On life support: Reforming the healthcare industry

Photo: A sign at the 9/12 project's march on Washington D.C./Andrew Aliferis, used under Creative Commons license

On life support: Reforming the healthcare industry
Meg Lanker
Monday, November 30, 2009 9:22 PM MDT

No one could have predicted the peculiar turns the healthcare debate took.

One of the most jarring sprung from the plethora of town-hall meetings in August. Gun-rights advocates claimed that the healthcare debate is bizarrely and inextricably tied to an imaginary push to deprive Americans of the right to bear arms, illustrated by a man who carried an AR-15 assault rifle strapped to his back outside a town hall meeting with the president in Phoenix, Ariz.

This followed national coverage of a New Hampshire man openly carrying a gun in a thigh holster at another Obama town hall meeting while holding a sign stating, “It’s time to water the tree of liberty,” – a partial quote from Thomas Jefferson, who said, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Another claim about gun rights fired up the masses again when Gun Owners of America began circulating the claim that the Baucus health care bill would ban guns used for self defense. The group derived this from provisions in the bill allowing for higher premiums for tobacco users – this provision is then extrapolated by the group and right-wingers to include other “risky” behaviors like gun ownership. Non-partisan group PolitiFact.com rated the claim as “false” and said, “Every behavioral factor explicitly cited in the bill concerns pure medical issues, such as a lowered cholesterol level, maintenance of a certain body mass index, quitting smoking or losing a specified amount of weight.”

Gun owners continue to show up and pack heat at what should be peaceful town hall gatherings and rallies but have become free-for-all melees of shouts about socialism and racism and fascism and every fear-mongering “ism” in the book. The consequence of the town hall debacles in August have led to a serious reluctance to even consider speaking to constituents on anything related to health care reform.

Thankfully, these self-styled guerillas of freedom haven’t killed anyone – indeed, there were no arrests for gun violence, but police have arrested a few for unlawful possession of a firearm. But, as one Phoenix police officer explained to the Associated Press the simple presence of a man with a large rifle “sparked a lot of emotions.”

Perhaps those Americans who were angry, or distressed, or sickened by the sight of a man with an assault rifle at a presidential event recalled what happened when another man brought a rifle to a presidential parade in Texas. Or when a man brought a rifle to hear a Baptist preacher speak about civil rights in Tennessee. Or possibly the sight evokes the unmerciful memory of hearing a heart-lurching knock at the door in the early morning hours after being identified as the next-of-kin.

And the pundits and politicians. The cries of socialism and marches to communism and the figurative beating of breasts deserve an Oscar or ridicule, depending on which side Americans take. Glenn Beck weeps as he speaks of rationing and whether or not citizens will be considered valuable enough to keep alive. Sarah Palin warns us of the death panels that would have decreed her son, born with Down Syndrome, not important enough to birth. Representative Michele Bachmann warns of schools allowing 13-year-olds to receive abortions and then be put back on the bus to go home, with mom and dad none the wiser. Americans were warned by health insurance companies that a shadowy government entity would come between them and their doctors – warned by the very industry of bloodsuckers spawned by coming between patients and doctors.

The most outrageous lies are the ones most readily believed by the right-wing desperate to get the government out of their Medicare – forget the ridiculousness of that statement because the fear, to them, is real.

Thanks in part to the scare tactics, and in part to the powerful health insurance lobby, the U.S. House passed a watered down bill Nov. 7 with a weakened public option and insurance mandates. The bill also included sweeping abortion restrictions under the Stupak amendment, added at the last minute to appease Blue Dog Democrats, several of which voted for the amendment and not the final bill. The new legislation has little cost controls and opens a market previously unavailable to the health insurance industry of impoverished Americans. The lone Republican who voted for the bill, Rep. Joseph Cao of Louisiana is now targeted as a traitor by his own party.

The House bill is an insurance company’s wet dream.

How did it get to this point?

Way back in 2008, in a campaign that seems hazy from the almost-euphoric high generated by the possibility of change, the Republican Party painted Barack Obama with the pinko tint of socialism or communism, depending on the crowd. John McCain and Sarah Palin fervently assured us that Obama wanted to take away our freedoms to worship, to choose our doctors, to stroll around in a public place with an assault rifle. He was not one of us, and probably a terrorist, dontcha ya know? He pals around with bad dudes and they probably even have a book club led by that Saul guy.

After the election, the Republican Party was eager to prove it was not in the death throes of a movement long past its era or usefulness. It jumped on the opportunity to become the party of Americans who want things to stay the way they were, back when credit was plentiful and so was the cheap plastic crap at Wal-Mart. Back then, the free market throbbed with excitement as houses were erected one right after another and purchased with no down payment and credit terms arranged.

But that was way, way back in 2005, when everyone wanted flip houses and flipped for house they couldn’t afford, either through enticement into sub-prime mortgages or pure unencumbered desire. Americans didn’t notice the spiraling cost of health care as much because they all had jobs and money, and besides, the emergency room treats anyone who walks in. U.S. citizens didn’t really need all those silly civil rights and those inane leftists had themselves in a tizzy over Gitmo. Remember, kids, it’s the first and second amendment rights that really get things done.

It’s this last principle that sees America in its present predicament. It’s my first amendment right to shout the loudest at the nearest town hall, to warn my fellow citizens of impending socialism and I’ve got the second amendment to back that one up should some peacenik think otherwise. The right-wingers have transformed the blissfully ignorant into the fearfully ignorant and unleashed the Tea Party people, the birthers, the conspiracy theorists, and the garden-variety lunatics upon the issue of “socialized medicine,” leading disgruntled seniors to scream about the government keeping their hands out of their goddamned Medicare and Sarah Palin to write on Facebook about evil Obama’s plan for “death panels.”

Their scare tactics bordered on the barely factual to the absurd. In the barely factual column, the right-wing continues to warn of rationing, which already happens when insurance companies decide to cover treatment or not, which treatment is appropriate, and how long patients need treatment. Dismiss the silly rationing idea based on rich versus poor since all the poor have to do is go to the ER or ask their church for help. In the absurd column, there’s the reviewed and revised summary of HR 3200, “adapted on July 29, 2009, by the Liberty Counsel from the original authored by Peter Fleckenstein and posted on FreeRepublic.com.”

These claims, embraced and distributed by conservative groups like the national 9/12 Project, include this gem: “Sec. 2511, Pg. 992 – Government will establish school-based ‘health’ clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!”

I highly doubt this – typical school health clinics include first-hand education on not putting rocks in your nose versus putting tab A into slot B; plus, an abortion is fairly time-consuming procedure requiring a physician and not many students can get out of class long enough to surreptitiously smoke cigarettes, much less abort their unborn.

These claims, which seem to have originated with Mr. Fleckenstein, continue to appear in chain emails supposedly authored by this or that constitutional scholar urging people to call their congressman and tell them to vote no on reform.

These are also the alarmist assertions parroted by Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn. She insists that creationism is valid science and claims swine flu originated with Democratic administrations, and yet, people still take her seriously. She also said she will run for president in 2012 if God tells her she should. Let’s hope God doesn’t get the hint.

Bachmann also spurred a large “press conference” (read: protest rally) Nov. 5 on the steps of the Capitol Building – a rally which featured signs depicting Obama as Hitler and Mao. Among the most distasteful was a large banner depicting naked concentration camp victims piled in a mass grave with a caption reading “"National Socialist Health Care, Dachau, Germany 1945." Several of her fellow Republicans stood grinning behind the podium. This is apparently the new base for the GOP.

These incongruous declarations do not seem to be based in any kind of reality. Instead, they surface from a deep, dark alternate universe – a place fixed in the psyche of many white, working class, older Americans. It’s the persistent fear of the other, of change, of deviation from the norm. These are the folks that lost their jobs at the plant after they went overseas to kill little yellow people to bring them freedom. Their children and grandchildren are going into the desert to bring freedom to more ungrateful foreigners. These folks come home from a hard day’s work and see this smooth-talking black president on television telling them that he’s going to make him pay for the health care for other people’s children and grandchildren with their hard-earned paycheck.

That guy, with all the opportunities their children should have had but didn’t, is now telling Joe Schmoe and Jane Doe to give their money willingly to support people that they think have never known an honest day’s work. And it makes them angry. America is the land of bootstrap opportunity, not government-based handholding. And they’ll be damned if it will become a nanny welfare state.

So when they’re told to shout at their congressmen at the nearest town hall, or to rally on Sept. 12 or Nov. 5 in Washington D.C., then, by God, they’ll do what it takes to stop the socialists, the welfare cheats and the academic elitists in their tracks. They heard the horror stories about rationing in Canada and the months spent waiting for bypass surgery. Joe Schmoe can’t bear to think of his granddaughters going to kindergarten and learning how to slide on condoms instead of learning the alphabet. Jane Doe agonizes over the thought that her aged mother might have to face one of those death panels that Sarah Palin talks about in her folksy manner. So they’ll stop this day of reckoning from coming to fruition.

This is irrational, and yet, this stroking of panic over a long, strange summer was effective. The public option appeared to be headed for an unceremonious death several times. Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. even felt comfortable enough to assure the people of this state that if it wasn’t for him, Wyomingites would have national health care. Perhaps the good senator may want to consider Health Care for America Now’s report on the health insurance industry currently bankrupting this country and Wyoming residents.

Health Care for America Now (HCAN) is comprised of more than 1,000 organizations in 46 states “representing 30 million people dedicated to winning quality, affordable health care.” According to their report released in June, the average combined cost of health insurance premiums paid by employers and workers climbed to $16,771 in 2009 for a family of four. This represents nearly one-third of a U.S. family’s median income.

How is this sustainable? HCAN points out that in Wyoming, insurance premiums rose 129 percent from 2000 to 2007, 4.6 times faster than median earnings rose in Wyoming. This is the fastest and highest rate of premium increase in the nation. For family health coverage in Wyoming during that time, the average annual combined premium for employers and employees rose from $5,605 to $12,824 - 26 percent of the median family's income and projected to reach 47 percent by 2016.

In Wyoming, 72,821 of 520,500 residents are uninsured. These are Sen. Enzi’s constituents, the people to which he proudly announced his blocking of national health care.

Of course, all this is under normal circumstances. When a family member becomes ill, the problem of underinsured policy holders becomes clear. In 2007, 62 percent of Americans filing for bankruptcy said inability to pay medical bills was the key reason. Three-quarters of those filing had health insurance. In no universe does it make sense for working class people to oppose this reform.

But fear will make a person do peculiar things.

In August, Missouri resident Kenneth Gladney was allegedly involved in a fight at a town hall with members of the Service Employees International Union and later went to the ER claiming to have sustained multiple injuries. He was shown on a video of the incident quickly springing to his feet after appearing to trip on a curb. After jumping up from the ground, Gladney continued to shout at the SEIU representatives. He appeared later at another town hall to plead for donations to cover his mounting medical bills in a wheelchair, supposedly unable to speak – until he emerged on Fox News the next day. His appeal came at a protest against health care reform that would provide him with insurance, despite the fact he was recently laid off from his job. The irony was completely lost on the conservatives and rally attendees.

Hopefully the Republicans, the pundits, the tea partiers, and the right-wing, volatile fringe movement are pleased with what they hath wrought. Americans now know they’ve been spared the awful, horrible, inhumane health care the residents of Britain receive and would never trade for our current boondoggle of a system bankrupting citizens.

This health care “debate” is no longer a debate. It represents a strange and possibly dangerous turn in politics. This is potential mob rule via the ignorant and the U.S. Congressmen stirring this populist frenzy are playing with fire. The Democrats do not understand the fury either. They cannot comprehend the trepidation felt by many Americans because the liberal mentality does not deal in individual morality – it boasts the common good of society as its goal and the individual morality is intertwined with the benefit to society. It is no challenge to the GOP to paint “collectivism” to the uninformed as a horrible step toward communism.

At Bachmann’s health care rally, attendees held signs advocating violent revolution, compared the U.S. Congress to Nazi Party members, and several hanging effigies of various congressmen were the norm and not the exception. When did any of this become the desired political discourse? All this, as Congress debates health care reform that will surely benefit many of these people. They are patsies in a terrible corporate lie, as it has always been. The GOP must continue to count on populist dread since its remake as the party of big business or risk complete dissolution.

Greg Sargent wrote of a telling conference call in August where a Tea Party organizer stated: “The purpose of Tea Parties is not to find a solution to the health care crisis — it is to stop what is not the solution: ObamaCare.” The tea parties, for all the talk about “astroturf” and “faux populism,” do attract Americans who are worried about what the reforms will bring and who are angered over the bailouts, rising health care costs, unemployment, etc. However, simply blocking reform of any kind benefits no one but the health insurance industry.

Their rage is understandable and familiar. We liberals felt it for eight years under the Bush regime. But these folks are directing at the wrong people. Direct the anger at the insurance companies, the corporations who were "too big to fail," Ronald Reagan and his beginning of the end with the institution of neoliberal economic reforms. But do not throw it at the people trying to institute beneficial improvements to health care successfully for the first time in our nation’s history.

The real tragedy in the health care debate is that due to these horrendous bailouts coupled with two unwinnable wars running rampant over the national deficit, it is doubtful the U.S. can afford massive reforms of any kind. But we cannot afford to continue the way we have. A classic Catch-22 and too little, too late. The time for reform was with Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, Nixon, even Clinton. Ted Kennedy must be weeping in the afterlife over this mess.

The U.S. Congress is not completely altruistic. Nearly every member is bought and paid for, courtesy of lobbyists sashaying through the aisles guaranteeing cushy campaign contributions. Are watered down bills and wrath-fueled tea parties the solution? Absolutely not. But no one seems to have an unambiguous solution and the 9/12 Glenn Beck acolytes are promised that what they’re being told to do is the solution.

Storming Nancy Pelosi's office and being arrested.

Holding signs about "Kenyan Obama", socialism, fascism, and Nazism.

Chanting "Kill the Bill" at the top of their lungs after Michele Bachmann told them on Sean Hannity’s show to come to D.C. and “scare” their congressmen into not voting for the bill.

The thought of the chaos possibly inherent in the 2010 elections is chilling. The U.S. Senate is beginning their debate on their own version of the bill today. Already, Beck and Hannity are calling for more marches in tirades laced with violent, revolutionary metaphors and absolutes.

There is no denying this is getting frightening.

Click here and here to view photos from Tea Party protests across the nation

Tea Parties and unity: Where were they?

Photo: Protesters at the 9/12 Rally in Washington D.C., organized by FreedomWorks Foundation, a conservative organization led by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey. Credit - www.huffingtonpost.com and the AP

Tea Parties and unity: Where were they?
Robert Roten
Sunday, September 13, 2009 12:46 PM MDT

Where were they?

The Wyoming 912 Coalition rally at Conwell Park in Casper yesterday was supposed to be about uniting the country and remembering the way it was united on 9/12/01, but it was really about divisiveness and about forgetting what happened on 9/12/01.

The rally was supposed to be about freedom, but it really wasn't about freedom at all. It was about giving up freedom and power, including the right to choose our health care, and giving that power instead to soulless corporations.

People carried signs that read, “Who gave unelected czars authority over us?” and “Freedom did not need change,” according to an article in the Casper Star-Tribune. The article quoted Casper resident Nancy Rinn as saying: “I think the people in Washington are stomping on the Constitution; they're trying to pass laws that are unconstitutional.”

Where were they, these tea party protesters, when George Bush and Dick Cheney were tearing up the constitution? Where were they when the government was listening in to their phone conversations with illegal wiretaps? Where were they when the government was reading their emails? Where were they when the government suspended habeas corpus and threw people into prison, “disappearing” them in the same way Josef Stalin used to make people vanish without a trace? Where were they when the United States government illegally tortured and killed prisoners of war?

Dave Kellett of Powell, president of the Wyoming 912 Coalition, reportedly said at the rally, “We were all Americans.” Kellett added, “There were no Republicans or Democrats, whites, blacks, Hispanics or Arabs,” on that day. The Arabs disagree with that, like the poor guy who was mistaken for an Arab (he was actually an Indian Sikh) and murdered by Americans in that spirit of unity that prevailed after 9/11. The Arabs were immediate suspects in the 9/11 attacks and anyone of Arab descent, or anybody with dark skin who looked like an Arab, was in for a tough time after the attacks. Arabs in America are still not above suspicion.

Just ask Cat Stevens about that supposed post-9/11 unity of Americans. They wouldn't even let the “Peace Train” singer back in the country. Judging by what I saw on TV of the crowd in Casper yesterday, there weren't a lot of blacks, Hispanics or Arabs among the tea-party people there, or at the big march in Washington, either. It is pretty much a pure white, far right, Fox News-watching bunch. Dave Kellet's idea of national unity is not what I'd call “fair and balanced.”

That's not the only thing about the post-9/11 climate the tea party people seem to have forgotten. They forgot the nation was united behind their president, George Bush, despite the fact that 9/11 happened on his watch. They must have been watching Fox News back then when wingnuts like Bill O'Reilly were saying that anybody who criticized President Bush was a traitor, or words to that effect. Fox News and the rest of the right-leaning news establishment bullied anyone who dared criticize our beloved President George Bush, and they said he did nothing wrong. They still claim he was damned near perfect to this very day.

Where were these Tea Party people when the Bush Administration let the country down and failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks? After all, it was pretty spectacular failure that would seem impossible to top, but Bush managed to do just that, with Katrina and the Iraq War. Through all those disasters, all those deficits, all those illegal acts, all the loss of all those personal freedoms, the Tea Party people kept silent. Where were they?

So why all those anti-Obama signs at the Wyoming 912 Coalition rally? Where is that old spirit of unity? What happened to that unity where everybody stood behind the president and you were a called a traitor if you did not? Obama has only been in power a few months and has yet to initiate any disasters like the ones that Bush did on an almost monthly basis. On the basis of protecting the country alone, he's already 100 percent better than Bush was. How could they forget the unity of 912 on this occasion? How could they keep quiet when this nation was literally falling apart and only now, when the country is starting to get back on track, they suddenly want to protest their very own president?

Why? What has gotten them stirred up? Health care reform? They actually like the fact that their insurance company can drop them from coverage when they get sick? They like the fact that they have to stick with a job they don't like, or face losing their coverage or paying sky-high COBRA payments? Do they enjoy being jerked around by insurance companies that are not held accountable by anyone, including their own government? They ought to be protesting outside insurance companies, not protesting the guy who is trying to fix this mess. The Tea Party people act as if they are being directly paid by the health insurance industry to put a stop to health care reform.

The Wyoming 912 Coalition people are also very concerned about the federal budget deficit. They are afraid they will have to pay for health care reform with higher taxes, and that might be true, but where were they when the Reagan Administration and two Bush Administrations ran up deficits in the trillions? Where were they when the Bush Administration cut trillions of dollars of taxes on the wealthy, and started two wars at the same time? Where were they when the Bush Administration started a war in Iraq that would end up costing trillions of dollars, and paid for it with deficit spending?

The Tea Party people cheered when Rep. Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at President Obama, and they put that proudly on their signs, even though Wilson, not Obama, is the liar here. Where were they when President Bush lied about the reasons for going to war with Iraq? None of them had the courage to stand up and call President Bush a liar, even though he was. Fox News, the rest of the media and most of the American people just went along for the ride. Now they stand up, but what do they really stand for?

Now, after more than 4,000 soldiers were killed and trillions of dollars have been wasted in the Iraq war, now, they finally stand up for principles they completely abandoned for the past 20 years. Now, they stand up to avoid paying for the health care of poor people. That's not what you'd call noble, or Christian, or Muslim. They are willing to finance the death of hundreds of thousands of people and spend trillions of dollars for war without complaint, but they don't want to spend a nickel to pay for the health care of needy citizens of the United States of America, including those wounded fighting for this nation. Shame on them.

The tea party people weren't concerned when our soldiers died for nothing. They weren't concerned about a war that made this nation less secure, rather than more secure. They weren't concerned with the mounting deficits caused by deeply irresponsible government fiscal policies. They weren't concerned when the government did little to avert the Hurricane Katrina disaster and did less to alleviate the suffering of Americans afterward. The tea party people were silent then.

Now that the nation has been brought back from the brink of another Great Depression, thanks to government fiscal intervention, now that the United States is once again gaining some respect in the world for more rational foreign policies, after being a laughing stock and a pariah for the past eight years, now, the tea party people are protesting. They want to get rid of Obama and all he stands for. They want to return to the good old days of George W. Bush, the good old days of letting insurance companies decide who will live and who will die.

God help us all if they get what they are wishing for.

Robert Roten is a journalist with over 25 years of newspaper experience, including 20 years as a reporter, editor, photographer, columnist and editorialist at the Laramie Daily Boomerang. Since retiring from the Boomerang in 2000, Roten has been president of the Laramie Film Society and the Laramie Astronomical Society and Space Observers (LASSO). He has operated his own movie journalism web site, Laramie Movie Scope, for the past 13 years. He also has a weekly movie show, Laramie Movie Scope News, on KOCA radio in Laramie. He is also a member of the Online Film Critics Society and contributes frequent movie reviews to rottentomatoes.com. He is a former member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the Society of Environmental Journalists. Roten is a resident of Laramie, Wyo.

Letter to the Editor: An open letter to Obama

An open letter to President Barack Obama –

Mr. President, your goal of health care reform is in jeopardy and a change of strategy is required if that goal is to be saved. You have tried to work with Congress and that strategy has run its course.

If any health care legislation comes out of Congress, public option or not, it will simply add more people to the broken health care system we have now and increase the profits of the insurance industry without providing better care or cutting costs. I see nothing coming out of Congress that would start reducing health care costs, and that is key.

As you know, we have the most expensive health care system in the world, even though our national life expectancy is relatively low and our high infant mortality rate is a crime. Far too many people die because of hospital-acquired infections and malpractice. Large segments of our population receive little or no health care, primarily because of cost. Far too many families sink into bankruptcy because of health care debt.

Instead of letting health care policy be dictated by the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry and other players in the medical-Congressional-complex, pick a plan and stick with it. The Wyden-Bennett bill is an example of the kind of legislation that would address the fundamental problems in our health care system, namely incentives that drive up costs and drive down quality of care. Find a bill you can get behind, or create one of your own.

Once you find a bill, get the Democrats behind it and push it through. I know it’s like herding cats, but at least it is easier than herding Republicans. You ought to know by now Republicans won't accept any plan that actually addresses the fundamental problems with our health care system. Republicans refuse to be part of the solution.

I don't know if Democrats will unite behind you, but you have to try. If you succeed, health care will be on the right track, thousands of lives will be saved, and the Republicans will deservedly be out of power for at least 20 years. If you fail, you just might lose your next election and the country will sink deeper into the black hole of health care debt.

Robert Roten
Laramie, Wyo.

Letter to the Editor: Republicans scurry in the darkness

Editor:

When I was a kid we used to chase rats in an old barn down the street. We took rubber hoses and tried to hit them as they scurried though the dimly lit barn. Lousy visibility made it a fairly equal contest. All you could see was a flash of movement and perhaps an eye or black tail as they scurried to safety. Occasionally we got one, but that was rare. It was the thrill of the chase and not the dead rat that mattered.

In many ways, our American institutions are like old barns that makes perfect hiding places for rats. In the corporate darkness, where there is plenty of grain, anything can be stolen and tucked away. Republicans lie and steal because they can and the rewards are great. Greed is important of course, but the real Republican thrill lies in beating someone else to the punch and accumulating enough power for the next scam. Many Republicans are sociopaths without a conscience, so the Republican Party makes a perfect barn. Liars, bullies, and crooks are the norm and even an ideal.

The Republicans are barn rats, while the Democrats are white lab rats. The difference between a Rahm Emmanuel and a Dick Cheney is minimal. Both are paranoid megalomaniacs and sociopaths. You can always hear them scurrying in the darkness.

John Hanks
Laramie, Wyo.

Spotlight: Wyo. State House Rep. Pete Illoway

Spotlighting Wyoming’s State Congressmen: Wyoming House Representative Pete Illoway
Meg Lanker
Friday, August 28, 2009 2:54 PM MDT

Wyoming State House Representative Pete Illoway, R-Cheyenne believes it’s time for Wyoming to assert its sovereignty to the federal government granted under the Tenth Amendment.

“We don’t have much input in Washington compared to larger states, but we need to let the federal government know that we matter as a state,” Illoway said. “The federal government has run amok and I feel Wyoming should stand along with other states who believe the same as we do.”

Illoway authored a state sovereignty resolution similar to those passed in other states recently. The bill requests that Congress “cease and desist from enacting mandates that are beyond the scope of the enumerated powers granted to Congress by the Constitution of the United States.”

State sovereignty resolutions similar to the one drafted by Illoway gained popularity in recent years, particularly with conservative legislators who feel the federal government has expanded to the point of encroaching on individual states’ rights.

The resolution is non-binding but can be officially entered in the U.S. congressional record. Illoway said, “Sometimes resolutions work and sometimes they’re ignored, but we won’t know what will happen unless we make our views known.”

The resolution contains a paragraph naming specific federal laws that “constitutional authority for which is either absent or tenuous,” including the Real ID Act and the Endangered Species Act. Illoway said those specific laws were added by Governor Dave Freudenthal at the suggestion of Wyoming Attorney General Bruce Salzburg.

According to Illoway, Wyoming should not be entirely disconnected from the federal government. Wyoming received federal stimulus funding for infrastructure improvement projects under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

“The money WYDOT [Wyoming Department of Transportation] received went to shovel-ready projects which put Wyoming people to work,” said Illoway. “If Wyoming didn’t take the money, it would have gone somewhere else.”

Illoway was recently attacked by the Wyoming Patriot Alliance as not supporting sovereignty “because he believes in it.” The Wyoming Patriot Alliance's website describes the group as “concerned citizens that have banded together and want to hold Government (at all levels) accountable for their actions.” They also claim no allegiance to political parties and state: “We've adopted the 9 Principles and 12 Values from Glenn Beck's 9/12 Project because they are a great starting point.”

Illoway met with several individuals at the request of Janie White, a constituent of his who is a member of Wyoming Patriot Alliance and owner of the group’s website. According to Illoway, White told him they wished to discuss the state sovereignty resolution.

He said he told White and those present at the meeting his reasons for sponsoring the resolution but White abruptly switched gears into asking him to support a copy of the federal Defense of Marriage Amendment (DOMA) being inserted into Wyoming’s constitution.

Social conservatives in Wyoming have attempted to get the DOMA into the Wyoming constitution for many years. The latest effort in 2008 was House Joint Resolution 17 which failed on the House floor with 25 members voting “aye” and 35 members voting “nay.” Illoway voted against the bill.

The heavily-debated resolution read: “A Joint Resolution proposing to amend the Wyoming Constitution by creating a new section specifying that a marriage between a man and a woman shall be the only legal union that shall be valid or recognized in Wyoming” – fundamentally stating that Wyoming will not recognize same-sex marriages performed out of state.

Illoway said he had no warning White and the others wanted to discuss a DOMA resolution and characterized the meeting as “an absolute ambush.” Illoway said, “I was told we were there to discuss the state sovereignty resolution and nothing else. I feel these are two separate issues, and when I tried to explain this to Mrs. White, she became defensive.”

White wrote a post about the meeting on Wyoming Patriot Alliance’s website later. “He [Illoway] said he will NOT discuss marriage between one man and one woman because he doesn't believe in it,” she said.

Illoway said this assertion by White is false. He disagreed with HJ 17 because Wyoming already has a statute defining marriage as between a man and a woman – HJ 17 would add the extra piece of not recognizing same-sex marriages performed in other states.

He also disputed the necessity of HJ 17 – Wyoming recognizes Common Law marriages from other states, so HJ 17 would single out one type of marriage for non-recognition. “We have a statute already that says marriage is between a man and a woman period – we don’t need to go any further. Gay people are people too. They have the right to exist like the rest of us,” Illoway said.

White also criticized Illoway as “pro-abortion” and said his “positions on abortion, gay marriage and other conservatives [sic] values did NOT coincide with the base.”

In a statement to The Underground, Illoway said he is not “pro-abortion” but is pro-choice. “I am pro-choice. I have been for years – this is nothing new,” he said. “No one is ever pro-abortion. Abortion is never something anyone wishes to happen.”

Illoway emailed White to clarify his positions on same-sex marriage and abortion. White pasted the email exchange below the original post about her meeting with Illoway. In the exchange White said, “If Ms. Lone and I believed I had mis-stated[sic] your comments, I would have been glad to retract but as you can see, and with the witnesses of that meeting, I have not and will not.”

On the Wyoming Patriot Alliance’s website, White said, “I don't have to work with Legislators and I definitely don't work for them, they work for me.”

Illoway disagrees with this notion and said the best way for constituents to get legislation passed is to work with legislators to reach common ground. “The town halls are a good example,” Illoway said. “It’s good for people to get involved, but nothing gets done by screaming at the people in office. There’s a level of respect needed.”

White did not respond to a request for comment from The Underground.

Illoway came to Wyoming in the early 1960s and was elected to the Wyoming State House to represent House District 42 in 1998. He previously served as the Vice President of Cheyenne LEADS (Cheyenne-Laramie County Corporation for Economic Development).

As the Wyoming legislature prepares to returns in 2010 to a rapidly changing economy, The Underground will put the spotlight on members of Wyoming’s House and Senate. Rep. Pete Illoway can be reached through his website, www.peteilloway.com

Sen. Kennedy: The lion who roared

Photo: Sen. Ted Kennedy speaks at the Democratic National Convention in 2008. (Photo from http://kennedy.senate.gov)











The lion who roared: Remembering Sen. Ted Kennedy and moving forward
Meg Lanker
Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:35 PM MDT
To truly measure a legislator’s worth, one must not look at the amount of legislation simply passed, but at the quality of the legislation, the effort, and the compromise necessary to get that legislation passed. By this standard, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass. was a priceless civil servant in the U.S. Senate.

Kennedy diligently advocated for bipartisan compromise on divisive issues: health care, education reform, immigration, welfare, et cetera. In 1983, Kennedy outlined his hopes for America and said, “I hope for an America where we can all contend freely and vigorously, but where we will treasure and guard those standards of civility which alone make this nation safe for both democracy and diversity.”

Twenty-six years later, as this lion of the senate is silenced, it is devastatingly obvious these standards of civility hoped for by Kennedy have fallen away – if they even existed at all. With the passing of Kennedy, the book is closed on one of the last, great statesmen left in this country. According to the Los Angeles Times, Cal Thomas, a conservative columnist who forged a friendship with Kennedy in the 1980s, said, “I was opposed to his politics, but I came to love him as a person.”

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, is often considered one of the most conservative members in the Senate, yet still counted Kennedy as a friend. According to The Salt Lake City Tribune, Hatch came to the Senate 32 years ago with one goal in mind: "To fight Ted Kennedy."

Hatch and Kennedy wound up working together on numerous pieces of legislation ensuring children of low-income parents could see a doctor, and most recently, legislation boosting the funding to the AmeriCorps volunteer program and the stipend its volunteers receive.

On Wednesday, Hatch said Kennedy was "an iconic, larger than life United States senator whose influence cannot be overstated," and a treasured friend.

Senator Mike Enzi, R-Wyo. issued a statement Wednesday, and called Kennedy a “true, thoughtful, and caring friend” and gave his condolences to Kennedy’s family.

“The history books will show that Ted was a dedicated public servant who worked tirelessly for the people of Massachusetts and the nation,” said Enzi. “He leaves behind a long list of bipartisan legislative accomplishments, the impact of which will continue to be felt for generations to come.”

Wyoming’s former U.S. Senator Al Simpson served on the judiciary committee with Kennedy in the U.S. Senate. Previously, Kennedy had also served in the senate with Simpson’s father Milward.

In a statement to The Underground Wednesday, Simpson said, “My wife Ann and I are truly heartbroken. He was a dear friend. The two of us would put politics aside in order to make things work.” He called Kennedy a “master legislator” and cited their accomplishments together as an example of Kennedy’s bipartisanship.

“He will be deeply missed. A giant tree falls from the skyline. A great loss to the world,” Simpson said. “Our love, thoughts and prayers go out to Vicki and all of their dear ones.”

Seth Stern, writer for CQpolitics.com, shared an anecdote Wednesday regarding Al Simpson’s arrival to the U.S. Senate 30 years ago. Stern said when Al Simpson first arrived in the Senate in 1979, his father, who served with Kennedy in the 1960s, told his son to get to know Kennedy.

“Although they didn’t agree on much politically, Kennedy made a favorable impression when he was the first to arrive at a reception that year for the elder Simpson, who by then was suffering from Parkinson’s disease,” said Stern. “Kennedy kneeled on the ground for half an hour to talk to his former Senate colleague, who could not get out of his wheelchair.”

The Wyoming Democratic Party also issued a statement Wednesday and said it joined the nation in mourning the passing of Kennedy. State party vice chairman Mike Bell pointed out that Kennedy campaigned in the West for JFK and stood with the Wyoming delegation when the state put Jack Kennedy over the top for the Democratic presidential nomination at the 1960 convention.

Bell said, “Ted Kennedy was such a force in American life for nearly fifty years that it will take a while to get used to the fact that he is gone.” The outpouring of remembrance from liberals and conservatives alike reminds us that political views are, or should be, separate from the person.

Kennedy was a vehement defender of working-class and poor Americans and yet was able to give and take during negotiations on legislation without compromising his values or his friendships.

The idea that one can be opposed to an individual’s politics but not to the person seems alien to my generation. Those of us in our mid-twenties have foggy memories of former Presidents George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. My generation grew up in the Clinton era – I still remember my father changing the channel when news anchors began discussing Ken Starr’s vicariously prurient interest in former President Bill Clinton’s sex life.

For my generation, politics have always been personal. In the past fifteen years, we’ve endured debates about stains on blue dresses over dinner as the level of political discourse in America sunk to the point of commentators pouring “gasoline” (read: water) on others to demonstrate what President Barack Obama is doing to the American people while insisting the “-ism” of the day was on the march.

Where was Kennedy in all this chaos?

Through all the name-calling and mudslinging, he continued to urge Democrats and Republicans to work together in order to bring about necessary reforms successfully. Kennedy advocated for single-payer health care beginning in the 1970s. Calling healthcare reform “the cause of my life,” he pressed for bipartisanship, writing in Newsweek July 27, “Our response to these challenges will define our character as a country.” Kennedy’s absence from the healthcare debate in recent months left a gaping hole in the Senate and indicated how precarious his health had become.

In March, Rush Limbaugh criticized the healthcare reform efforts put forth by the Democrats in Congress saying, “Before it's all over, it will be called the Ted Kennedy Memorial Health Care Bill.” As of Wednesday, he had not backed off his comments.

Limbaugh cited Kennedy’s death from brain cancer and the extensive treatment he received to prolong his life as reason to oppose the healthcare overhaul he espoused since the 1970s. "Why support the rationing of healthcare when Ted Kennedy, the lion of the Senate, did not?" said Limbaugh.

The debate over health care has now reached a nasty, shrill crescendo – led by pundits like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck – and will hopefully, respectfully be turned down. False accusations over government sponsored euthanasia and horrific waiting periods will not do anyone favors.

One of Kennedy’s Massachusetts colleagues, U.S. House Rep. Barney Frank expressed his frustration recently with the devolving healthcare debate. After a woman compared the proposed policies on healthcare reform to the policies of Adolph Hitler, Frank sighed and said, “When you ask me that question, I’m going to revert to my ethnic heritage and ask you a question: On what planet do you spend most of your time?” As the crowd began to boo, he continued: “Trying to have a conversation with you would be like trying to argue with a dining room table – I have no interest in doing it.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy would have argued with that dining room table, and I have no doubt in my mind about him he reaching a compromise with it. Kennedy represents an era hopefully not past, when citizens respected the office – if not the congressman – and congressman treated each other with dignity.

I implore the Democratic Party to remember Kennedy as a diligent civil servant and to pass the kind of reform he wanted – coverage for all Americans, which he saw as a right and not a privilege. I also beg his colleagues, if they so desire to name a healthcare bill after him, that the bill be the type of reform he would support, and not a watered-down tweak of our current system.

I encourage all Americans to remember the words his brother, Senator Robert F. Kennedy, used on the campaign trail in 1968, quoting playwright George Bernard Shaw: “Some men see things as they are and say why. I dream things that never were and say why not.”

Eulogizing his brother Robert in June 1968, Kennedy said, “My brother need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life, to be remembered as a good and decent man, who saw wrong and tried to right it, saw suffering and tried to heal it, saw war and tried to stop it.”

Kennedy concluded his eulogy with what is now my wish for him: “Those of us who loved him and who take him to his rest today, pray that what he was to us and what he wished for others will some day come to pass for all the world.”

Meg Lanker is the editor of The Underground and can be contacted at meglanker@gmail.com

Sen. Mike Enzi and Sen. John Barrasso - Nay on Sonia Sotomayor

Enzi and Barrasso vote against Sotomayor
Meg Lanker
Monday, August 11, 2009 7:35 PM MDT

The U.S. Senate confirmed Sonia Sotomayor Thursday by a vote of 68-31 as the 111th Supreme Court Justice and the first Hispanic justice to serve on the court.

Sotomayor was sworn in Saturday by Chief Justice John Roberts.

The vote fell largely along party lines with nine Republican Senators voting to confirm Sotomayor, and 31 voting against her confirmation. Senate Democrats voted in the majority, with 59 voting to confirm. Sen. Ted Kennedy D-Mass., who is currently battling brain cancer, was not able to vote.

Both of Wyoming’s Republican senators, Sen. Mike Enzi and Sen. John Barrasso, voted against Sotomayor’s confirmation, citing concerns over the Second Amendment and abortion. “The [Puerto Rican Defense and Education] Fund, while Judge Sotomayor served in a leadership capacity, filed briefs with the Supreme Court not only supporting abortion rights, but in support of federal funds for abortion services," said Enzi, in a statement on his official website.

Enzi stated his disagreement with the organization’s positions and said, “I cannot help but wonder how Judge Sotomayor would use her experiences with the Fund to rule on a possible case before the Supreme Court.” He also cited concerns with her positions on international law and of judicial impartiality.

Sen. John Barrasso shared Enzi’s concerns over judicial impartiality in an official statement on his website Thursday. “At her confirmation hearing, Judge Sotomayor stated that her judicial philosophy is ‘fidelity to the law,'” said Barrasso. He said this contrasts “her extensive commentary over the past 15 years” and was worried that Sotomayor would value “personal experience over impartiality” in her decision-making should she be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

In a previous statement July 23, after meeting with Sotomayor, Barrasso said he had concerns on her stance on the Second Amendment and the reverse discrimination case of Ricci v. DeStefano.

According to a news release Thursday, Wyoming Democratic Party Chair Leslie Petersen said she wished to congratulate Judge Sotomayor and “wish her the best of luck as she embarks on this important journey.”

Petersen said that the Wyoming Democratic Party was “ashamed and disappointed that neither of our Senators voted for this outstanding woman.”

She said, “Today’s confirmation of Judge Sonia Sotomayor is a historic event for the U.S. Supreme Court and for the American people. Our nation’s highest court will gain a sharp mind and a highly experienced justice to its bench.”

Petersen cited Sotomayor’s “expansive legal career as a judge, a litigator and a prosecutor” as an asset to the Supreme Court. “With more judicial experience than any justice on the court in the last 70 years, she couldn’t be more prepared to rise to the monumental task of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice,” said Petersen.

The chair of the Wyoming Republican Party, Diana Vaughan, could not be reached for comment.