CNN is reporting, and his family has confirmed, that U.S. Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) has died of brain cancer.
He was 77.
Kennedy has been fighting cancer for more than a year, and his absence from the Senate as it undertook health care legislation—for decades, his key issue—was a constant reminder of the seriousness of his condition. Most recently, word surfaced that Kennedy had written personal notes to leaders of the Massachusetts Legislature to ask them to change the state’s successor law to ensure that his seat would not be left vacant for months—but especially when Congress voted on the health care bill now working its way through Congress—as his successor was established through a special election, as state law currently provides.
There will be plenty of time to talk about the impact Kennedy’s death will have on the ongoing efforts to overhaul health care in Washington.
Tonight is not that time.
Kennedy made a substantial contribution to public service. He was a U.S. Army veteran and served more than 46 years in the Senate. I encourage you to read about his career here.
Regardless of your thoughts about Kennedy’s political philosophy and record—and, for better or for worse, he is one of America’s most controversial political figures—his death marks the irrefutable passing of an important era in American politics. The Kennedy name is synonymous with politics in the United States; as the brother of one president and the brother of another might-have-been president, both of whom were brutally assassinated before the eyes of the world, Ted Kennedy was a unique link between the country our nation has become and what it used to be.
My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.
See also:
This obituary, an expansive and sweeping overview of Kennedy’s life, from ABC News.
I caught up with U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers (R-AL) tonight after his speech to the Lee County Republican Executive Committee in Auburn.
I say I caught up with him after the speech because I got there just in time to hear the last paragraph of his remarks. I arrived just before the 7 p.m. meeting; unfortunately for me, Rogers was part of the 6 p.m. social hour. (Note to self: In the Lee County REC, “Social hour” actually includes business.)
Anyway, he was gracious enough to hang around in the lobby for a few minutes to catch me up on what he told the standing-room-only crowd of about 100.
Here’s what he said:
At the close of his formal remarks, Rogers was encouraging the crowd to work especially hard to retain the senior members of Alabama’s congressional delegation, including U.S. senators Richard Shelby and Jeff Sessions. Only after years of building seniority can legislators really start to make broad impacts on public policy, Rogers said, and through Shelby and Sessions, “Alabama is finally getting some seniority.“ Shelby, the ranking member on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee,“is an 800-pound gorilla” in Washington, and Sessions’ new position as the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee made him the GOP’s “point man” as the Senate considered the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
As Rogers concluded his remarks, a man over my shoulder said half-heartedly to the man sitting next to him, “Well, I guess the bottom line is, we’re stuck for the next 30 years.“
I couldn’t stifle a chuckle.
Later, I asked Tripp Skipper, Rogers’ senior adviser, how long Rogers intended to stay in Congress.
“My guess is he’ll keep going back as long as the good folks of the Third District will send him,“ Skipper said.
On health care: Rogers told me that most of his remarks to the crowd had focused on the health care bill now making its way through Congress.
“The whole debate is about the public option,“ he said. And while some people may think that the Democratic leadership will back off of the public option because of the “upheaval” it has caused across the country, “I don’t think it’s over,“ he said.
Rogers said there is no circumstance under which he would support a bill that included a public option, citing concerns that such an option would eventually lead to a single-payer system.
“I have serious questions about the implications of keeping the public option on the table,“ Rogers said. “They say it’s to keep the private insurance companies honest. But if the public option doesn’t have to make a profit, doesn’t have to pay taxes, is not subject to the same rules and regulations as the private sector and is subsidized by the government, how can private insurance companies compete with that?“
The scenario would inevitably lead to the single-payer system, Rogers said.
He also has concerns about health care delivery in rural areas under the new plan, he said.
“My job is to ask questions. If I’m wrong, then it should be easy to disprove what I’m saying.“
As for the public option, Rogers said he expects that liberal Democrats will succeed at getting the bill out of the House with it intact. How? Speaker Nancy Pelosi is “smart, capable and she really wants this,“ Rogers said, so he expects that she will target a handful of Democrats (14, if she keeps the rest of the Democrats together) from the Blue Dog caucus who are in strong positions in their districts, peel them off from the caucus and lock them down on the vote to get the bill passed. Those members, theoretically, will be able to withstand the political storms in their districts; the rest of the Blue Dogs, Rogers said, will be released to “do what they have to do” in voting against the bill and go back to their districts to say whatever is necessary to keep their seats.
The real problem is in the Senate, where, as I have told you over the last two days, liberal Democrats are floating the idea of using reconciliation to pass the health care bill without having to overcome the threat of a filibuster. We didn’t get back to what Rogers thought would happen if the Senate passed the bill under reconciliation and it came back to the House from conference with the public option intact. But I suspect his reticence on that issue spoke volumes.
On that national “upheaval” Rogers mentioned: He said he’s “disturbed” by the White House’s reaction to the anger at town hall meetings. That anger isn’t just about what’s going on in health care, he said. It was caused by a “series of policy decisions,“ starting with the stimulus package, including the cap and trade bill and continuing through other moves strengthening the government’s control over the financial sector. Add what’s going on with health care to the mix, and Americans are seeing “a lot of public policy movement” that consolidates power in the federal government.
“My town halls are packed, and I’ve never had that before,“ Rogers said.
I asked Rogers about the way health care is sucking all the oxygen out of the room and whether that is enabling anything else to fly below the radar in Congress. At first, he shook his head, but then he mentioned the Employer Free Choice Act.
You might have missed it in all the health care and Supreme Court news last month, but the EFCA has undergone some substantial changes in the Senate. Or has it?
A handful of senators have signaled their opposition to the “card check” provision of the bill that would make it easier for unions to organize. That was the most controversial component of the bill, because it would substitute the card check for the secret-ballot elections that are now required for organization. But Rogers said he expects that the unions will make a full frontal assault on Congress to get what’s left of the bill—new arbitration provisions—into law.
Rogers said the unions—“who bought and paid for this Congress to get this bill through”—will try to swap the card check provision for tighter arbitration periods of as few as 30 days. Business organizations fear the change because, under expanded arbitration, they would have even less control than they do under the system now over what they pay their employees, what benefits they offer, etc.
Rogers will return to Washington for the fall session in two weeks.
It will be interesting to see how his prognostications play out.
I’ve kept up with all the news about the virus, though mostly by default; I don’t consider myself an alarmist, but because of the massive coverage it’s getting, it’s hard to miss it on cable news and on the web.
I’ve talked to various people about it at varying points along the way. The general consensus in my circle seemed to be that while H1N1 would probably cause a slightly more intense or lengthy bout of flu as compared with the regular seasonal flu, it wasn’t anything to worry about—at least not in the apoplectic way some people are doing.
And then I read this article from CNN, which says in part:
The H1N1 flu virus could cause up to 90,000 U.S. deaths, mainly among children and young adults, if it resurges this fall as expected, according to a report released Monday by a presidential advisory panel.
The H1N1 virus, commonly known as swine flu virus, could infect between 30 percent and 50 percent of the American population during the fall and winter and lead to as many as 1.8 million U.S. hospital admissions, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology reported.
The report says 30,000 to 90,000 deaths are projected as part of a “plausible scenario” involving large outbreaks at schools, inadequate antiviral supplies and the virus peaking before vaccinations have time to be effective ...
An H1N1 resurgence may happen as early as September, at the beginning of the school year, and infections may peak in mid-October, according to the report. However, the H1N1 vaccine isn’t expected to be available until mid-October, and even then it will take several weeks for vaccinated individuals to develop immunity, the report says.
(For comparison, the seasonal flu is responsible for up to 40,000 U.S. deaths annually, according to CNN.)
So, the government wants you to get the vaccine (which is actually two shots) ... but it isn’t available yet, and by the time you get it, it may be too late for it to work.
Yikes.
What do you think about all this? Are you in an at-risk group? Are you concerned about H1N1? Are you going to get the vaccine? Let me know in the polls below and in the sidebar.
Yes, it looks like the annual convention of the Grey Suit Society. But it wasn’t.
It was a gubernatorial forum, and six of the eight announced candidates for governor of Alabama converged on Taylor Road Baptist Church last night for the event sponsored by the Christian Coalition of Alabama.
In attendance were, from left, Republicans Robert Bentley, Bill Johnson and Tim James, Democrat Artur Davis, and Republicans Bradley Byrne and Roy Moore.
Absent were Democratic candidate Ron Sparks and Republican candidate Kay Ivey. The word on the street is that Ivey stayed away because she was frosted about some comments the head of the Christian Coalition of Alabama made about her failure vis-à-vis Alabama’s PACT (prepaid college tuition) program. Sparks’ absence, however, is “the bigger mystery,“ as one politico put it to me.
Maybe it had something to do with not wanting to talk to the Christian Coalition about his plan to save Alabama with gambling. But I’m just speculating.
Anyway, you can read Charles Dean’s roundup of the get-together over at the Birmingham News—and then you can round out that picture by reading this account from my friend Kris, who was there. Kris is to the left of center, but I find that we have much in common; we both detest partisanship for partisanship’s sake and are focused on finding common ground to achieve real progress on issues facing our state and federal governments.
Kris has a great, and somewhat surprising, perspective on all that was said.
In addition, Kris and a few others offered on-the-spot updates via Twitter. Check them out at:
@brentbuc (note: @brentbuc is a Bentley consultant).
A couple of notes on things that were said:
Regarding Bill Johnson, I’m still struggling to understand him as a candidate. I know he’s trying to make economic development the cornerstone of his campaign, but that already is a major issue for everyone else—and they had been talking about it for a while before he was even in the race (he was the last GOP candidate to dive in). If I was asking questions, I would have asked him to define very specifically for Alabamians what he brings to the table that is that much better than anyone else in the race. What does he offer Alabamians in fuller measure or purer form than what the others are discussing? I haven’t heard him make that case yet, and for me to view him as a serious candidate, he’s going to have to do it at some point.
Regarding Artur Davis, how refreshing it is to see a Democrat speak the truth about the Alabama Education Association, get behind the need to honestly consider charter schools as part of the education solution, forthrightly bottom-line the situation with health care in Washington and advocate forcefully a new state constitution. Davis is a breath of fresh air, someone who isn’t operating under the spell of the AEA and all its dough—which is why, unfortunately, those in power have continually sought to find someone to run against him. The more uncomfortable Paul Hubbert and the AEA are with Davis, the better and more authentic his candidacy looks to me.
And as for Tim James, he’s obviously fond of using that old line about how he’s “not a professional politician.“ But that always gives me pause. Yes, there is a case to be made for citizens from all walks of life entering government and public service. But just as term limits unnecessarily strip voters of their choices, so does the negative connotation of “professional politicians” unfairly paint all lawmakers with the same brush. If you want to get into public service, there are plenty of places where you can get important experience—you don’t have to run for governor right out of the gate. Think of it this way: If you were hiring someone to run your $12 BILLION company, would you want to hire someone with no experience in that field? Tim James is a good businessman; he would never do it in his company. Yet that is just what voters are asked to do when they are faced with a chief-executive candidate who has never worked in government.
Robert Bentley is giving good press to the idea of rolling reserve budgeting, and I am glad to see it. It’s important to remember that the rolling reserve idea originated with State Rep. Greg Canfield (R-Vestavia Hills) last legislative session (HB509, 2009 session). Canfield pleaded with lawmakers to institute the principle, which plans future budgets on the basis of budget growth and revenue receipts over the most recent 10-year period. But he was shut down by Democratic colleagues who didn’t like it, because they would be giving up absolute power over education appropriations, and Paul Hubbert didn’t much care for that idea—no matter that superintendents, who have to live within those budgets, were behind it. Rolling reserve budgeting is more than a good idea. It’s responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. Failure to implement it, then, is nothing short of irresponsible and reckless.
Bradley Byrne is the only guy the AEA fears more than Davis, so that makes him an attractive candidate to me. Byrne has fought the fight against the AEA in many arenas, not the least of which was the two-year college system, in which so many AEA-supported legislators were entrenched in two (or, in some cases, three) taxpayer-funded jobs. Byrne got in there and cleaned up the mess left behind by Roy Johnson. Most recently, he’s gone toe to toe with the AEA on tenure reform (about which you have read here and here before). The governor’s mansion is the next logical place for Byrne to take his fight for ethics reform and the continuation of Gov. Bob Riley’s outstanding work on economic development and education.
As for Roy Moore, well ... I don’t know what to say about his candidacy. I just wonder whether he would be better suited to advance his agenda of returning morality to the public square from a private foundation. I’m sure his heart is in the right place, but it’s hard to imagine him abroad, recruiting foreign investors to Alabama, and taking on the entrenched power structure in Montgomery. I just don’t see it.
The problem is that all those who sign up for the public option would have to pay into the account for abortion coverage, an amount “not less than $1 per month,“ according to the legislation. So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage.
I have been telling you about this for months, and here it is again—this time, from TIME, a source that can’t exactly be described as “anti-abortion:“
The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the Federal Government’s role in the financing of abortions. “It would be a dramatic shift,“ says Representative Bart Stupak, a Michigan Democrat who has vowed to oppose the bill because of how it would affect abortion. Stupak says dozens of House Democrats may join him in opposing a final health-care compromise unless the abortion language is changed, presenting a clear challenge to Democratic vote counters that could imperil a party-line vote.
It comes down to this: Since 1976, Congress has taken a “hands-off role” toward abortion services. And while the health care bill now moving through Congress doesn’t repeal the Hyde Amendment, which keeps government out of the abortion-funding business, it does make an end-run around it.
But it does find a way for the Federal Government to expand the coverage of abortion services through a government-run program — the so-called public option — without spending what it defines as federal dollars on abortion. Instead, the only money the public insurance option could spend on abortion that does not involve rape, incest or the life of the mother would be money collected from members dues; or, in the words of supporters like Elizabeth Shipp, of NARAL Pro-Choice America, the plan “could only use private funds to pay for abortion services.“
The member dues, or premiums, to pay for expanded abortion coverage would be segregated from the federal tax dollars by keeping the money in separate internal accounts. “You are spreading the cost of the procedure over a public plan,“ explains Stupak. Under the legislation, the Executive Branch would have to make a determination that abortion is a basic medical service for the service to be provided, something the Obama Administration is expected to do.
So ... public-option advocates and progressives who are going to knock on doors to convince mainstream America that this bill is good for the country: Do you plan on also telling those Americans that if they participate in this new public option, they’ll be funding abortion services?
And let’s not forget one important thing: By setting up the public option this way, the federal government and the Obama Administration is creating a funding source for for-profit companies that perform abortions. Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the world, is behind this bill, and it isn’t rocket science to try to figure out why.
Never mind whether it’s good policy. For Planned Parenthood and other for-profit abortion providers, it’s simply good business.
