APPLETON, Wis., Dec. 23 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The following statement was issued today by Terri McCormick:

In the rush to pass the so-called “healthcare reform bill,” U.S. Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) stomped his feet and held his breath until he extracted his presents from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. One such gift exempts Nebraska from paying the $45 million increase in Medicaid imbursement costs. Nelson was the 60th Democrat to get his stocking stuffed.

(Photo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20091223/DC30345)

Smart parents know not to give in to spoiled children trying these shenanigans. If we gave kids everything they demanded, our family budget would be as busted as last year’s toy under the couch. You know, the one with batteries that are only made in China.

Each of us will soon pay for the Senate’s extravagant spending. In Senator Nelson’s case, his Nebraska voters will be exempted from the substantial cost increases generated by new Medicare patients mandated by this plan. Wisconsin taxpayers will foot the bill not only for the additional costs for Wisconsinites, but for Nebraskans, too.

Senator Reid is like the parents that give their screaming kids everything they ask for. Here is what the Wall Street Journal reported:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Mr. Nelson didn’t get special treatment. “I worked with every Democratic senator” to make changes to the bill,” Mr. Reid said. “Ben Nelson was just like the rest of them.”

The majority leader added, “If you read the bill … you’ll find a number of states are treated differently from other states. That’s what legislation’s all about: compromise.”

So giving a present to every one of the 60 Senate Democrats is the way that healthcare funding decisions are being handled in Washington. It is not the way that we did true healthcare reform in Wisconsin; at least not when I was in charge.

In 2002, I led the Speaker’s Taskforce for Local Government Healthcare Partnerships. We used a business model to address runaway healthcare costs to state and local government. We held a dozen hearings around the State, listening to the people as they identified the reasons for cost spikes. With the help of private-sector talent, we crafted and passed the Competitive Prescription Drug Purchasing Pool, which saved $25 million for non-represented state employees alone, in the first year. We recommended the use of Internet transparency for healthcare cost bidding, as well as a quality control system of standards where communities can view provider ratings online.

This approach put free market mechanisms in place to ensure a level playing field for health care competition. Contrast this pork-free plan with the U.S. Senate Christmas-tree bill, and you can see that government can, and must, do better.

So I have a simple solution for all sensible voters this Holiday season. Think about the permissive parents you see that give in to their spoiled children. Compare them to the incumbent politicians in your district and state. Vote out every one of them that can’t say no to more spending. In these economic hard times, that is the only way for our family budgets – and our nation — to survive.

We need to stop giving a “Tickle Me Nelson” to every U.S. Senator.

Terri McCormick is the author of the book “What Sex is a Republican?” She was a Wisconsin State Representative from 2001-2007, and Chaired the House Economic Development committee and Chaired the House subcommittee on Healthcare Cost Reform from 2002-2007. She is a Republican candidate in Wisconsin’s 8th Congressional District. www.themccormickstandard.com

Available Topic Expert: For information on the listed expert, click appropriate link.

Terri McCormick: http://profnet.prnewswire.com/Subscriber/ExpertProfile.aspx?ei=92667

SOURCE The McCormick Standard

Copyright (C) 2009 by Terri McCormick, M.A.
All Rights Reserved

On September 12th in Washington DC – Citizens from across the country attended a march on Washington and Congress to make their voices heard.  They were from Oklahoma, California, Missouri, Michigan, Texas, Indianapolis … with one message. That message was ‘they are unhappy with the spending of government and were given notice that all incumbents need to go!”

Comments heard were;  “We love our country and we are here to restore fiscal responsibility and limited government.”  “ I want smart capable people to have the ability to earn a living.”   “Many people are here with no party affiliation whatsoever …  it started under George Bush and it is escalating under this current president.”    “I am an independent …. I turned in my republican card.“

The overriding theme of the ‘Citizen March’ can be summed up with “Most people are so sick of the two party mess and the corruption that it has caused —- And they don’t want a part of either party anymore.”  “If I could vote for Thomas Jefferson I would,” said a frustrated American determined to preserve her constitutional rights.

by Terri McCormick
(former State Representative
& chair of Healthcare Cost Partnerships committee)
July 24, 2009

Regardless of political party or ideological persuasion, there are limited resources and outcomes possible with H.R. 3200 America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.  There is no doubt that the stakes are high for individuals and businesses. It is critical that citizens engage in the discussion and that ‘we the people’ read the bill and act accordingly.

‘Politics as Usual’ bedtime stories, when combined with chicken cordon bleu in the home of large political contributors, does not a good healthcare policy make.  What it makes is a rather redundant kettle of ‘Status Quo Soup’ stirred with the spoon of insider politics.

As Dick Armey recently commented, “President Obama made the mistake of not setting a more specific direction for the democrat dominated legislature in both houses to pursue healthcare reform.”

Who will pay for the Healthcare Reform Act?

The middle class – either those small business owners who gross $250,000 a year or wealthier Americans whose household incomes are over $1,000,000 – according to the President in a press conference on July 23, 2009. The gaping taxpayer hole for the “Reform Act” appears to be  1/3 of the total cost of $1.5 trillion dollars.

Who is the Healthcare Act written for?

A July 21, 2009 headline in the Washington Post read “Industry Cash Flowed to Drafters of Reform”

As liberal protesters marched outside, Sen. Max Baucus sat down inside a San Francisco mansion for a dinner of chicken cordon bleu and a discussion of landmark health-care legislation under consideration by his Senate Finance Committee.

The July 21 story goes on to say:

” Baucus’s fundraising prowess underscores the enduring political strength of the healthcare lobby, which led all other sectors in donations to federal candidates during the last election cycle and has shifted its giving to Democrats as the party has tightened its control of Congress.”

“The sector gave nearly $170 million to federal lawmakers in 2007 and 2008, with 54 percent going to Democrats, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics.  The shift in parties was even more pronounced during the first three months of this year, when Democrats collected 60 percent of the $5.4 million donated by healthcare companies and their employees, the data show.”

Pay for Play politics does not yield solutions for Americans – it yields ‘deals’ for politicians.

What does the Healthcare Reform Act do?

On page 16 of the 1,017 page document it clearly states “In 5 years all private insurance plans must look like public plans.”

In effect it is a government takeover of the private healthcare insurance industry.  The private sector industry responsible for negotiating price on behalf of the patient will then be eliminated and a government held “system” will replace it.

Does the Healthcare Reform Act lower skyrocketing costs?

It would appear that government rationing is the answer being pursued, with the following examples:

• Consider Elder Care. Instead of a goal to “age with dignity and independence” that most of us have in this country, we will be assigned consultants to review our cases every five years to determine how grave a risk we will be on the federal health insurance system. When we become too high a risk the government will pull the plug. Or we will pay for costs out of our own pocket.
• Limits will be set to control costs for End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) of kidney disease, which many diabetics must face.  The operative word is palliative care.  It means treating the symptoms but not the underlying root cause of the disease.  Give ‘em pain pills and let them go die.
• Congress has the ability to opt out of HR3200 – they maintain their AIG guaranteed pension and healthcare benefits.
• TARP was distributed along party lines – Should Americans be wary of healthcare being dispensed along party lines as well?

The notion of government politicians and bureaucrats making all decisions for the American people should have all of us concerned.  But many Americans have been lulled to sleep, fat, dumb and happy that “the system is taking care of us.”

No need to read the 1,017 page document.  Just trust the lobbyists and long term politicians holding fundraisers throughout the negotiation process of the bill to get it right for all Americans.

For Hospitals, Clinics and Doctors

Is there an increased medicare reimbursement rate and guaranteed payment by the feds to hospitals and doctors who practice in federally approved clinics and hospitals?  If not, the question then becomes ‘What happens when government bureaucrats hold all the insurance options?’

According to former Marine Veteran Carmen Russo   “The bottom line is that government will decide who lives and who dies. That’s what happens.”

Wouldn’t it be better if the Healthcare Reform Act controlled Healthcare costs?

Some suggestions:

Recommendations made on a Committee I chaired in the Wisconsin Legislature in 2002

• Create pools for prescription drugs, cooperative insurance pools, association pools nationwide and other insurance pools so that the free market has the opportunity to work. (Savings in WI first year alone was $40 million. WI ETF source)
• Hold government bureaucracies and government funded hospitals accountable by enforcing lean management controls on monies distributed on behalf of tax payers.  (Ever wondered why vertical impact machines were so expensive?  You should – they are hammers!)
• Get government out of the business of private business and into the role of ensuring a safety net for those Americans who need catastrophic care and government secured insurance.
• Never forget for a moment that the largest increases in health care costs are our individual choices that come with individual responsibility such as; our weight, exercise, smoking habits and life style choices.

We cannot regulate personal choices.  But we can regulate government stupidity caused by incremental policy based on campaign contributions.  The problem is both political parties have lost the public’s trust.

It is time to get behind candidates who we trust to change the way things are.  We cannot hope and pray for change without action.

It is time to act!

© 2009 Terri McCormick

All Rights Reserved

________________________________________________________________________

“Why do we fall?… So that we may learn how to pick ourselves up
and stand on our own two feet.”

- Jessie Boyle, 1944, Irish American businesswoman
_______________________________________________________________

“Power is distancing … Politicians must know two languages and cultures-here and home. However, home soon becomes lost, forgotten by those who reach the seats of power.” Wall Street Journal contributing editor Peggy Noonan writes that the GOP is losing confidence because of what she calls “detachment from the ground.” It is clear to Noonan, a former President Reagan speech writer and confidant, that career politicians soon forget who sent them into office and why they are there.[i]

Noonan points to what is obvious to me: that the theatre of public office, seldom resembles the reality of public office. Despite the talk of decreasing spending, it’s skyrocketed under Republican rule. Promises of smaller government have long been forgotten, just as securing our nation’s borders is a spoken priority, with little action backing it up.

The Democrats offer little more. Democrats are tagged as big spenders-big on ideas, short on delivery. Noonan contends-and I agree-that both parties are missing the boat. Party leadership has led both parties into dark, shadowy places with no light to see by.

The stories of American politics told in this book are based on fact. It is with the painstaking research and support of my former chief of staff, Jared Guzman, that specific dates and testimony have been cited. My home state will surprisingly resemble most states across this nation. The need for leadership and government reform is not a vacuous one. I have used personality types, rather than individuals in most of the stories from the front lines of politics, so that you may recognize the characters as your own.

Direct observations and empirical research was conducted for upwards of six years, so that the facts, actual events and testimony could provide a factual basis for this book. It is my aim to make an appeal to all Americans to become active and engaged in the political process, so that we may change the way things are.

The audience for this book is the American people-citizen, candidate and media alike-who represent the foundational trilogy needed to put our country right. I will take you behind the curtain of elective office into the belly of the best of American politics for one purpose: to give you the tools to recognize the games of the political class. With this knowledge, it is possible to finally peel off the masks of virtuous deception and become better citizens and leaders. To the courageous idealists among us, it is time for a new “we the people” to step forward and change the way things are.

The political gender referred to in What Sex Is a Republican? has no biological or anatomical designation. Rather, it refers to a silent coup-a class warfare unlike any others. We may be familiar with the notion of class warfare between the upper class and the middle/lower class, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals. I can assure you that there is a class that transcends all of these boundaries in American politics. It is the political class made up of young and old, men and women, who believe they are entitled to their positions and endowed with an elite arrogance of self-service at the expense of the American people.

What Sex Is a Republican? could just as easily be written as What Sex Is a Democrat? Both major political parties have in them a political animus endemic to the political class. So embedded and institutionalized are these political animals that they have built around them political silos (extreme partisanship), paid for by unwitting fat cats fed on the emotional sound bites of well-trained political lackeys. So entrenched is the political class in the pursuit of self-preservation in public office that they would strangle the dreams and hopes of American ingenuity and innovation in its crib.

The political class’ stronghold on my grassroots race for the United States Congress brought the revolution of class warfare to my door and to the doors of my constituents in northeast Wisconsin. It was during my primary race in 2006, within my own political party, that all of us-voters and candidates alike-realized that our free elections were not as free as we had once thought.

[i] Noonan, Peggy. 2006. “Baseless Confidence,” Wall Street Journal [www.wsj.com], May 11.

The McCormick Standard serves as a benchmark for citizen leaders to exchange ideas and share solutions to issues facing us in education, energy, the economy, justice and politics.

The United States Constitution and the rule of law is our American governing principle.  It is in this tradition and its call for integrity leadership that the McCormickStandards.com was created. The McCormick Standard serves as a benchmark in the public debate on how best to get our government and economy back on track. Our nation has veered off course from its founding principles and documents. As a consequence, the American people have become vulnerable to economic hardship and government malpractice.  It is time for all of us to do something about it.

The McCormick Standard relies on the rule of law and the role of a free press in preserving our republican form of government.

The Rule of Law is based on the fact that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It presumes that all men and women are equal and have certain inalienable rights. It further protects the American people from the tyranny of an oppressive government. And finally, the rule of law distinguishes human beings from the animus of a lawless society.

The abuse of power and political corruption of our nation’s politicians have done little to ensure the checks and balances of our three branches of government. Further the corporate abuse of power enabled by a lack of oversight by dysfunctional office holders must be held accountable by the American people. A fully functioning judicial, legislative and executive system of government must be put back in place.  And a free and appropriate press must renew its commitment to the American public as purveyors of truth, not simply spinners of webs.

For this principle to work we must use checks and balances at the ballot box and in the appellate court system to guarantee a return to the rule of law and ethical conduct. Simply, the American public must educate itself on the issues with many sources of medium and then make their voices known during elections. All three branches of government on all levels of government work for ‘we the people’ they are; The Justice System –the ‘triers of fact’ (judges), ‘officers of the court’ (attorneys; defense, plaintiff, prosecutors, district attorneys, and public defenders), and law enforcement. Second, is the Legislative Branch – those who write the laws; local governments, state legislators, and congress.  Third are those who execute the law; county executives, governors, the president.

All publicly elected office holders must understand that they are not above the law rather they must fear, honor and hold themselves accountable to the rule of law.

1. No citizen, public or private shall be above the law of the United States of America.
2. Investigators must be publicly accountable for their actions and held accountable for their actions – private investigators must be transparent to the county boards, state legislatures and federal congressional representatives so that we may properly hold them accountable for their actions.
3. Prosecutors, District Attorneys, Sheriffs, Law Enforcement all; shall have no ‘conflict of interest’ in investigating cases, pursuing cases, or trying cases. The rule of law requires that publicly elected and appointed individuals shall hold them accountable under the law for their actions which put innocent citizens at risk abridging their rights under the law. The oversight of these actions is entrusted to a free press and an educated citizenry.
4. Legislators and Congressmen and women must disclose personal and professional conflicts of interests to the American people. Public servants must be accountable to the people they serve as is written under the rule of law by the United States Constitution.
5. TERM LIMITS must be enforced on all levels of government service. The United States is a constitutional government put in place to guarantee ‘self rule.’ A citizen led government should not be dependent on those who have made a business out of securing an office, while failing to perform their duties in office.
6. Checks and Balances must be preserved and maintained above short term political gain. To this end ALL contributors to political campaigns must be disclosed to the American public especially those that have used the ‘527’ organization designation. (organizations with undisclosed contributors used to ‘educating the public’ typically with attack ads)

The Role of a Free Press is to ‘Seek Truth’ and to ‘Safeguard our democratic republic.’

WARNING: When the press confuses its primary role of truth seeking – with its corporate role of satisfying major stock holders, advertisers and foundation partners- it could have a dangerous effect on its bottom line circulation and readership.

An ethical press is governed by the standards and principles set forth by the Society for Professional Journalists Code of Ethics http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

The sacred role of the press as ‘truth seekers’ has been questioned to the point of the collapse of the newspaper industry.  Instead, the American people themselves have become the ‘truth seekers’ in their own search for credible news stories. With unlimited access to national newspapers written by world class writers online, the American public is in charge of what they read and when they read it. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post to mention a few … are at the finger tips of old and young alike.

The news paper industry has become a casualty of the success of the internet, and a growing technologically literate public. As fact checking becomes a hobby for many Americans online, the quality and research of local news reporting must increase to keep pace with the competition. News spin and bias online, has become easily deleted by the touch of a button.

The responsibilities of the press are threefold;

1. To ensure that the checks and balances of our three branches of government are in tact and functioning.  ( checks and balance effectiveness, conflicts of interest, integrity in office, votes and policy decisions,  public policy agendas, local and regional impact stories)
2. To ensure ‘truth’ is the primary goal of all news stories. Tantalizing headlines written to create conflict between unsuspecting parties has exhausted the public who are seeking solutions to their problems. Too often news stories reflect the bias of corporate stockholders, board members, and advertisers.  The consequence of which is distrust among readers.
3. To report the inner workings of government in a transparent and unbiased manner as the fourth branch of government.  The Society for Professional Journalists sets the essential standards of conduct for the media. To the extent that the American people must have credible news sources in order to carry out the role of citizen, ethical codes of conduct must be followed by the media. Further in the present day culture of corruption, it maybe necessary to enforce a code of ethics for journalists and editors.

DISCUSSION OF THE PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST CODE OF ETHICS:

According to the Society of Professional Journalists thousands of journalists voluntarily submit to the Code of Ethics of their professional organization.  Some do Not – lets take a look at their discussion as posted on;

http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp

As posted in its entirety:

Why doesn’t SPJ enforce its Code of Ethics?

The Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics is voluntary. We do not have a mechanism for investigating complaints or enforcing discipline on SPJ members, much less other journalists. But our code does provide a framework to evaluate ethical behavior, and we encourage fellow journalists and the public to hold news reports and commentary up to ethical scrutiny. Ultimately, that is the most effective antidote to questionable reporting, not quasi-judicial proceedings. The reasons for this emphasis are rooted in the special nature of journalism and the need to preserve freedom of expression and an independent press.

The Society’s leadership has debated the question of enforcement off and on for decades. The majority has felt that establishing a quasi-judicial system, such as those found in some other professions, would inevitably lead to actions by governments, courts or their proxies that would restrict the rights to free speech and free press guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Preserving those rights is a fundamental mission of SPJ — every bit as important to its members as sound ethics — and we don’t want the pursuit of the one to have a negative effect on the other. American citizens’ constitutional rights to free speech and a free press are vulnerable, and they are placed in jeopardy whenever we allow them to be confused with or limited by the professional responsibility to act ethically. Instead, we encourage the exposure of unethical journalism as a means for rooting it out; more speech is the most effective counter measure.

In addition, as a practical matter, professional enforcement of standards for news reporting would require a body of more detailed provisions and case law that are far beyond our resources to provide, even if it were desirable.

Nor could any set of rules, however detailed, possibly apply to all the nuances and ambiguities of legitimate expression. Rather, we are committed to encouraging the profession and the public to evaluate all reporting and reportage in ethical terms, not to apply “rules.” We believe our code provides the guidelines to make that possible.

We realize — and have embodied in our code — that all journalism ethics is a balancing act between often conflicting responsibilities. One of our guiding principles, whose importance we all recognize, is “Seek truth and report it.” Another is “Minimize harm.” Obviously, if one reports all truths without flinching, we will inevitably do great harm, and if one minimizes harm as much as possible, one will not be reporting essential truths. The key is in the balancing act — and in recognizing the importance of each core value. That’s not easy to enforce.

Similar conflict exists between our other two basic principles, “Act independently” and “Be accountable.”

So the Society has long felt that the best enforcement is in publicizing, explaining and applying those principles and weighing alternatives, as individuals, as journalists and as an organization, in the form of comment and opinion, without issuing definitive, quasi-legal judgments that might be put to improper use. Our hope is that the public and other journalism professionals will have in our code the tools necessary to evaluate journalism behavior and hold journalists ethically accountable for their actions. Indeed, the code specifically calls on journalists to “clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct,” to “encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media” and to expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.”

SPJ’s Code of Ethics has proved to be an important reference for professionals, students and citizens. It is widely consulted and applied in newsrooms and classrooms as the definitive statement of our profession’s highest values and a helpful way to think about the specific and unique journalism quandaries we confront daily.

The Society has taken measures to encourage broader use of the code. We have disseminated the text widely and organized countless programs to assess ethical issues, and we have entered into a partnership with Bloomberg to teach ethics to professionals. We have established Ethics in Journalism Week as a means of placing a spotlight on our ethical responsibilities and reaching out to the communities we serve with information on what citizens have a right to expect from journalists. We also regularly make ourselves available to the news media to comment about demonstrably good and notably bad ethical practices and the complex evaluation of responsibilities that ethical behavior demands.

When was the code adopted?

The present version of the code was adopted by the 1996 SPJ National Convention, after months of study and debate among the Society’s members. Sigma Delta Chi’s first Code of Ethics was borrowed from the American Society of Newspaper Editors in 1926. In 1973, Sigma Delta Chi wrote its own code, which was revised in 1984, 1987 and 1996.