Saturday, June 28, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE from BOB CONAWAY for CONGRESS CAMPAIGN [Press Release #7] -- PAUL COOK's VOTE [CA-08] on HR 4810 SHOWS HE DOESN'T GET THAT HIS DUTY AS A CONGRESSMAN IS DIFFERENT FROM BEING A RETIRED COLONEL: Privatizing Care for Veterans Does Not Address the Problems Nor Stop the Delay Scams from Happening with the Private Vendors



Library of Congress »6/10/2014--Passed House without amendment.Veteran Access to Care Act of 2014 - Section2 - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to enter into contracts with such non-VA facilities--sounds good--its a pass off more than problem solver.
.
This is another bill voted for by Paul Cook--its wrong headed and goes the wrong direction. Rather than funding and staffing veterans' care through the Veterans' administration, he votes to take funding away and give it to private facilities. Rather than manage the budget with good legislation, he uses it as an opportunity to privatize more government function.
.
This is an abrogation of the duty of oversight Paul Cook has as a Congressman and as Marine Colonel who is charged to care for the men & women under his command (which effectively is everyone in the service because of his oath of office). Paul Cook should be focusing his energies (and he has plenty of time since Boehner only scheduled 95 days of session for the year) in solving the VA's problems by getting them the funding, staff and management skillsets they need. 
.
Regrettably, staff and funding were not the only issue(s)!
 
See: http://progress-index.com/news/va-ig-warn-against-rush-of-veterans-into-private-care-1.1703801 [Syndicated columnist Tom Philpott has covered the military for more than 35 years. Send comments to Military Update, P.O. Box 231111, Centreville, VA, 20120, email milupdate@aol.com or twitter: Tom Philpott @Military_Update] in part reports that
.
1.  VA officials, including the acting inspector general, and a health expert from the Government Accountability Office, warned against a rush of veterans into private sector care pointing to , saying it could backfire if not carefully coordinated and properly resourced. The Inspector General said transferring records with non-VA providers remains a hurdle (i.e. privacy). "We need to ensure that there is sufficient non-VA care coordination staff in facilities. You can't simply feed into community [care] and assume it's going to take place,"  Philip Matkovsky, assistant deputy under secretary for health administrative operations, warned. "We have to coordinate that care."--HR 4810 does not address how that will be done.
 .
2. Many VA facilities apparently manipulated wait time data to pretend to meet internal goals for providing timely access to care by a veteran calling for an appointment and being told it would be 120 days out because that's the first available, that appointment got scored as being the veteran's desired date and the facility then posts "zero waiting days" though the veteran actually waited four months. Another trick was that the vet got the appointment 120 days out. Two weeks before that appointment, it got cancelled in the system and it gets recreated with the veteran is no wiser to the fact his appointment was cancelled because it's been recreated for the same time and date (but the appointment log shows a wait of two weeks not 120 days) ---HR 4810 does nothing to stop these abuses or prevent the private vendors from pulling the same thing.
.
3. There is nothing in HR 4810 that attempts to reallocate existing resources to close the delays and care delivery
.
If elected to Congress, I would look to lead, not just throw money and follow poorly thought out plans. I have had three men in my family die of service connected disabilities. I know its tough to get care, but its care we are morally obligated to provide.
 .
HR 4810 needed to be more inclusive and address things like records, privacy protections, management abuses and staffing and budget for coordination as without that, the outsourcing is little more than abandonment by budgetary fiat.
.
Message prepared by candidate
Bob Conaway for Congress (CA-08)
12127 Mall Blvd, Suite A-363
Victorville CA 92392
Contact No. (760) 617-8305

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE from BOB CONAWAY for CONGRESS CAMPAIGN [Press Release #6] PAUL COOK [CA-08] VOTES TO STRIP ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS (AGAIN) for OIL PIPELINE PERMITS & ALLOW UNDERDESIGNED PIPELINES TO CARRY TAR SANDS & DANGEROUS CHEMICALS THROUGH THE UNITED STATES by his YEA VOTE ON HR 3301

In a recent press release (at our expense again)Paul Cook says his vote on H.R. 3301 in June  "will help bring regulatory certainty, create good American jobs, and facilitate trade with our North American allies. H.R. 3301 says “yes” to American energy and brings us closer to raining in the skyrocketing energy costs". Really?? Does this guy read anything he votes on??
.
HR 3301 does replace the current procedure and requirements to obtain a presidential permit for construction of transboundary oil or natural gas pipelines and electric transmission lines.   What does it really do? [source: http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=bill/hr-3301-the-north-american-energy-infrastructure-act]:
.

1. The bill’s new approval process effectively requires approval of all transboundary pipelines and transmission projects with little or no federal environmental review.  
.
2. Modifications to existing cross-border pipelines or transmission lines would not require any approval or review at all.
 .
3. The bill also exempts permit decisions from the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires analysis of the environmental effects of major federal actions.  Under the current process, the permitting agency must affirmatively determine that a project is in the “national interest” or “public interest.”  The bill’s much narrower standard and NEPA exemption would preclude the permitting agency from understanding, even considering, much less conditioning or rejecting a project based on, environmental, safety, electric reliability, economic, or competitiveness impacts.
.
4. The revised language significantly narrows the environmental review process to just the segment of the project that crosses the border, ignoring the other environmental impacts along the project’s route
.
5. The revised language also allows projects denied under the existing process to reapply under the new process, where approval is almost certain.
.
The League of Conservation Voters brings the real problem to light--we will be forced to carry Canadian Tar Sands [http://www.lcv.org/media/blog/house-bill-would-open-tar.html] http://www.lcv.org/media/blog/house-bill-would-open-tar.html:

 " H.R.3301 would exempt any modifications to existing pipelines from the permitting process. This means more than just repairs – it includes flow reversals, volume expansion no matter how significant, and changes in the fuel mixture carried. This can have tragic consequences for the communities transited by modified pipelines. The Pegasus pipeline was built in the 1940s to carry light oil from the Gulf Coast to the Midwest, but in 2006, operator Exxon Mobil reversed the flow direction so the pipeline could carry Canadian tar sands oil to refiners in Texas. Three years later, they expanded the capacity of Pegasus from 65,000 to 95,000 barrels of oil per day. In 2013, the pipeline burst and flooded a suburban Arkansas community with thousands of barrels of tar sands oil. 
.  Unlike normal crude oil, the bitumen from tar sands is a heavy, asphalt-like product that must be diluted with toxic chemicals in order to flow through a pipeline. These chemicals evaporate during a spill, leaving nearby people with headaches, nausea, and respiratory issues with unknown long term effects.
 .
The product left behind sinks to the bottom of water bodies in semi-solid form, making cleanup far more difficult than in the case of normal oil spills".

.
IF elected to Congress, I would oppose such a reckless bill. I urge the President to veto it [ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/113/saphr3301h_20140624.pdf for Administration memo seeming to lean in that direction]

 .
Cook is comfortable with his multiple pensions and upper class life style with bottled and filtered water...but why would he want to increase the risk of harm to the rest of us Americans?  Is it a hate for this President (whose authority HR3301 takes away, which Bush had the power to invoke)? Is PAUL COOK signaling that he would supporting impeachment of President Obama?
.

Message prepared by candidate
Bob Conaway for Congress (CA-08)
12127 Mall Blvd, Suite A-363
Victorville CA 92392
Contact No. (760) 617-8305

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Why Aren't We Asking What National Interest is being Protected in Iraq in 2014?

I know that ex leaders (and current ones) want to be able to say the losses were for something worthwhile. I think Americans want to feel the sacrifice of our men and women under arms, the losses and burdens to their families and our economic future were all worthwhile.
.
The past is an interesting reality--it happened. It can't be changed or altered. With that said we really need to get beyond the notion it is Bush's war or Obama's. We need to get beyond the finger pointing with a selective memory (and facts recounted) in tow.
.
We can claim to have a moral obligation to defend the people we fought with and for, but one has to wonder how many are left that haven't immigrated to other countries by now (many to the US).
.
My money would be that the old Sadam Republican Guard might be tinkering, a military force we left virtually untouched --that ran Sadams brutal machine and basically vanished until now. By most intel reports, Sadam's personal guard was 10,000 strong and the military arm was 100,000 strong.

.
If we are defending the population against them, then limited action from the air and military advisors did not stop them before. Sadam lives on through his loyalists, who basically vanished when the intervention happened and for sure after the US led coalition refused to give administrator type jobs to them in the new government (like we did in Germany & Japan after WWII).
.
Are we defending the oil production and flow? If the answer to that question is yes, ask whose oil supply is it. Some reports are saying its all headed to Communist China. How is that our interest?
.
If we are defending US contractors working on the oil fields,  are we responsible for a corporation putting their people in harm's way for profit?
.
The separatist question (breaking Iraq up) might be the only way to manage the hostilities, yet that does not seem to be in the discussion.
.
Paul Cook likes to do the military rhetoric thing and defend the sacrifice. Ok, so noted, BUT  Paul Cook, you are Congressman, a part of one of the greatest bodies that has ever been existed--there not to justify what was done (let Fox news and the Washington Post do that), but to work with fellow members and ALL leadership to make a workable policy so we can ALL move forward with a defined PRESENT & LEGITIMATE interest driving our actions.
.
You were not elected to be Colonel of a Division, but be a servant of the 8th Congressional District's constituents and the greater United States of America.
.
It's time to stop sniffing Boehner's mindless march into oblivion.

Washington Post Thinks this Blog is one of the worst websites--heh dummies its an issue & position blog, not a vanity website site

The awful campaign Web sites of 2014 (per the right wing Washington Post) includes yours truly's blog (right on!).  First, thank you for demonstrating how out of touch you are [consistent with your neocon lockstep and lemming mind set of following the first dumb decision-maker off a cliff]--it's NOT a costly vanity "website", but an issue focused blog (talk to your tech department--there is a difference).  Second, the blog is being followed (through a link) by Mr. Knox,  Paul Cook's field rep and a whole host of republican leadership--they think its worth the bother--heck even the Post noticed! Third as for the vote disparity, that is a phenomenon of this district's historic poor performance in the open June primary (by democrats and decline to states--less than 20% total). Cook only got 57% two years ago against Minuteman Imus WITH the democratic and labor votes in the November runoff (two republicans made it to the final two).  Heh dude, I loved the "Angel Soft" commercial following Becker's comments on my campaign and blog--"Charmin" would have been a better ad placement. All joking aside, thanks for the attention.

By the way, a former staffer of Cook's called me to advise he was going to help in my campaign--a lifelong republican. Not all is well in the fragile republican desert district. That might be a better story than mislabeling my blog a website so you could take a cheap shot at it in a website analysis (and I cringed calling it an analysis). Or even maybe you could talk about some of the issues I raise that Cook runs away from as highlighted in my blog (and you wonder why print media is losing so much market share?)

If you ever want to cover Paul Cook's defeat (in advance or in DC when I get there), the first brew is on me.

Source of all the fuss: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/06/20/the-awful-campaign-websites-of-2014/

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE from BOB CONAWAY for CONGRESS CAMPAIGN [Press Release #5] -- Paul Cook Votes to Penalize the Working Poor & Add by his Co-Sponsorship and Vote on HR 2575 to the Deficit--What's with this guy??


.
The Congressional Budget Office stated [explaining the budget & social consequences of Paul Cook's "yes" vote on HR 2575]:

"As a consequence of the changes in penalties and in people’s sources of insurance coverage, CBO [Congressional Budget Office] and JCT [Joint Committee on Taxation] estimate that enacting H.R. 2575 would increase budget deficits by $25.4 billion over the 2015-2019 period and by $73.7 billion over the 2015-2024 period. The 2015-2024 total is the net of an increase of $83.0 billion in on-budget costs and $9.3 billion in off-budget savings (the latter attributable to increased revenues). Pay-as-you-go procedures apply because enacting the legislation would affect direct spending and revenues. As a result of those changes in who would pay penalties and what amounts they would have to pay, CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that enacting H.R. 2575 would change the sources of health insurance coverage for some people. Specifically, in most years over the 2015-2024 period, CBO and JCT estimate that the legislation would:
.
(1) Reduce the number of people receiving employment-based coverage—by about 1 million people;
.
(2) Increase the number of people obtaining coverage through Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), or health insurance exchanges—by between 500,000 and 1 million people; and
.
(3) Increase the number of uninsured—by less than 500,000 people"
[Source: http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/hr2575.pdf]

The entire document is worth a read to understand that Col. Paul Cook (retired) hates President Obama and low income working people so bad (not very Marine of him), he would add to the deficit, and hurt the working poor to "create" a vote against the Affordable Care Act.
.
Oh yeah, let's not forget, the businesses that get out of paying their workers getting only 30 to 39 hours a week of work health insurance, are shifting the cost to those workers and to the government--more government welfare for the privileged!!

Tuesday, June 17, 2014

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE from BOB CONAWAY for CONGRESS campaign [PRESS RELEASE # 4] -PAUL COOK's VOTES on HR 4453 & HR 4457 ARE TWO MORE EXAMPLES of CORPORATE WELFARE HE SUPPORTS-shame on him!!




Congressman Paul Cook voted yes on H.R. 4453 which extends the reduced recognition period for built-in gains of S corporations and also includes language on charitable contributions (which allows for fatter tax deductions in a shorter period of time) AND he voted yes on H.R. 4457 related to expensing limitations under section 179 of the Internal Revenue Code (same type of bigger payday).  Sounds good? Nah!
.
This vote was reported in a press release and newsletter like it was a  accomplishment for the republican freshman.

.
There is a big problem-- Neither measure is offset. What this will mean is more social security office closures, more funding cuts to veterans and to our nation's children's programs to pay for the latest edition of Paul Cook's "corporate welfare".

.
In 2011, states like California lost approximately $39.8 billion in tax revenues from corporations and wealthy individuals who sheltered money in foreign tax havens due to sweetheart tax legislation. No big deal? Well consider that $39.8 billion would also cover education costs for more than 3.7 million children for one year.This sum is also roughly equivalent to total state and local expenditures on firefighters ($39.7 billion) or on parks and recreation ($40.6 billion) in FY 2008.
.
Federal policymakers must crack down on tax cut abuses--instead Cook cooks the books for corporate special interests again and will now force Congress to find programs to cut to fund this latest give-away. We need to end the corporate give aways by retiring Paul Cook in November.

Message prepared by candidate
Bob Conaway for Congress (CA-08)
12127 Mall Blvd, Suite A-363
Victorville CA 92392
Contact No. (760) 617-8305

Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Could SB2292 be Senator Warren's First Sell Out to the Student Loan Lobby or is some Movement Better Than None??


StudentDebtCrises.org says:

"Senator Elizabeth Warren, along with two dozen other Senators, introduced the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act. This bill would allow borrowers to refinance their federal and private student loans at a lower interest rate. This will save borrowers thousands of dollars over the life of their loan.  "This is truly an emergency," said Senator Warren. "The idea here is that we are going to lower the interest rate on outstanding student loans...get people back on their feet, so they can pay their loans off sooner, so they can reduce their monthly payments and help families move forward, help this economy move forward."There could be a vote as early as next week, so sign and share TODAY and tell the Senate to vote YES on S2292!
Thanks!
–StudentDebtCrisis.org"
 
Blogger Bob's initial thoughts? With Al Franken weighing in on this, one should ask how could this be anything but great? Consider another "progressive" organization's view??
A message from the campaign 

StudentLoanJustice.Org

"As I predicted the refinancing bill that Senator Warren introduced recently is taking up all of the media's attention, much to our detriment.
I posted a synopsis of the bill when it first came out- good and bad, but here is the gist:
The Good. The bill promises to lower borrower's interest rates to the current rates (about 4.5% undergrad, 6.4% graduate). This is pretty good. Not great, but significant if you are carrying a large principal.
For private loan borrowers, this could be a very significant decrease in interest rate.
The Bad: To begin with, defaulted borrowers (who are typically the most financial distressed borrowers) CANNOT participate. Also, there is a .5% fee slapped on to the balance of your existing loan before repayment begins.
For private loans, the loans will lose statutes of limitations when they become federalized. Also, any negotiation power borrowers might have had for their private loans (since there is no government guaranty behind the loans) will be lost. Federal Loans have (despite popular myths) FEWER consumer protections than private loans. Federal loans are also more immune to fair debt collection practices, have weakened truth in lending requirements.
More Bad: The Department of Education, which hates this plan is to be given the authority to decide who they let in, and who they don't. If recent history is any guide (with the various repayment programs), they will only let a tiny trickle of borrowers participate.
STILL MORE BAD:
From a citizen's perspective, the bill does nothing to lower the price of college, nothing to decrease the amount of debt having to be borrowed, and does nothing to address the perverted fiscal incentives that have turned this lending system structurally predatory
For Private loans, the refinancing piece looks SUSPICIOUSLY like a BAILOUT FOR THE BANKS!!! Sorry to have to say this about an Elizabeth Warren Bill, but the language speaks for itself: It calls for paying principal, interest, fees, and leaves open the possibility for paying even MORE THAN THIS to the lenders...Remember, the lenders would LOVE to dump their crap loans on the taxpayer for full-book value...these are loans that they probably wouldn't be able to get 50 cents on the dollar for otherwise...this really rewards the predatory behaviors they have been engaging in since bankruptcy was removed from the debt in 2005, and as a taxpayer this is very aggravating. As someone who has seen the bad faithed, cruel, dishonest, and unAmerican behavior this industry has engaged in to this point, I would say it's an absolute outrage.
THE WORST THING:
The worst thing about this bill is that it is a major distraction from the urgent need to return bankruptcy protections to ALL student loans. We have seen this happen year after year, and this looks exactly like just one more distracting, time-wasting exercise of Congress.
I cannot in good faith spend more time than what I have already spent contributing to this debate, and so I urge all of you to not be distracted or caught up in the hype. Keep your focus on what is most important... returning bankruptcy protections and other standard consumer protections to the debt!
http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/BankOnStudentsRefinancingBillText.pdf"


MORE of BOB's THOUGHTS (outside the quotes):

The question, is why aren't we doing more for the students we motivate to go to college and then crush the economy and their ability to start new careers and families with TPP treaties and other questionable trade, labor & economic policies. Is S2292 smoke and mirrors if all it does is help the people NOT in a financial crises (e.g. the ones making enough to pay their student loans?)