Derrick's Progressive News
Those Always Lying Republicans
Contents
Unemployment Insurance Extended
What Do You Think? Take Bernie’s Survey.
It's Back - H.R. 5808 - the Public Option
Proposed Deficit Remedy: The Healthcare 'Public Option'
James K. Galbraith Blasts the Deficit Commission
Insurers Push Plans That Limit Choice of Doctor
The Tea Party ‘Contract From America’
Derrick’s response to yet another false attack on a Democrat in an email…This one on Speaker Pelosi’s airplane travel.
ANY breathless, “oh my God…”, “This is good…”, “the Democrates are so...” will ALWAYS be lies from the right.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_nancy_pelosi_order_up_a_200-seat.html
The right finds so little real things to complain about, they manufacture lies, distortions, and deceptions -- just like the fake story about Acorn that destroyed a wonderful organization that helped the poor of the county find housing and -- oh my God -- register to vote! -- Just like yesterday's story of a fake video shown on Fox news that supposedly showed an Obama administer using race to deny government farm aid -- which caused her boss to fire her on the spot. Within hours, it was shown to be a fake - a very good fake - pieced together clips to flip the meaning of what she had said 20 years ago!
This is what the Republican party has become. They are PURE EVIL. They are not interested in reasoned debate of the issues. They lie, cheat, and streal elections to win.
It was not always this way. There once was a respectable Republican party. Not now.
Issue July 20, 2010 - http://sanders.senate.gov
Unemployment Insurance Extended
The Senate on Tuesday overcame a Republican filibuster and cleared the way to extend benefits for the near-record number of workers without jobs for six months or more. In Vermont, some 6,000 people – a quarter of all the jobless – have been out of work at least half a year. “Republican hypocrisy has reached a whole new level. While they oppose virtually every effort to help the middle class, including unemployment benefits, when it comes to the needs of millionaire and billionaire families they have no problem providing huge tax breaks and reducing hundreds of billions in revenue.”
A Good Republican Idea
President Teddy Roosevelt first argued in 1910 for an estate tax on huge fortunes. It was “a good Republican idea,” as Bernie said in calling for restoring the tax on the top 0.3 percent of Americans. To watch Bernie make the case for tax fairness and deficit reduction, click here.
School Reform As a member of the Senate education committee, Bernie questioned why a “phenomenal” principal was removed from an exceptional school in Burlington, Vt., in order to satisfy federal education bureaucrats. The New York Times wondered the same thing.
Wall Street Reform
Bernie urged President Obama to name consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren to run a consumer protection bureau created by a new financial reform law Obama was set to sign on Wednesday. “With doubts about Wall Street running deep, American consumers need a federal government that is looking after their interests,” Bernie wrote. Sign Bernie's petition supporting Elizabeth Warren.
End Fed Secrecy
The financial reform law includes an historic provision by Bernie to expose the inner workings of the Federal Reserve. For details, click here.
What Do You Think? Take Bernie’s Survey.
Do you favor or oppose extending unemployment benefits? Are you confident that the new financial regulations will prevent another crisis? To take our latest survey, click here.
It's Back - H.R. 5808 - the Public Option
Steve Weiss provided this article/link.
The Library of Congress
H.R. 5808 - To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to establish a public health insurance option.
Introduced July 21, 2010 by Rep. Lynn C. Woolsey, with 128 cosponsors
SEC. 1325. PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.
(a) (1) ESTABLISHMENT- For years beginning with 2014, the Secretary of Health and Human Services (in this subtitle referred to as the `Secretary') shall provide for the offering through Exchanges established under this title of a health benefits plan (in this Act referred to as the `public health insurance option') that ensures choice, competition, and stability of affordable, high-quality coverage throughout the United States in accordance with this section. In designing the option, the Secretary's primary responsibility is to create a low-cost plan without compromising quality or access to care.
Proposed Deficit Remedy: The Healthcare 'Public Option'
A group of House Democrats seeks to revive the idea of offering a government insurance plan. The reasoning: 'Because it saves so much money.'
By Noam N. Levey, Tribune Washington Bureau
4:57 PM PDT, July 21, 2010
Reporting from Washington
As both political parties worry about the growing federal deficit, an unlikely proposal is returning from last year's divisive healthcare debate: the "public option."
Creating a major government health insurance program was roundly rejected last year, but 128 House Democrats are pushing to reconsider the idea, contending that it would hold down federal spending.
Their bill, which faces long odds, would allow Americans who do not get insurance at work to choose a government health plan starting in 2014.
"There is all this concern about the deficit," said Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma), a leading champion of the proposal. "Well, guess what: This would reduce the deficit because it saves so much money."
Woolsey and her allies, including Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont), are armed with a new analysis by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. Democrats say the CBO projects that the public option could save the government $68 billion between 2014 and 2020.
The government's administrative costs would be lower than private insurers', proponents say, and it could pay hospitals and doctors less. That would mean lower premiums — and lower government subsidies for policyholders who need them.
Insurance companies, hospitals and other businesses say a public option would undermine employer-provided insurance and set the stage for a so-called single-payer system, in which the government would be the only insurer.
Nor are Republican budget hawks likely to sign on — even though the projected savings coincidently match what the leading House GOP healthcare proposal would have generated, according to the CBO.
And with a full plate of legislative business, House Democratic leaders have little interest in restarting a healthcare debate that split their own ranks.
Woolsey said she is willing to wait. "This will be there for the next Congress," she said
Seeds of Change: The Story of ACORN, America's Most Controversial Antipoverty Community Organizing Group
As the events of the past couple of years have shown, the story of ACORN is one that is full of drama, one where the stakes are high, and one that showcases the struggles of ordinary people to make extraordinary change in the face of daunting odds.
After years of having the ill-informed mainstream media (fail to) tell our story and years of outright malicious lies from the corporate attack media, ACORN members and supports finally have a book-length story of the truth about our work, our issues, and our victories.
Long-time ACORN observer John Atlas recently released his book about ACORN called Seeds of Change: The Story of ACORN, America's Most Controversial Antipoverty Community Organizing Group. He spent over 4 years attending countless ACORN meetings large and small and had complete access to ACORN staff and leaders during that time. So if anyone has the inside scoop on what happened to ACORN, it's John Atlas.
While Atlas had complete access, he also had complete control over the process. No one at ACORN had any say in what he chose to write or what conclusions he came to. Because of that he was able to create one of the most complete and honest portraits of ACORN's work and ACORN's membership, warts and all, that exists today. Anyone who cares about what ACORN has been able to achieve in its 40 year history should get a copy of this book.
And, quite frankly, the steady sales of a book that, like John Atlas', places its premium on reporting by talking to the people involved, rather than on reporting based on heavily-edited videos, could force the mainstream media to deal with its collective failure to tell the real story behind the ACORN attacks.
And, as you know, the real story of ACORN continues. One way to move it forward is to participate in the conversations about ACORN's work and our continuing legacy. Atlas is helping move these conversations forward through numerous interviews on the radio and elsewhere. Some of them are collected here. and you can find upcoming events and conversations on the book's Facebook page and on the publisher's website.
James K. Galbraith Blasts the Deficit Commission
Chris Lowe provided this article/link.
Derrick: This is lengthy, but full of valid points about Obama’s Deficit Commission
We print below excerpts on Social Security, Medicare and the nature of the Deficit Commission itself from the testimony of James K. Galbraith, Lloyd M. Bentsen, Jr., Chair in Government/Business Relations, Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs, The University of Texas at Austin, before the Commission of Deficit Reduction, June 30, 2010. Professor Galbraith’s full statement can be found here: http://www.angrybearblog.com/2010/07/professor-jamie-galbraiths- testimony-to.html
”Mr. Chairmen, members of the commission, thank you for inviting this statement.
I am a professional economist, but I have served in a political role, as Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee of the United States Congress. I am offering this statement on behalf of Americans for Democratic Action, an organization co-founded in 1949 by (among others) Eleanor Roosevelt, John Kenneth Galbraith, Arthur M. Schlesinger, jr., and Ronald Reagan. Accordingly I would like to begin with a political comment.
1. Clouds Over the Work of the Commission. Your proceedings are clouded by illegitimacy. In this respect, there are four major issues.
First, most of your meetings are secret, apart from two open sessions before this one, which were plainly for show. There is no justification for secret meetings on deficit reduction. No secrets of any kind are involved. Nothing you say will affect financial markets. Congress long ago -- in 1975 -- reformed its procedures to hold far more sensitive and complicated meetings, notably legislative markups, in the broad light of day.
Secrecy breeds suspicion: first, that your discussions are at a level of discourse so low that you feel it would be embarrassing to disclose them.
Second, that some members of the commission are proceeding from fixed, predetermined agendas. Third, that the purpose of the secrecy is to defer public discussion of cuts in Social Security and Medicare until after the 2010 elections. You could easily dispel these suspicions by publishing video transcripts of all of your meetings on the Internet, and by holding all future meetings in public. Please do so.
2. There is a question of leadership.
A bipartisan commission should approach its task in a judicious, open-minded and dispassionate way. For this, the attitude and temperament of the leadership are critical.
I first met Senator Simpson when we were both on Capitol Hill; at Harvard he became friends with my late parents. He is admirably frank in his views. But Senator Simpson has plainly shown that he lacks the temperament to do a fair and impartial job on this commission. This is very clear from the abusive response he made recently to Alex Lawson of Social Security Works, who was asking important questions about the substance of the commission's work, as well as calling attention to the illegitimate secrecy under which you are operating.
A general cannot speak of the President with contempt. Likewise the leader of a commission intended to sway the public cannot display contempt for the public. With due respect, Senator Simpson's conduct fails that test.
3. Most members of the Commission are political leaders, not economists.
With all respect for Alice Rivlin, with just one economist on board you are denied access to the professional arguments surrounding this highly controversial issue. In general, it is impossible to have a fair discussion of any important question when the professional participants in that discussion have been picked, in advance, to represent a single point of view.
4. Conflicts of interest constitute the fourth major problem. The fact that the Commission has accepted support from Peter G. Peterson, a man who has for decades conducted a relentless campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare, raises the most serious questions. Quite apart from the merits of Mr. Peterson's arguments, this act must be condemned. A Commission serving public purpose cannot accept funds or other help from a private party with a strong interest in the outcome of that Commission's work. Your having done so is a disgrace.
In my view you also should not have accepted help from the Economic Policy Institute, even though EPI's positions on the merits are substantially closer to mine.
Let me now turn to the economic questions….
6. Social Security and Medicare "Solvency" is not part of the Commission's Mandate.
I note from Chairman Simpson's conversation with Alex Lawson that the Commission has taken up the questions of the alleged "insolvency" of the Social Security system and of Medicare. If true, this is far outside any mandate of the Commission. Your mandate is strictly limited to matters relating to the deficit, debt-to-GDP ratio and fiscal stability of the U.S. Government as a whole. Social Security and Medicare are part of the government as a whole, so it is within your mandate to discuss those programs -- but only in that context.
To make recommendations about the matching of benefits to payroll taxes -- now or in the future -- would be totally inappropriate. Within your mandate, the levels of payroll taxes and of Social Security benefits are relevant only insofar as they influence the current and future fiscal position of the government as a whole. Their relationship to each other is not relevant. You are not a "Social Security Commission" and there is no provision in your Charter for a separate discussion of the alleged financial condition of either program taken on its own. Such discussions, if they are occurring, should be subjected to a point of order.
The usual "solvency" arguments directed at the Social Security system and at Medicare as separate entities are in any event complete nonsense. These programs are just programs, like any others, in the Federal Budget, and the Social Security and Medicare "systems" are thus fully solvent so long as the Federal Government is. Further, as explained below, under our monetary arrangements there is no "solvency" issue for the federal government as a whole. The federal government is "solvent" so long as U.S. banks are required to accept US. Government checks -- which is to say so long as there is a Federal authority in the Republic. This point has been demonstrated repeatedly in times of stress, notably during the Civil War and World War II.
7. As a Transfer Program, Social Security is Also Irrelevant to Deficit Economics.
Political discussions of "long-term fiscal sustainability" -- including in the Charter for this Commission -- make an economic error when they loosely use the word "entitlements" and suggest that supposed economic dangers of federal deficits (for instance, rising real interest rates) can be reduced by "entitlement reform." As a matter of economics, this is not true.
"Government Spending" -- as any textbook will verify -- is a component of GDP only insofar as the spending is directly on purchases of goods and services. That alone is what economists mean by the phrase "government spending." GDP is the final consumption of produced goods and services, and government is one of the major consuming sectors; the others being private business (investment) and households (consumption).
Social Security is a transfer program. It is not a spending program. A dollar "spent" on Social Security does not directly increase GDP. It merely reallocates a dollar from one potential final consumer (a taxpayer) to another (a retiree, a disabled person or a survivor). It also reallocates resources within both communities (taxpayers and beneficiaries). Specifically, benefits flow to the elderly and to survivors who do not have families that might otherwise support them, and costs are imposed on working people and other taxpayers who do not have dependents in their own families. Both types of transfer are fair and effective, greatly increasing security and reducing poverty -- which is why Social Security and Medicare are such successful programs.
Transfers of this kind are also indefinitely sustainable -- in fact there can intrinsically be no problem of sustainability with transfer programs.
Apart from their effect on individual security, a true transfer program uses (by definition) no net economic resources. The only potential macroeconomic danger from "excessive" transfers is that the transfer function may be badly managed, leading to excessive total demand and to inflation. But there is no risk of this so long as the financial crisis remains uncured. Under present conditions Social Security and Medicare are bulwarks for stabilizing a total demand that would otherwise be highly deficient. Similarly, cutting Social Security benefits, in particular, merely transfers real resources away from the elderly and toward taxpayers, and away from the poor toward those less poor. One can favor or oppose such a move on its own merits as social policy - but one cannot argue that it would save real resources that are otherwise being "consumed" by the government sector.
The conclusion to be drawn is that Social Security should in any event be off the agenda of your Commission, as it is a transfer program and not a program of public spending in the economic sense. In particular it does not use capital resources and will not drive up interest rates. This is true whether the "Social Security System" is in internal balance or not.
Distributed by:
All Unions Committee For Single Payer Health Care--HR 676
c/o Nurses Professional Organization (NPO)
1169 Eastern Parkway, Suite 2218
Louisville, KY 40217
(502) 636 1551
Email: nursenpo@aol.com
http://unionsforsinglepayerHR676.org
07/22/10
Insurers Push Plans That Limit Choice of Doctor
The New York Times | July 17, 2010 | By Reed Abelson
Steve Weiss provided this article/link.
As the Obama administration begins to enact the new national health care law, the country’s biggest insurers are promoting affordable plans with reduced premiums that require participants to use a narrower selection of doctors or hospitals.
The plans, being tested in places like San Diego, New York and Chicago, are likely to appeal especially to small businesses that already provide insurance to their employees, but are concerned about the ever-spiraling cost of coverage.
But large employers, as well, are starting to show some interest, and insurers and consultants expect that, over time, businesses of all sizes will gravitate toward these plans in an effort to cut costs.
The tradeoff, they say, is that more Americans will be asked to pay higher prices for the privilege of choosing or keeping their own doctors if they are outside the new networks. That could come as a surprise to many who remember the repeated assurances from President Obama and other officials that consumers would retain a variety of health-care choices.
But companies may be able to reduce their premiums by as much as 15 percent, the insurers say, by offering the more limited plans.
Many insurers also expect the plans to be popular with individuals and small businesses who will purchase coverage in the insurance exchanges, or marketplaces that are mandated under the new health care law and scheduled to take effect in 2014.
Prominent officials like Mr. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton learned to utter the word “choice” at every turn as advocates of overhauling the system.
But choice — or at least choice that will not cost you — is likely to be increasingly scarce as health insurers and employers scramble to find ways of keep premiums from becoming unaffordable. Aetna, Cigna, the UnitedHealth Group and WellPoint are all trying out plans with limited networks.
The size of these networks is typically much smaller than traditional plans. In New York, for example, Aetna offers a narrow-network plan that has about half the doctors and two-thirds of the hospitals the insurer typically offers. People enrolled in this plan are covered only if they go to a doctor or hospital within the network, but insurers are also experimenting with plans that allow a patient to see someone outside the network but pay much more than they would in a traditional plan offering out-of-network benefits.
The insurers are betting these plans will have widespread appeal in the insurance exchanges as individuals gravitate toward the least expensive options.
The new health care law offers some protection against plans offering overly restrictive networks, said Nancy-Ann DeParle, head of the office of health reform for the White House. Any plan sold in the exchanges will have to meet standards developed to make sure patients have enough choice of doctors and hospitals, she said.
How widespread these plans will become is anybody’s guess, and some benefits consultants wonder if these plans represent any real solution to high medical costs. The narrow network, if it is based on the insurers’ ability to demand low prices, may be “just another short-term fix,” warned Barry Schilmeister, a consultant at Mercer.
But many insurers say they are still figuring out how to persuade people to choose these plans rather than force them to enroll. “What’s not changed are the old techniques of black-belt managed care,” said Mark T. Bertolini, Aetna’s president. “We have to create the same kind of model without the ‘Mother, may I.’ What we want is the ‘Mother, should I.’ ”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/business/18choice.html?pagewanted=all
Comment: The managed care revolution brought us restricted networks of physicians, hospitals and other health care services. These restrictions, which limited patients' choices of their health care professionals and facilities, did produce a one-time notch in the curve of rising health care costs. The insurers did this by contracting lower rates with health care providers, and then imposing financial penalties on patients who chose their care outside of the networks.
Patients were not pleased with limitations placed on their choices, but generally were not rebellious since they were often able to continue to see their own physicians, or, if not, were usually satisfied with their in-network substitutes.
The major insurers have been experimenting for some time with much more restrictive networks - networks in which they could contract for much lower rates in exchange for a higher patient volume. Individuals and employers have not responded to these market efforts because the restrictions were too severe. They excluded popular health care professionals and hospitals, sometimes completely, or sometimes by requiring unaffordable coinsurance payments by the patients.
But the environment has changed. The premiums for health plans are now very close to being truly unaffordable for most individuals and employers. With individuals being mandated to purchase insurance, and employers being exposed to penalties if their employees purchase plans in the exchanges, the market for plans with affordable premiums is being forced. The insurers must come up with plans that will meet the test of the market. The deeply-discounted, more tightly restricted plans are now finding their market.
These plans are terrible. Many will lose their primary care professionals. They will often not be able to use their local hospitals and many of their local specialists. Most referrals to centers of excellence will be prohibited. Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) will require that provider networks provide choice, the law does not prohibit intolerably Spartan networks.
This, of course, is a setup for the death spiral of adverse selection for the plans with more adequate networks. Individuals with more significant problems will select plans that can better meet their needs, while the healthy will flee to the plans with Spartan networks once the premiums skyrocket.
When individuals shift to the more restricted plans, what will happen to the large number of physicians and hospitals that are denied contracts? Obviously their financial viability would be threatened, and many would shut down. As if we didn't already have enough problems with the deterioration in our primary care infrastructure, much of the entire health care delivery infrastructure could begin to crumble.
PPACA contains many measures designed to improve the functioning of the private insurers, but most of them will drive premiums even higher. Insurance innovations such as the Spartan provider networks were fully predictable.
What should really alarm us is that the business world thrives on innovation. Think of the possibilities that the private insurance industry can devise. Actually, it is very difficult for us who are trying to figure out how to get patients the care they need to come up with innovative concepts that will protect the business model of the private insurance industry, no matter the cost to patient care. It isn't in our DNA.
But there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that we will see innovation, and it won't be healthy for patients, nor for their health care professionals.
The Tea Party ‘Contract From America’
Claryce Lauer provided this article/link.
Derrick: The website does not allow me to cut and paste this warped view of the country, so I copied it as an image.
http://www.thecontract.org/support/ and here’s the list of legislators who have signed on: http://www.thecontract.org/supporters/
The Contract from America initiative was developed within the decentralized tea party and 912 movements. Ryan Hecker, a Houston Tea Party Society activist, developed the concept of creating a grassroots-generated call for reform prior to the April 15, 2009 Tax Day Tea Party rallies.
Derrick: Hmmm. This ideology served us so well in the gulf:
It was conservative laissez-faire free market ideology -- that maximizing profit comes first -- that led to:
- The corrupt relationship between the oil companies and the Interior Department staff that was supposedly regulating them
- Minimizing cost by not drilling relief wells
- The principle that oil companies could be responsible their own risk assessments on drilling
- Maximizing profit by outsourcing risk assessment that told them what they wanted to hear: zero risk!
- Maximizing profit by minimizing cost of materials
- Maximizing profit by failing to pay cleanup crews and businesses for their losses
- Focusing only on profit by failing to test the cleanup methods to be used if something went wrong
- Minimizing cost by sacrificing the health of cleanup crews, refusing to allow them to use respirator masks to protect against toxic fumes.
It is conservative profit-above-all market fundamentalism that has led other oil companies to mount a massive PR campaign to isolate BP as an anomalous "bad actor" and to argue that offshore drilling should be continued by the self-proclaimed "good actors." Their PR fails to mention that in Congressional hearings it came out that they all outsource risk assessment to the same company that declared that BP had "zero risk." The PR fails to mention that they all use cost-benefit analysis to maximize profits just as BP did. Cost-benefit analysis only looks at monetary costs versus benefits, case by case, not at the risk of massive death of the kind gushing out of the Gulf at present. Death, in itself, even at that scale, is not a "cost." Only an outflow of money is a "cost." This is what follows from conservative laissez-faire market ideology, an ideology that continues to sanction death on a Gulf scale. – George Lakoff, Conservation’s Death Gusher, the Huffington Post
'Top Secret America' Washington Post Investigation Reveals Massive, Unmanageable, Outsourced US Intelligence System
Published on Monday, July 19, 2010 by Democracy Now!
An explosive investigative series published in the Washington Post today begins, "The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work." Among the findings: An estimated 854,000 people hold top-secret security clearances. More than 1,200 government organizations and nearly 2,000 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in 10,000 locations. We speak with one of the co-authors of the series, Bill Arkin.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/07/19-3
AMY GOODMAN: "Top Secret America." That’s the title of an explosive investigative series published in the Washington Post this morning that’s already creating a firestorm on Capitol Hill. It starts, quote, "The top-secret world the government created in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, has become so large, so unwieldy and so secretive that no one knows how much money it costs, how many people it employs, how many programs exist within it or exactly how many agencies do the same work."
Some of the findings of the two-year investigation include more than 1,200 government organizations and nearly 2,000 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States. An estimated 854,000 people—nearly one-and-a-half times as many as live in Washington, DC—hold top-secret security clearances. Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste.
The series by Washington Post reporters Dana Priest and Bill Arkin includes an online searchable database and locator map. PBS Frontline is producing an hour-long documentary on the investigation that will run in October
Thank You for Subscribing to Derrick's Progressive News
Feel free to forward this email…
Contact Derrick at Derrick@Duehren.com to subscribe for free or to unsubscribe. Please put “Newsletter” in the subject line.
|
Publisher/Editor |
||
|
|
Derrick Duehren www.Duehren.com By day, I’m a technical writer/human factors Specialist for a local telecommunications company; by night, I’m a fire-breathing defender of liberal social policies. I’m a news hound and share with you stories and videos that I feel are worth sharing with you all (590 as of July 2010). I do not share my mailing list and all newsletters go out as blind copies, so everyone gets their own individual copy. |
~ YES WE ARE ~
Making single payer happen
one person one phone call/Fax
~ at a time ~ Regina Dobson |
Get information, resources, and more at our web site: SinglePayUSA.com.
Contact Congress Daily: Send a Free E-Fax at www.1payer.net/faxapp/.
Other Good Sites for Single Payer Information:
www.healthcareforalloregon..org
www.medicareforall.org/Answers
Where did you find the Story of Stuff? I want everyone to see it! She is amazing the way she put it altogether, so simple, clear and easy to understand...she is a real teacher!
Thanks for finding it and sending it out!
Alice Cotton
Derrick,
It was just the second most laughable thing when I read the header : Republican Economic Recovery plan ; I told myself
" Boy, this should be good " and began to chuckle broke out laughing when I read the bullet points !
Touches !
Roland
Hi Derrick, I suggest that you publish the "Tea Party-Republican" Contract from America.Their website is: wwwthecontract.org It may be better to print it on legal size paper to get all of page 2 which is the whole contract.
Their site will show you who has signed on & their contract & how they are encouraging their support network to lobby the candidates. We need to see what our opponents are doing ... Thanks for what you do, Claryce
Recent comments
4 weeks 5 days ago
14 weeks 2 days ago
14 weeks 4 days ago
14 weeks 5 days ago
14 weeks 5 days ago
14 weeks 6 days ago
19 weeks 3 days ago
26 weeks 2 days ago
36 weeks 4 days ago
36 weeks 5 days ago