Nancy Peloski loves the Jan Vermeer painting called THE GEOGRAPHER (see left). In a story on politico. com, she states, “I’m trying to save the planet; I’m trying to save the planet,” “I will not have this debate trivialized by their excuse for their failed policy.” See what the speaker is talking about at:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12122.html

Nancy should listen to the late comedian George Carlin's SAVING THE PLANET rant on You Tube- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw Warning- Mature content and language.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

TORT REFORM NEEDED IN OKLAHOMA!
by Steve Fair

Tort deals with compensation for wrongs and harm done by one party to another's person, property or other protected interests. Tort reform refers to the idea of changing the law applicable to tort. The most contentious area of tort, and the area on which tort reform advocates focus is personal injury. The levels of compensation for accidents vary greatly between different states and jurisdictions, but there has been a general upward trend in the awards for compensation nationally, which has predicated the need for tort reform. The idea of lawsuit reform varies greatly between states, but currently Oklahoma has a competitive disadvanage vs. Texas.

In 2003, Texas Governor Rick Perry declared medical malpractice lawsuits a statewide crisis. Of the state's 254 counties, more than 150 had no obstetrician in 2003, and more than 120 had no pediatrician. Lawsuit reform became a driving force in the general elections of 2002. And when Texas voters gave Republicans majority of both chambers of the legislature, lawsuit reform was a top priority. House Bill #4 was adopted and The Wall Street Journal called the changes in HB 4 'Ten Gallon Tort Reform.' It has been referred to as a model bill by numerous commentators because it addressed so many changes needed to extinguish the litigation crisis.

According to Texas State Representative Joe Nixon, "Doctors were caught between rising medical malpractice insurance costs and lower compensation from insurance-provided benefit contracts and low Medicare/Medicaid reimbursement levels," "Combined with increasing hassles and demands to appear in court or in depositions, doctors were choosing to retire or leave Texas. In doctor-per-citizen ratio, Texas ranked 49th out of 50 states."

Since Texas passed the sweeping legislation, Doctors are flocking back to the Lone Star state. Seven thousand doctors have applied for licenses since the passage of lawsuit reform, and the state licensing board anticipates adding another 5,000 doctors in the next 15 months. And some of those doctors are coming from Oklahoma. According to Dr. William Oehlert, president of the Oklahoma State Medical Association, there have been inquiries from Texas seeking OSMA's mailing list wanting to contact Oklahoma physicians about possibly moving south.

According to Oehlert, lawsuit reform is hurting health care in Oklahoma. He says it is becoming more and more difficult to get physicians to go into some fields, and some are either leaving practice or avoiding certain lawsuit-prone procedures. According to Oehlert, "I've been told that there are physicians leaving the state or - probably more appropriately - not coming into the state because of the reputation that Oklahoma has in being a lawsuit-friendly state."
Oehlert said that some doctors are leaving clinical practice, have stopped delivering babies and steer clear of ER room work because of the threat of being sued. Some rural areas report difficulty in attracting or retaining physicians, particularly in some specialties.

"The big thing is that our physician numbers haven't really increased significantly," Oehlert says. "And as our population ages, that's going to be a major area, in gyn, cardiology, internal medicine, family practice, general surgery, because those type of health problems that would be applicable to those physicians, you're not going to have the physicians."

Opponents of tort reform contend that supporters exaggerate the costs and ignore the benefits of the current tort system. For example, opponents of tort reform contend that lawsuits encourage corporations to produce safer products, discourage them from selling dangerous products such as some forms of asbestos, and encourage more safe and effective medical practices. But in reality the only benefit to the current tort system in Oklahoma is to the trial lawyers.

In 2007, the Oklahoma Senate passed an omnibus tort reform bill by a narrow vote of 25-23. The year before, a tort reform package passed the House of Representatives, but was killed in the Senate. During the 2006 election, the Democrats lost control of the Senate and were knotted up and tied, 24-24, with the Republicans. It was sent to the Governor, but he vetoed it on the last day he could legally do so- a Saturday. It went unnoticed by most Oklahomans. Henry’s veto was overturned in the House, but upheld in the Senate.

It was not a surprise that Henry vetoed the bill because his best buddies and biggest campaign contributors are trial lawyers. Henry during his first election bid, outlined twenty-one tenets necessary for tort reform. Seventeen of the provisions were included in the bill he vetoed. Henry said he concluded several provisions of the bill were unconstitutional and it unduly restricted Oklahoman’s ability to seek justice. He also thought the bill did not do enough to curb frivolous lawsuits. When Republicans take control of the State Senate in November, tort reform will not be far behind. Texas has put forth a reform model that has been sucessful. Sooners hate to lose to Texas in anything but on tort reform the Longhorns have beaten us badly.

Please check the Ethics reports for legislative candidates in your district. The Trial Lawyer lobby is not going gentle into that good night. They are contributing large amounts to candidates who if elected will work to stop tort reform! To check the candidates in your area, click on link: http://www.state.ok.us/~ethics/

A reader sent this to me- it is a quick read and relates a conversation between Ralph and Jim (both retired) about federal taxes. Thanks to Tim Burns for sending it to me.- Steve


JIM....Ralph, there is a national election coming in November of this year, of which the outcome will greatly affect our tax liabilities. Did you know that?

RALPH....No Jim, I did not. In fact, I read an article recently in the U.S. News & World Report magazine by the Editor-in-Chief, Mortimer B. Zuckerman. In the article, he indicated that the middle-tier households earn between 45,000 and 90,000 dollars annually. This is the first time that I have heard a dollar figure for the middle income category for household earnings (husband and wife). Strangely, the political consultants on TV never say who the middle income earners are. They seem to only speak in generalities. My point is that I know that you and I both fall in that income bracket, and that the two political candidates running for President of the United States say that they will not raise taxes on the middle income earners if they are elected to office.

JIM....Well Ralph, I’ve got news for you. One of the candidates (the democrat) has said that he will let the Bush tax changes of 2001 and 2003 lapse on December 31, 2010, if he is elected to office. (This is called a sunset law in which a date is set for the law to be cancelled at the time that the law is written).

RALPH....But Jim, what has that got to do with us? We are just the little people (the low wage earners, and retired folks living on Social Security plus some investment income from savings over the years). The politicians all say that “we” are the ones they are looking after.

JIM....Now, listen carefully Ralph! I’m going to give you a run-down on the tax categories that affect the little people like us, not the upper income earners.
1. To arrive at your taxable income, you must first add up all your sources of income (social security, dividends from stock investments, interest from CDs, etc.) that make up your retirement income. This is called the Adjusted Gross Income or ( AGI ). Then, you must subtract the standard or itemized deductions and the personal exemptions for you and your wife. This will result in the bottom line, which is your Taxable Income. ( By the way, these deductions will be in the range of 16,000 to 18,000 dollars for a married-filling-jointly couple, who are over/under the age of 65.
2. Now this is where it gets interesting! Before 2001 and the Bush tax cuts, the starting tax rate was 15% on taxable income up to $45,200 ($27,050 for individuals), above which the tax rate leaped up to 28%.
But, the Bush tax changes introduced a 10% rate for the first time ever. In the first year, the first $12,000 ($6,000 for individuals) was taxed at 10%, and then taxed at 15% up to $46,700 ($27,950 for individuals). Now, over the past seven years, all tax categories have been adjusted and indexed each year for inflation, and for this year, 2008, the first $16,050 ($8,025 for individuals) will only be taxed at 10%, and at 15% from $16,050 up to $65,100 ($32,550 for individuals).
3. The other tax categories currently are 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%, but I am only talking about the low income and low-middle income folks like us, in this conversation.
Also, there is one other tax break that we were given to assist our retirement income, and to encourage investments in our economy. The capital gains tax rate was reduced from 20% to 15%. But, even better, GET THIS, if you are in the 10% or 15% tax brackets and you own certain corporate stocks that pay dividends, you will be taxed only 5% on that dividend income. (Referred to as qualified dividends by the IRS).

RALPH....Wow! I have been turning my income records over to an AARP tax preparer, each year, and did not know that I was getting that much of a break on my taxes courtesy of Bush and the Republican Congress back in 2001 and 2003.

JIM....You know Ralph, if these tax laws are allowed to lapse on December 31, 2010, the tax laws now in effect will revert to the numbers prior to 2001, therefore, the 10% rate will return to 15% (a 50% increase); the 15% rate on the difference between $65,100 and $45,200 (using this years numbers compared to 2001) will return to 28% (an 86% increase); and the 5% rate will return to 15% or 28% depending upon whether or not you are still in the 15% bracket (a 300% or 560% increase because dividends will then be taxed as ordinary income).
And, what really chaffs me is that the talking heads on TV only talk about the big break that the “RICH” are getting (which is the difference between the previous 39.6% rate and the current 35% rate, which was a reduction of only 11.6%).

RALPH....This all sounds like a lot of extra money will be coming out of my pocket, and out of my grandson’s pocket if that democrat gets elected. My grandson is a low income wage earner, because he is working at any job he can get during the year part time to help pay for college expenses.

JIM....That’s right Ralph. Large amounts of money will be taken from us little people, and it will be used to support bigger and bigger government, filled with high payed bureaucrats, at our expense.
As an example, I made a calculation for a household with a taxable income of 58,000 dollars this year. That income would fall into the low end of the middle-tier household earnings that Mr. Zuckerman wrote about. I calculated that the tax would INCREASE by 3,366 dollars over and above what it would normally be for this year, if the tax code were to return to pre 2001. That income would include a mix of income sources, including some qualified dividends.

RALPH.... I’m going to take the last word in this conversation, and say WOW! again! It appears to me that a vote for the democrat candidate in November 2008 will be a vote against OUR own best interest, and against the best interest of ALL our friends and neighbors who have low income, or are middle-tier income households.


This conversation took place in July 2008.

Weekly Opinion/Editorial

ZEAL BUT WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE
by Steve Fair

In just four months, America will choose a President. Other important races will be decided- from the local to the statewide level. Within the next ninety days you can expect most everyone you know to become a political expert and commentator on the elections. People who show little interest in politics for twenty-one out of twenty four months will somehow be completely qualified to perform a compenhensive SWOT analysis on every political race. Over coffee and donuts, they will argue their points with the fervor of a TV talking head. They will be convinced they know all the issues in a race, who is winning the race and the strategy necessary to get elected.

From the coffeshop to the bars, from family reunions to pulpits, politics will become the topic of conversation. But unfortunately most of the discussion will not be fact based. It will be based how the media has defined the issues and the “commentators” limited knowledge of politics.

Would you trust a surgeon to operate on you who only picked up a knife every four years? Would you allow a mechanic to work on your car who only worked on cars alternating years? Would you eat in a restaurant that only fired up their kitchen every twenty-four months? Yet, political candidates place their fate in the hands of novices and hobbyists- aka voters- every time they cast their hat in the ring.

Americans don’t stay engaged in the political process very long at a time. People start paying attention to politics from Labor Day to early November so candidates spend a huge amount of time and money in that short window getting their message out. Campaigns craft the message in the most positive simplistic form possible. And it works- political arm chair quarterbacks will debate the issues using the slogan laden messages and make their voting decision on shallow information that most often is not fact based.

The irony is those who will talk politics the loudest in the next ninety days are often not voters. When you vote, the local election board maintains a record of your showing up at the poll. That record is public record. Participation in an election by any individual can be verified by going to the local election board.

Amazingly it’s not just the political talkers who don’t vote, but there are candidates for office who are not regular voters. To be a candidate and not vote regularly is the height of hypocrisy. A principled candidate must have a record of voting in every election. To do otherwise is stating to those that do vote that none of this (politics/government) was important until “you” got involved. Those who don’t vote at every opportunity show no respect for the process. Their walk doesn’t square with their talk. Candidates who do not show up to vote are political opportunists that should get their house in order before they start trying to rule ours.

Political scientists say there are two groups of factors that influence a voter’s decision. The first group of factors is sociological and includes the income, sex, religion, geography and education of a voter. The second group is psychological factors. They include party affiliation, electability and last, but not least, issues in the race. Finding out which of those factors influences the voter is a multi-billion dollar industry. Because few races are run on the issues, the real winners are the consumer (voter) behavior experts. Marketing a candidate like a jar of jelly, the marketers “brand” the candidate to fit the market. They are trained to "sell the sizzle, not the bacon," so they sell not just the candidate, but the image and idea of the candidate. It sounds professional and is effective, but using that logic a candidate doesn’t have to have substance- they only have o be marketable.

Every American has a responsibility to be an informed, intelligent voter that bases their voting decision on the issues. Every candidate, regardless of party affiliation, should be willing to provide upon request a detailed portfolio of the issues in their race and their position. If more voters would ask candidates for that information, perhaps we would weed out the opportunitist and truly change government for the better. There would be less money in politics, because voters would be doing due diligence and making informed decisions by interacting with the candidates. Issues have taken a back seat to image. Substance has been sacrificed for shallowness. From the Court House to the White House, Americans have become apathetic toward politics. Until that changes, the zeal to discuss politics will be there, but without knowledge.

WANT TO KNOW YOUR LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATE'S

STANCE ON THE UNBORN?

Click on the link to go to the Oklahomans for Life website: http://www.okforlife.org/

Blogfather sees Netroots' growing clout

By Mike Allen 7/18/08 2:39 PM EST

AUSTIN, Texas — Markos Moulitsas, the founder of the Daily Kos political blog, told a huge annual gathering of online activists that they have shown their power and must continue pushing Democratic politicians to remain progressive. "We’re not still at capacity — we’re not at our peak,” Moulitsas said to applause from the crowd of just over 2,000 at the Austin Convention Center. “We’re the mainstream. … What we really don’t like are Democrats who are afraid to be Democrats.”

Read the entire article at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11865.html

Q: You said once that Republicans reach out to black voters only “60 days before an election.” Is this channel an attempt to remedy that?

A: I think that’s the problem with the Republican Party: They don’t take advantage of these venues enough. I would hope that both parties and people of all stripes would say, “Hey, here’s a resource and an asset.” I don’t think we want [to be] a venue for Republicans. Republicans have venues today, and they don’t use them.

AN INTERVIEW W/JC

J.C. WATTS TO LAUNCH AFRICAN-AMERICAN NEWS NETWORK

By Helena Andrews- 7/17/08

“There’s a whole lot more to the African-American community than entertainment and sports,” said J.C. Watts, the former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, who is switching gears from a newsmaker to a newsman. With the help of Comcast and DishNet, Watts plans to launch the first cable channel dedicated to the African-American perspective. (The only channels dedicated to African-American audiences today are BET and TV One, both of which have an entertainment focus.) The Black Television News Channel is scheduled to launch in early 2009. Just in time to inaugurate the first black president?

“Political news is just one facet of American life,” said Watts, who added that the channel will not have a partisan bent. So don’t worry — he has no plans to become the black Rupert Murdoch.

Read the entire INTERVIEW at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11806.html