|
OT BushCo panders to special interests
A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests
As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." |
|
|
"John H." wrote in message ... FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". |
|
NOYB wrote:
Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. Wait till they figure out what's been determined elsewhe Sometimes, widening highways just leads the sprawl someplace else. Once that happens, you can never build a big enough highway. It becomes impossible to stay a step ahead of the ever-increasing traffic. Interesting links he http://www.sierraclub.org/sprawl/tra...tion/index.asp (This link is intended for Don) |
"Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. Exactly. Immokalee Road was widened from 1 lane to 2. They just completed it in 2002. Just a couple of months ago, they started the process of widening it to 3 lanes. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. Exactly. Immokalee Road was widened from 1 lane to 2. They just completed it in 2002. Just a couple of months ago, they started the process of widening it to 3 lanes. If anyone cared to do so, they should find an ambitious reporter to look DEEPLY into that mistake. There's a good chance it was NOT a mistake. |
|
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 20:59:08 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
Wait till they figure out what's been determined elsewhe Sometimes, widening highways just leads the sprawl someplace else. Once that happens, you can never build a big enough highway. It becomes impossible to stay a step ahead of the ever-increasing traffic. Yup, and with oil with oil supplies getting tighter and tighter . . . Sprawl just doesn't seem to be the way to go, in the long run. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. Wait till they figure out what's been determined elsewhe Sometimes, widening highways just leads the sprawl someplace else. Fortunately, the sprawl in Collier County is limited by the Everglades National Park to the East. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. Exactly. Immokalee Road was widened from 1 lane to 2. They just completed it in 2002. Just a couple of months ago, they started the process of widening it to 3 lanes. If anyone cared to do so, they should find an ambitious reporter to look DEEPLY into that mistake. There's a good chance it was NOT a mistake. It's already been done. A County Commissioner, City Planning Manager, and local developer are in jail over it. |
"Scooby Doo" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : Wait till they figure out what's been determined elsewhe Sometimes, widening highways just leads the sprawl someplace else. Once that happens, you can never build a big enough highway. It becomes impossible to stay a step ahead of the ever-increasing traffic. The people who want to restrict "sprawl" are the most rabid supporters of shipping schoolchildren 25 miles across town rather than permitting them to attend their local neighborhood school. Please explain this hypocrisy. Can't explain it. I've never met anyone who held both views. If I had met someone like that, it would be statistically insignificant. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. Exactly. Immokalee Road was widened from 1 lane to 2. They just completed it in 2002. Just a couple of months ago, they started the process of widening it to 3 lanes. If anyone cared to do so, they should find an ambitious reporter to look DEEPLY into that mistake. There's a good chance it was NOT a mistake. It's already been done. A County Commissioner, City Planning Manager, and local developer are in jail over it. Let me guess: It would've obviously been cheaper to go from 1 to 3 lanes, but the contractor felt otherwise, and "convinced" the other 2 of his views. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. Exactly. Immokalee Road was widened from 1 lane to 2. They just completed it in 2002. Just a couple of months ago, they started the process of widening it to 3 lanes. If anyone cared to do so, they should find an ambitious reporter to look DEEPLY into that mistake. There's a good chance it was NOT a mistake. It's already been done. A County Commissioner, City Planning Manager, and local developer are in jail over it. Let me guess: It would've obviously been cheaper to go from 1 to 3 lanes, but the contractor felt otherwise, and "convinced" the other 2 of his views. No. The Commissioner and City Planning Manager should have put the brakes on the PUD's out to the East until the infrastructure caught up. Instead, they built a road based on a 12 year old study that said 2 lanes would be sufficient to carry the traffic load. The county did not have the money needed to build 3 lanes without imposing the necessary impact fees on the developer. The developer bought the county officials, and the road was built using 2 lanes instead of 3...making it obsolete before it was completed. That particular area has several other problems too right now. Environmentalists are fighting the expansion of a major north-south artery (951) that has been on the drawing board for years. Most of the PUD's out that way were approved under the premise that 951would have already been built by now...but they haven't even started it yet. It's a total cluster **** out there. To make matters worse, a Walmart SuperCenter is weeks away from opening, and construction of a Super Target is just getting started less than a half-mile away. To screw things up even further, they're completely redesigning the on-off ramps from I-75 in that area...at the same time the road widening is taking place *and* the construction of the Walmart and Target stores (and a county park) are going in. Thank God I moved to an already-developed area well west of there that's closer to the water and my office. It's 4 minutes to work now...and 7 minutes in tourist season with traffic. When I lived out East of I-75 just last year, a 9 mile run to work was taking me 45 minutes...and that was *before* the Walmart and Target construction, and the Immokalee Road widening. I can't even imagine how bad it is now...or will be once snowbird season starts in November/December. |
|
NOYB wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". The Highway Bill had 6,000 pork additions to it. 6000!!!! BILLIONS of the dollars for the Highway Bill is used up by the pork. Do you think that those below are "hardly wasteful pork spending"? Its just a few of them: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Consider these items: construction of a $7 million ''Renaissance Square'' performing arts center in Rochester, New York; a $1.5 million improvement for the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan; and the $1 million renovation of a historic bus station in Jessup, Georgia. There's money for all three -- and much more -- in the new highway construction bill. Many people may not understand what such projects have to do with highways. But that's "How It Works." Lawmakers of both parties use the massive bill to earmark funds for local projects that appeal to the folks back home. That's especially important in election years. Because there's something for everyone in the bill, it routinely sails through Congress. The $275 billion dollar transportation bill that the House approved last week contains at least $11 billion worth of local pet projects. Rep. William Lipinski, D-Illinois, who pushed through a $4 million parking garage, wanted an even bigger bill. Last year, he introduced a $375 billion highway bill -- a full $100 million more than the one passed last week. Lipinski may be a Democrat, but pork is bipartisan. Kingston, the sponsor of the historic bus station renovation, is a conservative Republican. Democrats and Republicans defended the spending. "If you don't keep good highways, you can't keep and grow good jobs," Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Missouri, said on the Senate floor. Others see the spending as fiscally irresponsible. "How far and disgraceful a path we have tread in this pork-barrel laden piece of over-spending at a time when we have all-time deficits," declared Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona. The White House agrees and is threatening a veto -- which both houses of Congress have enough votes to override. In the end, that means President Bush will be able to take a stand against pork-barrel spending, but House and Senate members will still get the pork they so desire |
"NOYB" wrote in message
... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Don White" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". Sounds like your traffic authorities are as backward as ours. We had a busy secondary highway into the city widened to 3 lanes from two a couple of years ago. They should have made it 4 lanes while they were at it. Seems a number of commercial businesses along the stretch didn't want the four as it would infringe on their smaller parking lots. A lot of those went belly-up anyway and the three lane road is already overcrowded at rush hour. Exactly. Immokalee Road was widened from 1 lane to 2. They just completed it in 2002. Just a couple of months ago, they started the process of widening it to 3 lanes. If anyone cared to do so, they should find an ambitious reporter to look DEEPLY into that mistake. There's a good chance it was NOT a mistake. It's already been done. A County Commissioner, City Planning Manager, and local developer are in jail over it. Let me guess: It would've obviously been cheaper to go from 1 to 3 lanes, but the contractor felt otherwise, and "convinced" the other 2 of his views. No. The Commissioner and City Planning Manager should have put the brakes on the PUD's out to the East until the infrastructure caught up. Instead, they built a road based on a 12 year old study that said 2 lanes would be sufficient to carry the traffic load. The county did not have the money needed to build 3 lanes without imposing the necessary impact fees on the developer. The developer bought the county officials, and the road was built using 2 lanes instead of 3...making it obsolete before it was completed. That particular area has several other problems too right now. Environmentalists are fighting the expansion of a major north-south artery (951) that has been on the drawing board for years. Most of the PUD's out that way were approved under the premise that 951would have already been built by now...but they haven't even started it yet. It's a total cluster **** out there. To make matters worse, a Walmart SuperCenter is weeks away from opening, and construction of a Super Target is just getting started less than a half-mile away. To screw things up even further, they're completely redesigning the on-off ramps from I-75 in that area...at the same time the road widening is taking place *and* the construction of the Walmart and Target stores (and a county park) are going in. Thank God I moved to an already-developed area well west of there that's closer to the water and my office. It's 4 minutes to work now...and 7 minutes in tourist season with traffic. When I lived out East of I-75 just last year, a 9 mile run to work was taking me 45 minutes...and that was *before* the Walmart and Target construction, and the Immokalee Road widening. I can't even imagine how bad it is now...or will be once snowbird season starts in November/December. Like authors on the web, town officials often give the illusion of competence, until suddenly they don't for some reason. |
wrote in message
oups.com... WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Consider these items: construction of a $7 million ''Renaissance Square'' performing arts center in Rochester, New York; It seems the community is about evenly split about this little gem. I wonder about the people who've never been asked, which leads me to wonder why we don't have referendums on such issues, and prison time for officials who screw up these projects. On a similar subject: Some years back, the county decided to replace our aging baseball stadium. The old one could've been renovated, but that didn't make certain parties happy. When the county executive was on TV to announce the new one, we found out who the "who" was, via a tasteless error. Sitting in the CE's office was some fat cat in a 3 piece suit, with a cigar. I commented on this to a friend, who said "That's Tony so-and-so, who owns (some name) construction". Local officials should have their bank accounts audited, and compared with any large purchases they make. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed projects, right? I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of overall healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the countless unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once again...."it's for the children" YAWN Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all together - are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards. -- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to the doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not counted. It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
... "Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed projects, right? I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of overall healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the countless unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once again...."it's for the children" YAWN Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all together - are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards. -- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to the doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not counted. It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken |
wrote in message oups.com... NOYB wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Hmmm. The Highway bill appropriated the necessary funding to widen I-75 in Southwest Florida from 2 lanes to 3 lanes. Since most of the working folks in Naples, Bonita Springs, Estero, and Fort Myers have to sit in 1-2 hours of traffic on that road every morning, I'd say that the money is hardly "wasteful pork spending". The Highway Bill had 6,000 pork additions to it. 6000!!!! BILLIONS of the dollars for the Highway Bill is used up by the pork. Do you think that those below are "hardly wasteful pork spending"? Its just a few of them: WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Consider these items: construction of a $7 million ''Renaissance Square'' performing arts center in Rochester, New York; a $1.5 million improvement for the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Michigan; and the $1 million renovation of a historic bus station in Jessup, Georgia. There's money for all three -- and much more -- in the new highway construction bill. Many people may not understand what such projects have to do with highways. But that's "How It Works." Lawmakers of both parties use the massive bill to earmark funds for local projects that appeal to the folks back home. That's especially important in election years. Because there's something for everyone in the bill, it routinely sails through Congress. The $275 billion dollar transportation bill that the House approved last week contains at least $11 billion worth of local pet projects. Rep. William Lipinski, D-Illinois, who pushed through a $4 million parking garage, wanted an even bigger bill. Last year, he introduced a $375 billion highway bill -- a full $100 million more than the one passed last week. Lipinski may be a Democrat, but pork is bipartisan. Kingston, the sponsor of the historic bus station renovation, is a conservative Republican. Democrats and Republicans defended the spending. "If you don't keep good highways, you can't keep and grow good jobs," Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Missouri, said on the Senate floor. Others see the spending as fiscally irresponsible. "How far and disgraceful a path we have tread in this pork-barrel laden piece of over-spending at a time when we have all-time deficits," declared Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona. The White House agrees and is threatening a veto -- which both houses of Congress have enough votes to override. In the end, that means President Bush will be able to take a stand against pork-barrel spending, but House and Senate members will still get the pork they so desire There was something like 20% pork in the first Iraq spending bill. Lots to Democrats also. Why are Byrd and Kennedy so popular in their states? They bring home the pork! Where was your outrage then? |
"Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed projects, right? I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of overall healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the countless unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once again...."it's for the children" YAWN Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all together - are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards. -- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to the doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not counted. It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed projects, right? I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of overall healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the countless unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once again...."it's for the children" YAWN Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all together - are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards. -- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to the doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not counted. It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also. Note how he didn't include his sig line on the last post............typical liebral......whining about others doing what they themselves are guilty of. |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed projects, right? I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of overall healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the countless unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once again...."it's for the children" YAWN Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all together - are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards. -- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to the doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not counted. It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also. Note how he didn't include his sig line on the last post............typical liebral......whining about others doing what they themselves are guilty of. Yep. For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here it is: ------------------- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. ---------------------- How nice of you Peter. BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand. |
"*JimH*" wrote in message ... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed projects, right? I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of overall healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the countless unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once again...."it's for the children" YAWN Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all together - are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards. -- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to the doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not counted. It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also. Note how he didn't include his sig line on the last post............typical liebral......whining about others doing what they themselves are guilty of. Yep. For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here it is: ------------------- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. ---------------------- How nice of you Peter. BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand. My comment was a twist of his sig line and he calls me a nitwit moron....he obviously "got it" because he removed his sig line...........I think he should look in a mirror. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here it is: ------------------- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. ---------------------- How nice of you Peter. BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand. I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins, et al, start speaking out on "name calling." We learned it from you. Oh Master of the inane. |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message
k.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... snipped It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also. Are you serious? Is this the most intelligent response you could come up with? Are you interested in the issues or in high-school "gotcha?" Jesus H. Christ, and these people are allowed to vote. -- Peter Aitken |
"P. Fritz" wrote in message
... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed projects, right? I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of overall healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the countless unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once again...."it's for the children" YAWN Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all together - are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards. -- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to the doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not counted. It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also. Note how he didn't include his sig line on the last post............typical liebral......whining about others doing what they themselves are guilty of. Hmmm - you quote my post with sig line while claiming I did not include it. Perhaps you can go to the morgue and get a used brain. Who ties your shoes for you? -- Peter Aitken |
"*JimH*" wrote in message
... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message k.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... "P. Fritz" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: A Year of Accomplishment for Special Interests As he headed to his ranch in Crawford for the month of August, President Bush gave himself a pat on the back. On his radio address Saturday, Bush said, "this year Congress and I have addressed many key priorities." The only problem is, this administration's priorities are different from your priorities. Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- HIGHWAY BILL: On Friday, Congress sent to President Bush a six-year $286.5 billion highway bill which was overflowing with wasteful pork spending. Take the $25 million "Bridge to Nowhere," connecting two South Carolina towns with a combined population of 2,000. Or the $95 million appropriated to widen a highway in Sheboygan and Fond du Lac counties in Wisconsin -- "a widening that the state Department of Transportation says is unnecessary for 15 to 20 years and that legislators approved after bypassing the DOT and a commission charged with developing major road projects." And thanks to Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), known as "Uncle Ted" for his willingness to spoil his constituents with pork projects, the bill also includes $200 million for a one-mile span linking Ketchikan, Alaska, with Gravina Island (currently, fifty people live on Gravina Island -- "they reach Ketchikan by taking a seven-minute ferry ride") and $1.5 million for a single bus stop in Anchorage, Alaska. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- CAFTA: President Bush hailed the final passage of the Central American Free Trade Agreement by saying that the House "has acted to advance America's economic and national security interests by passing the CAFTA-DR agreement." But the combined economies of the six other CAFTA nations "only equal that of New Haven, Conn." and "account for barely one percent of U.S. trade." The biggest winners in the so-called CAFTA victory are the drug and telecommunications industries, not the American worker. Meanwhile, "the Bush administration's fiscal irresponsibility with tax cuts and unnecessary spending priorities has crippled our ability to help workers retrain and compete on the international stage." Furthermore, President Bush "has tightened the eligibility requirements for [the Trade Adjustment Assistance program], denying many workers even the modest resources available under that program," "pursued policies that leave many workers who qualify for TAA benefits without access to this program," and essentially taken the safety net out from under real workers with real families directly affected by CAFTA. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- ENERGY BILL: Next up was energy legislation that lavished the fossil-fuel industries with $515 million in new subsidies, including "$125 million to reimburse oil and gas producers for 115% of the costs of remediating, reclaiming, and closing orphaned wells." The House managed to add $35 billion of pork to the energy bill in just the last three weeks before it was passed - "a total of $88.9 billion in subsidies to industry over 10 years in the bill." Despite these handouts, Congress admits the bill will "do nothing in the short term to drive down high gasoline and other energy prices or significantly reduce America's growing reliance on foreign oil." A 2004 analysis by the administration's Energy Information Administration found that the Bush-backed energy bill will actually raise gas prices and increase oil demand nearly 14 percent by 2010. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- BANKRUPTCY BILL: Then came the "bankruptcy reform" monstrosity, which made it more difficult for average Americans suffering from financial misfortune to declare bankruptcy. The credit card industry, which took in $30 billion in profits last year and doled out more than $7.8 million to candidates in the 2004 election cycle, lobbied relentlessly for the bill, pushing the fiction that bankruptcies occur because of "irresponsible consumerism" (in bill sponsor Charles Grassley's (R-IA) words). In fact, "ninety percent of all bankruptcies are triggered by the loss of a job, high medical bills or divorce." In recent years, personal bankruptcy rates have shot to record highs amid a weak labor market and declining health insurance coverage. The bill created several "new hurdles" that will make it harder and more expensive for Americans to recover from such episodes, while failing to stop the actual abuses that plague the system. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- IRAQ SUPPLEMENTAL: Even the Iraq supplemental spending was covered with special interest fingerprints. Though the bills were passed without any provisions to hold the White House accountable for its flailing Iraq strategy, and failed to deal with the equipment shortfalls plaguing our troops, they did offer major cash for questionable contracts and corrupt and incompetent corporations. At the same time, the Pentagon has pursued "back-door budgeting for the wars." Gordon Adams, director of security policy studies at George Washington University, referenced "reduced training, exercises and operating tempo, slowdowns in maintenance, [and] delays on maintaining facilities" as ways that the Pentagon has tried to get around paying for the bloated war costs. Other strategies appear to be not paying soldiers what they are owed and deducting money for debts that do not even exist. FOR SPECIAL INTERESTS -- TORT REFORM: And finally, there was the so-called "tort reform" legislation, pushed by conservatives who claimed "the prospect of big jury awards in medical malpractice cases was causing insurance rates to soar and doctors to abandon their practices." If you scrape away the overheated rhetoric and look at the reality, however, a very different picture emerges. The legislation has no real effect on the cost of health ca the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of health care spending, and that capping medical malpractice would affect private health insurance premiums by a measly one half of 1 percent. Moreover, the caps would "disproportionately affect" children and seniors who live on fixed incomes. According to the CBO, it also would "undermine incentives for safety" while at the same time making it "harder for some patients with legitimate but difficult claims to find legal representation." Thank God none of that money went to any Democrat developed projects, right? I love the misdirectional spin of the liebrals............wrt tort reform.....while malpractice awards may only amount to 2% of overall healthcare spending, the cost of defending suits, as well as the countless unneeded test etc ordered to avoid malpractice suits is overwhelming........leave it to the liebrals to argue once again...."it's for the children" YAWN Read the article before responding. Malpractice *costs* - all together - are less than 2%, not just malpractice awards. -- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. A lot more than 2%. Lots of tests are now specified when going to the doctor or the hospital to avoid malpractice suits. These are not counted. It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also. Note how he didn't include his sig line on the last post............typical liebral......whining about others doing what they themselves are guilty of. Yep. For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here it is: ------------------- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. ---------------------- How nice of you Peter. BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand. Guilty as charged - but by god they sure deserve it! -- Peter Aitken |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here it is: ------------------- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. ---------------------- How nice of you Peter. BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand. I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins, et al, start speaking out on "name calling." We learned it from you. Oh Master of the inane. |
"HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here it is: ------------------- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. ---------------------- How nice of you Peter. BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand. I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins, et al, start speaking out on "name calling." Except for me calling you an asshole, which you are, what other name calling do I do Krause? |
"Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here it is: ------------------- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. ---------------------- How nice of you Peter. BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand. I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins, et al, start speaking out on "name calling." When was the last time you actually contributed an *On* topic post to this NG? Your petty insults and name calling..............getting old. But that is all you seem to do here. |
Hmmm - you quote my post with sig line while claiming I did not include it. Perhaps you can go to the morgue and get a used brain. Who ties your shoes for you? -- Peter Aitken Why the need for personal insults in your replies Peter? By doing so you are showing you cannot keep up with the debate/discussion at hand. |
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 00:03:47 GMT, "Peter Aitken"
wrote: "Bill McKee" wrote in message nk.net... "Peter Aitken" wrote in message . com... snipped It is not just the tests themselves, but the way doctors practice, keep records, staffing, etc etc. And then throw in the cost of malpractice insurance. Peter needs to support reading comprehension for liebrals like himself You really are a moron, aren't you? You have made a claim that may or not be true - I do not know one way or the other. I ask for evidence and all you can do is call names. This is what passes for "dialog" among right-wing nitwits. -- Peter Aitken Seems to be what passes for "dialog" among Left-wing nitwits also. Are you serious? Is this the most intelligent response you could come up with? Are you interested in the issues or in high-school "gotcha?" Jesus H. Christ, and these people are allowed to vote. But meanwhile Peter wrote: Who ties your shoes for you? -- Peter Aitken Are you serious, Peter? Is that what passes for "intelligent" for you? |
|
On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 01:16:14 GMT, Shortwave Sportfishing
wrote: On 1 Aug 2005 10:48:39 -0700, wrote: ~~ snippage ~~ Every major legislative initiative signed by the president this year has been a boon to special interests, but ignored the real needs of the American people. Name one 20th President who has not catered to "special" interests? Betcha can't. make that 20th Century President - sorry. :) |
Harry,
Don't you hate it when others play the game better than you do? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Bill McKee wrote: "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... *JimH* wrote: For those who missed it (or so you don't have to go back to find it), here it is: ------------------- Peter Aitken Supporting literacy lessons for conservatives. ---------------------- How nice of you Peter. BTW Peter: Once the name calling begins your credibility drops to zero and shows your inability to carry on a discussion of the issues at hand. I just love it when right-wing scum like Hertvik, Fritz, McKee, Robbins, et al, start speaking out on "name calling." We learned it from you. Oh Master of the inane. Doubt it; none of you seem even slightly trainable. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com