McHugh Watch

Part of campaigning for a congressional seat is having Editorial Boards with the various newspapers across the district. These take the form of interviews with two or more representatives of the newspaper, usually with the either the publisher and/or the managing editor in attendance. Whether it was the Syracuse Post Standard, the Watertown Daily Times, the Plattsburgh Press-Republican or the Ogdensburg Journal, the question invariably asked was: why should we elect you when you will not be able to match the money that can be brought back to the district by a seasoned member who has seniority.

So those are the pragmatics of being a congressman. You are measured by how much money you can raid from the US Treasury and bring back to the district. Mind you, these questions come from unabashed Republicans who run these newspapers, the most partisan of which is John Johnson of the Watertown Times. The same Republicans who demand tax cuts but want the cash under the table from Washington. I always thought it ingenuous and certainly inconsistent with their desire to “starve the beast” so that the government would have to cut back on its spending. That never stopped them from singing the praises of our congressman about all the money that he brought back to the district.

My usual answer was that I was running for congress to enact national policy and – what was good for the United States, was good for the North Country. They just rolled their eyes and smirked – how naive. I would then quickly add, being a member of the majority, no matter how junior, was better than being a member of the minority no matter how senior.

DangerDemocrat posted a blog entry about John McHugh’s prowess at bringing home bacon to the district. Yes, Mr. McHugh brought back $18,906,700 to the 23rd. The real question is, how does that compare to the bacon that freshman house members in the majority can command and bring back. It turns out, it’s chicken feed. No only that, but the money only goes to a relatively few people.

Mike Arcuri, the freshman from the 24th, brought back $28,871,968 and Kirsten Gillibrand, freshman from the 20th brought back $23,849,244. So with all that seniority and all that “influence”, two upstart freshman do better than our congressman. So much for the conventional wisdom that seniority is everything in congress.

I will guarantee you, just as he has done in every other election, about now, our congressman will associate himself with every drop of grant money that comes back here, regardless of the fact that the individuals who actually applied for the money and filled out the grant paperwork did all the work. I personally would be insulted if I did all the leg work and some else took the credit. The mystique is that somehow, without the congressman’s “influence” the grant would not have been successful. That is exactly what he wants you to think, but it is so far from the truth.

To those of you who think that the only reason we send a representative to Washington is to bring back pork money, the clear conclusion is that anyone in the majority party is going to do better than our present congressman, regardless of whether he gets to be the ranking MINORITY member on the Armed Services Committee.

So what could he have done to help all of us? For one thing, he could have backed and sponsored legislation for national health insurance. Not only would that have covered each and everyone of us, but after the cost savings of reigning in the insurance companies, the drug companies and the trial lawyers, it would have saved every man, women and child in this district $2,480. He could have sponsored and backed legislation that would get us out of a war that we should never have started and where we do not belong. Considering that the Iraq war is conservatively going to cost Three TRILLION dollars, that would be a savings of $10,610 for every man, woman and child in the district. So instead of bringing back the equivalent of $29.07 for each person in the district, he could have saved each of us, $13,090 – money in our pockets.

Of course, if he did that, he couldn’t collect the campaign contributions from the drug companies, the insurance companies, and the defense contractors to keep him in office and guarantee that we will be paying his pension for the rest of his life. You see, it really all does come down to money.

This week we will look at where our healthcare dollar is being spent and where our money goes. Be forewarned: this is tough stuff and can’t be presented in a sound bite. You are going to have to wade through the numbers and follow the money. Doing so, you will begin to understand how wasteful our healthcare financing is and will begin to formulate a broad outline of how the system can be redesigned to be effective and equitable. The bottom line: we can save between $350 - $450 billion by redesigning the system. That’s a lot of money – as much as the yearly military budget.

We’ve already established that we spend more, in both absolute and proportional dollars to our Gross Domestic Product (GDP), than any other country in the world. For that expenditure, we have some of the worst healthcare measures in all the industrialized world¹.

So where does our money go? It is instructive to look at the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) filling of UnitedHealth Group² (open in a separate page so you can follow along). Through the purchase of Oxford Health Plans and Mid-Atlantic Medical Services, United HealthGroup is now the dominant health care insurance provider in New York. Note that the filings are expressed in millions of dollars, so that any of the four or greater digit numbers represent Billions.

United HealthGroup’s revenues come from direct premiums ($65,666 billion) and administrative health care services ($4,268 billion) that it sells in the open marketplace. These services are mostly to large corporations or government entities – including New York State. From these revenues it expends $53,308 Billion in health care coverage. Do the math and United HealthGroup retains nearly 25% of the health care dollar that it collects directly as a premium or an administrative service that it sells because the coverage plans are so complicated.

There are literally hundreds of plans that can be selected. All this proliferation of choice is of course a smokescreen for reducing coverage all the while appealing to our fantasy that we are being given the “freedom” to choose and determine our own destiny. United HealthGroup is so good at charging more and providing less that its corporate profits (net earnings) have increased a billion dollars each year, from $2.4 billion in 2004 to $3.1 billion in 2005 to $4.1 billion in 2006.

Net Earnings (profits) are reported after all expenses are paid, including the salaries and benefits to the corporate officers, most notably, the $1.6 Billion in stock options to the company’s CEO, William McGuire. To put this into perspective, the US spends $1.5 trillion on healthcare and therefore United HealthGroup’s CEO got more than 1/1000 of the entire US expenditure on health care (10¹² – 10⁹ = 10³ = 1000) – but he thinks it’s enough! I’m ashamed to say that he’s a doctor.

Realizing the enormous profit involved, is it any wonder Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield wanted to convert from a non-profit to for-profit organization. In 2002, New York under Gov. Pataki took the mantra of market efficiency and allowed the conversion. The price was a one time payment to the state. The deal is most succinctly related by Health Affairs³

“On 7 November 2002 Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) culminated a seven-year effort to convert from nonprofit to for-profit ownership, selling 20 percent of its stock and obtaining $417 million in one of the most successful initial public offerings (IPOs) in the history of the health insurance industry. The IPO proceeds and other corporate assets were not used to endow a charitable health care foundation, as is done in most other states, but were transferred to the New York State budget largely to finance wage increases for unionized hospital and nursing home workers. The quid pro quo was the endorsement of a conservative governor by a liberal labor union, contributing to a Republican electoral landslide in a Democratic state and to the governor’s commitment to sustain health care programs in what otherwise was a disastrous budgetary context. The big losers were the community organizations that would have received the largess of a charitable foundation and who instead were left to gnash their teeth, denounce the predatory state, and invoke constitutional objections to one of the most brilliant and sordid chapters in the annals of health policy.”

– some real insight into the sordid side of New York politics.

The same analysis can be applied to Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield. The parent company is WellChoice, incorporated in Delaware. The SEC fillings of WellChoice shows that is not much better than United Healthcare and retains 23% of our healthcare premium.

Do this for any of the insurance companies in the healthcare arena (should I now call it a racket) and the long and the short of it is that 1/4 of our healthcare dollar does not go for healthcare but rather to insurance companies coffers.

A word about the concept of market efficiency. There is no doubt that successful companies in the private sector are very efficient. That means that they will turn the greatest profit for the least expense. Of course they will – they are there to make a profit. The question is: do we have the financial luxury to allow the insurance companies to make a profit off our healthcare?

No one wants to turn our healthcare mess into a government service mess – see the last post for the ills of making hospitals and healthcare providers into civil servants as is done in Great Britain⁴. Is there, however, another alternative to a private system of health insurance and the true socialized medicine of Great Britain?

The answer can be found in Medicare.

Medicare is essentially public insurance coverage for those over 65 and for the disabled. Its overhead – the cost of running the program – is 3.4%. Of the revenues that Medicare collects, as opposed to the 25% that the private insurance companies keep, Medicare only retains 3.4%. So when “efficiency” is applied to the peoples’ healthcare coverage and the amount of money available to pay for it, Medicare wins hands down.

Realizing the tremendous profits that are involved, is there any wonder why the insurance companies viciously oppose a national health insurance system and why they spend millions (which is really a drop in the bucket compared to their profits) in campaign contributions and on advertising campaigns – remember Harry and Louise of the 1990’s. (Let’s be very clear. Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan utilizing “managed care” in the 1990’s was a disaster, and we are now left with its private form. So now instead of the government limiting your choice of medical treatment, it’s the insurance companies – they aren’t stupid and are very efficient at extracting profits for minimal performance).

Combine this with the added administrative costs of hospitals and providers, nearly one third, 31% of our healthcare dollar is eaten up – wasted – on administrative costs⁵.

That brings us to our congressman. Why would he oppose an efficient public national health insurance program calling it “socialized medicine”. Follow the money. Over the years he, along with most of our lawmakers, including Hillary, have been generously funded by the HMOs and insurance companies. This funding ensures that the insurance companies get their way. Some of Mr. McHugh’s contributors are:

HealthNet, Inc. $14,000

Humana $7,000

America’s Health Insurance Plans the trade organization for the insurance companies. $2,000
The contributors to this PAC are all the insurance companies, including guess who: United HealthGroup.

What is also notable is the interlocking relationships between PACs. For instance, the Texas Freedom Fund is funded by insurance companies and pharmaceuticals among others, that gives to the CME Fund the gives our congressman $2,000. Follow the money.

I think you can see how corrupting it is, and why our representative, and for the matter, most of our politicians will not do what is best, least expensive and most effective for all of us. The only way to solve this problem is public campaign financing.

Next post: The pharmaceutical industry’s cut of our healthcare dollar.

1. Theophilus, Post 12/06/2007
2. Filing 10-K United HealthGroup, Annual Report 2006
3. Health Affairs 22(4):100-118, 2003
4. Theophilus, loc. cit.
5. Woodhandler, S., Campbell, T., Himmelstein, D., “Costs of Health Care Administration in the United States and Canada,” New England Journal of Medicine, 349:768-75, 2003.

When I first entered politics in 2004 one of the biggest hurdles in explaining my roadmap to healthcare reform was to convince people that the system was broken. I tried to accomplish that by telling them of the 47,000,000 Americans – one sixth of our population – were uninsured. Being uninsured meant that those 47 million would therefore seek the most expensive health care in emergency rooms far into the course of their underlying disease. Early treatment before the ravages of the disease progressed, would not only have been better for those people, but would have been far less expensive. Far less expensive does not mean a few dollars, but rather one or two orders of magnitude less expensive, from the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to just thousands of dollars. Disappointingly, most voters didn’t really care about those 47 million, not to mention their 108,000 neighbors who reside in our own congressional district without health insurance.

In that short time, even those who were content with the status quo are coming to realize intuitively that our healthcare system is broken. Their employers are no longer providing unlimited access to healthcare and many are not even providing it at all. Under the euphemism of “choice” each year they are having to pay more for less. It turns out that only the very few can avail themselves to all the treatments that the best medicine in the world has to offer. Of course, that doesn’t include the members of congress – they have the best coverage.

Back then, I tried to use statistical measures of health in comparison to other counties to show we did not have a healthcare system, but rather a “sickcare” system. I would present data as if I were presenting a paper to my colleagues. It turns out the voters just weren’t interested. They were not impressed that of the 30 most industrialized countries in the world, we were number 24 in life expectancy1. Neither were they impressed that our premature deaths were the second and fourth worse for females and males² . They weren’t impressed we were number five in our deaths from heart disease³. They didn’t seem to care that we were number twenty seven in infant mortality with only Mexico, Turkey and the Slovak Republic worse than us⁴.

For all that, we spend over twice for each person than almost all the other countries⁵. In fact, you could even say that the Slovak Republic was getting a good deal. They spend six times less than we do and have an infant mortality just slightly higher than ours. Yes, we spent $1.5 TRILLION dollars last year for the best medicine but nearly the worst health care in the world.

So long as someone else paid, i.e. their employers, most voters didn’t care. These were just statistics and if their neighbors ran into trouble, it was just an aberration of the “best medicine in the world,” and it wasn’t going to happen to them. I’ve often wondered what these voters think of the fund raisers to raise money for those non or under insured who need a transplant or treatment for cancer. You see these fund raisers all the time. Is there something not repugnant that the sick have prostrate themselves and go begging for help?

The voters, however, were very impressed with the draconian phrase “socialized medicine.” John McHugh couldn’t say it enough times. A phrase that was used over and over by the American Medical Association to fight prenatal care in the 1920’s and 1930’s, Harry Truman’s healthcare insurance in the 1940’s and Medicare in the 1960’s^6,7.

In parroting that, McHugh was selling a fantasy, just at Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain and Ron Paul – yes, Dr. Ron Paul – and every other Republican presidential candidate is selling now. The fantasy is that you have unlimited, unfettered access to American medicine. Those fund raisers that we just talked about – they must be scams – because we all know that everyone has access to all the wonders of modern medicine. What these public “servants” are really saying is that they can avail themselves to all of American medicine – the best medicine in the world – and they want to keep it just that way. So long as you are convinced that you have the choice, freedom and ability to tap all the resources of the best medicine in the world, that is just fine with them. Just keep paying your taxes, provide them with cushy benefits, while they sell you a scam – along with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, Iran’s nuclear weapon program, Karl Rove and Scooter Libby having nothing to do with outing a CIA agent, water boarding isn’t torture and …” Walt Disney couldn’t do it any better.

I unsuccessfully tried to persuade the voters to change the way we finance health care, not the way we provide it. John McHugh knew that then, as do the Republican Presidential candidates know that now when they stoop into the linguistic gutter and dredge up “socialize medicine.” If there is any country in the world where “socialized medicine” is an accurate description of a health care system, it is Great Britain. That truly is socialized medicine, where the hospitals are owned by the state, all the health care providers are paid by the state and where you have to register at the local GP’s office for your health care. You don’t have a choice of doctors and there is no incentive for hospitals or doctors to provide care. They are paid a straight salary, regardless of how many patients the see. Hence the long waiting lists. Except for Dennis Kucinich (HR 1200)8, that is not what the other Democratic Presidential candidates are proposing.

The financing of health care to provide everyone with coverage is a far cry from the government owning hospitals, doctors, and telling you where you can go for your health care.

I don’t think the American public needs anymore explanations of how broken our health care system is. They now viscerally know it. They’ve been hit in the gut; their wallets feel it and their loved ones can only look in the window and marvel at the wonders of American medicine.

Next post: Now the we’ve got the hysteria of “socialized medicine” out of the way, we’ll find out where our money goes.

1. Tabulation: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Life Expectancy at Birth, 2007.
Graph: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Life Expectancy and Per Capita Spending 2007.
2. Organization For Economic Co-Operation And Development, Premature Mortality, 2007.
3. Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development, Ischemic Heart Diseae Mortality, 2007.
4. Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development, Infant Mortality, 2007.
5. Organization For Economic Co-Operation and Development, Health Expenditure Per Capita 2007.
6. David Greenberg, “Who’s Afraid of Socialized Medicine”, Slate Magazine, Oct 8, 2007.
7. NPR Morning Edition 12/06/07 read NPR listen:
8. HR 1200 text HR 1200 Summary

The alternative minimum tax (AMT) was enacted in 1969 to target 155 wealthy households who were able to arrange their tax liabilities such that they paid little if any taxes¹. I was a freshman in college when the announcement was made by the then secretary of the treasury Joseph Barr three days before Richard Nixon was to take office.

This was at the height of the Vietnam war and as much as we college students were grateful for the end of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency, I personally was troubled at a “black list red baiter” Joseph McCarthy protégé assuming the presidency – not to be confused with Eugene McCarthy who recognized that there was nothing to win in Vietnam and sought the Democratic presidential nomination in 1968 promising to end the Vietnam war. Regretfully, he did not win the nomination at the disastrous 1968 Chicago Democratic convention and it took another 45,000 Americans deaths for us to leave in 1975.

So in the middle of January 1969, when we were all consumed with getting out of Vietnam, participating in local and national demonstrations, comes this wave of public indignation about 155 wealthy families with incomes greater than $200,000 paying no taxes. The indignation trickled down to my dinner table at the college commons where we were all just shaking our heads in disgust. Today, $200,000 annual income does not seem an obscene amount, but then it represented $1.3 million in today’s dollar.

So the congress acted to target these 155 households and make them pay their fair share.

Therein lies the problem. Since the AMT was not indexed to inflation, it has now caught 2.5 million households in its grip². The AMT disallows deductions for mortgage payments, state and local – property – taxes, family exemptions (children) and losses from investments which are used mainly for retirement or college savings. By particularly disallowing the deduction for state taxes, it hits those hardest that live in states with high tax rates – New York.

The AMT hits those families with incomes as little as $50,000. Nearly 40% (65,564)³ of families and over 30% (75,797) of households in our district are in the income brackets that are subject to the AMT⁴. So why did our congressman turn his back on the middle class and vote against repealing the AMT? The word play – spin – is that repealing the AMT will raise taxes. VERY TRUE. It will raise taxes on hedge fund managers. So what. What do hedge fund managers contribute to our society that they should command such wealth and not be expected to pay full income taxes on their gains. Of course, I could ask the same question regarding Dennis Rodman. What intrinsic value does he have? He at least however pays full income taxes.

Additionally the house bill targeted those making greater than half a million dollars a year. I’ll remind our congressman that income bracket represents far less than one percent of our district. So why is he protecting this exceedingly minute population of our district? It doesn’t make sense. Does he owe this type of money anything? We know he doesn’t get much of his campaign money from our district. Most of comes from the inside the beltway. What’s the connection between those making at least a half a million a year and our congressman’s vote.

The Democratic congress responsibly recognizes that cutting taxes is not enough. Bush – enabled by McHugh – has driven this country into unprecedented debt, wreaking havoc with the value of the dollar. The last time we had a budget surplus was under Bill Clinton. McHugh along with his republican handlers have created the largest, most expensive, most intrusive government we have ever seen.

So my question is this. Why did you vote against the middle class, and when are you going to be responsible and stop voting for increase government spending without covering it with appropriate revenue? It’s good for votes, but horrific for our – and significantly not his – children.
1. Lori Montgomery, “Democrats Craft New Tax Rules, New Image,” Washington Post, April 23, 2007.
2. Jonathan Weisman, “Falling Into Alternative Minimum Trouble,” Washington Post, March 7, 2004.
3. Family Incomes, NY23, US Census 2000.
4. Household Incomes NY23, US Census 2000.

On July 12th, after receiving the first report mandated of the President regarding the Iraqi government’s attainment of benchmarks, the house passed the Responsible Redeployment from Iraq Act. It was in response to the dismal report that the Iraq government has failed to make any progress, much less satisfactory progress, on over half of the 18 benchmarks that congress mandated for continued funding.

It outlines a comprehensive policy strategy for force reduction in Iraq. The bill is policy statement not a tactical direction. Rightfully, tactics should be left to the military commanders to carry out policy. McHugh and the Bush enablers continue to spew the message that congress has no right to make policy and should be left to the military.

Nothing can be further from the truth, and obviously, Mr. McHugh did not learn the lessons that he should have when he had got out of serving in Vietnam by getting a Masters of Public Administration from Syracuse. He did not learn that it was the intent of the founding fathers when they created the Constitution that the elected representatives of the people make policy and the military carries it out. Why else would they have make is so that only Congress can declare war and not some general.

The Bush enablers never cease to re-codify the language. They no longer refer to it as a “surge”, but have again invented a new moniker: a counteroffensive. A counteroffensive that will last for years without any stabilization of Iraq or the Iraqi government stepping up to the plate towards any of the benchmarks.

It is becoming fashionable on Capital Hill for the Bush enablers to become critics of the President. Most notably those that are up for re-election in competitive races in 2008. Republican Senators are dropping like flies and there are now significant Road to Damascus experiences being felt by Republican representatives.

John McHugh continues to be an Bush enabler voting against the Redeployment Act. He can afford to be “principled” because his base in Jefferson County associates him with Fort Drum; Fort Drum with economic infusions of government money; and the Iraq War with Fort Drum. The unspoken, but often whispered, connection is that the Iraq War is good for Fort Drum and Fort Drum is good for Jefferson County. So, we are willing to sacrifice blood for economic prosperity. Since John McHugh has so successfully created the perception that he is responsible for Fort Drum, and that the vast majority of the voting public in Jefferson County has bought that hook line and sinker, he will continue to support the war. Madison, Clinton and Franklin, Essex, and Oneida Counties are not enough to out weigh the effect of Jefferson County on the vote tally.

No matter what he says about his “concerns” regarding the Iraq war, he continues to vote in support of George Bush. We need to remember his actions. No death bed conversions for him. It’s too late. Anything he does to distance himself from Bush will be in words only and not in actions. He has done enough damage with George Bush. The only reason for him to “convert” is because he’s scared. That’s not good enough. He sees no foreseeable challenge, so there is no impetus to change. He is a consummate politician who is laying the ground work for a conversion should he need it. By expressing concern over and over again, and yet doing nothing to support that concern, he prepares a pathway to jump ship by creating a paper trail of words that he can take out of context in campaign commercials and debate – Having it both ways. Any change of heart will be based on a political calculus and brazen insincerity.

He’s counting on us being as gullible as ever. No, there will be no death bed conversions for John McHugh. Let’s be plain, he’s willing to trade blood for money. We should be as indignant at accepting any change in his war support as we are with Robert McNamara’s apology to the nation about Vietnam in his memoir In Retrospect. McNamara knew at the time he was wrong and Vietnam was not winnable. McHugh does too.

Recognize the above. Yes, it’s the entrance to the Supreme Court. We learn the pledge of allegiance in kindergarten and all have the words “liberty and justice for all” engraved in our minds.

We all know that there is very little justice in our country. Innocent people are sent to prison and even to death row and criminals guilty as hell go free. In less dramatic circumstances, all of us have felt the sting of incompetent and arrogant government that we pay for through the nose. We know the incredible corruption that is endemic in our government. We know that congressmen are paid off over and over again in the form of campaign contributions that buy both access and votes. Is it any wonder that the American public has little or no confidence in our government today.

Rarely, however, is it so blatant as today’s pardon – no pardon me, “commutation” – of Scooter Libby. The full pardon will come January 20, 2009, his last day in office. Scooter Libby was prosecuted by a Bush appointed US Attorney, convicted by a jury of his peers, sentenced by a conservative judge appointed by George Bush and whose appeal was denied by an appeals court the majority of which was appointed by Republican Presidents. He was sentenced under and within the guidelines that Congress passed. There was nothing “excessive” about his sentence. There has never been a pardon for someone convicted of obstruction of justice.

It is clear that there are two systems of justice. One for high ranking Republicans and one for the rest of us. It is notable that nearly every Republican vying for the Presidential nomination, including Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Tancredo, Romney and Brownback supported a pardon for Libby. Only Jim Gilmore, former governor of Virginia outright disagreed. With this endemic contempt for the law, is there any doubt that the next President is going to be a Democrat.

George Bush has been the meanest – in both senses of the term: vindictive and sparse – President in history with regard to pardons. I will remind you that he was the one who refused to commute the sentence of Karla Faye Tucker who accepted full responsibility for her crime, was a model prisoner, a devout Christian woman and who was in fact loved by her jailers. Even in the face of a Papal appeal for her life, he refused to commute her sentence to life in prison without parole. And this man masquerades as a Christian.

There are thousands of others who are serving and have served time for obstruction of justice. Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury. Make no mistake – obstruction of justice is a very serious crime. It means you lied under oath. So what of them? It’s a blatant mockery of justice. Is there any other reason that the administration refuses to answer questions regarding the political removal of US Attorneys except without transcripts and without swearing to tell the truth. Obviously, they intend to lie. Mr. Fitzgerald, Scooter Libby’s prosecutor, better look for a new job because no doubt he is now on Gonzales’s list for termination.

Contrast this with Nancy Pelosi’s response to the indictment of Congressman Jefferson of “cold” cash fame. While she can’t remove him from office, she removed him from all committees and made him a outsider. He has no influence or power.

I call on our Congressman, who has been George Bush’s enabler all these years to finally call him to task. This is an insult to everyone of us and a cynical undermining of the rule of law. The clear message is: There are are two systems of justice – the imperfect one for all of us and the perfectly favorable one of high ranking friends of George Bush and Dick Cheney.

The House passed yesterday, 247 to 176 with 37 moderate Republicans in favor, HR 5 the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act. Predictably, Mr. McHugh, along with Mssrs. Walsh and Kuhl were opposed, again waving their true arch conservative colors and un-yielding support for George Bush. We must add these three to those who offer us only “Blood, Oil, Fears and Debt.” This vote reconciled the Senate and House versions. It next goes to George Bush for his probable veto – Only 591 days to a Democratic President.

Here is an non exhustive list of potential diseases for which stem cells have potential use:

Diabetes
Parkinsonism
Alzheimer’s
spinal cord injuries
Lou Gehrig’s (ALS) Continue Reading »

During the first 100 hours of the 110th Congress, the house passed the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 that finally allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo.

There are safeguards written into the bill to ensure that (1) the cells had been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics and (2) were created for the purposes of fertility treatment and (3) were in excess of the needs of the individuals seeking such treatment and would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded (as determined in consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment); and (4) were donated by such individuals with written informed consent and without any financial or other inducements. Note that all the conditions (“and”) have to be met before the cell can be used. The bill is purposely directed at surplus cells that were created for infertility treatments and were destined for disposal.

To be opposed to stem cell research is to purposefully deny the gift of life and hope to those with diseases that have that have either no or inadequate treatments. By logical extension, to be opposed to stem cell research is to also be opposed to in vitro fertilization (IVF) and yet another gift of life and joy to infertile couples. Continue Reading »

When the Republican party came to power in 1995, John McHugh had been in congress only two years as a minority member. During that time in the 103rd congress, the Democratic majority brought to the floor a bill to ban permanent hiring of replacement workers (pejoratively known to organized labor as “scabs”) who are hired during a strike. Also at that time the Senate was composed of 56 Democrats and 44 Republicans, Kay Hutchison having just won special election in Texas. The political reality was that any worker replacement ban was going nowhere in the Senate because of Republican opposition and threat of filibuster. Along with Republicans Rick Lazio and Rick Santorum who were positioning themselves for future Senate runs, Mr. McHugh voted along with the Democrats for passage. While these three split ideologically from their party, the Republican legislative goals were never in danger. Predictably, the bill never saw the light of day in the Senate.

The next twelve years, with his party in power, both in Congress and in the Presidency, he had an extraordinary opportunity to show his friendship to organized labor. After all, organized labor is one of his chief constituencies, giving him $583,950 in campaign contributions.

So how much did he believe in banning replacement workers. Certainly not enough to have sponsored the bill himself in each of the six congresses where his party was in the majority. Certainly not enough to even co-sponsor bills submitted by Democrats. He didn’t cosponsor the bill to amend the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act to prevent discrimination based on participation in labor disputes which also banned replacement workers introduced by Mr. Tierney of Massachusetts in 2001 which, summarized by the congressional research service (an official agency of congress to assist representative): Continue Reading »

The congressional databases now have direct links to both the roll call votes tabulated by the Clerk of the House and to the text of bills and resolutions at the Library of Congress.  This now make it easier to access the bills directly.