After delivering a luncheon speech this past Saturday at the Crowne Plaza in Warwick, Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma was asked what he thought about President Bush’s veto of the stem-cell bill. Here is Senator Coburn’s answer…
Senator Tom Coburn: I’ve made it my goal to stay more informed on this issue than anybody in Washington. I’ve read the science. I’ve read the reports.
There’s some things you should know. We’ve been studying pluripotent embryonic stem cells for 25 years as a nation and throughout the world. Despite this fact, there is not one treatment available today for anybody in the world from embryonic stem cells. You’ve spent, of your money, over the last five years, over a half-a-billion dollars on human embryonic stem cell research with no results and no accomplishments.
The second point you should know — and you should tell to anybody who comes up to you and says Republicans and the President don’t care about my child — is that for every disease group listed in the debate, there is already an ongoing study with great results curing those diseases with adult/cord blood stem cells. That includes juvenile diabetes, that includes lupus, that includes Parkinsons, with ongoing human trials with tremendous results.
The final thing you should know is that the only way embryonic stem cells will ever be available to Americans will be with the taking of tremendous drugs to block the rejection from the body. That’s part of the debate. The reasons they want hundreds of thousands of embryonic stem cell lines is to try to deal with the rejection issues in what’s called the HLA system of antigens.
The wonderful difference with adult stem cells is you take your own stem cells. There’s no foreign tissue. There’s nothing foreign, so there’s no rejection. With every embryonic stem cell program, there will be rejection. Even if you clone yourself, unless you are woman who clones yourself with your own egg, there will be rejection.
We’ve have a tremendous untruth spread, without the real facts of what’s going on being told. There are 72 treatments and they’re growing every day and that’s before we get to the latest scientific discovery, germ cells, which are pluripotent (they can produce any tissue in the body) but don’t have the side-effects of embryonic stem cells. That’s just been discovered in the last six to twelve months.
So do we talk about what the truth is or do we talk about what’s politically expedient? I had three members in the Senate after the vote come up to me and say you’re absolutely right, but I couldn’t vote with you because I had so much pressure from the disease groups and I had already committed my vote. Now think about that character trait. I’m not going to do the right thing, because I’m more interested in getting elected in than in doing the right thing. That’s the mindset too often we see in Washington.
More information from Senator Coburn about the science and ethics of stem cells is available at the Senator’s website.
By the way, for those curious about what Senator Coburn was doing in Warwick, I�ll be explaining that part later today…
At the start of this legislative session, Representatives Amy Rice (D-Portsmouth/Middletown/Newport), Arthur Handy (D-Cranston), Raymond Sullivan (D-Coventry/West Greenwich), Joseph Faria (D-Central Falls), and Joseph Almeida (D-Providence) introduced a bill that would have required corporations with 1,000 or more people to either pay a fixed percentage of payroll for their employees health care, or pay into a state health insurance fund. The bill was passed by the Rhode Island House (H6917) but failed to pass the Senate (S2201).
Even had the bill been approved, it probably would have never taken effect. A Federal Court on Wednesday nullified a similar law passed by the Maryland legislature on the grounds that it conflicted with the section of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibiting states from regulating employer-sponsored benefit plans, including health insurance plans, any more stringently than the Federal government does. The decision will probably be appealed, but the courts have been very consistent in interpreting ERISA to mean that states cannot impose health coverage mandates on employers.
These so-called “Fair Share” plans (Maryland’s, Rhode Island’s, or any other state’s versions) weren’t good ones. They avoided any introspection about why problems with healthcare delivery have reached crisis proportions; they were typical of the big-government mentality that holds that if we can’t be imaginative enough to facilitate something good for citizens, at least we can force everyone into something equally bad.
A better solution for improving healthcare delivery in America is to allow people more healthcare choices by 1) introducing health savings accounts 2) by decoupling health insurance from employment (by allowing individuals the same tax-breaks for buying health insurance that corporations get for offering it AND by eliminating the noxious provision of ERISA that protects insurance companies that provide employer-sponsored insurance from responsibility for the consequences of poor medical decisions they make and 3) by reducing the over-regulation of health insurance so companies can offer a range of coverages and deductibles tailored to meet individual needs.
Once again, Senator Chafee has exhibited his prediliction to blame President Bush. (But thanks for the support Mrs. Bush!). I heard this on Rush Limbaugh yesterday, and now the transcript is up. Sen. Chafee was interviewed by NBC’s David Gregory about the conflict going on in Lebanon and Israel.
Gregory says, “In effect the United States wants to allow Israel to have more time to complete what they see as a vital operation. Is that how you see it, Senator Chafee? Is that an important way and the right way to proceed?”
CHAFEE: I disagree with the president on the root cause of what’s occurring here. I see the root cause of what’s occurring in the failure of the road map. And the president talked the last four years about “a viable, contiguous Palestinian state living side by side with Israel,” and the road map was supposed to lead in that direction. And so many missed opportunities I see. The summer of 2003 when we had a great opportunity to push the ceasefire that occurred then, in the summer of 2001. Then with the death of Yasser Arafat and the election, overwhelming majority of Palestinians voting for Abu Mazen on a platform of peace. These were opportunities that we didn’t take advantage of.
RUSH: And the next question is: “Do you think that the US is wrong at this pointed to allow Israel to steno?”
CHAFEE: I think there should be a ceasefire and I disagree with the administration on that. I think immediate ceasefire and as this spreads, has the danger of going throughout the Muslim world, uh — and that’s from Morocco to Indonesia, having this unrest spread in the Muslim world…
RUSH: Where’s this guy been? We need a ceasefire? All this is Bush’s fault? He needs to be defeated. It’s about time we get rid of these — whatever you want to characterize Linc Chafee as being — out of the Senate. This is absurd. It’s Bush’s fault! Bush missed the opportunities? There needs to be a ceasefire? All a ceasefire is is a period of time for the bad guys to arm up again and come back with even bigger and stronger and more weapons than they were using before the first time. It’s like Bolton said: Ceasefire with terrorists? How in the world do you negotiate that? You don’t! All the while, by the way, George Bush is helping Linc Chafee in his reelection effort just as he helped Arlen Specter. But Chafee’s fallen five points behind in Rhode Island, and feels he has to come out and bite the hand that feeds him in order to boost his poll numbers up. This is not exactly the display of the execution of core principles.
Actually, I’d disagree with Rush on that last bit. This is exactly “the display of the execution of core principles” on the part of Senator Chafee (to be fair, I believe Rush was referring to the national GOP). Senator Chafee apparently believes that terrorist organizations can be counted on to engage in good faith diplomacy and lumps them in with regular nation-states to boot (something that is becoming all too common). One of Senator Chafee’s core principles is a belief in the power of the peace process even when it is shown to be worthless thanks to the intransigence of some of its participants (the Palestinian Authority, Hezbollah….Syria). To Senator Chafee, such faithlessness on the part of Hamas or Hezbolla is not to be blamed: the real culprit is the foreign policy failure of the Bush Administration. Thus, Senator Chafee’s first inclination is to always blame–or doubt (Afghanistan)–American actions. Yes, sometimes he can be convinced to change his mind (like after a trip to Iraq), but he usually ends up reverting to his first inclination.
The dark spectre of Vietnam lays at the heart of Senator Chafee’s foreign policy ideology. He has compared Iraq to Vietnam, telling Dan Yorke that we’re in “another Vietnam” and that Iraq is a “quagmire.” During a budget debate, he stated: “There are a lot of similarities between the Great Society and war in Vietnam, and the tax cuts and war in Iraq….We are doing it all over again.”
These are only a couple anecdotal clues, but I think that they indicate that Senator Chafee has not, in fact, gotten over Vietnam. His entire frame of reference for the contemporary intersection of foreign policy and international conflict has been forever shaped by his personal experiences–and the opinions they helped to form–35 years ago during the Vietnam War. He seems unable to come to grips with the fact that not every war is “another Vietnam,” nor, for that matter, is every war time administration “just like LBJ’s.”
Senator Chafee’s foreign policy ideology is a combination of a Vietnam-shaped predisposition to blame America first and an internationalist belief in a peace process that boils down to “process for process’ sake.” The result is that Senator Chafee never seems to blame those who are truly at fault for a breakdown in peace.
Here’s the question for consumers: If you were intending to purchase an item of moderately high price — a flat-screen TV, for example — would you buy it in Rhode Island or head to Massachusetts if you could get a $50–100 mail in rebate in the northern state (on top of the lower sales tax, of course)?* I wouldn’t state it as a certainty, but I’d say that such an option is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of this legislation:
Under the law, retailers advertising a manufacturer’s rebate on any sale item must apply the rebate amount at the time of the sale and complete the rebate redemption process themselves, rather than requiring the consumer to do it.
The law prohibits retailers from advertising a “net,” or final, price for an item that includes a payment from a manufacturer — unless the retailer gives the buyer the amount of the manufacturer’s payment at the time of the sale.
“In many cases, [companies] assume consumers are going to forget all about it,” allowing the businesses to keep the money, [bill sponsor Rep. Brian P.] Kennedy said. “Offering a deal and then making the consumer jump through hoops to get it is inappropriate and not all that great a deal.” …
Retail-industry research estimates that 40 percent of all rebates are never redeemed, said John Palangio, director of the consumer protection unit for Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch. That rate translated into $500 million in unredeemed rebates last year, Palangio said.
Personally, I’d always assumed that one of the reasons companies offered such large rebates through a mail-in process was that they expected not to actually have to pay a significant number of customers, but it never occurred to me that such a game ought to be illegal. If a rebate amount isn’t worth the effort to claim, it seems to me, then it wasn’t a decisive factor in the purchase. (Curious that protection of citizens with inadequate self-agency doesn’t play, among our legislators, when it comes to preventing the bad deal of gambling.) Making the rebate game illegal seems likely to make it go away altogether, particularly considering that manufacturers and retailers already offer on-the-spot discounts and rebates as a separate category.
How deeply does our society have to dig its myopia-permitted hole before we realize that we — particularly a “we” in such a small area as Rhode Island — can’t simply insist that people and companies behave as we dictate, in eschewal of their own interests? Perhaps I’m too cynical, but I can’t help but wonder whether the legislation doesn’t have more to do with the following than with consumer protection:
Last year, Rhode Island joined 39 other states in a federal lawsuit against Young America Corp., a Minnesota company that processes rebates for manufacturers and retailers. State treasurers say the company, the nation’s largest rebate processor, improperly keeps unredeemed rebates that should be turned over to the states as unclaimed property.
That lawsuit is pending.
When it comes to lawsuits, the states are becoming a frightening maw, indeed — always in search of rebates, no matter the difficulty of the process.
* With the possible added burden of having to receive the check via an out-of-state friend.
[Open full post]I don’t think you’re off base, Don. I do think, however, there’s a whiff of Rhode Islandism in your thinking.
Rather than shrinking from the seepage of resources that increasing the freedom (of movement, in this case) of our citizens might entail, we ought to ponder why they’re inclined to seep in the first place. It may prove that increasing the opportunities for Rhode Islanders to snub the state for anything other than living in will increase the incentive for some internal reflection.
(In know, I know… naive. But I seem to recall a thing called hope that I brought with me from elsewhere.)
From the Projo Blog:
State, local and federal officials are scheduled to break ground at 1 p.m. today on a new intermodal train station next to T.F. Green Airport. The $222.5-million facility, including a parking garage and car rental businesses, will take up 1.5 million square feet and rise six stories. It will connect travelers to the airport through a 1,250-foot elevated skywalk over Post Road. The station will extend Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority commuter service with its scheduled opening in 2009, but Amtrak trains providing service to the Northeast corridor will bypass the station because the state cannot afford to provide the additional tracks Amtrak requires.
Anyone else hear the suck action coming from Rhode Island and going into Massachusetts? As a Rhode Islander who found better opportunities in Mass than in RI, I’m not sure how much I like this move. Am I way off base?
[Open full post]Taken from the ProJo’s 7to7 blog:
[Open full post]A new poll by the independent pollster Rasmussen Reports finds Sheldon Whitehouse, a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate, edging ahead of incumbent Republican U.S. Sen. Lincoln Chafee, 46 percentage points to 41.
The margin of error in the poll of 500 likely voters was 4.5 percent, according to Rasmussen Reports.
If Republicans nominate Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey, Whitehouse would have a larger lead: 57 percent to 29 percent, according to Rasmussen.
The independent pollster has run surveys in Rhode Island for several months. The polls show a positive trend for Whitehouse.
In early June, Rasmussen reported that Whitehouse trailed Chafee by two points. An earlier poll in April showed Whitehouse trailing Chafee by three points.
None of the Rasmussen polls have tested Chafee against Laffey.
The governor’s race remains neck-and-neck, with Lt. Gov. Charles Fogarty, a Democrat, one point ahead of incumbent Republican Governor Carcieri, 43 percent to 42 percent. The two have been within a point of each other in the last three Rasmussen polls.
Many are making primarily economic arguments against the Casino Amendment, claiming that the state could get a better deal with competitive bidding. While I recognize the utility and pragmatism of such a tactic, I think the case for opposing a Casino Amendment offered by Brian Casey, owner of the Oak Hill Tavern in North Kingstown, is more important.
Our state constitution, adopted in 1842, contains the words of our most cherished and fundamental rights: freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, of assembly, and the rights of the accused. As we go about our daily business, we don’t stop to reflect upon what living in a free society truly means.
Stop for a moment and consider the sacrifice and bravery of [Nathanael] Greene, [Thomas William] Dorr and thousands upon thousands of other Rhode Islanders who have, over the course of our history, answered the call of duty — many to make the ultimate sacrifice.
Now think of today, as we bear witness to such tawdry treatment of our state constitution. Our history and our heroes are dishonored by frivolously amending our constitution by cramming it with language providing for a no-bid casino deal for Harrah’s gambling company.
Do we wish to honor our state constitution, our freedoms and our heroes by stuffing this precious and most sacred document with a no-bid casino deal? Are we to ask future generations to defend our freedoms of speech, religion, press and a Harrah’s casino?
. . . This document, our constitution, is the repository of the common good, not the cesspool of special interests. Honor our constitution, honor our heroes, honor liberty and freedom. Do not defile our sacred document. Let us respect our state and ourselves. {Emphasis mine}.
Casey is the owner of a business that could be negatively affected by the competition of a large casino, so there can be little doubt that he is at least partially motivated by his own economic self-interest. Nonetheless, his idealistic and proper notion of what our State Constitution should and shouldn’t be is the most important argument to be made in this debate.
[Open full post]Money makes the political world go ’round and according to the latest numbers, the leaders in RI’s “Hot” political contests are Governor Carcieri in the Governor’s race and Sheldon Whitehouse in the Senate race.
[Open full post]Robert Novak writes:
[Open full post]Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has informed my attorneys that, after two and one-half years, his investigation of the CIA leak case concerning matters directly relating to me has been concluded. That frees me to reveal my role in the federal inquiry that, at the request of Fitzgerald, I have kept secret.
I have cooperated in the investigation while trying to protect journalistic privileges under the First Amendment and shield sources who have not revealed themselves. I have been subpoenaed by and testified to a federal grand jury. Published reports that I took the Fifth Amendment, made a plea bargain with the prosecutors or was a prosecutorial target were all untrue.
For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew — independent of me — the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003. A federal investigation was triggered when I reported that former Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame Wilson, was employed by the CIA and helped initiate his 2002 mission to Niger. That Fitzgerald did not indict any of these sources may indicate his conclusion that none of them violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
…I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now.
The news broke Sept. 26, 2003, that the Justice Department was investigating the CIA leak case…
The FBI soon asked to interview me, prompting my first major decision. My attorneys advised me that I had no certain constitutional basis to refuse cooperation if subpoenaed by a grand jury…
I was interrogated at the Swidler Berlin offices Oct. 7, 2003, by an FBI inspector and two agents. I had not identified my sources to my attorneys, and I told them I would not reveal them to the FBI. I did disclose how Valerie Wilson’s role was reported to me, but the FBI did not press me to disclose my sources.
On Dec. 30, 2003, the Justice Department named Fitzgerald as special prosecutor. An appointment was made for Fitzgerald to interview me at Swidler Berlin on Jan. 14, 2004. The problem facing me was that the special prosecutor had obtained signed waivers from every official who might have given me information about Wilson’s wife.
That created a dilemma. I did not believe blanket waivers in any way relieved me of my journalistic responsibility to protect a source…
However, on Jan. 12, two days before my meeting with Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor informed Hamilton that he would be bringing to the Swidler Berlin offices only two waivers. One was by my principal source in the Valerie Wilson column, a source whose name has not yet been revealed. The other was by presidential adviser Karl Rove, whom I interpret as confirming my primary source’s information. In other words, the special prosecutor knew the names of my sources.
When Fitzgerald arrived, he had a third waiver in hand — from Bill Harlow, the CIA public information officer who was my CIA source for the column confirming Mrs. Wilson’s identity. I answered questions using the names of Rove, Harlow and my primary source.
I had a second session with Fitzgerald at Swidler Berlin on Feb. 5, 2004, after which I was subpoenaed to appear before the grand jury. I testified there at the U.S. courthouse in Washington on Feb. 25.
In these four appearances with federal authorities, I declined to answer when the questioning touched on matters beyond the CIA leak case…
I have revealed Rove’s name because his attorney has divulged the substance of our conversation, though in a form different from my recollection. I have revealed Harlow’s name because he has publicly disclosed his version of our conversation, which also differs from my recollection. My primary source has not come forward to identify himself…
In my sworn testimony, I said what I have contended in my columns and on television: Joe Wilson’s wife’s role in instituting her husband’s mission was revealed to me in the middle of a long interview with an official who I have previously said was not a political gunslinger. After the federal investigation was announced, he told me through a third party that the disclosure was inadvertent on his part.
Following my interview with the primary source, I sought out the second administration official and the CIA spokesman for confirmation. I learned Valerie Plame’s name from Joe Wilson’s entry in “Who’s Who in America.”
I considered his wife’s role in initiating Wilson’s mission, later confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Committee, to be a previously undisclosed part of an important news story. I reported it on that basis.
