Segall on the issues—Part Three: The sit-down

By Jennifer J. Foster

(Editor’s note: This is Part 3 of a three-part series about my conversations with Democratic congressional candidate Josh Segall last week when he was in Opelika. To read Part 1, click here; to read Part 2, click here.)

After the meeting, Segall accepted a $5,000 campaign contribution from Greg England and representatives of the United Steelworkers Union. I spoke with England and Bobby Donald, president of the Lee County Democratic Club and also a union representative, about their support for Segall. The two have worked together in Washington and have spent time lobbying U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers. I asked them about Rogers’ support for the minimum wage increase.

“Mike votes against us on everything that comes up,” England said. The only exceptions, he said, are when Rogers sees bills that are going to pass anyway; in those cases, England said, Rogers will vote with the union’s interest.

That’s what happened with the minimum wage, England said.

I had one more opportunity to sit down with Segall and ask some follow-up questions. What about Pakistan? I said. Do you consider it an ally?

“Pakistan is as serious an issue as you have anywhere in the world,” Segall said, noting that Pakistan is a nuclear power.

What about cross-border raids in pursuit of militants from Afghanistan, and what about the Pakistani military’s orders to shoot American soldiers who cross the border in the course of such raids?

The attention the Bush Administration has paid to Iraq has been “damaging” to our interests in Pakistan, Segall said, because “it has allowed al-Qaeda to rebuild” there. But “if we need to go over the border, we go over the border” in pursuit of the militants, Segall said.

Segall went on to discuss how the United States’ relationship with Pakistan has deteriorated over the years. He noted that, decades before, we had a good relationship with that country based on our financial support for their infrastructure and education needs. “We need to do that again, to make sure that they don’t become a breeding ground for terrorism,” Segall said. “We need to have engagement with them on all levels.”

Back to health care, I wanted to hear more about Segall’s support for legislation barring hospitals from charging insured and uninsured patients different rates for the same procedure. He said that he would require hospitals to charge uninsured patients the same amount for the same procedure that they charge insured patients. Failing to do so is discrimination against the uninsured, Segall said, since insurance companies negotiate with hospitals for preferred rates for procedures performed on insured patients.

But wouldn’t that serve as a disincentive for hospitals to negotiate the lower price? I asked. Wouldn’t that serve as a disincentive for people to get health insurance?

Hospitals are going to have to negotiate, Segall said; “that’s capitalism. The market tends to be a good thing, but we don’t have capitalism in health care right now,” he said. “There are many places where you don’t have a choice of provider, and there isn’t enough information” to make an informed choice where choices do exist.

Finally, I asked Segall about his stance on abortion. We discussed the Rogers ad that calls him “pro-abortion.” Segall said that he would support Democrats for Life’s 95-10 Initiative (legislative info here and here), which seeks to decrease the incidence of abortion by 95 percent over 10 years, and “real sex education,” which he defined as abstinence-plus.

Segall provided me with the following statement on the Air Force’s tanker bid, which Alabama won and then lost in a dramatic Pentagon reveral that pitted the American West and Midwest against the American South:

I think both parties have been pandering to Washington state, where Boeing is located, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves.  Northrup Grumman clearly delivered the better bid; they would build larger, more versatile aircraft for less money.  I hope the final decision is based on economics, not on politics.

And on concerns about his ability to act independently of his party, Segall provided this statement:

A Congressman’s first responsibility is to the people of his district, and this means you’ve got to be willing to break with your party and to do things that are going to make your donors unhappy.  This takes leadership and independence, and Mike Rogers hasn’t demonstrated either of those things.  When I’m in Congress, I’ll work with whoever is in the White House and anyone in Congress to bring good jobs to the third district.

So, there you have it: My three-part blog post about my conversation with congressional candidate Josh Segall last week.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Ideas? Please e-mail me; I’d love to hear from you.

The Segall campaign plans to work the phones every Wednesday and Thursday night and canvass neighborhoods within the district every Sunday through Election Day.

Thanks!

See also:

Segall for Congress

The bailout’s silver lining

By Jennifer J. Foster

As a follow-up to my earlier post about the government’s $700 billion bailout plan for the financial services industry, I am pleased to say ...

YAY!!

Both presidential candidates have addressed the factor that is glaringly and obnoxiously missing from Henry Paulson’s original bailout plan. .

If you missed it, here’s what I said earlier today:

Here’s what I want to know: Among all the potential “fixes” and tweaks being considered by lawmakers ... why isn’t anyone proposing an eligibility requirement that would make these CEOs forfeit their $25, $30 million bonuses for their bankrupted firms to be part of the bailout?

Admittedly, the amount of the bonuses won’t right the financial companies. But it’s the least those companies should be required to do as a show of good faith with the American taxpayer, who is now left to clean up the mess left in the wake of their willful, reckless disregard for even the most elementary principles of responsible lending.

Actually, calling it “good faith” might be a bit euphemistic. Because requiring failed corporate CEOs to give up multi-million bonuses to be eligible for a government bailout program is really just asking them not to poke us in the eye while they steal our wallet.

Here’s what the candidates said:

In Clearwater, Fla., today, Barack Obama outlined the principles he said he wants to see incorporated into the bailout plan. From the Associated Press:

Companies that take financial aid from the government must slash their executives’ salaries, he said. Taxpayers must be treated like investors who can share in any Wall Street recovery, perhaps with an ownership stake in the companies that are bailed out, and a new fee on financial services should be created to repay the government aid.

“This plan cannot be a welfare program for Wall Street executives,“ he said at a news conference.

Decisions on how to spend that $700 billion cannot be left solely in the hands of the Treasury secretary, Obama added. An independent, bipartisan board should “provide oversight and accountability at every step of the way.“

In Freeland, Mich., John McCain also called for a cap on executive pay for companies getting federal help as part of his five-point bailout fix-up plan (whew; say that phrase five times fast), according to CNN:

Senior leaders of any firm bailed out by the federal government “should not be making more than the highest paid government official,“ he said.

McCain also wants included a mechanism to help taxpayers recover the $700 billion planned for the bailout, complete transparency in regard to crafting and implementation of any legislation, an earmark- and pork barrel-spending-free bill and—perhaps most importantly—greater accountability, CNN reported, including a bipartisan board to “provide oversight to the rescue.“

“That oversight is absolutely essential,“ McCain said, also arguing against the unprecedented power granted to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in managing the plan.

No, I don’t know who actually said what first, and I don’t care. My only reaction was, “Good; they both agree on the executive salary issue. Now, let’s see if they actually work to get it into the bill.“

ALGOP bus tour—Wednesday schedule

By Jennifer J. Foster

Here’s the Wednesday schedule for the Alabama Republican Party’s “Hometown Connection” bus tour, which features all the judgeship candidates and the candidate for PSC president:

Crenshaw County Courthouse, Luverne; 8 a.m.

Brantley City Hall, Brantley; 9 a.m.

Convington County Courthouse, Andalusia; 10:45 a.m.

Escambia County Courthouse, Brewton; 1 p.m.

Flomaton City Hall, Flomaton; 2:30 p.m.

Atmore City Hall, Atmore; 3:15 p.m.

Did anyone out there attend any of the rallies today? If so, I’d like to hear from you.

The dumbest thing I’ve heard today

By Jennifer J. Foster

This isn’t going to become a celebrity blog, I promise, but I just have to tell you what I just heard on TV.

I’m watching “Dancing with the Stars” (come on, you know you are, too), and celebrity chef Rocco DiSpirito just performed a terrific mambo. In his post-dance interview and in the glow of great comments from the judges (made even greater by the fact that he simply stunk last night), DiSpirito lauded his progress and exhorted all Americans who don’t dance to take it up.

“It’s the best thing in the world!“ DiSpirito gushed. “It should be on our national health care plan.“

Perennially aloof co-host Samantha “The Empty Vase” Harris responded with the dumbest thing I’ve heard today:

“Good idea! You should run for government!“

I am not making that up.

Samantha Harris thinks Rocco DiSpirito should “run for government.“

I think Samantha Harris should stop talking.

More on Northrop-Boeing tanker fight

By Jennifer J. Foster

Thanks to the Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, we know now the spread by which Northrop Grumman beat Boeing in the now-defunct bid to build 68 refueling tankers for the U.S. Air Force.

And by “beat,“ I mean whipped.

John Young, the Pentagon’s Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, told the Washington Post that Northrop’s bid came in $3 billion, with a ‘b,‘ cheaper than Boeing’s, according to the Mobile Press-Register.

That averages out to $184 million per plane for Northrop, compared to about $226 million each for Boeing.

“Frankly,“ Young said, Boeing’s tanker “was smaller and should have been cheaper,“ Young said.

“A member of the American public might conclude that Boeing sought to charge more than the Defense Department reasonably expected” to pay.

Hmmm.

In the first public comments in which a Pentagon official provided details of the bids, Linley said price point wasn’t the only area in which Northrop’s bid was superior to Boeing’s.

Young said the tankers offered by both companies were “technically outstanding.“ But he said the KC-45 “provided more tanker capability and (fuel) offload rate and was substantially cheaper to develop.“

And one more thing:

Northrop would deliver the planes faster than Boeing.

So ... just to review, Northrop’s bid was:

Cheaper;

Better;

Faster.

Kind of makes you think that maybe Barack Obama is the one who “just doesn’t get it,“ huh?