tagged w/ beltway
-
August 16, 2011 1:31 pm ET
Right-wing media attacked President Obama for traveling on buses that reportedly cost $1.1 million each on his bus tour through the Midwest. But Secret Service officials have said the buses will pay for themselves over time [and have also said there has been "demonstrated need for [the buses] for some time" [http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2011/08/15/139652118/a-different-kind-of-party-bus-for-obama]; additionally, the buses will be available to the eventual Republican nominee during the 2012 election, as well as future presidents.
Drudge Hypes Cost Of Tour: "Armored Buses Cost $2.2 Million." On August 15, the Drudge Report posted a series of links [http://www.drudgereportarchives.com/data/2011/08/16/20110816_020417.htm] about Obama's bus tour beneath a picture of one of the armored buses, including a link to an April 21 Politico post about their then-projected "$2.2 million" cost: [Drudge Report Archives, 8/15/11]
AFP: "The Service ... Reason[ed] That The Initial Total Outlay Of 2.2 Million Dollars For Two Buses Would Soon Pay For Itself Over A Projected 10-Year Lifespan." An August 15 Agence France-Presse (AFP) article stated:
The US leader swept onto the campaign trail Monday with a sleek and even sinister looking set of wheels with blacked out windows worth $1.1 million.
The shiny, black armored bus, bristling with secret communications technology, with flashing police-style red and blue lights on the front and the back, made its debut on Obama's three-day tour of Minnesota, Iowa and Illinois.
The vehicle was commissioned by the Secret Service, which has always hired buses for election campaigns and retrofitted them to provide suitable protection for presidents and rival party nominees.
But the Service decided to commission its own vehicles, reasoning that the initial total outlay of 2.2 million dollars for two buses would soon pay for itself over a projected 10-year lifespan. [Agence France-Presse, 8/15/11, via Google News]
Secret Service Spokesman Ed Donovan: "The Reality Is That We're Overdue For Having This Type Of Protective Asset In Our Fleet." From the April 21 TPM article:
"We've never been fully comfortable with the security provided by a bus we lease and then try to retro-fit," Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin told TPM.
"This would be just like other vehicles we're adding to our fleet," Mackin said. "We'd use them for the campaign, but they're not for campaign purposes. They would be part of our fleet -- just like our limos, just like our follow-ups, just like our emergency vehicles."
[...]
"The reality is that we're overdue for having this type of protective asset in our fleet," Secret Service spokesman Ed Donovan told TPM. [Talking Points Memo, 4/21/11]
Donovan: "Designing Our Own Vehicle Really Gave Us A Level Of Security Which We Don't Get When We Lease A Bus." The TPM article further stated:
[Donovan said,] "We've had protectees in buses since at least 1980, Ronald Reagan, Gov. Reagan, was in a bus during the campaign. It's overdue because designing our own vehicle really gave us a level of security which we don't get when we lease a bus."
In the past, the Secret Service has enhanced the security features of buses leased by presidential campaigns, and they say having their own secure buses that can be used during campaign trips just makes more sense.
"If we have a candidate who has leased a bus and we're going to be protecting that candidate, we're going to look to enhance the security of that vehicle," Donovan said. "This is just the next step, and as I said, something that we're overdue for." [Talking Points Memo, 4/21/11 http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/04/obama-to-use-new-secret-service-bus-on-campaign-trail.php]
Donovan: "We Have Demonstrated The Need For These Buses Going Back To 1980." The August 15 AFP article stated: " 'We have demonstrated the need for these buses going back to 1980,' said Ed Donovan, a Secret Service spokesman, recalling the days when future president Ronald Reagan stormed the country by bus." [AFP, 8/15/11, via Google News http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g2Jxv8XiM1FRcsCIM9Nvz_X5z0iA?docId=CNG.5546416fb2b33bb880d4246e81a40a68.6c1]August 16, 2011 1:31 pm ET
Right-wing media attacked President Obama for traveling... more
-
-
Unless Virginia Governor Tim Kaine steps in, the state will execute John Allen Muhammad the "Beltway sniper" tonight at 9pm. Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to hear Muhammad's appeal (clipped by LadybugLady). UPDATE: Gov. Kaine has denied Muhammad's clemency appeal.
Muhammad, along with his teenage accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo, was responsible for a 2002 killing spree in the DC area that left 10 people dead. The shootings targeted everyday people in everyday locations like gas stations. They were all the more frightening because they were unpredictable and without motive. It had just been a year since the September 11th attacks and for the period while the shootings were taking place, it was a a new wave of terror for Washington-area residents.
Muhammad has maintained his innocence. His accomplice, Malvo, is serving life in prison without parole. (Ironically, a case that the Supreme Court did hear yesterday was on whether life without parole was cruel and unusual punishment for teenagers.)
We've been looking at the death penalty a lot in the last few weeks, mostly because of the case of Cameron Todd Willingham in Texas - where the state may have executed an innocent man. With a case like that, opposition to the death penalty seems practical: let's prevent mistakes from occurring. The Muhammad case is a bit different. It falls along the line of retribution - why Obama says he's supports the death penalty, despite doubts about its efficacy: "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."
What do you think? Is the community justified in this instance? In any instance?
Recently on the Current News Blog:
- How safe are Pakistani nukes?
- Real Recovery college stories
- Fall of the Berlin Wall
- Chavez: Prepare for war
- Al Qaeda has a magazine!Unless Virginia Governor Tim Kaine steps in, the state will execute John Allen... more
-
-
Unless Virginia Governor Tim Kaine steps in, the state will execute John Allen Muhammad the "Beltway sniper" tonight at 9pm. Yesterday the Supreme Court declined to hear Muhammad's appeal (clipped by LadybugLady).
Muhammad, along with his teenage accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo, was responsible for a 2002 killing spree in the DC area that left 10 people dead. The shootings targeted everyday people in everyday locations like gas stations. They were all the more frightening because they were unpredictable and without motive. It had just been a year since the September 11th attacks and for the period while the shootings were taking place, it was a a new wave of terror for Washington-area residents.
Muhammad has maintained his innocence. His accomplice, Malvo, is serving life in prison without parole. (Ironically, a case that the Supreme Court did hear yesterday was on whether life without parole was cruel and unusual punishment for teenagers.)
We've been looking at the death penalty a lot in the last few weeks, mostly because of the case of Cameron Todd Willingham in Texas - where the state may have executed an innocent man. With a case like that, opposition to the death penalty seems practical: let's prevent mistakes from occurring. The Muhammad case is a bit different. It falls along the line of retribution - why Obama says he's supports the death penalty, despite doubts about its efficacy: "the community is justified in expressing the full measure of its outrage."
What do you think? Is the community justified in this instance? In any instance?
From the News Blog: http://blogs.current.com/news/2009/11/10/dc-sniper-john-allen-muhammad-to-be-executed-tonight/
LadybugLady's post: http://current.com/items/91414934_us-sniper-execution-appeal-denied.htmUnless Virginia Governor Tim Kaine steps in, the state will execute John Allen... more
-
-
1. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP, one of DC’s most powerful lobbying groups, has worked inside the beltway for years to defeat single payer.
2. America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). The private health insurance industry. Public enemy number one. The health insurance corporations must die so that the American people can live.
3. American Medical Association. With a shrinking base of doctors (only 25 percent of doctors nationwide belong) – the AMA is the most conservative of the doctors’ organizations.
4. Barack Obama. He was for it when he was a state Senator in Illinois. To get off the list, Obama needs to put single payer back on the table (It's our table - not Wall Street or inside the beltway).
5. Business Roundtable: “In private, they support single payer, but they’re also thinking – if you can take away someone else’s business – the insurance companies’ business – you can take away mine. Also, if workers go on strike, I want them to lose their health insurance. And it’s also a cultural thing – we don’t do that kind of thing in this country.”
6. Families USA. A major inside the beltway liberal foundation and long-time foe of single payer. It’s chief executive, Ron Pollack, was once an advocate for single payer. But no more.
7. Health Care for America Now. The largest coalition of liberal groups promoting a choice between a public plan and private insurance companies.
8. Kaiser Family Foundation. One of the most prestigious liberal inside the beltway think tanks on health reform policy.
9. The Lewin Group. The go-to consulting firm for health reform studies and a wholly owned subsidiary of Ingenix, which is in turn owned by United Health Group, the nation’s largest FOR-PROFIT health insurance corporation.
10. Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America (PHRMA). PHRMA chief executive Billy Tauzin says that under single payer, the government would become a “price fixer.” By which he means, the government, as a single payer, will have the power to negotiate drug prices downward, thus costing the drug corporations millions in excess profits.
____________________________________________________________________
Single payer is one of the best ways to go. But I'd like to point out that the term "single payer" refers to the finance aspect of universal healthcare. I believe the term has been overused to repel thoe who would otherwise support universal healthcare for all. In France, the number one country for healthcare, everyone is covered and the government plays a strong role in regulating the industry. For one, they set the amounts that doctors will charge for any given procedure and this is placed on the wall of the doctors' offices. They have many payers involved. But they are all non-profit. In fact every other industrialized nation does not have any for-profit insurance involved in any way.
The problem with the U.S. is that the profit driven system is adverse to provide affordable and equal health care for all. It translates to a "loss" in the for-profit industry when they have to pay out claims. But this is not the case in non-profits, especially if they are government funded. So while single payer, meaning only the government insures everyone, is a good plan, we should not discount the possibility of allowing non-profits in, but there has to be tough government regulation and control to go along with that.
So I think we should all consider using the term "universal health care for all", instead of "single payer". After all, it is more accurately our goal to provide health care for all, whether there is one or more payers involved is not really the point of contention, is it?1. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). AARP, one of DC’s most... more
-
-
Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo at LewRockwell.com argues that the Ron Paul newsletter scandal was the result of a plot by "beltway libertarians" headquartered at the Cato Institute (where, full disclosure, I am an adjunct fellow, and which is co-publishing my next book), and encouraged by the Kansas-based Koch family (major donors to libertarian causes) to discredit Ron Paul. Here's the kicker: "The author [of the New Republic piece detailing the newsletters' outrageous statements] claims to have retrieved the newsletters from the University of Kansas library, the university where Charles Koch, CATO funder, is a major patron. How on earth would a kid just out of college know to go to a library in Kansas, of all places, to dig up such stuff?"Prof. Thomas DiLorenzo at LewRockwell.com argues that the Ron Paul newsletter scandal... more
-
