President Obama and his staff went on the offensive last weekend against what they called “false witness” about the health care bill now being advanced in Congress.
The president has sought to especially tamp down speculation that the bill as currently written would provide for abortion coverage under a public plan. He even singled that issue out in his weekly radio address last week.
To my friends on the other side of the political spectrum who insist that Americans will not be forced to subsidize abortions under President Obama’s health care plan, I ask you to watch this clip and respond with your thoughts.
Please note that while this is a clip from an interest group that is fighting subsidized abortion coverage in the bill, the president’s words are his own—and they are unequivocal.
I ask you to note especially his comments with respect to his intentions for insurance “reform” as it relates to abortion coverage.
The president has stayed on the fence with a lot of things as Congress has pursued this legislation (which I have now decided that I will no longer refer to as “reform”).
But this is one area where he has definitively staked out his turf ... and it’s far, far away from the fence.
It comes down to this: If the Obama agenda really doesn’t include the expansion of coverage to abortion services, it’s easy enough to take steps that will effectively end the concern once and for all. Congress needs only to include language in the bill that specifically excludes abortion coverage from any public plan.
Two weeks ago, a Democrat-controlled committee called the Legislative Council rejected a plan by the State Board of Education to put a code of ethics in the state administrative code. At the urging of the Alabama Education Association, the council called the code vague and recommended the school board rewrite it to remove several rules.
The board on Thursday said it would stand by its proposal and not change it.
Now, the full Legislature will have to decide when it returns in January whether to back up the Legislative Council’s decision or go along with the ethics code as it is written.
The code will be considered at the same time as Republican Gov. Bob Riley’s legislation tightening the ethics rules for public officials.
Well, if Paul Hubbert and the AEA—er, Democrats in the Alabama Legislature—wanted a showdown on ethics reform in an election year, they got it.
As the old saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
I can’t think of a more ruinous issue for the Democrats than ethics reform. Think about it: They will have barely two months under their belts between the sentencing of former two-year state college chancellor Roy Johnson on a bevy of corruption charges and this legislative showdown with Riley.
Meanwhile, Bradley Byrne, the guy who came in and cleaned up the royal mess that Johnson left behind, will be making the rounds, telling Alabamians just how badly that ethics reform is needed—because he saw it first hand.
So Democrats are going to try to run on ethics reform after fighting it off with a stick for four years?
Please.
But let’s take a look, shall we, at just what the SBOE wanted that the AEA and Democratic legislators didn’t:
State Superintendent of Education Joe Morton, the driving force behind the ethics code, said it was never intended as an election issue. “I don’t do politics,” said Morton, who is appointed rather than elected.
The proposed code outlines acceptable and unacceptable conduct for education employees.
The Legislative Council wanted to remove several sections, including one that defined unethical conduct as harassing colleagues, misusing tests, using inappropriate language at school, and failing to provide appropriate supervision of students.
Morton said he was most troubled by the suggestion to remove a section saying that educators “should refrain from the use of alcohol and/or tobacco during the course of professional practice and should never use illegal or unauthorized drugs.”
“The one on drugs and alcohol blew my mind,” Morton said after Thursday’s board meeting.
Read that again.
State Democratic Party Chairman Joe Turnham said some Republicans are trying to “politicize ethics” for their benefit in the 2010 election.
Really? Well, there’s one way to stop them from doing that.
PASS ETHICS REFORM.
They could have done it this past session ... or the session before that ... or the session before that.
No dice.
Oh, they’ll say they will. They’ll make all kinds of promises, like they always do. But they won’t pass it—at least not in any recognizable, useful form. As a voter in Alabama, you have to feel a bit like Charlie Brown: Don’t you get tired of the AEA and their Democratic puppets, like Lucy, jerking the ethics-reform football away at the last minute?
So since Democrats continue to refuse to take the simple steps to defuse the ethics issue, you have to wonder: Do they really see it has a winning issue for themselves?
And here’s something else to ponder: State politicos generally assume that the AEA is so cold to Artur Davis’ gubernatorial candidacy because they don’t believe he can win in November. But could it be that Davis understands that his party has no credibility on that issue, so he would move to eliminate it as a problem—by adopting the needed reforms—straight out of the gate?
If so, good for Artur Davis—and good for the people of Alabama.
The AEA is taking the people of Alabama for fools. It’s long past time that the leadership of that circus pulled up the stakes and headed out of town.
Researchers with Auburn University’s Space Research Institute recently showed why they are at the forefront of solar energy development in Alabama: They took the lead in installing a power system using the technology at Lee County’s T.K. Davis Justice Center, the first public building in the state to be outfitted with solar energy.
After months of research and analysis, the Auburn team managed the installation of a 16.56 kW grid-connected solar-powered system on the new addition to the center. The system will offset the energy costs of electricity the building uses.
“The Lee County Commission contracted with Auburn University to procure and install the system, to develop and manage a Web site and to conduct systems analysis and modeling,” said Henry Brandhorst, director of Auburn’s Space Research Institute. “We want to show that solar power is successful and to have others invest in it.”
“Every amount of power that we generate is power they don’t need from the grid,” Brandhorst said. And, if the center does not use all the power generated by the solar system on a given day, then their power meter literally runs backwards. The system will eventually pay for itself once the cost savings from the solar panels equals the cost of equipment and installation.
“Solar power systems are costly but costs are continuing to decrease every year,” Brandhorst said.
The release goes on to note how the research developed from the project will have practical applications for consumers, whether they eventually rely solely on solar at some point in the future, or whether they use it to supplement their traditional energy supplies. If you’re interested, you can view the building’s solar power output in real time at the team’s web site.
Solar power isn’t the only alternative energy area of interest to Auburn researchers. U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers toured the university’s Center for Bioenergy and Bioproducts Tuesday, getting “a glimpse of technology that could make bioenergy production more reliable and practical,“ according to this story in the Opelika-Auburn News.
Rogers helped bring about $1.5 million in federal funding for biofuels research at AU.
“I have been a big believer in it for years,” Rogers said of alternative energy research. “Global competition for oil is a loser for us.”
There’s been a lot of talk recently about the difference between legitimate federal spending and pork. As the old saying goes, if it comes to my district, it’s legit; if it goes to your district, it’s waste.
But Rogers captures the essence of the difference with his quote.
Here’s how I see it: Legitimate federal spending is money that, while spent in one place, has a likelihood of producing benefits for Americans broadly. Pork is money that goes into a district and stays there—basically a redistribution of tax dollars drawn from other areas of the country without much, if any, hope for return.
Of course, all this is predicated on the assumption that the government spends money on things and for purposes delineated in the Constitution ...
I linked you last week to a story in the Opelika-Auburn News about a new discount drug program in Opelika.
Today we have an update to that story, also from the News. It seems that local pharmacy owners aren’t too thrilled with the plan:
The city of Opelika will launch a prescription drug discount card on Saturday through the National League of Cities that could save non-insured residents up to 20 percent on their medication, but not everyone thinks it’s a good thing.
The cards, which will have the city of Opelika emblem, are administered by CVS/Caremark, the combination of the CVS drugstore/pharmacy chain and Caremark, a pharmacy benefit manager (a third party administrator of prescription drug programs). The two merged in 2007.
The cards offer discounts on prescription drugs, but the walk-off-the-street cost of prescriptions at some pharmacies could be lower without the use of the card. The pricing for the discount is based on usual and customary retail prices.
“The assumption being made is that all pharmacies other than CVS are over charging,” said Roger Burnett, owner of Thomas Pharmacy Inc., in Opelika. “We feel like our prices are probably as good as they are going to tell us to charge anyway.”
I want to share with you this statement that President Obama released regarding the passing Tuesday night of U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy:
Michelle and I were heartbroken to learn this morning of the death of our dear friend, Senator Ted Kennedy.
For nearly five decades, virtually every major piece of legislation to advance the civil rights, health and economic well-being of the American people bore his name and resulted from his efforts. His ideas and ideals are stamped on scores of laws and reflected in millions of lives—in seniors who know new dignity; in families that know new opportunity; in children who know education’s promise; and in all who can pursue their dream in an America that is more equal and more just, including me.
In the United States Senate, I can think of no one who engendered greater respect or affection from members of both sides of the aisle. His seriousness of purpose was perpetually matched by humility, warmth and good cheer. He battled passionately on the Senate floor for the causes that he held dear, and yet still maintained warm friendships across party lines. And that’s one reason he became not only one of the greatest senators of our time, but one of the most accomplished Americans ever to serve our democracy. I personally valued his wise counsel in the Senate, where, regardless of the swirl of events, he always had time for a new colleague. I cherished his confidence and momentous support in my race for the Presidency.
And even as he waged a valiant struggle with a mortal illness, I’ve benefited as President from his encouragement and wisdom. His fight gave us the opportunity we were denied when his brothers John and Robert were taken from us: the blessing of time to say thank you and goodbye. The outpouring of love, gratitude and fond memories to which we’ve all borne witness is a testament to the way this singular figure in American history touched so many lives.
For America, he was a defender of a dream. For his family, he was a guardian. Our hearts and prayers go out to them today—to his wonderful wife, Vicki, his children Ted Jr., Patrick and Kara, his grandchildren and his extended family. Today, our country mourns. We say goodbye to a friend and a true leader who challenged us all to live out our noblest values. And we give thanks for his memory, which inspires us still.
It is a warm, personal statement from a man who enjoyed immense benefits, both personally and professionally, from the influence and support of one of America’s most powerful political figures.
But notice what the president does NOT do: He does NOT turn this statement into an opportunity to score political points on the health care debate.
The same cannot be said for Democratic leaders in Congress, whose actions have been shameful.
There is a time for reflection, and there is a time for politics—and it’s unfortunate that President Obama seems to be the only high-ranking Democrat who understands the difference.
