Forget Ivey’s age and health, what should concern you is her staff
Yesterday, Bill Britt over at Alabama Political Reporter dropped what was intended to be a bombshell story about Gov. Kay Ivey‘s health and details about the cover up of her hospitalization in Colorado for what former ALEA Chief Spencer Collier described as “mini-strokes.” The stroke accusation was quickly disputed by her doctor in a letter that raised as many questions as it gave us answers. Here are my thoughts on the whole mess: 1) Voters don’t care. Ivey is beloved in the state. Don’t believe me? Look at her favorability numbers. Understand that coming from previous administrations where some could say most of the men in recent years had behavior that was not just unethical, but sometimes criminal, Ivey is doing great. That said, I’m not sure what the continued discussion about her age or health is hoping to accomplish. Democrats were never going to vote for her. Her base is likely to be more sympathetic to her given the constant attacks, and then there’s that whole issue of math. So long as we’re in Alabama and so long as she doesn’t have a Roy Moore-style scandal in the next several weeks, she’s going to win on Nov. 6. Being sick wouldn’t qualify for the type of scandal it would take to make a difference. 2) The real story in this story is the demotion/transfer of Trooper Drew Brooks and any effort by her staff to engage in a cover-up, no matter what they were trying to cover up. You’re really, really missing the point if you read that story and your take away is “she’s not healthy enough to be governor.” Ivey’s real problem, and this is something I’ve been talking about since she took over in the governor’s office, is the staff. They screw up the basics of their job. I know, I know I’m suppose to say they’re there for the people of Alabama, but let’s be honest they’re there to make Ivey look good. It’s that simple. They have pretty easy job. Yes, the governor makes tough decisions, but at the end of the day what voters look at is the image that is portrayed by the media, her appearances, her surrogates, what her administration is doing. Her staff just needs to wrap-up her accomplishments in a pretty little package with a bow and get out of the way so that they don’t give reason to the press, or others, to write or report bad things. If you’re the staff and you’re the story for your screw-ups — you’re failing. I’ve never in my life seen an office, including Robert Bentley‘s so bad at cover-up, lies and outright laziness. Some on her staff are completely out of control and that ladies and gentleman should be the story we’re talking about. I’m all for keeping Ivey as our governor (sorry I’m a tried and true small government/fiscally conservative republican Walt and his big government agenda isn’t my cup of tea) but can we vote her staff out? 3) How do we not start an investigation into the potential misuse and abuse of the security detail? If reports are to be believed, the executive security detail in both the Bentley and Ivey administrations have become the whipping-boy of power-hungry individuals — Bentley himself, and in this case it looks like Ivey’s Chief of Staff Steve Pelham (despite his previous statements to the contrary). This is sad and should be handled not through media reports, rumors and gossip but through a professional unbiased investigation. The executive security detail has a very simple mission: protect the governor and lieutenant governor. It’s not challenging to understand even if staff would want the agents to be political lackeys they’re not. Their sworn law enforcement officers not babysitters, secret keepers, errand boys/girls. They assess threats on the ground when their principles are moving around the state or even within their offices. They also assess threats we don’t see or know about those that are called, emailed or snail mailed in. Just out of college, I briefly worked in the Florida governor’s office handling the governors travel schedule (a job not for the faint of heart or those who ever wish to have a life of their own). This job allowed me to see the interworking of all the offices and roles within the executive office of the governor and how they interacted with the law enforcement tasked with the governor and lt. governors safety. Those Florida Department of Law Enforcement officers were tremendous. I can’t imagine the ALEA officers are anything less. They travel frequently and leave their homes and families, work crazy hours. It’s a tough job. It’s tough enough to do without power-hungry staffers asking you to lie and transfer you for refusing to do so. While others may be focused on the potential implications of health scares, which won’t get us anywhere, I’m asking for folks to focus on the abuse of power and the potentially unfair transfer of law enforcement officers as retaliation for things not associated with their jobs. And if the reason for relocation was true, he tried to hack her email, that’s more of a fireable offense. We need a full, unbiased investigation into all of the actions surrounding this incident. As for the governor’s office. Stay tuned in the coming days I’ll be posting more about my efforts to hold Ivey’s staff accountable for the transparency she promised but that they aren’t delivering on.
Terminated VA director James Talton hired by Ala. Dept. of Public Health
In 2014, James Talton was the first employee terminated by the Central Alabama Veterans Health Care System (CAVHCS) for neglect of duty following a law that that helped speed up the process of removing top VA executives for poor performance or misconduct. On Friday, the Alabama Department of Public Health (ADPH) confirmed he’s hired by the department and named the new Public Health Administrative Officer. WFSA 12 News reports according to the Alabama State Personnel Department, Talton’s salary with ADPH is $86,390.40. Talton’s firing from the CAVHCS came amid numerous allegations of rampant abuse and mismanagement at a VA health care facility in Phoenix, Arizona. At the time, Alabama 2nd District Rep. Martha Roby said the Phoenix revelations, particularly the scheduling fraud, “sounded familiar” compared to the many complaints she received from veteran constituents. By June, it was reported that CAVHCS employees had engaged in particularly egregious scheduling manipulation. And, even with the artificially inflated numbers, CAVHCS had some of the longest wait times for veterans patients in the country. “Numerous instances of misconduct, negligence and cover-up within the Central Alabama VA led to our system becoming one of the nation’s worst,” Roby said in 2014. Ultimately Roby and her staff began digging deeper to find out what was really happening inside CAVHCS, which ultimately led to Talton being placed on administration leave in August while the administrative and clinical practices of CAVHCS were being investigated. In October, Talton was fired. Roby deemed it “a necessary and important step toward instilling accountability at the VA and building trust within the veteran community.”
Anxiety over GOP health plan for those with severe illnesses
Unease and uncertainty are settling over Americans with serious illnesses as Republicans move closer to dismantling Democratic former President Barack Obama‘s health care system. A New Orleans attorney with multiple sclerosis fears he’ll be forced to close his practice if he loses coverage, while a Philadelphia woman with asthma is looking at stockpiling inhalers. The Republican health care bill pushed through the House on Thursday leaves those with pre-existing conditions fearful of higher premiums and losing coverage altogether if the Affordable Care Act is replaced. The bill sets aside billions of dollars more to help people afford coverage, but experts say that money is unlikely to guarantee an affordable alternative for people now covered under a popular provision of the existing law that prevents insurers from rejecting them or charging higher rates based on their health. What happens to those with pre-existing conditions under the Republican plan remains unknown. Several people unsettled by the prospects expressed these concerns. ___ FORMER UTAH CHEF Jake Martinez said he’s worried about getting health insurance in the future because he has epilepsy, considered a pre-existing condition by insurers. For the last several years, he, his wife and their three children have settled into a comfortable place using health insurance under the Affordable Care Act. But now the Murray, Utah, residents are worried about what may happen with this new health care bill. “Today, it really kind of sunk in that not only are we not going to potentially have health care coverage but that it was done as a political win rather than a well-thought-out plan,” said Martinez, a 32-year-old former chef who’s studying social work. “That’s what stings about it.” ___ KENTUCKY ATTORNEY Shortly after being diagnosed with type I diabetes, Amanda Perkins learned about the perils of pre-existing conditions when she starting trying to buy health insurance. Now she worries that protections under the Affordable Care Act that made sure certain essential health benefits, like insulin prescriptions, could be eliminated. The new Republican plan would let some states allow insurers to charge higher premiums for people with pre-existing conditions, but only if those people had a lapse in insurance coverage. Supporters say those states would need to have programs in place to help people pay for expensive medical treatments, including high-risk pools. But Perkins said Kentucky’s previous high-risk pool had a 12-month waiting period and was too expensive for her. “I bought a house just a couple of months ago. Will it come down to me paying my mortgage payment or paying my health insurance so I don’t have a lapse in coverage?” said Perkins, an attorney for a small firm in Lexington, Kentucky. ___ KANSAS GRAPHIC DESIGNER Janella Williams has a rare neurological disorder that forces her to receive expensive IV drugs every seven weeks. Without it, she would not be able to walk. Williams, who owns her own graphic design company in Lawrence, Kansas, pays $480 under an Obamacare plan. It keeps her out-of-pocket maximum at $3,500 a year and provides her coverage despite her pre-existing condition. “I’m terrified of becoming disabled. If I’m being completely honest, I’ve thought of ending my life if it comes to that,” she said. High-risk pools run by the state are not the answer, she says. The Republican plan would also bring back lifetime caps on coverage, which Williams says she would meet after only her first IV treatment. She and her husband both work full time, but wouldn’t be able to afford the roughly $600,000 a year her treatments cost once the cap is met. “I have really lost my faith in humanity,” she said. “It’s terrible how little we care for the sick.” ___ NORTH CAROLINA FINANCIAL ADVISER John Thompson credits his survival in large part because he bought a family insurance policy through the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Thompson, of Greensboro, North Carolina, was laid off in 2013, lost his employer-backed insurance and diagnosed with cancer during the year he was unemployed. If the House proposal allowing insurers to make coverage for pre-existing conditions unaffordable takes hold, he fears his cancer history will make him uninsurable if he would lose his current job as a retirement financial adviser. “Like many of us here, whether you have asthma or a heart condition or diabetes or like me, cancer, any type of pre-existing condition, you go back to the way it was before, you give insurance companies carte blanche to do their underwriting and to exclude you,” Thompson said. ___ FLORIDA MOM Shelby Jehlen, of New Port Richey, Florida, was diagnosed six years ago with leukemia and says she wouldn’t be able to afford insurance if she lost her roughly $400 a month subsidy. Jehlen saves about $1,000 every three months to see her cancer doctor under her Obamacare plan, but still pays about $1,500 for the check-ups. She was forced to quit work because of all the X-rays and other chemicals she was exposed to daily as a veterinary assistant and now cuts corners, sacrificing phones and school activities for her two teen daughters, to afford the monthly premiums. The stress has caused her to struggle with depression and anxiety. “Absolutely, I’m scared. I’m worried I’m going to have to figure out what I’m going to do with all my side effects with my leukemia if they take this away from me,” she said. ___ PHILADELPHIA BUSINESSWOMAN Adrienne Standley has been preparing for the possibility of losing her insurance since President Donald Trump took office. Three days after the inauguration, she set up an appointment for a birth control implant so she would be covered for four years, no matter what happens. The 29-year-old operations director at a start-up apparel business in Philadelphia also has asthma and attention deficit disorder. “I’m looking at stockpiling, making sure I have an inhaler,” she said. “I’m pretty scared to lose coverage.” ___ NEW ORLEANS ATTORNEY John S. Williams says he’ll be forced to close his practice and find a job with a group insurance
House Freedom Caucus chairman says there’s ‘no deal’ on the GOP health care legislation after White House meeting
The Latest on the upcoming health care vote in the House (all times local): 1:35 p.m. The chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus says there’s “no deal” on the GOP health care legislation after a meeting at the White House with President Donald Trump. The assertion from Congressman Mark Meadows of North Carolina throws plans for a vote on the bill later Thursday into doubt. Two dozen or so Freedom Caucus members have opposed the legislation pushed by GOP leaders, saying it doesn’t go far enough to repeal “Obamacare.” But the group had been negotiating directly with the White House in hopes of reaching agreement to eliminate additional requirements on insurers. Without a deal with the Freedom Caucus, and with moderate-leaning members defecting, it seems unlikely GOP leaders will have the votes they need to go forward with a vote later Thursday as they had planned. ___ 10:06 a.m. Former President Barack Obama is celebrating the seventh anniversary of his landmark health care law, saying in a statement on Thursday that “America is stronger because of the Affordable Care Act.” Obama does not directly address GOP efforts to repeal his law, which are coming to a head Thursday as House leaders push toward a vote on their repeal legislation. Republicans remain short of votes. The former president does say that if Republicans are serious about lowering costs and expanding coverage, and are prepared to work with Democrats, “That’s something we all should welcome.” But, Obama says, “we should start from the baseline that any changes will make our health care system better, not worse for hardworking Americans.” He notes 20 million Americans gained coverage under his law. ___ 9:40 a.m. President Donald Trump is urging people to call their lawmakers to express support for the Republican legislation to repeal and replace “Obamacare.” Trump posted a video on Twitter Thursday asking people to get behind the plan. He says that people were “given many lies” about the Affordable Care Act. Trump added that the legislation was “terrific” and “you’re going to be very, very happy.” The GOP legislation was on the brink hours before Republican leaders planned to put it on the House floor for a showdown vote. Trump was spending the final hours trying to close the deal with conservatives who have opposed the plan. ___ 9:00 a.m. The GOP’s long-promised legislation to repeal and replace “Obamacare” stands on the brink, just hours before Republican leaders planned to put it on the House floor for a showdown vote. The stakes are high, and Republicans are staring at the possibility of a failure that would throw prospects for their other legislative goals into uncertainty. Speaking to members of the conservative Freedom Caucus mid-day Thursday, Trump is pitching concessions to representatives who want to limit the requirement for health plans to include benefits including substance abuse and maternity care. But those changes appear to be scaring off at least some moderate Republicans. In a count by The Associated Press, at least 26 Republicans say they opposed the bill, enough to narrowly defeat the measure. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Winners and losers in Donald Trump’s first budget plan
Military spending would get the biggest boost in President Donald Trump‘s proposed budget. Environmental programs, medical research, Amtrak and an array of international and cultural programs — from Africa to Appalachia — would take big hits, among the many parts of the government he’d put on a crash diet. The budget proposal out Thursday is a White House wish list; it’ll be up to Congress to decide where money goes. If Trump gets his way, there will be more losers than winners among government departments and programs. Some programs would tread water: WIC grants — money to states for health care and nutrition for low-income women, infants and children — are one example. Monday for states grants for water infrastructure projects would be held level as well. Some others would lose everything: Trump proposes to eliminate money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the national endowments for the arts and the humanities and more than a dozen other independent agencies financed by the government. A sampling: WINNERS —The Pentagon. Trump proposes a 10 percent increase in the massive defense budget, adding $52 billion in military spending in one year top expand personnel, equipment and capability. Another $2 billion would go to nuclear weapons. —Veterans Affairs. Up 5.9 percent. That’s an additional $4.4 billion, driven by ever-growing health care costs. —Homeland Security. Up 6.8 percent. That’s $2.8 billion more. Most of the increase, $2.6 billion, would be to help kick-start Trump’s promised border wall. The president has repeatedly said Mexico would pay for the wall; Mexican officials are adamant that they won’t. Trump also wants an extra $1.5 billion for more immigration jails and deportations, and $314 million to hire 1,500 immigration enforcement and border patrol agents. —The National Nuclear Security Administration, which oversees the maintenance and safety of the nuclear arsenal and its research labs. The agency would grow by 11.3 percent, or $1.4 billion, so that it takes up more than half the Energy Department’s budget, which would shrink overall. —Opioid prevention and treatment: a proposed $500 million increase in the Health and Human Services Department to counter the epidemic and more money for the Justice Department to combat the problem. —School choice: $1.4 billion more to expand school choice programs, bringing spending in that area to $20 billion, even as the Education Department’s overall budget would be cut by $9 billion, or 13 percent. LOSERS: —EPA, facing a 31.4 percent cut, or $2.6 billion. The plan would cut 3,200 jobs at the agency, eliminate a new plan for tighter regulations on power plants, and “zero out” programs to clean up the Great Lakes and the Chesapeake Bay. —Health and Human Services, facing the largest cut in dollar terms: $12.6 billion, or 16.2 percent. The plan would cut $5.8 billion from the nearly $32 billion National Institutes of Health, the nation’s premier medical research agency, bringing its total to $25.9 billion. It’s not clear what research on diseases or disorders would lose the most money, although the budget plan specifically calls for elimination of a division that focuses on global health. Already, the NIH’s budget hasn’t kept pace with inflation over the last decade, making it dramatically harder for scientists around the country to win money for research projects into potential new treatments or better understanding of disease. —State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development. Down 28 percent, or $10 billion. Foreign aid would be reduced, as would money to the U.N. and to multilateral development banks including the World Bank. Some foreign military grants would be shifted to loans. —Labor Department. A more than 20 percent cut, or $2.5 billion. To be eliminated: a $434 million program that has helped more than 1 million people 55 and older find jobs, according to the department. The blueprint says the Senior Community Service Employment Program is inefficient and unproven. —Agriculture Department. A nearly 21 percent cut, or $4.7 billion, achieved in part by cutting land acquisition in the National Forest System, rural water infrastructure and statistical capabilities at the department. Trump also proposes reduced staff in county USDA offices, an idea that fell flat in Congress when President Barack Obama proposed a similar reduction. —Transportation Department. Trump proposes a cut of nearly 13 percent, or $2.4 billion. Amtrak, local transit agencies, and rural communities that depend on federal subsidies to obtain scheduled airline service would take the brunt. Trump would eliminate subsidies for Amtrak long-distance train routes, which would most likely mean the end of those routes since they are generally not profitable. Money for the Federal Transit Administration grant program for new light rail and subway construction would be eliminated except for multi-year projects the government has already committed to help fund. —Internal Revenue Service: After years of cuts, the IRS budget would be cut again — by $239 million from this year’s spending levels. The IRS budget is down about $1 billion from its height in 2010. Since then, the agency has lost more than 17,000 employees. As a result, the chances of getting audited have rarely been so low. —Commerce Department. A 16 percent or $1.5 billion cut. The plan would eliminate more than $250 million in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration grants, including a program that helps coastal communities adapt to climate change, deal with invasive species and maintain healthy water and fisheries. Also on the chopping block: the Economic Development Administration, which provides federal dollars to foster job creation and attract private investment; and the Minority Business Development Agency, which is dedicated to helping minority-owned business get off the ground and grow. The Trump administration says the two agencies duplicate work done elsewhere. —School programs: The plan would eliminate a $1.2 billion initiative that supports before- and after-school programs as well as summer programs. —Independent agencies supported by tax dollars. If Trump prevails, a hefty contingent of entities would lose all federal money and be shut. Among them, the public broadcasting corporation, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Chemical Safety Board, the United States
18M more Americans would be uninsured under 2016 GOP repeal
Insurance premiums would soar and some 18 million Americans would lose health coverage if Republicans partially repeal President Barack Obama‘s health care law without a replacement, Congress’ nonpartisan budget office estimated Tuesday. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed a GOP 2016 repeal measure, which Republicans have cited as a starting point for their 2017 drive to dismantle and replace Obama’s health overhaul. Premiums for policies bought from online marketplaces established by Obama’s law would rise up to 25 percent a year after enactment of repeal. They’d about double by 2026, the report estimated. There’d also be 18 million more uninsured people a year after enactment and 32 million more by 2026, the report projected. The numbers served as a flashing yellow light for this year’s effort by President-elect Donald Trump and congressional Republicans to annul Obama’s law and — in a more complex challenge — institute their own alternative. While Republicans have produced several outlines for how they’d recraft Obama’s 2010 statute, they’ve never united behind one plan despite years of trying and there are many unknowns about what will happen in insurance markets while the GOP effort is underway. The report also became immediate political fodder for both sides in what is expected to be one of this year’s premier battles in Congress. Trump seemed to complicate that fight over the weekend when he told The Washington Post that a forthcoming GOP plan would provide “insurance for everybody.” In contrast, some congressional Republicans have used a more modest description, saying the plan will offer “universal access.” The 2016 bill that CBO analyzed did not replace Obama’s law with a GOP alternative, which Republicans have insisted will be an integral part of their health care drive this year. Because of that omission, Donald Stewart, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the report “assumes a situation that simply doesn’t exist and that no one in Congress advocates.” AshLee Strong, spokeswoman for House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., called the estimates “meaningless” because they ignored plans for legislation and regulatory actions by the incoming Trump administration aimed at revamping how people could obtain coverage. Even so, Republicans have cited last year’s bill — which Obama vetoed — as a starting point for their 2017 drive to erase his law. Finding unity among Trump and GOP lawmakers on what a new plan should look like is expected to be a challenging task Democrats used the report as ammunition to assail the Republican health-care push. “Nonpartisan statistics don’t lie: it’s crystal clear that the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act will increase health care costs for millions of Americans and kick millions more off of their health insurance,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a written statement that used the law’s formal name. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Donald Trump action on health care could cost Planned Parenthood
One of President-elect Donald Trump‘s first, and defining, acts next year could come on Republican legislation to cut off taxpayer money from Planned Parenthood. Trump sent mixed signals during the campaign about the 100-year-old organization, which provides birth control, abortions and various women’s health services. He said “millions of women are helped by Planned Parenthood,” but he also endorsed efforts to defund it. Trump once described himself as “very pro-choice.” Now he’s in the anti-abortion camp. Still, the Republican has been steadfast in calling for repeal of President Barack Obama‘s health care law, and the GOP-led Congress is eager to comply. One of the first pieces of legislation will be a repeal measure that’s paired with cutting off money for Planned Parenthood. While the GOP may delay the impact of scuttling the law for almost four years, denying Planned Parenthood roughly $400 million in Medicaid funds would take effect immediately. “We’ve already shown what we believe with respect to funding of Planned Parenthood,” House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters last month. “Our position has not changed.” Legislation to both repeal the law and cut Planned Parenthood funds for services to low-income women moved through Congress along party lines last year. Obama vetoed it; Trump’s win removes any obstacle. Cutting off Planned Parenthood from taxpayer money is a long-sought dream of social conservatives, but it’s a loser in the minds of some GOP strategists. Planned Parenthood is loathed by anti-abortion activists who are the backbone of the GOP coalition. Polls, however, show that the group is favorably viewed by a sizable majority of Americans — 59 percent in a Gallup survey last year, including more than one-third of Republicans. “Defunding Planned Parenthood as one of their first acts in the new year would be devastating for millions of families and a huge mistake by Republicans,” said incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. Democrats pledge to defend the group, and they point to the issue of birth control and women’s health as helping them win Senate races in New Hampshire and Nevada this year. They argue that Trump would be leading off with a political loser. But if he were to have second thoughts and if the Planned Parenthood provision were to be dropped from the health law repeal, then social conservatives probably would erupt. “They may well be able to succeed, but the women of America are going to know what that means,” said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., citing reduced access to services Planned Parenthood clinics provide. “And we’re going to call Republicans on the carpet for that.” At least one Republican senator, Susan Collins of Maine, may oppose the effort. Collins has defended Planned Parenthood, saying it “provides important family planning, cancer screening and basic preventive health care services to millions of women across the country.” She voted against the health overhaul repeal last year as a result. Continued opposition from Collins, which appears likely, would put the repeal measure on a knife’s edge in the Senate, where Republicans will have a 52-48 majority next year. Senate GOP leaders could afford to lose just one other Republican. Anti-abortion conservatives have long tried to cut Planned Parenthood funds, arguing that reimbursements for nonabortion services such as gynecological exams help subsidize abortions. Though Planned Parenthood says it performed 324,000 abortions in 2014, the most recent year tallied, the vast majority of women seek out contraception, testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, and other services including cancer screenings. The drive against Planned Parenthood picked up steam in 2015 after an anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress released secretly-recorded videos that it claimed showed Planned Parenthood officials profiting from sales of fetal tissue for medical research. The measure, however, would strip Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid funding for only a year, a step taken to give time for continued investigations of Planned Parenthood’s activities. A House panel is still active, but investigations by 13 states have been concluded without charges of wrongdoing. Planned Parenthood strongly denied the allegations and no wrongdoing was proved, but the group announced in October that it will no longer accept reimbursement for the costs involved in providing fetal tissue to researchers. The defunding measure would take away roughly $400 million in Medicaid money from the group in the year after enactment, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, and would result in roughly 400,000 women losing access to care. One factor is that being enrolled in Medicaid doesn’t guarantee access to a doctor, so women denied Medicaid services from Planned Parenthood may not be able to find replacement care. Planned Parenthood says private contributions are way up since the election, but that they are not a permanent replacement for federal reimbursements. “We’re going to fight like hell to make sure our doors stay open,” said Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Erica Sackin. Republished with permission of The Associated Press.
Business owners replace idealists in legal-pot movement
Business owners are replacing idealists in the pot-legalization movement as the nascent marijuana industry creates a broad base of new donors, many of them entrepreneurs willing to spend to change drug policy. Unlike in the past, these supporters are not limited to a few wealthy people seeking change for personal reasons. They constitute a bigger coalition of business interests. And their support provides a significant financial advantage for pro-legalization campaigns. “It’s mainly a social-justice movement. But undoubtedly there are business interests at work, which is new in this movement,” said Kayvan Khalatbari, a one-time pot-shop owner and now head of a Denver marijuana consulting firm. The donors offer a wider foundation of support for the marijuana-related measures on the ballot next month in nine states. The campaigns are still largely funded by national advocacy organizations such as the Drug Policy Alliance, the Marijuana Policy Project and the New Approach PAC. But those groups are less reliant on billionaire activists. On the other side, legalization opponents are attracting new support from businesses as diverse as trucking, pharmaceuticals and even gambling. In 2012, Colorado and Washington became the first states to pass ballot initiatives legalizing recreational marijuana for adults. Oregon, Alaska and Washington, D.C., followed in 2014. The result is a bigger pool of existing businesses that see expansion potential in more states authorizing use of the drug. Take Darren Roberts of Boca Raton, Florida, co-founder of High There!, a social network for fans of pot. He donated $500 this year to a campaign to legalize marijuana for medical purposes in Florida. Roberts is also encouraging his customers to donate to legalization campaigns in their own states. “I would say it’s a combination of both the philanthropic social interest and the potential financial interest,” Roberts said. All five states considering recreational marijuana — Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada — have seen more money flowing to groups that favor legalization than to those fighting it. The same is true in the four states considering starting or reinstating medical marijuana — Arkansas, Florida, Montana and North Dakota. The donors who contribute to anti-legalization efforts have changed, too. Some deep-pocket donors who drove opposition campaigns in years past are opening their pocketbooks again. Casino owner Sheldon Adelson of Nevada, for example, gave some $5 million in 2014 to oppose a medical-pot measure in Florida. This year, as his home state considers recreational pot and Florida takes a second look at medical marijuana, Adelson has spent $2 million on opposition in Nevada and $1 million to oppose legalization in Massachusetts. Other casinos are donating to Nevada opposition efforts, too, including MGM Resorts International and Atlantis Casino & Resort. Nevada gambling regulators have warned that marijuana violates federal law. Some new opponents have also emerged, moving beyond the typical anti-pot base that includes law enforcement groups, alcohol companies and drug-treatment interests. A pharmaceutical company that is working on a synthetic version of marijuana’s psychoactive ingredient, Insys Therapeutics Inc., has given at least $500,000 to oppose full marijuana legalization in its home state of Arizona. The company did not return a message for comment on the donation. Company officials said in a statement last month that Insys opposes the Arizona ballot measure because marijuana’s safety has not been demonstrated through the federal regulatory process. Other new names popping up in opposition disclosures include U-Haul, which gave $25,000 to oppose legalization in Arizona, and Julie Schauer, a Pennsylvania retiree who gave more than $1 million to a group opposing legalization. Neither returned messages seeking comment on their donations. Smaller donors to opposition campaigns say they are hopelessly outgunned by the young pot industry, but are giving out of a sense of duty. “Everyone’s talking about it like it’s a done deal, but I can’t sit by when I’ve seen firsthand the destruction that marijuana does to people,” said Howard Samuels, a drug-treatment therapist in Los Angeles who donated some $20,000 to oppose recreational legalization in California. Samuels and other marijuana opponents insist that the pot industry cynically hopes to get more people addicted to the drug to line its own pockets, comparing pot providers to tobacco companies. But marijuana-industry donors insist that they are simply carrying on a tradition started by the tie-dye wearing drug activists who pushed legalization long before there was any business model attached to it. They insist they would contribute financially even without any money-making potential. “When a movement becomes an industry, of course the advocacy picture gets shuffled,” said Bob Hoban, a Denver attorney specializing in marijuana law and a $1,000 donor to the Marijuana Policy Project. “It shifts away from activists to more traditional business interests, because the skill sets don’t exactly transfer.” Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
Guns, immigration and Zika top agenda as Congress returns
Gun control, immigration and money to combat the Zika virus top the congressional agenda as lawmakers sprint toward the political conventions this month and a seven-week summer recess. Amid all that, Republicans plan to squeeze in a meeting with Donald Trump on Thursday. The House and Senate have just eight legislative days before their break, and lawmakers have scheduled a handful of politically charged votes with implications for incumbents in November’s election. In the House, legislation to fight terrorism and a gun control measure that already failed in the Senate are planned for this week. House Speaker Paul Ryan said a GOP plan to keep suspected terrorists from obtaining firearms would do so “without compromising a citizen’s basic bill of rights,” including the rights to bear arms and receive due process under the law. In the Senate, immigration bills and legislation to impose labeling on genetically modified food are on tap. Unclear is whether Republicans and Democrats can resolve the dispute over funds for the mosquito-borne Zika virus now that summer is in full swing, or whether the matter will have to wait until September when Congress returns. A look at the issues: ___ ZIKA Back in February, President Barack Obama requested $1.9 billion in emergency money to fight Zika, which causes grave birth defects and has infected 287 pregnant women in the United States and 250 in U.S. territories, according to the most recent numbers from the Centers for Disease Control. Congress has failed to fund the request as the issue has been caught up in partisan fights and the typical dysfunction. House Republicans rammed through a bill that would provide $1.1 billion by cutting money from other government agencies. The legislation, to the anger of Democrats, would bar new funding for Planned Parenthood clinics in Puerto Rico and allow pesticide spraying that environmentalists argue would be harmful. Senate Democrats have blocked the bill and another vote is expected this week, although progress is unlikely. ___ GUN CONTROL Bowing to election-year pressure from Democrats, Ryan, R-Wis., says the House will vote on a GOP proposal aimed at keeping suspected terrorists from obtaining firearms, a measure backed by the National Rifle Association. Democrats want to vote on their own gun control bills, and they haven’t ruled out a return to disruptive tactics if they’re rebuffed. Ryan indicated on Tuesday that Democrats are unlikely to get a vote. Democrats staged a sit-in on the House floor that lasted nearly 26 hours last month to call attention to their demand for gun-control votes. The sit-in followed the June 12 mass shooting in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 people and heightened attention on the national toll taken by firearms. The GOP bill would let the government block firearms purchases for suspected terrorists, but only if prosecutors can prove in court that the buyer is involved in terrorism. It would also establish a new office within the Department of Homeland Security to focus on preventing extremist groups from recruiting followers. Democrats say the Republican bill is too weak. They want votes on one measure expanding background check requirements for gun buyers, and a second banning firearms sales to terror suspects without requiring prosecutors to first prove the buyer was embarking on terrorism. ___ FAA REAUTHORIZATION Key House and Senate lawmakers are close to a deal on a bill to extend the Federal Aviation Administration’s programs and policies, which are due to expire on July 15. Rep. Bill Shuster, R-Pa., chairman of the House Transportation Committee, has agreed to temporarily drop his contentious plan to privatize the nation’s air traffic control system in order to allow a bill to move forward. Negotiations have focused on what policy provisions to include in the extension. There is strong support in both chambers to include an array of proposals to enhance airports security in light of recent airport attacks in Istanbul and Brussels. Proposals to extend new protections to airline consumers, relax medical requirements for private pilots and lift some restrictions on commercial drone flights are also under discussion. ___ TRUMP House and Senate Republicans are slated to meet with the GOP’s presumptive presidential nominee less than two weeks before the party convention in Cleveland. Among those expected to attend the separate sessions are Sens. Bob Corker of Tennessee, Jeff Sessions of Alabama and Joni Ernst of Iowa, all of whom have been mentioned as possible running mates for the blustery billionaire. Trump’s short list of possible vice presidential candidates is heavy with Washington insiders who could help usher his agenda through Congress. ____ IMMIGRATION Senate Democrats are expected to block a GOP bill that would withhold congressional funding from so-called sanctuary cities that shield residents from federal immigration authorities. Republicans also are proposing a bill to impose a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for any person who illegally re-enters the country after being removed. Republicans have pushed for action since last year when 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle was shot in San Francisco. The man charged in the killing was in the country illegally despite a long criminal record and multiple prior deportations. He had been released by San Francisco authorities despite a request from federal immigration authorities to keep him detained. Republished with permission of the Associated Press.
It’s time to make mental health an everyday concern: guest opinion
I was on my way to dinner when the radio brought word that Robin Williams was dead, suspected of committing suicide. My Facebook and Twitter feeds quickly filled up with notes about his talent, larger-than-life personality and the joy he brought to many. Inevitably, many of these posts also talked about the need for mental health support. This is not my first post on mental health. I wrote two during mental health month: one on fighting the stigma and one on mental health public policy and funding. But my message today is simpler: We must stop waiting until tragedy strikes to flood the airwaves, our Facebook pages and our conversations with talk about this important issue. People suffer from mental health-related problems daily, and many times they suffer quietly. I have never been as proud as I was when my beautiful, talented and caring best friend sought treatment and started to talk publicly about her personal fight with depression. She proudly declared on her blog “I am depressed and I’m happy.” It is this kind of strength we need more of in our daily lives. It is this kind of normalizing what is very common that will prevent not only tragedy but needless suffering. When a loved one is diagnosed with cancer or other health-related problems, we talk about it openly. We may ask for prayers, mention them in conversation and ask those with prior experience to help. That’s not the case with mental health. We must stop waiting until tragedy strikes to flood the airwaves, our Facebook pages and our conversations with talk about this important issue. There will be a lot of talk about suicide in the coming days. I suspect experts will make their rounds on the 24-hour news channels. And you can do more than post a Facebook message. With one in four Americans having mental-health issues, chances are you know someone who is facing depression, anxiety, substance or alcohol abuse or a related issue. Pick up your phone and call them. Stop by their house. Remind them you care for them — not just in times of national discussion but every day. Have a real conversation to tell them that they are loved. Today, we are mourning the loss of a great entertainer, but every day families across our nation mourn their own losses. It’s past time we talk about the mother, brother, sister and sons who are suffering and offer support before another family is forced to mourn their loss. This column appeared first on AL.com. Apryl Marie Fogel is a new Alabama resident who works as a conservative political activist.
