Gallegly is Against Healthcare Reform…here’s why

Here  is Gallegly’s 2010 campaign contributions:

Industry  ↓ Total  ↓ Indivs  ↓ PACs  ↓
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $9,000 $1,000 $8,000
Telephone Utilities $4,000 $0 $4,000
Defense Electronics $4,765 $1,765 $3,000
Commercial Banks $3,000 $0 $3,000
Health Professionals $5,665 $2,665 $3,000
Electronics Mfg & Services $3,330 $830 $2,500
Real Estate $8,562 $6,062 $2,500
Misc Issues $2,000 $0 $2,000
Home Builders $2,000 $0 $2,000
Computers/Internet $2,265 $1,265 $1,000
TV/Movies/Music $3,000 $2,000 $1,000
Lawyers/Law Firms $10,999 $9,999 $1,000
Insurance $2,000 $1,000 $1,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $4,650 $4,350 $300
Livestock $5,514 $5,514 $0
Building Materials & Equipment $4,600 $4,600 $0
Casinos/Gambling $2,000 $2,000 $0
Retired $16,711 $16,711 $0
Trucking $2,065 $2,065 $0
Business Services $2,665 $2,665 $0

Here are Gallegly’s campaign contributions for the 2008 cycle:

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $36,500 $17,000 $19,500
Telephone Utilities $11,000 $0 $11,000
Real Estate $48,244 $37,444 $10,800
Automotive $18,800 $8,800 $10,000
Public Sector Unions $9,000 $0 $9,000
Home Builders $10,000 $2,000 $8,000
Defense Electronics $10,000 $3,000 $7,000
TV/Movies/Music $10,600 $4,600 $6,000
Crop Production & Basic Processing $16,448 $10,648 $5,800
Health Professionals $10,795 $7,648 $3,147
Securities & Investment $9,800 $7,300 $2,500
Building Materials & Equipment $16,250 $13,750 $2,500
Lawyers/Law Firms $22,120 $19,870 $2,250
General Contractors $9,050 $7,050 $2,000
Lobbyists $9,150 $7,150 $2,000
Republican/Conservative $10,410 $9,410 $1,000
Misc Finance $9,900 $9,400 $500
Livestock $14,200 $14,200 $0
Retired $40,849 $40,849 $0
Casinos/Gambling $10,600 $10,600 $0

A break down of the later demonstrates this:

Sector Total PACs Indivs
Agribusiness $46,898 $17,800 $29,098
Communications/Electronics $29,489 $21,000 $8,489
Construction $38,949 $12,500 $26,449
Defense $15,250 $12,000 $3,250
Energy & Natural Resources $12,750 $12,500 $250
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $89,444 $26,200 $63,244
Health $48,995 $23,147 $25,848
Lawyers & Lobbyists $31,270 $4,250 $27,020
Transportation $24,800 $13,000 $11,800
Misc Business $41,202 $12,564 $28,638
Labor $12,000 $12,000 $0
Ideological/Single-Issue $23,861 $11,401 $12,460
Other $48,499 $0 $48,499

Insurance and Health contributions combined make up for his main campaign contributions. If you want to include Lobbyists, that includes another $31,000.

Add to this misery, Gallegly won’t hold town hall meetings and won’t debate campaign challengers.  Probably because he doesn’t care what his constituents have to say and doesn’t want to be challenged with the facts.

Data provided by Opensecrets.org

Go play with the yearly data there, and you’ll see he’s always been a favorite of the insurance/pharma industries.

Over the course of Gallegly’s Congressional career, here are his totals:

Sector Total PACs Indivs
Agribusiness $335,074 $120,211 $214,863
Communications/Electronics $263,672 $192,112 $71,560
Construction $308,391 $105,050 $203,341
Defense $156,868 $135,557 $21,311
Energy & Natural Resources $161,076 $131,018 $30,058
Finance, Insurance & Real Estate $756,363 $319,949 $436,414
Health $401,417 $205,322 $196,095
Lawyers & Lobbyists $219,363 $39,525 $179,838
Transportation $218,316 $135,120 $83,196
Misc Business $352,147 $139,545 $212,602
Labor $58,025 $57,525 $500
Ideological/Single-Issue $192,638 $127,618 $65,020
Other $284,506 $500 $284,006

hmmmmm

FISA, Bush, Republicans, and telecom immunity

Found this over at Brian Dennert’s blog at the Star. Certainly puts this issue in a plain and simple manner. I wonder what our local Congressional Representative Elton Gallegly will do to protect our rights now. Any thoughts on his concern for the Constitution?

South Korea doesn’t want our beef – Europe doesn’t want our chemicals

This past week in South Korea saw tens of thousands of citizens protesting the government’s move to begin US beef imports. The Seattle Times reported:

President Lee Myung-bak suggested Tuesday that South Korea will seek to ban imports of U.S. beef from older cattle amid a public backlash against his government over fears of mad cow disease.

Agriculture Minister Chung Woon-chun said earlier Tuesday that Seoul had asked the U.S. to refrain from exporting any beef from cattle 30 months of age and older, considered at greater risk of the illness.

Presidential spokesman Lee Dong-kwan said the president told a weekly Cabinet meeting that “it is natural not to bring in meat from cattle 30 months of age and older as long as the people do not want it.”

The spokesman also expressed hope that the United States would respect South Korea’s position following large-scale anti-government protests over the weekend.

U.S. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow said Washington saw no need to renegotiate an April agreement for South Korea to resume beef imports.

He said the deal is “based on international science and there is no scientific justification to postpone implementation.”

South Korea agreed in April to reopen its market to U.S. beef after it was blocked for most of the past four and a half years after the first case of the brain-wasting cattle disease was found in the U.S. in late 2003.

However, after tens of thousands of people rallied over the weekend and a request from the ruling party, the government said Monday it was delaying implementation of the agreement.

The government decided on the delay to “humbly accept the people’s will,” Chung said. read more

Now the European Union wants to block our products over chemical contents. They feel the chemicals cause cancer and other health problems. From the Washington Post:

Adamantly opposed by the U.S. chemical industry and the Bush administration, the E.U. laws will be phased in over the next decade. It is difficult to know exactly how the changes will affect products sold in the United States. But American manufacturers are already searching for safer alternatives to chemicals used to make thousands of consumer goods, from bike helmets to shower curtains.

From its crackdown on antitrust practices in the computer industry to its rigorous protection of consumer privacy, the European Union has adopted a regulatory philosophy that emphasizes the consumer. Its approach to managing chemical risks, which started with a trickle of individual bans and has swelled into a wave, is part of a European focus on caution when it comes to health and the environment.

“There’s a strong sense in Europe and the world at large that America is letting the market have a free ride,” said Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and technology studies at Harvard University‘s John F. Kennedy School of Government. “The Europeans believe . . . that being a good global citizen in an era of sustainability means you don’t just charge ahead and destroy the planet without concern for what you’re doing.” read more

George Bush’s current trip to Europe is being marketed as his farewell tour. However I believe he’s on another begging mission. Judging by his previously failed mission to the Middle East begging for oil, he will again not be well received. While Bush’s strong support for corporate interests over consumers does not justify impeachable offenses, examining the world opinion of our nation at this point in time, as a reaction to standard Bush policies, should cause Congress to take another look at the impeachment issue. If they care about our economy, even our ability to export anything of value, they will need to address the administration of George Bush to restore our standing in the Global arena. Our economy depends on this.

George Bush needs to go and the faster the better. Call your local Congressmember. In the 24th district California, that individual is Elton Gallegly.

Impeachment Rally Westlake Village – Stand With Mary Pallant and other Impeachment Supporters

Emergency Rally in support of Rep. Dennis Kucinich’s Resolution presented to Congress on June 9th, at 8:40pm Eastern time, asking for the Impeachment of George W. Bush and listing 35 articles of Impeachable offenses.

For the love of our Country and Constitution let us show support and solidarity for this resolution. Impeachment is not a partisan issue, but a fundamental constitutional issue. The charges described in the Resolution clearly represent what our Founding Fathers intended in addressing acts of treason, high crimes and misdemeanors. It is time for our legislatures to take a stand, stand up for the rule of law and stand firm with upholding their constitutional oath “to preserve and protect.” Thank you to Rep. Kucinich. These charges are now a part of the Congressional record.

Date: Wednesday, June 11th, 2008
Location: Corner of Westlake Blvd. and Townsgate in Westlake Village (near Rep. Gallegly’s office, member of the House Judiciary Committee)
Time: 6pm to 7pm
Let’s show Elton Gallegly we are serious about government for the people and by the people. We are calling for his vote to move forward for impeachment hearings regarding George Bush.

A Resolution

Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq.

Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression.

Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War. Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States.

Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression.

Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114.

Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.

Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter.

Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor

Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes

Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq

Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation’s Natural Resources

Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other
Countries

Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency

Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq

Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors

Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives

Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy

Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to “Black Sites” Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture

Article XX
Imprisoning Children

Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government

Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws

Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act

Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment

Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens

Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements

Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply

Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice

Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965

Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare

Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency

Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change

Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.

Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001

Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders

Reduce Your Carbon Footprint

Pray at home. We’re going to need it.

Immmigration Myths and Cable News

Here is an interesting article about immigration that looks at the myths promoted by mainstream media.  It is a study completed by Media Matters Action Network.  Great insight.  En Espanol

Here is the link of the summary .

Here is the downloadable PDF file.

Here is a very brief summary of the article, please use this link to read the full text:

1.) There is no evidence to indicate that undocumented immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than American citizens; indeed, the evidence strongly suggests that immigrants in general are less likely to commit crimes.2 For instance, a 2005 study 3 conducted by researchers from Harvard University and the University of Michigan revealed both that immigrants committed fewer crimes than native-born citizens, and that a greater proportion of immigrants in a neighborhood was associated with lower rates of crime. Another study 4 analyzing census data found that among men aged 18-39 (who make up the bulk of those committing crimes), the incarceration rate was five times higher for the native-born than for the foreign-born. This held true within ethnic and national-origin groups, meaning, for instance, that native-born Latinos were more likely to be incarcerated than foreign-born Latinos. A recent study by the Public Policy Institute of California found that in that state, which contains more immigrants than any other, the foreign-born are incarcerated at a rate half as high as their presence in the population, and only one-tenth as high among men age 18-40, who make up the bulk of prisoners.5 Robert J. Sampson, chairman of the sociology department at Harvard University, said that data show that undocumented immigrants are in fact “disproportionately less likely to be involved in many acts of deviance, crime, drunk driving, any number of things that sort of imperil our well-being.”6

There have, of course, been individual crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, some of which are quite serious. But in order to justify a particular focus in news programs and the claims of a “crime wave” — not just a few reports, but the enormous number of stories and discussions we document below — crimes committed by undocumented immigrants would have to be disproportionate to their numbers. Immigration opponents might argue that any crime committed by an immigrant increases the total amount of crime in the country, but the risk of crime is increased only if the immigrants commit more crimes per person than the native-born, since immigration also increases the population and therefore diffuses the crime risk to any particular person.

Immigration opponents often note that a relatively high proportion of federal prisoners are foreign-born (more than a quarter are noncitizens, according to the Government Accountability Office7). But this one statistic gives a misleading impression of overall crime. For one, federal prisoners account for only a small proportion — less than 10 percent — of the total incarcerated population, since most prisoners are housed in state and local facilities.8 According to the latest Justice Department statistics available, noncitizen prisoners accounted for only 5.9 percent of the combined federal and state prisoner population.9 The most recent Census Bureau report on the foreign-born population in the U.S. found that 11.7 percent of the population is foreign-born — meaning that the proportion of foreign-born prisoners is much lower than the proportion of foreign-born people in the population.10

2. Some believe that undocumented immigrants benefit from federal programs such as food stamps, Medicaid, SCHIP, and welfare. In fact, undocumented immigrants are ineligible to receive these benefits; anyone seeking to obtain them must provide proof of legal status.25 Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996, even documented immigrants are ineligible for most forms of public assistance for the first five years they reside in the United States or until they attain citizenship.26 While there are some social services undocumented immigrants do use — public education for children, for instance — contrary to the rhetoric one hears on cable news, they also support government spending through the taxes they pay.

Undocumented immigrants pay all kinds of taxes: they pay sales taxes whenever they purchase goods and services, they pay property taxes in the form of rent, and they pay payroll and income taxes. Many undocumented immigrants use false Social Security numbers to obtain employment; when they do so, these workers then pay payroll taxes (for Social Security and Medicare), and often federal and state income taxes as well, through paycheck withholding. As the New York Times reported in 200527, the Social Security Administration estimates that three-quarters of undocumented immigrants pay payroll taxes, adding as much as $7 billion in Social Security taxes a year to federal coffers, and another $1.5 billion in Medicare taxes.28 Under current law, none of these funds will ever be paid back to undocumented immigrants in the form of Social Security and Medicare benefits, as they are not eligible.

This does not mean, however, that in the short term some states and localities will not pay more for services to undocumented immigrants than they collect in taxes, even if when all levels of government are considered, immigrants more than pay for themselves. According to a December 2007 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, “Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants — both legal and unauthorized — exceed the cost of the services they use. Generally, such estimates include revenues and spending at the federal, state, and local levels. However, many estimates also show that the cost of providing public services to unauthorized immigrants at the state and local levels exceeds what that population pays in state and local taxes.”29

I’ve included this article as it appears worth consideration.  Our local House Representative for the 24th Congressional district, Elton Gallegly, has spent an enormous amount of time on this issue.  I personally feel voters need a broader perspective as to the important issues worthy of our efforts and consideration.

CA 24th District Congress Update

From California Progress Report (David Dayen):

“Incumbent: Elton Gallegly. Challengers: Jill Martinez, Mary Pallant (Responsible Plan endorser). PVI #: R+5. % Dem. turnout: 50.6. Marta Jorgensen has quit the race and backed Jill Martinez. Unfortunately, the primary fight here has turned a little nasty, with Jill Martinez stretching the truth about Mary Pallant’s positions and her own finances. Neither candidate raised a lot of money last quarter but Martinez claimed she had, despite her bank account being in the red. Pallant is working the progressive grassroots to win the nomination, winning the endorsements of Democrats.com’s David Swanson and author Norman Solomon. I’d love to see a true progressive take on Elton Gallegly. He wants to drill in ANWR. He’s not that bright.”

Seems that I’m not the only individual with concerns for Martinez’s integrity. What’s with the campaign debt? Since Martinez has had since 2006 to raise money for her campaign, why does that debt continue, and more, how can she raise the 1.6 million she said, this past Tuesday at the Conejo Dems Club, it would take to take on Gallegly if she hasn’t done it already? Given the amount in Gallegly’s campaign fund, how can Martinez even throw her hat in the ring with her campaign being nearly $100,000 in debt?

May 25th update: Marta Jorgensen has rejoined the race and withdrawn her endorsement of Martinez.