Obamacare giving train wrecks a bad name

Paul Broun “I am pleased that my colleagues in the House were able to come together and put forward a bill that keeps the government running while at the same time protects Americans from the trainwreck that is Obamacare. The American people have voiced their strong opposition to this terrible law, and today represents a victory for those who have demanded that government stop Obamacare before its October 1^st start date”

Doug Collins “Today the House worked the will of the people who sent us to Washington stop this trainwreck. Obamacare is such a burden on the American people that today’s vote should have been unanimous. Now, the Senate must act. Every United States Senator who listens to his or her constituents should stand up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and pass this CR.”

Phil Gingrey “Obamacare is a trillion dollar disaster that a majority of Americans do not support. As promised, I joined House Republicans today in defunding the health care law and I will not vote for any legislation that funds the federal government’s takeover of our health care system by a single dime. With 10 days until Obamacare exchanges go online, and scores of ‘glitches’ and missed deadlines, it’s painfully obvious that this ‘train wreck’ of a law isn’t ready for implementation.

Tom Graves “This vote was in response to the demands of my constituents in Georgia and families across America. House Republicans are united in our commitment to keeping the government open and protecting our constituents from the harmful effects of Obamacare. We even saw some Democrats join us today.”

Jack Kingston “With every day, we get a new example of how Obamacare increases costs, takes away choices, and inserts the government more deeply into one of the most personal facets of our lives. This bill stops the train wreck before it causes any additional harm and preserves the budget cuts we have secured over the past year.”

Tom Price It is fundamentally unfair for the Obama Administration to continue to overextend its executive power to pick and choose who must suffer under Obamacare. If the president’s health care law isn’t right for this administration’s allies, if the president has felt compelled to provide relief for big business, then there’s no reason the American people should have to face this train wreck.”

Austin Scott “I joined my colleagues in the House today to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) that ensures our government remains open while fully delaying and defunding Obamacare. We’re leading the fight to control spending, stop Obamacare and protect hardworking Americans, and I strongly urge the Senate to join us in this fight.”

Rob Woodall “The House vote today to pass a continuing resolution with language attached that delays and defunds Obamacare and ensures the full faith and credit of the United States is a great example of exactly that. That vote happened today; I voted ‘yes’; and the American people’s voice was turned into legislation.”

Lynn Westmoreland “I have said time and again that I would only support a CR if it included language to defund ObamaCare. And thanks to the prodding by conservative members and the overwhelming support of the American people, the CR we passed today included language to both fund the government while defunding ObamaCare.”

“My vote today was not some abstract vote in opposition to ObamaCare. It was for the people of Georgia’s Third District who are already suffering under this law. People like Julie from Thomaston who is seeing her premium go up ten percent and her deductible more than double – from $1000 to $2500. And people like Tedra from Sharpsburg whose husband’s weekly health care contribution jumped from $18 per week to $150 per week. This is the real cost of this law and it has got to go.”

Points awarded:

+5 to Congressman Tom Graves for being credited with the Defund Obamacare language and getting his first shot at Sunday morning national talk shows.

+2 to Congressman Lynn Westmoreland for using real-life (presumably) examples of the toll exacted for ObamaCare.

One good thing about the AJC

Stories in this weekend’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution illustrate the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of the largest newspaper in Metro Atlanta. For Atlanta to be considered a top-tier metropolitan area, we must have a major newspaper; the converse of that is that the AJC must earn our subscription money and our readership.

One thing I can say for the AJC is that their reporting on education has been top-notch, and their ability to uncover stories like the Atlanta Public Schools Cheating Scandal, which they first broke in 2008 is unmatched in Georgia for the resources it took to cover the story. Standing alone, this kind of story is the reason I choose to pay for an online and real-world subscription.

On Saturday, the AJC ran a story by Heather Vogell on problems in private-company scoring of high-stakes educational testing that affect Georgia and other states. It run nearly 2900 words, and is well-written, extensively-researched, compelling, and reminds my why I subscribe. From that story:

Yet a year-long investigation by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution found that testing companies and the education agencies that hire them continue to make scoring mistakes that can have dire consequences.

In Mississippi, a computer glitch on a test led high schoolers to drop out. A scoring miscalculation in Massachusetts nearly cost students college scholarships. In New York City, multiple errors caused thousands of children to be told they were ineligible for gifted programs when they had, in fact, qualified.

Testing executives and experts say the industry has improved its practices since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 made standardized testing a foundation of federal education policy.

In 2007, a [Mississippi] subcontractor was working on an online version of the test for students who failed prior attempts. During the formatting of a graphic, computer programming became muddled. The test began to record a correct choice on one question as incorrect.

As a result, for almost four years students were penalized when they selected the right answer.

Over that time, 126 students had flunked the test solely because of the problem question. Most tried again and passed. But five had dropped out without diplomas.

Senate District 14 Candidate Qualifications Questioned

Complaints have been filed challenging the qualifications of three of the six candidates in the November 5th Special Election to succeed Barry Loudermilk in Senate District 14. We’ll deal with them in alphabetical order:

Matt Laughridge – at issue is whether he meets the requirement of having lived in the district for one year prior to the election. Bartow County records show that Laughridge voted in a different Senate district in the November 2012 General Election. It could come down to what day Laughridge voted. If he voted in the other district on November 6, 2012 and moved to District 14 later that day, he may be out of luck, as the election this year is November 5th, short of one year. However, if he voted during early voting, and then moved, he might be eligible. That ballot may not be dispositive of the issue.

Laughridge has issued a statement about the residency challenge:

There’s an old adage that says, “Home is where you hang your hat,” and Georgia state law agrees. In fact, it clearly states:”The residence of any person shall be held to be in that place in which such person’s habitation is fixed, without any present intention of removing therefrom…”

To clear this issue up once and for all, according to state law, my legal residence for nearly two years has sat squarely in the 14th District. I am renovating a home that also sits within the 14th District, and I look forward to representing my neighbors and friends in the 14th District as their State Senator in Atlanta

Having watched a client successfully challenge his opponent’s residence, resulting in the candidate’s removal from the ballot several years ago, I can tell you it’s a bit more complicated than Laughridge says. Should it get further, a court will look not at just where you say your residence is, but your behavior, such as vehicle registration and driver’s license, voting behavior, and other objective facts, in determining your residence for election purposes.

But it gets more complicated: there are actually three possible residences in play.

Voting records show Laughridge cast[] a ballot at the Kingston precinct in District 52 in November 2012 using a Reynolds Road address.

Last month, he changed his address with the Bartow County Voter Registration and Elections office to a Peeples Valley Road home in Cartersville, which is in District 14.
On his notice of candidacy, above, which Patch obtained from the Secretary of State’s office, Laughridge lists a third address—326 Dock 3 Captains Walk Drive in Cartersville.

His campaign’s defense may prove to be a sticky wicket when the challenge comes before the Secretary of State or an Administrative Law Judge.

As for the Reynolds Lane address the candidate voted with last year, [Campaign spokesperson Melanie] Collier said Laughridge’s parents’ home is there.

Collier said Laughridge kept his parent’s address as his voting address even though he was in the houseboat, so he could just make one change of voter address when his home on Peeples Way was ready to move into.
“He had not changed his registration to his new living location,” she said. “Honestly, let’s face it. That happens a lot. He has lived on that boat for two years. He is qualified to run for this seat.”
Flory said if Laughridge says he lived in District 14 but voted in District 52, “he’s admitting to voter fraud.”

So, he’s admitting that he maintained an incorrect address on his voter record because it’s more convenient for him, but we should accept his explanation of why his actual residence is in the district? The campaign’s problem is that they’ve just called into question Laughridge’s capacity for truthiness when it’s more convenient for him to lie. A Secretary of State or ALJ reviewing the matter might find his credibility lacking.

Here’s the most interesting part of the residence challenge: one of the claimed locations is a houseboat on Lake Allatoona.

Collier said for almost two years Laughridge has lived on a houseboat docked at the address on Captains Walk Drive. The home on Peeples Valley Road is undergoing construction, and Laughridge is staying on the boat in the meantime, Collier said.

Serious question: is the residence the houseboat itself, or the place it is moored most nights. Because if it’s the houseboat, the question might be complicated by the ability to move the houseboat at will.

Christopher NeSmith – the allegation is that he is not qualified to hold office because of back property taxes owed.

According to Bartow tax records, Nesmith owes $1,534.68 in 2012 property taxes for his home on Hopkins Farm Drive in Adairsville.

NeSmith admits to owing back taxes.

Last year, a candidate named Chris NeSmith in the race for Superior Court in the Northern Judicial Circuit withdrew after allegations surfaced of taxes owed.

Chris NeSmith’s decision to withdraw from the race followed a judge’s ruling that he is ineligible to hold the seat due to unpaid taxes.

NeSmith, who already serves as a Juvenile Court judge in the circuit, said “he was voluntarily withdrawing his candidacy,” a spokesman for Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp said Monday.

Last week, NeSmith told media outlets that he intended to appeal a decision by an administrative law judge, who ruled NeSmith ineligible because of about $111,000 in tax liens against him.

It appears that the two candidates are not the same person, and it’s just an ironic coincidence. For whatever it’s worth, the 2012 withdrawal was by John Christopher NeSmith, who would be 49 or 50 years old and the 2013 Senate candidate lists his name as Christopher G. NeSmith and is 41 or 42 years old.

Dean Sheridan – In Sheridan’s case, the allegation is that a federal tax lien for $1339.09 against a company formerly owned by the candidate but now out of business makes him ineligible. Sheridan disputes the lien.

Sheridan said Thursday that he has been aware of the lien for some time, but he maintains his position that he doesn’t truly owe the money because the bill was for taxes billed after Vend One went out of business.

“They billed me the quarterly filings after the business was closed, for a specific time period I wasn’t there,” he said. “And my tax records prove that.”

He said he planned to go to an IRS office and address the issue within the next 10 days.
“If they can prove me wrong — which they can’t — then of course I’ll pay the (taxes),” Sheridan said. “I’m a hard-working man, and I follow through. If there’s any discrepancy at all about any of that business, I can assure you it will be remedied to the satisfaction of anybody who cares to know.”

I wonder if it would make a difference if the lien was against a corporation, and whether that’s the case here.