House Orders Up Three Elite Jets August 5, 2009 By Paul Singer Roll Call Staff Last year, lawmakers excoriated the CEOs of the Big Three automakers for traveling to Washington, D.C., by private jet to attend a hearing about a possible bailout of their companies.
But apparently Congress is not philosophically averse to private air travel: At the end of July, the House approved nearly $200 million for the Air Force to buy three elite Gulfstream jets for ferrying top government officials and Members of Congress.
The Air Force had asked for one Gulfstream 550 jet (price tag: about $65 million) as part of an ongoing upgrade of its passenger air service.
But the House Appropriations Committee, at its own initiative, added to the 2010 Defense appropriations bill another $132 million for two more airplanes and specified that they be assigned to the D.C.-area units that carry Members of Congress, military brass and top government officials.
Because the Appropriations Committee viewed the additional aircraft as an expansion of an existing Defense Department program, it did not treat the money for two more planes as an earmark, and the legislation does not disclose which Member had requested the additional money.
An Appropriations Committee staffer said the military was already planning to replace its passenger fleet, and the committee “looked at the request and decided they should speed up the replacement.”
The Gulfstream G550 is a luxury business jet, which the company advertises as featuring long-range flight capacity that “easily links Washington, D.C., with Dubai, London with Singapore and Tokyo with Paris.” The company’s promotional materials say, “The cabin aboard the G550 combines productivity with exceptional comfort. It features up to four distinct living areas, three temperature zones, a choice of 12 floor plan configurations with seating for up to 18 passengers.”
The version Gulfstream sells to the military is reconfigured for the government with modest accommodations, not the luxury version sold to private customers, said a source familiar with the planes.
Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.) had submitted a request to the Appropriations Committee for a $70 million earmark for one airplane on behalf of Georgia-based Gulfstream, and Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) lists the airplane as one of the earmarks that he was asked to request, though his office said he never made the request to the Appropriations Committee.
“The committee saw fit to fund it at that level” without Kingston’s involvement, his spokesman said.
Bishop’s office did not return several calls requesting comment for this story.
Air Force spokesman Vincent King told Roll Call: “This line item provides funding to purchase C-37 aircraft. The C-37 is the military variant of the commercial Gulfstream 550 executive jet. C-37s provide executive airlift for senior U.S. government officials including Congress and combatant commanders.”
The language of the appropriations bill specifies that of the three aircraft, the Air Force will provide “one aircraft each for the 201st Airlift Squadron and the 89th Airlift Wing.” Both are based out of Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.
The 89th Airlift Wing provides “global Special Air Mission (SAM) airlift, logistics, aerial port and communications for the President, Vice President, Combat Commanders, senior leaders and the global mobility system,” according to the Andrews Web site.
King told Roll Call, “the 201st Airlift Squadron provides short-notice worldwide transportation for the executive branch, Congressional Members, Department of Defense officials and high-ranking U.S. and foreign dignitaries.”
An Armed Forces Press Service news story from 2004 said that the 201st counted “U.S. Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert [R-Ill.] and [then-Senate Armed Services Chairman] John Warner [R-Va.] among its frequent flyers.”
Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said if Congress wants to buy new jets for the comfort of top government officials, “I think that all needs to be justified on the merits. ... Certainly, lawmakers can fly — and many do fly — coach and business class.” While there may be reasons for flying on top-notch private jets, “it shouldn’t just be squeezed into the bill.”
Ellis said the airplanes are also part of a larger trend for the Appropriations Committee to simply decide that big-ticket items are program increases, not earmarks, so they require less public disclosure.
“The more that you push for transparency, the more of this stuff goes underneath the carpet,” Ellis said. While Congress has established new rules requiring greater transparency for earmarks, the Appropriations Committee is “the judge, jury and executioner over what is an earmark and what isn’t and how much information we get.”
But military analysts said the private jets, despite the high price tag, may be worth the money because of the security and efficiency they provide to high-ranking public officials.
Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the conservative Lexington Institute, said, “In the case of the VIP transport for the executive branch, you can easily explain the cost [of private travel] in terms of the risk of somebody being taken hostage or having their time wasted when a critical decision is pending.”
Thompson pointed out that the cost of the plane would be peanuts compared to the cost to the nation if a top official were taken hostage or harmed taking a commercial flight to a dangerous region of the world.
But Thompson also said that logic “applies to the top members of the executive branch more than it applies to the Member from the 13th district of Illinois.”
John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site, said military officials “need a long-range airplane — and [it’s] better to fly them on a small one than a big one.”
Pike said it is unreasonable to expect a three-star general and a staff of five people to attend meetings around the world with several stops in far-flung locales while traveling on commercial airlines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by T e x on :
The problem is not the planes themselves--looks like lottsa folks get ferried around:
The 89th Airlift Wing provides “global Special Air Mission (SAM) airlift, logistics, aerial port and communications for the President, Vice President, Combat Commanders, senior leaders and the global mobility system,” according to the Andrews Web site.
King told Roll Call, “the 201st Airlift Squadron provides short-notice worldwide transportation for the executive branch, Congressional Members, Department of Defense officials and high-ranking U.S. and foreign dignitaries.”
So really the issue has no comparison to the largesse of private execs.
But this is an issue:
While there may be reasons for flying on top-notch private jets, “it shouldn’t just be squeezed into the bill.”
Transparency, transparency, transparency...
Posted by Relentless. on :
Nooo The point is that during this economic slowdown and amid dwindling tax revenues our elected officials should damned well be spending less... Much less. After whining and complaining about corporations and their spending it is monstrously hypocritical for them to then purchase WITH OUR MONEY similar jets. Corporate execs are responsible to their shareholders... It is none of our damned business what they spend their money on short of anything illegal. Congress is spending money we don't have on things they don't need.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I agree. They had no business adding these planes. 132 Mil that didn't need to be spent. These are exactly the items we should be putting pressure on our representatives about. Can't stop this one anymore but we can let our reps know we are unhappy with the way this was carried out.
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by Relentless.: Nooo The point is that during this economic slowdown and amid dwindling tax revenues our elected officials should damned well be spending less... Much less. After whining and complaining about corporations and their spending it is monstrously hypocritical for them to then purchase WITH OUR MONEY similar jets. Corporate execs are responsible to their shareholders... It is none of our damned business what they spend their money on short of anything illegal. Congress is spending money we don't have on things they don't need.
You talk as if you fell outta the damn well. FANTASTIC ideas!! wheee...
They bought, what, three planes? c'mon...
Some of those corporate phuks soak that up in a couple of bonuses.
Look, I'm not saying they should fly in the lap of luxury. But I would like my senior reps in the gummint to fly securely, instead of some Mexican turbo-prop leaking oil that any half-junior grenade-launching puke can bring down with a souped-up cellphone.
Dig it: Elite-above-the-law CEOs have a plane 1:1, one CEO to a plane.
These planes are shared. Not saying I love the process--it sucks. But comparing the two?
Nah...
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
Is this a joke???
a whole thread about 3 planes??
....You could talk about spending too much in Iraq
....You could talk about spending too much on the bailouts
....You could talk about speding too much on Obamas frickin new allergy-friendly dog for all I care
but why even waste an ounce of energy on something so petty.
Who in their right mind....would try and compare the auto companies' executives flying on private jets to a hearing to request billions in auto bailouts.........to the 3 planes the the top officials are buying
An acurate comparison would be if the United States never did the bailouts that Both Bush and Obama pushed.....and the U.S. did in fact fall into financial ruins, and Obama flew to china in a brand new billion dollar plane built by NASA, and begged China for a huge bailout to save the U.S. economy. China's top governmen officials would look at obama like he's a f'n Nut.
But that's not what is happening here...I bet in some way, shape, or form....Someone connected to the Auto Industry is behind that article......it's deffinately not anybody with a clue. Posted by jordanreed on :
searching for straws?...
this aint shiit ...get over it!!...how bout the health care industry spending 1.4 million, per day, on lobbyists and special interests and buying off their cronies in congress!!!!..doesnt that chaff your azz??..lets get real here.
how bout this frickin war we're still in?...get the hell out of that quagmire for gods sake!!
Posted by T e x on :
Never lose sight of this: the Elite are in a jam.
Posted by jordanreed on :
thank god i'm just a tadpole...
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: thank god i'm just a tadpole...
Tadpoles turn into Frogs
Posted by T e x on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: thank god i'm just a tadpole...
Thank God you're not full of hate and disinformation...
Posted by jordanreed on :
amen, bro...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Is this a joke???
a whole thread about 3 planes??
....You could talk about spending too much in Iraq
....You could talk about spending too much on the bailouts
....You could talk about speding too much on Obamas frickin new allergy-friendly dog for all I care
but why even waste an ounce of energy on something so petty.
Who in their right mind....would try and compare the auto companies' executives flying on private jets to a hearing to request billions in auto bailouts.........to the 3 planes the the top officials are buying
An acurate comparison would be if the United States never did the bailouts that Both Bush and Obama pushed.....and the U.S. did in fact fall into financial ruins, and Obama flew to china in a brand new billion dollar plane built by NASA, and begged China for a huge bailout to save the U.S. economy. China's top governmen officials would look at obama like he's a f'n Nut.
But that's not what is happening here...I bet in some way, shape, or form....Someone connected to the Auto Industry is behind that article......it's deffinately not anybody with a clue.
Listen up people, if this isnt a prime example of blatant hypocrisy by our government then tell me what is. The only reason it is getting cold shouldered is because the Obama administration is in power, and we wouldnt want to be critical. If this was 2005,2006, etc....wow it would all be Bush's fault just like everything else is today according to some.
I remember watching those hearings when those congressmen were blasting the auto CEOs for flying in on corporate jets while asking for bailouts. NOW....the government needs tax payer bailouts of itself and yet it is BUYING jets let alone using what they have!
Hypocrisy is the problem, and blatant hypocrisy was the point of the thread. Not even a partisan issue. How it is being played down is though. Im not saying they shouldnt fly jets. I could care less, but when I fly into your neck of the woods on one dont come after me.
Posted by Pagan on :
CCM,
You do realize that Top US officials have been flying on private jets/airplanes for many years right? But the auto execs were asking for billions, yet flew into DC on private jets. I can't believe you don't see the difference between the 2 situations. If you don't, then you are just a hypocrite yourself.
PS: "but when I fly into your neck of the woods on one dont come after me." LOL...I don't think an ultralight counts as a jet
PSS: Don't get all bent....was just razzing you Posted by jordanreed on :
what other talking points ya got, cow?...more bs to distract what really is important?...
you're pretty funny,tho..hopefully, once you get a bit older, you will be able to think for yourself and see things without your blinders on....try to focus and some real problems that concern humanity.
Posted by glassman on :
The Gulfstream G550 is a luxury business jet, which the company advertises as featuring long-range flight capacity that “easily links Washington, D.C., with Dubai, London with Singapore and Tokyo with Paris.” The company’s promotional materials say, “The cabin aboard the G550 combines productivity with exceptional comfort. It features up to four distinct living areas, three temperature zones, a choice of 12 floor plan configurations with seating for up to 18 passengers.”
they should be riding on the Hindenberg?
Founded in 1958, Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics (NYSE: GD), is The World Standard™ in business aviation. The company has produced more than 1,200 aircraft for corporate, government, private and military customers around the world.
Sales in U.S. Dollars (mil.) 5,512 (2008) One-year % Growth in Sales 14.2 (2008) Net Income in U.S. Dollars (mil.) 0 () One-year % Growth in Net Income 0.0 () Number of Employees 9,700 (2008) One-year % Growth in Number of Employees 6.6 (2008) Fiscal Year-End Decembe
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by Pagan: CCM,
You do realize that Top US officials have been flying on private jets/airplanes for many years right? But the auto execs were asking for billions, yet flew into DC on private jets. I can't believe you don't see the difference between the 2 situations. If you don't, then you are just a hypocrite yourself.
PS: "but when I fly into your neck of the woods on one dont come after me." LOL...I don't think an ultralight counts as a jet
PSS: Don't get all bent....was just razzing you
Of COURSE I see the difference. You dont think our government asking the taxpayers to "do their part" or "take on an extra burden" and spending money on new jets is hypocritical in this situation? Is it companies we are bailing out or is it really the government? Who is in charge here?
Posted by T e x on :
1. No 2. The economy 3. Congress
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
IS congress in charge tex? I thought the lobbyists were from what it looks like.
Posted by T e x on :
You're right--the jet lobby is in charge, and all congresspeeps have personal Lear jets, and so do all their aides, and everybody in their families. Don't go outside: with all those jets buzzing around, there's bound to be a crash, and the debris will fall on you...
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: IS congress in charge tex? I thought the lobbyists were from what it looks like.
..and the health care conmen give 1.4 million PER DAY to make sure
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Yes they do to both DEMOCRAT and Republican. Does it bother you that both parties are guilty of corruption and not just Republicans? You do know that they are both equally guilty right Jordan?
For example:
William Jefferson, a former Democratic congressman from Louisiana, was convicted in a federal court on Wednesday on 11 of 16 corruption counts, reported the Associated Press.
Jefferson had been under investigation since 2005. That August, 90,000 dollars in cash was found in the freezer of his Washington home. Prosecutors believed the money was to be used as a bribe for the former vice-president of Nigeria.
The trial lasted two months, and jurors ultimately took five days to reach a verdict. They convicted him on 11 of 16 charges, including accepting bribes, racketeering, and money laundering.
Jefferson was acquitted of the charge of violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The act makes it illegal to bribe foreign government officials, and Jefferson was the first official to ever be charged with its violation.
Jefferson became Louisiana’s first African-American congressman since Reconstruction when he was elected in 1991. He represented parts of New Orleans, and was re-elected in 2006 despite widespread knowledge at the point of bribery accusations. He was defeated last December by Republican candidate Anh “Joseph” Cao.
Jefferson’s defense lawyer, Robert Trout, has said he will appeal. The former congressman could face more than 20 years in prison.
Posted by jordanreed on :
sorry...you're cutting into my tanning time.. ..too nice outside to spar with a gun-totin,angry,war mongering,individual as yourself.. ..gotta go grill up them t-bones!
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: sorry...you're cutting into my tanning time.. ..too nice outside to spar with a gun-totin,angry,war mongering,individual as yourself.. ..gotta go grill up them t-bones!
Damn! Send one of them T-Bones St Louis way
PS: cold in the middle is perfect Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: sorry...you're cutting into my tanning time.. ..too nice outside to spar with a gun-totin,angry,war mongering,individual as yourself.. ..gotta go grill up them t-bones!
Question - Who was the first liberal Democrat?
Answer -Christopher Columbus. He left not knowing where he was going,got there not knowing where he was,left there not knowing where he’d been and did it all on borrowed money.
Here is another good one:
Question - What is the difference between a liberal and a puppy?
Answer -A puppy stops whining after it grows up.
btw, why is it ok to do an abortion on a baby with a developed brain and hail it as a victory for a "womans choice?"
Posted by T e x on :
You're calling yourself a liberal Dem, now?
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: You're calling yourself a liberal Dem, now?
Yeah Tex, that's it.
Posted by T e x on :
well, lol, you whine more than everybody else here combined...
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Oh cmon Tex, Im just playing on the level of some others thats all!
In case you havent looked, the sky is falling!
Posted by T e x on :
Don't play down. Anybody can get dragged down--play up.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
I still agree with Cow. Yes...there are a lot of big things going on that need attention but it is the spending of an extra dollar a day that ruins a family budget.
The request was for 1 plane. They ordered three. As far as I can tell the only reason was for personal convenience and right now we should be very careful about what we are adding to the budget.
The one thing I do like about this is that (like many parts of the stimulus) it will trickle down and employ airplane mechanics and manufacturers in a depressed industry. I have never been much of a fan of the trickle down theory but I agree it can be a good thing when sectors are struggling like they currently are.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
What we should do is give Obama an allowance so he can only spend what he has. This way his Chinese parents wont be covering for his debts he makes.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: What we should do is give Obama an allowance so he can only spend what he has. This way his Chinese parents wont be covering for his debts he makes.
I don't recall you calling for that when Sluggo was in office.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Sluggo wasnt spending as much as Obama. Are you saying Obama's budget and spending is less than GW's?
Of course Bush spent money, why do you keep whining about GW Bush as if he is still in office?
Here is something you can not deny Pagan, Obama is expanding government influence in our lives while we pay for it.
Posted by Pagan on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Sluggo wasnt spending as much as Obama. Are you saying Obama's budget and spending is less than GW's?
Of course Bush spent money, why do you keep whining about GW Bush as if he is still in office?
Here is something you can not deny Pagan, Obama is expanding government influence in our lives while we pay for it.
No. I'm saying the current admin is having to spend alot of money to fix all the shiit that Sluggo destroyed. Such as...um...lemme see..um...the friggin economy!!!
Wake up and stop your whining/mooing.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Why is it always Bush's fault?
Posted by T e x on :
Because it's more convenient than "the Bush Puppet controlled by Cheney et al"...
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: Why is it always Bush's fault?
blame belongs where blame is due.
when Bush was confronted with the his deficit? his reponse was that (relative to GDP) it was not really increasing.
fact is?
the current spending policy is absolutely required to save our way of life.
does that seem like a "turnabout" for me?
it is. here's why, if you think of the whole US economy like a big business, (it is) you have to recognise that somebody had to step up to the plate to unjam the credit crunch.
all business in America is dependant on relatively easy credit. ` the whole of Wall St is about providing that credit.
i don't really feel like writing a five page essay on how Wall St works, but basically it's there to create liquidity for business.
Wall St fell down, the Govt had no choice but to step in.
Bush's policies and the polices created by the GOP Congresses under Clinton and Clinton himself set the stage for this tumble.
do i like the bailouts and spending? no. but blaming Obama is pure propaganda.
people ask me for proof, you and seeking freedom have both done so. i've provided what i can,
but there is never going to be proof, any more than there would be proof that switching two trains heading towards each other onto the same track will cause a wreck until the wreck happens.
i even heard Kudlow today using the word collapse for our system. even he agrees with my diagnosis, and i don't agree with him very often.
it collapsed. the Debts incurred in the repair are not the fault of the people who borrowed the money to fix it, they are the fault of the people caused it.
you'll recall that i was strongly opposed to Hillary? that's because as far as i'm concerned the Clintons bear much of the responsibility too.
the GOP didn't even bother to try to follow the ideals they claimed. there's alot of talk about the economy turning around already, i'm skeptical, but i will say that there would be no talk about it at all without the (Govt) spending that's been done.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
Oh im not blaming Obama for anything right now. He is dealing with a mess. I just dont agree with some of his approaches. It is still too early.
However, the turnaround is inevitable in my opinion and the economy will fix itself in time. Then Obama will parade himself as the hero of the nation for saving it. That I do NOT want. He should take credit for any assistance, but he should be able to prove it not claim it. His administration throws out numbers like crazy. "We saved so many hundred thousand jobs" REALLY? How do you REALLY know if your action you just took sved 325,000 jobs? They dont...they just make up numbers and throw them out there.
I dont like that either.
Posted by glassman on :
Then Obama will parade himself as the hero of the nation for saving it.
well, that's inevitable cash.
what i see as the cause of the collapse was banks at war with each other. playing each other for suckers, which it's now obvious many were (suckers).
that's freemarketism.
but the middle class becomes the collateral damage, and the govt's job really is to stop the collateral damage.
they have done a rather poor job of that.
the Great Depression ended with WW2. not before. so don't be so sure that it would have fixed itself. or that what would have come out of it would have been good for what makes America Gret and that is a vibrant middle class. ALL third world countries have a few very wealthy people and a few people in the middle class, but what makes them third world countries is the huge poor class compared to the middle class.
Posted by CashCowMoo on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Then Obama will parade himself as the hero of the nation for saving it.
well, that's inevitable cash.
what i see as the cause of the collapse was banks at war with each other. playing each other for suckers, which it's now obvious many were (suckers).
that's freemarketism.
but the middle class becomes the collateral damage, and the govt's job really is to stop the collateral damage.
they have done a rather poor job of that.
the Great Depression ended with WW2. not before. so don't be so sure that it would have fixed itself. or that what would have come out of it would have been good for what makes America Gret and that is a vibrant middle class. ALL third world countries have a few very wealthy people and a few people in the middle class, but what makes them third world countries is the huge poor class compared to the middle class.
So then why is the Obama administration coming out saying they cant rule out raising taxes on the middle class anymore after promising relief? Is that change I can believe in?
Posted by glassman on :
do you know what Reagan paid in taxes during and right after WW2?
The most significant impact of World War II on the individual income tax was to transform it to a mass tax that was broadly based and progressive. In 1941, changes were made to both rates and base. Higher tax rates were adopted and lower exemptions were allowed, thus expanding the base. Higher tax rates were adopted again in 1942. With the inclusion of a surtax, tax rates ranged from 13 percent on the first $2000 of taxable income to 82 percent on taxable income in excess of $200,000.
Obama may have promised to not raise taxes on the middle class.
can he keep it? i dunno. don't care.
taxes are at the lowest rates since the war.
Posted by wallymac on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
quote:Originally posted by glassman: Then Obama will parade himself as the hero of the nation for saving it.
well, that's inevitable cash.
what i see as the cause of the collapse was banks at war with each other. playing each other for suckers, which it's now obvious many were (suckers).
that's freemarketism.
but the middle class becomes the collateral damage, and the govt's job really is to stop the collateral damage.
they have done a rather poor job of that.
the Great Depression ended with WW2. not before. so don't be so sure that it would have fixed itself. or that what would have come out of it would have been good for what makes America Gret and that is a vibrant middle class. ALL third world countries have a few very wealthy people and a few people in the middle class, but what makes them third world countries is the huge poor class compared to the middle class.
So then why is the Obama administration coming out saying they cant rule out raising taxes on the middle class anymore after promising relief? Is that change I can believe in?
It's change I can believe. Instead of sticking his head in the sand like Uncle George did, taxes will be raised if it is needed. Uncle George, cut taxes while trying to fund a war. That was insanity. Ideology is one thing but a Leader needs to adapt to the situation.
I have to say that I respect George Sr because even though he gave us the famous line of "Read My Lips" no new taxes, he had enough intestinal fortitude to do what was right for the country at the time even though he knew it would probably cost him re-election.
The raising of taxes is not party specific. Yes, the Politico's would like the masses to believe it is but it is actually driven as much by outside sources as the parties them self.
Posted by The Bigfoot on :
Hey Cow.
did ya hear? Democracy can work. Congress has scrapped the idea of the extra planes after all the criticism it received.
Posted by raybond on :
For ‘Death Panels’ Before She Was Against Them? Palin Endorsed End Of Life Counseling As Governor In recent weeks, right-wing groups have been pushing the myth that health care reform will somehow kill seniors. One of the most high profile voices pushing this lie has been Sarah Palin, who claimed President Obama will institute bureaucratic “death panels.” Today, again on her Facebook page, she continued the attack. Though some Republicans have rebuffed this absurd, inaccurate notion — like Johnny Isakson (R-GA), who called such talk “nuts” — others, like Newt Gingrich, have piled on to agree with Palin.
However, on April 16th 2008, then Gov. Sarah Palin endorsed some of the same end of life counseling she now decries as a form of euthanasia. In a proclamation announcing “Healthcare Decisions Day,” Palin urged public facilities to provide better information about advance directives, and made it clear that it is critical for seniors to be informed of such options:
WHEREAS, Healthcare Decisions Day is designed to raise public awareness of the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions, related to end of life care and medical decision-making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and to encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions. [...]
WHEREAS, one of the principal goals of Healthcare Decisions Day is to encourage hospitals, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, continuing care retirement communities, and hospices to participate in a statewide effort to provide clear and consistent information to the public about advance directives, as well as to encourage medical professionals and lawyers to volunteer their time and efforts to improve public knowledge and increase the number of Alaska’s citizens with advance directives.
WHEREAS, the Foundation for End of Life Care in Juneau, Alaska, and other organizations throughout the United States have endorsed this event and are committed to educating the public about the importance of discussing healthcare choices and executing advance directives.
Though this proclamation is now deleted from the Alaska governor’s website, it shows that Palin’s current fear-mongering is purely political. Palin is not the only conservative leader completely flip-flopping on this issue. Merely months ago, Gingrich too endorsed end of life counseling. At a conference in April of this year, Gingrich said advance directives can “save money” while also helping to “decrease the stress felt by caregivers.”
Posted by raybond on :
British Growing Tired of GOP Lies About UK Health Care It’s too bad that repeated, endless, flagrant dishonesty doesn’t do much of anything to damage a politician’s ability to be taken seriously as a sober-minded centrist deal-maker, or Chuck Grassley would be in a world of pain:
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy would be refused treatment for his brain tumor in England — at least according to one of the allegations lobbed at Britain’s state-funded health-care service recently by critics of President Obama’s proposed health-care reforms. Such claims have irked British health officials, who say they are misleading, exaggerated and sometimes just plain wrong. [...]
One of the most surprising of these was the rumor — given an airing by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) — that Kennedy, 77, would not receive treatment for his brain tumor if he were in England because he is too old.
“That’s just wrong,” a British Health Department spokesman said. “The NHS in England provides health services on the basis of clinical need, irrespective of age or ability to pay.”
Note that there’s actually a two-fold lie here. First Grassley falsely implies that congressional Democrats are proposing to create an NHS-like system. Second, he lies about how the NHS operates. And he pays no price for it. He’ll still be Max Baucus’s key partner in crafting health care legislation. Comments 80 SharePermalink
Posted by glassman on :
another IBD lie:
August 12, 2009, 6:01 pm Stephen Hawking Defends Care in Britain By Bernie Becker
The physicist Stephen Hawking is defending Britain’s National Health Service after an editorial in Investor’s Business Daily said Mr. Hawking “wouldn’t have a chance in the U.K.,” where the health service would have deemed his life “essentially worthless.”
The problem with the editorial, of course, is that Dr. Hawking, the author of “A Brief History of Time,” is very much a Briton — born in Oxford and currently a professor at the University of Cambridge.
it's getting to be so ridiculous that reasonable people might just give trying to point out all the lies huh?
Posted by glassman on :
what i can't get over is how many people mistakenly beleive that tort reform would reduce health care costs.
if people really beleive that health care is priceless? then so is loss of health due to malpractice.
Posted by glassman on :
here's some more hypocrisy:
Bush signs Schiavo legislation Fate of brain-damaged woman once again in a judge's hands
updated 6:45 a.m. CT, Mon., March. 21, 2005
PINELLAS PARK, Fla. - The fate of Terri Schiavo once again was in the hands of a judge early Monday following an extraordinary, day-long political fight over the brain-damaged woman that consumed both chambers of Congress and prompted the president to rush back to the White House.
Taking the Senate’s lead, the House early Monday passed a bill to let the woman’s parents ask a federal judge to prolong Schiavo’s life by reinserting her feeding tube. President Bush signed the measure less than an hour later.
An attorney for her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, later arrived at federal district court in Tampa and filed a request for an emergency injunction to keep their daughter fed.
the whole GOP Govt got involved in making these decisions.
Posted by T e x on :
it's getting to be so ridiculous that reasonable people might just give trying to point out all the lies huh?
That's kinda my point: seems to me, the "disloyal opposition" is hoping rank-and-file reasonable folk will simply get tired of the onslaught...
Posted by glassman on :
well, i've been looking thru the IBD "editorials" to see if i can find any facts that pan out under scrutiny.
i first noted that the editorials are not credited. they have no author names. none of 'em.
i've been watching fox friendships shows to see what they present and it's an unending flow of propaganda.
Posted by glassman on :
heres' another in the series:
Shovel-Ready Health Care
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, August 10, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Health Care: There might not be a "death panel," as Sarah Palin described it, but federal bureaucrats will be making end-of-life decisions. That's why state-run medicine is a leading cause of death in Britain and Canada.
A post on the former Alaska governor's Facebook page has caused a stir by discussing openly what many privately fear and something we have written about. End-of-life counseling and efforts to measure cost-effectiveness of treatment will combine in a perfect storm to ration care in a way that lets the government decide who lives and who dies.
Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean's response was, "She made that up." Oregon resident Barbara Wagner might beg to differ — as she begs to stay alive. Last year, the 64-year-old received news that her cancer, which had been in remission, had returned. Her only hope was a life-extending drug that her doctor prescribed for her.
The problem was that the drug cost $4,000 a month. The state-run Oregon Health Plan said no, that it was not cost-effective. Oregon's equivalent of a "death panel" sent her a letter saying it would cover drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost only $50 or so. Oregon could afford that.
"It was horrible," Wagner told ABCNews.com. "I got a letter in the mail that basically said if you want to take the pills, we will help you get that from the doctor and we will stand there and watch you die.
"But we won't give you the medication to live."
The $4,000 could be better spent on someone else.
what they don't tell yo is that the drug is Tarceva. it is NOT a cure in any sense and does not result in remission.
it extends life by weeks.
it's also a very new hence expensive drug and i happened to play the news on it a few years back (OSIP) it was quite a ride....
the WSJ ran a negative article on it but it hink they did that to get short action going when it overran
UPDATE: Key Tarceva Study May Disappoint Amid Cancer Data - WSJ.com The Tarceva study, known as Saturn, measures the therapy's use in lung cancer as a maintenance therapy - when it is given after chemotherapy but before new ... Alexa Traffic Rank for http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090514-721367.html: 345online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20090514-721367.html - Cached - Similar
that article is now unavailable...
Posted by glassman on :
then there's the issue of "privatising" social security, boy that plan would have been just great huh? but hey, the govt can't do anything right and the private industry is so much better...
it's really odd to hear that coming from elceted representatives now...
the IBD ran an editorial demonising the AARP for getting in bed with Obama, then when Obama said they were endorsing health care reform? the AARP said they were not endorisng it...
Geezers With Pitchforks Vs. The AARP
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Friday, August 07, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Having paid into the system all their lives and now AARP dues, they are upset that illegal aliens will be covered by legislation that eliminates any proof-of-citizenship requirement. And they are furious that AARP would support "reform" that includes "end-of-life counseling" as if they're being encouraged to get out of the way.
They know that the administration's plan is one big government "do not resuscitate" order for seniors, and they don't want some government bureaucrat looking at some spreadsheet pulling their plug.
never mind that most AARP members get medicare, a Govt run health care system that people in it seem to like?
AARP allows you to join at 50 i believe, so not all AARP members are in medicare.
the amount of propaganda is overwhelming.
Posted by T e x on :
too effin' rrrridiculous...
quote:And they are furious that AARP would support "reform" that includes "end-of-life counseling" as if they're being encouraged to get out of the way.
They know that the administration's plan is one big government "do not resuscitate" order for seniors, and they don't want some government bureaucrat looking at some spreadsheet pulling their plug.
Is that really in an Investors Business Daily article?
Posted by Ace of Spades on :
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo:
quote:Originally posted by Ace of Spades: Is this a joke???
a whole thread about 3 planes??
....You could talk about spending too much in Iraq
....You could talk about spending too much on the bailouts
....You could talk about speding too much on Obamas frickin new allergy-friendly dog for all I care
but why even waste an ounce of energy on something so petty.
Who in their right mind....would try and compare the auto companies' executives flying on private jets to a hearing to request billions in auto bailouts.........to the 3 planes the the top officials are buying
An acurate comparison would be if the United States never did the bailouts that Both Bush and Obama pushed.....and the U.S. did in fact fall into financial ruins, and Obama flew to china in a brand new billion dollar plane built by NASA, and begged China for a huge bailout to save the U.S. economy. China's top governmen officials would look at obama like he's a f'n Nut.
But that's not what is happening here...I bet in some way, shape, or form....Someone connected to the Auto Industry is behind that article......it's deffinately not anybody with a clue.
Listen up people, if this isnt a prime example of blatant hypocrisy by our government then tell me what is. The only reason it is getting cold shouldered is because the Obama administration is in power, and we wouldnt want to be critical. If this was 2005,2006, etc....wow it would all be Bush's fault just like everything else is today according to some.
I remember watching those hearings when those congressmen were blasting the auto CEOs for flying in on corporate jets while asking for bailouts. NOW....the government needs tax payer bailouts of itself and yet it is BUYING jets let alone using what they have!
Hypocrisy is the problem, and blatant hypocrisy was the point of the thread. Not even a partisan issue. How it is being played down is though. Im not saying they shouldnt fly jets. I could care less, but when I fly into your neck of the woods on one dont come after me.
Cash Cash Cash....what are we going to do with you.
Are you pulling our leg...or do you realy not have the ability to see the difference here.
Bro...You're comparing apples with organges
Posted by glassman on :
quote:Originally posted by T e x: too effin' rrrridiculous...
quote:And they are furious that AARP would support "reform" that includes "end-of-life counseling" as if they're being encouraged to get out of the way.
They know that the administration's plan is one big government "do not resuscitate" order for seniors, and they don't want some government bureaucrat looking at some spreadsheet pulling their plug.
Is that really in an Investors Business Daily article?
![[BadOne]](graemlins/headbash.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
..too nice outside to spar with a gun-totin,angry,war mongering,individual as yourself.. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Were Up]](graemlins/wereup.gif)