Dr. Coburn, Report to the Senate Ethics Committe – STAT!

I used my second post on this blog to comment on Sen. John Ensign’s affair, and Sen. Coburn’s involvement in it. At that time, I said “Dr. Tom Coburn (R-OK), has said that he will not testify about advice he may have given Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) on Sen. Ensign’s affair. Sen. Coburn cites religious counseling and patient confidentiality protections.” I also noted that “Dr. Coburn is an OB/GYN,” and took a light-hearted jab at Sen. Coburn; “…what, exactly, he would be treating Sen. Ensign for?”

Well, the Senate Ethics Committe has released the Public Report Preliminary Inquiry into the matter of Sen Ensign and it seems the good doctor couldn’t keep his word – or hide behind confidentiality protections.

Over at the Daily Kos, blue aardvark has an article quoting juicy bits of the report, building a case for the investigation of Sen. Coburn. I’ll quote the conclusion:

I would say there is considerable evidence that Senator Coburn made false statements to the Senate Ethics committee – his testimony contradicts that of other witnesses at several points. There is also evidence that he was part of arranging illegal payments which were supposed to be in the millions of dollars.

Tom Coburn ought to have an investigation of his own.

Sen Ensign has resigned, and the Agence France-Presse is reporting that he may face criminal charges.

Rep. Kern’s Apology Rings Hollow…

I’m following up on the Kern kerfuffle.

The folks at Talking Points Memo published an article Friday titled: “OK GOPer Apologizes For Saying Black People Don’t Work As Hard.” The full article is here.

The article says, in part;

Oklahoma State Rep. Sally Kern (R) has apologized for her comments about black people not working as hard, saying that “my words were, obviously, not spoken correctly and for that I humbly apologize.”

But, she added: “Unfortunately, when we take ‘words or sentences’ out of the total context of a speech debated on the floor, there can be false misrepresentations, but the most important part is to always go to the heart of the matter.”

So, she is saying that her words were not spoken correctly. taken out of context, and misrepresented. Let’s take a look at the transcript she provided:

You know I think that God gave us two ears so that we could hear both sides of the argument. We have heard tonight already that in prison there are more black people. Yes there are and that’s tragic. It’s tragic that our prisons here in Oklahoma, what are they, 99% occupancy? But the other side of the story perhaps we need to consider is this just because they’re black that they’re in prison or could it be because they didn’t want to work hard in school and white people often times don’t want to work hard in school or Asians often times. But a lot of times that’s what happens. I taught school for 20 years and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t want to work as hard, they wanted it given to them. Matter of fact I had one student that said, “I don’t need to study, you know why? The government’s gonna take care of me.” That’s kind of revealing there.

So, talking about the high proportion of blacks in OK prisons, she illustrates her point by saying blacks, whites and Asians (the last two only ‘often times’) don’t want to work hard in school. She goes on to further refine her point by saying “…I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t want to work as hard, they wanted it given to them.” She even cites “…one student that said, “I don’t need to study, you know why? The government’s gonna take care of me.”

Pretty compelling argument – In 20 years of teaching (students at a) school, one student spoke for “…a lot of people of color…” – I’m sure that settles the matter right there!

TPM also said:

Kern said in her statement of apology: “I never intended to convey anything more than all races include people who can be lazy at times. Laziness never accomplishes much for anyone. Certainly laziness is not the reason for this but it can be a contributing factor just as it can be for any other race.”

I hope I don’t misrepresent what she’s trying to say, but I interpret it that what she wanted to say was, ‘All races include people who can be lazy at times and don’t want to work hard in school.’ Unfortunately, my interpretation does nothing to explain the higher proportion of blacks in OK prisons, and neither do her full, in-context words.

So, I stand by my original conclusion, Sally Kern appears to be a racist bigot.

Now, for bonus points, let’s look at some of her other remarks, as reported by TPM:

According to Kern’s transcript, the full quote (which seemingly got a negative reaction from other members of the House) is: “You see women usually don’t want to work as hard as a man because, how I mean, wait a minute, now listen to me, women, hang on, women tend to think a little more about their family, wanting to be at home more time, want to have a little more leisure time. That’s all I mean.”

On the face of it, this seems to be blatant sexism. I’ve heard that you should never attribute to malice, that which can be reasonably explained by stupidity, so I’ll give Kern the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps what she meant to say was ‘women don’t want to work as long as a man…’ because to me, “…a little more leisure time” implies duration, while “…as hard…” implies amount of effort. Still, it’s a poor argument against Affirmative Action programs.

Think before you speak, Rep. Kern, and when you apologize, don’t do it just because your words “…were not spoken correctly…” and don’t water it down by saying you were taken out of context and misrepresented.

Apologizing and playing the victim – yeah, Sally Kern does not speak for me.

Sally Kern does not speak for me…

Although she is a Representative, and for Oklahoma City.

The Tulsa World reported on her reprehensible remarks yesterday in a piece titled: “Oklahoma House sends affirmative action ban to voters.”

From The Tulsa World:

Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City, said minorities earn less than white people because they don’t work as hard and have less initiative.

“We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”

Kern said women earn less than men because “they tend to spend more time at home with their families.”

Well Rep. Kern, I think YOU should earn less money – not because you’re a woman, but because you appear to be a racist bigot.

Don’t drink the water…

(Cross-posted from BlueOklahoma.org)

Today, Gov. Fallin met with leaders in the Energy Industry, as reported in The Norman Transcript: http://normantranscript.com/headlines/x288366417/Fallin-industry-leaders-focus-on-energy-resources

Not to fault that reporting, but the article fails to mention Fallin’s Congressional campaign financing, which the Oil and Gas Industry kicked-in about a third of a million dollars. The article does quote Fallin as saying: “I’ll be there as your governor to stand up for the energy industry because it is a very important industry to our state.” – When she referred to herself as ‘your governor,’ was she speaking to the individuals present, or the industries?

The article also states: “(Larry Nichols, co-founder and executive chairman of Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp.) Nichols was defensive of accusations by critics. He’s even testified to Congress that no harm to groundwater has ever been because of the technique.” This is a view that Sen. Inhofe (over one and a quarter million from the Oil and Gas Industry) shares.

Indeed, while grilling officials from the EPA and the USGS during Senate hearings in 2009, Sen Inhofe pressed that point with the question: “Do any one of you know of one case of ground water contamination that has resulted from hydraulic fracturing?” None of the officials were able to testify to any “documented” cases, although Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the EPA, said: “I understand there’s some anecdotal evidence, but I don’t know that it’s been firmly established.”

Here is an example of that ‘anecdotal evidence’
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=chemicals-found-in-drinking-water-from-natural-gas-drilling

The EPA’s findings are not conclusive, (remember, in science “Correlation does not imply causation”) but if I find dog droppings in my yard, and my neighbor is the only person on the block with a dog…

I’ll leave you with one last bit of conventional wisdom: “If there’s smoke, there’s fire” or at least something flammable – but it shouldn’t come from your water faucet:

Update: 16 May 2011 – Video courtesy International WOW Company.

Jobs = IMPORTANT!…

When I last posted on this subject I was expressing my doubts about Republican commitment to jobs. I didn’t understand the link between the legislation that Speaker Boehner’s Republican-dominated House was pursuing and the creation of jobs. I still don’t, but Speaker Boehner shed some light on the logic(?) yesterday:

“The American people want us to cut spending. Because they know that cutting spending will in fact create a better environment for job creation,”

Source

So, by Boehner’s logic(?) – I’m not (A) an American, (B) a person, or (C) Neither – because I don’t ‘know’ for a ‘fact’ that cutting spending creates a better environment for job creation. Quite the opposite.

Basic economics recognizes spending – even government spending – as a form of consumption, the ‘demand’ part of supply and demand. This consumption can be direct – the government buys a tank, for example – or indirect. One example of indirect consumption could be Medicare (so grandpa can buy his heart medicine) or Social Security (so grandma can keep eating cat food.) (That’s called ‘Entitlement’ spending – we’re ‘entitled’ to it because we directly contributed to the ‘trust fund.’) Another example of indirect consumption via government spending is the highly successful ‘WIC’ program – a form of ‘welfare.’

All of these forms of government spending create demand – demand for tanks, medicine, food, ect. Demand is useless without ‘Supply,’ and here is where JOBS come in. If demand goes up and the supply doesn’t, then the price will, sometimes to the point that the consumer no longer desires the good, service, or what-have-you. To ‘Supply’ something requires work (jobs)- someone has to build the tanks, make the medicine, can the cat food, pick the fruit (covered by WIC) – not to mention distributing and marketing the thing supplied. If demand goes down and the supply doesn’t, then the price goes down, hopefully to the point that consumers are enticed to buy the product. (Not bad for the consumer, but the producers profits decrease, which entices them to:) Decrease production!

Quick recap: Decreased spending (demand) leads to either lower prices (and lower profits,) decreased production (fewer jobs,) or both.

Speaker Boehner would have you believe the opposite, but I (an American person – despite what Speaker Boehner implies) hope I’ve shown that his logic is flawed and his statement is without merit.

In defense of Speaker Boehner, I understand that summarizing complex, nuanced policy issues into a quick sound-bite (Bumper Sticker Politics – a topic I hope to write about soon.) is a difficult, if not impossible task. Even my lengthier explanation is grossly simplified, and my recap even more so – but at least both of them are based on sound economic theory.

The most important thing is jobs…

Congratulations to the Republicans and the new House Speaker, the Honorable Representative John Boehner.

It can be argued that most Republicans campaigned on job creation, and that led to their election and the reversal of the roles of Majority and Minority party in the House. Indeed, job creation is an important goal – although prior to the campaign numerous conservative commentators opined that the government couldn’t create ‘real’ jobs – but the Republicans vowed to undertake this Herculean feat, if only we would vote for them. But, how well have they done?

Well, halfway into their first one hundred days (the de facto standard, apparently) the Republican-led House has produced this legislation:

HR 2 – Repeal of  “Obamacare”
HR 3 – Ensuring Federal funds don’t go for abortions
HR 514 – Patriot Act reauthorization
HR 519 – United Nations Tax Equalization Refund Act of 2011 (A tax refund from the U.N.)
HR 359 – End public financing of presidential election campaigns (Thanks, Rep. Cole)

Total number of jobs created – zero. Perhaps those  conservative commentators were right.

Now they tell us that the REAL problem is that government is just too burdensome – falling back to Reagan’s (posthumous, belated happy birthday) “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

The shifting goalposts already in evidence from the current crop of Republicans reminds me of the sliding goals we had with Iraq – involvement in 9/11; WMDs; Evil dictator; freedom – followed by “Mission Accomplished” – yet we still have good men and women in harm’s way there.

Well, back to the (new) matter at hand – government interference. With job creation apparently out-of-reach, the House has turned it’s attention to what they call “job-killing” regulations – you know, the ones that ‘stifle’ businesses. I suppose I’m wrong if I were to call them “life-saving” regulations – I mean, I really wish I could work in a coalmine without Union or OSHA regulations, and gloriously perish on the job when the mine caved-in.

I must tell you, I am impressed. I’ve been reading the Congressional Record and I’m really impressed with the dedication these public servants have – such strenuous devotion to HR 72. Our Republican representatives want to pass legislation that ensures Congress has oversight on various government Agency regulations. They’ve spent a good deal of time debating it. Of course, Congress already HAS that authority and responsibility, so all the debate could be condensed to: We resolve to do the job that we are supposed to be doing – really, we mean it!

Well, while not exactly ‘creating’ jobs, it does save jobs – after all, the representatives should be doing something to ‘earn’ their $174,000 per year.

Insurance anti-trust, Revisited…

In the last episode (nearly a year and a half ago) we were waiting with anticipation to see if our Congresscritters would vote for or against “…price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of competition and consumers.” They neither voted for nor against, but instead let the bill die in committee. (Weasels!)

I was not the only one who was watching this legislation, which was independent of Pres. Obama’s Health Care Reform initiative – Ralph Stone wrote an excellent article that appeared on the Salem-News.com website.

Now, while I am just an average (not so) dumb okie, Mr. Stone was an Attorney specializing in Consumer and Antitrust Law for the Federal Trade Commission, so his analysis and concerns shouldn’t be dismissed as easily as mine. I’d like to share a few startling quotes from Mr. Stone’s article:

When referring to health insurance companies, politicians and commentators have used terms such as “cartel,” “secret pricing and consolidation,” “exorbitant price increases,” and “confidential agreements among hospitals, physician groups, insurers and device makers” when referring to the health care industry All these allegations raise antitrust concerns. Yet, antitrust violations are now beyond the reach of the federal antitrust laws because of the McCarran-Ferguson Act exemption.

Briefly stated, McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945 creates loopholes in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the Clayton Antitrust and the Federal Trade Commission Acts of 1914. How big of a loophole – really big. Big enough to drive a truck through – several trucks – enough trucks to haul many billions of dollars of profits through!

The health insurance industry enjoys obscene profits while consumers pay more for less coverage. Profits at ten of the country’s largest publicly traded health insurance companies rose 428 percent from 2000 to 2007.

…

But as U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sibelius remarked, “It remains difficult to understand how a company [Anthem] that made $2.9 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone can justify massive increases. . . .” And WellPoint, Inc. reported net income of $4.7 billion in 2009. And a recent report found that the combined profit for the five largest health care providers — WellPoint, Inc., United-Health Group, Aetna, Humana, and Cigna — increased 56 percent in 2009 over 2008.

Note: We are talking about net income – pure profit – that remains after all expenses and losses are accounted for.

Now, for good or ill, Oklahoma is spending vast sums of money (in a time of budget shortfalls) pursuing a lawsuit against the federal government – IMO an unnecessary expense, since 27 other states filed similar lawsuits, and if other courts uphold Judge Vinson’s ruling in Florida then the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (‘Obamacare’) is finished. Of course, this action is independent of Speaker Boehner and the Republican-led House’s efforts to out-and-out repeal the law.

Regardless of the outcomes of these actions, I’m still curious if our elected representatives support price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of competition and consumers?

(Update:)
I contacted Mr. Stone, who confirmed that the bill died in committee. He said that he was going to contact Sen. Boxer and Sen. Feinstein and ask that they reintroduce the bill.

Insurance anti-trust…

From the Library of Congress THOMAS:

S.1681
Title: A bill to ensure that health insurance issuers and medical malpractice insurance issuers cannot engage in price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of competition and consumers.

This bill is in the Judiciary Committee – will Sen. Coburn support it?

The related bill in the House is H.R. 3596 and is before the House Judiciary Committee, Oklahoma does not have any Representatives on this committee.

The questions are:

Will Sen. Coburn support the bill in the Committee?
Will Sen. Inhofe support the bill in the Senate?
Will our Representatives support their bill in the House?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then the question becomes why? How can our elected officials support “…price fixing, bid rigging, or market allocations to the detriment of competition and consumers.”?

All’s fair in Love(RAPE) and War…

On Oct. 6th, both of our Senators voted against Sen. Franken’s amendment (SA.2588) to the FY2010 Defense Appropriations Bill. Here is the text of the amendment, courtesy of the Library of Congress THOMAS:

    On page 245, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following:

    Sec. 8104. (a) Beginning 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for any existing or new Federal contract if the contractor or a subcontractor at any tier requires that an employee or independent contractor, as a condition of employment, sign a contract that mandates that the employee or independent contractor performing work under the contract or subcontract resolve through arbitration any claim under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or any tort related to or arising out of sexual assault or harassment, including assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, or negligent hiring, supervision, or retention.

    (b) The prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply with respect to employment contracts that may not be enforced in a court of the United States.

For me, this raises the questions of why our Senators want to suppress the ability of victims of workplace sexual assault to sue – why do they want to keep it out of the courts, and why do they want to pay contractors that try to conceal this sort of crime?

Perhaps they agree with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) of the Judiciary Committee, about Sen. Franken’s amendment – “It’s a political amendment, really at bottom representing sort of a political attack directed at Halliburton.”

Odd however, since the other 28 Republican Senators that voted against Sen. Franken’s amendment had no problems voting to defund ACORN – which was actually named in that amendment – as I have discussed previously.

Could our Senators be influenced by a misguided loyalty to Halliburton? I say misguided because I remember the hardship Halliburton inflicted on the Oklahoma economy when they moved their headquarters to Texas – and they’re not doing the United States any favors by moving to Dubai.

Or are our Senators actions influenced by the more than 1.6 million dollars they have received (combined) over their careers from the Oil and Gas industries?

There is yet another angle to consider:

On the same day, (Oct. 6) Sen. Coburn reversed course on testifying in Sen. Ensign’s ethics investigation. I discussed this in July.

At that time Sen. Coburn was denying allegations that he had urged Sen. Ensign to give money to Doug Hampton. Sen. Ensign – who seems to be familiar with the topic of sex and hush-money – also voted against Sen. Franken’s amendment. In fact, 6 of the 30 Senators who voted against this legislation are involved with “The Family” – the secretive organization that maintains a townhouse on C Street – was a meeting held where it was determined that a company has the right to deny an employee a judicial recourse to that company’s malfeasance?

OK State Senate meeting on Healthcare Reform…

My friends at Oklahomans For Healthcare Reform sent me this:

OK Senate Cmte to review Insurance companies rescinding and canceling citizens health insurance policies for arbitrary reasons

Interim Study set for Tuesday, Oct 20th 1:30pm at the Oklahoma State Capitol.

State Senator Sean Burrage to look at health insurance practices of cancellations and rescissions.

Oklahomans for Health Care Reform is looking for individuals that have been victims of these practices.  If you want to share your story with us and perhaps share with the committee, please let us know.

---

Oklahoma State Senate
State Capitol •  2300 N. Lincoln    Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105  •  (405) 524-0126
(http://www.oksenate.gov)
MEETING NOTICE

October 9, 2009

COMMITTEE ON RETIREMENT AND INSURANCE

IS 09-09

SUBJECT:                     First Meeting

MEETING DATE:          Tuesday, October 20, 2009

MEETING TIME:           1:30 p.m.

LOCATION:                   Room 511-A, State Capitol Bldg.

Agenda:

1.       Welcome and Introductions

2.       Interim Study 09-09 Insurance companies rescinding and canceling citizens health insurance policies for arbitrary reasons – Senator Sean Burrage

3.       Other business.

Senator Bill Brown, Chairman

Committee on Retirement and Insurance