The Case for Single Payer Healthcare

Background
I covered a conference in April called "Transforming Healthcare," where healthcare experts, physicians, and local officials talked about the reform of our healthcare system. There were a whole lot of news angles to take when writing this story (every story needs a particular angle of focus, especially with something as complicated as the US healthcare system) so I focused on one of the biggest controversies- universal healthcare. In particular, a single payer system that would completely overhaul private health insurance as we know it.

For the pro side, I talked to physician and former Morehead Clinic President Dr. Ewell Scott. He believes not only should there be universal healthcare, but that we should get rid of private health insurance providers altogether. His case is that healthcare should be a basic human right, not a for-profit industry that capitalizes off of other people's illnesses and injuries. He says with one government-funded single payer health plan, we'd save hundreds of billions of dollars a year.

As for cons of universal healthcare, I spoke with Jim Frogue, the Executive Director of the Newt Gingrich Center for Healthcare Transformation. He says universal healthcare is too costly for taxpayers, and that existing single payer systems such as the one in Canada, and partially socialized medicine in France, are failed systems. He says government intervention isn't the answer for healthcare reform, but that there needs to be a movement to encourage preventative measures among individuals. Frogue argues if Americans ate healthier, exercised more, and stopped smoking, there would be collectively less hospital visits, meaning the cost of care would decrease.

Dr. Daniel Mongiardo is Kentucky's current Lieutenant Governor and also a licensed physician. He gave the keynote address during the dinner at the conference. His view of universal healthcare is somewhat pragmatic when compared to the ideas of Frogue, who says no, and Dr. Scott, who gives a definite yes to a single payer plan and for doing away with private health insurance firms.

Mongiardo wants universal healthcare, but isn't calling for a single payer plan. However, one should also take note that Mongiardo is running for US Senate in 2010. And he's got some pretty stiff competition with Jack Conway, Kentucky's current Attorney General (Conway's already been endorsed by Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson, Congressman John Yarmuth, and State Auditor Crit Luallen). All that being said, Mongiardo knows he can't be too controversial with what he says, because he needs all the votes he can get. Guys like that, you've gotta take everything they say with a grain of salt. All of the advantages of a government-funded plan and money-saving measures would be rendered useless if you kept all the private insurance companies around, too. It's like when McCain said he supported a Cap and Trade system on companies for their carbon emissions, but with no mandatory caps (you need mandatory caps for the system to work). It just doesn't make sense pragmatically. You either do or you don't. My opinion after hearing both sides is that if you're gonna do it, go full out. Keeping around the private health insurance firms doesn't save any money and adds to the problem of too much bureaucracy.

All of us agreed that our system was broken and needed some serious change. During Frogue's presentation, he showed a pie graph with all the major concerns of the current healthcare system in the United States. The figures in the graph were gathered by the Newt Gingrich Center. Surprisingly, cost was the number two issue behind wait time. I'll address both of those issues in this blog, and I hope that by the end, if I haven't convinced you to support single payer universal healthcare, that I've at least made you think about it and maybe you'll do your own research on your own.

An American Single Payer Heathcare System: The Cost Perspective
Right now, healthcare is one of the most profitable industries in western society. There are approximately 1,500 different health insurance providers alone in the United States. Ewell Scott proposes that with a single payer plan, we would save hundreds of billions of dollars a year with the elimination of competition in the healthcare market as it becomes a public service; Frogue believes converting to an electronic system would save hundreds of billions per year in the elimination of bureaucracy and fraud. However, both of them disagree on the implementation of a single payer plan.

Right now, nobody can afford healthcare right now, especially the poor; a bad diagnosis can spell financial ruin for the average family in America. Say there's one person, working at McDonalds who makes $20,000-$25,000 per year, who has a spouse that makes relatively the same amount of money. With a $40,000-$50,000 income, it's absurd to think that these people can afford $15,000 per year for a healthcare premium.

Also, it's been shown that employers have been steadily reducing health benefits in the last ten years while keeping wages either stagnant or at a very slight increase. As of right now, the majority of employer-provided healthcare plans are inadequate for the workforce. There needs to be something besides underfunded medicare and medicaid policies and shoddy employer-provided health insurance. As the years have progressed and the economy has worsened, employers may have given very slight wage increases, but they have drastically cut benefits to save money on personnel costs. This means employer-provided health insurance is still too costly for a majority of families.

The paradox is that the more well-off you are, the healthier you are; you have money to buy and cook healthy food, the money for a gym membership, and thus have low health insurance premiums. The same applies for the poor, except vice-versa. The poorer you are, chances are, the worse off you'll be healthwise. The people who need care the most aren't getting it because they aren't insured, or they just don't have the money. In most cases, it's both.

Indeed, Jim Frogue believes that preventative measures taken by individuals would mean collectively less hospital visits, thus citing less demand, driving the price of healthcare down. Basic economics. However, this is under the assumption that everyone will quit smoking, and that Americans will suddenly become proactive in living a healthier lifestyle as they eat less fast food and cook more, and take the initiative to exercise at least 30 minutes a day. This is wishful thinking at best, considering our obesity rate is the second-highest in the world. (33% of our population is considered obese; Saudi Arabia is #1 at 35% of their population) Instead of crossing our proverbial fingers and hoping everyone will do the right thing, our government needs to be proactive and realize that everyone has the right to get taken care of when they're sick, rather than suffer. Moreover, private health insurance companies who pick and choose the areas they cater to and who would rather make the most money than get people the care they need contribute nothing to society.

Ewell Scott goes so far to say that healthcare is a basic constitutional right. As we have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, healthcare involves the issue of life. If you're sick or injured and lose your life because you couldn't afford adequate care, that serves as a testament against the entire privatization of the healthcare industry, as corporate profit gets between you and one of your basic constitutional rights under the bottom line of the private health insurance industry.

Some things are meant for industry, free market, and competition. Restaurants, stores, and manufacturers having some healthy competition with one another and avoiding monopoly is a huge help for the populace; it divides demand evenly and keeps prices low. But some things are more important than profit, and when the greed for profit keeps needy people from their essential rights to life, that's when the government needs to intervene. It just isn't right for someone to make money off of someone else's suffering; in essence, that's what happens when healthcare is made into a business instead of a public good. Take a look at one of the many free public goods we take for granted everyday; firefighters.

Did any of you know that firefighting used to be a privatized industry? You had to pay to have an emblem of a particular unit on your home. If your home was on fire, and a rival firefighting team saw that burning home with another emblem, they would just drive on by. That's a prime example of profit coming before the good of the people. Just like the private healthcare industry. Some things are just better socialized- as a public good, profit is not an issue, but rather the well-being of the people. Sometimes, people getting what they need is more important than making money.

Critics of the single payer system point to Canada; they say it takes months to wait for an operation, and that systems are so backed up with people making unnecessary hospital visits and abusing the free care system. Critics also say eliminating the private health insurance industry would leave a great deal of people out of a job. However, this all too often spouted opinion is based on information that is wrong, or nonexistent. I mean, how many people do you know go to the hospital for kicks? Certainly given the ratio of doctors to residents in rural areas (1 to 100 in Eastern Kentucky) the emergency room is the only option for most people. And considering a lot of people don't have the money for health insurance, and considering private health insurance companies often refuse to serve rural areas for the lack of money available, that leaves people further and further in the dark.

For example, Canada's healthcare system has half as much money as we put into ours. We can do a single payer system better, because we have the people, the money, and the technology necessary. Combining a single payer healthcare system with a completely digital health database would be the first system of its kind; a system without unnecessary bureaucracy and wait. In Canada, nobody has to wait for emergency care, and nobody has to wait for urgent care. The only wait time is for operational procedures like knee or hip replacements. While you may have to wait three or four months for that hip replacement, most of the time, that replacement was needed for a condition that had been exacerbated over a period of five years. If care is free, then what is a few more months time?

While eliminating the private health insurance companies would leave people jobless, it's simply a matter of priority. One has to ask a poignant question to oneself; is it more important to give Americans the care they need, or is it more important for to keep pointless jobs available that only serve to deprive people of care for purposes of profit?

Eliminating Healthcare Bureaucracy
In January, my right hand needed $13,000 worth of surgery to fix a hole from a mishap I had on New Years' Eve. This was for the anesthesia, the operation, the pre-op, and for the labor. I can honestly say that 90% of the time I spent in the hospital wasn't on my operation, x-ray, pre-op, or post-op. It was in the paperwork, in calling and confirming my being on my mom's health insurance plan, calling her to get her social security number and birthdate to verify it all, and other such nonsense that could be avoided very easily if done digitally.

Jim Frogue made a very good point in that after Hurricane Katrina, millions of paper records were lost with the damage from the storm. He used the Jiffy Lube example; if someone from New Orleans drove to Houston for an oil change, Jiffy Lube could pull up your last visit on their computer with just your name, see exactly what they did, how much it cost, and what procedures they used. However, if someone from New Orleans drove to Houston who had cancer, Houston hospitals wouldn't have the faintest who that person was. In this sense, Frogue is right on; this is exactly backwards from where we need to be, especially as we move into the next decade of the 21st century.

This isn't a cost-saving measure; the real cost-saving comes from doing away with private insurers. Indeed, this alone would save us $400 billion each year in taxpayer dollars. And as we saw with the computerization of records by banks, money wasn't saved, but financial procedures have now become much more streamlined and efficient. Most other practices have now computerized their records, making wait time for clients almost nonexistent. Considering healthcare is such a necessity, why haven't healthcare records been computerized? With a single payer system that makes healthcare a right and not a commodity available only to the rich, and a digital system that eliminates wait time and paper clutter, the quality of healthcare would improve drastically.

Imagine if doctors could spend their time being doctors instead of insurance couriers! If nurses could spend their time caring for patients instead of filling out unnecessary paperwork! If people could get the care they need for free without having to compensate for losing a valuable day of work or wasting time they don't have waiting or filling out paperwork! What's not to like about this system?

Why the Obama administration is wrong about healthcare reform
Private insurers follow a bottom line of making the most money and earning as much profit as they can, not getting people the care that they need. In businesses like manufacturing, food service, and retail, profiteering and private ownership is encouraged in our economy as it allows for competition, low prices, and everyone always striving to make the best quality products for as little a cost as possible, meaning the people reap the benefits. There's nothing wrong with capitalizing off of consumer goods.

However, capitalizing off of human illness and debilitation is inherently wrong. We all deserve quality care when we're sick and injured, and making money should never come between someone living and dying; any sensible person would find profiteering from the misfortune of others to be entirely immoral. However, this is the primary goal of the private health insurance industry. Private insurers have no qualms with denying the uninsured the care they need if it doesn't suit their corporate interests, or if they see no profit potential. Private health insurance companies contribute nothing worthwhile to society.

Barack Obama proposes a free, government-funded insurance plan to all those who want it, but he's doing nothing about existing private insurers, whose sole purpose is to make money, not provide for those who need it. All of the cost-saving measures that would take effect in a single payer system would be nonexistent if private insurers are allowed to stick around.

If we want affordable, quality healthcare for all citizens, and if we want to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and wait time, then a single payer healthcare system is the only true reform. Eliminating private insurers and computerizing healthcare records are the first steps to take. Obama needs to put his re-election hopes aside, man up, and challenge the private health insurance once and for all by allowing a single payer option on the table in his vision for universal healthcare reform.

So far, Obama is actually a great president

I didn't jump aboard the Obama bandwagon until it was between him and Hillary. I wasn't a fan of Hillary, so I kept my fingers crossed for Obama in the primary and the general election. He promised widespread change in America during his campaign. so what is that change, exactly?

The right-wing media has been grappling around for every kind of criticism they can throw at the president, from bashing him for (gasp) saying we aren't a Christian nation, to (gasp) shaking the hand of Hugo Chavez, or (gasp) bowing as a sign of respect to a Saudi leader. The greatest amount of criticism has been thrown at Obama for his spending plan and the American Recovery and Re-Investment Act. Glenn Beck and the rest of the FOX crew have done a very good job at distorting and spinning the truth for the convenience of their audience.

What with the contrived populist anger drummed by right-wing talk radio and conservative blogs, I think the outspoken ignorant masses drown out the other 60% of Americans who actually approve of what our president has done in his past 100 days or so. I'm going to point out a few positive things Obama has done, seeing as that news rarely gets heard in the midst of all the nonsense.

In 100 days, our president has-

~Repealed restrictions on federal funding of stem cell research.

~Decriminalized marijuana.

Lifted a ban on federal funding for planned parenthood facilities.

~Approved continued funding for NASA's moon/mars habitat program, 'Project Constellation.

~climbed in bed with America's largest nuclear power company.


~Appointed nobel prize winning physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary.

~Appointed Harvard professor John Holdren as environmental advisor.

~Confirmed the construction of highspeed rail between major cities.

He's also been accused of diverting federal tax dollars to those dreaded "special interests" with his "pork-laden" stimulus bill. While the "pork" republicans talk about amounts to less than 2% of the bill's language, I'd like to show all of you who those "special interest" groups are who are benefiting from Obama's spending plan.

$86.6 billion for Medicaid
Special interest group: the sick

$40 billion to provide extended unemployment benefits through Dec. 31, and increase them by $25 a week
Special interest group: the unemployed

$19.9 billion for the Food Stamp Program
Special interest group: the poor & hungry

$13 billion for low-income public schoolchildren
Special interest group: poor children

$6 billion for the cleanup of radioactive waste (mostly nuclear power plant sites)
Special interest group: the irradiated

$2 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (drinking water infrastructure improvements)
Special interest group: humans

Obama isn't taking your land, or your gun, or your bible, or your bible's gun's land. He isn't making us ripe for terror attacks, and he isn't a muslim socialist tyrant trying to rend the constitution apart. Give the man a chance, and let him continue to right the wrongs of the previous administration.

Setting the record straight on the financial crisis, contrived populist anger and the "tea party" movement

According to right-wing pundits like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and the rest of the FOX news crew, we live under the most anti-american president in history. The people are being oppressed by a tyrannical liberal establishment, ignorant of the people's true will, blind of its countless injustices against the constitution and our way of living as we know it.

Neocons are accepting this ideology as gospel, and a new movement fueled by ignorance, logical fallacy and childish rhetoric is spreading across conservative airwaves like Pixy Stix at a kids' playground. As an American citizen, a purveyor of information for its people, and a journalist seeking truth in a world full of deception, I feel the need to speak out against this contrived populist movement. It really isn't that hard to do; when taking apart the conservative/tea partier's argument, it's actually very simple. It boils down to their dislike of tax dollars going to things like welfare and healthcare for illegals. This argument is quite hypocritical, as red states like Alaska and Arizona are the biggest recipients of federal money. Perhaps they should look to bluer places like Illinois and New York?

What led to such reactionary, ignorant, knee-jerk thinking takes root in lies from the right-wing media. I'm writing this post to hopefully remede this overabundance of bad information. Because there's so much ignorance being spread, I have lots fo ground to cover, and this post will be pretty lengthy. I'll segment it out as best as I can. I'll hyperlink my sources after writing this out, so if you're skeptical and looking for factual evidence behind my arguments, it's on the way. Have no fear.

Opening Statement
The global economy is real bad right now. Riots are erupting worldwide, as the mounting financial crisis fuels global panic.

In Iceland, the central government has been destabilized. Protesters in Iceland take the streets daily, as the country's economy continues to worsen with no sign of visible improvement. Latvians are storming their cities in violent riots. In Greece, police are still trying to quiet violent riots over economic crisis and chronic job loss. Other parts of Eastern Europe have been erupting in chaos with the mounting economic crisis; Bulgaria, Lithuania, and even France and Ireland are all marching in the streets because conditions have gotten so bad. The Chinese are also uneasy, as the US recession has caused us to not buy as many of their manufactured goods.

What caused all this?

Looking back in the late summer/early fall of last year, we saw the collapse of the subprime housing market. Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie and Freddie, Goldman-Sachs, AIG, the list of bailed-out banks goes on and on. When Bush's Treasury Secretary came into congress and told them if they didn't immediately give out $700 billion of taxpayer dollars in bailout money, the global economy would collapse. Congress passed along an allocation of $350 billion to go to these banks with basically no oversight. When these greedy bankers and CEOs ran off with everyone's 401k, pension, and tax money to expensive resort spas, were we really surprised?

When we give more money to the people who caused all of this mess in the first place, why do we suddenly expect them to be responsible with it? When you pay someone to keep doing what they've been doing (wrecking the economy and robbing the working class blind with predatory lending techniques) then they're going to keep doing it. These bankers made their millions through predatory lending. They were completely free to do so, thanks to republicans like John McCain who cried out for deregulation of wolfish financiers in the 1980s.

Those Behind the Savings & Loan Crisis of the Late 80's/Early 90's
When following the timeline all the way back to what caused the subprime lending crash, one will find one case of government corruption that stood above all the rest; the Keating Five. Bear with me here.

The Keating Five was named as such because five US senators were on the payroll of one such predatory lender; Charles Keating. Four democrats (Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, John Glenn, Donald Riegle) and one republican (John McCain) accepted gifts and improperly intervened in the doings of Charles Keating, the chairman of the Lincoln Savings and Loan Association. Keating's organization was coincidentally being investigated by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board until the intervention of Keating's minions in the legislature. Consequently, the board backed off of its investigation.

Unlike the rest of the five, John McCain was the only one with close social and personal ties to Keating. In the five years from '82 to '87, McCain got more than $112,000 from Keating's company. In return, John and Cindy invested $359,000 in one of Keating's shopping centers in 1986, just one year before McCain met with regulators. Keating financed nine trips to the Bahamas for McCain and his family, along with his babysitter. McCain didn't pay for these trips until Keating came under investigation by the FHLBB in 1987.

So naturally, when Keating's predatory loan practices came under fire, McCain stood up for him and helped the deregulation that led to the Savings and Loan crisis, and the eventual subprime lending crash which, in turn, led to the global financial crisis we have now. History has shown that it only takes a corrupt senator like McCain to kick off a trend of economic downturn. As our pensions dwindle away, the bankers and lenders get to fill their pockets again and again. When our money ran out, they ran to the federal trough put in front of them by Paulson and Bush. for another great example of how deregulation can ruin an economy, look to Britain.

The "Tea Party" Movement
In 1773, Bostonians refused to take shiploads of newly-taxed tea back to Britain. The people of Boston had had it with the taxes they were getting hit with on their tea, so they decided to protest by deliberately throwing cratefuls overboard, very covertly, and in secret.

In 2009, another kind of protest is happening in the United States, courtesy of right-wing talk radio and cable TV news. However, unlike the protests in Greece, where rioters are throwing molotov cocktails at police barricades, or Iceland, with its recent loss of centralized government, the people protesting here don tricorn hats and petticoats. Some of them wave pitchforks to drive home the point. These people are protesting what they call excessive and wasteful government spending of tax dollars, and refer to Obama's spending plan and stimulus package as socialistic. When challenging the motives behind the tea party, here are some of the more choice responses I've seen from conservatives-

"Tea Parties speak to the erosion of our civil liberties and the erosion of our economic freedoms. Tea Parties speak to the ongoing assault on the First and Second Amendments. Tea Parties speak to the vicious attacks on our Constitution."

"Liberals like Pelosi, Reid, Spector, and all their ilk are afraid that the American public is going to realize that government produces nothing and all this stuff they are giving away will have to be taken from individuals."

"One freedom lost due to government spending....the freedom to have a road that is not filled with pot hole...cuz the government and the brainwashed libs are to dam busy spending my dam tax money to build art museums and o rbussing kids for an hour across town in the name of integration....or putting illegal immigrants through college...or buying them houses..."

"The kooks have been screaming for forty years; it's time to scream back! The major difference being that WE actually have something constructive to say!"

"BO is intent on destroying our economy and our military forces to fulfill his socialist dream."

"I STAND IN OPPOSITION TO THE EFFORTS OF OUR PRESIDENT AND WANT THEM TO FAIL!"

“Liberty, yes! Tyranny, no!”

“Keep your socialistic dance! We don’t want to live in France!”

"Our President is NOT interested in the liberty and freedom of citizens of this country, but of CONTROL and HIS version of "fairness". This is the most ANTI-American President in our history."

To put this in perspective, here's some imagery of your typical tea party from a recent New York Times editorial-

"Not glowering sky nor mud nor threat of hailstones sufficed to deter about 300 souls from massing on the sodden village green in Northport, NY...The chief of the Northport Fire Department, which like many on Long Island is bristlingly equipped by compliant taxpayers with enough gear to protect small European principalities, kept watch from his official S.U.V. The Northport Police directed traffic as a search-and-rescue boat idled over by the marina. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, alerted to the possibility of tea dumping without permits, had sent two armed officers. And at the dock, a 41-foot Coast Guard boat from the Eatons Neck Station, with a five-man crew, kept its engines running in case anybody or anything was attacked, scuttled, dunked or sunk. Whatever trouble these rebels found themselves in, the federal, state and local governments had it covered...Too bad hardly anyone noticed. The crowd had gone to Skipper’s Pub, which was offering drink specials."

Why Conservatives are so Upset
Rather than focus their rage on the corporate thieves who ran off with their pension and 401k, or on Henry Paulson for manipulating congress into going along with the bank bailouts, tea partiers blame President Obama. The arguments aren't specific; just that too much spending is bad and that Obama is a socialist. They justify this accusation by comparing Socialism to Communism and Nazism, implying that Obama must be one of those things too. For those unaware of what socialism has done for this country, take a look at workers' rights, children's rights, unions, women's suffrage, improved safety standards, clean air regulations, public service programs, and the like.

Some are protesting the stimulus package, referred to as the "porkulus" by some. Conservatives disagree with the stimulus, as its filled with alleged "pork barrel" projects. Conservatives never define the word "pork," but given their anger at the spending plan and the stimulus, pork spending is evidently any taxpayer money spent on refurbishing public schools, rebuilding and repairing roads, constructing a comprehensive green energy grid, weatherizing homes, and saving public sector jobs that are rapidly being cut like teachers, firefighters, police officers, garbage collectors, street sweepers, and other municipal and state workers. 98% of the stimulus package is directed at these endeavors. If conservatives are right and the stimulus is nothing but pork, then public schools, roads, and law enforcement must not be very important.

All of a sudden, fiscal conservatives are crying for our country to return to Reaganomics and Milton Friedman's economic policy, when it was actually the irresponsibility of a GOP leader in the senate and Friedman-esque deregulation that got us here in the first place. These fiscal conservatives were nowhere to be found when Bush racked up our debt from a surplus to a $3 trillion deficit before his first year was done with. It reeks of hypocrisy that now of all times, when our money is actually being spent on us, that conservatives are crying out for reform. The CBO has estimated that by 2011, Bush's war in Iraq will have cost $3 trillion. Where were the fiscal conservatives for the past 8 years?

Obama's heavily-criticized tax plan in the budget actually cuts taxes for 95% of working-class Americans, while simply rolling back the Bush tax cuts on the top 5%. Interestingly, the tax rate on the rich was much higher under the Reagan, Nixon, and Eisenhower administrations. Where were the fiscal conservatives for the past 40 years?

The right likes to distance itself from the man they helped elect twice in a row by saying he wasn't a "true conservative," indeed, the true conservative champion was Ronald Reagan. However, those hating Bush and liking Reagan are contradicting themselves, as those two administrations were the epitome of everything conservatives adored.

Bush was just a Texas version of Reagan; a smirking politician who put a folksy face on corruption, environmental destruction, tax cuts for the top 5%, the unification of big government and special interest, sky-high deficits, deregulation leading to a leveling-off of middle and lower class wages while the rich lived lavishly, all packaged neatly in a smug cowboy package.

What this is really about is that the right has had their way since Reagan got elected; the American Dream came true. Now, that dream of wolfish capitalism and conservative history of taking government power away from the people and putting it in the hands of big business, and pushing the financial burden on the middle class and working poor has caught up with not just the United States, but the rest of the world.

Conservative ideology reigned supreme for forty years; Clinton's tenure of prosperity was a drop in the bucket when compared to the decades of right-wing ideology that held the people and the government in its grasp. Our mess right now was brought on by conservative policy, not three months of Obama's administration. It's up to the conservatives protesting today to realize this, accept their error, and work to reverse it. The tea party movement is a classic metaphor; the parrot sticking its head in the stand, dismissing all legitmiate challenges against their ideology as "liberal talking points," and slowly drifting further and further away from common sense.

Cleaning up the Mess Made by the Right
As history has shown since the Nixon administration, coddling the rich with trickle-down economics has and will always be a failed idea. Look to AIG as a prime example; when you give our money to the corporate elite, they keep it. If you want a tax cut that works, give it to the people who spend to survive; middle class Americans.

The right argues that a country can't spend its way out of a deficit. However, looking at the situation logically, spending is the only way a recession can be overcome. One example is when a government, like ours, spends money on such things outlined in the stimulus, like public works and infrastructure.

Proper spending spurs economic activity that creates jobs and gets money to consumers, small business, and contractors. As all of those keep that money going, stimulus spending is also a way of investing in infrastructure, like highways. In providing a solid foundation for economic growth, we'll eventually see it overcome the recession and eventually restore consumer confidence. People work more, buy more, and thus circulate the economy.

Conclusion
Right-wing ideology is a tyranny of dead ideas, so to speak. Shockingly, there are still millions of people who believe poor people are just lazy and need to try harder, and that one's wealth is directly proportional to the effort you put into your work. Being a hard-working full-time student and full-time journalist for radio and television making minimum wage, people like me can assure you that hard work does not a wealthy person make.

Obama has been our president for not even three months. To hold him accountable for decades of economic irresponsibility by opposite-minded individuals is disingenuous. It is unrealistic to expect one man to bring us out of the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. Overcoming the recession will take more than one president and a congress, and it will most likely take longer than four short years. And what comes out of this recession will more than likely not be an improved way of the old system, but a completely new economic system altogether.

Spending tax money is necessary; taxes serve the purpose of providing for all that which one person cannot. Taxes fund things like roads, schools, airports, bridges, sewer treatment, universities, and the like. I'm not suggesting that we all accept that the government is doing the right thign adn turn on the blinders, but the exact opposite. Care about your country, learn about that which confuses you and do your research on everything the powers that be do and how you'll be affected. As always, the only solution is better education and information.

A Journalist's Perspective on Opinion

More frequently than ever, I've been asked by readers and colleagues about my credibility as a journalist, being that I blog regularly and am outspoken about my own opinions. Ironically, I feel the need to answer these questions with another blog post.

Throughout life, I've always been taught to question everything and remain a skeptic until undisputable evidence has been shown. My dad told me once to never ever be closed-minded, because in discourse, there is always room for the new and improved to phase out the old and the irrelevant. (Considering my Dad is an ordained Elder in the United Methodist Church, it's a bold statement for someone to make who regularly preaches for something that cannot and never will have proof to justify its following.)

The media is the fifth branch of government, behind the Executive, the Legislative, the Judicial, and the Fed. And in lots of cases, we hold more influence over the American people than the other four branches combined. One thing that always amazes me about journalism is that a common man, such as myself, is expected to regularly hold the powerful accountable and ask them hard, pointed questions in order to seek the truth, and bring it to the people. I regularly speak to my state's Governor, a slew of state politicans, and am on first-name basis with the local authorities for whatever beat on which I happen to report. For minimum wage, I'm required to confront these people and get the real answers. That's why I love my job.

However, my responsibility to the public discourse will only grow in importance the more I rise up the media food chain, so to speak. As I move to bigger and bigger markets and broadcast to more people, my responsibility to the people also grows exponentially. The people, for good reason, expect only the truth, and only the best reporting, 100% of the time. And it can get stressful at the highest levels, I'm sure.

One example is the WLEX 18 newsroom, where I worked last Summer as an intern. I taught myself how to use their professional video editing software and regularly made news packages of my own and had them evaluated by whomever I could find in the newsroom; anchors, reporters, producers, editors, and photographers. All of these people had made their bones doing what I had done and am doing now in smaller markets. And in this newsroom, we got regular updates from city officials and had a constant police scanner feed. We got news updates from the AP news wire, and had an intricate communication system in the newsroom so everyone knew basically everything that was going on, 100% of the time. I realized then that journalists are proliferators of information; we have all the information, and it is our job to get that information out to the people in a compelling, interesting, and objective way.

Being a journalist, and having my background growing up, I never form an opinion on an issue before taking a fair look at the arguments of both sides. I also look at each side's ability to articulate their argument eloquently, reasonably, and logically when forming my opinion. Regular readers and critics of my blog can both reasonably assume that my ideology is more center-left than anything else, given my opinions on current issues.

Despite my strong support of my opinions and my spirit for debate, this doesn't mean that my journalism or reporting of the news will be biased in any way. One of the things I have the most respect for is my job; my responsibility to the people as their voice to the sitting powers. Doing anything to spin my stories anywhere from the truth would jeopardize my credibility as a journalist, and thus, I could lose my job. As such, I always give my 100% best effort at each story I write to make sure my news is compelling, informative, and most importantly, objective.

Some may see this as a proverbial conundrum; if a credible journalist is required to tell the truth wihtout bias, how does one get so outspoken about his or her opinions? This is the question I'm asked, more than frequently. Especially from those with whom I engage in debate. Here is my answer.

As a journalist, a proliferator of information, as someone who has all of the information and is required to distribute it effectively, whose opinion would be better to trust? That of an average media consumer, or the word of a newsman himself, whose job is to thoroughly study and write about the issues we face every day? Not only do I believe that journalists have a right to express their opinions as the rest of Americans do, but I feel that journalists should be encouraged to express their opinion on their own time. While news stories are objective and without bias, i believe a good reporter's opinion on an issue should be valued and respected. And those opinions, if effectively and logically communicated with eloquence, reason, and thought, should be considered valued information.

Hope I answered your questions! Keep reading, keep learning, keep discussing, and most of all, keep thinking for yourselves and be willing to adapt to the newer, better ideas. Always move forward.

Taking a break from politics-- My top 5 concert experiences

I've seen both big-name acts (Bob Dylan, Steely Dan, Yes, Alan Parsons Project, Lilith Fair) and lesser-known bands (Andrew Bird, X-Clan, The Walkmen) in both huge arenas and small local venues. I'd have to say the best shows are when the band personally connects with the audience in a smaller venue. That being said, here are my top 5 concerts.

1. The Walkmen, at Jillian's in Louisville (now closed)
During my Junior year of high school, I impulse-bought tickets with my friends Kelley, John, and David, all from our drumline, to see The Strokes. I was indifferent about The Strokes; they weren't my favorite band, but I didn't hate them, and I like seeing shows, so I forked over the $25.

It was in a ruddy, smoke-filled basement in downtown Louisville, with about 400 other people all crammed, shoulder-to-shoulder. I had X's on my hands, because I was 16 and underaged. We got there early, so I got close to the front, and it was standing-room only, so you had to be comfortable on your feet. Some band called The Walkmen was opening for The Strokes, and they were from NYC. I'd never heard of them before, but I was optimistic.

And holy shit, I was blown away. Easily the best concert I've ever seen. These guys weren't the best musicians, but their sound was unique like Id never heard before. Rough, gritty guitar distortions, energetic drumbeats, eclectic piano and organ sounds, and a frontman who had enough energy inside of him to power Las Vegas for a week. It was a good hour of intense, beautiful, loud, and raw music. They left everything they had on that stage.

I've never seen a band get so into the music they were playing, and these guys were all about making good music and interacting with their audience. We were a part of their show, and the energy we gave them was thrown back to us. I've never seen a better show since. The Strokes were good, but they weren't anywhere near the same level as The Walkmen.

2. Public Enemy, at the Madison Theater in Covington
Me, my best bud Whittney, and my roommate Matias from Finland during my Sophomore year all decided to go see Public Enemy live on a school night in early 2007. Matias discovered the concert online, and told me about it excitedly, because he loves oldschool Hip Hop. I was down, because I'd never been to a Hip Hop show before.

Upon arriving, Matias reaffirmed his love of spirits by buying one of what would be four or five 24 oz cups of bud light that night, and we went immediately to the front and waited for the show to start. Again, the good spots are always standing-room only. How do you watch a Hip Hop show while sitting down?

A band called the X-Clan opened up, and I was actually pretty impressed; the DJ mixed some hot beats, and the two rappers interacted with the audience and busted some dance moves while the other MC was rapping. Not a whole lot of people were there yet, but once Flavor Flav's voice came on the mic as he came out, the room suddenly flooded with people. I fought fiercely to keep my front-row spot.

Public Enemy had a live band; a drummer, a guitarist, a bass guitar, a horn section, a DJ, and for some reason, two guys in uniform holding swords and occasionally doing Kung-Fu routines to the music. They rocked the fuck out for about two hours solid. Chuck D and Flav definitely knew what they were doing. I'd never seen a Hip Hop show before, but I was pleased to see that this one had a plethora of live musicians who could kill at their instruments.

Chuck D and Flav all had fun interacting with the crowd. Flavor Flav repeatedly came around to the front and slapped hands with everyone who held one out (including me and Whittney, who grinned at me excitedly every time Flav slapped her hand) and I even bumped fists with Chuck D at one point. I was puzzled to see Flavor Flav doing pushups in the middle of a song. After the song ended, he got his mic and explained to us what he was doing--

"ME AND CHUCK DECIDED EVERY TIME WE FUCK UP ON STAGE, WE OWE TEN PUSHUPS! I FUCKED UP A VERSE, SO I HAD TO DO TEN IN FRONTA Y'ALL. THAT'S WHAT WE GOAN DO ON THIS TOUR."

Halfway through the set, I saw a tall black man with a crazy outfit and dreadlocks and sunglasses grinning and bobbing his head to the music. I was moving my right forearm up and down to the music, and I made eye contact with this man. He nodded, grinned, and pointed at me and started moving his right forearm, too. After the song, Flavor Flav told us who the guy was.

"WE UP CINCINNATI OVER HERE, AND MY MAN BOO'SY CALLINS SAID HE WAS GOAN DROP BY. BOO'SY, SAY WHASSUP TO EVER'BAWDY."

Bootsy Collins. The man who invented funk. The funkiest of the funky. And he was on the stage. He grinned, grabbed a guitar from one of the musicians, and sat down on the stage with his legs dangling into the audience. I could have touched him just by reaching out. Dude was like, four feet away. He told us, unintelligibly, that he was going to play a riff on the guitar, and we were supposed to chant something every time he chanted a certain lyric. The band joined in with Flavor Flav on the drums, and we just grooved with Bootsy Collins for awhile. It was righteous.

Since then, that's one of the most fun experiences of my life. A close contender for the #1 spot, I'll have to say.

3. Andrew Bird, at the Southern Theatre in Columbus, OH
Andrew Bird is an eclectic indie singer/songwriter who plays his own genre of music. Along with singing and playing guitar and mallet percussion, Bird is also an expert at the violin, and oddly enough, whistling. It's hard to explain his style of music, so if you're confused, watch this performance and you'll see what I mean.

The Southern Theatre is a high-class, painstakingly ornate concert hall in the heart of Columbus, and I had a time navigating Whittney's car through downtown Columbus evening traffic. When we got there, we had a few minutes to spare, and noticed that our seats, while in the balcony, were right behind a whole bunch of Whittney's old posse from Ohio. She referred to them as well-to-do hipster intellectuals from good neighborhoods, like Circleville who wore their hair long and dressed in thrift store apparel to make some sort of point. While I'd describe this as most likely 90% of Andrew Bird's fanbase, his music can still be enjoyed by pretty much everybody who enioys music.

Bird's opening act was a woman whose name escapes my memory at the moment, but she had a great sound, albeit little soul in her performance. And her guitarist not once looked up from his pedal board at the audience. I didn't feel connected to her performance, despite her music being really good. Probably why I can't remember her name. This is why I prefer not to see big-name acts in huge venues, because it's a largely impersonal and disconnected experience.

However, Andrew Bird had great stage presence, and I watched him work through every minute of the set. Near the end, I couldn't resist the temptation to watch him from the floor instead of the balcony. His trademark is a suit and tie coupled with rainbow-colored toe socks, and lots of cartoonish props strewn thoughtfully across the stage; gramophones, statues, and other fantastical objects all combined was a great visual compliment to his equally eclectic and fantastical sound.

Andrew Bird's violin work was outstanding. During the ends of the songs "Dark Matter," and "Scythian Empire," what he did was play a simple violin melody for one bar, and then step on a recorder to loop the melody he just played. Then, he would play a harmony on his violin to compliment that original melody for a bar, and record that to play another complimentary track over that. He did this until he had a literal string quartet playing in harmony behind him, and then he played a solo over the entire soundscape. It was literally majestic. Andrew Bird isn't the best performer I've ever seen, but he's one of the best musicians I've ever seen live.

4. Ben Folds, at the Gray Chapel Auditorium on the Ohio Wesleyan University campus in Delaware, OH
What Ben Folds lacks in musicianship (and he doesn't lack much) he makes up for in performance energy. Whittney and i saw him the day after we saw Andrew Bird. The consensus of the weekend was that Bird was the best musician out of the two, but Ben Folds was the best performer of the two.

The day after the Andrew Bird concert was a rainy, cold, gray one complimented by ceaseless rain and lots of driving, so thankfully, this venue was indoors. The OWU campus was nonetheless striking, and our visit there for the night was with some fraternity brothers (I forget which one, but they were hella cool hipster-type dudes) Whittney knew from back home. I got my Ben Folds poster from one of the guys there, drank some beers, and ate some local food before walking in the rain to the venue. Just getting in was somewhat of an ordeal, as either me or Whittney had some issue with the will call stand, but after all of that, we finally walked into a large room that went way back with a tall ceiling and concrete floors. The makeshift stage was enormous, and the room quickly filled up. It was standing room only, but we weren't too far back or extremely close. We even saw Brandon and Bill from back in Morehead, both sporting sunglasses despite the lack of light.

The opening act was a white dude wearing white with an acoustic guitar named Eef Barzelay. He wasn't particularly memorable, other than his name and his cover of Neutral Milk Hotel's "Two-Headed Boy." I felt bad for the dude, because the crowd was as restless and irritable from the weather and getting in as I was, and they all started chanting to get Ben Folds on stage. He certainly took his time, but Ben Folds and his band came on after about a half hour of dead time when Eef's set was over.

Ben Folds walked on the stage in a nerdy-looking sweater and thick glasses, and did, in fact, rock that bitch like it had never been rocked before. His energy was constant, and he hammered away at the piano and sang his hits. In between songs, he bantered with the audience and fooled around with his music equipment like a 6-year old on Christmas day.

"(presses a button making a loud THUMP sound) Holy shit, that's awesome. (THUMP) Hey guys. (whispering) Check this shit out."

(THUMP)

"Shit is so cool."

I could tell he was enjoying himself, which made all of us enjoy it more; that's half of the concert experience. The music can be good, but if the person playing it isn't playing it with heart, it just ruins it for me.

The coolest part of the show was the very last song he played; he gave us all instructions on what to do during the end of the song. He directly involved the audience with his music. He taught one low harmony part to one third of the audience; a middle harmony to another third; a high harmony for the last third. He instructed us to sing it all at once when he started to, at the very end. When that part of the song came in, the band dropped out, and we harmonized, a capella, with Ben Folds. It was angelic. I was floored. The somewhat unpleasant experiences of the day leading up to the concert was all worth it, just for that one moment of beauty.

5. An unknown jazz quartet, at the Jazz Factory in Louisville (now closed)
On May 18, 2004, a great Jazz legend died. That man was Elvin Jones, a highly influential drummer who played for all the greats; Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, John Coltrane (he played on A Love Supreme), Bud Powell, and others. Being a jazz drummer, Elvin was and still is one of my heroes.

On that same day, I went to the Jazz Factory to celebrate mine and my brother's birthdays that night with my family. While it's closed now, the Jazz Factory was once a hip, classy joint in the basement of an old, abandoned glass factory, where $20 entrees are served and excellent jazz musicians from all over graced the stage every weekend. The quartet we saw that night featured an old drummer who played with Dizzy Gillespie (wrote the original "Manteca") and some other old Jazz greats. Before the set started, the drummer dedicated it publicly to the late Elvin Jones.

While I put this at 5, because I can't remember the guy's name for the life of me, I was witness to one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen to this day. That's why this concert made the list.

We stayed for both sets that night; the dinner set, and the later set. My eyes and ears were glued to the musicians as they played. The best jazz combos are the ones who trust each other, who watch one another 100% of the time, and are in tune with what each person is doing so much that the performance becomes an organic, fragile experience, dependent on the musicians' ability to listen and play in tune with one another. These guys locked in perfectly. Their very last song on their very last set was a fast-paced rendition of "A Night in Tunisia," originally by Dizzy Gillespie.

At the end of the piano solo, the musicians all looked at the drummer, who started to solo over the complex rhythm he was already playing. He sped up and maneuvered all over his kit, incorporating his feet with his hands as they rolled over the snare, the cymbals, and his two toms. As the drum solo picked up in speed and complexity, I looked at the drummer's face and saw that he was crying; his eyes were closed while he was playing, but there were tears. He was smiling, and saying something to himself. He kept on speaking to himself as he was playing, and I saw him say the words "Lord," "Father," and "Jesus." My dad, a preacher, pointed out to me that he was praying.

This drummer was praying. With his eyes closed, smiling, during an intense drum solo. Id like to think he was praying for the soul of Elvin Jones. He was playing that drum solo for the man who influenced his playing the most, and praying for his soul as it traveled to the afterlife. And that was one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen.

What about you? Any memorable experiences from concerts?

One small step forward for the USA, several giant leaps backward for Kentucky

Introduction
In the midst of one of the nation's biggest progressive movements, we see more and more progressive thought and ideology being accepted into the mainstream. "Green" is trendy now; folks are starting to wise up from the Bush administration's mistakes, and Obama is doing his part to right the wrongs of the previous chief executive. Some states are taking advantage of their geography and land layout to help develop alternative and renewable energy. California's general assembly has introduced legislation that would legalize, regulate, and tax cannabis, making their state an estimated $14 billion extra per year in revenue, assuming the bill gets signed into law. And the president has recently ruled that federal marijuana statutes will no longer override state laws when it comes to marijuana. This is just after his ruling to overturn the ban on embryonic stem cell research that Bush put into place. However, despite such progressive actions and ideas entering the public discourse, Kentucky remains an anomaly despite an outright growth nationwide of liberal thought and ideas.

In this post, I'll be looking back at some of the more controversial measures passed by our state legislators; most of which have nothing to do with the present budget crisis, relieving burdens on state taxpayers, or the betterment of the state. While I don't deny Kentucky has done some things this session to help balance our deficit, and that this is a non-budget session year, for the most part our legislators have ignored the needs of the people and have continued to pander to the arch-conservative lobby and the will of the religious right.

Senate Bill 5
Most of us by now have most likely heard about California's Assembly Bill 390, which would regulate the growth, sale, use, and possession of cannabis, as well as provide adequate and accurate education about what it is and its effects on the body from a scientific standpoint, as opposed to the fearmongering standard taught by DARE officers and set by guys like Harry Anslinger. This bill would relieve California's $60 B deficit in less than a decade, as their state's cannabis market already pulls in an estimated $14 B per year. Just for comparison, California's second-biggest cash crop is grapes for their world-famous wine. That totals around $2 billion per year. Kentucky could also benefit from a legal cannabis market very easily financially, as estimates for revenue lie between $400 million and $600 million per year. Either way, it would instantly solve our half-billion dollar budget crisis.

Currently, Kentucky's laws for DUI require a driver to have a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) level of .07, which is the equivalent of 7 beers/7 glasses of wine/7 shots of 80 proof. Senate Bill 5 is a bill that would allow DUI laws to also extend to THC content in the body. THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, is the active ingredient in cannabis. The difference between THC level and BAC level is that while alcohol filters through your system, you feel its effects from the moment the drug hits your brain to the moment it's completely gone from your system. Hence, alcohol gives you hangovers.

THC can still remain in your body for up to days after you smoke cannabis, even though you could be completely sober. So in a nutshell, this is a bill meant to further punish cannabis users with DUI charges, court fines and prison, even though they may be completely sober at the time they're pulled over. This is the exact opposite of where this country needs to be going with marijuana legislation.

Senate Bill 68
Here in the Bible Belt (Kentucky, the midwest, and the deep south) we're all pretty sensitive about anything involving homosexuality, the homosexual lifestyle, gay rights, and religions other than Christianity. However, our country has been nonetheless making great strides in making gay marriage legal; Connecticut and Massachusetts already allow it. California allowed it briefly before the Mormons led the national conservative/religious right lobby to support Prop 8, which could still be ruled unconstitutional.

Nevertheless, despite the progressive movement for gay rights and Kentucky having much more important things to worry about than oppressing gays, Kentucky's legislature is working really hard to oppress gays. SB 68's language is such that it doesn't directly target gays, but it might as well.

If passed, SB 68 would outlaw adoption by anyone who isn't a legally married couple. Sure, unmarried heterosexual couples would be forbidden from adopting or foster care, but this bill was meant for gays. As the bill's sponsor, Republican (surprise, surprise!) Gary Tapp from Louisville says, this bill was drawn up to more clearly define that "marriage is between one man and one woman."

Don't ask me what a bill like this does to help solve important state issues like Kentucky's budget crisis, healthcare, job market, education, or, say, helping orphaned kids find foster families to live with. As for those things, I'm not sure. But this bill would undoubtedly make the conservative religious right (likely a good 80% of Kentucky's voting populace) happy by further oppressing a minority. Traditionalists win, and Kentucky takes another regressive step backward culturally.

Just for the record, former apartheid-ridden nation South Africa now allows gay marriage.

Senate Bill 188
As the Bush administration's controversial views on the constitution and answering to the people left the White House, Obama came in, promising government accountability and transparency. Conservatives would say he's failed there, but he's certainly willing to hold himself more accountable and be more transparent than the Patriot Act/War on Terrorism/Illegal Wiretapping/Detainment and Torture president we used to have.

Kentucky seems to be following the same path Bush was on as both the House Speaker (Democrat Greg Stumbo) and the Senate President (Republican David Williams), who never agree on anything, finally agreed on something; the creation of a powerful government watchdog group that "oversees the efficient spending of taxpayer money." This apparently involves holding secret meetings, delaying the release of public reports, and being largely exonerated from scrutiny. This reeks of the Bush administration's secretive practices and the "Executive Privilege" Bush constantly granted himself when it came to "matters of national security."

When I asked him about it, Governor Beshear told me it sounded unconstitutional and that it infringes on the duties of State Auditor Crit Luallen, whose only job is overseeing the efficient spending of Kentucky's tax dollars. He said this bill, along with SB 68, will be looked at in the interim. I'm still skeptical as to what he plans to do with them should they reach his desk, so I'll keep all of you informed as I learn more.

Senate Bill 79
Abortion is another touchy topic for ultra-conservative Christians, which, as stated earlier, and as many of you are probably aware, make up a majority of Kentucky's voting percentage. Obama becoming president, combined with the waning health of supreme court justices like Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsberg will likely mean that the president will appoint liberally-minded judges to preside over the SCOTUS. One could infer that Roe v. Wade will remain in effect for a long time should Obama make those appointments in his tenure.

However, while abortion has literally nothing to do with any of the pressing issues Kentucky faces, the senate decided to approve legislation 33-4 that would require women in Kentucky looking to get abortions to meet with their doctor 24 hours before the procedure occurs, and to be shown an ultrasound of their fetus. Like SB 68, the bill's language is such that it doesn't literally speak out against the practice of abortion, but it very openly aims to guilt women looking to get abortions to renege on their decision, which is indirectly a state suppression of the right to choose.

Thankfully, this bill was killed in a House committee before going to the Governor's desk. But I wouldn't be surprised to see it show up in future sessions, so keep an eye open and keep up contact with your legislators.

House Bill 228
I first mentioned SB 5, which targets marijuana users. I also mentioned California's AB 390 which has gotten lots of press. There are also currently 13 states that allow the medical use of marijuana for pain relief and appetite restoration among patients. However, users of an entirely legal drug could soon be punished in Kentucky if HB 228 goes through.

House Bill 228 looks to make Salvia Divinorum, a hallucinogenic herb, illegal in Kentucky. Not because it's harmful; its effects are only temporary, and trips last around 5-10 minutes. But legislators in Kentucky, as we've seen, love to pander to the conservative right to gain those re-election votes.

For those of you who don't know what Salvia is, it's basically an herb that you can smoke or chew. You can buy it at different concentrations, from 5x to 50x or even 100x, so I've heard. After the ten-minute trip, users of Salvia return back to normal and go on about their lives, rather than wreck things and fight and drive badly, as alcohol users might. Kentucky's legislature wants to group this into the same category as marijuana, meaning there would be penalties in place for Salvia users if caught. Again, this is a huge step backward from where this country needs to be headed with both drug legislation and the war on drugs altogether.

I find it quite hypocritical that Republicans who say they want a smaller government, and a less powerful government overall that doesn't intrude into people's personal business, so strongly support legislation like these bills, which accomplish nothing except making local government excessively powerful and regulatory. It doesn't serve the needs of the people to further oppress minorities, or further punish the users of a quite harmless drug, or make even more harmless drugs illegal, or to assert religious dominance over women making personal choices about their own bodies.

I don't think our legislators are listening to the people anymore. I'd like to see this whole bunch out of Frankfort, and have REAL representatives of the people who actually care about the concerns of Kentuckians making the decisions for once.

Me/Steve Beshear 2: Electric Boogaloo

My most recent interview with the governor is online. It's about ten minutes long, so listen at your leisure. A lot of you submitted some great questions to me, so I added those to the ones I planned on asking him. I also asked him about some controversial measures going on in the legislature, and got his opinion on those. This interview was done Wednesday around 1:30 PM.

The questions I asked him:

1. Talk about the potential economic consequences of the 3-billion dollar road plan if it goes into law.

2. What public sector jobs are being created or saved in the public sector with Kentucky's share of the stimulus package?

3. You earlier presented an energy plan to make state government buildings more energy-efficient. What are your future plans to make Kentucky more energy-sustainable over time?

4. The public is pretty divided over the recent passing of Senate Bill 68 in committee, which would outlaw adoption for unmarried couples. What would you do with the legislation if it reached your desk?

5. In regard to public education and accountability, some teachers in the area have expressed concern that schools and teachers are held accountable, but parents and students are not. What can you do to make sure Kentucky's students and parents are held equally accountable for quality education?

6. In response to California's Assembly Bill 390, which would legalize and regulate cannabis, and the president's recent decision to leave cannabis laws up to state government, do you foresee or support similar legislation in future sessions to help relieve our budget deficit?

7. Did the state do research or analysis on whether or not the higher tobacco taxes would be enough a benefit to offset the sales and business lost in border counties? Do you feel the benefit will outweigh the lost revenue from out-of-state consumers?

8. Adjutant general Tonini said earlier we need better communication for when disasters hit Kentucky. What are some ways to improve communication lines between aid workers?

9. Senate Bill 188, which would create a powerful watchdog government agency that performs state auditor duties and conducts meetings in secret, is causing some hysteria. If you've seen the bill, what are your views on the legislation, and is such a program necessary at the state government level?