide the nominations for Oscars: Snub a deserving favorite at your peril.
Ben Affleck is the case in point. His incredibly good film 'Argo" is a break-through triple-threat for him. He played three roles: co-producer, director, and star. The film was nominated for a best picture Oscar and six others awards, but Afleck was, quite surprisingly, not nominated for best director.
He has now won best director awards from several other groups, including the Directors' Guild and the Golden Globes, which also gave it the Best Picture award.
Since "Argo" is nominated for seven Oscars, including best picture, my guess is that the snub of Afleck as best director will give it an extra slight edge to win best picture award. I'm suggesting there might be a slight inclination to make it up to Affleck for the snub to give him the best picture award in a close vote.
That's not to say it doesn't deserve best picture anyway, although my favorite would be "Lincoln," because it is just the type of movie that somehow bespeaks the grandest achievement in a way that "Argo" doesn't, in my opionion.
But I would not be heart-broken if "Argo" wins -- and would even cheer a bit as I usually do when a deserving underdog comes out on top. And the directors division of the Academy, who chose to leave him out of it's best director list, clearly turned Afleck into the underdog.
Ralph
Ben Affleck is the case in point. His incredibly good film 'Argo" is a break-through triple-threat for him. He played three roles: co-producer, director, and star. The film was nominated for a best picture Oscar and six others awards, but Afleck was, quite surprisingly, not nominated for best director.
He has now won best director awards from several other groups, including the Directors' Guild and the Golden Globes, which also gave it the Best Picture award.
Since "Argo" is nominated for seven Oscars, including best picture, my guess is that the snub of Afleck as best director will give it an extra slight edge to win best picture award. I'm suggesting there might be a slight inclination to make it up to Affleck for the snub to give him the best picture award in a close vote.
That's not to say it doesn't deserve best picture anyway, although my favorite would be "Lincoln," because it is just the type of movie that somehow bespeaks the grandest achievement in a way that "Argo" doesn't, in my opionion.
But I would not be heart-broken if "Argo" wins -- and would even cheer a bit as I usually do when a deserving underdog comes out on top. And the directors division of the Academy, who chose to leave him out of it's best director list, clearly turned Afleck into the underdog.
Ralph
One (weak) cheer for NRA's Wayne LaPierre
One feeble cheer for NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre. Not that I support anything he says, but he is the most effective weapon we have at this moment to turn semi-reasonable people into a reasonable position on gun control.
His statements are so patently false, his reasoning so utterly unreasonable, that it makes their case look worse every time he opens his mouth on TV.
Today, on FoxNews -- we couldn't have picked a better venue -- LaPierre claimed that the president wanted armed security for his own children but opposed it for others. Wallace pointed out that the president's children face a larger threat than most.
LaPierre: "Tell that to the people at Newtown."
Chris Wallace: "Do you really think that the president's children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in America? . . . It's ridiculous, and you know it, sir."
He also claimed that Obama is going to "take your guns" and establish a universal gun registry. I still don't understand why that's so terrible. Don't we have a universal registry of people with licenses to drive cars -- or at least state-wide registries that are accessible by other government agencies? What's so bad about that?
Later LaPierre claimed, "If you limit the American public's access to semi-automatic technology, you limit their ability to survive." He didn't explain how semi-automatic guns are necessary for survival."
So one feeble cheer to keep LaPierre talking and making non-sense. Maybe his own NRA members will realize he is not representing them or their best interests.
Ralph
His statements are so patently false, his reasoning so utterly unreasonable, that it makes their case look worse every time he opens his mouth on TV.
Today, on FoxNews -- we couldn't have picked a better venue -- LaPierre claimed that the president wanted armed security for his own children but opposed it for others. Wallace pointed out that the president's children face a larger threat than most.
LaPierre: "Tell that to the people at Newtown."
Chris Wallace: "Do you really think that the president's children are the same kind of target as every schoolchild in America? . . . It's ridiculous, and you know it, sir."
He also claimed that Obama is going to "take your guns" and establish a universal gun registry. I still don't understand why that's so terrible. Don't we have a universal registry of people with licenses to drive cars -- or at least state-wide registries that are accessible by other government agencies? What's so bad about that?
Later LaPierre claimed, "If you limit the American public's access to semi-automatic technology, you limit their ability to survive." He didn't explain how semi-automatic guns are necessary for survival."
So one feeble cheer to keep LaPierre talking and making non-sense. Maybe his own NRA members will realize he is not representing them or their best interests.
Ralph
Saturday, February 2, 2013
How many does it take? Gun control #3
When you are increasingly out of step with everybody around you, isn't it time to reassess your position?
Not if you're the National Rifle Association, apparently. Even being out of step on background checks at gun shows with the majority of their own members doesn't trump being in step with the money bags that keep them going.
How many people opposing you is enough? Apparently, there is no limit. The NRA maintains a list of people and organizations -- a sort of enemies list, thought they don't call it that -- who have contributed or otherwise supported gun control and anti-gun violence causes. The NRA official list is very long.
I counted some 141 organizations, including the AARP, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Bar Association, American Firearms Association, American Trauma Society, American Psychological Association, Anti-Defamation League, National Association of Police Organizations, NAACP, National Education Association, National Urban League, Inc., Physicians for Social Responsibility, United States Conference of Mayors. That about 10% of the organizations.
Then there are the celebrities: 240 of them, including the macho icons George Clooney, Sean Connery (007 himself), Jack Nicholson, and Michael Douglas.
And a bunch of journalists, national figures from politics and religion, and corporations: former President Carter, Time-Warner, Levi Strauss Company, Kansas City and St. Louis professional football teams, many newspapers and news magazines, broadcasting companies, professional sports teams.
That's a pretty impressive list of enemies of your position. Isn't it time to reconsider?
Ralph
Not if you're the National Rifle Association, apparently. Even being out of step on background checks at gun shows with the majority of their own members doesn't trump being in step with the money bags that keep them going.
How many people opposing you is enough? Apparently, there is no limit. The NRA maintains a list of people and organizations -- a sort of enemies list, thought they don't call it that -- who have contributed or otherwise supported gun control and anti-gun violence causes. The NRA official list is very long.
I counted some 141 organizations, including the AARP, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical Association, American Bar Association, American Firearms Association, American Trauma Society, American Psychological Association, Anti-Defamation League, National Association of Police Organizations, NAACP, National Education Association, National Urban League, Inc., Physicians for Social Responsibility, United States Conference of Mayors. That about 10% of the organizations.
Then there are the celebrities: 240 of them, including the macho icons George Clooney, Sean Connery (007 himself), Jack Nicholson, and Michael Douglas.
And a bunch of journalists, national figures from politics and religion, and corporations: former President Carter, Time-Warner, Levi Strauss Company, Kansas City and St. Louis professional football teams, many newspapers and news magazines, broadcasting companies, professional sports teams.
That's a pretty impressive list of enemies of your position. Isn't it time to reconsider?
Ralph
GA state government give-aways to the elite
Did I mention the low regard I have for our state elected officials? There seems to be no end to the new ways Republicans find to take from the poor and give to the well-heeled. Or, a variation on this, take from the public sector and give to the private sector, which benefits their cronies.
They are taking over the public school system in the guise of "improving education for Georgia's children by offering choice" -- to move from pubic schools to charter schools.
They made a big inroad by the scurrilously deceptive campaign that got the constitutional amendment passed to recreate a state board for approving charter schools that the local process has rejected. The members of this board are appointed solely by politicians, not educators. And the funding for that campaign to pass the amendment came mostly from out of state corporations that set up --- for profit --- charter schools.
The state's educators were opposed to this amendment, first as unnecessary, because there exists a method for approving new charter schools already. Second, because it was clearly a political move to gain power over the schools and bypass the professional educators. Third, it was passed by deception in the wording on the ballot, which gave the impression that it was simply a vote to allow charter schools in Georgia and gave none of the above information. Further, the governor's office issued an gag order forbidding any teachers or administrators to speak in any official capacity in opposition to the amendment, while the governor himself went around the state speaking for the amendment.
Now, they're wanting to increase another boondoggle for their own kind -- again disguised as giving more choice for parents to move their children to better schools. This is a law that allows individuals or corporations to make donations to a fund to support scholarships in private schools -- "vouchers" in all but name.
The way it supposedly works is that the donor can take a tax credit (not a deduction, a dollar for dollar credit) for the contribution; and he can designate which school it goes to. There are a few instances in which it actually benefits needy families. But in an under the table scheme it often winds up paying tuition of the children of the person who made the donation and who are already attending that school. The only benefit there is to the wallet of the parents who essentially get a tax credit for the tuition they pay for their children's private school.
This reduces the state revenue, dollar for dollar, the same time the state budget has been cutting funds for public schools. So it's simply not true that it does not reduce the state funding for public schools, as they defensively claim. It doesn't have to be true, that's true. But, in fact, at this time, it is true.
Bah humbug !!
Ralph
They are taking over the public school system in the guise of "improving education for Georgia's children by offering choice" -- to move from pubic schools to charter schools.
They made a big inroad by the scurrilously deceptive campaign that got the constitutional amendment passed to recreate a state board for approving charter schools that the local process has rejected. The members of this board are appointed solely by politicians, not educators. And the funding for that campaign to pass the amendment came mostly from out of state corporations that set up --- for profit --- charter schools.
The state's educators were opposed to this amendment, first as unnecessary, because there exists a method for approving new charter schools already. Second, because it was clearly a political move to gain power over the schools and bypass the professional educators. Third, it was passed by deception in the wording on the ballot, which gave the impression that it was simply a vote to allow charter schools in Georgia and gave none of the above information. Further, the governor's office issued an gag order forbidding any teachers or administrators to speak in any official capacity in opposition to the amendment, while the governor himself went around the state speaking for the amendment.
Now, they're wanting to increase another boondoggle for their own kind -- again disguised as giving more choice for parents to move their children to better schools. This is a law that allows individuals or corporations to make donations to a fund to support scholarships in private schools -- "vouchers" in all but name.
The way it supposedly works is that the donor can take a tax credit (not a deduction, a dollar for dollar credit) for the contribution; and he can designate which school it goes to. There are a few instances in which it actually benefits needy families. But in an under the table scheme it often winds up paying tuition of the children of the person who made the donation and who are already attending that school. The only benefit there is to the wallet of the parents who essentially get a tax credit for the tuition they pay for their children's private school.
This reduces the state revenue, dollar for dollar, the same time the state budget has been cutting funds for public schools. So it's simply not true that it does not reduce the state funding for public schools, as they defensively claim. It doesn't have to be true, that's true. But, in fact, at this time, it is true.
Bah humbug !!
Ralph
Thursday, January 31, 2013
It's gotta be the money - gun control #2
A CBS/New York Times poll showed that 92% of Americans favor universal background checks before buying guns. Even gun owners themselves in other polls in three states approved these background checks at gun shows by 90%.
But many politicians -- in thrall to the NRA gun lobby and its money -- are resisting even that sensible measure.
Sen. Orrin Hatch told reporters today:
I think it's clearly a made-up excuse to placate the NRA lobbyists who give them money to vote down gun control laws. Even a poll of NRA members shows large support for background checks.
You know why this disconnect between the NRA Board and its spokesman and its members?
Money.
The NRA does not speak for its members; it speaks for the gun manufacturers and dealers who supply the money that is doled out to politicians.
Will there be enough members of congress who are ready to stand up to this gun lobby? We'll never have a better time to do some sensible control -- until that nebulous utopia when we can get rid of the influence of money in our political process.
Ralph
But many politicians -- in thrall to the NRA gun lobby and its money -- are resisting even that sensible measure.
Sen. Orrin Hatch told reporters today:
"That's the way reductions in liberty occur. . . . When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who's who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty."Yes, but there are data bases for people who have library cards and drivers licenses. Nobody complains about that taking away their liberty.
I think it's clearly a made-up excuse to placate the NRA lobbyists who give them money to vote down gun control laws. Even a poll of NRA members shows large support for background checks.
You know why this disconnect between the NRA Board and its spokesman and its members?
Money.
The NRA does not speak for its members; it speaks for the gun manufacturers and dealers who supply the money that is doled out to politicians.
Will there be enough members of congress who are ready to stand up to this gun lobby? We'll never have a better time to do some sensible control -- until that nebulous utopia when we can get rid of the influence of money in our political process.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
