The ability to have access to healthcare should not have any relation to ones economic status as is the current policy in the USA. Neither should barriers for vast changes in America's healthcare system be present. The fact is the U.S.A. spends more in its profit driven healthcare system then it would in a socialized public regulated system. My vote would be in support of the type of healthcare policy seen in Canada and France.
Illness and the uninsured; While politicians are talking, here's a way to raise local money to help
Source: Charlotte Observer (NC) 05/02/2007
From Amsalu Bizuneh, M.D., of Gaston Memorial Hospital:
Joe (not his real name) thought he knew what to do when his groin started to hurt where he had his hernia repaired some two years ago. He came to Gaston Family Health Services, which provides care at reduced fees for those without health insurance. There he was told he had an infection in the material used to repair the hernia deep in his groin.
Joe had relocated to Gastonia from New York after he was laid off from his factory job that provided the health insurance for the initial hernia repair. His new job could not provide the costly health insurance if it hoped to continue to stay open. Joe did not qualify for Medicaid because he made "too much money."
The doctor who saw him at the Gastonia clinic knew what should be done: Joe needed to see a surgeon fast, who could remove the infected material and repair the hernia. Unfortunately, Joe did not have insurance. Further, he did not have the money to pay for the surgeon's consultation fee or for a surgical repair of the infected groin.
Although his doctor at the clinic gave him powerful antibiotics to take by mouth, he knew Joe's condition could worsen, requiring emergency care, an intensive care unit stay and the need to now see several other expert doctors -- all at a much greater cost than outpatient surgery.
Joe is only one of 47 million Americans who lack health insurance today. As we brace for another presidential election cycle, our nation's uninsured have once again become a hot political issue.
Is the political climate finally ripe to reform our complicated health-care system, where many working Americans fall through the cracks?
Maybe. But experience tells us political rhetoric doesn't always lead to effective changes in policy. What is clear, however, is that while candidates may talk about "health-care reform" every four years, those Americans without health-care coverage must roll the dice every single day in the hope that they do not require medical care.
I frequently see patients like Joe, whose conditions have worsened as a result of unavailable outpatient specialty care. Specialists in our community frequently provide charity care to these patients. However, the volume of patients who require this care is beyond the scope of the physicians who volunteer their time and efforts. Many patients earn less than a thousand dollars above the yearly national poverty level and thus are disqualified from Medicaid.
As evidenced by our presidential politics, the dilemma of Gaston County's uninsured is but a microcosm of a growing national problem that cannot wait another four years for a solution.
To this end, I am working with Gaston Family Health Services to raise awareness about uninsured patients requiring specialty care. On June 2, the inaugural Grand Garibaldi Run ( www.grandgaribaldirun.com ) will be held to raise money for those living without health insurance. I hope the 5K race and 1-mile fun walk will bring many people from the Charlotte area to Belmont, 15 minutes west of uptown Charlotte. While we hope our politicians make proposals, form committees and sponsor bills that will finally ensure sweeping health-care reform, it is left to us to take action. I encourage you to participate in the Grand Garibaldi to raise awareness and develop solutions for patients like Joe.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
S.Stanton Top of City's List
"Sex change official moves up on city list
By CAROL E. LEE
carol.lee@heraldtribune.com
SARASOTA -- One of the front-runners for Sarasota's city manager position is the former Largo city manager who was fired after commissioners there learned of his plans to have a sex change.Steven Stanton, who applied as Susan Stanton while noting that the name change is not yet official, was one of three applicants that all five Sarasota city commissioners chose Wednesday among their top candidates.
By CAROL E. LEE
carol.lee@heraldtribune.com
SARASOTA -- One of the front-runners for Sarasota's city manager position is the former Largo city manager who was fired after commissioners there learned of his plans to have a sex change.Steven Stanton, who applied as Susan Stanton while noting that the name change is not yet official, was one of three applicants that all five Sarasota city commissioners chose Wednesday among their top candidates.
The commissioners had intended to whittle down the pool of 18 semifinalists to eight, but by the end of a two-hour meeting had settled on 11.A consultant will narrow the 11 down to four to six finalists after conducting background checks and checking references. The commissioners will interview them May 29.The three candidates who won unanimous support from the commission have all served as city managers in Florida.Stanton was Largo city manager for 14 years before he was ousted in March. Patrick Salerno has been the city manager of Sunrise since 1990. Robert Bartolotta was city manager of Jupiter until resigning in 2004 to care for his ailing wife, who has since passed away."I'm interested in getting back into Florida management," Bartolotta said in a telephone interview from Savannah, Ga., on Wednesday. "Service is in my blood."Stanton plans to interview as a woman if he makes the final cut."It would be a dream job," said Stanton, who has visited Sarasota many times during the past few years, as Steven and as Susan."Being part of the community would be such an outstanding ending to what started out as a very unpleasant journey 40-some days ago," Stanton said. Sarasota commissioners' choice "contrasts how one community dealt with diversity and how another is planning to," he said."The fact that the commission has enough faith to look at someone for their credentials speaks miles of the inclusive nature of Sarasota."Salerno could not be reached for comment on Wednesday, but the city's consultant, Tom Freijo of The Mercer Group Inc., told the commissioners that Salerno had expressed interest in the Sarasota job before The Mercer Group started advertising for it.Each commissioner selected his or her top eight candidates from a stack of 18 resumes, while Freijo tallied up their nominations on a 2-foot-by-2-foot Post-It.Another three of the 11 contenders now up for review got the support of four commissioners:Daniel Fitzpatrick has been the city manager of Peekskill, N.Y., for the past four years.Marsha Segal-George has been deputy chief administrative officer of Orlando since June 2006.Michael Wright is assistant city manager for development and transportation in Tallahassee."I would certainly be paying a great deal of attention to them," Freijo said of the candidates with four or five commissioners' support.Five other applicants, who made it on two commissioners' lists, would serve more as backups, he said. They are:James Baker, director of administration for St. Louis County in Missouri.Matt Carlson, city administrator of Delafield, Wis.Dennis Kelly, deputy city manager of North Miami.James Palenick, city manager of Rio Rancho, N.M.Terry Zerkle, president of Local Government Network Inc., a consulting business in Cave Creek, Ariz.Commissioners will make a final selection May 30.
Last modified: May 03. 2007 4:31AM
SARASOTA -- One of the front-runners for Sarasota's city manager position is the former Largo city manager who was fired after commissioners there learned of his plans to have a sex change."
Last modified: May 03. 2007 4:31AM
SARASOTA -- One of the front-runners for Sarasota's city manager position is the former Largo city manager who was fired after commissioners there learned of his plans to have a sex change."
Thursday, May 03, 2007
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Condoleezza Rice Rise to Power
"Source: All Africa 05/01/2007
May 01, 2007 (Modern Times/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --
In the first biography of Condoleezza Rice since her appointment as secretary of state, award-winning Newsweek editor Marcus Mabry explores the contradictions-personal and political-of the most powerful black woman in the history of American politics.
The daughter of a Presbyterian minister and school teacher, Rice was raised in Birmingham, Alabama during the most volatile years of the Civil Rights Movement. She went on to attend the University of Denver, and later Notre Dame, where she received her masters in political science, with an emphasis on the Soviet Union. She later began her academic career at Stanford University, where she held the positions of Assistant and Associate Professor in Political Science, and ultimately became the youngest provost in Stanford's history (as well as the first black and first woman to serve as provost).
Rice began working for the George H.W. Bush administration in 1989, where she served as the Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor. During George W. Bush's 2000 U.S. Presidential election campaign, Rice took a one-year leave of absence from Stanford University to help work as his foreign policy advisor. In 2000 Rice was chosen to be Bush's national security advisor, where she became one of the most vocal proponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2004, Rice replaced Colin Powell as (the first female African American) Secretary of State. However along with success comes scrutiny. While Rice's accomplishments have been many, there has also been a great degree of criticism and controversy pertaining to her role as national security advisor and Secretary of State.
Her judgment and actions have been called into question on a number of issues including: supporting the Bush/Cheney agenda by "selling" the war in Iraq to Americans, failing to admit mistakes were made along the way to war (including those of the agency she oversaw), her stand on affirmative action, a seeming distance from America's black community (specifically called into account during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) and an initially tepid performance as Secretary of State, followed by a rise to power where she has challenged and (in the case of the nuclear deal with North Korea) surpassed Dick Cheney. Twice as Good skillfully and even-handedly examines both sides of these controversies, with first-hand accounts by Rice and those closest to her that reveal the sources of Rice's strength as well as the origins of her blind spots.
Who is Condoleezza Rice? For all her ceiling-shattering accomplishments and historic rise to prominence and power, Condoleezza Rice remains enigmatic, even sphinx-like, a major player on the American political scene who has somehow escaped the in-depth personal scrutiny characteristic of contemporary politics. In this multilayered portrait, Marcus Mabry penetrates the mysteries surrounding one of the most controversial and fascinating women of our time and explores what price she has paid for her success. While researching this biography, Mabry interviewed her family, friends, and neighbors from her childhood in Birmingham; peers from her years at the University of Denver and Notre Dame; colleagues, allies, and adversaries from Stanford and Washington-and Condoleezza Rice herself. The author, who has had a similar background to his subject-like her, he is African American with roots in the South, a product of Stanford, and a student of international relations-uses this perspective in his interpretation of her life and work, drawing on his personal and professional background as well as his skills as a journalist to uncover a Condoleezza Rice the world has never known. The result is the most comprehensive portrait ever reported of this powerful woman.
MARCUS MABRY, now chief of correspondents at Newsweek, was formerly a State Department and foreign correspondent for the magazine and has written on foreign policy for more than a decade. Mabry has also written extensively on race and class in America, including the memoir White Bucks and Black-eyed Peas: Coming of Age Black in White America.
Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power
By Marcus Mabry "
May 01, 2007 (Modern Times/All Africa Global Media via COMTEX) --
In the first biography of Condoleezza Rice since her appointment as secretary of state, award-winning Newsweek editor Marcus Mabry explores the contradictions-personal and political-of the most powerful black woman in the history of American politics.
The daughter of a Presbyterian minister and school teacher, Rice was raised in Birmingham, Alabama during the most volatile years of the Civil Rights Movement. She went on to attend the University of Denver, and later Notre Dame, where she received her masters in political science, with an emphasis on the Soviet Union. She later began her academic career at Stanford University, where she held the positions of Assistant and Associate Professor in Political Science, and ultimately became the youngest provost in Stanford's history (as well as the first black and first woman to serve as provost).
Rice began working for the George H.W. Bush administration in 1989, where she served as the Soviet and East European Affairs Advisor. During George W. Bush's 2000 U.S. Presidential election campaign, Rice took a one-year leave of absence from Stanford University to help work as his foreign policy advisor. In 2000 Rice was chosen to be Bush's national security advisor, where she became one of the most vocal proponents of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In 2004, Rice replaced Colin Powell as (the first female African American) Secretary of State. However along with success comes scrutiny. While Rice's accomplishments have been many, there has also been a great degree of criticism and controversy pertaining to her role as national security advisor and Secretary of State.
Her judgment and actions have been called into question on a number of issues including: supporting the Bush/Cheney agenda by "selling" the war in Iraq to Americans, failing to admit mistakes were made along the way to war (including those of the agency she oversaw), her stand on affirmative action, a seeming distance from America's black community (specifically called into account during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) and an initially tepid performance as Secretary of State, followed by a rise to power where she has challenged and (in the case of the nuclear deal with North Korea) surpassed Dick Cheney. Twice as Good skillfully and even-handedly examines both sides of these controversies, with first-hand accounts by Rice and those closest to her that reveal the sources of Rice's strength as well as the origins of her blind spots.
Who is Condoleezza Rice? For all her ceiling-shattering accomplishments and historic rise to prominence and power, Condoleezza Rice remains enigmatic, even sphinx-like, a major player on the American political scene who has somehow escaped the in-depth personal scrutiny characteristic of contemporary politics. In this multilayered portrait, Marcus Mabry penetrates the mysteries surrounding one of the most controversial and fascinating women of our time and explores what price she has paid for her success. While researching this biography, Mabry interviewed her family, friends, and neighbors from her childhood in Birmingham; peers from her years at the University of Denver and Notre Dame; colleagues, allies, and adversaries from Stanford and Washington-and Condoleezza Rice herself. The author, who has had a similar background to his subject-like her, he is African American with roots in the South, a product of Stanford, and a student of international relations-uses this perspective in his interpretation of her life and work, drawing on his personal and professional background as well as his skills as a journalist to uncover a Condoleezza Rice the world has never known. The result is the most comprehensive portrait ever reported of this powerful woman.
MARCUS MABRY, now chief of correspondents at Newsweek, was formerly a State Department and foreign correspondent for the magazine and has written on foreign policy for more than a decade. Mabry has also written extensively on race and class in America, including the memoir White Bucks and Black-eyed Peas: Coming of Age Black in White America.
Twice as Good: Condoleezza Rice and Her Path to Power
By Marcus Mabry "
Core Ridge Church Closing Political Arm
Good move. The Church would be better off investing its resources in the works of God, not politicians.
Source: The Miami Herald 05/01/2007
Bringing an end to ambitious goals that included raising $2 million to launch a Capitol Hill lobbying arm, opening a dozen regional offices and recruiting activists in all 435 congressional districts, the Fort Lauderdale-based Center for Reclaiming America has shut its doors.
The conservative organization, part of the Rev. James D. Kennedy's Coral Ridge Ministries, let its eight employees go last week. Coral Ridge also closed its Capitol Hill-based Center for Christian Statesmanship, founded in 1995 to convert lawmakers to evangelical Christianity.
Brian Fisher, executive vice president at Coral Ridge Ministries, said the closings are part of a larger effort to redefine the ministry's mission.
''We believe that by streamlining the operations we will be able to return to our core focus,'' he said.
Fisher said Coral Ridge officials plan to focus on television, radio and Internet, with plans to reach an audience of 30 million by 2012, up from 3 million today.
The closings mark a major shift for Coral Ridge Ministries, which runs the 10,000-member Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church at 5555 N. Federal Hwy. in Fort Lauderdale, television and radio ministries, a seminary and an evangelism training program and has an annual budget of $37 million.
Kennedy, 76, who suffered a heart attack in December, is recovering in a hospital in Michigan.
The change also comes at a pivotal moment for the religious right, which is casting about for a presidential candidate during the most wide-open campaign in more than half a century. The 2006 election delivered a major blow to Republican conservatives in Washington and in Florida, where their favored candidate for governor, Tom Gallagher, was soundly defeated. Earlier that year, a petition drive to put a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot fell short, despite the center's efforts.
BACKING WANES
Kennedy, an internationally renowned evangelist, founded the center more than a decade ago to advance conservative Christian values in state and national politics. But in recent years, the center has struggled to gain broad backing for its efforts to outlaw abortion, ban gay marriage and promote prayer and creationism in schools.
Fort Lauderdale Mayor Jim Naugle, who for years has welcomed activists from around the world to the center's annual conference, said politicians seeking to appeal to the center were no longer actively courting Christian conservatives.
''After an election like that, candidates are packaging themselves in the middle, rather than to the right,'' he said. About 1,100 evangelicals -- 300 more than last year -- participated in the center's conference in March.
Naugle said he ''can't help'' but think that the center's closing has something to do with Kennedy's health. ''Certainly he was a driving force and a national recognized leader and, hopefully, his health will allow him to come back strong,'' he said.
Corwin Smidt, executive director of the Henry Institute for the Study of Christianity and Politics at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., said evangelical groups that are built around a single charismatic leader often struggle in the leader's absence.
NO REPLACEMENT
''For Kennedy, there's just no figure [to replace him] after he's gone,'' he said. ``These televangelists are able to generate a fair amount of money, but in terms of their institutional longevity, it's really at risk.''
He also sees the closings as part of a broader shift away from politics among Christian conservatives.
''There is a kind of retrenching, a regrouping, a rethinking among conservative Christians,'' Smidt said. ``Some people are saying for Christians to be involved in politics, we have to be much more aware of a variety of issues.''
Jennifer Hancock, associate director of the Humanists of Florida Association, said the closings offered evidence that Christian conservatives are losing some of their political clout.
''It's good news for us, and I think its good news for people who care about democracy,'' she said. ``These people were promoting theocracy in America.''
But Gary Cass, who had been the center's executive director for three years, said he plans to stay at the forefront of Christian activism.
''The fight continues because our cause has not changed and the stakes are so high,'' he said.
comments welcome
SUSPECTED MADAM WILL NAME CLIENTS
Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel 05/01/2007
WASHINGTON
The woman who faces charges of running a prostitution ring in Washington that serviced the prominent and powerful said Monday that she intended to force many of those clients to testify in her behalf.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey is offering a simple defense to government charges that the escort service she ran for 13 years by telephone from her home in California was actually a straightforward prostitution business.
Although she promoted her business as a legal "high-end erotic fantasy service," she said it was not intended as an exchange of sex for money. She said Monday that her former clients, reported to include a Bush administration economics official and the head of a conservative research group, among others, should confirm that when they are called to testify.
If any sexual activity occurred, she said, it was not authorized or intended by her but undertaken independently by her female subcontractors and male clients "who disobeyed my directives, their signed contracts and participated in illegal behavior."
In other words, she is stunned at allegations that sexual activity had taken place between the women who worked for her and the men who paid them about $300 for 90 minutes of whatever.
As for now, the names of only two have been revealed. The most prominent was Randall L. Tobias, a veteran businessman and the top foreign aid adviser in the State Department, who resigned Friday after he acknowledged to ABC News that he was on the list of Palfrey's clients.
The other, disclosed on Palfrey's Web site, was Harlan K. Ullman, a Defense Department consultant best known for coining the phrase "shock and awe" to describe the intended effect on Iraq of the war's opening barrage, but the phrase also might well describe his own reaction to being called by reporters on Friday about the disclosure, to which he declined comment.
Palfrey says she did not know the actual names of her clients, just their telephone numbers. She said she gave them to ABC News without compensation so the network could use its resources to match names to the numbers.
ABC has used the information to prepare a story to be broadcast this Friday on its show 20/20. In a tease for the segment, ABC said on its Web site Monday that the list includes, "a Bush administration economist, the head of a conservative think tank, a prominent CEO, several lobbyists and a handful of military officials" in addition to Tobias and Ullman.
Tobias said that he had used the escort service but said he only received massages.
Palfrey said Monday that she felt sorry for Tobias because of the unwanted attention he has received, but was gratified that he supported her story that she did not run a sex-for-money service. She chided him, however, for choosing not to come forward earlier with his "extremely valuable exculpatory evidence."
GOING TO COURT: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, charged with running a prostitution ring, is escorted by her civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, in Washington. Palfrey says she was stunned to discover her employees had sex for money. AP photo/Jacquelyn Martin
WASHINGTON
The woman who faces charges of running a prostitution ring in Washington that serviced the prominent and powerful said Monday that she intended to force many of those clients to testify in her behalf.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey is offering a simple defense to government charges that the escort service she ran for 13 years by telephone from her home in California was actually a straightforward prostitution business.
Although she promoted her business as a legal "high-end erotic fantasy service," she said it was not intended as an exchange of sex for money. She said Monday that her former clients, reported to include a Bush administration economics official and the head of a conservative research group, among others, should confirm that when they are called to testify.
If any sexual activity occurred, she said, it was not authorized or intended by her but undertaken independently by her female subcontractors and male clients "who disobeyed my directives, their signed contracts and participated in illegal behavior."
In other words, she is stunned at allegations that sexual activity had taken place between the women who worked for her and the men who paid them about $300 for 90 minutes of whatever.
As for now, the names of only two have been revealed. The most prominent was Randall L. Tobias, a veteran businessman and the top foreign aid adviser in the State Department, who resigned Friday after he acknowledged to ABC News that he was on the list of Palfrey's clients.
The other, disclosed on Palfrey's Web site, was Harlan K. Ullman, a Defense Department consultant best known for coining the phrase "shock and awe" to describe the intended effect on Iraq of the war's opening barrage, but the phrase also might well describe his own reaction to being called by reporters on Friday about the disclosure, to which he declined comment.
Palfrey says she did not know the actual names of her clients, just their telephone numbers. She said she gave them to ABC News without compensation so the network could use its resources to match names to the numbers.
ABC has used the information to prepare a story to be broadcast this Friday on its show 20/20. In a tease for the segment, ABC said on its Web site Monday that the list includes, "a Bush administration economist, the head of a conservative think tank, a prominent CEO, several lobbyists and a handful of military officials" in addition to Tobias and Ullman.
Tobias said that he had used the escort service but said he only received massages.
Palfrey said Monday that she felt sorry for Tobias because of the unwanted attention he has received, but was gratified that he supported her story that she did not run a sex-for-money service. She chided him, however, for choosing not to come forward earlier with his "extremely valuable exculpatory evidence."
GOING TO COURT: Deborah Jeane Palfrey, charged with running a prostitution ring, is escorted by her civil attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, in Washington. Palfrey says she was stunned to discover her employees had sex for money. AP photo/Jacquelyn Martin
POLITICAL PHONE CALLS UNDER FIRE
"Source: South Florida Sun-Sentinel 05/01/2007
TALLAHASSEE
Cropping up every year or two, they're universally despised. More than the stream of partisan nastiness that spews from the television screen. More than the campaign junk that fills mailboxes.
They are the hated robo-calls, the recorded voices at the other end of the line at the height of political campaigns. Sometimes containing an endorsement of a favored candidate, often hurling slurs at an opponent, the calls are disliked by seemingly everyone, except, of course, politicians who use them.
"Some people swear at them. There are other people who swear by them," said state Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville.
King, state Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, and state Rep. Stan Jordan, R-Jacksonville, are pushing legislation that would ban political robo-calls from going to anyone who is on the do-not-call list, the registry designed to protect people from telemarketers.
Lots of people dislike unsolicited calls; Florida's do-not-call list contains 8.1 million subscribers.
Telemarketers and others subject to the rules could face a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.
Senate and House committees have approved robo-call legislation, but King said there might not be enough time to pass the final hurdles by Friday's scheduled adjournment. Gov. Charlie Crist's press secretary, Erin Isaac, said she couldn't comment on the specifics of the proposal because it's subject to change as it moves through the Legislature.
Six states prohibit political robo-calls. Florida law exempts politicians from respecting the do-not-call list. The legislation would force politicians to honor it or face the same penalties as telemarketers and other businesses. Rhoda Berman, a voter who lives west of Delray Beach, said the calls were a plague during last year's election season.
"It was insane," she said. "These calls were coming in at the worst times, during dinner and after dinner. It made the whole election so distasteful."
A nationwide survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 64 percent of registered voters reported receiving such calls in the final two months of the 2006 election season. Berman said she sometimes got four a day.
Berman was luckier, in a sense, than Robert Pelletier, of Hollywood. On vacation in Massachusetts for three weeks during the 2006 election season, Pelletier got robo-calls on his cell phone, including two from a Broward County commissioner on behalf of a candidate.
The worst part: Pelletier paid to receive the calls because of the cell-phone roaming charges.
"Boy, was I ticked," he said. "Political calls should be banned from the telephone."
He received more robo-calls this spring. They were no less irritating because they were about the Miramar city election, and Pelletier doesn't live there.
If the legislation doesn't become law this year, King said, he will try again during the 2008 session, in time to spare people from the next election season onslaught.
If not, brace for more calls. Donna Brosemer, of the consulting firm Politically Correct, in Palm Beach Gardens, said many candidates and consultants use robo-calls because they need to reach voters.
"Our options are so few. Television costs a fortune. Fewer and fewer people read newspapers. People are bombarded with direct mail," she said.
Brosemer said she rarely uses robo-calls for her candidates: "I hate [receiving] them, so I assume I'm not the only one out there who does."
Anthony Man can be reached at aman@sun-sentinel.com
DISCUSSING THE CALLS
State Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville, discusses the much-hated political robo-calls in an audio report at Sun-Sentinel.com/florida "
TALLAHASSEE
Cropping up every year or two, they're universally despised. More than the stream of partisan nastiness that spews from the television screen. More than the campaign junk that fills mailboxes.
They are the hated robo-calls, the recorded voices at the other end of the line at the height of political campaigns. Sometimes containing an endorsement of a favored candidate, often hurling slurs at an opponent, the calls are disliked by seemingly everyone, except, of course, politicians who use them.
"Some people swear at them. There are other people who swear by them," said state Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville.
King, state Sen. Nancy Argenziano, R-Dunnellon, and state Rep. Stan Jordan, R-Jacksonville, are pushing legislation that would ban political robo-calls from going to anyone who is on the do-not-call list, the registry designed to protect people from telemarketers.
Lots of people dislike unsolicited calls; Florida's do-not-call list contains 8.1 million subscribers.
Telemarketers and others subject to the rules could face a civil penalty of up to $10,000 for each violation.
Senate and House committees have approved robo-call legislation, but King said there might not be enough time to pass the final hurdles by Friday's scheduled adjournment. Gov. Charlie Crist's press secretary, Erin Isaac, said she couldn't comment on the specifics of the proposal because it's subject to change as it moves through the Legislature.
Six states prohibit political robo-calls. Florida law exempts politicians from respecting the do-not-call list. The legislation would force politicians to honor it or face the same penalties as telemarketers and other businesses. Rhoda Berman, a voter who lives west of Delray Beach, said the calls were a plague during last year's election season.
"It was insane," she said. "These calls were coming in at the worst times, during dinner and after dinner. It made the whole election so distasteful."
A nationwide survey conducted by the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that 64 percent of registered voters reported receiving such calls in the final two months of the 2006 election season. Berman said she sometimes got four a day.
Berman was luckier, in a sense, than Robert Pelletier, of Hollywood. On vacation in Massachusetts for three weeks during the 2006 election season, Pelletier got robo-calls on his cell phone, including two from a Broward County commissioner on behalf of a candidate.
The worst part: Pelletier paid to receive the calls because of the cell-phone roaming charges.
"Boy, was I ticked," he said. "Political calls should be banned from the telephone."
He received more robo-calls this spring. They were no less irritating because they were about the Miramar city election, and Pelletier doesn't live there.
If the legislation doesn't become law this year, King said, he will try again during the 2008 session, in time to spare people from the next election season onslaught.
If not, brace for more calls. Donna Brosemer, of the consulting firm Politically Correct, in Palm Beach Gardens, said many candidates and consultants use robo-calls because they need to reach voters.
"Our options are so few. Television costs a fortune. Fewer and fewer people read newspapers. People are bombarded with direct mail," she said.
Brosemer said she rarely uses robo-calls for her candidates: "I hate [receiving] them, so I assume I'm not the only one out there who does."
Anthony Man can be reached at aman@sun-sentinel.com
DISCUSSING THE CALLS
State Sen. Jim King, R-Jacksonville, discusses the much-hated political robo-calls in an audio report at Sun-Sentinel.com/florida "
Sunday, April 29, 2007
FL College Tuition Increase
Just one barrier placed against poor and working students from affording a higher education. This policy is a damn shame.
TALLAHASSEE
Tens of thousands of students who expect free tuition at three of Florida's largest state universities under the Bright Futures scholarships would have to pay additional tuition -- as much as $1,000 a year -- under an overhaul plan moving through the Legislature.
The hikes would apply at the state's top research schools -- the University of Florida, Florida State University and the University of South Florida. The schools argue that Bright Futures and the Florida Prepaid program have hemmed in needed tuition increases, restricting the revenue they need to achieve national standing.
The fix the universities are pitching is an additional charge that would bypass the two programs and hit students' pockets directly.
''It's time that we turn the corner on education,'' said bill sponsor Sen. Steve Oelrich, a Cross Creek Republican, adding that everyone says Florida needs a more competitive university system. ``That talk's fine, but it's time to take some action.''
The hikes have a major opponent: Gov. Charlie Crist. He says he will consider vetoing the plan because he opposes any tuition increase this year. But lawmakers are pushing ahead, setting up a potential showdown with the popular governor.
''I think it would be unfair to increase the burden on students and their families to get a higher education in the state of Florida,'' Crist said.
The governor and other critics see the plan as the beginning of the end for Florida's low-cost higher education system. Schools like UF, which conceived the idea, argue it's necessary to hire more professors and compete nationally in academics.
''We think this will really hit right at the problem,'' said UF President Bernie Machen, who is campaigning to make UF one of the nation's top-rated public schools, which would require a lower faculty-to-student ratio.
More legislators are starting to agree with the chorus that tuition is too low for the state's top universities to achieve excellence.
Rep. Bill Proctor, a St. Augustine Republican who voted for the bill in a House council, compared the state's tuition to ``putting a boxer in the ring with one arm tied behind his back.''
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
The proposals essentially work by allowing certain schools to assess an additional charge on top of the base tuition rate, which the Legislature sets. Students who already have Florida Prepaid contracts would be exempt from the surcharge. But Bright Futures, which awards high-achieving high school graduates by covering all or part of their tuition at any state university, would not cover the increase. The fee would be capped at about 40 percent of base tuition.
The Senate bill would allow three research-heavy schools -- UF, FSU and USF -- to charge the fee and would go into effect this fall. The House version would apply only to UF, begin in 2008 at a lower rate, and expand to $1,000 a year in 2012. The Senate bill will be heard on the floor today.
''It puts us on a road where we should be in terms of higher education,'' said Sen. Evelyn Lynn, who helped draft the Senate bill. ``We're setting policy. We're not just giving out money.''
The plan is meeting criticism on several fronts. Some lawmakers say it's a piecemeal approach to solving the real problem of Bright Futures and Prepaid being tied to tuition. Other lawmakers, echoed by universities that wouldn't get the hike, have protested that it rewards research schools to the exclusion of smaller colleges that focus on teaching. Last year the Legislature created a tier system to distinguish universities based on how much research they do.
University of North Florida President John Delaney spoke against the bill this week, saying he objects to classifying universities into tiers if it means some get to charge more tuition than others. ''All 11 universities are short of funding,'' Delaney said, adding that other university presidents who supported the bill as a pilot program are ''disturbed'' that it could apply only to research schools. ``The case for the revenue at the other eight universities is equally compelling.''
But the person many expect to be the biggest critic has yet to speak out. Senate President Ken Pruitt, who famously campaigned around the state by bus in 2003 to protect Bright Futures from cuts, is keeping quiet so far, following his philosophy that legislative leaders shouldn't squash members' ideas.
''I believe that if we want excellence in our university system that we need to give them the resources to get to that next level,'' Pruitt said. But, he added, ``I will never discount the importance of keeping education affordable and accessible.''
Pruitt also objected to the notion that Bright Futures can't sustain regular increases in tuition, saying that the Lottery, which funds the program, gives $1 billion a year to education and that Bright Futures takes up less than $400 million of it.
``There's still plenty of room for Bright Futures to grow.''
There's no doubt that Bright Futures has ballooned, though. State records show that more than 146,000 students this year received a Bright Futures scholarship -- compared to more than 42,000 students in 1997. When first created, the program cost $69.5 million. In the coming year it will cost more than $398 million.
LOBBYING EFFORTS
The Florida Prepaid Program lobbied hard to change the original bill to exempt its policyholders from paying it. Allowing each university to charge its own tuition rate would interfere with the way Prepaid works, because the program allows parents to make payments on locked-in tuition that would cover the cost of any state school.
Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville Republican, has consistently voted against the plan in committee. He says he doesn't want to pit schools against each other, though he supports separating Bright Futures and Prepaid from tuition. He said the state university system is a case of ``if it's not broke, don't fix it. The product that we produce belies the fact that we are not spending enough.''
Even if the plans fail, supporters say the effort will help the state reconsider its higher education strategy.
Mark Rosenberg, chancellor of the state university system, said that for the first time, ``We're looking beyond Bright Futures.''
Miami Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this report.
TALLAHASSEE
Tens of thousands of students who expect free tuition at three of Florida's largest state universities under the Bright Futures scholarships would have to pay additional tuition -- as much as $1,000 a year -- under an overhaul plan moving through the Legislature.
The hikes would apply at the state's top research schools -- the University of Florida, Florida State University and the University of South Florida. The schools argue that Bright Futures and the Florida Prepaid program have hemmed in needed tuition increases, restricting the revenue they need to achieve national standing.
The fix the universities are pitching is an additional charge that would bypass the two programs and hit students' pockets directly.
''It's time that we turn the corner on education,'' said bill sponsor Sen. Steve Oelrich, a Cross Creek Republican, adding that everyone says Florida needs a more competitive university system. ``That talk's fine, but it's time to take some action.''
The hikes have a major opponent: Gov. Charlie Crist. He says he will consider vetoing the plan because he opposes any tuition increase this year. But lawmakers are pushing ahead, setting up a potential showdown with the popular governor.
''I think it would be unfair to increase the burden on students and their families to get a higher education in the state of Florida,'' Crist said.
The governor and other critics see the plan as the beginning of the end for Florida's low-cost higher education system. Schools like UF, which conceived the idea, argue it's necessary to hire more professors and compete nationally in academics.
''We think this will really hit right at the problem,'' said UF President Bernie Machen, who is campaigning to make UF one of the nation's top-rated public schools, which would require a lower faculty-to-student ratio.
More legislators are starting to agree with the chorus that tuition is too low for the state's top universities to achieve excellence.
Rep. Bill Proctor, a St. Augustine Republican who voted for the bill in a House council, compared the state's tuition to ``putting a boxer in the ring with one arm tied behind his back.''
ADDITIONAL CHARGES
The proposals essentially work by allowing certain schools to assess an additional charge on top of the base tuition rate, which the Legislature sets. Students who already have Florida Prepaid contracts would be exempt from the surcharge. But Bright Futures, which awards high-achieving high school graduates by covering all or part of their tuition at any state university, would not cover the increase. The fee would be capped at about 40 percent of base tuition.
The Senate bill would allow three research-heavy schools -- UF, FSU and USF -- to charge the fee and would go into effect this fall. The House version would apply only to UF, begin in 2008 at a lower rate, and expand to $1,000 a year in 2012. The Senate bill will be heard on the floor today.
''It puts us on a road where we should be in terms of higher education,'' said Sen. Evelyn Lynn, who helped draft the Senate bill. ``We're setting policy. We're not just giving out money.''
The plan is meeting criticism on several fronts. Some lawmakers say it's a piecemeal approach to solving the real problem of Bright Futures and Prepaid being tied to tuition. Other lawmakers, echoed by universities that wouldn't get the hike, have protested that it rewards research schools to the exclusion of smaller colleges that focus on teaching. Last year the Legislature created a tier system to distinguish universities based on how much research they do.
University of North Florida President John Delaney spoke against the bill this week, saying he objects to classifying universities into tiers if it means some get to charge more tuition than others. ''All 11 universities are short of funding,'' Delaney said, adding that other university presidents who supported the bill as a pilot program are ''disturbed'' that it could apply only to research schools. ``The case for the revenue at the other eight universities is equally compelling.''
But the person many expect to be the biggest critic has yet to speak out. Senate President Ken Pruitt, who famously campaigned around the state by bus in 2003 to protect Bright Futures from cuts, is keeping quiet so far, following his philosophy that legislative leaders shouldn't squash members' ideas.
''I believe that if we want excellence in our university system that we need to give them the resources to get to that next level,'' Pruitt said. But, he added, ``I will never discount the importance of keeping education affordable and accessible.''
Pruitt also objected to the notion that Bright Futures can't sustain regular increases in tuition, saying that the Lottery, which funds the program, gives $1 billion a year to education and that Bright Futures takes up less than $400 million of it.
``There's still plenty of room for Bright Futures to grow.''
There's no doubt that Bright Futures has ballooned, though. State records show that more than 146,000 students this year received a Bright Futures scholarship -- compared to more than 42,000 students in 1997. When first created, the program cost $69.5 million. In the coming year it will cost more than $398 million.
LOBBYING EFFORTS
The Florida Prepaid Program lobbied hard to change the original bill to exempt its policyholders from paying it. Allowing each university to charge its own tuition rate would interfere with the way Prepaid works, because the program allows parents to make payments on locked-in tuition that would cover the cost of any state school.
Sen. Jim King, a Jacksonville Republican, has consistently voted against the plan in committee. He says he doesn't want to pit schools against each other, though he supports separating Bright Futures and Prepaid from tuition. He said the state university system is a case of ``if it's not broke, don't fix it. The product that we produce belies the fact that we are not spending enough.''
Even if the plans fail, supporters say the effort will help the state reconsider its higher education strategy.
Mark Rosenberg, chancellor of the state university system, said that for the first time, ``We're looking beyond Bright Futures.''
Miami Herald staff writer Mary Ellen Klas contributed to this report.
Putin threatenes Russian pullout from arms treaty
The United States continues to increase its military presence in Europe and the West. What would you think to be the logical response from world leaders whom are not part of NATO?
Source: Agence France Presse 04/26/2007
MOSCOW, April 26, 2007 (AFP) -
President Vladimir Putin on Thursday threatened Russian withdrawal from a landmark Cold War-era arms treaty limiting military forces in Europe, abruptly raising the stakes in an increasingly tense security dispute with the West.
"It would be appropriate to announce a moratorium on Russian adherence to this treaty until it has been ratified by all NATO countries," Putin told the Russian parliament in his annual state of the nation address, referring to the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.
"I suggest this issue be raised in the Russia-NATO council and, in the event there is no progress in negotiation, that we consider terminating our obligations under the CFE," Putin said.
The CFE Treaty was signed in 1990 in Paris by the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the former Warsaw Pact. It was adapted in 1999 following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the enlargement of NATO, but NATO states have not yet ratified the new pact.
Putin said Russia, which did ratify the new treaty, had been complying with it on a unilateral basis and today had virtually no military forces deployed in the northwest and European areas of the country despite being the only CFE signatory with both northern and southern flanks to protect.
Members of the US-led NATO bloc have tied ratification of the adapted 1999 CFE Treaty to withdrawal of Russian forces from the ex-Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldova, efforts which Russia says have been under way and which are bilateral issues unrelated to the CFE pact.
"What about them?" Putin said, referring to the NATO countries which have not ratified the treaty. "Our partners have not even ratified the treaty.
"This gives us every reason to say that our partners are acting in this situation incorrectly at a very minimum," Putin said in comments interrupted at one point by applause from the deputies from the State Duma and the Federation Council gathered at the Kremlin for the speech.
Russia and the West have been disputing application of the adapted CFE Treaty for years with each side accusing the other of acting in bad faith.
But Putin's warning ratcheted the testy rhetoric up to the top level of the state and coincided with a rapid chilling in relations between Russia and the United States over US plans to deploy elements of its new missile defense system in two former Warsaw Pact states near Russia's border.
The Russian president took direct aim at the US missile plans and linked it directly to the CFE treaty, stating: "It is high time for our partners to deliver their contribution to arms reduction, not just in word but in deed."
Putin said the missile defense plan, if carried out, would mark an unprecedented deployment in Europe of US strategic weaponry and said this was an issue that should be of concern not just in US-Russian bilateral relations but on the continent as a whole.
"In one way or another, this affects the interests of all European states including those that are not members of NATO," Putin said.
The Russian leader said the matter should be taken up by the Vienna-based Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), a body that Moscow has for years accused of veering from its original mission to deal with security matters in Europe toward promotion of a US political agenda.
"It is time to give the activities of the OSCE some real content, to turn the face of the organization toward the problems that really concern the people of Europe instead of only looking to build (political) blocs in the post-Soviet space," Putin said.
Source: Agence France Presse 04/26/2007
MOSCOW, April 26, 2007 (AFP) -
President Vladimir Putin on Thursday threatened Russian withdrawal from a landmark Cold War-era arms treaty limiting military forces in Europe, abruptly raising the stakes in an increasingly tense security dispute with the West.
"It would be appropriate to announce a moratorium on Russian adherence to this treaty until it has been ratified by all NATO countries," Putin told the Russian parliament in his annual state of the nation address, referring to the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty.
"I suggest this issue be raised in the Russia-NATO council and, in the event there is no progress in negotiation, that we consider terminating our obligations under the CFE," Putin said.
The CFE Treaty was signed in 1990 in Paris by the countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the former Warsaw Pact. It was adapted in 1999 following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the enlargement of NATO, but NATO states have not yet ratified the new pact.
Putin said Russia, which did ratify the new treaty, had been complying with it on a unilateral basis and today had virtually no military forces deployed in the northwest and European areas of the country despite being the only CFE signatory with both northern and southern flanks to protect.
Members of the US-led NATO bloc have tied ratification of the adapted 1999 CFE Treaty to withdrawal of Russian forces from the ex-Soviet republics of Georgia and Moldova, efforts which Russia says have been under way and which are bilateral issues unrelated to the CFE pact.
"What about them?" Putin said, referring to the NATO countries which have not ratified the treaty. "Our partners have not even ratified the treaty.
"This gives us every reason to say that our partners are acting in this situation incorrectly at a very minimum," Putin said in comments interrupted at one point by applause from the deputies from the State Duma and the Federation Council gathered at the Kremlin for the speech.
Russia and the West have been disputing application of the adapted CFE Treaty for years with each side accusing the other of acting in bad faith.
But Putin's warning ratcheted the testy rhetoric up to the top level of the state and coincided with a rapid chilling in relations between Russia and the United States over US plans to deploy elements of its new missile defense system in two former Warsaw Pact states near Russia's border.
The Russian president took direct aim at the US missile plans and linked it directly to the CFE treaty, stating: "It is high time for our partners to deliver their contribution to arms reduction, not just in word but in deed."
Putin said the missile defense plan, if carried out, would mark an unprecedented deployment in Europe of US strategic weaponry and said this was an issue that should be of concern not just in US-Russian bilateral relations but on the continent as a whole.
"In one way or another, this affects the interests of all European states including those that are not members of NATO," Putin said.
The Russian leader said the matter should be taken up by the Vienna-based Organisation for Security and Cooperation (OSCE), a body that Moscow has for years accused of veering from its original mission to deal with security matters in Europe toward promotion of a US political agenda.
"It is time to give the activities of the OSCE some real content, to turn the face of the organization toward the problems that really concern the people of Europe instead of only looking to build (political) blocs in the post-Soviet space," Putin said.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Bush , Rove & Republican Party Briefings
The ties between the White House and the Republican Party are far too close! In theory a political party should have zero interaction in the actual functions of the government. That is structure of United States government. In my opinion all government officials and GOP Party members involved in these unethical questionable 'meetings' should be placed under criminal investigation inaddition to being suspended immediately from their post.
Source: The New York Times 04/27/2007
WASHINGTON, April 26 -- The Bush administration insisted Thursday that a series of meetings between senior White House political aides and officials at government agencies to discuss Congressional elections did not violate a law that prohibits the use of federal departments for political purposes.
White House officials acknowledged that aides to Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, held about 20 briefings in the past two years with officials at 16 departments to discuss Republican political strategies, including which Congressional Democrats were being singled out for defeat and which Republicans were most vulnerable.
Included in the briefings were the Treasury, Labor, Commerce, Interior and Energy Departments.
But administration spokesmen said the discussions did not violate the Hatch Act, the law that makes it illegal for government employees to take action that could influence an election. They said the White House officials did not make any requests for the agencies to take any specific actions but were simply imparting details about political strategy.
''It is perfectly lawful for the political appointees at the White House to provide information briefings to political appointees at the agencies,'' said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. ''No laws were broken.'' Ms. Perino said the White House officials did not intend to tell agency employees to take steps to help Republican candidates or hurt Democratic lawmakers.
The briefings were cleared by lawyers from the White House counsel's office, said a second spokesman, Scott Stanzel. He said the lawyers provided guidance to the White House political aides, J. Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor, about how to conduct the briefings and comply with the Hatch Act. Mr. Stanzel said that Mr. Rove had also spoken occasionally to agency officials ''about the political landscape'' and said that his briefings were also within the law.
The denials left Democratic lawmakers unconvinced. They said Thursday that they would press for details about the meetings, which were first reported by The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
The meetings are also under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, an obscure federal agency whose head, Scott J. Bloch, is himself under investigation over accusations of politicizing his agency.
Mr. Stanzel said the briefings by the White House officials included presentations about Democrats that the White House was hoping to unseat and Republicans who faced difficult re-elections.
The meetings have come under scrutiny after details became known about a session this year that Democrats contend may have violated the law.
On Jan. 26, Mr. Jennings briefed employees at the General Services Administration about which Democratic members of Congress the Republican Party hoped to unseat in 2008 and which Republican lawmakers were vulnerable. Officials who attended that briefing have told Congressional investigators that at the conclusion of the meeting, the agency's administrator, Lurita Alexis Doan, asked how the agency could be used ''to help our candidates. '' Ms. Doan has said she does not recall making the remark.
This week, 25 Democratic senators sent a letter to the White House asking for details on the G.S.A. briefing, and two Democrats, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, called for Ms. Doan's resignation. They said she had committed a series of ethical lapses. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved the issuance of a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for information about the political briefings.
On Thursday, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House committee, wrote to the agencies seeking information about the briefings.
''The information we received about the G.S.A. was pretty shocking, and I think if I could ever imagine what a Hatch Act violation would be, that would be about as close as it gets,'' Mr. Waxman said in an interview. But he said he did not know whether the other meetings violated the law.
''The briefings in and of themselves may not be a violation, and that is why they are now under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel,'' he said.
Legal experts said that the Hatch Act permits White House officials to talk about upcoming elections and political strategy generally, but it would prohibit any official from taking steps to influence an election.
''Merely holding a briefing on government property that discusses election results or upcoming elections would not, in and of itself, be considered 'political activity' and so would not violate the Hatch Act,'' said Elaine Kaplan, a former head of the Office of Special Counsel in the Clinton and Bush administrations. ''If, however, the meetings digressed into discussions about future campaigns or actions that could be taken to help candidates win elections, it could become 'political activity.' ''
Comments welcome
Source: The New York Times 04/27/2007
WASHINGTON, April 26 -- The Bush administration insisted Thursday that a series of meetings between senior White House political aides and officials at government agencies to discuss Congressional elections did not violate a law that prohibits the use of federal departments for political purposes.
White House officials acknowledged that aides to Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, held about 20 briefings in the past two years with officials at 16 departments to discuss Republican political strategies, including which Congressional Democrats were being singled out for defeat and which Republicans were most vulnerable.
Included in the briefings were the Treasury, Labor, Commerce, Interior and Energy Departments.
But administration spokesmen said the discussions did not violate the Hatch Act, the law that makes it illegal for government employees to take action that could influence an election. They said the White House officials did not make any requests for the agencies to take any specific actions but were simply imparting details about political strategy.
''It is perfectly lawful for the political appointees at the White House to provide information briefings to political appointees at the agencies,'' said Dana Perino, the White House spokeswoman. ''No laws were broken.'' Ms. Perino said the White House officials did not intend to tell agency employees to take steps to help Republican candidates or hurt Democratic lawmakers.
The briefings were cleared by lawyers from the White House counsel's office, said a second spokesman, Scott Stanzel. He said the lawyers provided guidance to the White House political aides, J. Scott Jennings and Sara Taylor, about how to conduct the briefings and comply with the Hatch Act. Mr. Stanzel said that Mr. Rove had also spoken occasionally to agency officials ''about the political landscape'' and said that his briefings were also within the law.
The denials left Democratic lawmakers unconvinced. They said Thursday that they would press for details about the meetings, which were first reported by The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post.
The meetings are also under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel, an obscure federal agency whose head, Scott J. Bloch, is himself under investigation over accusations of politicizing his agency.
Mr. Stanzel said the briefings by the White House officials included presentations about Democrats that the White House was hoping to unseat and Republicans who faced difficult re-elections.
The meetings have come under scrutiny after details became known about a session this year that Democrats contend may have violated the law.
On Jan. 26, Mr. Jennings briefed employees at the General Services Administration about which Democratic members of Congress the Republican Party hoped to unseat in 2008 and which Republican lawmakers were vulnerable. Officials who attended that briefing have told Congressional investigators that at the conclusion of the meeting, the agency's administrator, Lurita Alexis Doan, asked how the agency could be used ''to help our candidates. '' Ms. Doan has said she does not recall making the remark.
This week, 25 Democratic senators sent a letter to the White House asking for details on the G.S.A. briefing, and two Democrats, Ron Wyden of Oregon and Byron L. Dorgan of North Dakota, called for Ms. Doan's resignation. They said she had committed a series of ethical lapses. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform approved the issuance of a subpoena to the Republican National Committee for information about the political briefings.
On Thursday, Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House committee, wrote to the agencies seeking information about the briefings.
''The information we received about the G.S.A. was pretty shocking, and I think if I could ever imagine what a Hatch Act violation would be, that would be about as close as it gets,'' Mr. Waxman said in an interview. But he said he did not know whether the other meetings violated the law.
''The briefings in and of themselves may not be a violation, and that is why they are now under investigation by the Office of Special Counsel,'' he said.
Legal experts said that the Hatch Act permits White House officials to talk about upcoming elections and political strategy generally, but it would prohibit any official from taking steps to influence an election.
''Merely holding a briefing on government property that discusses election results or upcoming elections would not, in and of itself, be considered 'political activity' and so would not violate the Hatch Act,'' said Elaine Kaplan, a former head of the Office of Special Counsel in the Clinton and Bush administrations. ''If, however, the meetings digressed into discussions about future campaigns or actions that could be taken to help candidates win elections, it could become 'political activity.' ''
Comments welcome
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
