by Shamus Cooke

Global Research, November 27, 2009 

Wading through the endless debate over health care has exhausted the patience of most Americans — the zigzags, obscure language, and long-winded discussion is inherently repulsive.

But now the dust is starting to settle, and the Congressional  vision for health care in the U.S. is emerging. Instead of being “progressive,” it will amount to a massive, corporate-inspired attack on American workers, the elderly, and the poor.

After months of confusion and delay, Congress has shipwrecked the popular energy over health care onto the jagged rock of corporate interests. More spectacularly, health care “reform” is being used as an opportunity to greatly advance corporate influence over social spheres long-dedicated to the working-class — seemingly harmless provisions carry with them enormous implications.

These devils hide in the details of the competing health care bills in Congress; both contain debilitating right-wing policies hidden within a progressive shell. Obama is indeed acting as the agent of change, to the great benefit of the U.S. corporate elite.

And although the final bill has yet to be crafted, there exists general agreements as to what the end version will look like.  Americans will be forced to buy shoddy corporate insurance with no limit to the cost, no guarantee of quality, with large premiums and other tricks to further gouge consumers.  If a public option emerges in the final bill — by no means a guarantee — it will be shrunken enough to insure very few people (2 percent of the U.S. population).

But it gets worse.  How this health care “reform” will be paid for has implications that dwarf the above atrocities.

For example, the Democrats were determined to pass a health care bill that “will not add one cent to the deficit.”  And they have succeeded: the House and Senate health care bills both plan to reduce the deficit by over $100 billion.  But a second-grader could do the math here: more service does not equal less cost — a truism that dominates the for-profit health care industry.

So how does the government plan to save billions of dollars as they “help” millions of people?

The two biggest cost saving schemes are the most damaging.  The first is the enormous attack on Medicare.  Since its inception, the corporate elite wanted this program struck down. Now they have their man for the job — a Republican could never get away with such obvious treachery.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Senate version of health care would cut $404 billion from Medicare and Medicaid; the house version would cut $570 billion.  The final cut could be much more.  Obama made the ridiculous claim that only “wasteful” parts of Medicare would be cut.  The truth is far different.

One way that both Congressional health care bills will gut Medicare is referred to as “forced productivity gains” — cost saving measures essentially; trimming the fat.

What are these savings? The most mentioned device — by politicians and media alike — is the reduction of “wasteful tests” and procedures that doctors routinely perform, an idea that the health care mega-corporations love. It will save them billions, while having catastrophic effects on the health care of millions of people.

For example, the recent announcement that women will now be persuaded to cut back on screenings for breast cancer and cervical cancer have caused an uproar nationwide: people are correctly making the connection behind Congress’ “forced productivity gains” and the new “recommendations” that will be used by insurance companies to justify cutting these services, both of which will boost profits.  The general agreement behind rationing health care in this way will be an attack on not only Medicare, but serve as the backbone of any health care bill passed, negatively effecting everyone unable to afford luxury health care.

Another piece of Medicare that’s being trimmed is Medicare Advantage, a favorite program of the elderly because of its comprehensive services.  Premiums for this program are already rising drastically in anticipation of the health care bill’s passage, considered by Congress to be “wasteful.”  Without this program, Medicare will be greatly devalued and be more appropriately named:  “band-aides for seniors.”

Finally, The Senate health care bill attacks Medicare by reducing payments to doctors by 25 percent.  If doctors receive such a drastic reduction in pay, they will simply refuse to see Medicare or Medicaid patients; people will thus be insured only on paper.  The newly insured Medicaid patients under any new congressional bill will be sorely disappointed.

Once Medicare is undermined in the above ways, the corporate sponsored right-wing will make a very convincing argument that “Medicare doesn’t work”, leading to future cuts that will further destroy the program.

The second hidden disaster in financing a congressional health care bill is the tax on so-called “gold-plated” or “Cadillac” health insurance policies that some employers offer their workers. This tax is supposedly meant to apply to the health care policies that “elite” employees receive.

And while there should exist no complaints about taxing corporations, the motives behind this particular tax are intentionally deceiving.  As it turns out, many, if not most workers in unions will be included in this tax, which, under the Senate version, will include any plan worth more than $8,000 for individuals and $21,000 for families.  Hardly elite, considering the still-soaring costs for health care.

If this provision were to pass — and it’s very popular in Congress — the immediate reaction would be very predictable: employers would immediately drop their health care plans, forcing workers into the now-forced purchasing of inadequate health care. This is why unions oppose such a plan.  California Democrat Pete Stark agrees: “Employers and insurers will reduce their benefits to avoid paying the proposed tax.”

Workers fortunate to have union contracts will be heavily pressured to concede their plans, which in the past they’ve sacrificed wage-increases to keep.  Ultimately, employers will have a new excuse not to provide health care to workers.

Obama again used his superb intelligence to totally obscure the issue in support of the tax:

“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term.”  Translation:  he supports taxing the health care of union workers.

Overall, a compromise bill between the Senate and House versions will create utter disaster for the working-class.  It will not signal a progressive “step in the right direction,” as many liberals claim.  At minimum, it will be a step backward, though more likely such a bill will be an enormous regression, to a time where health care was the exclusive privilege of the wealthy.

The right-wing attacks on “Obamacare” — along with the media’s lack of questioning — have shielded the Democrats from any serious debate about the above questions, including many other concerns unmentioned here.

The trash legislation that Congress is producing is the direct consequence of the Democratic Party being dominated by giant corporations — in this case the health care industry.  The two-party system is the political system of the corporate elite, who switch party affiliations when they find it convenient; many of them throw equal money at both parties.

A crucial prop in this broken political system needs to be removed and organized under its own strength.  If the unions took their support from the Democrats, organized their members and resources into a new political party, and aggressively pushed reforms that benefited the majority of working-class Americans, U.S. democracy would be tremendously strengthened.   Medicare could not only be saved, but expanded to everyone from birth to death and be considered a fundamental human right.

Shamus Cooke is a social service worker, trade unionist, and writer for Workers Action (www.workerscompass.org). He can be reached at shamuscook@yahoo.com

The folks over at Talking Points Memo have smelled a rat in the House of Representatives, one in the form of a scandal involving a now defunct lobbying group, several crooked congressmen, the defense industry, and, of course, your tax dollars.

Here’s a rundown of the mess:

You have, at the center of all of this, the PMA Group.  This firm, which was born in the late 1980’s thanks to the former aide of Democratic Rep. John Murtha of the House Appropraitions committee, Paul Magliocchetti, and staffed throughout its existence with other former Murtha aides like Democratic Reps. Pete Visclosky and James Moran, has grown throuhout the years to be a very powerful and influential lobbying firm in Washington D.C.

The PMA Group, as far as lobbying goes, focused heavily on obtaining “earmarks,” or pork (your tax dollars) that were being passed out by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, which, oddly enough, is chaired by Mr. Murtha.  The lobbying firm contributed “sham” donations, as the author of the Talking Points Memo post puts it, to members of the subcommittee, recieving defense pork for their troubles.

PMA apparently paid the crooked politicians very well, as Mr. Murtha certainly can attest to, as he recieved from the lobbying firm $1.75 million over the past three election cycles alone.  Of course, PMA also got paid very handsomely for their efforts, off of our dime, as always:

“The amounts of money involved — including plenty of taxpayer dollars — are staggering. Seven lawmakers who are under scrutiny by two House ethics panels steered $200 million to PMA clients in the past two years, according to watchdog groups.”

$200 million, in taxpayer money?  The author of the post tells us that the pork funds were used on projects such as “next-generation precision-airdrop capabilities” and “submarine navigation decision aids.”

Thankfully, this all came to an end, as the Feds last year raided the offices of the PMA along with (reportedly) the house of Magliocchetti.  The firm then died in spring of this year.  Mr. Murtha, along with Rep. Pete Visclosky, are now involved in a federal criminal investigation into the affair, and several other congressmen face scrutiny from a pair of congressional ethics panels for their involvment in the affair.

Folks, the stench of corruption is in the air of Washington D.C., and with scandals like this erupting over there rather frequently, it doesn’t seem like it’s going away anytime soon.

Link to Talking Points Memo article:  http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/11/pma_group_biggest_democratic_scandal_youve_never_h.php?ref=fpb

-D.R.L.

*If you like what you read, don’t forget to subscribe to the Feedburner feed and check out the columns and articles coming throughout the day.  Cheers!

Imagine a republican doing that.  Here’s an excerpt:

”…In a little-noticed blog post published on the White House website in September, President Obama’s special counsel for ethics and government reform Norm Eisen announced that the administration no longer wanted federally-registered lobbyists appointed to agency advisory boards and commissions. …”

Read it at

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/27/obama-pushes-lobbyists-of_n_372070.html

-The Washington Post is reporting this morning that thousands of Washington lobbyists will be removed from committees that advise federal agencies on trade, agriculture, military and other policies. The move is an attempt by the administration to limit the influence of K St.

-Politico has a good break down of the difficulty facing Obama in convincing his party to send more troops to Afghanistan.

-Democrats are working on a billion dollar plan to create jobs and keep people working around the country, according to the LA Times. Lawmakers hope to have it on the Presidents desk early next year.

-According to Bloomberg, Ken Feinberg, the administration’s ‘pay czar,’ has successfully insulated Obama and his financial team from Wall Street’s backlash over executive pay cuts. Businesses say they can no longer lure top talent. -CPP

Les pro-Hadopi et anti-Hadopi se livrent à une guerre informationnelle en règle depuis des mois…
La loi a été adoptée sous sa forme Hadopi2 (votée au Sénat le 8 juillet 2009, à l’Assemblée Nationale le 15 septembre), mais plusieurs points sont toujours sujets à controverse :

• faiblesse de l’adresse IP en tant que preuve
• sanction appliquée au propriétaire de la ligne et non au téléchargeur
• procédure accélérée
• technologie streaming

Dernièrement un rebondissement amusant a agité la toile (voir Rue89) : Jaimelesartistes.fr, le site vantant les bienfaits de la loi Hadopi, est passé sous le contrôle des anti-Hadopi. Le ministère de la Culture et son agence n’ont pas payé les 15 euros nécessaires pour renouveler le nom de domaine. Du coup la page d’accueil a changé :

Avec un petit bonus : les repreneurs du site ont décidé de rediriger toutes les connexions provenant du “ministère de la propagande et du lobbying” vers une page moqueuse :

« Bonjour, petit soldat du ministère !
Votre adresse IP a été bloquée,
veuillez en fabriquer une autre. »

Le blocage des adresses IP ? Ironiquement, c’est justement la principale mesure anti-piratage prévue par la loi Hadopi.

Lobbying in both Brussels and the EU is becoming more and more complex and time-consuming. There is a need for better stakeholders mapping and targeted messaging. Are you an American lobbyist coming into Brussels? Here are 7 tips to do your best practice  lobbying “the European way”:

1. Watch out for the French, Italians, Spanish and Greeks : they prefer to use the indirect  “ through acquaintances” top level contacts, or the useful coalition approach.

2. Germans are like Austrians: they use first political contacts and often the longer national or European trade association channels.

3. The Brits, Irish, Nordics, Dutch & sometimes Belgians prefer the more transparent Anglo-Saxon direct lobbying and coalitions building.

4. The new C&E members are still discovering the new EU lobbying and tend to prefer one-on-one political contacts: their trade associations are not yet up to speed in Brussels.

5. While NGO’s, in need of EU funding for studies and research, claim to have less money, they are increasingly successful and sometimes even better organized than the private sector.

6. For critical policy issues, multinationals rely on direct company lobbying, ad-hoc business coalitions and co-operation with trade associations.

7. Key for public affairs effectiveness are better balanced lobbying of European Commission, Parliament and Member States with multiple stakeholder outreach, including the use of new EU online media.

But, gladly, the US lobbying techniques like breakfast meetings, Think Tanks, Forum meetings, stakeholder mapping, issue management and position papers, new media and internet outreach are also very popular with European companies. So no need to do a complete change of your American way of working…. just try to adapt yourself a tiny bit to the complexities of 27 different cultures across the European Union …

Eric Vaes

The Schalits spent their Wendesday lobbying with different figures in Israeli politics – from ministers to rabbis. I always wonder if these meetings are really business meetings where the Schalits honestly try to convince the person they’re meeting with that their son should be released, or if it’s some sort of game they play with the press, to keep making the eight o’clock news.
I mean, must they really meet with the Finance Minister to persuade him to vote for the swap deal? Doesn’t he know what they want to ask, doesn’t he know what their point of view is? Does he really take their position as parents into consideration when he’s thinking about his vote?
And what about the Chief Rabbi?He has absolutely no say in the matter, and the Schalits aren’t even remotely religious. So why meet with him?
Off the record, I can say that Chief Rabbi Ammar couldn’t remember Gilad Schalit’s name twice during the meeting, when he was brought up directly.

So what gives?

I debate the implications of Washington’s lobbying industry on CNBC.

Lobbying é o processo pelo qual os grupos de pressão buscam participar do processo estatal de tomada de decisões, contribuindo para a elaboração das políticas públicas de cada país.

O lobbying começa a desenvolver-se no Brasil em meados da década de 70. Porém, apesar de não haver muito espaço para que os grupos de interesse participassem, já que o Congresso havia sido extremamente enfraquecido e o atendimento de demandas, assim como a formulação de políticas públicas, estava centralizado no poder Executivo, a mídia passou a chamar de lobbying qualquer atitude que tivesse alguma relação com influência e convencimento, sem se importar com o caráter da representação de interesses.

Lobbying não é corrupção e nem tráfico de influência. Ao defender um interesse no Congresso Nacional, os grupos de interesse têm grande chances de vê-lo se transformando em leis, que podem regulamentar todo um setor produtivo, criando oportunidades ou evitanto riscos para comunidades inteiras.

Se quiser saber como os grupos de interesse atuam no Brasil a fim de defender seus interesses, acesse: www.lobbying.com.br.

www.qualifiedforaustralia.com.au

Given the ACT government’s interest in sponsoring skilled migrants in the category of project/program administrator – and indeed a number of other state governments also sponsor this occupation – we were very surprised at the Australian government’s September 2009 decision to lower this occupation to priority 5 for processing.  There is a dire shortage of project managers all over Australia, so surely this strange decision can’t last for long!

We have started a lobbying campaign to have the decision reviewed.  Our first port of call was the ACT Government, direct to the Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, to see what they are planning to do.  We’ve had a letter back confirming that the ACT Government  is concerned about the changes to priority for processing for project managers.  The Chief Minister has written to the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Senator Chris Evans, to express this concern.

We are also planning t0 send a letter outlining our concerns to the Minister, and a range of other potential influencers, including our local member and the opposition spokesperson.

If you or anyone you know is affected by this bizarre decision, maybe you could engage in a little light lobbying yourself!  It certainly can’t hurt.

We’ll keep you updated on our lobbying efforts.

A moins de deux semaines du Sommet de l’ONU sur le climat qui réunit 170 pays du 7 au 18 décembre, des pirates ont attaqué un centre de recherche climatique et ont dérobé environ 1000 mails et 3000 documents scientifiques.

Les données se sont ensuite retrouvées sur le net chez un hébergeur Russe pour prouver la manipulation des résultats.

Le but de cette attaque est d’informer les populations sur le lobbying qui se cache derrière cette conférence.

Des mails sont disponibles à cette adresse : http://www.anelegantchaos.org/cru/index.php

Reformed gun dealer Greg Headley gets a fresh start as an assistant truck driver.
By Aaron Smith, CNNMoney.com staff writer
Last Updated: November 20, 2009: 4:01 PM ET

Greg Headley, recently landed a job as an assistant truck driver, which is no small feat for an ex-con.

That’s quite a feat in today’s economy, even for the most qualified job hunters. But for an ex-convict, it feels like a miracle.

“It’s been beautiful,” Headley said, while whitewashing tractor trailers for $10 an hour. “I always knew that if I was patient, good things would come.”

Read more at CNNMoney.com

We hear it all the time, lobbyists being blamed for all the corruption in Washington D.C. Who won’t blame them; they are the ones responsible for higher taxes, the deficit, deforestation of the rain forest, banker bailouts, terrible health care coverage, the list goes on and on. WRONG.

Tim and I are “lobbyists”, we belong to “lobbyist” groups and we work for our “special interests”. Are we the enemy? No, just the opposite. We are using our voice to let our elected officials know what our concerns are, especially on the topic of agriculture.

This past weekend Tim and I participated in the Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation (MFBF) Annual meeting. Our family has been lifelong members of Scott County Farm Bureau (SCFB). SCFB has over 100 farmer members. Tim serves as the president of our county board. SCFB is a member of MFBF and MFBF is a member of the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). Each year at our county farm bureau meeting, we discuss policies and issues that concern us as a county. If these concerns are state or national in scope, we submit them to  MFBF. At the MFBF annual meeting, voting delegates from all the counties in our state to discuss and debate the merits of the resolutions. After a resolution is passed, it is recorded into the MFBF policy book. This is the book that the MFBF staff uses when they lobby our state and national elected officials. National resolutions are submitted to the AFBF annual meeting and voted on in the same manner.What is truly wonderful about this process, is that our family can continue to do what we know best (farming) and we know that there are people out there lobbying on our (and 30,000 other members’) behalves. This what is called a grass-roots organization.

Even though we have lobbyists out there working for us, we still need to make those personal contacts with our elected officials. Elected people, want to be re-elected and will more likely vote in favor of what their own constituents wants, not the lobbyists. “Lobbying” on your our behalf is really easy. Just go to your elected official’s webpage, click on the “send me an email” button and let them know how you feel about a certain topic. I do it all the time and it usually take about 5 minutes. I always get a personal response (which is quite impressive in my mind).

One of the only intelligent quotes I heard from former Governor Ventura was “If you don’t vote, don’t b…ch” (he said this to a general assembly the year I went to Girls State, classy). Anywho, The point is, if you voice isn’t heard, then you cannot sit back and complain. For every value and belief you have, someone else has just the opposite. Your cause could be funding cancer research, education, city parks, changing the state bird from loon to robin,  etc.

As the number of production agriculturalists shrinks, Tim and I feel it is more and more important to get out and tell people the real story of agriculture. As we all know, there are plenty out are who are not.

Emily

***PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL LISTS***
As you likely know, the Midwifery Bill we’ve all been working on is still awaiting approval from the Joint Committee for Public Health.
Ann Sweeney and Jen Holloman met last month with Chairman Sanchez—a bill co-sponsor and the Co-Chair of the Public Health Committee—who has promised to both continue his support AND to help “fast track” the bill through Beacon Hill.
Please *keep calling* and emailing your MA Representative and Senator as much as you can and ask everyone you know to do the same.  We’ve learned that the squeaky wheel gets oiled on Beacon Hill, so now’s the time to speak up for Midwifery!

Especially if your Senator or Rep. is a member of the Joint Committee for Public Health, call to let them know how important your midwife is/has been to you and to your family and that you SUPPORT Senate 847/House 2080, a Bill to Establish a Board of Midwifery and would like them to approve the bill and release if from the Public Health Committee.  We have a limited window to get this legislation passed, so don’t be shy about calling as often as you can.  You can find the name and contact information for your MA Senator and Rep. at the following link:http://www.wheredoivotema.com/bal/myelectioninfo.php
If you’d like to read the bill in its entirety, please go to the following link: http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/186/st00pdf/st00847.pdf
It’s especially important to call and or email voicing your support for the bill if you live in Jamaica Plain and are a constituent of Chairman Sanchez OR if you are a constituent of Chairman Fargo OR if your Representative or Senator is on the Joint Committee for Public Health.   If you are in Chairman Sanchez’s district, please thank him for his strong support and ask how we can help him to evangelize the bill.  Please report the results of any calls to info@mfom.org
Committee members and their districts are listed below and here.
It only takes a minute or two to make a call and make a difference! Here’s a sample script: Hello! My name is XXX. I’m a constituent of XXXX’s. I’m calling today to request that Sen./Rep./Chair XXX support Senate 847/House 2080, a Bill to Establish a Board of Midwifery and that s/he lend his/her support in asking that the bill be approved and released from the Joint Committee for Public Health. (You may be asked for your name again, as well as for your address and/or phone number).
It’s that simple.
Please call today, tomorrow, or any time this or next week—or even today, tomorrow and EVERY day this week and next week!—We’re trying to get this out of Committee before the end of the year–and help make good birth choices available to all MA women and their families
Thanks so much for your continued support!
Ann Sweeney
MFOM (Mass Friends of Midwives)
www.mfom.org

Committee members and their districts are listed below and here.

Members appointed to the committee:

Senators:

Susan Fargo of Third Middlesex – Chair Telephone: (617) 722-1572

E-Mail Address: Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us

Mark Montigny of Second Bristol and Plymouth – Vice-Chair Telephone: (617) 722-1440 E-Mail Address: Mark.Montigny@state.ma.us

Stephen Buoniconti of Hampden Telephone: (617) 722-1660

E-Mail Address: Stephen.Buoniconti@state.ma.us

Harriette Chandler of First Worcester Telephone: (617) 722-1544

E-Mail Address: Harriette.Chandler@state.ma.us

Jennifer Flanagan of Worcester and Middlesex Telephone: (617) 722-1230

E-Mail Address: Jennifer.Flanagan@state.ma.us

Robert Hedlund of Plymouth and Norfolk Telephone: (617) 722-1646 E-

Mail Address: Robert.Hedlund@state.ma.us

House Representatives:

Jeffrey Sanchez of Boston – Chair Telephone: (617) 722-2130

E-mail Address: Rep.JeffreySánchez@hou.state.ma.us

Ruth Balser of Newton – Vice-Chair Telephone: (617) 722-2460

E-Mail Address: Rep.RuthBalser@hou.state.ma.us

Timothy Toomey of Cambridge Telephone: (617) 722-2380

E-Mail Address: Rep.TimothyToomey@hou.state.ma.us

John Quinn of Dartmouth Telephone: (617) 722-2020

E-Mail Address: Rep.JohnQuinn@hou.state.ma.us

Kevin Murphy of Lowell Telephone: (617) 722-2877

E-Mail Address: Rep.KevinMurphy@hou.state.ma.us

Cleon Turner of Dennis Telephone: (617) 722-2090

E-Mail Address: Rep.CleonTurner@Hou.State.MA.US

Kevin Aguiar of Fall River Telephone: (617) 722-2140

E-Mail Address: Rep.KevinAguiar@hou.state.ma.us

Michael Brady of Brockton Telephone: (617) 722-2014

E-Mail Address: Rep.Michaelbrady@hou.state.ma.us

Jason Lewis of Winchester Telephone: (617) 722-2060

E-Mail Address: Rep.JasonLewis@hou.state.ma.us

Lewis Evangelidis of Holden Telephone: (617) 722-2263

E-mail Address: Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us

Donald Humason of Westfield Telephone: (617) 722-2803

E-mail Address: Rep.DonaldHumason@hou.state.ma.us

It only takes a minute or two to make a call and make a difference! Here’s a sample script: Hello! My name is XXX. I’m a constituent of XXXX’s. I’m calling today to request that Sen./Rep./Chair XXX support Senate 847/House 2080, a Bill to Establish a Board of Midwifery. (You may be asked for your name again, as well as for your address and/or phone number).

It’s that simple.

Please call today, tomorrow, or any time this or next week—we’re trying to get this out of Committee before the Thanksgiving Break–and help make good birth choices available to all MA women and their families.

Thanks so much for your support!

Ann Sweeney

Mass Friends of Midwives

www.mfom.org

***PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL LISTS***

Highly Paid Lobbyists: "EXCUSE ME! You may speak to the lawmakers WHEN (and IF) my money runs out. Now sit down, little people!"

For years most Americans have scratched their heads over excessive corporate lobbying. What gives? Everybody knows its wrong. Just common sense. How come our legislators and court systems keep on permitting lobbyists to monopolize legislature time ad nauseum? In this post, we begin to parse this pernicious little problem.

For starters, there is a monumental difference between the right to free speech and another First Amendment right “to petition to redress grievances.” The right to free speech is a right to speak whereas petition to redress connotes a right to be heard. You can stand any street corner (within the law) chanting all day and all night with a sandwich board on your chest. That’s free speech. You can talk; but nobody has to listen. Its that right to be heard that lobbyists are twisting more than a bowl of overcooked spaghetti in a turbo-charged blender.

With the right to petition to redress, a special someone has to listen, the government.  That right to be heard, therefore, holds an implicit requirement that you stand in line. In other words, your right directly competes with the exact same right for others. We have in the United States Congress 50 Senators and 435 Representatives. We’re just shy of 300 million citizens. That’s a little over 618,000 citizens per legislator. So when it comes your turn to exercise “right to petition to redress” you should have extremely limited time to speak because there are 299 million other citizens in line right behind you.

Corporate lobbying is analogous to paying hired guns to post themselves beside every single one of our legislators with 300 Watt bullhorns held 3 inches from representatives’ ears.

When it comes your turn to speak, you should be brief and precise, and after you’ve had your say you should shut up, get in your car, and drive back to the home state you came from. Leave D.C. Go home. Paying somebody else to represent you? Should just be illegal because the tool is egregiously abused to the point of massively impinging upon others’ right to be heard. With the internet and tools like Skype, you’ve got no excuse when it comes to paying someone to represent you. If you don’t have the time to represent yourself, then it must not be important enough.

Corporate lobbying is analogous to paying hired guns to post themselves beside every single one of our legislators with 300 Watt bullhorns held 3 inches from the representatives’ ears…and then refusing to relinquish that post for the full duration of the legislative session. Corporate lobbying has thus not exercised right to redress but has, rather, completely destroyed, obliterated beyond recognition, that right of petition to redress for others. The right to be heard must not be for sale. The time is long overdue to cast out the money changers from the temple.

Practice these simple phrases until they roll off your tongue with reflexive ease, “Lobbying is an extreme perversion of, and full breach of, right to petition to redress grievances. Corporate lobbying makes the United States of America a less competitive country by giving all voice in government to a powerful and moneyed few.”

Thanks for tolerating my bullhorn for a few moments.

Regards,
SevenCell

-SevenCell
http://sevencell.wordpress.com

The Institute of Science in Society  11/20/09

Open Letter to Premier of Western Australia

Background

Dr. Judy Carman, senior scientist working in the field of epidemiology in Australia and awarded a government grant to study the safety of GM feed, has been subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification by individuals associated withthe biotech industry, with the clear intention of preventing her from carrying out the research. Political pressure is nowbeing brought to bear on her research by the current Agriculture and Food Minister of Western Australia.

Dr. Carman is not an isolated case. A long string of scientists beginning with Arpad Puszati, Susan Bardocz, Shiv Chopra, Ignacio Chapela, Irina Ermakova, and more has suffered the same attacks when their research or laboratory findings are deemed unfavourable to thebiotech industry; they have also lost their grants or their jobs as a result.

It is important for scientists to make a stand for real science,and for the right of scientists to do research without being harassed and intimidated, or losing their grants or positions. The public will not be well-served unless this academic freedom to do research independent of industry or the whims of government is guaranteed.

Please add your name and affiliation to the letter below by sending an e-mail message to m.w.ho@i-sis.org.uk

Please forward for more signatures

Comment from Dr. Shiv Chopra, Canada

The same or worse is happening all across the world. For instance, a workshop at which I and another scientist were invited last week to discuss the pros and cons of vaccines at the First Nations (Aboriginal) conference in Ottawa was abruptly cancelled, apparently under threat from Health Canada officials. The same is happening with regard to the new consumer protection bills, presently under consideration of the Canadian and US politicians. In June 2009,  I heard of much the same happening during my visit to Australia and New Zealand and, of course, even worse during my last several visits to India.

Comment from Dr. Mira Shiva, India

Thank you so much for sending this letter. Many of us feel extremely agitated about the harassment of independent researchers and scientists whose findings are not in the interest of corporations. We have seen it in the pharmaceutical industry, and witnessed it with regard to food and agriculture.

I am committed to our right to safety and right to information as much as I am disgusted at the misuse of power to block the conduction of pro- public health, public interest research by independents researchers and scientists

I am also deeply concerned about researchers totally changing their conclusions under inducement. For those who have stood up for their research and faced pressures, we offer our deep appreciation and respect, and assurance of our continued solidarity.

To:

Honourable Colin Barnett MEc MLA
Premier
Government of Western Australia
24th Floor, Governor Stirling Tower,
197 St Georges Terrace
PERTH
WA 6000

wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au

Cc:

The Hon Kevin Rudd MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600

Hon Terrry Redman MLA
Minister, Dept of Agriculture and Food
Government of Western Australia
3 Baron-Hay Court
South Perth
WA 6151
minister.redman@dpc.wa.gov.au

Professor Mike Daube
President, Public Health Association of Australia
Keep Australia Beautiful Building
Units 2 & 3, 20 Napier Close
Deakin ACT 2600
m.daube@curtin.edu.au

Dr. Robert Williamson, AO, Ph.D, Hon MK (Turku), FAA, FRCPath, FRS
Australian Academy of Science
Ian Potter House
Gordon Street
Canberra 2601
eb@science.org.au

Dear Mr. Barnett,

In 2005, the Government of Western Australia awarded a research grant worth $92,000 toresearchers at theInstitute of Health and Environmental Research, nowbased in Adelaide, Southern Australia [1]. In announcing it, the then Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, said that “the WA Government will fund an independent long-term animal feeding trial to gain data on the safety or otherwise of GM food crops”.

Far from welcoming the study, the biotech industry sought to block it, initially by writing to the WA government in an effort to get the government to reverse its funding decision, then by either refusing to supply GM crops to the research team or placing such onerous conditions upon the supply of the GM crops that the researchers could not sign up to the conditions [2]. In addition, the lead scientist has been subjected to a sustained campaign of vilification and harassment by commercial interests connected with the biotech industry.

The present Minister of Agriculture, Terry Redman, is now interfering in the research by demanding details about the location of the study laboratories, its research protocols and its progress to date. It is hard to see any legitimate reason for this interference. Information about the procedures was available when the grant was proposed, and it is most unusual for a government or indeed anyone else to demand to see the results of work that is not yet completed. The Minister’s hostility to the line of research is well known from when he was in opposition; he is wrong to use his current position to obstruct science which was commissioned before he took office.

It is wrong, though perhaps not surprising, that the biotechnology industry should be seeking to obstruct research into the safety of what they produce [3], and promoting the vilification and harassment of any scientist conducting such research [4]. It is indefensible for a government to do the same. We call on the Government of Western Australia to stop this unprecedented interference with the research it has commissioned and to ensure that the project will proceed unhindered. We also call on the Government of Australia to require biotechnology companies to make available to independent researchers the material they need for their work.

The citizens of Australia, like those of other countries, will not be well served unless academic freedom is guaranteed for scientists to work independently of biotechnology companies or the whims of governments [5]. It is not possible to take proper decisions on GMOs if the only evidence on which to base those decisions comes from scientists who work for or are chosen by the biotechnology industry.

Notes

1. “Long term feeding trials funded by WA to run in SA” Wednesday, November 30, 2005’ http://gmopundit.blogspot.com/2005/11/long-term-feeding-trials-funded-by-wa.html

Jenifer Eliot in The West Australian, November 28, 2005, reports that the study will be by South Australia’s Institute of Health and Environmental Research (IHER), http://www.iher.org.au/

2. Pro-GM scientists, some paid by biotech companies have been aiding and abetting in the harassment and vilification of independent scientists and researchers of IHER see Letter from 12 scientists to the Premier of Western Australia, The HonDr Geoff Gallop, BEc MA MPhil DPhil MLA 5  December 2005, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001067.html; also Food Safety Western Australia Style: A Note from Ian Edwards,  25 June 2007, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002115.html http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/quotes.html

http://www.gmfreecymru.org/documents.htm

 “Call for inquiry into GM feed study funding”, Colin Bettles, Farm Weekly, Australia, 12 Nov 2009, http://fw.farmonline.com.au/news/state/grains-and-cropping/general/call-for-inquiry-into-gm-feed-study-funding/1675689.aspx

3. The biotech companies are notorious for their attempt to block research deemed unfavourable to GMOs. The following statement was submitted in February 2009 to the US Environmental protection Agency (EPA) by scientists who had been invited to submit comments on a meeting to discuss two new BM crops. They were protesting the ‘technology/stewardship agreements’ they have to sign, which inhibit them from doing research for the public good. As a result “no truly independent research can be legally conducted on many critical questions regarding the technology.” We are not aware that any of the 26 is opposed in principle to GM crops. http://www.regulations.gov/search/Regs/home.html#documentDetail?R=090000648084de39

See  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/corporateMonopolyOfScience.php; also the article by Andrew Pollack, New York Times, 20 February 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/business/20crop.html?_r=1

And “GM Research Blocking GMO Scandal: The Long Term Effects of Genetically Modified Food on Humans Scientific Tests Must Be Approved by Industry First”, by F. William Engdahl, Global Research, July 29, 2009 http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14570

“Do Seed Companies Control GM Crop Research? Scientists must ask corporations for permission before publishing independent research on genetically modified crops. That restriction must end” By The Editors, August 2009 Scientific American Magazine, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=do-seed-companies-control-gm-crop-research

4. Harassment of independent researchers by pro-GM scientists is rife and takes place in the pages of ‘learned’ journals that  have become effectively trade magazines

What is Nature Biotechnology good for? The Bioscience Resource Project, 4 December 2007, http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/article.php?id=16

The Genetic Engineering of Food and the Failure of Science – Part 2: Academic Capitalism and the Loss of Scientific Integrity by Don Lotter Int. Jrnl. of Soc. of Agr. & Food, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 50-68, http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/academic_capitalism.html

Systematic bias in favour of no adverse impacts from GM feed, ISIS, 7 January 2008,  http://www.i-sis.org.uk/NatureBiotechnologyLetterErmakova.php

Marshall, A. (2007) Nature Biotechnology 25: pp 981-98;

Heinemann, JA and Traavik, T, letter, Nature Biotechnology 25 (12), p1356, http://www.bioscienceresource.org/commentaries/article.php?id=16; http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/rottweiler.htm; http://www.woz.ch/artikel/inhalt/2007/nr44/Wissen/15584.html; http://www.gmfreecymru.org/pivotal_papers/involvement_ermakova.htm

Ironically the same learned journals are decrying the vilification of independent researchers by pro-GM scientists. See “GM crops: Battlefield” by Emily Waltz, Nature 2009, 461, 27-32, http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090902/full/461027a.html?s=news_rss

5. On academic freedom, the Australian Academy of Science wrote as follows, in a submission to a Senate Committee Inquiry into academic freedom.

“1. Science makes the most significant advances in an atmosphere of free and critical   discussion. Therefore, academic freedom is of crucial importance, particularly in research at universities, institutes and CSIRO.

2. Governments and their representatives have a responsibility to set general research priorities on behalf of their citizens. However, it is inappropriate for governments and their representatives to interfere with scientific peer review processes or with details of academic debate. That is the role of the academic sector.

3. In very rare cases, it may be appropriate for government to implement ‘reserve powers’ to direct research. This may be the case with some research that has security implications. However, it is inappropriate for governments and their representatives to interfere in genuine academic debate and to intervene with the grant processes of the ARC, NHMRC or CSIRO.” (Letter signed by Professor Philip W. Kuchel, FAA, Secretary, Science Policy)

https://senate.aph.gov.au/submissions/comittees/viewdocument.aspx?id=b2d245b1-a179-4843-a909-8d45715de834

Signed:

Dr Michael Antoniou
Head: Nuclear Biology Group
King’s College London School of Medicine
UK

Dr. Barbara Ann Barrett
Scientists for Global Responsibility
UK

Prof. Ann Clark
Department of Plant Agriculture
University of Guelph
Canada

Dr. Shiv Chopra
Ex-Health Canada
Author of Corrupt to the Core, Memoirs of a Health Canada Whistleblower
Canada

Dr. Zafrullah Chowdhury
Gonoshasthaya Kendra
House 14E, Road 6
Dhanmandi R.A., Dhaka 1205
Bangladesh

Prof. Joe Cummins
Emeritus Prof. of Genetics
University of Western Ontario
Canada

Dr. Jose L. Domingo
Professor of Toxicology
Laboratory of Toxicology and Environmental Health
School of Medicine
“Rovira i Virgili” University
Catalonia, Spain

Dr. Irina Ermakova
Russian Academy of Sciences institute of Higher Nervous Activity and Neurophysiology
Russia

Dr. Stanley WB Ewen
Consultant Pathologist
Aberdeen Royal Infirmary
UK

Dr. Alan Fredeen
Nova Scotia
Canada

Prof. Adrian Gibbs FAA,
Yarralumla, Canberra,
Australia

Dr. Jack A. Heinemann
Director INBI
Prof. School of Biological Sciences
University of Canterbury
New Zealand

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho
Director
Institute of Science in Society
London
UK

Prof. Vyvyan Howard MB. ChB. PhD. FRCPath.
Biomedical Science Research Institute
Ulster University
Northern Ireland
UK

Dr. Brian John
Retired Lecturer in Geography
University of Durham
UK

Prof. Sheldon Krimsky
Department of Urban & Environmental Policy & Planning
School of Arts & Sciences
Department of Public Health and Community Medicine
School of Medicine
Tufts University
Medford
USA

Dr. Eva Novotny
Retired, Formerly Research Associate in Astronomy
Cambridge University
UK

Dr. Jose Ramon Olarieta
Lecturer in Soil Science
Universitat de Lleida
Spain

Prof. Dr. ER Oskov OBE FRSE
Director of International Feed Resource Unit
Macaulay Land Use Institute
UK

Dr. Michel Pimbert
Director
Sustainable Agriculture, Biodiversity and Livelihoods Programme
IIED, London
UK

Dr. Naheeda Portocarero
Animal nutritionist
Maesyronen Farmhouse
Glasbury-on-Wye
UK

Prof. Leda Raptis
Dept of Microbiology and Immunology
Dept of Pathology
Queen’s University
Kingston, Ontario
Canada

Dr. Barry T Rubin
Davis Rubin Associates Ltd
Member of Scientists for Global Responsibility
UK

Prof. Peter Saunders
Emeritus Prof. of Applied Mathematics
King’s College, London
UK

Dr. David Schubert
Professsor
Salk Institute for Biological Studies
La Jolla Ca
USA

Dr Mira Shiva M.D
Director Initiative for Health, Equity & Society,
Chairperson Consumer Education safety of Food & Medicine
South Asian Focal Point
International Peoples Health Council
New Delhi
India

Dr. Vandana Shiva
Navdanya
Recipient of Right Livelihood Award
New Delhi
India

Dr. David Suzuki
Emeritus professor
Sustainable Development Research Institute
University of British Columbia
Canada

Dr. Enric Tello
Professor of Economic History and Institutions
Head of the Dept. of Economic History and Institutions at the Universitat de Barcelona
Spain

reposted with permission

The Virginian-Pilot
© November 11, 2009

Imagine applying for a job and finding out, after the position had been filled, that the employer had checked your criminal record online and found a felony charge erroneously assigned to you.

Imagine searching your baby sitter’s background and finding alcohol-related charges, but because the records online contained no middle initial, address or age, there was no way to tell whether the person charged was your baby sitter.

Read more at PilotOnline.com

Holman

Of the many tools available to special interests for influence peddling on Capitol Hill, few are as powerful and expensive as the increasingly pernicious problem of the “revolving door” – defined as the spinning of government officials between public service and the industries they are charged with regulating.

The exorbitantly wealthy financial services industry fully realizes that the best way to buy influence over government regulations is to employ – at very lucrative salaries – those government officials intimately involved in the regulatory process.

Public Citizen today has released a report documenting that more than 900 former federal employees, including 70 former members of Congress, have gone to work as lobbyists for the banks and financial services industry this year. It is no coincidence that the revolving door to the financial services is spinning wildly out of control exactly at the same time that Congress and the White House are grappling with the most comprehensive regulatory proposals for that industry seen since the New Deal.

This financial services revolving door threatens the integrity of government in at least three ways:

• Public officials may be influenced in official actions by the implicit or explicit promise of a lucrative job in the private sector with a bank or investment firm seeking to shape financial services regulations.

• Public officials-turned-lobbyists will have access to lawmakers that is not available to others, access that can be sold to deep-pocketed banks and financial firms.

• At a time when the nation is losing confidence that the bailout is in the public’s best interest, the appearance of undue influence that these arrangements create casts an even darker cloud on whether our government is up to the task of properly regulating the financial services industry.

Judging from anecdotal evidence, former members of Congress are usually worth about $1 million to $2 million in annual salaries as lobbyists for the industry; former senior staff who are well-connected to the right people in government can pull in $300,000 to $600,000.

So when you are stunned to read how much the financial services industry is paying to lobby government every single day, you now know where much of that money is going – into the pockets of those we had originally trusted to regulate the industry in the public’s interest.

Craig Holman, Ph.D, is Public Citizen’s expert on lobbying and ethics.

Our special guest this evening, Dr. Micheal Coffman suggested  a couple of websites for more information;

www.NOCapandTrade.us

and this very informative site;

http://www.globalwarmingclassroom.info/

Dr. Coffman also has a program to help get the information and science about the other side to global warming into middle and high schools.   Your contribution will help this effort and you will get this DVD free!

Global Warming Emerging Science and Understanding

also you may be interested in Sovereignty International.  Dr. Coffman is the Executive Director of Sovereignty International where you can find education on Agenda 21, Global Governance, Land Use and more.

Thank you Dr. Coffman for all of your hard work and for being such an interesting and informative guest!

We spoke to Sherry Clark, the founder of The Liberty Voice and her story is an inspirational one.

Sherry’s desire to share information that the mainstream will not cover spoke about how she handed out DVD’s and flyers before she hit on the idea of a newspaper.  She shared with us why she believes the newspaper is the best format for reaching the most Americans.

Sherry you sold me on the idea-too bad my plate is full.  I am hoping that Holland takes up the challenge-he would do a great job!

Thank you Sherry for all you do.  Your spirit is and enthusiasm is infectious!

http://www.thelibertyvoice.com/

Each month, The Liberty Voice is distributed at no charge to thousands of readers around the country.

READ the current print copy online

At present all costs are covered by a few dedicated individuals.

Become a subscriber and help support independent media!

The Liberty Voice is now available in

• 36 cities scattered over 10 states
  
• Over 200 locations!

Find out where you can get a copy of The Liberty Voice near you!

Ms. Clark has a collection of her writings published at OpEdNews

UPCOMING EVENTS

James Lane informed us about the END THE FED rallies that will be held in OKC as well as nationwide on Nov. 22.  Rally for sound money and holding the Federal Reserve accountable!

Then, there are activist trainings coming up, with the first being held this Saturday Nov. 21st in Yukon Oklahoma;

contact the OCA  by email info@oklahomaconstitutionalalliance.org

and see their online calendar of events at;

http://oklahomaconstitutionalalliance.org/

Throughout the debate over health care reform, there has been a great deal of discussion over the role of special interests in influencing the votes of lawmakers. Liberal democrats, progressive think tanks and mainstream media have repeatedly accused anyone who opposes government run health care of standing with special interests instead of with needy Americans, painting them as greedy and selfish. And now that a bill has passed in the House and is on its way to the Senate, big government proponents of a ‘public option’ are already attacking their fellow Democrats’ own bill, insisting that it may as well have been written by special interests.

Funny they should mention that. Because, just like the stimulus bill, it was written by special interests.

While it’s true that Republicans certainly receive their fair share of donations from the health industry, the surprising truth is that Democrats actually receive more.  Because there’s one giant special interest sector that everyone seems to be leaving out:  Big Labor.  And in the monarchy of labor these days,  there is one queen that’s at the top of the money chain, and that’s the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), the top billing union in its parent coalition, Change to Win. Especially when it comes to the issue of health care.

Let’s start first by breaking down the numbers.

MORE…Read Liberty Chick’s full post on BigGovernment.com at

http://biggovernment.com/2009/11/17/obamacare-show-me-the-seiu-money

Carey Gillam   Reuters   Nov 18, 2009

KANSAS CITY – The rapid adoption by U.S. farmers of genetically engineered corn, soybeans and cotton has promoted increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of herbicide-resistant weeds and more chemical residues in foods, according to a report issued Tuesday by health and environmental protection groups.

The groups said research showed that herbicide use grew by 383 million pounds from 1996 to 2008, with 46 percent of the total increase occurring in 2007 and 2008.

The report was released by nonprofits The Organic Center (TOC), the Union for Concerned Scientists (UCS) and the Center for Food Safety (CFS).

The groups said that while herbicide use has climbed, insecticide use has dropped because of biotech crops. They said adoption of genetically engineered corn and cotton that carry traits resistant to insects has led to a reduction in insecticide use by 64 million pounds since 1996.

Still, that leaves a net overall increase on U.S. farm fields of 318 million pounds of pesticides, which includes insecticides and herbicides, over the first 13 years of commercial use.

The rise in herbicide use comes as U.S. farmers increasingly adopt corn, soy and cotton that have been engineered with traits that allow them to tolerate dousings of weed killer. The most popular of these are known as “Roundup Ready” for their ability to sustain treatments with Roundup herbicide and are developed and marketed by world seed industry leader Monsanto Co.

Monsanto rolled out the first biotech crop, Roundup Ready soybeans, in 1996.

Monsanto officials declined to comment on the report. But the Biotechnology Industry Organization, of which Monsanto is a member, said the popularity of herbicide-resistant crops showed their value outweighs any associated detriments.

“Herbicide resistance crops are incredibly popular with farmers. They help them manage their weed problems in ways traditional crops don’t,” said Mike Wach, BIO managing director of science and regulatory affairs.

“If a farmer feels a crop is causing them more trouble than it is worth they will stop using it,” Wach said. “Farmers are continuing to adopt these crops because they provide benefits, not liabilities and problems.”

BIO officials pointed to a report issued earlier this year by PG Economics Ltd that said the volume of herbicides used in biotech soybean crops globally decreased by 161 million pounds, or 4.6 percent, from 1996 to 2007.

The report by the environmental groups states that a key problem resulting from the increase in herbicide use is the emergence of “super weeds,” which are difficult to kill because they have become resistant to the herbicides.

“With glyphosate-resistant weeds now infesting millions of acres, farmers face rising costs coupled with sometimes major yield losses, and the environmental impact of weed management systems will surely rise,” said Charles Benbrook, chief scientist of The Organic Center.

The groups additionally criticized the agricultural biotechnology industry for claiming that higher costs for genetically engineered seeds are justified by multiple benefits to farmers, including decreased spending on pesticides.

The group said biotech corn seed prices in 2010 could be almost three times the cost of conventional seed, while new enhanced biotech soybean seed for 2010 could be 42 percent more than the original biotech version.

“This report confirms what we’ve been saying for years,” said Bill Freese, science policy analyst for the Center for Food Safety. “The most common type of genetically engineered crops promotes increased use of pesticides, an epidemic of resistant weeds, and more chemical residues in our foods. This may be profitable for the biotech/pesticide companies, but it’s bad news for farmers, human health and the environment.”

(Editing by Christian Wiessner)