Archive

Autism Awareness: Coming to A Family Near You!

Published
by
Wilson
on March 25, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Anna Bullard tells a story that only a mother could tell. For those of us who had children who were fortunate enough to have developed normally, it is hard to imagine a toddler wrapped in silence 24 hours a day. Anna’s reward for a mother’s perseverance was hearing her daughter’s first word: Mama! But it came years after it should have.

If it is hard to comprehend that your child is different and needs help, it is harder still to hear Anna describe her struggle with doctors just to get an accurate diagnosis of her daughter’s problem. You get the idea that a lot of doctors have never heard of autism. A lot of them apparently don’t know it when they see it.

Anna tells of other battles as well, particularly of a parent fighting to get their child the special attention they need for their special needs. But Anna is a fighter and her story is one of victory over that amorphous beast that is Public Education’s Special Education. Anna learned the law, learned the rules and regulations and was not bluffed by bureaucrats into abandoning her child’s rights. Anna made sure her child got everything that she was entitled to–and it made all the difference!

Anna testifies to the benefits of behavior modification in breaking through the barriers of autism to establish communication with her daughter. The key: early diagnosis and intervention. A child who is not fortunate to have a parent as determined as Anna stands a real risk of being ignored during the early years, reducing the likelihood of a normal, productive life. With intensive therapy many of these children can attend school with their non-autistic peers.

The sad thing is that our society and our educational system is not attempting to identify these children early and initiate effective therapy. In many ways, this failure dooms many of these children to a non-productive, disabled, low-functioning life living off a government check.

This is not the only example where our desire for tax cuts and low budgets is counter productive, but it is one of the most shameful. Listen to the interview. It is well worth the time.

 
 Anna Bullard, Autism Awareness [30:39m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (74)

Numbers and Immigration: Jobs and the Environment

Published
by
Wilson
on March 24, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

If you don’t know where you stand with regard to the illegal aliens, maybe you can at least get a handle on the problem with LEGAL IMMIGRATION. Just like your check book, it is all about numbers. Roy Beck has the numbers. And, as we all know, numbers don’t lie - even if we don’t want to believe them!

Now, you can watch the video or read the rest of this post. My advice: do both!

Beck is a former journalist who now devotes his time to educating Americans about the destructive truth of our immigration policies. Roy started Numbers USA in 1997 to carry out the recommendations of the U. S. Commission on Immigration Reform, created by the Immigration Act of 1990 and the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development. Some people don’t like him, but all I can say is that he makes a hell of a lot of sense.

Remember, I am talking about legal immigration, those people who enter the US with our permission each year. How many people do you think that is? Would you believe that from 1776 through 1976 the traditional level of immigration to this country was an average of 250,000 people per year.

Roy’s point is that throughout our history when we have exceeded traditional levels of immigration we have always had problems assimilating the additional immigrants. Immigrants have also suffered from high levels of immigration because they are forced to compete for jobs in a market flooded with available workers.

However, beginning in 1959, US immigration policy has taken a wrong turn. After the devastation of WWII, many people wanted to immigrate from Europe to America for a better life. By the end of the ’50s, Europe;s economy had improved and less people were immigrating to America. You may remember this was about the same time a lot of us were being told we needed to achieve zero population growth. Well, the law of unintended consequences went into effect when Congress, apparently fearing we would not have enough European immigrants, began opening the floodgates.

Up until 1965 there were annual immigration quotas and East European countries had the largest quotas. In 1959 Congress invented “chain immigration” so that Europeans could bring their extended family. With chain immigration, the person who is approved for entry into the country gets to bring his relatives with him. In 1965 Congress did away with quotas and allowed immigration from all countries on the same basis. As a result of chain immigration, since 1990 we have been averaging 1,000,000+ legal immigrants a year. This is in addition to a milliion or more illegal aliens entering the country every year.

Do you wonder why immigration hasn’t been a big deal for the last 60 years (since WWII) and now, all of a sudden, it is a very big deal? Well, it’s because when legal immigration is at the traditional level of 250,000 a year, the country has been able to cope with this increase in population. However, after almost 40 years of higher levels of immigration, we are experiencing the pressure of these increased numbers on our utility and transportation infrastructure, our schools systems, our employment rates and wage rates.

According to Roy, there is a relationship between levels of legal immigration and illegal immigration. The greater the number of legal immigrants, the greater the pressure on others to enter illegally.

One of the problems with our immigration policy is that it has been run by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the ACLU. The Chamber and its pro business agenda promotes higher levels of immigration to exploit cheap labor at the expense of the American worker. Naturally, the ACLU is motivated bythe liberal idea that everyone should get to live in Amercia. (While I generally support ACLU principles, like all organizations, they can take the wrong stance on any particular issue. This is one of them.)

The problem with our immigration policy is that it is not guided by the most important question: What level of immigration is in our national interest? Politicians ignore focusing on this issue because of political correctness and voters. They don’t want Hispanic Americans mad at them.

I asked Roy where our presidential contenders stood on this issue of reducing immigration levels. (You can find check out your state delegation here.) All three of the remaining front runners, McCain, Clinton, and Obama, have the same rating: abysmal.

 
 Roy Beck, Founder, Numbers USA [29:36m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (83)

Pye and The Second Amendment!

Published
by
Wilson
on March 22, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Anyone that knows Jason Pye knows he is a strong believer in the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. Jason has been blogging about a case pending before the Supreme Court, District of Columbia v. Heller. Jason even recorded the oral argument and put it on his website! Just go to his home page and scroll down to “More on Heller.”

Jason hasn’t been to law school yet (He should go, I mean he really needs to go!), but he can best many lawyers when quoting cases and explaining decisions. Me? I hated constitutional law, not because it isn’t beautiful and majestic, but because trying to figure out what the law was in any particular area was akin to hearding cats. And, I don’t heard cats well–no patience!

According to Jason, the Heller case focuses the gun sights on a central question, which apparently has never been definitively answered by the Supreme Court: Is the right to bear arms an individual right? If you had asked me, I would have thought the issue was decided years ago, but apparently not.

In Heller the laws under attack are the District of Columbia’s ban on all hand guns and restrictions which require that other guns, like shotguns, be disassembled and unloaded. The argument is that the DC law effectively bans all guns, since the only guns you can have, you can’t use. It is hard to believe there is any place in America where you can’t have a gun ready and available in your home to protect yourself, your family and your property.

The odd thing is that Cheney and 200+ Senators and Congressmen signed on to a brief filed with the Supreme Court asking the Court to hold that the right to bear arms is an individual right. The problem: The Bush Administration filed a brief opposing such a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment because of concern that such a ruling might result in federal gun control legislation being declared unconstitutional. Cheney v Bush? For a better understanding you really need to read Jason’s post on JasonPye.com.

The quandry? The now conservative Supreme Court that loves to uphold the power of the government to do just about anything (like tap our phones) has to choose between its love of federal power and its love of guns, or should I say conservatives’ love of guns. I predict the guns win, the law is declared unconstitutional and the Supreme Court does some fancy dancing to preserve both guns and power. When you are the Supreme Court you can have the best of both worlds!

We covered a little Georgia politics, as well. Jason thinks Speaker Richardson’s Great Tax Plan was all about him, the Speaker that is. Cagle proposed a 10% cut in income taxes. Must be running for something! In a recession, who are these guys kidding? The voters, of course. Governor Perdue opposes both proposals since now that he won’t be running for re-election, he sees recession and decreases in revenues.

The budgets (supplemental and 2008-09) have passed both the House and Senate. Jason says there might be a showdown with the Governor over the budgets before the legislature adjourns.

The interesting part? I asked Jason to grade Cagle and Richardson’s performance this year. The results: Cagle: B- Richardson: F.

Personally, I give Jason an A for citizenship.

 
 Jason Pye, Political Commentator & Blogger [30:45m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (51)

Insurance Reform and Agritourism: One Step Forward, Two Back

Published
by
Wilson
on March 21, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

I am happy to report that the Georgia Legislature appears to be headed toward doing something that actually benefits the citizens of Georgia. What is it? A necessary reform in the law that will help make sure that when citizens pay for insurance coverage, they get the benefit of what they pay for.

In this interview Bill Clark of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association (GTLA) explains the change in the UM (uninsured motorists) coverage which will become law if SB 276 is enacted. It passed the Senate last year, but got stuck in the House. This year it looks like it may actually make it to the Governor’s desk and hopefully he will sign it.

EVERYONE NEEDS TO UNDERSTAND UNINSURED MOTORISTS COVERAGE! UM coverage pays you for damage to you vehicle and injuries to your body (and the bodies of other passengers) if you are involved in an accident with another vehicle that is uninsured or that is underinsured. It is dirt cheap. A lot of people elect not to purchase UM coverage because the law does not require you to have it. But it is a mistake not to have it. If you don’t know what your policy provides, you need to check it and if you don’t have UM coverage, you owe it to yourself and your passengers to get it. It is that simple.

Under the current state of the law, if you purchased $100,000 of UM coverage and you were hit by a vehicle that had a $100,000 of liability insurance, the law prohibited you from getting any benefit from your UM coverage (even though you paid for it) because your UM insurance company got credit for the liabillity coverage of the driver that hit you. It makes no sense, but that is the way the law evolved.

Just be thankful that if this law gets signed by the Governor, if you pay for $100,000 in UM coverage, you will get the benefit of that $100,000 in UM coverage. And remember, GTLA, the trial lawyers of Georgia (of which I am proud to be a member), fought to get this changed.

And when it comes to “agritourism”, GTLA is fighting the insane idea that “agritourism” businesses should not be held responsible for their negligence. Thus, if you want to hunt or fish on someone’s property, and they cause you an injury, you can’t sue them for your injuries unless they were grossly negligent (meaning they just about intended to harm you). However, if exactly the same thing occurred in some other business (Walmart), you could hold them responsible for simply being negligent, failing to exercise ordinary care.

On top of that, the Senate bill, SB 449, is entitled “Landowners Protection Act of 2008.” What does it protect landowners from? Responsibility! This is the kind of irresponsible legislation that is maneuvered through the legislature by some lobbyist paid for by some group, some business interest, that wants special treatment. It is the kind of legislation that moral leadership should oppose.

Here is the entire text of the statute:

(a) A landowner who allows a person who is 16 years of age or older to hunt or fish on the owner´s property shall be immune from civil liability for any acts done by such person on such property, provided that the landowner´s conduct does not constitute gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.
(b) A landowner who allows a person who is 16 years of age or older to enter the owner´s property for purposes related to agritourism, as such term is defined in subparagraph (p)(7)(B) of Code Section 48-5-7.4, shall be immune from civil liability for any acts or omissions of the landowner that do not constitute gross negligence or willful and wanton misconduct.”

Note that it excludes people under 16 years of age. GTLA was instrumental in pointing out that businesses ought not to be encouraged to injury minors needlessly. While I appreciate GTLA’s effort in protecting minors, I cannot help but point out that it makes no sense to encourage hurting people older than 15. Such is the strained wisdom of the Georgia legislature.

SB 449 has passed the Senate and is awaiting action in the House. It’s primary sponsors are Senators Bill Heath (R-31), Joseph Carter (R-13), Ross Tolleson (R-20) and George Hooks (D-14).

A similar bill was introduced in the House, HB 584, and is sponsored by Calvin Hill (R-21). At least it is going nowhere.

So there you have it. On the one hand, our legislature reforms the UM law to make sure consumers get what they pay for. On the other hand, they are considering excusing agritourism businesses for their negligence. One step forward, two steps back.

Someone needs to call their legislators.

 
 Bill Clark, GTLA Legislative Coordinator [31:06m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (75)

Bobby Saxon, Democratic Congressional Candidate, 10th GA

Published
by
Wilson
on March 20, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

This is my second interview with Bobby Saxon. It was the day after the 5th anniversary of invasion of Iraq and I still find it hard to believe that this country has been involved in this mistake of arrogance that damn long. I might not be as perturbed if I hadn’t seen the video clips of Bush telling us it is still going great and victory is just down the road. Yeah, and the economy isn’t in a recession and gas will never reach $4 a gallon.

Thank Goodness, there are only 305 days left of him and then he is consigned to the cesspool of the worst American President. I just hope I live long enough for history to actually judge him.

But, back to Bobby. As a veteran, Bobby’s understanding of our situation in Iraq is truly refreshing. He appreciates the need to leave Iraq, to do so as quickly as possible, but in a way that does not endanger the troops. He also thinks the troops probably reflect the same divisions and sentiments as the American public. I don’t believe in blind loyalty out of uniform, but I respect the loyalty of the troops because they (and their families) may be the only Americans that have earned the right and paid the price to have an opinion.

However, the issue on everyone’s mind recently is the economy. Who would have thought that Bear Sterns would be history in March 2008? Believe it or not, it still has a website.

If you are interested in who is elected to Congress from the 10th, listen to the interview and visit Bobby’s website.

 
 Bobby Saxon, Democratic Congressional Candidate, 10th Dist. [28:33m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (64)

Robert Nowak, Democratic Candidate, Congress GA-8th

Published
by
Wilson
on March 2, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

It takes guts to take on the incumbent candidate of your own party, but that is exactly what Robert Nowak intends to do: challenge Jim Marshall for his seat in Congress! (By the way, you pronounce his name just like “Novak.” It’s Czech. Robert’s grandfather immigrated to America at the turn of the 20th century.)

Robert grew up in Vermont, but his mother is originally from Peach County, Ft. Valley. He has now lived in Macon for about 6 years. He has previously lived in Atlanta, and traveled around the world. Robert’s background is as an educator and he has taught all the way from second grade to college. It was math and computers in Northern Ireland and the Middle East. He has also been involved in international sales in the Middle East. He lived in Saudia Arabia for two years. With all of this experience in the world market, Robert feels more than prepared in the international arena.

This race is, however, his first effort at electoral politics.

Now why would anyone want to challenge the incumbent of their own party? Well, in this case Robert thinks Marshall is insensitive to the needs of the base of the Democratic Party, the working American. According to Robert, Marshall’s votes against the S-Chip Program (Health Insurance for Kids-Peachcare), Head Start and the Clean Air Act, have not benefited the people of the 8th District. He also points to Marshall’s support for the War in Iraq as being more in line with the Republican Party, than with the majority of Democrats.

He understands that Marshall is voting conservatively because it may take that to get re-elected in the 8th, but Robert believes it is time to have someone represent the 8th based on principal, not the practicality of re-election. He intends to give the people of the 8th District a real choice in November.

Of course, to get to November Robert has to get through the Democratic Primary to be held July 15, 2008. It will take work and, of course, money. Robert is trying to raise at least $150,000.00 for the effort to unseat Marshall.

The 8th District is 21 counties big, running from Newton County in the north to Colquitt County (Moultrie) in the south. (BTW, Moultrie is the home of GriftDrift.)

Robert’s believes there is a lot of dissatisfaction among Democrats in the 8th. A lot of them don’t even see the need to vote if the only choice is between Marshall and a Republican opponent. (With about an 18% approval rating for Congress in general, there must be a lot of dissatisfaction everywhere!) A lot of people, including Robert, disagree with Marshall’s support for the Iraq War, which is a totally different issue from supporting the troops who are over there doing the job they were given. My philosophy: Support the Troops, To Hell with the War!

The issues that concern the 8th are the same for all of us: the economy, immigration, health care, education, just to name a few. We did not have time to discuss these in much detail, but you can check out his position at his campaign website.

Since immigration is an important issue to me and since I think both the national Democratic and Republican parties are going to sell the American people down the river when it comes to immigration, I was very interested in Robert’s thoughts about immigration. He agrees that America, just like any country, has to be able to control who comes in. The first step is to stop the influx, and enforce work laws. He does recognize the need for an effective temporary worker program for industries, (like the Vidalia Onion harvest) that need them.

Robert believes it is time for a change, time to rejuvenate the Democratic Party and get back to basic values. Amen to that!

 
 Robert Nowak, Democratic Candidate, U. S. Senate-GA [30:26m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (104)

Rand Knight, Democratic Candidate, U. S. Senate - GA

Published
by
Wilson
on February 25, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

When I asked Rand Knight why he was running for US Senate, his reply was he was fed up. Fed up with Saxby voting against the middle class. Fed up with exporting jobs over seas. Fed up with the government taking care of the top 1% of society while the rest of us that work every day for a living are left without health care and our kids don’t have a decent education.

What can I say? I am fed up as well, but fed up is inadequate to describe my disgust at politics in general and the Republican horde in particular. While I am glad that the 2008 presidential race stands to make history with the election of either the first woman or the first African-American, I would much prefer it if people were voting for candidates that are fed up, candidates that are more than a little mad. I want to vote for candidates that are truly, passionately fed up. When we, the people, are fed up enough to elect candidates that are fed up (and I mean really fed up), maybe we can eventually get enough of them in Washington to actually change something.

Rand sounded like he was a little mad, as well as fed up. As he points out, there is a lot to be fed up about. How about the soldiers that have had to do 2 or 3 tours in Iraq? Or maybe, its the fact that we are building colleges and roads and hospitals in Iraq, while ordinary folk in America can’t afford to take their kids to the doctor, even though they work more than one job. And let’s not forget the drug manufacturers and health insurance companies that are making billions in profit while everyone else in the healthcare morass is overcharged and underpaid. On top of that, our government gives the drug companies billions of dollars in subsidies so they can charge Americans more for their drugs than they charge other countries like Canada.

In particular, Rand is fed up with Saxby Chambliss’ whom he says is too busy doing the bidding of the major oil companies to do anything about the high gas prices at the pump. Rand points out that Saxby always supports tax breaks (corporate welfare) for these rich, multi-national corporations, while opposing the farm bill provisions that would afford some protection to our family farmers.

According to recent polls, Saxby’s approval rating is about 38%, the lowest of any other US Senator.

Rand appears to be a Southern Democrat in the mold of Richard Russell and Sam Nunn, politicians who understood the meaning of bipartisanship, and fiscal responsibility. Rand does not favor raising taxes, but neither does he favor giving tax breaks to the richest 1%. He points out that while the Bush administration is spending billions on the war in Iraq, it is neglecting the basic infrastructure of our armed forces. For example, the navy has fewer than 4oo ships today. Ten years ago it had 1200 ships and 20 years ago it had 2000 ships.

As a fiscal conservative, Rand believes in a balanced budget. One aspect of fiscal responsibility is becoming energy independent. Rand has a Ph.D. in Ecosystems Analysis and is eager to push alternative energy sources. He believes that with planning and foresight Georgia can become the biggest exporter of energy on the east coast.

As for the war in Iraq, Rand says that he talks to a lot of people coming back from the war, and that most all of them say that having troops on the ground in Iraq generates a lot of hostility toward America and increases terrorism.

Rand’s mother was a teacher, a member of the teacher’s union, and he is a supporter of organized labor.

Rand points out that on Super Tuesday more Democrats voted in Georgia than Republicans. If that happens in November, Saxby could be gone. He has been to 60 Georgia counties in the last 4 months trying to get his message out.

Only 99 more to go, Rand!

 
 Rand Knight, Democratic Candidate, Senate-GA [26:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (97)

Lawyers, Sugar and Liberty: Give me your poor, your injured, your sick!

Published
by
Wilson
on February 20, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

I enjoy lawyer jokes as much as anyone, but I have little patience with people that enjoy bashing lawyers. The latest round of lawyer bashing was sparked by the Sugar Refinery tragedy in Savannah. Within days lawyers from other states placed advertisements in the local papers advising the injured and their families they were ready and willing to help. Of course, everyone interpreted this as “ambulance chasing,” or “trolling for clients.”

If such blatant advertising offends anyone’s sensibilities, then let me point out one thing: THIS WAS NOT DONE BY GEORGIA LAWYERS!! So let’s don’t bash everyone, just because some lawyer did something you don’t like.

But the real question I want to ask is this: Why would anyone be offended by an advertisement like this? Of course, the easy answer is something like this: It doesn’t show respect for the injured and their families. It’s greedy. It’s ….whatever!

I am not sure I buy this logic, but assuming this is true, is this the result of timing or content? What if the same ad were placed a week later, a month later? Would that result in lawyer bashing?

Would it have made any difference if the ad had been placed by a local Georgia lawyer as opposed to someone from Texas?

In this interview Joseph (Joe) Watkins, an Atlanta lawyer and current President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Mark Tate, a Savannah attorney and I, discuss the controversy in an effort to explain and offer insight into why lawyers advertise. By the way, Mark’s law firm sponsors a TV show called “Law Call” which airs every Sunday night at 11:30 p.m. on one of the Savannah stations.

And let me make one thing clear: I am not talking about lawyers in general, only those targets of partisan politics, the “personal injury lawyer”, the “trial lawyer,” the “plaintiff’s attorney.” I am proud to be one. Call us what you will, we devote our professional lives trying to obtain justice for people who are wronged by others. That wrong may have caused a minor injury or a catastrophic one. It may have resulted in the wrongful termination of a good employee from a 20-year employment position. The trial lawyer, together with the courts, stands up for people that cannot stand up for themselves. Sometimes those people are rich, but many, many more are just normal, ordinary people who have been hurt. Pray you don’t ever need a lawyer, but pray that if you do, you get a good trial lawyer to stand up for you.

But the issue is lawyer advertising! There are lots of people, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, who mock the Ken Nugent ads. “One Call” my &^%(.!

Lawyers advertise for the same reason that every other business in the nation advertises: to get business. They also happen to have a constitutional right to advertise. If you have a problem with that, then I assume you equally condemn doctors who advertise. After all, don’t they simply want to make money? Don’t they want to charge you thousands of dollars out of your pocket at the very point in time that you can least afford it–when you are sick and dying. Is that any less a tragedy? If your response is that doctors do a lot of good while making money, I will be the first to agree. But, that is exactly what lawyers do–a lot of good while making money.

Of course, the issue is not that lawyers advertise, but that they do it after a catastrophe and they do it in public for all the world to see. It’s kind of like watching TV with your family when the Viagra ad comes on the screen.

As Mark points out, within hours, if not minutes after the incident, the Sugar Refinery had lawyers and insurance adjusters getting out of bed in the middle of the night to start protecting the rights of the people that may have done something wrong, the ones that caused or could have prevented the catastrophe. The injured and dead and their familites need lawyers, too. Sure, you can say they don’t need them that night, but truthfully, that isn’t exactly true. Evidence is being gathered, ignored, contaminated, hidden, lost and stories are being spun within hours of such an incident.

I can tell you that if my best friend was one of the people injured and he called me minutes after the explosion, I would be in the car and at the scene as soon as possible. And, here is the point I want to make: no one would see anything wrong with that because my friend called me. But what about the person that doesn’t know a lawyer? What does he do? How does he go about hiring a lawyer?

A lot of injured people, whether in a car accident or a catastrophe, have never had a lawyer and don’t know a lawyer. There isn’t anyone for them to call. Many times they don’t even know they have legal rights, much less rights that need protecting. Sometimes they even assume their employer is gong to take care of them. Yeah, right?

And this is my point. Advertisements after a catastrophe are not as sinister as some people, the media in particular, might want you to think. Bashing lawyers makes good copy. Some lawyers may run an ad and others may not. If you aren’t the one that needs a lawyer, you probably don’t care. The truth is that any advertisement at any time, before or after a catastrophe, is a poor basis upon which to hire a lawyer. You wouldn’t buy a house or a car based on an ad alone and you certainly shouldn’t hire a lawyer based on an advertisement. Always find out what the reputation of the lawyer is. Does he actually go to court? Does he really try case. Are the insurance companies really scared of him? (NO!)

Don’t know who to call or how to do that? Ask around! Someone always knows a good lawyer. Go to the court house watch a few in action.

But for goodness sakes, don’t act like the world is coming to an end because a lawyer ran an ad in the paper, even if you think it was in poor taste.

 
 Lawyer Advertising: Fact and Fiction [28:01m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (90)

Casey Cagle on Water and the 2008 Session

Published
by
Wilson
on February 12, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

This interview with Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle took place last week and my apologies to Casey for not posting it sooner. It took place the day before a significant court ruling in the “water wars” between Georgia, Alabama and Florida. That decision dealt a significant blow to Governor Perdue’s assertions that Georgia, not Alabama, not Florida, not the Corps of Engineers, would control the flow of water out of Lake Lanier. According to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, Georgia has no right to take any water out of Lake Lanier for drinking water use without the approval of Congress. The Court’s decision is well worth a read. The main opinion is less than 20 pages, but it gives a good overview of the water wars that have swirled around Lake Lanier.

When you consider that Lake Lanier presently supplies almost a third of the water used by Georgians (all of them in metro Atlanta), this decision could have an immediate and significant impact on the metro area.

I was amazed that the Statewide Water Plan made it through the legislature with such speed and has already been signed by the Governor. With all the controversy surrounding the Plan (at least I thought there was controversy), I assumed the Plan was going to be the subject of hearings and debate. What happened? Casey says the universal support is the result of the good job the Water Council did in developing the Plan. He gives his full stamp of approval to the Plan and assured me that Atlanta was not going to steal my South Georgia water. What more can I ask for?

Only time will tell. Another reason for the lack of opposition may be due to the fact that there really isn’t much to the Plan. It doesn’t constitute a law or a regulation. It is more of an organizational plan that will have to be judged after the dozens of members are appointed and begin their work. I doubt the Plan will have any immediate impact on the water problems.

As for opposition to the Plan, Casey referred to a “very radical environmental viewpoint” that was asserted by some opponents as a scare tactic. I assume this refers to the Riverkeeper organizations. Whether their concerns prove justified, only time will tell!

As for the long-term water solution, there are 11 reservoirs in the planning stage, primarily for municipal water supplies. Casey also said there would be a minimum of $30 million in the budget for water issues.

Another major area of legislative attention this year is health care. According to Casey the uninsured population increases the cost of health care for the rest of us. An average family of 3 pays about $1000 a year in additional premiums just to cover the cost of medical care provided to the uninsured. The legislature is considering two initiatives: safety net clinics and a website which would allow consumers to shop for health care plans on a more competitive basis.

As part of the safety net clinics, incentives would be provided to communities that provide preventative health care to individuals who can’t afford it. I am not sure what this means, but be on the lookout for prohibitions and restrictions on suing safety net clinics and their doctors in the event they kill you!

As for the web based marketplace, I am not sure how that will work either. The concern here is that the insurance industry is allowed to offer all sorts of coverage plans, including the one that covers 100% of you medical expenses if you are bitten by a cobra while standing on your head! Read the fine print!

Casey also discussed an effort to provide coverage for catastrophic illness to the 25 and under age group who don’t like to pay for health insurance because as we all know, the young are invincible. They are also the biggest group of people that are uninsured. The catastrophic policy might cost as little as $45 a month.

On the transportation front, Casey indicates that the DOT is undergoing restructuring and modernization. But what about traffic? What about metro traffic? How about movable lanes? Most of us have seen the heavy traffic going one way in the morning and the other way in the evening. According to Casey the state of Virginia has movable lanes. So do other places! Sounds weird, but it may provide some relief. The biggest problem I see is that if Georgia continues to grow in population and cars, all the lanes in one direction may not be enough in 20 years. And that is the problem. No one is working on a solution that will deal with the long-term. Only time will tell!

Speaker Richardson’s Great Property Tax Plan is dead, but Casey says property owners, both residential and commercial, need relief from an ever increasing property tax burden. He suggests the legislature is considering a cap of 2% or 3% on annual tax increases. Also, local property tax assessments might be frozen until local jurisdictions establish a uniform assessment process. Frankly, I thought we had one.

Casey points out that the Governor has cut the state portion of property taxes by 1/4 mil.

Some consideration is also being giving to eliminating the income tax on senior citizens. Since I am close to being a senior citizen, I am all for this.

As for education, there will be austerity cuts. We did not have time to discuss what they might be.

And what about Georgia’s economic future? Casey says we will see a slowdown in Georgia’s economy. Inflation is up, credit is tight, foreclosure rates are up. But Georgia has always weathered economic downturns better than a lot of states. I hope this continues to be the case.

 
 Casey Cagle, Lt. Governor of Georgia [28:32m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (112)

There’s A Bully in the House!

Published
by
Wilson
on February 5, 2008
in Podcast
. 0 Comments

Way too much of this interview dwelt on that insignificantly small person that parades as Speaker of the Georgia House, Glenn What’s His Name. Jason Pye describes the recent vengance wreaked by the Speaker on those members of the House who dared to vote against his choice for DOT Commissioner from the 9th District. Banished and stripped of power, the Speaker certainly knows how influence people. I am not sure about winning friends. Arrogance and pettiness are his trademarks. Bullying is his tactic. I applaud his perverse sense of leadership solely because I am sure it will ultimately seal his fate. It is only a matter of time.

If Richardson were a child he would have been disciplined (somewhere between spanking and beating) months, if not years, ago. He might even have done a tour in “juvy” for attitude correction. But, apparently the other Republican members of the House enjoy being abused, harrassed, threatened and deprived of any claim to manhood–if you know what I mean. Too bad there isn’t one leader among them with the balls to stand up to a brat.

What really gets me is the possibility that all this strutting and strong-arming is somehow a prelude to a gubernatorial campaign in 2010. (Good Lord, will it be that long before Sonny leaves!) Pick up a mirror Glenn, and kiss your political future goodbye. Tick, tick, tick……

We mention briefly the quick approval of the Water Plan. Jason doesn’t appear to be overly concerned about the ultimate implementation of this plan. His reasoning: it can always be changed, if need be. (They said the same thing about the Constitution!) I still have a lot of friends who think the Water Plan is nothing more than a plan for Atlanta to get more water and the rest of the state, less water. The total lack of debate over it still makes me think that politics is at work behind the scenes on this one. We will just have to wait a decade or so and see how it goes.

The credit freeze bill and the gun at work bill passed the House.

Jason finally convinces me that talking about mass public transportation in Atlanta is nothing more than misplaced nostalgia for what could have been. Let’s face it, Atlanta is going to be concrete gridlock forever. There is no hope to improve, much less eliminate the problem. The leadership that was needed came and went 40 yers ago. Until we have personal transport vehicles that fly, Atlantans will continue to fight traffic and hate it. Move south!

In a parting comment about voting on Super Tuesday, Jason gives a plea: Don’t vote for Huckabee! Jason characterizes Huckabee as a tax and spend liberal from Arkansas. Huckabee scares me because he confuses religion and government, something Jesus never did. Alas, our comments were to no avail. Georgians, at least the Republican part of the state, continue to prove that we have no idea what the Constitution of the United States says or what it means.

Jason keeps up the legislature in Georgia Legislative Watch. You should, too.

 
 Jason Pye, Blogger, Political Commentator [27:55m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download (118)