They Said What?

Alvin Greene, the 2010 South Carolina Democratic Party nominee for U.S. Senate.

Alvin Greene is an enigma. As such, there has been much speculation about how an unemployed and near-destitute political neophyte with essentially no qualifying resume and who has been charged with felony obscenity won the South Carolina Democratic primary election (with 60% of the votes) to run for the office of United States Senator.

See this Washington Post article for the latest theories – Election speculation comes from all corners after S.C. primary

However, there is one very important question that nobody in the media has been asking.  Leave it to the “professionals” to overlook the most obvious and parsimonious of all questions to ask… What if Alvin Greene won the Democratic Primary election fairly?

I believe that this question is not being asked due to fear of what the answer might mean.  If the answer to this question is true, it means that South Carolina Democrats have lost their ability to control their own electorate.  For the media, it means that they dropped the ball in failing to cover a surprise rags-to-riches candidate.

For the public at large, a valid primary election victory for Alvin Greene could mean several things.  It could say something about the values, priorities, or awareness of South Carolina Democratic Party members.  It could also provide a case study for how an outsider, with absolutely no resources, can beat the powerful machine of a state political party.  The nomination of Alvin Greene could ultimately shake the very foundations of our two-party political system.

Despite that there has not been any real evidence to indicate that Alvin Greene has done anything illegal or even unethical during his campaign, I admit, that I too find his election to be baffling, and perhaps we will learn that something was indeed amiss.  However, I also believe that any good investigation begins by looking first at the simplest of all possibilities.

Syracuse, New York – Republican and Conservative candidate for U.S. Congress Ann Marie Buerkle today invited incumbent Daniel Maffei to join her at an already-scheduled Town Hall-style meeting next week to discuss the health care reform law. The letter was hand-delivered this morning to Maffei’s downtown Syracuse federal office.

Noting that Congress is out of session for a “District Work Period,” Buerkle invited Maffei to participate in the meeting – part of her ongoing district wide Listening Tour with open events in Onondaga, Wayne, and Monroe Counties – since the congressman failed to schedule any open Town Hall meetings of his own next week.

“This meeting will be a tremendous opportunity for you to defend your health care vote, fully share the benefits of the legislation as you see them, and engage in one-on-one dialogue with the people you are sworn to represent,” writes Buerkle. “I can assure you that my intention is to provide Central and Western New Yorkers with a thoughtful, respectful, and personal opportunity to exchange with both of us in a civil, unfiltered fashion and to compare our positions side-by-side on improving the delivery and affordability of health care.”

The meeting is free and open to the public. Details are:

Wednesday, June 2nd at 7:00 p.m.

Town Hall-style meeting

Manlius Recreation Center

6 Stickley Drive in the Village of Manlius

To date, Buerkle has no indication whether Maffei will accept her invitation for this open exchange with voters.

More info about this event may be found HERE.

Yesterday, 33 days after BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster began, President Obama sent three top aides, EPA Chief Lisa Jackson, Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napalitano to the gulf to “monitor” the situation. Their collective message was that this was a matter to be handled by the private company that was responsible for the spill. Radio talk show host Mark Levin has uncovered that this positioning by the Obama Administration represents a lie and a failure to carry out a Congressional mandate under Section 4201 under the Oil Pollution Act. After looking up information about this act, it is clear. The President of the United States is responsible for ensuring the effective and immediate removal of oil spills and is supposed to prepare and enact contingency plans to safeguard our coastal waters.

Here is an excerpt from the Oil Pollution Deskbook by Russell V. Randle published by the Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC, that explains the responsibility of the President under Section 4201 of the Oil Pollution Act:

President Obama is failing in his legal responsibilities in the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Disaster. Why aren’t the established media outlets reporting of these facts? Ordinary citizens have become the free press…

This is yet another example of President Obama’s pattern of inaction on issues most important to the American People, while giving priority to agendas that they do not want, like increased government control over industry and banking, hostile take-over of our health care system, failing to protect our borders, and amnesty for illegal aliens. Americans care very much about our environment and desire a balance between energy production and safety. This progressive administration seems hellbent on destroying both.

Here is a copy of the law for you to review:opa90 and a link to Mark Levin’s broadcast on this topic.

Minutes ago, the AP claims a new report of unexpected rise in jobless claims. This should not have been unexpected to anybody with any kind of grasp on reality about what is going on in the global economy. Also, as one might expect, stocks dropped on Wall St. in response to this shocking news.

Stocks tumble as euro drops, jobless claims rise
By STEPHEN BERNARD and TIM PARADIS (AP) – 38 minutes ago

The best metaphor that comes to mind about what has taken place in the media over the past few weeks of inflated optimism about the economy is Obama as the Tidy Bowl man and captain of our boat caught in the swirling vortex of a flush.  With reporters and pundits as first mates explaining “See? Things are improving because the water is getting more blue”, Tidy-Bowl Obama shouts “WE RUN YOUR LIVES SO YOU DON’T HAAAAAVE TOOOOO!!!” (flushing sound…).

Throughout the recent numbers of optimism that have been touted in the government controlled media, I’ve been looking for something else.  It’s called physical evidence.  Where is there evidence that we are actually producing anything that would require the need for more workers?  Where is there any real indication of newly developed American markets or old ones that are seeing a true rebound? Yes, we Americans who are able, are purchasing things that we need to carry out our daily lives – get up in the morning, brush our teeth, eat breakfast, go to work or look for a job, come home and spend time with those we love… However, the artificial inflation of economic indicators through increased government spending eventually will come to an end.  It is fluff, plain and simple. We don’t need more spending that will only encumber our incentive and capacity for economic recovery for the immediate and extended future, nor do we need false promises of better days. Some would just say that “we need a freakin’ job!”

If you thought Barack Obama would be different from any other corrupt politician, you’ve been duped. There is yet more evidence that the President’s agenda includes favoritism for those who have supported him in the past, while he attacks and derides those who do not support his particular brand of plutocracy and statist ways.

From Fox Business this week…

Penfield, NY – Yesterday morning Congressman Dan Maffei, NY District 25, held a Chamber of Commerce Members briefing about how the Health Care Reform Act will affect New York will affect small businesses.  The event took place from 11:00am-12:30pm at the Shadow Lake Country Club. The session, hosted by Congressman Maffei, was actually conducted by Ben Geyerhahn, who co-authored The Impact of Healthcare Reform on New York’s Small Businesses and who has advised “social venture capitalists on the purchase of companies that identify and deliver public benefits, such as SCHIP and food stamps“. The event was attended by about 30 regional business owners who had to pre-register through Maffei’s campaign office in order to attend.  The presentation by Geyerhahn acknowledged some of the undesired consequences of the Health Care Reform act and attempted to highlight some possible benefits.

Before introducing Geyerhahn as a lawyer from the Upper West Side of New York City and the New York Project Director for the Small Business Majority, Mr. Maffei pointed out that New York Seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage will be facing cuts in benefits. He also established “ground rules” for discussion by saying that the health care bill had passed and that it was not the time to talk about whether it should or should not have been passed because it was a “done deal”.  He said that it was now time to discuss the ramifications and ways in which the law would be implemented.

Among the known small business impacts discussed were increased initial costs due to higher premiums (expected as early as 1 January 2011, and the fact that employers would now be required to cover 60% of the total of all employee health care costs instead of only the premiums. Also, there was confusion about how and when part-time employees were required to be covered under the new law. Maffei interjected on at least two occasions that only businesses that are not financially strong would be overly impacted by the increased costs and indicated that companies that already had established human resource departments should have no problem absorbing and adjusting to the changes.

Geyerhahn outlined a situation whereby some of the provisions of the new law are not good for New Yorkers because of current state laws that already accomplish, if not exceeded much of what the Federal Health Care Reform Act intends to do. Both Maffei and Geyerhahn acknowledged that there are certain things about the federal law that would negatively impact the costs and quality of health care in Western NY.  Maffei said that Western NY already had a strong cultural priority for health care and has enjoyed quality and access that other parts of the nation have not. In essence, through mandated health care coverage for more people in the nation, there would be a detrimental effect on health care in NY.

Possible benefits mentioned included tax benefits for companies with fewer than 25 employees, the anticipated eventual flattening (or decrease in the rate of inflation) for health care because of altering the risk pool by forcing younger and healthier citizens to participate. In other words, this would require younger and healthier people to pay for more health care than they would most likely require, which in turn would help to subsidize health care for higher risk individuals with greater needs. Another hope cited by Geyerhahn was that once implemented, the administration was likely to be less complex because of the standardization of plans. Maffei and Geyerhahn both cited the State of Massachusetts and the Veterans Administration systems as models upon which the Federal plan was based. Geyerhahn explained that there would be fixed costs for treatments and that it should increase quality because hospitals would no longer be rewarded by getting paid for people who required extended stays due to complications.

What few questions that were asked were met more often with a reiteration of the information that was already presented, or by promises to get back to the questioners once the answers were determined. For example, a question was asked if there was anything in the law that would directly address cost containment. Maffei answered indirectly by saying that this law was only the beginning, and that there is already discussion of another health care law for next year that would better address cost containment. He said that one problem that needed to be addressed in the near-future was a shortage of health care professionals.  Maffei closed the session by stating that the Health Care Reform Act was less about health care reform, but was more about health insurance reform.

It was evident that Congressman Maffei did not really have a true grasp on the implications of the Health Care Reform Act that he voted for. The polite audience appeared to be anything but impressed and there were more eye-rolls than smiles. Maffei’s mannerisms throughout the briefing could best be described as fidgety and nervously uncomfortable. Absent was any excitement or enthusiasm that you would expect for such a momentous law if it truly were a good thing for Western New Yorkers. I found it insulting that Maffei brought along a legal consultant to explain the implications of the health care law that he voted for, to his constituents. I also found it culturally oblivious to bring a New York City lawyer in to speak to Western NY community business leaders who are likely sensitive to the fact that New York City is all-too-often the source of all negative governmental regulation imposed upon Western New Yorkers.  Overall, I found Congressman Maffei to be somewhat apologetic in his demeanor, which seemed to communicate the idea that he was fearful of the reaction that his audience would have about the looming costly impacts of the Health Care Reform Act.  Perhaps Congressman Maffei should have read the bill before passing it.

More bad news for current and future generations of American Taxpayers. The CBO has released revised figures showing costs for the reform were not accurately estimated prior to Congress voting on it.

Congressional hopeful Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25), is taking a strong stance for completely repealing the act.  A spokesperson for the Buerkle campaign released an assessment of the new CBO findings

Syracuse, New York – Republican and Conservative candidate for Congress Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25) today highlighted an updated analysis released Tuesday by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) that estimates potential discretionary spending under the health care law at a minimum of $115 billion over 10 years — more than twice the size of the estimate released by the budget office shortly before President Obama signed the measure.  In its original forecast released March 13th, CBO estimated discretionary spending in the bill at a minimum of $50 billion.

With this new estimate, the health care overhaul championed by incumbent Dan Maffei will cost well over $1 trillion over the next ten years.

“Dan Maffei and Nancy Pelosi told us to ‘trust them’ and pass the bill,” said Buerkle.  “It turns out that trusting them will cost the American taxpayer twice as much as originally promised.”

In recent weeks, Buerkle has highlighted numerous problems with the massive overhaul bill.  A report last month from Medicare’s Office of the Actuary warned that the law’s drastic cuts to Medicare – used to pay for the massive government health care expansion for those currently uninsured – are unrealistic and unsustainable and will drive about 15% of American hospitals into the red and “possibly jeopardize access” to care for seniors.

Buerkle, a Registered Nurse and attorney specializing in health care, argues that health care reform as she has proposed would move today’s bureaucracy-driven, heavily-regulated third-party payment system to a new patient-centered system of consumer choice.  Her plan preserves patient choice, protects access to health care, and controls costs without hurting job growth, reducing patient care, or slashing Medicare for seniors.

Find out more at www.buerkleforcongress.com.

Members of Rochester, NY, area tea party organizations are expanding from their roles as political protesters, to proactively vetting and supporting candidates. This growing grassroots interest in regional, state, and national politics has not escaped the attention of many upstart conservative candidates.

Candidates who in the recent past might have found the established political machinery of the Republican and Democratic Parties difficult to harness, are now finding a base of passionate and motivated campaign volunteers among tea party organizations. A prime example of one such candidate is Ann Marie Buerkle, who is the congressional candidate for the Republican and Conservative parties running against Democrat incumbent Daniel Maffei in New York’s 25th Congressional District.

Ann Marie Buerkle, Congressional Candidate for NY-25, is receiving a groundswell of grassroots support in the form of campaign voluteers from Rochester area tea party organizations (Photo courtesy of http://BuerkleforCongress.com )

Buerkle’s straightforward platform, which calls for a return to constitutionally limited governance and fiscal conservatism that includes the complete repeal of the recently enacted Health Care Reform Act, has struck a positive chord among many tea party members. She has already been formally vetted by several groups including the Genesee Valley Patriots, Victor Tea Party, and the We Surround Rochester 912 Project (WSR), which currently boasts well over 1000 members. In addition, all of these groups have members who have mobilized to volunteer for the campaigns of Buerkle and other candidates.

Recently, a WSR sponsored organizational meeting in Rochester for one candidate had over 50 volunteers in attendanc.  At the beginning of the meeting, Paul Simpson, a lead coordinator for WSR, was quick to point out that the event was a meeting of individuals coming together in support of the candidate, and in no way an official endorsement of the candidate by the WSR organization. This distinction is also prevalent among tea party participants who have recently attended election strategy workshops and political action training events such as those offered by instructors from the American Majority, sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, which have been held in cities around Western New York.

Other potential congressional candidates who are receiving attention from area tea party organizations include Tom Reed, who is running for former Congressman Eric Massa’s vacated seat in the 29th District, Michael Giuliano, who is exploring running against Congresswoman Louise Slaughter in the the 28th district, Fred Smerlas, a Rochester radio personality, also interested in the congressional seat in the 28th, and Leonard Roberto, who is running for congress in the 27th District. This phenomenon may prove to be a major equalizer for more conservative New York candidates who are running against well-entrenched incumbents with better access to resources and money from their respective national party committees.

Tea party organizations have already had a major influences during the primary season for the Republican Party, and tea party-backed candidates are threatening several seats held by incumbent Democrats.  Two notable examples are the loss for the nomination for Republican Senator Bob Bennett from Utah, and Florida Governor Charlie Crist who abandoned a Republican bid for the Senate in the face of overwhelming tea party support of Republican Marco Rubio.  Crist has since began a campaign as an independent and polls now show him with a slight edge in a three-way race.