Sparks Denies He's Behind Byrne Write-In Website

As I pointed out on Friday, the Alabama GOP released documents that seem to indicate the website for a Bradley Byrne write-in campaign was created by an operative working for the Sparks for Governor campaign.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/10/sparks-behind-byrne-write-in-website.html

Their evidence is as follows. First, the domain name WriteInByrne.org was registered by a gentleman by the name of David Niesen.

Second, David Niesen was associated with the Sparks campaign, even to the point of being listed as a contact person on press releases.

Third, Niesen received two payments from the Sparks campaign around the time that the website was created.

Not long after, Bradley Byrne released a statement that he intends to vote for Bentley and demanding that the website be taken down.

Now, as should come as no surprise to anyone, Sparks has denied he's behind the website. However, look at HOW he denies it.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101030/NEWS02/10300347/1009/rss04

Sparks' campaign accused Republicans of creating the site and called the situation a "setup."

"This is a desperate dirty trick designed to stop our campaign's momentum. We had nothing to do with this. They did this, not us," said Taylor Bright, communications director for Sparks. "It is a setup by them trying to take attention away from the lies of Robert Bentley and it won't work."

Do you notice what is missing? That's right, the statement from the Sparks campaign makes no attempt to actually refute the factual assertions, it merely says, "Liar! WE didn't do this, YOU did."

Can you hear the echoes of an argument between three-year-olds in that statement? Yeah, me, too.

The GOP has some facts on their side. A man associated with the Sparks campaign AND paid by the campaign around the same time created the website. Or, to be more accurate, he bought the domain. Now, those are facts, and by those facts the accusation has merit.

But instead of trying to show how the facts are wrong, Sparks is just saying, "nuh-uh!"

Personally, if I were the candidate and was innocent, I believe I'd have issued a different statement. "My campaign is not behind this 'vote-for-Byrne' website. I don't know how it happens to look that way, but we are checking into things now to see if we can determine what happened. As soon as I know anything, I will let you know. In the meantime, I reiterate that we are not associated with this website in anyway. It is not our doing."

I mean, if YOU were falsely accused, wouldn't you deny it and then try to find out what happened? Yeah, me too.

If nothing else, it's a bit more intelligent than "nuh-uh!"

Read the rest...

Breaking: Judge Won't Remove Bentley From Ballot

Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Nicole Still dismissed Jimmy Blake's lawsuit seeking to have Bentley removed from the ballot, saying that the court lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101030/NEWS02/10300339/1009/rss04

Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Nicole Still tossed out the lawsuit Friday night because she said the court lacks jurisdiction to decide the matter.

An attorney for former Birmingham City Council member Jimmy Blake told the judge that Bentley shouldn't be on the ballot because he twice failed to disclose contributions from the Alabama Education Association, once before the primary election and again in a report due 45 days before the general election. They argued that under state campaign laws, a candidate's name can be taken off the ballot for failing to comply with disclosure requirements.

"We have a unique case here. The question before this court is whether the Alabama Fair Campaign Practices Act has any force," said Bill Mathis, representing Blake.

But lawyers for Bentley, Gov. Bob Riley, Secretary of State Beth Chapman and Attorney General Troy King all argued that Still lacks the authority to interfere in the election. Any challenge must be filed after the vote in the form of an election contest, they said.

Besides, absentee balloting is going on already and the state has spent at least $4 million preparing for the election, said Al Agricola, representing Bentley.

Stay tuned... It gets more interesting from here, I'm sure.

Because we STILL don't know what the AG will do on Monday!

Read the rest...

ALGOP Headquarters Burgled Last Night

With incidents like these, I always have to wonder about motivation. Are there some political shenanigans in play, here?

What happened is that the HQ for the Alabama GOP was burgled last night. Several laptops were stolen.
http://alabamaunfiltered.com/2010/10/29/montgomery-gop-hq-and-dr-jimmy-blake-burgled-last-night/

Alabama Republican Party spokesman Philip Bryan has confirmed that rumors floating on the internet and talk radio are correct: The Montgomery County Republican headquarters was broken into last night. Laptaps are reported to have been stolen from the premises.

Ya gotta wonder if this was merely a routine burglary looking for computers, or if this was a politically motivated action. What was on those laptops? What politically sensitive information were the thieves after?

In a possibly related story (who really knows?), the home of Jimmy Blake was also broken into last night.

According to a Blake spokesperson, an air compressor and other equipment was stolen. People and dogs were in the house at the time of the burglary, however neither the dogs nor the residents of the home were alerted to the presence of outsiders. “It was a very clean job,” said Blake.

If you will recall, Jimmy Blake is the individual who is challenging Bentley's right to remain on the ballot.

So far, there is no information indicating that these two burglaries are connected, nor that the burglaries were politically motivated.

But still... You have to wonder.

Read the rest...

AG Troy King Says Bentley Broke Law

As you may recall, I wrote earlier about Jimmy Blake's attempt to get Robert Bentley removed from the ballot for Governor just days before the November 2010 election.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/10/breaking-attempt-to-remove-bentley-from.html

Former Birmingham City Councilman Jimmy Blake announced yesterday that he would file a complaint with the AG alleging a failure to follow disclosure rules, and ask that Bentley be removed from the ballot.

Blake did in fact file that claim, and you can find the text of his complaint here:
http://alabamaunfiltered.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Blake-Final-Ag-Comp-w-exhibits.pdf


Now the AG has looked at the complaint and issued a ruling on part of it.
http://alabamaunfiltered.com/2010/10/27/blake-calls-for-bentleys-removal-from-ballot-attorney-general-responds/

The Alabama Attorney General’s Office has ruled on a portion of the complaint filed by physician Jimmy Blake of Birmingham last Thursday and concluded that Robert Bentley did illegally accept corporate contributions to his campaign in excess of limits set by law. The Attorney General’s Office is still considering the portion of the complaint that contends Bentley violated the Alabama Fair Campaign Practices Act and should be barred from certification as Governor.

In the attached letter from from the Attorney General’s Office, Bentley is instructed to return the illegal contributions and told he must send copies of his amended campaign filings showing the return to the Attorney Generals Office. Normal amendments to filings do not go to the Attorney General, only to the Secretary of State.

If you'd like to read the AG's letter to Bentley in full, you can find it here:
http://alabamaunfiltered.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Bentley-Letter-10-25-10.pdf

Just to be clear, Bentley has NOT yet been removed from the ballot, though the AG did determine that he accepted money illegally. And Blake DOES want Bentley removed... Which means Troy King doesn't have much time. It IS Friday, after all, and the election IS Tuesday.

Question: What do YOU think will be the political ramifications if Bentley is removed from the ballot the day before or the day of the election?

Read the rest...

Sparks Behind Byrne Write-In Website

As you may or may not know, there has been some buzz recently about a write-in campaign for Bradley Byrne, the GOP candidate who lost the primary to Robert Bentley. There have been references on Facebook, and a website was created specifically for that purpose.

Information released today by the Alabama Republican Party indicates that the website dedicated to a Bradley Byrne write-in campaign may have been, in fact, created and run by the Ron Sparks for Governor campaign.

Their evidence is as follows. First, the domain name WriteInByrne.org was registered by a gentleman by the name of David Niesen.



Second, David Niesen was associated with the Sparks campaign, even to the point of being listed as a contact person on press releases.




Third, Niesen received two payments from the Sparks campaign around the time that the website was created.



If you'd like to see the PDF file they circulated containing full-size images of the documents in question, you can find that here:
http://www.politicsalabama.org/files/writeinbyrnesparks.pdf

This is an interesting development. Although certainly not illegal, it is one of those "dirty tricks" that everybody claims to hate but few think twice about. My opinion? If true, this is a major blow to Sparks' integrity and image.

Think about it. Sparks is hammering Bentley on the "AEA scandal," which basically arose because Bentley didn't declare the in-kind contribution. Where, may I ask, is the declaration on this website that it was paid for by the Sparks campaign? Aren't such declarations required? Since this website urges people to write in Byrne's name, they are engaging in candidate advocacy, and therefore, disclosure rules apply.

So we have some shenanigans going on, and it doesn't reflect well on Sparks. If true, that is.

UPDATE: Bradley Byrne has issued a statement in the wake of these revelations.

“It has been brought to my attention that a write-in campaign bearing my name has been launched and run by operatives working for Democrat Ron Sparks. I’m disappointed that the Sparks campaign would stoop as low as to fraudulently give the appearance that this effort was being run on my behalf. These types of tactics further prove the desperation of the Democrats in Alabama and I call on them to take down this sham website immediately. I fully support the Republican ticket and I will be voting for Dr. Robert Bentley on Tuesday, I encourage all of those who supported me in the Primary to do the same. There has never been a more important election for the future of Alabama, so I urge all of those who want to move our state forward to look past the smokescreens and fake websites and vote Republican on November 2nd.”

Read the rest...

Is Political Compromise Even Possible?

Obama is saying, at least in some venues, that he wants to "work with" the GOP. We hear calls for "compromise." In fact, a recent poll shows that 75% of voters want political compromise.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020945-503544.html

In a sample of 1,1,89 random respondents polled from October 21-26, 2010, 75 percent of likely voters - and 66 percent of Republicans - said that, if the GOP wins control of Congress, the party should compromise some of its positions to get things done. Seventy-one percent of all voters, and 79 percent of Republicans, said that Obama should compromise given the possibility of a GOP takeover.

As I said, Obama is talking about compromising in SOME venues. In others, he is saying that the GOP can "come along for the ride," but they can't drive... indicating that his idea of compromise is everybody doing what he wants them to do.

And future Speaker of the House John Boehner is specifically stating that the GOP compromising their positions and ideals will not happen.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44311.html

“This is not a time for compromise, and I can tell you that we will not compromise on our principles,” Boehner said.

The Ohio Republican said the GOP would work with Obama “to the extent the president wants to work with us, in terms of our goals.”

This raises a question: Is compromise really even possible?


In some areas, I think it is. In others, deadlock is more likely. Why? Because it is impossible to compromise given two diametrically opposed central positions.

Assume that one party truly wants a larger government with higher spending levels and more involvement in the private sector. Further assume that the other party truly wants smaller government, lower spending, and fewer regulations. Where is compromise possible? Keeping the government the same size is no solution, as that simply perpetuates our current debt problem and guarantees our eventual bankruptcy.

Given this situation, where is compromise possible? Growing government in one area and shrinking it in another isn't a solution. If government stays the same,we face eventual bankruptcy. If the "compromise" results in an overall growth or shrinkage of government, one side or the other will oppose it.

So, assuming that both sides have been honest and sincere about the course they will pursue over the next two years (I know, that's a BIG assumption), where is the possibility for compromise?

I submit that compromise may be possible on some small issues, but gridlock is the likely result on most major issues.

Read the rest...

CBO WAY Behind On ObamaCare

If you'll remember, during the debate on whether or not to pass ObamaCare, the CBO kept issuing cost analyses that said the Democrats were right on what would happen with it, and all the rest of us were wrong. Once it got passed, though, they started issuing report after report showing how wrong they were the first time.

In this case, the CBO NOW says that ObamaCare will actually reduce the workforce... Meaning fewer workers in the workforce. This is what the head of the CBO, Douglas Elmendorf, says NOW.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-director-obamacare-will-drive-people-0

“For the economy outside the health sector, the most significant impact of the legislation will be through the labor market,” Elmendorf said on Oct. 22. “We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount that people choose to work.”

He explained that people would choose not to work because they could subsist on the generous federal insurance subsidies and Medicaid payments contained in the health care overhaul.

Looks like they're finally waking up over there... now that it's too late to stop this bad legislation before passage!

“Some provisions of the legislation will discourage people from working more hours or entering the workforce, and other provisions will encourage them to work more,” he said, adding that “[t]he net reduction in the supply of labor is largely attributable to the substantial expansion of Medicaid and the provision of subsidies through the new insurance exchanges.”
Elmendorf’s analysis of the health care law’s economic impact seems to support House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) seemingly off-the-cuff remark in May when she said that because of the subsidies in the health care bill, people could quit their regular jobs and pursue their artistic dreams because the government would now provide for their health care.

“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill,” Pelosi said on May 14, “a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations because you will have health care.”

Sounds like the UK, actually, with many people not working and living "on the dole."

Elmendorf revealed that some of ObamaCare's so-called reforms may not be reforms at all. Analyzing the many provisions that are supposed to make health care more efficient and less expensive, Elmendorf said that there was little evidence any of them would actually work -- leading CBO to view their potential with skepticism.

“The legislation set up a number of experiments in delivery and payment systems to induce providers to offer higher-quality and lower-cost care,” he said. “However, for a number of reasons, it is unclear how successful the experiments will be.

“As a result, CBO projects limited savings from the experiments in delivery and payment systems during the next decade," he said.

Elmendorf also said it is doubtful that lawmakers will be able to carry out the law’s vision of slowing the growth of Medicare. “It is unclear whether such a reduction in the growth rate of [Medicare] spending could be sustained,” he said, “and if so, whether it would be accomplished through greater efficiencies in the delivery of health care or through reductions in access to care or the quality of care.”

Now, I ask you this. Where were all these realistic projections and revelations back before the bill passed, when it could have made a major difference? What the heck GOOD is the CBO if they're going to say one thing BEFORE a bill passes and say another AFTER? At this point, CBO projections are meaningless...

Read the rest...

Hotel Sign FAIL

I noticed this over two months ago, and I finally stopped and took a picture of it. I know what these signs in front of a Montgomery hotel are INTENDED to mean, but what they actually DO say is too funny for words.








That is the most EXPENSIVE free breakfast and free Wi-Fi that I've ever seen.

I'm sorry, but that's a FAIL.


Read the rest...

Obama: First Dude

Over the past couple of days, there have been a lot of people asking one question: Does Obama appearing on the Jon Stewart show diminish the dignity of the Presidency? I said nothing on the subject earlier, but I will do so now that the show appearance is over and the results can be seen.

On the show, Stewart was giving Obama a hard time about hiring Larry Summers as his chief economic advisor. When Obama defended himself by saying that Summers had done a heckuva good job, Stewart responded with this:

"You don't want to use that phrase, dude."

Dude? Stewart is talking with the President of the United States, still the most powerful and influential country in the WORLD, and he calls him "dude?"


Looking at what happened on the show, I'd have to say that yes, it did diminish the dignity of the Presidency.

Obma is fatally over-exposed. We see him everywhere, talking about how great he is. It's to the point now that even his supporters know he's just blowing smoke. But they'll support him anyway. As to the President appearing on this kind of TV show, I think we've seen that it isn't the best idea.

Don't you agree, dude?

Read the rest...

Biden Believes Big Government Essential For US

The Vice President of the United States, Joe Biden, is a liberal extremist. He believes in big government controlling the private sector, we've seen that. But this quote from Biden as he's out campaigning for Democrats in the Congress is quite revealing. According to Biden's ultra-liberal mindset, the private sector is useless without the government to help it along.
http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/10/vpotus-joe-biden-dems-will-kee.html

“Every single great idea that has marked the 21st century, the 20th century and the 19th century has required government vision and government incentive. In the middle of the Civil War you had a guy named Lincoln paying people $16,000 for every 40 miles of track they laid across the continental United States. … No private enterprise would have done that for another 35 years.”

So without the government, we'd be living with frontier days' technology. Wow...


Hmmm... let's see. EVERY great idea required government to get it done. Every idea?

How about the assembly line? That was invented (if invented is the correct word) by the Ford Motor Company in order to speed up production of the automobiles that they were selling to people in the private sector. No government subsidies or advice were necessary. But now assembly lines are used in virtually all manufacturing processes.

What about air conditioners? Nothing could be more pervasive in modern society than air conditioners. The original idea for a machine to cool the air in a building was conceived by John Gorrie in 1842, and he hoped to use such a machine to cool the air in his hospital. The first air conditioners in production were used to cool air for industrial processing, i.e. the private sector. Again, no government involvement in THAT.

Oh no, wait... Personal Computers! If anything was more revolutionary and is today more pervasive than a small computer that anyone can and does own, I don't know what it might be. I will admit that some of the miniaturization of the circuitry which made PC's possible was helped along by NASA's push to space, but the conception of a small computer that could sit on the top of a desk and be owned by anyone was purely an invention of the private sector. Do you honestly think that Bill Gates or Steve Jobs got their ideas from government, or that the government gave these home businesses grants? Of course not. Yet look at what they accomplished!

The list could go on and on. Cell phones. Aspirin. The entire motion picture industry. Electric guitars, for heaven's sake! I'm sure you could fill in many more such ideas that we take for granted today, that were conceived and developed without a single bit of help from the government.

The truth is that the private sector can get along just fine without the government trying to control or influence it, if only the government would get out of the way and let them do business. We don't need government to exist and thrive, but government sure does need us.

Biden's opinion is typical of the mindset of liberal extremists. To them, government is what makes us great. The rest of us know better.

His opinion also betrays his true opinion of us, of the private sector. We could not live without a government so powerful and pervasive that it "helps" us at every level of our lives.

And this is the man who is second-in-line to the Presidency. His boss shares these opinions, though I don't think he's ever said so as explicitly as Biden has.

Are you disturbed by Biden's opinion? If not, WHY not?

Read the rest...

Can Obama Be Bipartisan?

Obama has been making noises recently about how he wants more bipartisanship after the mid-term elections, and how he hopes the GOP will work with him. That's rich, THEY work with HIM.

This raises the rather serious question, is Obama even CAPABLE of bipartisan cooperation? Or is his idea of bipartisan embodied in his famous "I won" statement right after his election?

To get a possible answer to this, let us look at his comments from a Rhode Island event where he was campaigning for Democrat candidates. He was blasting Republicans again, and came out with this little gem.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101025/ap_on_el_pr/us_obama

"We can't have special interests sitting shotgun. We gotta have middle class families up in front. We don't mind the Republicans joining us. They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back."

Isn't that a beautiful little quote, there?


I have heard some claiming that it's a racist comment alluding to the "sit-in-the-back" mentality that sparked the Montgomery bus boycott way back in the '50's. Some claim it shows that Obama thinks Republicans are "second-class citizens" with few rights in his eyes. I don't agree... This is nothing more than Obama telling the Republicans that they can't have any say in our government.

So much for bipartisan effort, right? Obama's idea of bipartisanship DOES appear to be Republicans throwing away their beliefs and convictions and voting for whatever Obama puts on the table.

That isn't bipartisanship, and if that's how the Republicans actually ACT next year then they'll face the consequences during the 2012 elections.

So, to answer my own question, no, I don't think he means it, and I'm not sure he IS capable of bipartisan effort. Time will tell, but that's what I'm seeing right now.

Read the rest...

Judge Rules Book Lists Protected

This is an interesting case. Essentially, the state of North Carolina is going after Amazon.com for sales taxes that "should have been" collected and paid to the NC Department of Revenue. As part of that effort, they filed suit demanding that Amazon surrender a list of book sales and customer names. Amazon fought it, and a judge ruled yesterday that lists of books and magazines purchased are protected under the first amendment and the government cannot demand such lists.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39856137/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets

Lists that identify the books, music and movies individual customers bought from online retailer Amazon.com are protected from North Carolina tax collectors, a federal judge has ruled.

Amazon said in a lawsuit it filed in April in its hometown of Seattle that disclosing the names, addresses and purchases of its customers as requested by the North Carolina Revenue Department would harm anyone who may have bought controversial books or movies.

U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman ruled late Monday that the First Amendment protects a buyer from the government demanding to know the books, music, and audiovisual products they've bought.

Now, Amazon didn't really win anything, here. The state government will probably amend their request to total sales. Removing the requirement to list customer names and book titles will remove the Constitutional hurdle, and Amazon may or may not end up having to pay sales taxes on those sales.


But this IS a victory for the rest of us. A federal judge has now ruled that the government cannot simply demand that bookstores and the like turn over records showing what books we may have purchased. That is protected data, thank heavens.

It may seem a minor victory to some, but it isn't. I've heard the argument that goes, "if you don't have anything to hide, then it shouldn't matter." But it DOES matter... What a particular customer may have to "hide" could be nothing more damning than an embarrassing affection for romance novels that he (or she) doesn't want anybody to know about. We have the right to a certain degree of privacy, and this is a good ruling.

For those of you who agree with the "if you haven't done anything wrong" argument, all I can say is that you can surrender your freedoms if you like, but I'll fight for mine.

Read the rest...

Prattville Practices "Credit Card" Budgeting

Here's a scenario, followed by a question. You have more debt than your yearly income. You're deep in debt. When the time comes to make a payment on your MasterCard, you pay it with the Visa card.

Question: What does this say about you and your finances?

Answer: It means you are far too deep in debt. Using one credit card to pay another, otherwise known as robbing Peter to pay Paul, is one excellent sign of impending bankruptcy.

Enter the Prattville City Council. Last night, the Council voted unanimously to take out a $3.1 million loan in order to make a payment on the $50 million long-term debt from bond issues.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101027/NEWS01/10270343/1007/rss02

The Pratt­ville City Council voted quickly and unanimously Tuesday night to take out a short-term loan for $3.1 million.

Mayor Jim Byard Jr. put for­ward the idea for the loan to stay current with upcoming bond payments and ensure the city has sufficient operating funds to get through its leanest part of the fiscal year. The $3.1 million payment is due Monday. The bond was for incentives pack­ages the city used to fuel retail development in east Prattville.

The City is hoping that tax revenues over the Holiday season will be sufficient to pay off the $3.1 million loan. They may be right... But then, what happens if they are NOT right? What will they do, then?

And presumably, the budget they recently passed spends the majority of the expected revenue over the next year, if not all of it. Without reworking the budget to remove $3.1 million in spending, how are they going to balance the budget this year?

This whole thing truly is an "exercise in bad government." Not just on Mayor Byard's part,but also by the entire City Council who ultimately went along with this bad idea.

Shame on you, each and every one.

Read the rest...

Bentley And Sparks On ObamaCare

I don't know if you care or not about ObamaCare, but the two candidates for Governor have massively different views on the law. Bentley is against it and believes that the State of Alabama should not "opt-in" to any programs or accept any money to do things. Where given the option, he'll make the federal government do it.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101025/NEWS02/10250302/1009/rss04

Bentley, a retired Tuscaloosa physician, predicts President Obama's federal plan will cause more expenses and paperwork for businesses and will reduce compensation to primary care physicians, which will lead to fewer people entering the field.

"Obamacare will drive good doctors away from the practice of medicine," he said. "Not only will we not have people to do primary care, we will have rationing of care like England and Canada."

Sparks, on the other hand, believes we should jump into it with both feet.

Sparks said Alabama's next governor needs to get busy on passing legislation to implement the federal plan, which would provide health care coverage for a half-million Alabama residents, or risk having the federal government take over the state's program.

"I don't want the federal government running our health care program, but if you do what Dr. Bentley says, they will run our health care program," Sparks said.

Mr. Sparks, this IS a federal takeover of our health care system, and we taxpayers are on the hook for it. It doesn't really matter if the default fed programs kick in or if Alabama passes its own. We will pay for it, and we don't want the stupid thing!

Bentley says that ObamaCare only provides funding through 2018, and after that Alabama would be stuck with the bill, and we can't afford it.

The state Medicaid Agency estimates the federal health care plan will add about 500,000 people to its rolls in 2014 -- Alabama residents who don't have health coverage now and don't qualify for Medicaid. It would double the size of the program, but Bentley said the state will get federal funding for the extra people only until 2018, then it becomes the state's financial problem.
"That will cost Alabama an extra $100 million a year," he said. "The plan we have right now we are never going to be able to afford."

Sparks, on the other hand, doesn't worry so much about that, because he has a plan. Sparks would pay for our extended financial obligations by legalizing gambling and taxing the ever-loving bejeezus out of it.

Sparks, a two-term agriculture commissioner, said the state can afford it if voters embrace his plan to tax, expand and regulate gambling, which he estimates will generate as much as $400 million annually for schools and Medicaid.

"I'm the only guy in the race who has laid a plan on the table to generate more money," he said.

What Sparks fails to realize is that we don't WANT higher taxes and massive new spending programs, we want to CUT government budgets!

And when it comes to challenging the new law in court, as Alabama's AG is currently doing, they are again split.

Sparks hates the idea, and would likely quash Alabama's participation in the legal challenge if he is elected.

"I'm not going to spend money litigating the health care bill when there are people in Alabama that we can work with to pass the best law in the country," Sparks said.

Bentley is on the other side of the issue.

But Bentley likes the legal challenge and said that if Alabama's next attorney general doesn't want to pursue it, he probably would.

So there you go. If the new ObamaCare law is something you care deeply about, that is where the two candidates stand. Make your decisions next week accordingly.

Read the rest...

HuffPost: Roby Out-Raises Bright In Final Days

I have another article posted on the Huffington Post, dealing with fundraising in the final days of the campaign. According to the last FEC filings before the election, Roby is out-raising Bright.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-givens/roby-outraises-bright-in-_b_772453.html


Read the rest...

Bright-Roby Debate On Video

Bobby Bright and Martha Roby had a debate last night. Interested?

(The part I video doesn't seem to work... visit the link below to watch.)

Here is part I of the debate:




And here is Part II of the debate:



If the videos don't work, you can find them online using these links:
http://www.wsfa.com/global/Category.asp?C=195969&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5229608&flvUri=&partnerclipid=

http://www.wsfa.com/global/Category.asp?C=195969&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=5229605&flvUri=&partnerclipid=

Watch carefully, and make your choice. One week to go.


Read the rest...

Are You A Tenther Cultist?

I am a person who believes that the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution limits the power of the Federal government. Therefore, according to the AFL-CIO, I am a "Tenther" cultist.

As a refresher, the complete text of the Tenth Amendment is included below:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

A reasonable interpretation of this amendment is that, if the Constitution doesn't specifically authorize them to do something, they don't have that power. Either the states or the people themselves have it.

And that makes me a "tenther," a cultist, and a person who is incapable of rational thought.
http://blog.aflcio.org/2010/10/21/tenthers-would-abolish-wage-and-child-labor-laws-social-security-medicare-and-more/

Most cults are based in some sort of skewed spiritual vision or the worship of a charismatic leader, but there is a re-emerging cult that bows down at the feet of the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Many of them want to bring their cultish beliefs to the halls of Congress and are running for election this fall.

They’re called the “tenthers” and they say federal laws and rules like the minimum wage, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance, the Department of Education, even child labor laws and a laundry list of other federal laws and programs are unconstitutional.

Leaving aside his attempts at name-calling, that's a fairly reasonable description. But he doesn't STAY reasonable.

Their rationale—irrationale would be a better word—is that if a federal power is not specifically spelled out in the Constitution, well the government doesn’t have it, according to their view of the 10th amendment.

It’s a view that has long been discredited, but reappears from time to time, such as during FDR’s New Deal era and after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled school segregation unconstitutional in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education.

So, the Constitutional limits on the power of the Federal government are "discredited?" How, seeing that the text hasn't changed? People may choose to ignore that text and pretend it says something different, but that doesn't mean that those of us who believe that words mean what they say are crazy, or anything like that.

Are you a Tenther Cultist? I am.

Read the rest...

Funniest Campaign Commercial Of The Year

Okay, I think this campaign ad wins the award for the year's funniest. I don't know about YOU, but I was laughing a lot by the time it ended. Here, judge for yourself.






Read the rest...

Does Early Voting Show Enthusiasm Gap?

There's been a lot of talk about the "enthusiasm gap" that we'll see next week, with a lot more Republicans voting than Democrats. But is this true? One way we can get a possible (though not entirely accurate) glimpse into the future is to look at "early voting" to see who is and is not voting.

Early voting is absentee votes, like we have in Alabama, and by-mail voting (Oregon) or "early voting precincts" (North Carolina). We can get an idea of who is and isn't voting by looking at the voter registration of those who have voted early. Note that party registration isn't an actual vote for a candidate, and people can easily vote across party lines. So this isn't a look at who is GETTING the votes, just who is CASTING the votes.

So, let's take a look and see if this "enthusiasm gap" exists in early voting.


Republicans are out-voting Democrats in Colorado (41.%-36.5%), Florida (52.8%-33.7%), and Nevada (42.5%-42.4%). By the way, the independent turnout for those states is 21%, 13.5%, and 15.1%, respectively... enough to matter in two of those states.

But Democrats are out-voting Republicans in Iowa (45.9%-38.1%), Louisiana (46.0%-43.6%), Maine (37.1%-37.0%), Maryland (63.8%-27.4%), North Carolina (44.3%-38.2%), and West Virginia (55.0%-35.3%). The independent turnout for those states is 16.0%, 10.4%, 26.0%, 8.8%, 17.5%, and 9.6%, respectively... enough to matter in four of those states.

So, in those states that have early-voting, register voters by party, and report their turnout by party affiliation prior to the election day (only 11 states), six are seeing heavier turnout from Democrats and three are seeing heavier turnout from Republicans.

Let me caution you again on drawing too many conclusions from this. First, these are people who voted, and this tells us nothing about which candidate they voted for. Second, this is data concerning only 11 states, which is too small a sample to draw national conclusions from... especially considering liberal-leaning states seem to be over-represented in this sample.

That said, I see little evidence of a nation-wise "enthusiasm gap" in these figures. It's going to depend on how many people cross-vote, as well as on how independents vote. You can see that, in several of the states, Democrats and Republicans are very close in their turnout (Colorado, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Nevada, and North Carolina), with a sizable percentage of registered independents who will almost certainly decide those elections.

If you'd like to see these statistics in more depth, you can find them at the following location:
http://elections.gmu.edu/early_vote_2010.html

The site updates its figures as the states release new data, so check back periodically to see how early turnout is shaping up.

UPDATE: Keep in mind I'm talking about only the party affiliation of those voting early, not the actual votes. Yes, I'm aware that more recent polls show a widening GOP lead... that's different, and I'll look at it later.

Read the rest...

Former Office Holder Charged With Voter Fraud

The problems Alabama is seeing with corrupt officials is not limited to the Legislature and gambling. No, a former Pike County Commissioner was arrested for voter fraud in connection with her 2008 election, which she won by 10 votes. The victory was later overturned by courts that found more than 10 fraudulent ballots.
http://www.troymessenger.com/2010/10/20/berry-charged-with-vote-fraud-perjury/

Former County Commissioner Karen Berry has been charged with voter fraud and perjury in connection with her 2008 bid for office.

Berry turned herself in to the Pike County Jail Tuesday on charges of absentee ballot fraud and first-degree perjury. According to information from the District Attorney, she has reached a plea agreement on the charges, although the agreement has yet to be presented to a judge.

Just to let you know that corruption is still out there... Some politicians let that power go to their heads, and they begin to think anything they want to do is okay.

And haven't we seen enough examples of THAT recently?


Read the rest...

AL Supreme Court Upholds Double-Dipping Ban

I know we've all been thinking of other things, but may I have your attention for a few moments?

If you will recall, the state school board approved a policy that prohibits employees of the two-year college system from serving in the Legislature at the same time. This was challenged and overturned in a Montgomery court... Meaning that it would allow Legislators to work in the two-year college system.

The Alabama Supreme Court ruled 8-0 today that the school board's policy was legal and "did not change the requirements for running for elected office in Alabama."
http://blog.al.com/wire/2010/10/alabama_supreme_court_upholds.html

The court ruled 8-0 Friday that the policy is constitutional and did not change the requirements for running for elected office in Alabama. The ruling overturned a decision by a Montgomery court that found the policy unconstitutional and in violation of the state’s Fair Dismissal Act.

The ruling means legislators who work in the two-year college system will have to decide between the two jobs.

There you go. It's a far cry from a law or Constitutional limitation, but it is a start. Too bad it's temporary (it can be reversed at any time) and only narrowly applies to the two-year college system. I'd like to see it expanded so that nobody receiving a paycheck from a government-run entity could be a sitting legislator.

Another good ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court.


Oh, and Rep. Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn), Chairman of the Alabama Republican Party, had this to say about the unanimous ruling:

Today’s unanimous decision by the Supreme Court should leave little doubt that the practice of double-dipping should come to an end once and for all. While we recognize that there are good and honest legislators that do work in the two-year college system, the abuses and corruption by others created a breakdown in the public’s trust in government – we hope that eliminating even the appearance of a conflict of interest will go along way to begin restoring that trust.”

Personally, I think he misses the point. It is wrong for one person to get paychecks for two jobs from the same employer (the state). Period. The fact that some have abused the system and not really worked at the schools they were supposed to work at is irrelevant to the main point while at the same time being a nice illustration as to how easy the system is to abuse.

So let's hope the Republicans, if they take the Legislature, will be a little more intelligent about this issue.

Read the rest...

Obama To Take Break From Campaigning

You know, sometimes humor hits pretty darned close to reality. In this case, I'm talking about Obama's nationwide tour to campaign for Democrats... all of that travel paid for by us taxpayers. Sometimes, looking at his full schedule, it seems that Obama does nothing EXCEPT campaign. Apparently the folks over at "The Onion" saw it, too, and decided to poke fun at it.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-to-take-break-from-stumping-to-preside-over,18306/

Following a speech tomorrow afternoon in support of Senate hopeful Richard Blumenthal, top Democratic Party member Barack Obama is expected to take advantage of a brief lull in his hectic schedule to govern the United States of America, sources reported Thursday. "Barack should have a little bit of free time in the car when we travel between the get-out-the-vote rally in East Hartford and the fundraising dinner for [Connecticut gubernatorial candidate] Dan Malloy," said Obama aide Lisa McMaster.

"Those 15 or so minutes should allow him to skim the past week’s national security briefings, sign a few pieces of legislation, and shoot a 45-second call to South Korean prime minister Kim Hwang-sik to hammer out a free-trade pact."

You gotta love The Onion...


Read the rest...

Breaking: Elect Sparks Or Back To "Jim Crow"

Really, I couldn't make this stuff up. One of the longest serving and most powerful black state Legislators, Senator Hank Sanders (D-23), says that if Ron Sparks and Jim Folsom Jr. aren't elected in November, we will go back to the "cotton fields of Jim Crow days."

This message comes in a campaign message recorded by Sanders that is being used in phone calls being made by the New South Coalition.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/10/alabama_senator_says_not_elect.html

"Hello this is Hank Sanders, Alabama state senator, and I'm still mad as hell. I say hell no! I ain't going back to the cotton fields of Jim Crow days. I'm going forward with Ron Sparks, Jim Folsom and others who will do right by all of us. I hope you are mad as hell and will not go back. You have the power to choose. I will stand until hell freezes over for Ron Sparks for governor and Jim Folsom for lieutenant governor on November the second."

The first thing that jumps out of this message is that Sanders has decided to "play the race card." Notice there is no evidence presented that this will happen if Republicans are elected... Probably because he doesn't have any. This is a scare tactic, and a particularly nasty one, too.


How can "black leaders" bemoan the problems of race relations and then turn around and do something this divisive and offensive? It makes you wonder where the label of racism TRULY belongs in this discussion.

The SECOND thing that jumped out at me is the amount of cursing in it. In 41 seconds, Sanders uses the word "hell" FOUR TIMES. That's an average of once every ten seconds. That's a lot of cursing for a politician. Most people don't expect to hear politicians swear like this, and don't like it when they do.

So Hank Sanders is presenting himself as a foul-mouthed race-baiter. That's truly a positive and inspiring image, isn't it?

Isn't it?

Read the rest...

AL Pol Who Threatened Reporter Defends His Actions

If you will recall, I wrote yesterday about an Alabama Legislator, Rep. A.J. McCampbell (D-Gallion), who threatened a reporter who was asking him questions that he didn't want to answer.
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/10/al-legilators-party-with-lobbyists.html

When questioned by one of the journalists, Representative A.J. McCampbell (D–Demopolis) threatened him! McCampbell is caught on video responding to a question by hefting a golf club and saying “If you don’t want me to take this to you, gentleman, leave!”

Today, we have reports that Rep McCampbell is defending himself from the incriminating video.
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101022/NEWS02/10220320/1009

An Alabama state legislator is defending himself after he was captured on video threaten­ing a news photographer with a golf club.

Rep. A.J. McCampbell, D-Gallion, told The Tuscaloosa News in a story published Thursday that he told a news crew "no comment" several times when approached at a golf course during a legislative conference in Kentucky in July. McCampbell said the pho­tographer should have left him alone.

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Now we know the rules... according to YOU. If a news reporter is persistent then that is grounds for a state legislator to threaten him or her. One question... if the reporter doesn't stop when you say "no comment," is that justification to actually beat them to a pulp using that golf club? Just how many laws does he think his lofty position as a state legislator allows him to violate?


That video shows Rep McCampbell issuing a verbal treat, backed by him hefting the weapon he intended to use when carrying it out. This threat is actionable. The reporter could file criminal charges against McCampbell.

McCampbell's "defense" merely says he didn't want to answer the questions. According to his statement, this justifies threatening and, presumably, beating the presumptuous and persistent reporter.

Except it doesn't. McCampbell's actions as shown on the videotape were violent and criminal, and the reporter in question should file criminal charges against him. His office and his desire NOT to answer those questions do NOT give him a pass from abiding by the laws of this State.

Read the rest...

Breaking: An Attempt To Remove Bentley From Ballot

Okay, the election for Governor in a week and a half is between Robert Bentley and Ron Sparks, right? Well, there ARE those rumors about a write-in campaign for Bradley Byrne, but I figure if that effort isn't on everybody's lips by now, it won't amount to anything.

No, the surprising thing today is that somebody has filed a complaint to remove Bentley from the ballot. Former Birmingham City Councilman Jimmy Blake announced yesterday that he would file a complaint with the AG alleging a failure to follow disclosure rules, and ask that Bentley be removed from the ballot.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2010/10/former_birmingham_councilman_b.html

Jimmy Blake, a former Birmingham City Council member, called a press conference this afternoon to say he was filing a formal complaint with Alabama Attorney General Troy King seeking Bentley's removal from the Nov. 2 ballot.

Blake alleges that Bentley knowingly failed to comply with the state's Fair Campaign Practices Act when his campaign accepted an "in-kind" contribution from the AEA.

That contribution came in the form of a series of phone call blitzes that were produced by the AEA for Bentley. The "robocalls" went to more than 500,000 homes across the state during the closing days of the GOP runoff between Bradley Byrne and Bentley, an election easily won by Bentley.

Blake said if King does not disqualify Bentley from running for governor, he will file a lawsuit seeking Bentley's removal from the ballot.

What's next in this crazy election season? Aliens arriving and announcing that Nancy Pelosi is really one of their humanoid invasion robots?


Although no complaint has yet been filed, this is a rather explosive action. It's also something of a long-shot. An INCREDIBLE long shot.

In my opinion, it won't happen. If the AG or a judge actually disqualified one of only two candidates on the ballot just days before an election, all hell would break loose. Accusations of partisan politics would fly heavily, and the Democrats would win a short-term advantage but a long-term loss. NOBODY would like them again if their method of winning elections is to remove the other candidates so the voters don't have a choice.

I used to respect Blake... not so sure anymore. Push to investigate and have him punished according to the law? Yes. Advocate nobody vote for Bentley? Blake could do that, too. But remove one of the only two candidates on the ballot days before an election? How low do the Democrats have to stoop in order to win an election this year?

Do the Democrats REALLY want to be known as the party that seeks to deprive voters of a choice at the ballot box?

Bentley was chosen by the Republicans, and he is now the candidate. Live with him, guys, and vote your conscience.

Read the rest...

Dems On Course To Lose Both Houses of Legislature

The recent narrative concerning the State Legislature is that Republicans were threatening to take over one or both houses. A brand new analysis from AlabamaUnfiltered is now predicting that the Republicans could take solid majorities in both houses... 23 out of 35 Senate seats (65%), and 58 of 105 seats (55%) in the house.
http://alabamaunfiltered.com/2010/10/20/dems-now-admit-gop-will-sweep-both-houses-of-al-legislature/

More reports from the field are flying in this week from Democrats hitting the panic button. They’re looking at fresh polling data from legislative districts once considered safe, including the 8th Senate District held by Democrat powerbroker Lowell Barron.

Now, we predict a nine-seat pickup for Republicans in the Senate, giving them a solid majority of 23 of 35 seats, with 11 for the Democrats and one for Smith, an Independent, who may or may not caucus with the Republicans.

In the House, our forecast has also shifted in the Republicans’ favor showing them picking up 12 of 14 targeted Democrat seats. This would give the GOP a majority with 58 of 105 seats versus 47 for the Democrats.

Swing over there to take a look at the detailed projections for the November elections. If accurate, it heralds a major upheaval in Alabama politics.

But will the change in management make a significant difference? Only time will tell.


Read the rest...

Me On HuffPost: Roby Becoming More Likely To Win

Another story of mine was posted on the Huffington Post. You can find it online here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-givens/martha-robys-chances-of-v_b_771350.html

However, they trimmed this one way down, so "below the fold" I will post the entire piece as I submitted it.


Martha Roby’s chances of winning improve

The 538 Blog with the New York Times released an updated look at the Alabama District 2 House race between incumbent Bobby Bright (D) and challenger Martha Roby (R). The latest projection gives Roby a 76.5% chance of winning the November election. Their projected margin is Roby winning with 51.9% of the vote to Bright’s 45.9% of the vote.




Though the polls monitored by 538 show Bright still in the lead, they factor in many other variables to reach their projections. Items such as district demographics, past voting history of the District, and recent momentum in polling data and fundraising all play a part in their analysis.

A separate analysis of the race by ElectionProjection.com shows Roby winning by 0.2% of the vote.

As the election nears, we see more signs that Roby is pulling ahead in her attempt to replace Bright as Alabama’s Congressman from District 2.

Read the rest...

AL Legislators Party With Lobbyists, Threaten Journalists

Every year, the National Conference of State Legislators holds a meeting for "influential" and "prominent" state legislators across the country. They meet for seminars and to hear political figures speak on this topic or that. They also, according to a recent expose' by ABC News, attend wild parties with lobbyists.

This year, five journalism students accepted a challenge to cover the conference, with cameras, to see what really went on. They videotaped the wild parties, the drinking, and the schmoozing with lobbyists. One of the female journalists was cornered and kissed by a State legislator from Puerto Rico.

And, to make matters worse, several Alabama legislators skipped a seminar on ethics (which, apparently, they badly needed to attend) in order to play a round of golf. When questioned by one of the journalists, Representative A.J. McCampbell (D–Demopolis) threatened him! McCampbell is caught on video responding to a question by hefting a golf club and saying “If you don’t want me to take this to you, gentleman, leave!”

McCampbell is running unopposed in November. Watch the video for yourself...

(NOTE: The videos seem to be working properly now.)




This is pretty bad, folks, and we should remember the people who attended this conference.

If you'd like a closer look at the golf club incident, you can find that in the video below. Notice that Alabama legislators are golfing with lobbyists (from the gambling industry!) while a panel on ethics in government is taking place... without them.



The Alabama legislators featured putting their clubs away have been identified as Sen. Bobby Singleton (D-Greensboro), and state Reps. Oliver Robinson (D-Birmingham), Harry Shiver (R-Bay Minette), and Artis McCampbell (D-Demopolis).

We have a major problem in this state, and that problem is Alabama legislators abusing their offices by accepting gifts from lobbyists... which is legal under state law up to $250 a day, or $91,250 each year.

If you'd like to read more about this, here are some stories.

From ABC News:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/top-federal-prosecutor-vows-crackdown-corrupt-state-legislators/story?id=11926099

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/caught-tape-lobbyists-golf-party-lawmakers/story?id=11921636

From the Huntsville Times:
http://blog.al.com/wire/2010/10/alabama_legislator_threatens_r.html

Entries from other blogs:
http://www.politicalparlor.net/wp/2010/10/20/alabama-legislators-skip-ethics-panel-for-golf-with-gambling-lobbyist/

http://alabamaunfiltered.com/2010/10/20/national-embarrassment-alabama-democrat-threatens-journalism-student-with-assault/

Read the rest...

We Have No Control Of Our Border

This is an interesting item. Apparently, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has admitted that we do not have "operational control" of 55% of our border with Mexico.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us-government-does-not-have-effective-co

The U.S. government does not have “effective control” of 1,081 miles of the 1,954-mile-long U.S.-Mexico border, according to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for securing the border.

Simply put, a border mile under “effective control” is a place on the border where the U.S. government can be reasonably expected to intercept an illegal crosser.

In other words, we have no effective border control in place at this time. If half of it is wide open, how are we supposed to stop terrorists and the like from entering? May I ask you that?


It's ridiculous.

But still, PresBo and his liberal allies are unwilling to take the obvious first step of increasing effective control of our border.

Read the rest...

Prattville Denies Loan Request, Repeals Budget

Well, last night was certainly interesting for all you Prattvillians. Remember yesterday when I wrote about Mayor Byard wanting to borrow the money from a bank to make the payments on their bond issue?
http://politicsalabama.blogspot.com/2010/10/prattville-in-credit-crunch.html

The City has a $37 million budget and a $50 million debt. That's bad. They're counting on future increases in revenue to meet their financial obligations. That's REALLY bad. They're taking out short-term loans to cover interest payments on their debt. That's INCREDIBLY bad.

The Council met last night, and they were not happy. Most said they were unaware that the City had $3.1 million due shortly, and several said they would have structured the budget differently had they known. Then they denied the loan request, repealed their recently passed budget, and sent it back to Byard for restructuring.
http://progress.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101020/PROGRESS/101019038/1040/progress/Prattville-council-rejects-bond-loan--repeals-city-budget

Council members not only rejected the proposed loan by a unanimous vote, they also voted in unison to repeal the recently passed $37 million municipal budget for Fiscal Year 2011 and send it back to Mayor Jim Byard Jr. and Finance Director Rod Morgan, who were ordered to rework the spending plan and reduce expenditures by $1 million.

The council also approved by unanimous vote two motions that effectively placed the city under a state of financial emergency. The motions placed a freeze on all spending except that required to fund the day-to-day operations of the city and on all hiring, with the exception of two positions for which negotiations were already under way with prospective employees.

With this, we see a tiny glimmer of fiscally responsible behavior.


We also got a rumor confirmed. It seems that two City Councilmen, Council President Dean Argo and Dr. Tom Miller, are shareholders in River Bank & Trust... the bank that would have profited from making the $3.1 million loan in question. They admitted it last night, though they claim that they don't own enough shares to cause a conflict of interest.

Yeah, right. In my opinion, if it's ONE share, that's enough.

Another thing that came out was that Mayor Byard and Finance Director Rod Morgan knew about this payment problem while the Council was working on the budget AND DIDN'T BRING IT UP.

Morgan also admitted under questioning from District 2's Willie Wood Jr. that he and the mayor had been aware since before the October meeting at which the budget was approved that there would be problems with making the loan payment.

This whole situation is incredibly screwed up. If these children keep playing so irresponsibly with their toys, the city of Prattville will pay the financial consequences for decades to come.

Read the rest...

ObamaCare News Roundup

There are several important stories about ObamaCare making the rounds today. Let's look at a few.

Boeing blames ObamaCare for raising employees insurance premiums
Boeing is significantly raising the premiums for their employees, citing ObamaCare as a major cause for the action.

Aerospace giant Boeing is joining the list of companies that say the new health care law could have a potential downside for their workers. In a letter mailed to employees late last week, the company cited the overhaul as part of the reason it is asking some 90,000 nonunion workers to pay significantly more for their health plan next year.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101018/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_costs_boeing

ObamaCare will kill private medical practices
The premise of this article is that ObamaCare will intentionally kill private medical practices in favor of "Accountable Care Organizations."

ObamaCare envisions that doctors will fold their private offices to become salaried hospital employees, making it easier for the federal government to regulate them and centrally manage the costly medical services they prescribe. To get this control, ObamaCare creates "Accountable Care Organizations," which are basically hospitals coupled with local doctor networks that the hospital owns.

Obama's health-care czar, Nancy Ann DeParle, laid bare this financial coercion. Writing recently in the "Annals of Internal Medicine," she said that "the economic forces put in motion by [the Obama health-care plan] are likely to lead to vertical organization of providers and accelerate physician employment by hospitals and aggregation into larger physician groups." Physicians, she said, "that accept the challenge will be rewarded in the future payment system" as ObamaCare "reforms" how doctors are paid under Medicare.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/killing_marcus_welby_FLnABqCKwpyF9j2i9YYpCP

ObamaCare will clog our healthcare system
The point in this article is that, by totally removing any direct connections between patients and the cost of treatment, there is nothing in ObamaCare to discourage overuse... and so the system will be overused.

The new health care law mandates and extends the kind of insurance that breeds overuse, thereby driving up costs and premiums. And here I thought the reform intended to reduce costs.

As the details of this massive government-led health care overhaul begin to trickle out, let me be clear (to borrow the president's go-to phrase): The medical system is about to be overwhelmed because there are no disincentives for overuse.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/2010-10-19-column19_ST_N.htm

Virginia Judge to rule on ObamaCare by end of year
There were three major cases in the courts challenging ObamaCare. The judge in Florida ruled that ObamaCare is obviously Constitutional. The judge in Michigan refused to dismiss the case and allowed it to proceed, saying that plaintiffs had made their prima facia case that ObamaCare is unConstitutional. And now the judge in the Virginia case has promised a ruling by the end of the year.

By the end of the year. That's the time frame a judge has established for his coming ruling on whether Obamacare is unconstitutional and must be struck down. The word came today from U.S. District Judge Henry Hudson, who is hearing the case brought by the state of Virginia in Richmond.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=217033

Insurers and states warn ObamaCare requirements "too much, too soon," ask for waivers

Beginning in January, insurers will have to spend 80 to 85 cents of every dollar they collect in premiums on medical costs, depending on the size of their market. They can spend the rest on administrative costs and profits.

But many state officials and insurers caution that the restrictions could be too much, too soon, and want Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to step in.
http://www.blogger.com/

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) says ObamaCare repeal not best choice
A top Senate Republican suggested Monday night that the party's prevailing strategies to curtail the new healthcare law might not be good ideas.

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said that repealing the new healthcare reform law — or looking to defund it — were not good options.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/124749-gregg-repeal-isnt-best-approach-to-health-reform

And that's the ObamaCare roundup for the day. I hope you found these articles informative and/or entertaining. I also hope you found at least one or two of them infuriating...

Read the rest...

Breaking: GOP Competitive In 99 House Races

We hear a lot of commentary as time goes on about the Republican wave being overwhelming, bad, or not as bad as we might think. Early estimates of the GOP picking up 30-40 seats have given way to estimates as high as 70. But the newest analysis coming from Politico shows that the GOP is competitive in NINETY-NINE House races.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43814.html

With two weeks remaining until Election Day, the political map has expanded to put Democrats on the run across the country – with 99 Democratic-held House seats now in play, according to a POLITICO analysis, and Republicans well in reach of retaking the House.

The number of Democrats in danger is more than double the 39 seats Republicans need to seize control of the House. It reflects an elastic electoral environment that favors the GOP by every measure: money, momentum and mood of the country — in this case, sour on Democratic incumbents.

This isn't the last word, by any means... That will come in two weeks. But non-partisan analysts are predicting that the GOP wave will be even bigger than most have imagined.


Now, if only they realize what's happening and stay true to their promises instead of backtracking into business as usual... as this prominent Republican seems to be advocating. Would you believe an influential and powerful GOP Congressman saying we should NOT repeal or defund ObamaCare?
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/124749-gregg-repeal-isnt-best-approach-to-health-reform

A top Senate Republican suggested Monday night that the party's prevailing strategies to curtail the new healthcare law might not be good ideas.

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, said that repealing the new healthcare reform law — or looking to defund it — were not good options.

The American people never wanted this law in the first place, and a majority back repealing it. But before they even regain power, ranking Republicans are backing away from repealing ObamaCare.

So the next time some idealistic little pimple in Republican clothing gushes about how wonderful the Republicans are, remind him (or her) of this little gem. Oh, and of how the Republicans betrayed us on the "Contract with America."

I think the Republicans will PROBABLY be better than the Democrats, but that's a LONG way from saying they'll be good for the country.





Read the rest...

Democrats To Lose 8,000 Seats In Congress!

Yes, you read that correctly. In a report published on a leading Internet news site, the latest predictions show Democrats behind Republicans by quadruple digits.
http://tinyurl.com/2awxmmy

According to recent media reports, Democrats stand to lose as many as 8,000 congressional seats and more than 917 gubernatorial races in November's midterm elections. "Republicans are poised to pick up 1,500 seats in Ohio alone, and could wind up with a 23,576-to-12 majority in the Senate," Beltway observer Isaac Hundt said Wednesday, noting the GOP's advantage is likely to increase by Election Day given that its candidates are outspending their opponents by some $900 trillion. "With Democratic disapproval ratings in the quadruple digits, it's a foregone conclusion that Republicans will not only retake Congress, but hold it for the next 20,000 to 25,000 years."

So now you know...


Read the rest...

Prattville In Credit Crunch

Everybody knows where Prattville is, right? It's the town about 10 miles north of Montgomery on I-65, home to such businesses as Bass Pro Shop and Chocodelphia. They are also home to a Mayor and city council who apparently graduated from the "trailer park" school of money management.

Why do I say this? Well, the city has bond issues outstanding, and has to make periodic payments on those bonds. Fair enough... though it is my opinion that governments at all levels should avoid going into debt. It's NEVER a good idea.

Anyway, the city passed their yearly budget just a week or two ago, and somehow neglected to budget $3.1 million for a lump-sum payment on their existing debt. Hmmm... What to do? (Here's where the trailer-park money skills come in.)

The Mayor has asked the City Council to approve a $3.1 million loan from a local bank in order to make the debt payment on their bond issue. Wait... What? Isn't that a bit like using your MasterCard to pay your Visa bill?
http://progress.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101018/PROGRESS01/101015034/1040/progress/City-to-consider-loan-to-pay-bond-debt-

Prattville's city council will decide this week whether or not the city will borrow up to $3.1 million to make the next scheduled payment on its bonded indebtedness in order to avoid the possibility of defaulting on the bonds.

The city council approved on Oct. 5 a $37 million budget that called for accelerated principle payments on the city's $50-million-plus long-term debt. No mention was made of the bond payment problem during a work session or public hearing prior to the vote, nor was the possibility that a problem existed brought up during the Oct. 5 council meeting.

And there may be more.


I am hearing unconfirmed rumors that Mayor Byard and at least one Council member have financial connections to River Bank & Trust, the bank that Byard wants to take the loan from. Specifically, that Byard and one or more City Councilmen are shareholders in that bank. If true, this is a massive conflict of interest, and it violates the first rule of politics: Thou shalt NOT profit from your official actions in government.

I'm looking for evidence to support or refute this assertion now, and will post what I discover when I get it.

But even without a possible conflict of interest, this is simply bad policy. The City has a $37 million budget and a $50 million debt. That's bad. They're counting on future increases in revenue to meet their financial obligations. That's REALLY bad. They're taking out short-term loans to cover interest payments on their debt. That's INCREDIBLY bad.

Ask any credit counselor... If you are using one credit card to cover the payments on another, you are in DEEP trouble.

This is something that residents of Prattville should probably be concerned about. Yes, I think so...

Read the rest...

Another HuffPost Article By Yours Truly...

I'm not sure why both of these were posted within hours of each other, but they were. A second article I wrote for the Huffington Post was published last night. It compares the latest television commercials and the campaign strategies of both candidates. You can find it here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-givens/post_1080_b_767078.html

Hope you enjoy the piece. And if you have an idea for a Roby/Bright article you'd like to see written, contact me through my email address and we'll talk.


Read the rest...

Bobby Bright Losing Ground

Ladies and gentlemen, I told you earlier that I would be writing one or more articles for the Huffington Post about the Bright/Roby race. My first article was posted earlier today.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-givens/post_1071_b_766661.html

Newly released poll results and political analysis by the New York Times indicate that Republican Martha Roby is gaining momentum and may be pulling ahead of incumbent Bobby Bright in the Alabama 2nd Congressional District race.

To read the rest of this news article (not opinion piece), go to the link provided above.


Read the rest...

More Obama Arrogance

Before I continue with this post, I want to tell you that my wife and I are both under the weather. This will be my only post today, barring something major breaking... such as more bingo corruption arrests or Hillary announcing she's divorcing Bill and hitcing up with Obama. (Note for new readers: that's a joke.)

Do you remember Obama's comments about how bitter people cling to their guns and religion? No? Here's a quick reminder.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080415/pl_politico/9640

“It’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigration sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.”

That single sentence launched a firestorm of criticism, and could well have derailed his bid for the Presidency if followed by more of the same. You'd think that, having once made this kind of mistake, an intelligent man would LEARN from that mistake and avoid similar missteps.

You'd be wrong.


This time, he's talking about our "fear and frustration" to explain why the Democrats may well get well and truly toasted in November's mid-term election.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43706.html

"Part of the reason that our politics seems so tough right now and facts and science and argument does not seem to be winning the day all the time is because we're hardwired not to always think clearly when we're scared. And the country's scared.”

Did you catch that, now? We, the voters, are ignoring facts and science and, instead, panicking. We're too stupid to recognize the truth when it's before our faces. We're the stampeding herd of cattle trampling everything in its path.

Isn't it nice to discover that our President holds us in such high esteem?

PresBo is telling us that we're dumb, emotional idiots who ignore his own superiority. We don't recognize the superman that we have in office right now. He's better than us, and he knows what is good for this country, whereas we are just too stupid to hold our breath underwater.

The arrogance of this position matches... no, it EXCEEDS the arrogance displayed during the campaign with his "cling to guns and religion" moment. He's been hinting at the "voters are stupid" thing for a while. Remember the whole "ObamaCare-will-be-popular-if-I-can-explain-it-in-small-enough-words-so-that-the-idiot-voters-can-understand-it" bit? Oh, he called it a "messaging problem" and his fault for failing to explain it in a way we could accept... but it's the same thing.

Remember this in two weeks. President Obama thinks you are dumb, stupid, incapable of understanding facts. He thinks you react mindlessly to "fear and frustration" in times of stress.

And HE is the man who is setting policy and signing laws. Does ANYBODY really think that PresBo is governing for the good of the country? No, he has his own theoretical ideas as to what SHOULD work and he's pursuing them, regardless of what we think.

If that wasn't clear to you before, then it should be clear now.

Read the rest...

Sample Ballots For Nov 2010 Election Are Out

I'll probably post this again closer to the election, but we're less than three weeks out, so here goes. The Sample Ballots are online over at the SOS website. You can find the Montgomery sample ballot here:

http://www.sos.state.al.us/downloads/election/2010/general/sampleballots/Montgomery-2010-Sample.pdf

And if you're looking for a sample ballot for any other Alabama county, you can find one here:

http://www.sos.state.al.us/Elections/2010/2010SampleBallots.aspx

Take the time and review the sample ballots before you vote. Learn what amendments you'll be voting on and, if you don't know what they do, find out. See what candidates are running and do your research now to determine who you will vote for.

USE these sample ballots to make informed decisions BEFORE you actually vote.


Read the rest...

No Social Security Raise, But Give Seniors $250?

It is now official, there will be no automatic COLA increase in Social Security benefits in 2011.
http://www.socialsecurity.gov/pressoffice/pr/2011cola-pr.htm

The Social Security Act provides for an automatic increase in Social Security and SSI benefits if there is an increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-W) from the third quarter of the last year a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was determined to the third quarter of the current year. As determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there is no increase in the CPI-W from the third quarter of 2008, the last year a COLA was determined, to the third quarter of 2010, therefore, under existing law, there can be no COLA in 2011.

But Democrats desperately need their votes in November, so what's a pandering politician to do? Apparently, the "in thing" to do is to promise an "Economic Recovery Payment" of $250 to every senior on Social Security.
http://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/pressreleases?id=1915

“In the event that the Social Security Administration announces it will not provide a Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) for recipients this year, the House will vote to provide seniors with a one-time payment of $250. I have asked the Ways and Means Committee to bring this legislation to the floor during the lame duck session. All Members of Congress should join us in supporting this legislation which will be fiscally responsible and upholds our bedrock promise of economic security for our nation’s seniors.”

Don't you just love how every single penny spent by Obama and the Democrats is for "economic recovery?" Even though there is no realistic argument indicating that such a one-time lump payment will do squat for the economy, they persist in pretending it will. They also persist in ignoring the financial ramifications of their actions.

Pelosi's statement is ludicrous on its face. If they send these checks out, approximately 53 million seniors will receive them, for a total price tag of approximately $13.25 billion! How can spending another $13 billion on top of all the other deficit spending be considered fiscally responsible?

Even if they attempt to make it "budget-neutral" by adding in tax increases, which I don't believe they will actually do, how is raising taxes in these tough economic times fiscally responsible?

We should view this as exactly what it is, an irresponsible and partisan attempt to buy votes from a demographic that Democrats need to stay in power. Who cares whether or not it's the smart thing to do? Not Democrats. Who cares if this payment will have any effect on the economy? Not Democrats.

And make no mistake, these payments will have little effect on the economy. Why do I say this? Because the root of our problems at this time is unemployment. And giving 53 million seniors $250 won't create a single new job. They won't use that money to create jobs directly, and other businesses won't make permanent hiring decisions based upon a one-time government give-away bonanza.

This is PRECISELY the kind of irresponsible government action that got us into our current problems with our national debt! We cannot afford for our politicians to maintain the status quo and spend our nation into bankruptcy!

We have an election in two and a half weeks. Keep this in mind.

Read the rest...

I Hate Non-News News Stories

One of the things I hate about newspapers is that they persist in publishing stories that are not news. Imagine my surprise and deep-seated shock when I read in the Montgomery Advertiser that Milton McGregor will plead "Not Guilty" to bribery and corruption charges. I was stunned!
http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/article/20101015/NEWS02/10150318/McGregor-to-plead-not-guilty-today

The lead attorney for the state's largest casino owner said his client will plead innocent to federal corruption charges to­day and expressed concerns about how the 11 defendants were arrested as well as the tim­ing of the indictments, which came a month before the general election.

First off, I doubt McGregor will plead "innocent," as the article claims. It's either guilty or not guilty, guys. Don't the reporters watch Law & Order?

But the deeper problem with this story is that it isn't news. Of COURSE McGregor will plead not guilty and fight the charges in court. That's not news. Now, if he'd decided to plead guilty or accept a plea bargain, THAT would be newsworthy! But this? Pshaw!

Newspapers are not always interested in bringing us news. In this case, they wrote this story because it was something that is happening in the bingo corruption case, and the newspaper would rather write a fake news story about that than a real news story about something else.

This is more than disappointing. It explains why newspapers across the country are losing readers left and right.

Read the rest...