Dear President Barack Obama,
Consistent with the above captioned award, I and all the members of our Non Governmental Organization, Change International salutes another cap that fits your head. May the same award endow your ability to impact people from various nations.
It is our prayers that your administration continues being source of hope, joy, good health and prosperity to mankind. Our generation will always remain proud of your achievements.
We hold you, your spouse and kids in high esteem.
Sincerely,
Jean Pierres Bassey
President
NGO Change International
P.O.BOX 27 BP 1044 Abidjan 27
Tel 00225 08288046
Cote d Ivoire
West Africa
One of the sad legacies of Ronald Reagan that Obama should reset with a new, smarter approach are so-called “tough on crime” policies that brought us mandatory sentencing, three-strikes, and a complete abandonment of rehabilitation. Now, America leads the world as the number one incarcerator of human beings. Most of those incarcerated are black and Latino men, and most of the crimes are for non-violent offenses such as drug possession, petty theft and burglaries associated with substance abuse and addiction.
Despite these lengthier sentences, most of these offenders are eventually released, and they are released without any effort to address the root causes that motivated them to commit the crimes for which they were incarcerated. After release, these ex-offenders become victims of employment discrimination and are unable to find work (70-90%) because of prejudice against them. Only five states currently have laws on the books that prohibit employment discrimination against ex-offenders- Hawaii, Kansas, New York, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. As a consequence, over 70% recommit crimes within three years of being released from prison. In stark contrast to this result, in most European countries, over 70% of ex-offenders “never” commit another crime in their lifetime.
This must change!
If America really is concerned about “victims’ rights”, how can we encourage a result where ex-offenders are compelled to commit crimes to feed, clothe, and house themselves? For every new crime committed, there is a new victim, and there doesn’t appear to be much thought at all about lessoning the prospect of these new victims of crime.
Vengeance for vengeance sake, has no place in an advanced democratic country. Such vengeance merely creates a cycle of more, and more crime in which no one benefits. It costs us $37,000 a year to incarcerate each inmate, and most of this money is at the expense of other priorities like K-12 education. At 2.3 million inmates currently incarcerated in the US, that is $85 billion dollars “a year” for incarceration.
All major religions seem to understand the lunacy of this through spiritual principles of forgiveness and human redemption. Jesus was fond of helping outcasts such as lepers, prostitutes, and robbers on the cross. This social gospel of Jesus seems to have been lost in much of modern day Christianity that has been redefined by “judgment” as though we have evolved and become someone elses God.
Obama must reset this “tough on crime” legacy of Reagan with a new “smart on crime” policy. This smart on crime approach must not abandon punishment - as there should be some punishment for lawbreaking - but this punishment MUST be limited to the term of the sentence, and not be “punishment for life” as some sort of perpetual vengeance against those who commit crimes. A smarter approach must include state-of-the-art rehabilitation efforts while one is still in prison. This rehabilitation must continue upon release with supportive services for substance abuse and anger management.
It is also simply smarter to involve employers in rehabilitation efforts by providing a mix of carrots and sticks to hire ex-offenders. The carrots could be tax incentives for hiring “and” retaining ex-offenders. The sticks could be laws similar to the ones in the five states that currently prohibit employment discrimination against ex-offenders. These anti-discrimination efforts force employers to relate hiring decisions to the actual work performed, so if the crime is not rationally related to such work, discrimination is forbidden. Additional measures such as prohibiting criminal history questions on employment applications until a later stage in the hiring process where an applicant is deemed “otherwise qualified” would discourage screening out ex-offenders.
Without this smarter approach, we are simply encouraging more crime, more victims, and more extraordinary fiscal irresponsibility in paying for the incarceration of those who could be tax-paying productive members of American society. As we attempt to pay for healthcare, education and other priorities, the time is now for “smart on crime” policies.
NOAA, not exactly a bunch left-wing evironmental radical freaks, reports that:
Based on preliminary data, the globally averaged combined land and sea surface temperature was the second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html
Henry M
If a Public Option is So Bad, Why are They So Sure that It Would Kill Private Health Insurance?
In Forrester’s 2008 Customer Experience Index (CxPi), we ranked 113 companies across 12 industries. I recently published a snapshot of the health plan industry looking at the results from the eight plans on the list (Aetna, Anthem (BCBS), CIGNA, Kaiser, Medicaid, Medicare, TriCare, and United Healthcare). Here’s some of what we found:Experiences are “very poor” and getting worse. As a group, the eight health plans ended up with a “very poor” rating of 51%; the lowest score of any of the 12 industries we examined. Making matters worse, the industry dropped three percentage points from the 2007 CxPi results.Kaiser led the pack. With an “okay” score of 70%, Kaiser led all health plans. All of the other plans ended up with ratings of either “poor” or “very poor.”Medicaid is as bad as it gets. With a terrible rating of 38%, Medicaid was the lowest scoring plan. It also ended up in next to last place across all 113 organizations in our rankings.Only Kaiser improved. When we compared the 2008 results with those from 2007, only Kaiser showed an improvement. CIGNA and Medicaid, on the other hand, declined the most.Some big shifts in CxPi components. There were five double-digit changes in the scores for the three underlying elements of the CxPi: Kaiser’s improvement in being easy to work with and enjoyability, Anthem’s decline in enjoyability, and both CIGNA’s and Medicaid’s drop in being easy to work with.The bottom line: Put customer experience on the health care reform agenda.
FROM TPM:
I'ved poked around Washington today, talking with friends on the Hill who confirm the worst: Big Pharma and Big Insurance are gaining ground in their campaign to kill the public option in the emerging health care bill.You know why, of course. They don't want a public option that would compete with private insurers and use its bargaining power to negotiate better rates with drug companies. They argue that would be unfair. Unfair? Unfair to give more people better health care at lower cost? To Pharma and Insurance, "unfair" is anything that undermines their profits.
Read more here
Posted May 11, 2009 by theindustryradar Categories: Business, Human Resources, Leadership Tags: star trek
The new Star trek movie is a spectacular summer fun ride whether you are a “Trekkie”, or like my 9 year old Star Wars crazed son, a newbie to this iconic story and its characters.
I have loved Star Trek since it came out in 1966 when I was 13. Until seeing the new movie I had never really thought how revolutionary it was in 1966 presenting a crew made up of a black woman, an Asian, a Russian, a Scot, a rebellious Iowa farm boy and an alien. 1966…43 years ago..
Today a team this diverse is not that unusual and the movie is also is a great reminder, especially in difficult times like these, what is required for any organization to succeed:
Now your business may not have Klingons or Romulans to fight but your challenges are just as real.
It is challenging times like these that demand some bold thinking and action and true team work if, as Spock would say, you want to “Live, long and prosper”.
So on this Monday morning are you ready to say – “Beam me up Scotty” – I am ready to go?
“Aye Captain!”….Have a good week!!
Dear United States Citizens and citizens of the world,
We knew healthcare reform would face fierce opposition -- and it's begun. As we speak, the same people behind the notorious "swift boat" ads of 2004 are already pumping millions of dollars into deceptive television ads. Their plan is simple: torpedo healthcare reform before it sees the light of day by scaring the public and distorting the President's approach. We need the resources to take them head on with an urgent, grassroots campaign to pass real healthcare reform in 2009. When the swift boaters flood the airwaves with distortions, we'll flood the streets with volunteers armed with facts. When they send lobbyists to tell Congress to back down, we'll send millions of calls, letters, and stories from real Americans asking them to stand up. Please donate $5 or more by midnight Sunday to fight back against these phony attacks and take our message of reform to the American people.
The swift boaters are once again trying to sell the American people short. As during the election, we deserve a serious conversation -- not fear-mongering and deceit. You and I see the importance of healthcare reform every day. We can't miss this once in a lifetime opportunity to face one of America's greatest challenges head on. Passing real healthcare reform will be the toughest, most important challenge we've faced together since electing Barack Obama President. But it's also a big reason we fought so hard to get here. I know that by working together, and speaking with one, determined voice, we can prevail over the cynics and defenders of the status quo. America's families are counting on us to do just that. Donate $5 or more to defend healthcare reform today: https://donate.barackobama.com/defendhealthcare Thank you, David Plouffe
Hand had evidently broadened his intellectual horizons; his article showed a heightened empathy for the economic and social arguments supporting a more interventionist role for the state.
— Gerald Gunther, Learned Hand, p. 123
When President Barack Obama mentioned he was looking for judges in possession of "empathy," many political conservatives quickly assumed that empathy was code for "activist." And "activist" in turn is a secret word for "judges who make decisions we don't care for." The article referenced above appeared in 1908 in the Harvard Law Review, written by Learned Hand, who most observers consider America's greatest judge that never made it to the Supreme Court. Learned Hand spent his 50-year career as a judge on the federal district and circuit courts in New York, earning a reputation as the very model of "judicial restraint," which we are told by those same conservatives is the conceptual opposite of "judicial activism." Hand's essay criticized the U.S. Supreme Court for its decision in Lochner v. New York. In Lochner the Court, relying on theories of laissez-faire capitalism, used the doctrine of substantive due process to strike down a law regulating maximum working hours for bakers. The Lochner majority reasoned that the law ran afoul of a constitutional freedom to make contracts that it discovered somewhere within the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court downplayed the "relative strategic advantages of the two parties to the contract," as Hand put it, "of whom one is under the pressure of absolute want, while the other is not." In other words, Learned Hand's empathy lay to the side of the journeyman bakers, whose interests were protected by their elected representatives, those who had imposed the maximum employee working hours as against the rapacious corporate baking concerns. While the empathetic Judge Hand leveled more particular legal criticisms of Lochner, his own overarching philosophical concern — as it continued to be throughout his long career — was directed toward the phenomenon of a tiny group of unelected, life-tenured judges capriciously invalidating the democratically expressed will of the people, which Learned Hand regarded as almost a form of tyranny. Sound familiar? Sounds practically like the late Tom DeLay.* In opposition to that potential, Hand practiced not "judicial activism" but "judicial restraint," which is precisely the attitude conservatives will tell you they value most in a judge. And in Learned Hand's case, it had quite a lot to do with empathy for the human objects of judicial decisions, a concern which Obama apparently shares. So when conservatives are ultimately presented with President Obama's forthcoming nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, perhaps they should be careful about what it is they're not wishing for.
-From Jim Waisbrot
The twits on [“tee-vee's”] "Fox & Friends" were in quite a snit this morning, along with the professional Christians at the National Day of Prayer Task Force, and all because Obama takes Jesus of Nazareth at his word:
“And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”
[It] looks pretty straightforward to me. And "their reward" sounds more than a little ominous, doesn't it. Be very afraid, ye hypocrites. Local wingnut and prominent Christian James T. Harris writes:
This president honors God with his pen, but his heart is far from Him. Evidently Obama doesn't pray.
"Evidently [,]" That's rich. So Harris is an empiricist now? And they called it Bush Derangement Syndrome. Who knew Christianity was some sort of public piousness competition.
Recently minted Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman this morning throws down his inaugural written opinion for the court, a partly concurring, partly dissenting contribution to a decision called Plastics Engineering Co. v. Liberty Mutual* ("Plenco"). Plenco is not a case that came up through the Wisconsin State courts. Rather, it's a federal asbestos injury/insurance lawsuit and the reason the Wisconsin Supreme Court was asked to address it is because the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Chicago requested clarification of certain generally applicable questions of Wisconsin law that might have a bearing on the federal courts' eventual disposition in Plenco. In other words, the federal Seventh Circuit is not going to unilaterally forge ahead with its own potentially unique interpretations of Wisconsin law that is currently unclear which may affect not only the specific Plenco controversy but also future Wisconsin litigation just in case the Wisconsin courts would have decided those questions of State (as opposed to federal) law differently. Therefore, the Seventh Circuit "certified" to the Wisconsin Supreme Court three broad questions in insurance law. As Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson correctly emphasizes as a threshold matter in her own concurring opinion, Wisconsin has a separate statute (§ 821.01) dealing with the Supreme Court's function under such circumstances. That is, it is not to decide the merits of the particular case (i.e., find in favor of one or the other parties), but rather clarify Wisconsin law generally so as the federal court itself might decide the merits of the dispute before it, consistent with those broader clarifications. A danger in determining the particular merits of Plenco, the Chief Justice suggests, is that if and when one of the parties ultimately loses in federal court, it can come back into a Wisconsin jurisdiction with a readymade Supreme Court decision in hand, a circumstance that is inconsistent with — if not contrary to — § 821.01. As the C.J. observes:
Because the majority tries so hard to limit its opinion to the language of the insurance policies at issue and the particularized facts of the instant case, I am concerned that the majority opinion has not responded to the certified questions of law but has instead decided the merits of the instant case.
Perhaps eager to demonstrate his repeatedly advertised commitment to the "plain language of the law," Gableman, laboring in solitary dissent, goes even further, for all intents and purposes actually finding in favor of the insurance company, Liberty Mutual (surprise). Unfortunately, he's apparently disregarded the plain language of § 821.01 (he never once mentions it) which is, somewhat ironically, a legislative directive intended to limit the role of the State courts, such limited role being yet another of Gableman's campaign planks. To be sure, Chief Justice Abrahamson's approach is considerably more in accord with so-called conservative judicial principles (more specifically, "judicial restraint"). On the other hand, should the Chief Justice Abrahamson's stated concerns come to fruition back home again in Wisconsin, Justice Gableman's lone dissent will likely be of little avail. * 2009 WI 13 (.pdf; 55 pgs.) [.html version]
The Wisconsin Supreme Court reaffirmed on Jan. 28 a contentious 2004 holding that interprets an underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance policy against the insured.
In Lisowski v. Hastings Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 WI 11, the insurance company rejected a claim filed by the policyholder’s son after he sustained injuries in a vehicle driven by a friend. The car involved belonged to policyholder Dennis Lisowski, but the insurance in question was taken out for a tractor used in his business.
Hastings’ obligation to pay hinged on whether the coverage of Lisowski’s son followed him wherever the injury occurred or if it extended only to incidents occurring with the tractor, the vehicle specified on the policy.
Rejecting the Lisowski’s claim, Hastings cited language within the UIM endorsement and the main body of the policy for support. The Lisowskis argued that these passages were not as clear cut as Hastings asserted and that ambiguous provisions must be read in favor of the insured.
Confronted with similar facts and policy language in Crandall v. Society Insurance, 2004 WI App. 34, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the insurance provisions unambiguously restricted UIM coverage to occupants of covered autos.
In this case, the court of appeals initially asked the supreme court to modify, limit, or overrule Crandall, but the high court would not accept the invitation. The court of appeals held that it was compelled to follow its precedent and ruled for Hastings.
The majority opinion
Finally before the supreme court, a majority opinion authored by Justice N. Patrick Crooks affirmed Crandall. The court said that coverage limiting an insured to just those vehicles listed on the policy is clearly based on language of the UIM endorsement stating “for a covered auto” and the declarations page restricting coverage to autos specified as “covered.”
The court dismissed Lisowski’s arguments that “for a covered auto” in the UIM endorsement is merely introductory language with no substantive effect and that the endorsement changed the “covered auto” requirements of the declarations page. The court said that an endorsement only changes portions of a policy with which it conflicts and in this instance, “for a covered auto” has a substantive effect that is entirely consistent with the declarations page.
Quoting Crandall, the court further observed that the policy in question was taken out for a business purpose and “[i]t would be unexpected for this kind of policy to cover [the insured] and his family under circumstances wholly unrelated to [his] business.”
The court turned away the Lisowski’s efforts to find ambiguity in the inconsistent reference to a “covered auto” in the endorsement and the coverage definitions. The court found no discrepancies, stating that policy terms are not read in isolation.
Likewise, the court defused the Lisowski’s argument that “for a covered auto” should be deemed an exclusion and construed narrowly against Hastings under Wis. Stat. § 632.32 (5) (j). The court said that even if it were to find an exclusion, it complies with the statutory requirements imposed by § 632.32.
Dissent
Justice Ann Walsh Bradley dissented, joined by Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. Bradley criticized the majority for ignoring essential portions of the policy and upending traditional insurance law.
Dennis Lisowski’s son was a family member residing at his father’s home, making him a Class I insured, Bradley said. Class I insureds have long been accorded coverage that follows them and not the vehicle.
Even the Hastings policy recognized the special status of Class I insureds, Bradley noted. The Hastings policy did not require Lisowski’s son to occupy a covered auto to receive coverage – that requirement is imposed on Class II insureds. The majority failed to give meaning to every part of the policy and consequently erased the established distinction between Class I and Class II insureds, she said.
Bradley also faulted the majority for disregarding the “obvious conflict between the covered auto language and the grant of coverage in the UIM endorsement.” She noted that when the court of appeals sought modification or reversal of Crandall, it said “for a covered auto” was merely introductory language and “plainly inconsistent with the provisions that follow it.”
“Although the majority proclaims that the language is clear and unambiguous, it does not necessarily make it so,” Bradley wrote. “Instead, all too often this court finds policy language unambiguous which then obviates the need for further meaningful analysis. I am reminded of the words of a nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll: ‘I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true.’
“Just because Wisconsin courts thrice proclaim that this language is clear and unambiguous, it makes [it] no more true than was the proclamation in Carroll’s poem,” she said.
By Alex De Grand, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin
SOURCE: Title: C.J. Abrahamson Cites Foreign Law, Gop3.com: The Triumvirate, Fighting Like Warriors and Thinking Right , Website link: http://gop3.com/2008/12/23/cj-abrahamson-cites-foreign-law/ Good as of: May 16, 2009.
C.J. Abrahamson Cites Foreign Law -from James Waibrot
Welcome, if you're new here, you may want to subscribe to our RSS feed or subscribe to our email newsletter. Thanks for visiting!
As you may know, April 2009 will feature another election for the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Incumbent Chief Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson will face the voters in her bid for a fourth ten-year term on the state’s high court. As with Justice Butler last year, I will be using GOP3.com in the coming months as a platform to critique the Chief’s jurisprudence and to comment on the race.
Today marks the start of a conversation on this blog about the Chief’s judicial philosophy, especially as expressed in her past activities, writings, and opinions. Christmas is great for many reasons, but one of them is that it allows me the free time to blog more extensive, in-depth research. So here, without further ado, is a research memorandum on Chief Justice Abrahamson’s use of decisions by foreign courts in deciding Wisconsin cases.
Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson has issued a bold call for greater use and citation of foreign law in Wisconsin court decisions. In her article All the World’s a Courtroom: Judging in the New Millennium (26 Hofstra Law Review 273 – 1997), she argues that American courts should begin citing court decisions from other countries:
“Why do the political borders continue to matter so much for the American legal system? Are we lawyers and judges suffering from legal xenophobia? … “[W]hen courts from around the world have written well-reasoned and provocative opinions in support of a position at odds with our familiar American views, we would do well to read carefully and take notes. … “Why shouldn’t our experiences as American comparatists embolden more American lawyers and judges to explore the law of non-American jurisdictions in the same spirit? Why shouldn’t we take advantage of the comparatist instincts learned in our law schools and practiced in our courts by venturing farther afield? “[W]e can cross the divide separating us from other jurisdictions around the world. And if we do so with the modest intent to borrow ideas on classifying, discussing, and solving a particular problem, we should not be deterred by unfamiliarity with foreign legal systems. We may fail to understand a particular system of law or even misinterpret some foreign decisions. Nevertheless, we may also find unexpected answers or new challenges to domestic legal issues. … In fact, foreign opinions could function like superstar amicus briefs, offering otherwise unavailable viewpoints, delivered from unique perspectives, by some of the world’s leading legal minds. … “I suggest that American courts, although they rightly view themselves as independent, can surely strengthen and better convey their message if they are willing to broaden their vision. Hence, we should not deride a party who cites Canadian law. We should be citing Canadian law ourselves, along with law from the rest of the world. … “[T]he world is now our courtroom.”
Several years earlier, she had written, “We can learn from the legal systems of other countries. Judges around the world have come to know about and learn from our legal system and our case law. We must be less provincial and must learn about theirs. Cases arising in Europe, Africa and Asia offer important lessons for us.” The Consumer and the Courts, 74 Judicature 93, 95 (1991). The Chief Justice’s beliefs on this matter are more than mere rhetoric. Her desire to see foreign law cited in American cases has influenced her own work on the Court:
This is most pronounced in her opinion in the Court’s most important statutory interpretation case, where she authored what might be labeled “the Canadian concurrence.” Discussing her approach to statutory interpretation, C.J. Abrahamson says, “I agree with the approach the Canadian courts take.” She then cites two decisions from the court of appeal for Ontario and one case from the Supreme Court of Canada arguing for statutory interpretation based on “total context.” Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58, ¶ 70.
In a majority opinion, C.J. Abrahamson compares Wisconsin statutes to Canadian laws. Foley v. City of West Allis, 113 Wis.2d 475, 487 n.9 (1983). Criticizing textualism, C.J. Abrahamson quotes a justice of the Supreme Court of Israel arguing for greater use of extrinsic sources in judicial interpretation. Fox v. Catholic Knights Ins. Soc., 2003 WI 37, ¶ 43, n.13 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring). Discussing durable powers of attorney, C.J. Abrahamson says that “this area of law may be one in which we can learn from the experiences of other countries, especially England, Australia, and New Zealand.” Russ ex rel. Schwartz v. Russ, 2007 WI 83, ¶ 56 (Abrahamson, C.J., concurring). Though in none of these cases was the foreign law the deciding factor, her other writings speak very highly of the use of foreign law in American courts.
In praise of Chief Justice Abrahamson’s “perspective,” the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of California has written (Ronald M. George, A Dedication to Shirley Abrahamson, 67 Alb. L. Rev. 647, 649 (2004)):
On an even more global scale, Chief Justice Abrahamson has shown herself to be intellectually curious and open-minded about ways in which she can apply the laws, decisions, and nuances of other states and nations to her own judicial body of work. She embraces the refreshing notion that narrow and provincial interpretations of the law do not make for good jurisprudence. As a human being, she can be modest and unassuming; as a jurist, those qualities translate into her generous respect for the legal systems of other states and cultures. … Aware, as always, of the rapidly-evolving legal landscape throughout the world, Chief Justice Abrahamson firmly believes that as jurists we have no choice but to adopt a global perspective.
Though Chief Justice Abrahamson’s comments and opinions are troubling standing alone, they are much more so when considered as part of the broader movement in the law towards citation of foreign decisions. Her article is part of a larger effort by judicial liberals to justify the influence of foreign courts in American jurisprudence. This judicial philosophy has even reached the Supreme Court of the United States, where opinions have cited decisions from the European Court of Human Rights, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and South Africa, among others. In a major address, left-leaning Dean Harold Koh of Yale Law School described the Court’s majority as “transnationalist.” Echoing Chief Justice Abrahamson, he said that “U.S. courts should not simply look to whether something furthers the U.S. system. Now we are asking the question whether the U.S. should look to the promotion of an international system.”
Not everyone agrees with Chief Justice Abrahamson and the judicial liberals. Many prominent American jurists and scholars believe that America is a unique nation, and that her courts should refuse the twin temptations of judicial activism and foreign citations. These analysts believe foreign law is a way for American judicial activists to impose other nations’ values on Americans. Wisconsin voters should keep C.J. Abrahamson’s record on this matter in their minds as they consider whether to support her in April.
The letter Chief Justice Shirley Abramson doesn’t get, and that goes instead to my state representatives.
Dear state representative I want you to read what I would like to day to Shirley Abrahmson:
Dear Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson,
I did phone calling for you through the portage county office with some of the other portage county democrats in Stevens Point Wisconsin.
I am so glad, YOU HELD THE POSITION AND KEPT IT!
I called for you from the Portage County Democratic group and am so glad you won. Please I didn't get a chance to talk to you about the specifics, but for being against outside interests that do not work in our state. I hope you will continue to make sure insurance agencies do not shrink coverage because one who caused the accidents insurance has coverage too.
I was in a car accident in Wisconsin and owe American Family Insurance and they forced me into an agreement to pay 50 dollars a month when I was only on disability and as a result I may now not be able to bankrupt this bill and although I can't afford to pay it and know in a perfect world I could. Can American Family make as now a result of me having paid 50 dollars a month when I could barely afford it a contractual reason that they should be able to make me pay for another 10 years. They had me sign something when I was paying… Also if I didn’t sign, they somehow made it where the DMV would not allow me to drive my car because I could not have my car license.
P.S. Now I am going bankrupt for the second time in my life first time it was on only “only 2,500” dollars worth of credit card debt I couldn’t control. This time it is for “over 10,000” in unsecured debt along with an accident payment from an insurance company I can’t afford being over 30,000 in debt if I also count the part that is a destructed pole by the accident of the person I hit or hit me, and then hit a pole as a result of me not going through that red stop sign that should have been a stop light. When I was a member of the Wood County Traffic Commission as a student leader – one of two for the out lying counties, I attended the traffic commission decisions with a vote. I told the commission in the county near rapids this time with the help of a few DOT friends – you need a light, not a stop sign there. They didn’t listen – I hope everything stayed alright – I almost died and had requested they look into it as is my right and the law, I sure hop the he’ll they did.
You know as a reflect back on what my family has always taught me I remember – always have insurance to drive – I never realized until I learned the hard way what might just happen on some emotional level - I could see the poor pathway but not feel the consequence! I am both glad for the insurance industries existence even as private to help measure risk and then insure me and it’s my fault I wasn’t insured. I wouldn’t be able to bankrupt if the insurance company couldn’t afford to loose what I know owe them-thank God they invest soundly! ( Something I should learn from the insurance company too…) Now the government helps me pay my insurance by forcing the insurance agency to let me pay SR-22, and I am covered but pay less. I wish I would’ve had this before the accident based on my income and have been advised to apply. I also wish/see that Shirley Abramson has not bowed down to out of state special interest groups like in the area of insurance, where insurance companies are saying they should be able to say that is there is say a 200,000 and the first insured had 200,000 in insurance, while the accident at fault insured had 100,000 that their the company of the first insured’s liability to pay out should only be the 100,000 left needed to cover what they originally promised. Shirley Abrahamson points out the original insured pay premiums for 200,000 in her decisions and that the other 100,000 means the obligation between the insurance companies to solve the problem is 300,000 – 200,000 from the insured, and up to 100,000 from the at fault accident insured and that for the one company to say they can pay less or deny coverage on more than a 100,000 when the premiums were for 200,000 is not fair and not right and that that insurance company will cover up to what it promised to cover for the premiums it charged.
ONCE AGAIN, I SAY YEAH and YAHOO FOR THE ELECTION OF SHIRLEY ABRAHSON ONCE AGAIN AS WISCONSIN’s SEPREME COURT JUSTICE. I want the people to know and realize that and I want the Wisconsin Democrats to remember that next time SHRLEY ABRAHMSON runs for re-election!
James T. Waisbrot
“I was there, when Sen. Barack Obama Spoke at Campaign Event in Green Bay, Wisconsin - I still remember!”
- Jim Waisbrot (now Portage County Democrat, member-at-large on the executive board, District 7)
SOURCE: Washington Post, Title: Sen. Barack Obama Speaks at Campaign Event in Green Bay, Wisconsin. WebsiteLink: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/22/AR2008092201500_5.html Good as of: May 16, 2009.
CQ Transcripts Wire Monday, September 22, 2008; 2:36 PM
SPEAKER: SEN. BARACK OBAMA, D-ILL.
[On the Need for the End of the era of greed and responsibility on Wall Street and in Washington.]:
[*] OBAMA: The era of greed and irresponsibility on Wall Street and in Washington has led us to a perilous moment. They said they wanted to let the market run free but instead they let it run wild, and in doing so, they tramped our core values of fairness, balance, and responsibility to one another. As a result, we are facing a financial crisis as profound as any we have faced since the Great Depression. As a result, your jobs, your savings, and your economic security are now at risk.
This week, we must work quickly, in a bipartisan fashion, to resolve this crisis and avert an even broader economic catastrophe. And as we do act, Washington must recognize that true economic recovery requires addressing not just the crisis on Wall Street, but the crisis on Main Street that so many of you have been feeling in your own lives long before the news of last week. We need a plan that helps families stay in their homes, and workers keep their jobs; a plan that gives hardworking Americans relief instead of using taxpayer dollars to reward CEOs on Wall Street. And we cannot give a blank check to Washington with no oversight and accountability when no oversight and accountability is what got us into this mess in the first place.
But no matter what solution we finally decide on this week, it is absolutely imperative that we get to work immediately on reforming the broken politics and the broken government that allowed this to crisis to happen in the first place.
We did not arrive at this moment by some accident of history. We are in this mess because of a bankrupt philosophy that says we should give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to the rest of us.
We're here because for too long, the doors of Washington have been thrown open to an army of lobbyists and special interests who've turned our government into a game only they can afford to play - who have shredded consumer protections, fought against common-sense regulations and rules of the road, and distorted our economy so that it works for them instead of you.
We are here because an ethic of irresponsibility has swept through our government, leaving politicians with the belief that they can waste billions and billions of your money on no-bid contracts for friends and contributors, slip pork projects into bills during the dead of night, and spend billions on corporate tax breaks we can't afford and old programs that we don't need.
[And today, even as Congress debates an emergency plan to save our economy from the verge of collapse…]:
And today, even as Congress debates an emergency plan to save our economy from the verge of collapse, there are reports that lobbyists and CEOs are already lining up to figure out what's in it for them; to find out how they can get theirs.
Green Bay, enough is enough.
I began this race for the presidency as the one candidate who hasn't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know this - if we want a government that puts the needs of middle-class families before the whims of lobbyists and politicians; if we want to grow this economy and prevent a crisis like this from ever happening again, then the ways of Washington must change. We must reform our lobbyist-driven politics. We must reform the waste and abuse in our government. We must reform the rules of the road that let Wall Street run wild and stuck Main Street with the bill. We must change Washington now.
This has been our message from the day we began this campaign. Our opponent, on the other hand, has spent much of the last nineteen months arguing that what qualifies him to be President are the decades he's spent in Washington.
But with forty-two days left, he's had a sudden change of heart. An election-time conversion. After twenty-six years in Washington - years where he voted for the same trickle-down, on-your-own policies that got us into this mess - he now claims that he's the one who can clean it up.
Well let's be clear. When it comes to regulatory reform, Senator McCain has fought time and time again against the common-sense rules of the road that could've prevented this crisis. His economic plan was written by Phil Gramm, the architect in the US Senate of the de- regulatory steps that helped cause this mess. Even knowing what we know now, Senator McCain said in an interview just last night that de-regulation actually helped grow our economy. Well that might be true for the profits of a few CEOs, but it's certainly not true for America's prosperity.
When it comes to taking on the special interests, my opponent sounds like Fighting Bob Lafollette. But he acts like a guy who's spent three decades of his life in Washington. He's put seven of the biggest corporate lobbyists in charge of his campaign - lobbyists for the insurance industry and the oil industry; for foreign governments and Freddie and Fannie Mac, who paid his campaign manager nearly $2 million to defend them against stricter regulations. I guess they got their money's worth.
And rest assured, those lobbyists who are working day and night to elect my opponent aren't doing it to put themselves out of business.
When it comes to reforming government waste and spending, Senator McCain talks a lot about earmarks. And while he deserves credit for not requesting many of those earmarks during his time in Congress, what he never mentions is that he voted for 144 billion dollars worth in just six years; or that he voted for four out of the five Bush budgets that have been filled with special interests giveaways and left us with the largest deficit in history.
The truth is, our earmark system in Washington is fraught with abuse. It badly needs reform - which is why I didn't request a single earmark last year, why I've released all my previous requests for the public to see, and why I've pledged to slash earmarks by more than half when I am President.
But let's not pretend, as John McCain does, that proposing the elimination of 18 billion dollars of earmarks will make up for the more than 300 billion additional dollars he wants to spend on tax breaks for big corporations and multi-millionaires that don't need them and weren't asking for them - more than 300 billion dollars at a time when taxpayers are being asked to help finance two wars and a historic financial bailout. That's some pretty creative math, but it doesn't add up to is change. And change in Washington is what we need right now.
This change will not be easy. It will require reforming our politics by taking power away from the lobbyists who kill good ideas and good plans with secret meetings and campaign checks. It will require reforming our government by taking on the spending habits of both parties and going after the tax havens and loopholes that big corporations use to avoid paying their fare share while you pay more. And it will require reforming our out-dated, unfair regulatory system that favors Wall Street over Main Street but has ended up hurting both.
But I am ready to reform our politics because I've done it before. I've spent my career taking on lobbyists and their money, and I've won. When I was a state Senator in Illinois, if you wanted a favor, there was actually a law that let you give campaign cash to politicians for their own personal use. In the State House, they called it business-as-usual. I called it legalized bribery, and while it didn't make me the most popular guy in Springfield, I put an end to it. I brought Democrats and Republicans together, and we passed the first ethics reform in twenty-five years.
When I got to Washington, Jack Abramoff and his lobbyist pals had engaged in some of the worst corruption since Watergate. I led the fight for reform in my party, and let me tell you - not everyone in my party was too happy about it. When I proposed forcing lobbyists to disclose who they're raising money from and who in Congress they're funneling it to, I had a few choice words directed my way on the floor of the Senate. But we got it done, and we banned gifts from lobbyists, and discounted rides on their corporate jets. And I'm the only candidate in this race who can say that Washington lobbyists do not fund my campaign, you do - with donations of $100, and $10, and $5.
I also joined with one of the most conservative Republicans in Congress to end the abuse that allowed no-bid contracts to waste taxpayer dollars instead of using them to rebuild the Gulf Coast after Katrina. And we worked together to put the federal government's checkbook online - so you can see how and where Washington is spending trillions of dollars of your money.
For years, I have also pushed for reform of the same loose regulations and lax oversight that could've prevented the crisis we're in. It was two years ago that I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. It was one year ago that I called on our Treasury Secretary and our Fed Chairman to bring every stakeholder together and find a solution to the subprime mortgage meltdown before it got worse. In March, when John McCain was saying "I'm always for less regulation," I called for a new, 21st century regulatory framework to restore accountability, transparency, and trust in our financial markets.
These are the types of reform I will pursue beginning on my very first day in office as President of the United States - political reform, government reform, and regulatory reform.
First, I'll reform our special interest-driven politics. When I am President, I will start by closing the revolving door in the White House that has allowed people to use their Administration job as a stepping stone to further their lobbying careers.
I'll make it absolutely clear that working in an Obama Administration is not about serving your former employer, your future employer, or your bank account - it's about serving your country. When you walk into my administration, you will not be able to work on regulations or contracts directly related to your former employer for two years. And when you leave, you will not be able to lobby my Administration - ever. I will also institute an absolute gift ban so that no registered lobbyist can curry favor with members of my administration based on how much they can spend on a fancy dinner.
I'll make our government open and transparent so that anyone can ensure that our business is the people's business. As Justice Louis Brandeis once said, sunlight is the greatest disinfectant. As President, I will make it impossible for Congressmen or lobbyists to slip pork-barrel projects or corporate welfare into laws when no one is looking because when I am president, meetings where laws are written will be more open to the public. No more secrecy.
When there is a bill that ends up on my desk as President, you will have five days to look online and find out what's in it before I sign it. When there are meetings between lobbyists and a government agency, we will put as many as possible online for every American to watch. When there is a tax bill being debated in Congress, you will know the names of the corporations that would benefit and how much money they would get. And we will put every corporate tax break and every pork-barrel project online for every American to see. You will know who asked for them and you can cast your vote accordingly.
The second set of reforms I'll make will eliminate the waste, fraud, and abuse in our government.
if ( show_doubleclick_ad && ( adTemplate & INLINE_ARTICLE_AD ) == INLINE_ARTICLE_AD && inlineAdGraf ) { placeAd('ARTICLE',commercialNode,20,'inline=y;',true) ; } We are facing the largest deficit in history. We are facing the largest government bailout in history. And we are also facing some of the greatest challenges in our history. All of this will cost money - to fix our health care system, and our schools, and build a new energy economy. And the only way we can do all this without leaving our children with an even larger debt is if Washington starts taking responsibility for every dime that it spends.
We can start by ending a war in Iraq that is costing us $10 billion a month when the Iraqi government is sitting on a $79 billion surplus. We should also stop sending fifteen billion dollars a year in overpayments to insurance companies for Medicare and go after tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid fraud. We need to stop sending three billion a year to banks that provide student loans the government could provide for less, and hundreds of millions a year in subsidies to agribusiness that can survive just fine without your tax dollars and use some of the money to help family farmers who are struggling. I will put an end to this waste when I am President.
I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there. There are some that don't work like we had hoped - like the Bush Administration's billion- dollar-a-year reading program that hasn't improved our children's reading. And there are some that have been duplicated by other programs that we just need to cut back - like waste at the Economic Development Agency and the Export-Import Bank that has become little more than a fund for corporate welfare.
I understand there are parts of these programs worth defending and politicians of both parties who will do so. But if we hope to meet the challenges of our time, we must make difficult choices. As President, I will go through the entire federal budget, page by page, line by line, and I will eliminate the programs that don't work and aren't needed.
As for the programs we do need, I will make them work better and cost less. I will create a High-Performance Team that evaluates every agency and every office based on how well they're serving the American taxpayer. We will fire government managers who aren't getting results, we will cut funding for programs that are wasting your money, and we will use technology and lessons from the private sector to improve efficiency across every level of government - because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy.
I will also save billions of dollars by cutting private contractors and improving management of the hundreds of billions of dollars our government spends on private contracts, and I will end the abuse of no-bid contracts for good. One employee of a former Halliburton subsidiary actually admitted that he was ordered to put his company's logo on towels provided to U.S. troops because our government - our tax dollars - would pay for it no matter how much it cost. That is wasteful, that is wrong, and that will end when I am President.
And for all his talk about earmark abuse, what Senator McCain doesn't mention these days is the corporate abuse of our tax system - abuse that has cost far more than earmarks ever have. In 2003, loopholes and tax breaks allowed 28 major corporations to actually have negative tax liabilities. We lose $100 billion every year because corporations get to set up mailboxes offshore so they can avoid paying a dime of taxes in America. Imagine if you got to do that? There is a building right now in the Cayman Islands that is the address for 18,000 corporations. Well that is either the biggest building in the world or the biggest sham in the world, and I think we know which one it is. I will shut down those offshore tax havens and all those corporate loopholes as President, because you shouldn't have to pay higher taxes because some big corporation cut corners to avoid paying theirs. All of us have a responsibility to pay our fair share. That's putting country first.
Finally, the third set of reforms I will pursue are the updated, common-sense regulations of the financial market that I've been calling for since March; rules of the road that will make Wall Street fair, open, and honest; that will ensure a crisis like this can never happen again.
I've outlined six principles that such reforms should follow. First, if you're a financial institution that can borrow from the government, you should be subject to government oversight and supervision. Taxpayers who have now been called upon to spend nearly a trillion dollars to save our economy from the excesses of Wall Street have every right to expect that financial institutions are not taking excessive risks.
Second, we need to reform requirements on all regulated financial institutions, investigate rating agencies and potential conflicts of interest with the people they are rating, and establish transparency requirements that demand full disclosure by financial institutions to shareholders.
Third, we need to streamline our overlapping and competing regulatory agencies that cannot oversee the large and complex institutions that dominate the financial landscape.
Fourth, we need to regulate institutions for what they do, not what they are. Over the last few years, commercial banks and thrift institutions were subject to guidelines on subprime mortgages that did not apply to mortgage brokers and companies. This regulatory framework failed to protect homeowners, and made no sense for our financial system.
Fifth, we need to crack down on trading activity that crosses the line to market manipulation. We need regulators that actually enforce the rules instead of overlooking them. The SEC should investigate and punish all market manipulation.
Sixth, we must establish a process that identifies systemic risks to the financial system like the crisis that has overtaken our economy. We need a standing financial market advisory group to meet regularly and provide advice to the President, Congress, and regulators on the state of our financial markets and the risks they face. It's time to anticipate risks before they erupt into a full- blown crisis.
These are the principles that should guide the reforms we need to establish a 21st century regulatory system - a system that recognizes our free market economy has only worked because we have guided the market's invisible hand with a higher principle - that America prospers when all Americans can prosper.
To restore this prosperity, we must change Washington. We must reform our regulations, our politics, and our government, but we will not be able to make these changes with the same policies, the same lobbyists, or the same Washington culture that allows politicians and special interests to set their own agenda.
That's exactly what we will get from John McCain. After twenty- six years of being part of this Washington culture, all that he has changed is his slogan for the fall campaign. And the people in charge of that campaign prove that if we elect John McCain, it's not a team of mavericks we'll be sending to the White House - it's a team of lobbyists.
We can't afford four more years of that kind of politics. We need real change.
It won't be easy. The kind of change we're looking for never is. What we are up against is a very powerful, entrenched status quo in Washington who will say anything and do anything and fight with everything they've got to keep things just the way are.
But I feel good about our chances, because I've got something more powerful than they do: I've got you. In this campaign, you have already shown what history teaches us - that at defining moments like this one, the change we need doesn't come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.
Change has always come from places like Wisconsin - the state where the progressive movement was born; where laws were passed to regulate the railroads and insurance companies; laws that protected consumers and the safety of factory workers. It was a movement rooted in a principle that was known as the Wisconsin Idea - the idea that government works best in the hands of the people, not the special interests; that your voices should speak louder than the whispers of lobbyists.
That's the Wisconsin idea. That's the America idea. And that's the kind of government we need right now.
So if you want the next four years in Washington to look just like the last eight, then I am not your candidate. But if you want real change - if you want to shine a bright light into the backrooms of Washington; if you want to replace the special interests with your interests, if you want a government that costs less and works better for everyday Americans, then I ask you to knock on some doors, and make some calls, and talk to your neighbors, and give me your vote on November 4th. And if you do, I promise you - we will change America together. Thank you.
